Yes… IRIS-T SL(M) which is confirmed to have a datalink, and then there’s IRIS-T (SL), which doesn’t.
From Diehl’s own website:
“Compared with the basic version, IRIS-T SL features an enhanced rocket motor for extended range. The newly introduced data link, in connection with a GPS-based inertial navigation system, allows controlling the missile from a combat center.”
The IRIS-T in question:
Apologies, I was referring only to the air to air variants in which there’s only one iteration, correct me if I’m wrong.
That’s correct, and it doesn’t posses a datalink as far as I know. I’ve read about a “radar datalink” but that’s only from secondary sources (aerial IRIS-T is identical to surface launched IRIS-T, just with minor software changes, Diehl makes a pretty glaring disctintion when talking about the Surface Launched Medium, where they do mention a datalink).
Then I stand corrected. Never knew it didn’t have datalink.
nvm
I’ve read what you wrote before the edit, maybe this will help explain this;
“The combination of thrust vector and aerodynamic control provides the missile with extremely high agility. An additional technological leap was achieved with the imaging IR seeker head in conjunction with intelligent image processing. Target designation is accomplished by airborne radar or via the pilot’s helmet sight. IRIS-T´s outstanding features even permit engaging targets behind the aircraft as well as interception of opponents`missiles.”
~ Diehl about IRIS-T
Maybe I’m wrong about it not having a datalink, maybe Diehl made a mistake there - maybe it has some other form of communicating with the airplane, but what I’m getting out of it is that it receives information from either the pilot/radar and goes, nothing more.
It means that seeker can be slaved to radar and hms. It takes that data, slap it into iog, calculates the point where the target will be and launch, it goes onto the intercept route iog and engages the seeker in LOAL mode, in LOBL mode seeker catches the target and go
Do note i’m not 100% sure, the OP prolly knows a lot more than I do.
Ofc, I’m moreso just positing the question so I could see if he has primary sources stating it has datalink.
Firstly, we already had this discussion about the different maximum range and what they meant so let’s get clear about them again.
+The maximum combat range can also be limited by the seeker(if not LOAL capable) or the battery life.
So i think we don’t agree on something there.
For me the maximum kinetic range IS the maximum effective range. Since when the missile is out of power/energy then it’s no longuer effective. Even if the missile is falling out of the sky then the missile can still intercept its target if its target doesn’t move out of the trajectory.
My interpretation of the maximum kinetic/effective range is that the missile is going like MACH 0.5 and doesn’t have energy left to do any maneuvers.
For me we can differenciate the maximum effective range and the maximum kinetic range when the maximum effective range is stated against a specific target. For example if on the missile brochure, it says : 25km range against a maneuvering figther, then the maximum kinetic range is probably closer to 50km.
Since the maximum effective range against a target that goes toward the missile and doesn’t maneuvers at all is the same as the maximum kinetic range. And since the brochure doesn’t say against what kind of target it is effective at 25km we can expect that it’s the maximum kinetic range.
And if i understand correctly you interpret the 25m max range as effective range against figther and that’s why you think the max kinetic range is higher while i think this 25km max range is against bomber / non maneuvering target.
The other point about the maximum effective range for the other missile also goes.
The 37km for the 9X Blc2 is probably effective range against a non maneuvering target (= max kinetic range) ; same for the 9X Blc 1.
I know the brits “dechirped” some of their 9L to have better seeker range. Iirc beside the better IRCCM the 9LI also was “dechirped” but i don’t got any source on that.
As you said the 9X Blc 1 has 27km range compared to the 25km of the IRIS-T (while the 9X has less drag and better thrust for long range) so it’s pretty logical.
The 9X blc 2 is newer (better propelant) and is capable to loft also increasing its max range.
The AAM-5 is a bit heavier and bigger but is also using a very smoky engine meaning it probably has a better ISP than the IRIS-T. So the thrust must also be higher than the IRIS-T. Also we don’t know if the missile is capable of lofting. And finnaly we don’t know in which condition this 35km is achieved.
For the ASRAAM the 50km is because the misisle was optimised for long range since the start with very low drag, big thrust optimised for long range and no TVC .
Agree see my point above
True , the IRIS-T doesn’t have any kind of data-link from what i know . It’s seeker is enough for its kinetic range.
A big question is for Off shoulder shot or 180° shot.
So the missile can’t be given data by another airplane for off the shoulder shot if i understand correctly
Yea just when i postet here i found a site talking about it not having LOAL.
Thats when i made the Edit but after reading more its apperrent that its quit an old post so…
site in question
http://www.airpower.at/news07/0715_iris-t/index.html
Yeah no that refers to max range and that’s through drag reductions and battery life improvements, and potential lifting. I.e launching at high alt and high mach.
This here is where we disagree.
And if i understand correctly you interpret the 25m max range as effective range against figther and that’s why you think the max kinetic range is higher while i think this 25km max range is against bomber / non maneuvering target.
That is correct, hence why this:
And since the brochure doesn’t say against what kind of target it is effective at 25km we can expect that it’s the maximum kinetic range.
