Its to keep the costs down, a proper Staring Array would be very wasteful especially for a single use item, like missiles. And not actually provide much advantage.
Thr IRIS-T and R-73A arent even considered to be in the same generation of missiles. I dont think its farfetched for the IRIS-T to have double the maneuvrability of the R-73A. Especially considering the germans had access to the R-73A.
Theres also the fact that theoretically, the IRIS-T’s guidance should be vastly superior to the R-73’s seeing as it uses an H-Infinity controller, rather than a PID one.
1 Like
in think you wanna replace that with R73
1 Like
Doubling the maneuverability is an interesting statement. Are they saying double the maximum overload? If so, at a similar turn radius? Or is it just half the turn radius with a similar overload? Maybe half the turning radius and double the maximum overload?
Whatever the case, like a great many things it is hard to deduce from vague commentary.
Fixed
From this:
According to the calculations of Western specialists, the IRIS-T missile can rotate through 180° in a horizontal plane with a bend radius half as small as that of the R-73.
So it’s more half the turn radius. Acording to the site the IRIS-T is able to overload up to 60G. Whitch is better than the 40g on the R73 we have rn.
R-73 is 60g missile.
No it’s not
Where do you find this 60g value?
more like 90-100g
Dual plane maybe, not single plane thought
For reference the Magic 2 is 35g single plane and 50g dual plane
The Python3/PL8 is 40G single plane and 55g+ dual plane
60g single plane would mean indeed 90g dual plane.
Just don’t mix both values
if a missile is roll stabilised, its g limit in game can be modelled as dual plane.
I dont think taking of straight up G overload is a good way to look at 5th Gen IR missiles TBH.
The IRIS-T as according to the OP, uses a multi-staged booster for ideal intercept off launch, up to pulling a full 180° turn before it gets to its main motor burn to accelerate. You could technically do with a lot less overload to intercept ideally in a situation where the missile always has optimal orientation at “launch” for example. It also uses an H-infinity controller instead of a PID one, making it much better at multivariable complex problems like intercepts, which is likely the reason why the IRIS-T not only also can intercept missiles in an automated fashion, but also uses a database of ideal target impact points to maximise kill, because it can afford to be a lot more precise with its features.
Things like the P5 are known for recommitting if they miss the target by using multistage motors and long burn times as well, so its a similar concept to the IRIS-T except it does its repositionning after it misses the first attempt. In that case as well you dont exactly need a million G’s, you just need like 30G’s and enough energy to recommit, as long as the seeker isnt decoyed, its nigh impossible to avoid.
There comes a point where max G load becomes a lot less important when you can tailor the conditions of the intercept in your favor in the first place…
I totally agree with you on this one, the less speed you have the better your turning circle will be for same g load. If you want to a small turning circle , doing it at low speed will only necessitate 40g instead of 70g if you do so at max speed. The 70g maneuver is going to affect a lot more the energy of the missile and it won’t have any speed left to do a chase contrery to a longuer burning motor and a 40g turn.
True having 70g is useless for aircraft interception. A rule of thumb is that if you want to be sure to intercept someting you need to be able to pull 3 time more g than the target. Since an aircraft is not going to pull more than 9g, 30g is enougth for an aircraft interception.
The energy to recommit is still very low, the missile migth be able to reconduct one pass to intercept in case of a miss but not more.
The Python 5 from what i’ve seen has a 80kn total booster for a few second (like 20kn for 1 sec and 5 to 15kn for 10s) and then 0.7kn sustainer for like 40s. The low power sustaitner is more for long range engament than for short range maneuvrability.
If you look at the thrust profile of the P5 :
You can see that it’s specificaly made to be able to do a quick 180 after launch but not really after that.
Anyway, just to say that those missile have maybe 2 chance to make a hit if the condition are favorable but not more. We’re not in an hollywood movy afterall where the missile goes on for 60seconds behind the aircraft.
But yeah this ability to have 2 shot possibility instead of one on other missile sitch as the R73 is indeed a big generational leap.
Imo 60G when burning, drops to 40G when it runs out of TVC. Makes the most sense.
1 Like
Today i learned norway tested Iris T air to surface launches as A2G weapons Diehl develops air-to-surface capability for IRIS-T AAM | IHS Jane's 360
2 Likes
It could be useful against something like a BMP
similar to LaGS, but not required laser designator. easier to use maybe?
could be useful agains light armored vehicles.(ifv, spaa etc…)
well its like an IR maverick, Imaging seeker; not sure how the resolution compares. in theory it could do the same res as the maverick which mechanically scans with a 4x4 pixel array or smth like that. here its a 128x2 scanned to 128x128 but if you move the seeker you can get a bigger picture
I think the issue is more the warhead than the seeker tbh. I know AIM-9 has also been tested in ground attack. Id say for the most part, its a bit of a waste to use an air to air missile in the air to surface role unless you have no other options, seeing as the missiles are likely more expensive and less potent simply due to the more stringent requirements for intercepting airborne targets vs ground based ones