Indian Air Force : Updates & Discussions

[randomradio]

I always wonder why people assume it's bulk makes it bad to target fighter jets.
Like haven't they seen s-300 and its missiles?
Haven't they seen akash series and it's 60kg warhead?
Akash missile has length of 5.8 meters and weight of 720kg.
R37m weighs ~510kg and length of 4.06 meters.

The main purpose of long range SAMs against fighters is to break formations and achieve mission kill.

Shorter range missiles like Akash and Barak 8 have low time to target (20-60 seconds), whereas the long range missiles of the S-300 are not very effective against an alerted fighter with a lot of time, many minutes. That's why you need the incremental advantages a dedicated AAM provides, high agility and suffcient survivability to make it to the target.

 

[Rajput Lion]

after Rus visit maybe.

Nope. They know that they're out. They have smelled the coffee. They were hoping for IAF buying 114 F-21s as MRFA and then G2G deal for F-35As. We just said FU to them by giving Russians go-ahead regarding Su-57 deal. India has asked Russia not only for full source code access but also full ToT along with know how and know why. Russians are now willing to part with absolute bleeding edge aerospace tech. It is unprecedented even by their standards what they're offering to us.

They have even offered S-70 Okhotnik-Bs along with Su-57s for a fully enabled MUM-T force-structure that can even penetrate PLA's A2/AD bubble.

It's time for those who are expecting IAF to still procure F-35s after what I just wrote above to wake up and smell the coffee

 

[babablacksheep]

They have even offered S-70 Okhotnik-Bs

No, we should atleast have our own domestic cca's.

 

[South block]

Any missile can do that, even Astra Mk1. They currently cannot tell what was fired, so they will have to take evasive action anyway, whether the Russians fire an R-27 or an R-37M.



Only the R-37M's burnout speed is high. Its speed will eventually drop a lot more than Gandiva at long range. Even though it has a larger seeker, it's not a full-fledged AESA seeker, so its ability to resolve a target and maintain track will be lower.

Max range too is higher on Gandiva. R-37M's range crosses 280 km only with an additional booster whereas Gandiva's been designed to do that organically. 340 km is its stated objective, it could even exceed that.

The main drawback of the R-37M is its significantly low G performance compared to smaller SAMs, and it can only engage targets up to 8-10G versus the required 12G. Furthermore, its not suitable for lower ranged targets due to its high burnout speed making it entirely unsuitable against fighter jets across its entire envelope.

Its found some success in Ukraine 'cause their jets have not been designed to detect and react to the launch until the seeker kicks in. The Russians have found ways to launch their missiles without alerting enemy RWRs and have effective EW to degrade Ukrainian radars.

It cannot be replicated against an enemy with an advanced air force because advanced IR sensors can detect the threat from long range. Meteor has a slow cruise speed of mach 3-3.5 in order to maintain stealth for that reason whereas typical rocket motors have speeds of mach 4-4.5, never mind a blinding speed of mach 6.

The IAF can buy it in small numbers for HVAs, but it won't replace regular AAMs.

Let's breakdown your claim point by point.

First, about speed...,..yes, the R-37M’s peak speed is achieved during burnout, and of course it slows down at longer ranges like any missile da......But that’s precisely why its initial Mach 6+ and lofted trajectory matters, as it buys it more energy to sustain a no-escape zone at distances where lower-speed designs like Meteor or even Gandiva simply cannot reach with the same probability of kill........saying “speed eventually drops” applies to all missiles, but the R-37M starts out with far more kinetic energy, which is the entire point of its design philosophy.

Second, the seeker.....while the R-37M does not use an AESA seeker......it is still a very large high-power monopulse radar seeker with a substantial aperture....... larger antenna improves angular resolution and detection range at BVR compared to the smaller seekers found on most medium-range missiles......AESA seekers have their advantages when comes to better resistance to jamming, more flexible beam steering, but they are not magic........At those ranges, the limiting factor is often the radar cross section of the target, not the seeker technology alone.

On range.......your claim that Gandiva’s 340 km objective range is “organic” while the R-37M needs a booster isn’t consistent with what’s publicly known.........R-37M as deployed today has an advertised maximum range around 300 to 320 km without mention of a strap-on booster and Russian documentation indicates longer ranges come from the optimized flight profile, not an external stage........Gandiva’s stated range is just that stated and remains unproven in operational use......Meanwhile the R-37M has actually been used to engage targets at extreme distances in combat.

Regarding G-limits.....it’s true that the R-37M is not designed for knife-fight dogfights and it is not a high-G missile like a short-range IR AAM or even a Meteor........That’s expected for such a large missile....it’s a tradeoff between energy retention and agility......but at long range, where targets have limited options to maneuver and often don’t even know they’re being engaged until late in the terminal phase
..........the G-limits are less critical........to say it’s “unsuitable against fighters across its entire envelope” ignores the very successful use against fast, maneuvering fighters in Ukraine.

As for RWR/IR sensors detecting launches......yes, advanced IRSTs could theoretically pick up a lofted Mach 6 missile earlier than Meteor or Gandiva.......but in practice that assumes ideal conditions, proper cueing, and a capable IRST, which few air forces actually field across their fleets today and even then, the missile’s speed compresses reaction time, which is why it’s effective.

Finally, saying it “won’t replace regular AAMs” is a bit of a straw man........nobody suggests the R-37M replaces medium-range missiles like RVV-SD or Meteor outright..........it complements them for specific missions like HVA protection, standoff kills, or counter-AWACS missions. In that role, it remains unmatched in real-world combat-proven reach and kill probability.

In short Gandiva might eventually match or exceed the R-37M on paper, but as of today, the R-37M remains the only operational, combat-tested, truly long-range AAM in service, and its performance envelope remains extremely threatening to modern fighter aircraft period.

 

[babablacksheep]

Russian documentation indicates longer ranges come from the optimized flight profile, not an external stage.....

Apparently 400km max range is when it is launched using mig31 at ~60k feet.
With jets like su30 series, su35 it's 300km max.

 

[marich01]

Apparently 400km max range is when it is launched using mig31 at ~60k feet.
With jets like su30 series, su35 it's 300km max.

Astra series and this R-37m are 2 different type of missiles. One is smokeless and shorter ranged comparatively so enemy sat / enemy airborne asset can not track the plume trail left behind. Tracking the plume trail is actually one method of countering the incoming vector and take necessary evasive action. Almost all a2a such missiles fly at mach 4 level speed so it can coast to target as the rocket motor burn is for a small duration and beyond that you won't get powered thrust.

R37M is different, its solid rocket motor that leaves a huge plume trail post launch and till burnout obviously. So it had to be longer ranged because if you are targeting a bogey at 100-120km with this , that enemy bogey itself would be able to track the incoming vector plume trail and won't need awacs assist to take evasive action. So the working principle changes for R37M compared to a smokeless propulsion based astra system, it is much higher dia solid rocket motor based hence can deliver much higher speed at higher altitude. This extra speed mitigates the shortfall of huge plume trail till burnout. So higher kinematics allows it to cover the long plume trail shortfall by increasing the range, which in turn can happen effectively if it flies at a higher altitude as high as 35-40km

Now if the R-37M is flying at 30- 40km and the target is at 10-12km alt, how does the seeker lock in automatic in terminal phase overcoming almost 20km altitude difference & similar distance in lateral axis much sooner? thereby another shortfall where it needs to be fed target bogey coordinates / radar guidance till the end almost by own radar via datalink. So this process is somewhat cumbersome and in a highly competitive airspace like ours won't do as good as it does in Ukr.

 

[babablacksheep]

Astra series and this R-37m are 2 different type of missiles. One is smokeless and shorter ranged comparatively so enemy sat / enemy airborne asset can not track the plume trail left behind. Tracking the plume trail is actually one method of countering the incoming vector and take necessary evasive action. Almost all a2a such missiles fly at mach 4 level speed so it can coast to target as the rocket motor burn is for a small duration and beyond that you won't get powered thrust.

R37M is different, its solid rocket motor that leaves a huge plume trail post launch and till burnout obviously. So it had to be longer ranged because if you are targeting a bogey at 100-120km with this , that enemy bogey itself would be able to track the incoming vector plume trail and won't need awacs assist to take evasive action. So the working principle changes for R37M compared to a smokeless propulsion based astra system, it is much higher dia solid rocket motor based hence can deliver much higher speed at higher altitude. This extra speed mitigates the shortfall of huge plume trail till burnout. So higher kinematics allows it to cover the long plume trail shortfall by increasing the range, which in turn can happen effectively if it flies at a higher altitude as high as 35-40km

Now if the R-37M is flying at 30- 40km and the target is at 10-12km alt, how does the seeker lock in automatic in terminal phase overcoming almost 20km altitude difference & similar distance in lateral axis much sooner? thereby another shortfall where it needs to be fed target bogey coordinates / radar guidance till the end almost by own radar via datalink. So this process is somewhat cumbersome and in a highly competitive airspace like ours won't do as good as it does in Ukr.

It can still force the enemy fighter jets to take evasive action and retreat, and in many cases abandon the assigned mission.
Aka mission kill.

 

[Rajput Lion]

No, we should atleast have our own domestic cca's.

Ghatak is still 7-10 years away. Su-57 is getting procured as a stop-gap before AMCA fully matures. Then we'll have our own stealth jet with our own stealth UCAV mini-bomber. As of now, no country has MUM-T capability, not even China. Su-57 is developed right from its inception to work with S-70 and it has fully AI enabled systems inbuilt.

People don't realize how advance Su-57 really is. With S-70 it will be able to penetrate the most dense air-defence with aplomb. AMCA + Ghatak combo would be even more effective and stealthy but is 10-15 years away.

As for other CCAs like CATS WARRIORs, they will work with both MKI UPG. & Tejas MK1A/2. So along with imports our domestic aviation industry is also slowly catching up with the best.

Let's breakdown your claim point by point.

First, about speed...,..yes, the R-37M’s peak speed is achieved during burnout, and of course it slows down at longer ranges like any missile da......But that’s precisely why its initial Mach 6+ and lofted trajectory matters, as it buys it more energy to sustain a no-escape zone at distances where lower-speed designs like Meteor or even Gandiva simply cannot reach with the same probability of kill........saying “speed eventually drops” applies to all missiles, but the R-37M starts out with far more kinetic energy, which is the entire point of its design philosophy.

Second, the seeker.....while the R-37M does not use an AESA seeker......it is still a very large high-power monopulse radar seeker with a substantial aperture....... larger antenna improves angular resolution and detection range at BVR compared to the smaller seekers found on most medium-range missiles......AESA seekers have their advantages when comes to better resistance to jamming, more flexible beam steering, but they are not magic........At those ranges, the limiting factor is often the radar cross section of the target, not the seeker technology alone.

On range.......your claim that Gandiva’s 340 km objective range is “organic” while the R-37M needs a booster isn’t consistent with what’s publicly known.........R-37M as deployed today has an advertised maximum range around 300 to 320 km without mention of a strap-on booster and Russian documentation indicates longer ranges come from the optimized flight profile, not an external stage........Gandiva’s stated range is just that stated and remains unproven in operational use......Meanwhile the R-37M has actually been used to engage targets at extreme distances in combat.

Regarding G-limits.....it’s true that the R-37M is not designed for knife-fight dogfights and it is not a high-G missile like a short-range IR AAM or even a Meteor........That’s expected for such a large missile....it’s a tradeoff between energy retention and agility......but at long range, where targets have limited options to maneuver and often don’t even know they’re being engaged until late in the terminal phase
..........the G-limits are less critical........to say it’s “unsuitable against fighters across its entire envelope” ignores the very successful use against fast, maneuvering fighters in Ukraine.

As for RWR/IR sensors detecting launches......yes, advanced IRSTs could theoretically pick up a lofted Mach 6 missile earlier than Meteor or Gandiva.......but in practice that assumes ideal conditions, proper cueing, and a capable IRST, which few air forces actually field across their fleets today and even then, the missile’s speed compresses reaction time, which is why it’s effective.

Finally, saying it “won’t replace regular AAMs” is a bit of a straw man........nobody suggests the R-37M replaces medium-range missiles like RVV-SD or Meteor outright..........it complements them for specific missions like HVA protection, standoff kills, or counter-AWACS missions. In that role, it remains unmatched in real-world combat-proven reach and kill probability.

In short Gandiva might eventually match or exceed the R-37M on paper, but as of today, the R-37M remains the only operational, combat-tested, truly long-range AAM in service, and its performance envelope remains extremely threatening to modern fighter aircraft period.

R-37M is designed to kill 8G targets. Not too many fighter jets can pull 8G at high-altitude. So it is very effective against them too. It has slayed Ukrainian Mig-29s, Su-27s and even allegedly F-16s. It has made some kills from staggering 200kms+ distance. It has proven to be the most effective and deadly aerial weapon of the Russo-Ukraine war. We should most definitely procure it along with Sky Sting.

Apparently 400km max range is when it is launched using mig31 at ~60k feet.
With jets like su30 series, su35 it's 300km max.

It can reach 400kms when launched by the Flanker if there is an added booster too.

 

[marich01]

It can still force the enemy fighter jets to take evasive action and retreat, and in many cases abandon the assigned mission.
Aka mission kill.

Given the cost involved IAF is not in a position to simply shoot a missile just to send the enemy bogey away without harming it. Once or twice is ok, but it won't be a SOP level feature. As with anything , budget dictates enemy engagement rule. We may disagree but this is how it is.

 

[Hydra]

Ghatak is still 7-10 years away. Su-57 is getting procured as a stop-gap before AMCA fully matures. Then we'll have our own stealth jet with our own stealth UCAV mini-bomber. As of now, no country has MUM-T capability, not even China. Su-57 is developed right from its inception to work with S-70 and it has fully AI enabled systems inbuilt.

People don't realize how advance Su-57 really is. With S-70 it will be able to penetrate the most dense air-defence with aplomb. AMCA + Ghatak combo would be even more effective and stealthy but is 10-15 years away.

As for other CCAs like CATS WARRIORs, they will work with both MKI UPG. & Tejas MK1A/2. So along with imports our domestic aviation industry is also slowly catching up with the best.


R-37M is designed to kill 8G targets. Not too many fighter jets can pull 8G at high-altitude. So it is very effective against them too. It has slayed Ukrainian Mig-29s, Su-27s and even allegedly F-16s. It has made some kills from staggering 200kms+ distance. It has proven to be the most effective and deadly aerial weapon of the Russo-Ukraine war. We should most definitely procure it along with Sky Sting.

It can reach 400kms when launched by the Flanker if there is an added booster too.

R37, yeas we need that. Is it a potent or not or able to shoot down a fighter jet at 150 km+ or not we need that, its definitely a deterrent against enemy and a sure shot kill against non agile target ( provided its having better eccm from target).
People who advocating for Astra MK3 instead of R37 should know this,MK3 is not going induct in near future and R37 will be a good stopgap.

But SU57 purchase, one of the dumbest if it materialize.

S70, IAF should negotiate hard with Russians to integrrate with MKI,an upgraded MKI & S70 combo can do what SU57 & S70 could do.

 

[Hydra]

I have a query, The R37 weighs 510 kg (asper wiki), the Barak 8 is 275 kg,with 100 km range. Is it possibile to integrrate a version of Barak on our fighter jets?

If we van carry 510 kg missile for 200 km range against non agile targets,then nothing wrong in integrating Barak on MKI. Later's engagement range will definitely be more than 100km when launched from aircraft, also unlikr R37 it can engage agile targets easily since og Barak8 designed to take down supersonic cruise missiles.

@vstol Jockey @randomradio

 

[randomradio]

Let's breakdown your claim point by point.

First, about speed...,..yes, the R-37M’s peak speed is achieved during burnout, and of course it slows down at longer ranges like any missile da......But that’s precisely why its initial Mach 6+ and lofted trajectory matters, as it buys it more energy to sustain a no-escape zone at distances where lower-speed designs like Meteor or even Gandiva simply cannot reach with the same probability of kill........saying “speed eventually drops” applies to all missiles, but the R-37M starts out with far more kinetic energy, which is the entire point of its design philosophy.

I gotta disagree. R-37M sacrifices NEZ for range, similar to the Astra Mk1. It uses its high burnout for longer range.

Even with the high speed, the range (280 km) is still in the same class as the PL-15 (250-300 km), which shows the deceleration is very high.

Gandiva's NEZ is likely to be 50% more as its fully powered and sustains a higher speed at endgame. The R-37M being a dual mode design does not help with either NEZ or high terminal speed relative to dual pulse designs. So it's just a big, fat missile that slows down.

Second, the seeker.....while the R-37M does not use an AESA seeker......it is still a very large high-power monopulse radar seeker with a substantial aperture....... larger antenna improves angular resolution and detection range at BVR compared to the smaller seekers found on most medium-range missiles......AESA seekers have their advantages when comes to better resistance to jamming, more flexible beam steering, but they are not magic........At those ranges, the limiting factor is often the radar cross section of the target, not the seeker technology alone.

There's too much of a difference between non-AESA and AESA due to AESA's ability to use super-resolution algorithms. That smaller seeker will be far more capable than a larger MS seeker. For example, Rafale's radar is four times smaller than the MKI's but provides twice as much range against the same target.

Once you get through the physical characteristics of a radar, the software on AESA helps improve things drastically. This difference is even higher on seekers. And even such a seeker was defeated by the IAF.

On range.......your claim that Gandiva’s 340 km objective range is “organic” while the R-37M needs a booster isn’t consistent with what’s publicly known.........R-37M as deployed today has an advertised maximum range around 300 to 320 km without mention of a strap-on booster and Russian documentation indicates longer ranges come from the optimized flight profile, not an external stage........Gandiva’s stated range is just that stated and remains unproven in operational use......Meanwhile the R-37M has actually been used to engage targets at extreme distances in combat.

Sure, one's still in the works, while the other's operational. But its dual mode design is still inferior to the ramjet, so the base tech is insufficient for future use as an AAM.

Regarding G-limits.....it’s true that the R-37M is not designed for knife-fight dogfights and it is not a high-G missile like a short-range IR AAM or even a Meteor........That’s expected for such a large missile....it’s a tradeoff between energy retention and agility......but at long range, where targets have limited options to maneuver and often don’t even know they’re being engaged until late in the terminal phase
..........the G-limits are less critical........to say it’s “unsuitable against fighters across its entire envelope” ignores the very successful use against fast, maneuvering fighters in Ukraine.

That's only against 4th gen targets. Against 5th gen avionics and higher, the aircraft knows there's an R-37M coming at it from long range.

Whether at long range or not, the target will have to maneuver just the same during endgame, that doesn't change.

In Ukraine, the targets were very likely not alert due to lack of sensors.

As for RWR/IR sensors detecting launches......yes, advanced IRSTs could theoretically pick up a lofted Mach 6 missile earlier than Meteor or Gandiva.......but in practice that assumes ideal conditions, proper cueing, and a capable IRST, which few air forces actually field across their fleets today and even then, the missile’s speed compresses reaction time, which is why it’s effective.

But that's the level of threat we are facing. New gen MAWS can also pick up such threats from long distance.

Finally, saying it “won’t replace regular AAMs” is a bit of a straw man........nobody suggests the R-37M replaces medium-range missiles like RVV-SD or Meteor outright..........it complements them for specific missions like HVA protection, standoff kills, or counter-AWACS missions. In that role, it remains unmatched in real-world combat-proven reach and kill probability.

In short Gandiva might eventually match or exceed the R-37M on paper, but as of today, the R-37M remains the only operational, combat-tested, truly long-range AAM in service, and its performance envelope remains extremely threatening to modern fighter aircraft period.

It functions as a stopgap. Getting 200+ in would benefit the IAF, but it won't go beyond that to replace the main inventory of our RVV-AEs and R-27s (2500-3000).

 

[randomradio]

I have a query, The R37 weighs 510 kg (asper wiki), the Barak 8 is 275 kg,with 100 km range. Is it possibile to integrrate a version of Barak on our fighter jets?

If we van carry 510 kg missile for 200 km range against non agile targets,then nothing wrong in integrating Barak on MKI. Later's engagement range will definitely be more than 100km when launched from aircraft, also unlikr R37 it can engage agile targets easily since og Barak8 designed to take down supersonic cruise missiles.

@vstol Jockey @randomradio

Barak 8 is too slow for AAM role.

 

[Indian_Interest]

the Barak 8 is 275 kg,with 100 km range. Is it possibile to integrrate a version of Barak on our fighter jets?

Astra mk1 is 154 kg with 110km range...why do you want barak on fighter jet when you already have something better..?

 

[jmaxwell_]

Su-57 has only just entered limited series production (probably in a bare-bones Mk1 avatar). As you'd pointed out earlier, it may not be ideal for an interim buy (esp given that Russia's production lines are geared to support the war effort atm.)

India would be seen as *weak* to now buy Su-57 when not treated as an equal partner for FGFA (basically Su-57 MKI). Unless Russia addresses the core issues on joint R&D, India should continue to increase efforts into AMCA.

On a related note, there is no immediate need to jump into buying 5th gen fighters from anyone -- First, China themselves are not ready to field J35s and we know how well the equipment they are willing to field performed in Op Sindoor. Second, India has already demonstrated willingness to use missile force, like taking out AWACS with S400, without needing airborne assets to do the job.

Instead, now is the time for incremental advancement in India's superior position with space tech (for ISR) and missile tech (for BVRs, hypersonics, etc.). And leverage the next 5yrs for building up drone force, find right EU partner for 5th gen aircraft, and finish AMCA development (particularly JV with some EU firm for engines), etc.

 

[vstol Jockey]

I have a query, The R37 weighs 510 kg (asper wiki), the Barak 8 is 275 kg,with 100 km range. Is it possibile to integrrate a version of Barak on our fighter jets?

If we van carry 510 kg missile for 200 km range against non agile targets,then nothing wrong in integrating Barak on MKI. Later's engagement range will definitely be more than 100km when launched from aircraft, also unlikr R37 it can engage agile targets easily since og Barak8 designed to take down supersonic cruise missiles.

@vstol Jockey @randomradio

ultra long range A2a missiles need to travel at very high speeds say at around mach-6 to be effective. That requires powered flight all thru till interception. Itis for this reason that R-37 weighs so high.

 

[Hydra]

Astra mk1 is 154 kg with 110km range...why do you want barak on fighter jet when you already have something better..?

What is the range of Astra at sea level? Its around 20-30 i guess.

 

[South block]

I gotta disagree. R-37M sacrifices NEZ for range, similar to the Astra Mk1. It uses its high burnout for longer range.

yes, the R-37M sacrifices some NEZ at closer ranges to maximize reach, but that’s by design......it’s a very long-range interceptor missile, not a medium-range dogfight missile……Comparing its NEZ directly to Gandiva or Meteor ignores the fact that R-37M is optimized to kill targets that thought they were safe, far outside Meteor-class envelopes……at 200–300 km, the idea isn’t to force high-G evasive maneuvers but to deny the airspace and pick off support assets and distracted fighters……that mission profile remains valid

Even with the high speed, the range (280 km) is still in the same class as the PL-15 (250-300 km), which shows the deceleration is very high.

Gandiva's NEZ is likely to be 50% more as its fully powered and sustains a higher speed at endgame. The R-37M being a dual mode design does not help with either NEZ or high terminal speed relative to dual pulse designs. So it's just a big, fat missile that slows down

your own example proves the point......PL-15 is estimated at 250–300 km, while R-37M achieves comparable or better reach despite being operational and heavier……all long-range missiles shed speed, but the R-37M starts with much higher Mach and altitude, and retains sufficient energy to be lethal at distances that defeat PL-15-class and Meteor-class designs……so “just a big fat missile that slows down” is an oversimplification of its combat-proven effectiveness.

It’s true that ramjet-powered missiles have an advantage in sustaining thrust during the endgame, which can improve NEZ within certain ranges........but this overlooks one of the R-37M’s most critical design advantages.........its lofted flight profile.........By climbing to high altitude early and staying there longer, the R-37M minimizes drag and retains much more of its initial kinetic energy compared to a missile flying a flatter trajectory through denser air like Gandiva & Meteor........When it finally descends steeply onto the target in the terminal phase, it’s still traveling at very high speed with significant energy available for maneuvering........lofted trajectory not only extends its overall range but also improves its terminal kinematics, reducing the reaction time available to the target and maintaining a credible no-escape zone even at very long distances.........So while Gandiva’s fully powered motor may offer certain benefits in specific scenarios, dismissing the R-37M as simply “a big, fat missile that slows down” ignores how its high burnout speed, lofted trajectory, and optimized flight profile allow it to remain highly effective and lethal at extended ranges.

There's too much of a difference between non-AESA and AESA due to AESA's ability to use super-resolution algorithms. That smaller seeker will be far more capable than a larger MS seeker. For example, Rafale's radar is four times smaller than the MKI's but provides twice as much range against the same target.

Once you get through the physical characteristics of a radar, the software on AESA helps improve things drastically. This difference is even higher on seekers. And even such a seeker was defeated by the IAF.

you’re right that AESA brings advantages in flexibility and resistance to ECM through beamforming and super-resolution algorithms……but seeker aperture size and power output still matter a great deal at long ranges……a large monopulse radar seeker is not magically “obsolete” just because it’s not AESA, especially since at 200+ km, the target’s RCS is the limiting factor, not the seeker resolution alone……software helps, but it doesn’t fully compensate for physics, antenna size, and output power.

Your Rafale vs. MKI analogy isn’t fully appropriate here……fighter radars are fundamentally constrained by nose size and weight......seekers face a different set of constraints……large seekers remain valuable for long-range BVR missiles where size and power can be maximized without pilot workload or airframe limits.

That's only against 4th gen targets. Against 5th gen avionics and higher, the aircraft knows there's an R-37M coming at it from long range.

Whether at long range or not, the target will have to maneuver just the same during endgame, that doesn't change.

In Ukraine, the targets were very likely not alert due to lack of sensors.

True that stealth and advanced sensors improve survivability against long-range shots……but that’s true of any missile, including Gandiva or Meteor……the fact remains, the R-37M compresses the target’s reaction window and forces a defensive posture even at 200+ km……MAWS and IRST can detect lofted missiles in ideal conditions, but again few air forces field those at scale, and even fewer train to effectively counter Mach 6 threats coming in from altitude.

Ukrainian jets lacked the most modern MAWS or IRST, but that doesn’t change the fact that the R-37M successfully achieved kills at extreme ranges in combat something no other AAM has done yet……it’s operational, and it works against 4th-gen targets, which still make up the bulk of global inventories including Pakistan.

It functions as a stopgap. Getting 200+ in would benefit the IAF, but it won't go beyond that to replace the main inventory of our RVV-AEs and R-27s (2500-3000).

nobody argues R-37M is a wholesale replacement for RVV-AE or R-27……it is a specialized long-range standoff weapon designed to complement, not replace, medium-range AAMs……fielding a few hundred for HVA protection and standoff deterrence is the point, and in that role, it’s unmatched.

In short……Gandiva and ramjet designs may evolve and prove superior in the future, but today the R-37M remains the only fielded, combat-tested ultra-long-range AAM capable of reliably threatening even maneuvering fighters well beyond the reach of other designs……and that is why it remains relevant and threatening even against advanced opponents.

 

[babablacksheep]

What is the range of Astra at sea level? Its around 20-30 i guess.

Barak 8 was designed to deal with "incoming" threats to protect assests.

Not as an air to air missile, which is also designed to chase down and destroy the targets.
For this reason, Barak 8 is said to have max speed between just mach 2-3.

 

[randomradio]

yes, the R-37M sacrifices some NEZ at closer ranges to maximize reach, but that’s by design......it’s a very long-range interceptor missile, not a medium-range dogfight missile……Comparing its NEZ directly to Gandiva or Meteor ignores the fact that R-37M is optimized to kill targets that thought they were safe, far outside Meteor-class envelopes……at 200–300 km, the idea isn’t to force high-G evasive maneuvers but to deny the airspace and pick off support assets and distracted fighters……that mission profile remains valid

R-37M is a dual mode missile, even if it's presumed to have high range, it's not going to be very effective at that range.

For example, at max range, the AIM-120C only does mach 2.2 and has significantly lower G performance. Ramjet retains greater effectiveness at max range due to sustained power.

your own example proves the point......PL-15 is estimated at 250–300 km, while R-37M achieves comparable or better reach despite being operational and heavier……all long-range missiles shed speed, but the R-37M starts with much higher Mach and altitude, and retains sufficient energy to be lethal at distances that defeat PL-15-class and Meteor-class designs……so “just a big fat missile that slows down” is an oversimplification of its combat-proven effectiveness.

It's the opposite. PL-15 is still going to be more effective at extreme ranges than R-37M due to the second pulse. You get range out of the R-37M, but not the kill performance necessary at that range.

It’s true that ramjet-powered missiles have an advantage in sustaining thrust during the endgame, which can improve NEZ within certain ranges........but this overlooks one of the R-37M’s most critical design advantages.........its lofted flight profile.........By climbing to high altitude early and staying there longer, the R-37M minimizes drag and retains much more of its initial kinetic energy compared to a missile flying a flatter trajectory through denser air like Gandiva & Meteor........When it finally descends steeply onto the target in the terminal phase, it’s still traveling at very high speed with significant energy available for maneuvering........lofted trajectory not only extends its overall range but also improves its terminal kinematics, reducing the reaction time available to the target and maintaining a credible no-escape zone even at very long distances.........So while Gandiva’s fully powered motor may offer certain benefits in specific scenarios, dismissing the R-37M as simply “a big, fat missile that slows down” ignores how its high burnout speed, lofted trajectory, and optimized flight profile allow it to remain highly effective and lethal at extended ranges.

