700 or 800kms targeting is literally impossible without AMTI/T Sat-Guidance. So 400kms R-37M, guided by MKI's own radar or by S-400 radar or AWACS radar is good enough to nullify PL-17s range advantage.
Sukhoi Su-30MKI
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
C-MAC provides a clue on what the future fiber optic backbone for both Typhoon and Rafale will look like.
www.electronicspecifier.com
C-MAC MicroTechnology has announced it has reached an agreement with Ultra Communications of San Diego, CA to co-develop state-of-the-art 10Gb/s optical transmit and receive modules for military and space applications.
C-MAC’s transceiver will initially provide four transmit and four receive optical channels each running at 2.5Gb/s using Ultra Communications patented optical core.
C-MAC designed the 20 Mbps optic fiber tranceiver for the Typhoon. So the next upgrade will push that link up to 10 Gbps. There's no guarantee all 10 Gbps will be used, but that's the max potential. 10 Gbps is the next standard after all.
And on P2P systems, we will see a 10 Gbps line between the radar and computer, pushing it way past the F-35.
We can say even the Rafale F5 could get speeds up to 10 Gbps, although Thales or some company associated with Thales will do the job here.
The F-35 is also designed to get continuous upgrades, so the Block 4 is likely to climb up to 10 Gbps too at some point over the next few years. It may have already received the upgrade courtesy of the APG-85, the new EODAS, and new EW sensors.
C-MAC MicroTechnology announces development of High Speed Optical Transceiver | Electronic Specifier
C-MAC MicroTechnology announces development of High Speed Optical Transceiver News from Electronic Specifier. Click to read more about C-MAC MicroTechnology announces development of High Speed Optical Transceiver.
www.electronicspecifier.com
C-MAC’s transceiver will initially provide four transmit and four receive optical channels each running at 2.5Gb/s using Ultra Communications patented optical core.
C-MAC designed the 20 Mbps optic fiber tranceiver for the Typhoon. So the next upgrade will push that link up to 10 Gbps. There's no guarantee all 10 Gbps will be used, but that's the max potential. 10 Gbps is the next standard after all.
And on P2P systems, we will see a 10 Gbps line between the radar and computer, pushing it way past the F-35.
We can say even the Rafale F5 could get speeds up to 10 Gbps, although Thales or some company associated with Thales will do the job here.
The F-35 is also designed to get continuous upgrades, so the Block 4 is likely to climb up to 10 Gbps too at some point over the next few years. It may have already received the upgrade courtesy of the APG-85, the new EODAS, and new EW sensors.
That's the max range of the missiles.
Virupaksha alone will do the job. It will have a 600 km range against fighters, so AWACS will easily be tracked at max range. J-20 and J-36 will carry superior radars. These aircraft can track AWACS from radar horizon. At 12 km altitude, that's 900 km.
Even J-10C and LCA Mk2 would track AWACS at 600 km.
Anyway, the PL-15 will comfortably kill its target at 500-600 km, exceeding the potential of the R-37M. We don't have to worry as much because Pakistan lacks depth and by the time China becomes a threat, Brahmos-M will do even better 'cause of powered flight. We can even make a 6 m x 0.35 m version of Astra at that point, dual pulse or ramjet.
Again, these types of arguments where they pull performance figures out of their arses 
started again.
started again.
Again, these types of arguments where they pull performance figures out of their arses
Lol. So 6mx0.3m "dual-pulse" missile has a volume of 34 m3 versus the 4mx0.38m "boost-sustain" missile has 19 m3.
So 19 m3 does 400 km and 34 m3 with compact electronics and superior motor also does 400 km? Wah bhai.
Astra Mk2 is just 10-15% bigger than Astra Mk1 and sees a range increase of over 70% just 'cause of a more advanced motor. And here we have a missile that practically doubles the R-37's volume.
This is why critical thinking skills are necessary.
Please share source for the claims.
The pl-17 is rated to be 500 km at best optimistically in terms of range(realistically 300-400 km). The aim174B is claimed to have 400+km range at its best(realistically 240+km by the USAF themselves)
Both(aim260,aim174) missiles are designed to counter the extreme-range air-to-air missiles being fielded or under-development by the United States' peer and near-peer potential adversaries, such as the Russian Vympel R-37M or the Chinese PL-21.
The r-37m is infact the fastest among the three with 400km range effective kills at 200+km in Ukraine.
The r-37m flies at mach 6
The pl-17 flies at mach 4
The aim-174B flies at mach 3.5
Even if we assume these countries are under selling these missiles they still have at best 600km effectiveness. And no AEWCs can guide at that distance.
out of his dreams lmao, the astra mk3 is rated 340km at a 20km altitude(very high altitude, like mig 31 level). even if we assume a 30% range boost(absurd to the say the least) it would be around 450 kms. Nowhere near the fking 600kms stated lmao. He's waffling like he always does.Again, these types of arguments where they pull performance figures out of their arses
Netra MK1 with giant 6 meter brick of antenna operating in S-band track an aircraft of similar size at ~500km, and this is when it diverts all cooling to a single array. How do you actually believe that smaller and less powerful radars operating in X-band would pull such range figures out of thin air?
3823 and 3825 has the answers you are looking for.
PL-17 does mach 6.
SM-6 B1A does mach 3.5 using the first booster. AIM-174B removes the SM-6's booster and uses the Mk-104's boost-sustain motor. That's how weight drops from 1500 kg to 800+ kg. The motor can be upgraded in the AAM version, which will be the case.
Overall, even at 700-800 km, I'm underestimating the range of these missiles. It's about time for the next gen 1000-1500 km missiles to start showing up for testing. Horizon is the current limit.
R-37M too is limited by technology like Astra Mk1. If they decide to upgrade it with a dual pulse motor and AESA seeker, it will easily get 600-800 km. Plus R-37M is limited by the need for internal carriage within Su-57, so they stayed with the same dimensions. If they increase its length by even 10%, they will easily get 50%+ boost in range if they want to compete with PL-17.
First of all your calculation itself wrong,lmao.
Vympel R-37M
L:4.06m
D: 0.38m
Vol: 0.4605 m3
PL-17
L: 6m
D:0.3m
Vol: 0.4241 m3
*critical thinking * lmao
Netra Mk1A has 8.2mx0.9m array. Virupaksha is 0.87x0.92m.
X band has a wavelength of 3 cm versus Netra Mk1A's S band wavelength of 12 cm.
It means for Netra to match the performance of Virupaksha, it needs to be 4 times bigger, like ~4x4m. Essentially, all these 4x4m shipboard S band radars are as good as 1x1m X band radars.
Since Netra is a rectangle, it is twice as big horizontally in relation to wavelength, which means it has superior vertical orientation, which means it can discriminate targets by angle, ie, direction. But it's absolutely terrible at telling the altitude of the target because its smaller side is just 0.9m instead of 4m.
Plus S band is better at volume scan and finding angle and bearing compared to X band, whereas X band is better at range, fire control, identification etc. Since Virupaksha is symmetrical, it is a balanced design. Essentially Netra acts as a complement to MKI. It tells the MKI how far and from which direction it can find the enemy, and MKI then goes looking for it.
While Netra is outranged by Virupaksha, it is still important because it outranges RBE2 AESA and Uttam series.
Plus, unlike L and VHF, S band can provide fire control. So it's an advantage when fighters have smaller radars.
Netra can also cue ultra long range missiles to target AWACS, transports etc.
Netra has other uses too which fighters cannot perform at the moment, like carrying more antennas and communicating with more number of allies, carrying more processing, more storage etc. There's crew and number of consoles for EW and battlespace management as well. All sorts of non-radar advantages.
PL-17 is long and aerodynamically clean(devoid of mid-body strakes), so 500kms+ isn't out of realms, IMO. The Americans have reacted to J-16 + PL-17 combo with their own F/A-18E/F + AIM-174B combo. Both missiles are touted to have 400-500kms range. I think R-37M most definitely counters both of the aforenentioned VLRAAMs.
PS: In the Astra missiles thread, I proposed turning our NGARM as VLRAAM. It already has a dual-pulse motor and very similar aerodynamic configuration as Astra BVR. Just upgrade the propellant with more denser energy rich one and dial the seeker accordingly and voila we'll have our own VLRAAM with around 500kms range. DRDO are you listening?
PS: In the Astra missiles thread, I proposed turning our NGARM as VLRAAM. It already has a dual-pulse motor and very similar aerodynamic configuration as Astra BVR. Just upgrade the propellant with more denser energy rich one and dial the seeker accordingly and voila we'll have our own VLRAAM with around 500kms range. DRDO are you listening?
Post in thread 'Astra Series Air to Air Missiles' Astra Series Air to Air Missiles
Okay, my bad. But you're wrong too.
It's 9.5 m3 for R-37M and 17 m3 for PL-17.
I just calculated for diameter instead of radius, simple divide by 2. I have no idea what you calculated.
But nothing changed. Even with incorrect radius, my point remains. There's still an 80% difference in volume, the same as the previous calculation.
At 80% difference and superior motor tech and smaller electronics, the difference will still be way more than 2x. That's why I said I'm underestimating the real range of the PL-17.
Yeah no again.
Ask any person who knows basic 10th standard math or even Google, my volume calculation is RIGHT.
For example.
Q: a cylinder with 6m length and 0.3m diameters its volume ?
Google : The volume of the cylinder is approximately \(0.4241 \text{ m}^3\).
Volume calculation for cylinders.
V = pi (r^2) h.
If we take h=6m
r=0.15m2
Pi = 3.14
And we know basic calculatio, we will get ~ 0.4240 m3 volume.
That's why critical thinking is important
Bro you got the physics backwards.
S and X band radars of similar size and power, the S-band would have greater range. X-band attenuation by the atmosphere is quite high.
Also, any 'gain' advantage an X-band radar would normally have would be nullified because of the much larger size of the S-band array of Netra. (This is where narrow beamwidth would come into play)
The S-band antenna just needs to be larger to achieve the same RESOLUTION as an X-band array.
You are repeating what I said using the opposite words.
The X band is a 3cm wave, S band is 12 cm. To achieve the same beamwidth, you need an S band array that's 4 times the size of the X band.
That's why a 4x4m S band array performs the same as a 1x1m X band.
Beamwidth = k x wavelength / side of square
At k= 50,
For 4x4 S band, you get 1.5 degrees.
For 1x1 X band, you get 1.5 degrees.
So this proves that you need an S band radar 4x the size of X band to have the same features.
For 8x1 S band, you get 0.86 deg and 6.9 deg. The formula here is (180xwavelength)/(3.14xd). d=length or breadth.
So you get superior bearing and inferior altitude on AWACS compared to fighter.
For L band, Netra Mk1, same numbers, you get 1.61 deg and 12.9 deg at 1.5 GHz. Which is double that of S band. To get the same performance as Netra Mk1A, Netra Mk2 needs to be 16x2m because the wavelength difference is 2x.
It's a simple rule of thumb. X band to S band is 4x difference. S band to L band is 2x. L band to X band is 8x. You need an 8x8m L band array to match 1x1m X band.
As for gain, Virupaksha has significantly higher gain. It has 2500 TRMs vs Netra Mk1A's 1280. We don't know the gain of each TRM, but we can assume taper efficiency is superior on Virupaksha due to it beign X band. So double TRM, higher taper efficiency, it's obvious the radar gain is significantly superior, by at least 2 times.