nope, it is falcon bms
According to an article from 2000 by Peter Schmidt.
IRIS-T improved on all aspects of AIM-9Li by factors greater than 5, and in some cases by as much as 30.
Range increased by a factor of 5+, seeker speed by a factor of 30, detection range by a factor greater than 5 as well.
what about ground launcher variant? IRIS-T SL?
Thats a different thread
the SLS is just the base IRIS-T with a different software, the SLM is a base IRIS-T with a bigger motor and a shielding cap on the seeker.
About that article, one more interesting thing:
“However, it was important during development that IRIS-T is not only able to reliably suppress the methods of decoying used today, but also has the ability to be adapted to future methods. The special design of the software ensures this by making it possible to adapt to future disruptive measures by means of simple, externally executable reprogramming. This aspect of threat adaptation is also interesting from the point of view of life cycle costs, considering the service life of an LFK and the parallel progress in the development of new disruption measures. With these technical features, IRIS-T is ideally equipped to ensure superiority over a jet involved in close-in combat.”
Does anyone know who exactly manufactured the motor of the IRIS-T or has any information on it?
The LFK NG, which is basically a scaled down IRIS-T, has a dual pulse motor manufactured by Bayern Chemie. Dual pulse means it basically has two stages that can be separately ignited.
This also seems to fit the IRIS-T ‘rumored’ 4 stage thrust profile, which could be two seperate pulses of boost substain each
NAMMO afaik.
Just based on that i feel like the source is really wrong.
The IRIS-T doesn’t have 5+times the range of the 9LI. The 9LI has the same motor as the 9L or early iteration of the 9M motor.
Meaning that the 9LI has around 18km max range. (As always max range figure is not a precise figure you can take because it depends on the launch config but it’s usefull to know the general ballpark of a missile kinematics.)
The IRIS-T is stated as having 25km max range. This is thanks to reducing drag (no rolleron) and an increase in overall thrust. But while the missile has increased total thrust , it’s thrust is optimised for maneuvrability and not for long range engagment. So the missile doesn’t have 5time the range of the 9LI, more like a 35% upgrade.
If it had 5time + the range of the 9li, then it would have something like 100km max range.
I hope you agree with me there that there is absolutly no word where the IRIS-T has 100km max range in any condition.
The track rate of the 9L/9M is 22 deg/sec and i guess the 9LI is probably the same.
The IRIS-T seeker probably has a track rate around 30-60°/s like other modern IIR missile. Still far away from the 22*30= 660 deg/sec this guy claim.
Only thing believable from those numbers.
The IIR seeker had (and still have) a lot longuer range than even the most modern pseudo-imaging seeker at the time.
I’ve read that the MICA IR could be used as an IRST for the Rafale and had something between 5 and 8 times better detection range than the MAGIC 2. So the 5+ figure for detection range is probably true.
Keep in mind that all IR seeker are underperforming in game detection range wise.
Why? The source doesn’t state whether it’s the maximum kinematic range or the maximum engagement range, the latter for the AIM-9Li (identical kinematics to 9L) is about ~4.9km’s due to seeker limits:
note: this graph is showing range in feet, not km’s.
Whereas the kinetmatic range is 8.5km’s from a 0.9M launch at 10000 feet. That would put IRIS-T’s max combat range at ~24.5km’s (though it was described as greater than 5!) and kinetmatic/aerodynamic limit at ~42km’s.
The track rate of the 9L/9M is 22 deg/sec and i guess the 9LI is probably the same.
“Hier gelang es, den Wert um mehr als das 30fache desentsprechenden Sidewinder-Wertes zu erhöhen.”
I’ve left out some context though, it’s for slaving the missile to the pilot’s HMD.
Granted, he did state it was improved in all aspects by at least 5 times, so 22*5 ~ 110 deg/s track rate :)
FYI, the article is by a senior at BAAINBw :p
??
Apparently the seeker speed has been improved by a factor of 30.
And from my understanding this is stricly impossible.
Edit: It’s maybe for the seeker gimbal then and not the seeker speed (ie see the comment by Furina).
Read the follow up.
I really don’t think the seeker would be a limit on the IRIS-T for engagment. Since IIR seeker are really good for picking up target even far away (in good weather). A IIR seeker can pick up a small commercial drone (with electric motor) from 4-6 km away. So for a figther jet or an helicopter, you can lock them up from pretty far.
So that’s why i guess it’s the maximum kinematic rang and not the maximum engagement range.
Then indeed it could have 5 time the maximum engagment range of the AIM-9L, from 4.9km to 25km.
But:
- the 4.9km is for a Mil target and not an afterburning one (up to 7.6km)
- iirc the 9LI was “dechirped” and had better seeker range than the base 9L the US sold.
I think the 25km for the IRIS-T is the kinematic/aerodynamic limit and not the max combat range limit. (See my point before about the IIR seeker).
The IRIS-T is really optimised for short range and maneuvrabaility and i don’t see in any way how the missile can more than double the kinematic range of the 9L since it’s the same weigth.
It has less drag and more overall impuse but its impulse is less optimised for long range and TVC is also going to reduce the range.
That’s why l the IRIS-T being 25km max range kinematically feels more logical (especially when comparing other same gen missile).
I don’t think that quote is worth much. For example I very much doubt the maximum speed was increased to Mach 15. So it just leaves us speculating what is and isn’t included in “all aspects”.
1 Like
That seems soo stupid i want to see it.
Then Diehl was lying when they stated IRIS-T can succesfully engage targets up to 25km’s. If that is IRIS-T’s aerodynamic limit, it would logically mean the energy it posseses at such a range is not enough for it to engage a target (hence why aerodynamic limit).
The IRIS-T is really optimised for short range and maneuvrabaility and i don’t see in any way how the missile can more than double the kinematic range of the 9L since it’s the same weigth.
AIM-9X Block II has an engagement range of 37km’s, Block I was capable of reaching out to 28km’s (in both cases we’re talking about maximum combat range).
- iirc the 9LI was “dechirped” and had better seeker range than the base 9L the US sold.
Never heard of it improving seeker range, only that it improved IRCCM capabilites of the missile.
That’s why l the IRIS-T being 25km max range kinematically feels more logical (especially when comparing other same gen missile).
The only other missiles from the same generation that can be compared to it are AIM-9X B1/B2 and AAM-5 (which is practically a copy & paste of IRIS-T in terms of aerodynamic design, although is a bit longer, weights a little bit more, and has a slightly higher diamater of 130mm compared to IRIS’s 127mm - it achieves a 35km range [I really doubt a 3mm increase in diamater can provide a 30% range increase over a missile with near-identical aerodynamics & speed, especially when things like ASRAAM need a much more streamlined design, and a significantly higher diamater of 166mm to achieve a 50% range increase, coupled with the fact it is also faster than both - so either 25km’s is simply not IRIS-T’s aerodynamic limit, or AAM-5 is pure magic]).
I’m pretty sure when it comes to the point of IIR missiles with datalink, max combat range limit = kinetic/aerodynamic limit. AIM-9L has a combat range limit shorter than kinetic only because of seeker limitations and no datalink.
Standard IRIS-T doesn’t have a data-link to my knowledge.
What do you mean by standard? Is there two variants of IRIS-T where one has datalink and one does not?