Astra Series Air to Air Missiles

randomradio said:
Both Astra Mk3 and Sky Sting will exceed the PL-16.
Click to expand...
PL-16 is supposed to be using variable thrust rocket motor.

Its basic SFDR without ramjet intake, obv oxidiser still need to be carried but they dont have to have bulky air intake which increase drag and mass.

Thats why Pl-16 max range is >300km with 300km as effective against tankers, awacs.

And 340km of Astra mk3 is from 20km altitude, most fighter wo go to that point, definitely not in an active a2a where going cold requires to go down.

We don't know the range of 300+km of PL-16 at what altitude.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Do anyone here know that are we working on dual seeker for astra mk2/3 ?

With stealth aircraft and also stealthy UCAV, a RF+IIR seeker will be great.

And IMO, we should restart Astra-IR program, UCAV are specially designed for air to ground, hence an Astra-IR based SAM can be useful against them.

And obviously we can use them on fighter jet too.

There is large use case, i guess it worth the extra RnD cost.
 
PhotonVish said:
Do anyone here know that are we working on dual seeker for astra mk2/3 ?

With stealth aircraft and also stealthy UCAV, a RF+IIR seeker will be great.

And IMO, we should restart Astra-IR program, UCAV are specially designed for air to ground, hence an Astra-IR based SAM can be useful against them.

And obviously we can use them on fighter jet too.

There is large use case, i guess it worth the extra RnD cost.
Click to expand...
What I know is that the Astra-IR and Astra-RF are being developed as 2 different projects.
 
PhotonVish said:
Off topic but why astra missile fixed fins are so huge ??

Isn't bigger fins means more drag and also looses alot of energy during any change in direction (direction or altitude)
Click to expand...
Fixed mid-body strakes are to generate lift and enhance "off-the-rail" plus endgame kinematics. Even with such large strakes, Astra's aerodynamics are superlative as you have seen with its speed and range parameters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Photon Vish
Gautam said:
The VL-SRSAM is taking a troubling amount of time to mature. The VLS has gone through 2 major modifications already.

Then there is the range enhancement of the Astra Mk-1. The Mk-1's max range has increased from 110 km to 160 km & the IAF will order the extended range version. So, the base variant on which the VL-SRSAM is based will be discontinued.

It is likely the new VL-SRSAM will be based on this extended range Astra Mk-1. Doesn't make sense to keep production open for just the Navy.

Until this mess is sorted out the Kamorta class has to rely on its escort ships for AD.
Click to expand...
Is it true that the range enhancement of the astra missile might have relation to the tech discovered in the Pl-15 during operation sindoor against pakistan?
 
Barcid said:
Export is export, its important to keep production line active. IA and IAF anyways aren't going to order any more brahmos till brahmos ng comes online in 2030.

Other important thing, finally we are developing capacity to respond to China arming Pakistan, something that was missing till now.
Click to expand...
Yup, exporting export grade, second class indian weapon to them is fine.

Like Astra mk1, Rudram 1, Akash-NG(we will have kusha ), QR-SAM, BrahMos, NASM-MR.

just downgrade them software wise and use less.

Anyways, Indonesia is far better than Malayasia(which HAL trying to sell Tejas) which has some islamist govt.
 
batman said:
Is it true that the range enhancement of the astra missile might have relation to the tech discovered in the Pl-15 during operation sindoor against pakistan?
Click to expand...
Doubtful.

HEMRL has been working on boron infused HTPB & stabilizing/de-sensitizing CL-20 based rocket fuel for many years. They have had some success with CL-20 based propellant recently. DRDO has moved to commercial production of CL-20 based propellant with Solar Industries/PEL. The range enhancement is probably a by-product of this research work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RISING SUN, Gosu, Aniruddha and 4 others
I'd also add high G manoeuvrability and high AoA without stalling

Body Lift is another method
'The ASRAAM instead of relying entirely on traditional large wings, it is designed with a very clean, low-drag body that relies heavily on body lift—along with tail controls—to achieve its exceptional maneuverability (up to 50 g)'
 
Last edited:
Optimist said:
I'd also add high G manoeuvrability and high AoA without stalling

Body Lift is another method
'The ASRAAM instead of relying entirely on traditional large wings, it is designed with a very clean, low-drag body that relies heavily on body lift—along with tail controls—to achieve its exceptional maneuverability (up to 50 g)'
Click to expand...
Isn't bigger fins means more drag hence much higher energy bleed during any manures ?

And how (in case of ASRAAM) , a cylinder body is able to generate enough lift ?