Is just about as valid as my interpretation.
The AAM-5 is a bit heavier and bigger but is also using a very smoky engine meaning it probably has a better ISP than the IRIS-T. So the thrust must also be higher than the IRIS-T.
Looking up video of tests of both, IRIS-T seemed to have always been shown at lower altitutudes where the motor will appear less smokey than AAM-5 (which in the video was ‘tested’ above cloud height, where ground was only barely visible). I don’t think that’s a good presumption on your part (if AAM-5s ISP is really much better, it would also be cited to achieve a higher speed, but as far as I can both are quoted to achieve Mach 3).
The 9X blc 2 is newer (better propelant) and is capable to loft also increasing its max range.
As far as I know it is “loft-launched” at altitude where it will continue to climb until it sees its target, not that it’s autopilot will make it loft like ARH missiles do.
Thankfully @Iluminas actually posted a pretty good article about IRIS-T;
“Head-on, detectability with the IRIS-T is increased by 500% compared to the AIM-9L. Measured at the sides, the increase is over 400%. In the tail-aspect area, the increase is over 300%.”;
“The range is also dramatically increased - one can actually assume a tenfold increase in the operational firing range of an IRIS-T compared to the AIM-9Ls.”;
4.9km against a non-WEP target - > 24.5km’s (~25km) frontal aspect, 8.5km against a WEP target - > ~42km frontal aspect (seeker detection ranges).
So far everything I’ve seen indicates 25km is in fact not the maximum aerodynamic range, of course apart from the interpretations presented here on this forum.
I know the brits “dechirped” some of their 9L to have better seeker range. Iirc beside the better IRCCM the 9LI also was “dechirped” but i don’t got any source on that.
That’s why my assumption here is 9L = 9Li in terms of seeker range, I’ve not seen anything (primary nor secondary) to confirm that “dechirping” increases effective range at which it can see its target.
Dechirping the missiles only effects the seeker detection range. The IRCCM improvements were different modifications.
I know the UK dechirped their missiles - coincidently GJN have confirmed it’s not coming to War Thunder.
You sure? When I was researching the AIM-9L(I) and 9L(I-1), in both cases dechirping was mentioned to increase IRCCM effectiveness, not seeker range.
In which way?
My interpretation is based on two point:
From the AAM-5, you can see that its not only contrials but also a very smoky powder. Good point about max speed. Also condider the launch condition and the fact that we don’t konw if the AAM-5 loft. (Clearly possible since it has a data-link).
Could be, there not a lot of indo about it, but it would explain the upgrade in range.
Nothing to say about it, nice graph as well.
Big doubt again.
10 time more operational firing range for the IRIS-T?
I consider the maximum effective range here to be 25km’s (or slightly higher, since the BAAINBw article does say it was a 5+ improvement), in accordance with Diehl’s direct statements about the missile’s effectiveness) of course conditions for this range are not exactly known, but they almost fully line up with a 0.9M shot at ~3km height of the AIM-9L (a five time improvement in range).
I consider the maximum aerodynamic range to be higher, we’ve in fact had this discussion before and we just agreed to disagree.
- Marketing: the marketing guy trying to sell you his missile is going to give you the biggest number possible. So if no information is given, you can always expect that this number is given for a non maneuvering number.
Fair point.
- Older missile: You know the 9M in game and its kinetics capabilities, you know that even in 20 years, there is NO WAYS that propelant was upgraded so mutch that the missile double/triple its ranges (considering sam-ish size/weigth/thrust). If you consider the 18km max range for the 9M is for the kinetic max range, then the 25km max range for the IRIS-T is the maximum kinetic range. If we take your figure of 42km for the max kinematic range for the IRIS-T then you’ll have to explain to me how it manage to more than double the range of the 9M.
How do we explain AAM-5s near doubling of range over it then? You’ve mentioned a higher thrust & the smokey motor/powder, but if that was indeed true (considering the fact both missiles achieve mach 3 at best), it would have to continue burning for longer than IRIS-T’s motor (no information on either), it would have to achieve a higher speed (everything indicates mach 3 only), it would have to have better aerodynamics (doubtful), or… as you said; loft (which is unconfirmed).
Where does the 18km aerodynamic limit for the AIM-9L/M even comes from?
This implies a far shorter range than that (at about ~12.1km kinematic range, and if so, AAM-5 would nearly tripple the combat range based on an assumption it can loft (which is again, unconfirmed). Of course in this case the aerodynamic limit could also be AIM-9s combat range, with 18km being the “true” limit, and if so, it would give us a ~33% difference between “combat” and “aerodynamic” limits; or about 33km’s if we apply this logic to IRIS-T, a lot more likely aerodynamic limit than the 42km (based on limited data), and comparable to the AAM-5 which for all intents and purposes is a clone.
Dechirping doesnt do anything to the seeker itself, it only lowers the signal threshold at which the missile can be launched in hope that it will still be enough to successfully track (The Americans apparently were somewhat conservative with it)
huh? me no understand but ill say it means weird chemical+ weird electronic = better