All missiles get their best operational ranges using lofted profile, even Meteor and Gandiva.

And all missiles, even R-37M, can use direct fire trajectories apart from lofted.

In fact, R-37M's higher burnout speed makes it more effective at shorter ranges. At mach 5-6, it can sustain that speed up to 100 km. Its NEZ is estimated to be 50-70 km against fighters and up to 100 km against AWACS, similar to Meteor and PL-15, whereas Gandiva's is at 80-120 km against fighters depending on the speed used. R-37M's NEZ is effectively half that of the Gandiva's even if it sustains a higher speed at 120 km.

you’re right that AESA brings advantages in flexibility and resistance to ECM through beamforming and super-resolution algorithms……but seeker aperture size and power output still matter a great deal at long ranges……a large monopulse radar seeker is not magically “obsolete” just because it’s not AESA, especially since at 200+ km, the target’s RCS is the limiting factor, not the seeker resolution alone……software helps, but it doesn’t fully compensate for physics, antenna size, and output power.

Your Rafale vs. MKI analogy isn’t fully appropriate here……fighter radars are fundamentally constrained by nose size and weight......seekers face a different set of constraints……large seekers remain valuable for long-range BVR missiles where size and power can be maximized without pilot workload or airframe limits.

The limitations are the same, with the only exception being seekers are one-time use.

Without an AESA seeker, it's not going to be effective against stealth jets or advanced EW or even multiple targets. It won't be able to tell a CCA apart from a fighter for example. Or choose a more advanced fighter in the fleet that was not discovered by the radar.

The difference is quite stark. MS seeker cannot tell apart a decoy from a fighter, whereas AESA can not only identify the type of target, but can also aim for specific areas of the target, like the cockpit.

Whatever the case, it's necessary now to make sure we choose an R-37M with an AESA seeker.

Even with AESA seeker, we could defeat the PL-15, which means AESA is now the bare minimum.

True that stealth and advanced sensors improve survivability against long-range shots……but that’s true of any missile, including Gandiva or Meteor……the fact remains, the R-37M compresses the target’s reaction window and forces a defensive posture even at 200+ km……MAWS and IRST can detect lofted missiles in ideal conditions, but again few air forces field those at scale, and even fewer train to effectively counter Mach 6 threats coming in from altitude.

Ukrainian jets lacked the most modern MAWS or IRST, but that doesn’t change the fact that the R-37M successfully achieved kills at extreme ranges in combat something no other AAM has done yet……it’s operational, and it works against 4th-gen targets, which still make up the bulk of global inventories including Pakistan.

We cannot make purchases going by what exists today. We need to deal with 1000-1500 stealth jets PLAAF plans to operate over the next 10 years.

Next gen jets will be embedded within 4th gen jets. That's why the missile will be expected to switch between targets.

nobody argues R-37M is a wholesale replacement for RVV-AE or R-27……it is a specialized long-range standoff weapon designed to complement, not replace, medium-range AAMs……fielding a few hundred for HVA protection and standoff deterrence is the point, and in that role, it’s unmatched.

In short……Gandiva and ramjet designs may evolve and prove superior in the future, but today the R-37M remains the only fielded, combat-tested ultra-long-range AAM capable of reliably threatening even maneuvering fighters well beyond the reach of other designs……and that is why it remains relevant and threatening even against advanced opponents.

Sure. But from the IAF's perspective, buying and/or upgrading and then integrating the R-37M on MKI and the time it will take to get Gandiva working could be very similar or even the same.

The point is it's not going to be better than Gandiva even though it's got an impressive burnout speed. And while mach 6 gives it an impressive time to target at ranges less than 150 km, especially in direct fire mode at ranges below 100 km, it's going to get detected and evaded much more easily by a sufficiently advanced jet. So yeah, maybe it will do well against the JF-17, but that's not going to help us win wars. It presents a significantly lower threat than the PL-15 and new more advanced Chinese missiles are on their way, or even Russia's new R-77M, which has a higher NEZ than R-37M and comes with AESA.