And do you know the advantage and disadvantage of fins like in Astra, Mica(or SM 3/6), Aim 120 and no fins llke Aim 260.

Like all 3 have very different fins, which is better in which case ?

And do you think/know that , Aim 260 will be menurable enough to take on fighter jet with target >200km ?

And how you see Astra Mk3, Aim 260 and PL-16 ? Like which one will be better at long distances against fighter jet ?

And is the air intake of Astra Mk3 or meteor has any nagative effect except for extra weight ? Like reduced menurabality ? Or reduced effect at less altitude ?

(I know very little about air to air missiles, that's why i asked, and if you have any good materials/videos on BVR A2A missiles and combat that i would love to read that)
 
Photon Vish said:
Isn't bigger fins means more drag hence much higher energy bleed during any manures ?

And how (in case of ASRAAM) , a cylinder body is able to generate enough lift ?

And do you know the advantage and disadvantage of fins like in Astra, Mica(or SM 3/6), Aim 120 and no fins llke Aim 260.

Like all 3 have very different fins, which is better in which case ?

And do you think/know that , Aim 260 will be menurable enough to take on fighter jet with target >200km ?

And how you see Astra Mk3, Aim 260 and PL-16 ? Like which one will be better at long distances against fighter jet ?

And is the air intake of Astra Mk3 or meteor has any nagative effect except for extra weight ? Like reduced menurabality ? Or reduced effect at less altitude ?

(I know very little about air to air missiles, that's why i asked, and if you have any good materials/videos on BVR A2A missiles and combat that i would love to read that)
Click to expand...
This is the answer i got from gemini for Astra Mk3 vs Aim 260 vs PL-16.

4. AIM-260 Maneuverability at >200km
At ranges exceeding 200 km, a heavily finned missile would arrive practically coasting, lacking the airflow over its wings to turn hard. The AIM-260, because it is essentially a low-drag dart, retains its kinetic energy. It arrives at the 200km mark flying significantly faster. At those extreme ranges, speed equals aerodynamic authority; because it is moving so fast during the end-game, its tail fins can still aggressively pitch the missile body to intercept a maneuvering target.

5. Astra Mk3 vs. AIM-260 vs. PL-16 at Long Distances

Astra Mk3 (and Meteor): These use Solid Fuel Ducted Ramjets (SFDR). Their biggest advantage is that the engine can be throttled and continues to burn fuel all the way to the target. This gives them exceptional "end-game" energy because they are actively accelerating when they reach the enemy fighter.

AIM-260 & PL-16: These likely use advanced, multi-pulse solid rocket motors rather than ramjets (primarily to keep them compact for internal stealth bays). A rocket motor eventually burns out, and the missile coasts the rest of the way.
The Verdict: Purely in terms of kinematics and the "no-escape zone" at extreme ranges, an active ramjet like the Astra Mk3 holds a theoretical edge because it doesn't run out of breath. However, the AIM-260 and PL-16 counter this with highly refined low-drag profiles and advanced seekers.

6. The Downside of Ramjet Air Intakes
While SFDR technology offers incredible range, strapping air intakes to a missile does come with penalties:
Weight & Drag: The scoops and internal air ducts add parasitic drag and structural weight compared to a clean, finless rocket tube.

Maneuverability Limits: Ramjets require a constant flow of supersonic air to keep the engine lit. If the missile pulls too high an Angle of Attack (AoA) or rolls violently, the missile's own body can block the airflow to the intakes (called blanking), which can stall the engine. Therefore, ramjet missiles often have to fly slightly less aggressive trajectories to keep their engines breathing.

Altitude Constraints: Ramjets are optimized for thin, high-altitude air. At lower altitudes (e.g., 8 km or below), the air is dense, causing massive friction and drag, which severely reduces the missile's range. For example, Astra Mk3's estimated range drops from ~340 km at 20 km altitude down to ~190 km at 8 km altitude.

So should DRDO also work on a tail fins only A2A missile ? Specially against chinease AWACS ? @Optimist

FYI, USA is working one 1000 miles(1600km) range BVR missile.
 
Gautam said:
Doubtful.

HEMRL has been working on boron infused HTPB & stabilizing/de-sensitizing CL-20 based rocket fuel for many years. They have had some success with CL-20 based propellant recently. DRDO has moved to commercial production of CL-20 based propellant with Solar Industries/PEL. The range enhancement is probably a by-product of this research work.
Click to expand...

I remember this video from months back and found it quite interesting to watch although I personally can't confirm the contents in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom