Well the maximum range is the range at will a missile will hit a target. If you don’t hit a target at your maximum range then wtf is maximum range supposed to mean.
Furthermore the IRIS-T being 25km max range is pretty logical. It can’t loft, (compared to the ASRAAM/AIM-9X BLCK 2/MICA IR), it’s a small diameter (127mm, the lowest = too the AIM-9X), it got big aerodynamical surface (= bigger drag than the 9X/ASRAAM) and it has TVC which reduce thrust (=less range than the ASRAAM).
The upgrade of the AIM-9X Block 2 over the AIM-9X Block 1 are LOAL, Datalink and Loft. This lofting make the missile max range goes from 25-30km to 35-40km (maybe small upgrade on the motor as well).
The R-74M2 has 50km max range. It’s not a surprise since it’s pretty modern (better motor: RTTD-295 Solid fuel rocket booster for the R-74M and 516-1M Solid fuel rocket booster for the R-74M2), it’s heavier 117kg vs 106kg and longuer (= more propelant).
The R-74M2 doesn’t have a IIR seeker, it uses the Karfagen-760 Seeker with multi element and dual band. 60° Gimbal limit before launch, 90° Gimbal limit after launch.
The R-74 is larger (= bigger motor) at 17cm vs 16,6cm. So while it gets more drag than the ASRAAM, the R-74 has a bigger motor. And the R-74 is heavier than the ASRAAM and an heavier missile carries more propelant which means more range.
Well there is also the fact they are really trying to make the Su-57 an export success. And if they are gonna get credit for something it would be that their export performance claims are probably reasonably accurate.
Then looking at the RVV-MD2 (Izd-760??) which mounts to that aircraft claims a seeker head akin to what they were getting from their old supplier its not exactly great confidence in there being a FPA seeker outside of token test missiles
The upgrade of the AIM-9X Block 2 over the AIM-9X Block 1 are LOAL, Datalink and Loft.
“The AIM-9X Block II missile completed its first test firing in November 2008. Also known as AIM-9X-2, the missile is an upgraded variant with a lock-on-after-launch feature. AIM-9X Block II has a redesigned fuse and a unidirectional forward-quarter datalink. The datalink enables it to engage targets even beyond the visual range.”
Lofting short range IR missiles is pointless. If you’re launching any of these missiles at 10km+ you’re wasting them. Let’s stop pretending the primary use case for these is as a MRAAM.
Source?
The AIM-9L max range is stated as 18km while the AIM-9X with an improved motor and reduced drag manage 25 to 30km max range.
Absolutly that’s why the maximum range of an AIM-9L is 18km while it’s efective range will be 4-5km (obviously depends on launch condition).
The same way that the IRIS-T is 25Km maximum range with an effective range of around 6/7km.
You’re stating the IRIS-T is 25km effective range while giving no proof/source. Furthermore the IRIS-T having 25km effective range is completly un-logical when comparing it to other missile.
That’s nice giving quote, but giving the source is even better, so i know if the info is reliable.
And anyways, you really need to loft your missile at high alt,high speed to achieve this 40km range shot.
The ASRAAM was designed to also be capable at longuer range (ence the low drag, high impuse motor). While shooting an ASRAAM at 25km is like shooting an AIM-9L at 9km, you technically can but only in very specific condition at high altitude, high speed on an approching target.
It’s not an “effective” BVR/MRAAM weapon but it can be used as so if the conditions are aligned.
The AIM-9X Block 2 is probably still capable after 10km if launched from high alt, high speed. Still the important part is if the conditions are favorable for those kind of shot.
But lofting them for low altitude as we see in war thunder is pretty useless. It would only be usefull at medium to high altitude if the target is hot.
That’s logic… you even said so yourself that 9X maximum range is 25 - 30km’s (altho last I checked, it’s cited to be 35km’s), effective range means the greatest distance a projectile will travel with accuracy, and enough energy left to effectively engage its target, maximum range means the maximum distance a projectile will travel (for IRIS-T the former is up to 25km’s, for 9X the later is 35km’s).
The same way that the IRIS-T is 25Km maximum range with an effective range of around 6/7km. You’re stating the IRIS-T is 25km effective range while giving no proof/source.
I mean… Diehl is pretty clear here, succefully engaging something up to X range means it’s the effective range, they also state that the velocity is above mach 3 (so mach 3+).
Do note: i’m not saying it will have that effective of a range at low-altitude or anything, it’s clear that this range can only be achieved at higher altitudes.
About the ASRAAM:
Missle slightly flew up? Must be lofting fr fr (target couldn’t have been at a higher altitude at all).
