About those IRIS-T missiles...

[hi41000]

That's just not true for the RL advanced IR missiles like modern versions of AIM-9X and IRIS-T (which uses a very similar seeker as the AIM-9X). They have Lock On After Launch Capabilities and can find an target off boresight.

the only reason why they have lock on after launch capability is due to the fact the missile already know where to look at exactly where the target will be at in 2s or less

 

if a target is going fast and its within 2 nautical mile, unless the target is directly heading towards you then the target will have changed by a large degree either left, up, right, or below that heading/altitude you have fired at. the iris-t still has only 90 degrees off boresight and still needs to turn around until it sees a target, if you do not have an exact location to look at a single flare or heat source other then the target would defeat the missile so it would be akin to the missile basically looking ahead hoping to find the target

[The_Dan]

I would suggest you take a look in the recent issue of Jane's Wapons Air-Launched and appended books and magazines. There are a lot of improvements for weapons sinces the 90s (where you seem to have your intel from).

[Mandellorian]

crazy the amount but it uses the bol and that thing is pretty long and filled with the chaff/flares

 

you dont need to per say but you want the seeker head to know where to look, imagine trying to get an a2a kill in a dogfight with basically a boresight missile only, sure the missile can uncage but its still looking directly ahead until it spots something. The Eurofighter has a helmet mounted display system but the missile would still be firing basically blind, seeker head fovs are also very narrow (i assume its probably something close to 5 degrees of view, probably even less) in order to avoid being blinded by the sun and other sources of heat that are not the target. for over the shoulder the only reason why you wouldn't need a data link to fire on that target for over the shoulder is for a possible Hail Mary to try and kill the target on your six but the missile would have a tough time finding let alone also still having enough energy and avoiding countermeasures.

 

 

You are at least 20 years out of touch with IR AAM development. An AIM 9B had a FOV of 3 degrees give or take, 2nd Generation like AIM 9L had a 45 degree FOV, modern missiles with their gimbled detector arrays can go all the way upto 180 degrees.

[hi41000]

You are at least 20 years out of touch with IR AAM development. An AIM 9B had a FOV of 3 degrees give or take, 2nd Generation like AIM 9L had a 45 degree FOV, modern missiles with their gimbled detector arrays can go all the way upto 180 degrees.

thats how far they can gimble not their seeker fov

a comparison would be the litening targeting pod, can it see everywhere even though it can gimble 360 degrees?

 

the wider you have a seeker fov the more background noise it would have to deal with

to clarify for the aim9x can you just fire the missile without looking at the target with an hmd or use any slewing for the missile if the target is 180 degrees somewhere in front of you? No you actually have to look at the target with the hmd or use radar slaving

 

pic related its an asraam seeker fov

 

 

I would suggest you take a look in the recent issue of Jane's Wapons Air-Launched and appended books and magazines. There are a lot of improvements for weapons sinces the 90s (where you seem to have your intel from).

i was basing the information off of this article https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/raaf-kills-over-the-shoulder-asraam-05323/ about the asraam where they talk about other aircraft painting. there was an article about the french mica (although radar based) where they talk about datalinking for over the shoulder

although the pictures of the asraam i got talk about over the shoulder with a helmet mounted site for the asraam, it wouldnt be a stretch to believe it could also be done with the iris-t. Guess we will have to wait and see what we get in DCS, at the very least we know it has over the shoulder and the eurofighter will be very tough to beat!

[The_Dan]

This article says "If other aircraft sensors can cue the missile to fly to a specific location, which places the enemy within ASRAAM’s target acquisition cone, the missile’s engagement radius can even be extended to a 360 degree circle around the fighter."

And this is contradictory to your statement

for over the shoulder the only reason why you wouldn't need a data link to fire on that target for over the shoulder is for a possible Hail Mary to try and kill the target on your six but the missile would have a tough time finding let alone also still having enough energy and avoiding countermeasures.

Especially for "a target located more than 5 km away, and behind the wing-line". HMD can't give a distance to the target so the only information that can be given to the missile seeker at launch would be the target bearing. That's quite a big area for your small FOV.

 

I would guess that the seekers can apply a search mode after launch to find a target outside of FOV.

 

But you are right, we have to wait and see how it will be implemented in DCS. Though it could then be the case, that the implementation in DCS isn't as good as it works in RL.

 

IRIS-T has a very similar and AIM-9X has the same seaker as the ASRAAM. The main difference is that the ASRAAM is build for longer ranges.

[MKev]

This article says "If other aircraft sensors can cue the missile to fly to a specific location, which places the enemy within ASRAAM’s target acquisition cone, the missile’s engagement radius can even be extended to a 360 degree circle around the fighter."

And this is contradictory to your statement

 

Especially for "a target located more than 5 km away, and behind the wing-line". HMD can't give a distance to the target so the only information that can be given to the missile seeker at launch would be the target bearing. That's quite a big area for your small FOV.

 

I would guess that the seekers can apply a search mode after launch to find a target outside of FOV.

 

But you are right, we have to wait and see how it will be implemented in DCS. Though it could then be the case, that the implementation in DCS isn't as good as it works in RL.

 

IRIS-T has a very similar and AIM-9X has the same seaker as the ASRAAM. The main difference is that the ASRAAM is build for longer ranges.

 

 

 

Hi there.

 

Besides all that, it is stated in multiple interviews of Pilots and on the offical site, that the iris-t is capable of self tracking, identification ir screenin and can not be blinded by flares and sun. It distinguishes between sun, flare and jet thrusters. I am no expert and the most information is restricted and therefor only TrueGrit knows whats right or wrong, but the info that you can get in the public via books, videos and interviews state that it is the most modern and capable IR close to mid range missile aside of Aim-9X.

 

The Iris-T has some kind of database and photo sensor. It is therefore able to identify what is decoy and what is the real deal. It can attack every aircraft in a sphere around the aircraft beyond 25km. True Range is restricted. The only failsafe defence against IRIS-T is by Directed Infrared Counter Measures. In other words: Blinding the seeker of the missile with a laser. :book:

 

If ED stays true to the real deal, like the CEO of ED claimed in recent Interview, and TrueGrit follows ED's and their own standards, the Eurofighter will be almost impossible to beat in DCS skies as long as it carries IRIS-T. :smilewink:

Maybe one of the reasons TrueGrit Leads would love to see some upcoming releases of more modern russian Jets. We all hope to open the door for modern russian jets when EF is released.

Edited August 31, 2020 by MKev

[Lynnux]

It distinguishes between sun, flare and jet thrusters.

 

Yes, to be more accurate: it does image processing of the IR image of the target. It's not only looking at the engine exhaust or heat dissipation of the engines anymore but the whole shape of the plane. That's why they are not distracted by flares anymore unless the flare is obstructing the whole plane for some time (possible but very unlikely). Also the missile won't switch to another plane crossing the target with a different attitude.

The database is used to tell the weak spot from different angles. Guess where one (or the) weak spot is...

 

Btw. radar absorbing (not reflecting) materials heat up when being illuminated with radar. Which can be used to spot them more easily via IR.

 

Anyways, the seeker always needs to be told where to look, regardless before launch or after. I.e. when firing the missile at a target behind it still needs an accurate enough position of the (moving) target.

 

Still a lot of this is advertising of the manufacturers. How well this is really working is not known to us yet.

[Mandellorian]

Take any comments from the manufacturer about flare resistance with a large grain of salt. The AIM 9X was supposed to be almost immune to flares...until it encountered Russian quality control flares..that didn`t look like the ones the missile had been programmed to ignore. ( F-18E Vs SU-22 June 18 2017) What makes that even more interesting is its a repeat of what happened with earlier generation IR missiles, when we got some Russian flares from Afghanistan it was found due to the variation in flare performance the filters built into the missiles didn`t cover the actual flares in use.

[Aluminum Donkey]

On 12/22/2020 at 10:15 PM, Mandellorian said:

Take any comments from the manufacturer about flare resistance with a large grain of salt. The AIM 9X was supposed to be almost immune to flares...until it encountered Russian quality control flares..that didn`t look like the ones the missile had been programmed to ignore. ( F-18E Vs SU-22 June 18 2017) What makes that even more interesting is its a repeat of what happened with earlier generation IR missiles, when we got some Russian flares from Afghanistan it was found due to the variation in flare performance the filters built into the missiles didn`t cover the actual flares in use.

 

That sounds like something the Russians would do deliberately, rather than a quality control issue. Westerners can say what they want about the Russkis--but they aren't stupid!

 

AD

[GGTharos]

On 12/22/2020 at 10:15 PM, Mandellorian said:

Take any comments from the manufacturer about flare resistance with a large grain of salt. The AIM 9X was supposed to be almost immune to flares...until it encountered Russian quality control flares..

 

Except it encountered no flares ... an excellent example of myth repetition and embellishment.   The missile failed to fuze, or failed to guide altogether, but its target employed no flares at all, and flew straight and level.  Pilot's testimony.

 

On 12/22/2020 at 10:15 PM, Mandellorian said:

What makes that even more interesting is its a repeat of what happened with earlier generation IR missiles, when we got some Russian flares from Afghanistan it was found due to the variation in flare performance the filters built into the missiles didn`t cover the actual flares in use.

 

... and it was fixed in no time, but also hat seeker sees and filters out flares very differently from how an AIM-9X does this ... so the 'interesting' part here is completely irrelevant, not to mention wrong.

 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14344/heres-the-definitive-account-of-the-syrian-su-22-shoot-down-from-the-pilots-themselves

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/09/10/the-inside-story-of-how-a-us-navy-pilot-shot-down-a-syrian-jet/

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/09/16/a-different-feeling-navy-pilots-describe-shooting-down-su-22.html

[GGTharos]

On 10/27/2020 at 11:25 PM, Lynnux said:

Yes, to be more accurate: it does image processing of the IR image of the target. It's not only looking at the engine exhaust or heat dissipation of the engines anymore but the whole shape of the plane.

 

To be more accurate, from any and all materials including more complex professional simulations and studies that are unclass and we can find, it sticks a box around a blob of pixels and tracks this with certain image processing parameters that account for how it might grow as the missile gets closer or shriks/grows as per target maneuvers.   A box around a flare would have a dramatically different size achieved in a very short amount of time, so it is rejected based on this and based on apparent motion.

 

Quote

The database is used to tell the weak spot from different angles. Guess where one (or the) weak spot is...

 

There's no evidence of this.  Bias to hit the to cockpit or near it has been a thing discussed well before the 9X ... and there's still not much evidence to indicate that this is reliably done if at all in any unclass information available to us.

 

Quote

Btw. radar absorbing (not reflecting) materials heat up when being illuminated with radar. Which can be used to spot them more easily via IR.

 

At the miniscule power density of RF signals at range, it'll do diddly for IR.

Edited January 5, 2021 by GGTharos

[Etirion]

An interesting video I found about the IRIS-T, its in German, but i think particularly the timestamped bit with an over-the-shoulder shot is quite interesting to everyone.

 

 

(3:25min for the timestamp)