Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

We in the FBI have no humor that we're aware of, Sir.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Posted

since my dad helped develop it i personally believe the IRIS-T is the best short range air to air missile out there! :D:D:D Ehehehe...FLAME FLAME ..come to me :D

 

 

Flip

madrebel.png

sig.jpg

"Imagine the reason that people hold on to

hatred so stubbornly is because if the hate

is removed, the pain will set in. Do not follow where

the path may lead. Go instead where there is

no path and leave a trail."

Posted
If I had to choose it would be the ASRAAM. Thrust vectoring for high off boresight shots added with extended range.

 

No thrust-vectoring initially (I don't even think it has it yet - it was planned). I was always under the impression that it traded close-in knifefight agility for range.

 

For best SRAAM, I would pick Python 5. Then A-Darter (which is everything the ASRAAM should be but more) or AIM-9X. IRIS-T has too many fins sticking out, and coupled with TVC, it can't be that good for range/energy at all. ASRAAM is the exact opposite - it trades everything away (reduced to just 4 tiny fins) for energy.

 

I know nothing of the R-74++(whatever), but judging from the R-73's performance kinematically it should easily be comparable to anything out there. The million dollar question is whether it's seeker can keep up.

sigzk5.jpg
Posted

the ASRAAM's maneuverabilty is not as good compared to the IRIS-T or the AIM-9X, the controlsurfaces are not sufficient enough. But to make up for this it is extremely fast. The IRIS-T has the range and maneuverability. It has thrust vectoring coupled with control surfaces, so basically, it should need less rocket-power for maneuverability than the 9X or the ASRAAM. The Python 5 is just an amazing missile. So is the Python 3 and 4, amazing pieces of work and the developers have alot of experience and they get feedback from combat experiences by the israeli defence force / airforce!!!

But in the end i think the IRIS-T is still THE missile that you would want on your aircraft!!!

 

Flip

madrebel.png

sig.jpg

"Imagine the reason that people hold on to

hatred so stubbornly is because if the hate

is removed, the pain will set in. Do not follow where

the path may lead. Go instead where there is

no path and leave a trail."

Posted

Manoeuverability doesn't mean jack if you're missile decelerates like crazy (which the IRIS-T will). All the new-gen SRAAMs have about the same rocket power, but the IRIS-T is the only one that is loaded with control surfaces and TVC, which is agility overkill.

 

Sure, REALLY close in, it's gonna rock, but considering that off-boresight SRAAMs are *already* kinematically challenged (they have to overcome the energy of the launching fighter by twisting around ridiculously, THEN they have to chase down their target), putting so many energy depleting features on the IRIS-T is overkill, IMO. Python 5, AIM-9X, R-7xx, and A-Darter are probably going to have a bigger (or more "useful") MEZ because of this.

sigzk5.jpg
Posted
No thrust-vectoring initially (I don't even think it has it yet - it was planned). I was always under the impression that it traded close-in knifefight agility for range.

 

For best SRAAM, I would pick Python 5. Then A-Darter (which is everything the ASRAAM should be but more) or AIM-9X. IRIS-T has too many fins sticking out, and coupled with TVC, it can't be that good for range/energy at all. ASRAAM is the exact opposite - it trades everything away (reduced to just 4 tiny fins) for energy.

 

I know nothing of the R-74++(whatever), but judging from the R-73's performance kinematically it should easily be comparable to anything out there. The million dollar question is whether it's seeker can keep up.

 

Python 4 was known to have a shorter range than the AIM-9, and the python 5 is virtualy the same on the outside. What kind of motor does it have? It needs to have something advanced like gel fuel or something. I cant figure out any other way, because such ammount of aerodynamic surfaces on such a small missile suggests a shorter range than that you said.

.

Posted

IIRC, Python 4 had a much greater range than the AIM-9M. Python 4 followed a "Type 2" engagement profile, which extends the useful range of the missile (to about 9 miles IIRC) but at the expense of increasing the flight time of the missile during the entire engagement.