About the 9X B2:
“Called lock-on after launch, the improved seeker has a re-acquisition capability which makes the missile harder to evade, and will allow the Block II to be loft-launched at altitude before it sees its target, allowing it to fly much further.”
You can theoretically do that with any missile with LOAL…
Sorry but no. Engaging something up to X range mean you can intercept a target at X range. It doesn’t mean it’s its effective range.
IF it was its effective range then the theorical maximum range would be like 60-80km.
You have to tell me how a missile that has a smaller motor, bigger drag, TVC= less thrust, no loft, can manage to outrange the ASRAAM.
Yes if air-launched. Which mean aircraft speed + missile booster.
I don’t see the IRIS-T being 1100+ DV since the missile has a “small” motor and cut its thrust for the best turning radius possible.
Credit to Faster_Boiii
Stage #1: High thrust to boost the missile away from the launching platform
Stage #2: Low thrust to allow the missile to turn up to 180° at high angular velocities
Stage #3: High thrust to reach its max speed of around mach 3
Stage #4: Low thrust sustainer for minimizing energy loss for longer distance shots
Again, i haven’t found a source to give it to you but you can wait for Fireball to check the thread and he’ll probably give you a better source than mine.
And how do you think the ASRAAM manage a 50km (theorical) max range as a 88kg missile if the missile doesn’t loft?
As you wish, if you don’t want to believe the AIM-9X block 2 can loft so be it. You’ll keep making excuse anyways.
Just think about the logic on how it can mange a 33% upgrade in range without changing the aerodynamics nor the weigth in only a few years.
Succesfully is the keyword. Arguing against this now is simply vapid (me and Fireball also discussed this before, and he didn’t really disagree). FYI, you’re the only one coming up with the “theoretical maximum” range here. Besides you’re not taking into the account the battery life, if the missile doesn’t simply begin a free fall due to increased drag after running out of energy etc.
Which mean aircraft speed + missile booster.
Yes, i’ve seen that stage breakdown for IRIS-T, but it assumed that mach 3 is the cut-off, Diehl however state it’s “above” mach 3, i.e mach 3+. This overall only means that as some point during its flight, it might or will reach speeds above mach 3, not that it will sustain them throughout its entire powered flight.
Fireball
I’ve asked him about this already. He said “unknown”.
And how do you think the ASRAAM manage a 50km (theorical) max range as a 88kg missile if the missile doesn’t loft?
Much less drag, bigger motor with a higher impulse? Again, you’re the one here claiming that maximum theoretical range, not me.
As you wish, if you don’t want to believe the AIM-9X block 2 can loft so be it. You’ll keep making excuse anyways.
Lol the salt? I agreed with you there that it “lofts”, in fact I’ve found an explanation as to what method is used exactly, but the method in theory can be applied to all 5th generation missiles with LOAL. It’s not unique to 9X B2 in this case.
The answer is that it probably doesn’t have that range.
Also, the video showing ASRAAM “lofting” doesn’t show the the intended target being at same or lower altitude, we can’t see the circumstances. Compare it to the MICA EM video where the target was at a lower altitude, and the missile still lofted.
There i don’t really understand you.
(Just talking kinematicaly wise. Not taking into account the battery life)
The effective range is going to vary heavelly depending on the shooter atlitude and speed, the target altitude and speed, the maneuvrabilty of the target and if the target is “cooperative” or not (ie if he goes straigh into the missile or if he tries to dodge it).
That’s why talking about effective range has no meaning and it cannot really be used.
When i was talking about “theorical maximum range” it’s for the optimal configuration.
So for when the target and the shooter go straigh toward each other at MACH 1.6 at 12km altitude.
The range figures given by the maker of the missile is for those kind of configuration.
Obviously they’re not perfectly the same so comparing max range of missile is very hazardous because you don’t know if the “100km max range” given my the manufacturer is for a 10 or 15 or even 20km altitude shot and if you where going Mach1, Mach 1.5 or Mach 2.
So my point is that if they’re saying it can engage flying target at up to 25km then the maximum range is 25km but we don’t know the condition of the shot.
And again comparing it to other missile is good if you want to understand what kind of range it has.
The AIM-9X doesn’t have a sub 10km effective range if the IRIS-T has a 25km effective range, those missile are the same weigth and tech class, but the AIM-9X has less drag so it should theoretically have a better effective range than the IRIS-T.
About the battery, it can indeed be a big limitation of range for those missile (See the R-27ER). But i don’t think a missile as modern and dogfigth oriented as the IRIS-T is going to have issues battery wise. We don’t have any values anyways (public one).
You asume the mach 3 is the cut-off. I don’t see clear indication stating the missile by itself is MACH 3+. A good way to know that is if you find the speed of the IRIS-T SLS. The maximum speed indicated for the SLS will be the DV of the missile.
