Talk:IRIS-T

Combat performance
Since the missile hasn't been used in combat (yet), I'm renaming and expanding. /BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Turn performance
60g sounds plausible but 60deg/s sounds ridiculous and the link provided doesn't substantiate it.Z07x10 (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What is so implausible about 60deg/s? (That is 60 degrees of arc, per second) Your opinion that is "sounds ridiculous" is just that - your opinion. Either leave the page alone or find a link that substantiates YOUR claim (that its turn rate must be slower).

For the sake of completeness - a missile doing Mach III is travelling roughly 1000m/s. In order to turn 180 degrees, the net change in velocity is 2000m/s. Pulling 60Gs gives it a rate-of-change-of-velocity of 600m/s per second, which means that it would take roughly 3, or just over, seconds to turn 180 degrees, which is, surprise surprise, roughly 60 deg/s.

It is of course more complicated than that of course (max Gs are affected by velocity and angle of attack which will constantly be changing by large amounts, max G is different to max *sustained* G, the figures 1000m/s and 180 degrees only represent a single scenario etc.), but the figures are indicative.94.175.244.252 (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on IRIS-T. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140423140358/http://portal.sipri.org/publications/pages/transfer/trade-register to http://portal.sipri.org/publications/pages/transfer/trade-register
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131024113307/http://www.revistatenea.es/revistaatenea/revista/PDF/documentos/Documento_1026.pdf to http://www.revistatenea.es/revistaatenea/revista/PDF/documentos/Documento_1026.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't UK Typhoons carry IRIS-T?
The UK isn't listed in the list of operators. Is that because UK Typhoons don't carry IRIS-T or is this an oversight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.31 (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, Brazil isn't shown on the map of IRIS-T operators but does appear in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.164.158 (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Sentence referring to Ukraine deployment is merely temporal
The sentence beginning "One IRIS-T SLM battery, as supplied by Germany to Ukraine" has a context today on Oct 16, 2022. Wikipedia will be around for years after this, and that sentence will lose its context. Simply adding a date context doesn't necessarily fix it. It needs a significant rewrite to incorporate that information in a timeless manner. 142.134.37.140 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

"By October 12, 2022, Ukraine was believed to have received 24 missiles."
The above quote is a misreading of the Economist source: "Ukraine is to get one battery, which consists of three lorry-mounted launchers carrying 24 missiles (eight per launcher)" […] "an IRIS-T battery can launch and track all 24 of its missiles simultaneously" This does not mean that (only) 24 missiles were received. In fact it's highly unlikely that such a vital (and expensive) system would only receive one full set of ammunition. Directly related to this, but according to the website of the Federal government, Germany sent additional missiles as part of additional aid packages. The exact number was never disclosed. Since there is no reliable number of how many missiles Ukraine has received, I'm going to delete this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DC:3F30:7F72:7020:20DC:AB8A:361A (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this an Short Range or Medium range missile?
In multiple instances in the article, the IRIS-T is labeled a MRAAM, but in other instances the missile is labeled as a SRAAM.

According to the current sources on this article, the missile has a range of about 10+ miles. The modern AIM9 family of missiles, which is the primary SRAAM of NATO, has a comparable range; which makes it odd that the article refers to it to be a MRAAM. 2601:981:C281:D610:FC9C:1BA4:BD8B:6135 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Non-reliable sources
@TRUTH, JUSTICE & RIGHT WAY I removed the material you added because it was poorly sourced. Please allow me to explain if you're unfamiliar: Verifiability is one of our key pillars, and that doesn't just mean adding just any link; we really want reliable sources. If you're unsure how to make your own judgements, you can see many consensus opinions at Reliable sources/Perennial sources; I recommend checking the noticeboard archives if in doubt. Here's a posting about armyrecognition.com: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_344.

Meanwhile, rumble.com is a hosting service for self-published material, which as a general category is largely unacceptable. The referenced videos do not appear to fall under the self-published subject-matter expert exception. —&hairsp;Anon423 (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see how is Non-reliable source if you can see videos & pictures where is clearly IRIS-T destroyed (on multiple occasions) What is there NOT TRUE or NON reliable?
 * Also i posted as sources different very famous aviation sites, also very reliable and credible, and they posted there even date and locations where systems are destroyed, and how are they destroyed!
 * Your act is clearly BIASED and Protective (for some reason), and you HIDE truth about IRIS-T Losses !
 * Which is very Shameful and is quite opposite of what Wikipedia is all about ! TRUTH, JUSTICE &#38; RIGHT WAY (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia written by pseudonymous volunteer contributors cannot claim the truth, only verifiability.
 * For reliability and credibility of the sources we use to verify, once again, I point to the consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard. Journals and news organizations are common sources, but not all are created equal. News should have editorial oversight, fact-checking, and declare conflicts of interest.
 * On that matter, we prefer not to have to interpret primary sources ourselves. For that we use secondary sources. Quoting the no original research policy, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
 * Please be civil. Thank you. —&hairsp;Anon423 (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Poor sources
I would suggest deleting the following sentence: "Integrating with a helmet-mounted sight, it was found to be more capable in dogfight than the latest AIM-9 Sidewinder." Sources cited seem non-reliable: - First link is some niche Austrian site, saying "someone somewhere in Germany" told them that. No credible source of this information has been provided. - Second note is a citation from a book, saying: "What also was critical with R-73 was its integration with a helmet-mounted sight, allowing impressive off-boresight shots". It says something completely different to what is written on the page. Calling something impressive doesn't mean it's better or worse than something other. 89.64.53.20 (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with your thought. In this section, I wanted to tell that the discovery of R-73, the first 4th generation WVRAAM, amazed many Western countries, and thus I tried to explain the main improvement from the 3rd generation to the 4th. Basically, it is the amazing off-bore capability, which is achieved by the introduction of helmet-mounted display and thrust vectoring. However, R-73 was not the first to integrate with a helmet-mounted display, and not all 4th and 5th WVRAAMs used thrust vectoring (ASRAAM). Currently, I don't have good idea to make it look better. Maybe we should just remove this sentence or rewrite it. Arc Unin (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)