 

And the Python 4/5 intends to achieve the performance of a TVC missile but through lifting/guiding fins, rather than TVC (advantage = greater agility kept after motor burn out).

 

My guess is that Python 5 would probably expand upon such an engagement profile, and achieve moderately greater range/energy through software (much like the AIM-120D).

sigzk5.jpg
Posted
Manoeuverability doesn't mean jack if you're missile decelerates like crazy (which the IRIS-T will). All the new-gen SRAAMs have about the same rocket power, but the IRIS-T is the only one that is loaded with control surfaces and TVC, which is agility overkill.

 

Sure, REALLY close in, it's gonna rock, but considering that off-boresight SRAAMs are *already* kinematically challenged (they have to overcome the energy of the launching fighter by twisting around ridiculously, THEN they have to chase down their target), putting so many energy depleting features on the IRIS-T is overkill, IMO. Python 5, AIM-9X, R-7xx, and A-Darter are probably going to have a bigger (or more "useful") MEZ because of this.

 

The fact that the IRIS-T was losing alot of energy in a turn was serious problem at the early stages of testing. The Missile's rocket propellant and controlsurface software has been sufficiently improved to enable it to contain enough energy to sustain a good chance of a hit.

Yes i know i will get responses like "give me sources, if you dont give me sources i wont believe you boohoo" yada yada i know what youre on about :D Im not in this missile business at all so you have the right to presume my statements are biased. Im not here to play james bond and say i cant tell you from whom i got the information, simply put: either believe me that its the best short range air to air missile, or dont :doh:

 

 

Best Wishes,

 

Flip

madrebel.png

sig.jpg

"Imagine the reason that people hold on to

hatred so stubbornly is because if the hate

is removed, the pain will set in. Do not follow where

the path may lead. Go instead where there is

no path and leave a trail."

Posted
The fact that the IRIS-T was losing alot of energy in a turn was serious problem at the early stages of testing. The Missile's rocket propellant and controlsurface software has been sufficiently improved to enable it to contain enough energy to sustain a good chance of a hit.

Yes i know i will get responses like "give me sources, if you dont give me sources i wont believe you boohoo" yada yada i know what youre on about :D Im not in this missile business at all so you have the right to presume my statements are biased. Im not here to play james bond and say i cant tell you from whom i got the information, simply put: either believe me that its the best short range air to air missile, or dont :doh:

 

 

Best Wishes,

 

Flip

 

It's not that I don't believe it, it's just that coming up with an improved rocket propellant is not that simple, since unlike the rest of the missile it has to be changed on the molecular level. You can't simply just "add" something to the rocket propellant like you can add features to a missile - it'll be more along the lines of coming up with a new antibiotic that can combat the flu virus (i.e. extremely difficult). AFAIK all missiles basically use the same rocket propellant, except some are smokeless.

 

And I see no reason why IRIS-T would be the best SRAAM. The performance delta between all new-gen SRAAMs don't seem to be great enough for someone to claim that one missile is better than the rest IMO.

sigzk5.jpg
Posted
It's not that I don't believe it, it's just that coming up with an improved rocket propellant is not that simple, since unlike the rest of the missile it has to be changed on the molecular level. You can't simply just "add" something to the rocket propellant like you can add features to a missile - it'll be more along the lines of coming up with a new antibiotic that can combat the flu virus (i.e. extremely difficult). AFAIK all missiles basically use the same rocket propellant, except some are smokeless.

 

And I see no reason why IRIS-T would be the best SRAAM. The performance delta between all new-gen SRAAMs don't seem to be great enough for someone to claim that one missile is better than the rest IMO.

 

 

good point! :thumbup:

 

 

Flip

madrebel.png

sig.jpg

"Imagine the reason that people hold on to

hatred so stubbornly is because if the hate

is removed, the pain will set in. Do not follow where

the path may lead. Go instead where there is

no path and leave a trail."

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...