Same thing as the MICA is indicated as a MACH 4 max speed missile but a MACH 3 missile when launched from a VLS.
Agree with you, the missile speed probably look something like this:
Well i remembered some proof that the ASRAAM was capable of lofting, but if Fireball_2020 who is the expert on the ASRAAM doesn’t have anything backing it up i guess i just rembered wrong or the proof were not good ones.
About the maximum range you’ll have to ask Fireball, he posted the following image and there’s a video as well.
And tbh the 50km max range would’nt be that surprising considering the missile was really optimised for long range shot. Lofting would make it even more capable for those kind of range.
I admit i was a bit salty lol, but you didn’t want to admit that the missile was capable of lofting.
I do think the text was saying that the missile is lofting “by itself” and not specificaly with the help of the launch aircraft.
You can already lead you missile by pointing your nose up even with a LOBL missile(especialy for a 90° off boresight one). So i don’t think this explaination is valid.
The 33% upgrade in range isn’t comming from just a sligtly improved motor.
Lofting
Especialy since the 9X Blck 2 is also used on the SLAMRAAM and it has around 15km range from what i found. This range as a surface launched missile isn’t possible if your missile does’nt loft.
While it’s true that the video doesn’t prove shit, (though it did but after examination it’s true it doesn’t), i do think the ASRAAM is capable to achieve that kind of range. The missile is really optimised for that.
The missile is said to have been able to intercept a target 5km behind the aircraft after doing a 180° at low altitude. You need a lot of energy do have that kind of range in a reverse shot.
Very low drag+ very high impulse+ no TVC : the missile is optimised for long range shot and not to have the tigthest turning radius possible (as opposed to the IRIS-T and even to the AIM-9X in a lesser way).
Need more context, was it a tail chase where the plane was 5km behind it but the missile actually traveled less distance since target was chasing the launch plane?
That’s… exactly my point? This is why I differentiate between maximum possible distance the missile can travel under its own power and lift while still being capable of carrying out its mission, and the range to which the missile can simply travel until it falls out of the sky or self-implodes. The only difference here is that we’ve got different definitions about the meanings of effective and maximum.
People tend to throw maximum theoretical range around whenever comparing missiles, rather than their operational maximum range.
The AIM-9X doesn’t have a sub 10km effective range if the IRIS-T has a 25km effective range
You misunderstood that.
but the AIM-9X has less drag so it should theoretically have a better effective range than the IRIS-T.
This would depend on the speed it achieves though, if IRIS-T has a higher top speed, in theory it can travel further despite higher drag value (it’s also a bit heavier so it will retain some more potential energy), especially compared to Block I version.
A good way to know that is if you find the speed of the IRIS-T SLS.
Yea that’s not happening (lol). There are no reliable sources on that, and the only ones to mention the speed of the SLS variant cite mach 3 from ground.
About the maximum range you’ll have to ask Fireball, he posted the following image and there’s a video as well.
The linked video is actually a pretty good illustration of what my point has been this entire time:
“Effective between 2 - 50km’s, guaranteed to kill the target”, this would (if the video objectively speaking, states facts) put ASRAAM’s effective maximum range at ~50km’s, while IRIS-T’s is ~25km’s.
but you didn’t want to admit that the missile was capable of lofting.
No, I actually didn’t know 9X B2 can loft one way or another until then, that was the first time I’ve seen this mentioned (and i’ve asked others if they knew of this, nope). That prompted me to storm through google, and I found out that the missile is lofted by the aircraft, rather than lofting by itself - hence why I concluded that this is unlikely that 9X B2 is the only missile that can do this.
Especialy since the 9X Blck 2 is also used on the SLAMRAAM and it has around 15km range from what i found
Assuming the 33% increase in range also applies to the SLAMRAAM variant, 9X B1s effective maximum range from ground would be slightly less that IRIS-T SLS’s (11.5km vs 12km), air wise it would put B1 at around ~23 - 24km effective, and B2 at ~32km effective (of course this is just an estimate).
[quote=“Patriotic_FR, post:245, topic:3322”] And the R-74 is heavier than the ASRAAM and an heavier missile carries more propelant which means more range.
[/quote]
I will say this is only a 1:1 correlation with equal warheads, electronics, motors, flight control, ect. Soviets/Russia have historically struggled with electronic miniaturization in comparison to the west, so a much greater proportion of the R74’s weight may be electronics. I won’t claim to know exactly how much or anything, but Heavier does not nessicarily equal Longer range, with the amount of variables out there.
Which would make sense if it weren’t for the fact that the other missiles use heavier and more complex imaging infrared sensors whereas the R-74 to my knowledge uses a simpler IR seeker type which may in fact be lighter in weight.
