May I ask for the source? Because the ranges I am seeing are 450 KM everywhere.
What Erieye lacks is full 360 degree coverage, its range in boardside is pretty good.
Air Engagement of Operation Sindoor : Analysis
- Thread starter Parthu
- Start date
What Erieye lacks is full 360 degree coverage, its range in boardside is pretty good.
350 is in an environment with heavy EW, low altitude and lots of ground clutter. I doubt that applies to Punjab. That part of punjab is relatively flat, optimal height for Erieye is 20,000 feet and Saab 2000 can fly upto 30000 feets. I think Saab 2000 gives Erieye its optimal range, especially in absence of Indian EW attacks. Our planes have self-defense jammers but we lack a dedicated EW platform.
I believe, we need to do few things... One is to get even longer range SAM to cover almost entire width of Pakistan. Another is to supply Afghanistan with some kind of SAM systems. Basically sandwhich PAF. So if they deploy their AWACS and EW platforms near afghanistan border, they run a risk of being shot down by Afghan air defences.
Just found on Grok
"the Swedish-derived data-link on Erieye is integrated with Chinese systems on the J-10C. However, specific technical details of the data-link protocol remain classified."
Now you are stretching the straw. In a conflict environment its always EW heavy. Its not referring to flying EW platform. Both sides have a lot of land based systems, there were continues gps jamming reported. Its a confusing environment overall for any radar to work at its max "instrumentation" range.
These are basic facts about any radar not just Erieye.
We need to order S-500/550, drdo awacs mk3, order more phalcons. Also need to buy E-3 sentry or the E-7 wedgetail
Sell drdo Vshorads and SAMs to the Taliban.
What you're saying is logical. But why would the PAF have retired their ZDK-03 if the comms problem between Erieye and Chinese origin jets hadn't been solved?
SAAB likely collaborated with the Chinese to integrate their datalink protocols into Erieye. They go back a long way. SAAB has sold Stirling AIP for Chinese subs and may have even shared/consulted on 'Balance Beam' radar tech used by KJ-200/500.
Last edited:
S-400 at Adampur Airbase which Porkee claimed to have destroyed is on full display 
The 450km is not the true range that is the disclose number they give. US claims Aim-120D 160km range but it somehow broke the Pheonix missile longest range kill (drone) record of 125 miles. Also in Ukraine a PAC 2 missile managed to kill a Russian AWACS at ranges that exceed its 160km range and PAC-2 missile wasn't guided by ground radar which means US AWACS was involved that must have been hundreds of miles from its target.
Heavy use of ECM/EW will negate that range advantage though. 450kms detection could be halfed with proper EW, kind of which India has in plenty.
Thread on 9-10 action , although I guess this thread is for solely air to air engagement. Point is the 3 services goaded them into reaction after terror camps strike then took punitive action. Only one side in this who is willing to sacrifice assets to get the job done. That is what true professional military does. No nonsense , not bothered with narrative. Absolute top performance that set benchmark and we are already seeing the effect, Pak is back to thrifty jihadi intruder mode instead of any mil level action.
The IndianAirForce during it's punitive campaign running through the night of the 9th & daytime on 10th destroyed or disabled multiple strategic items that will hurt/hamper the PakistanAirForce for quite some time to come . Details below .
The IndianAirForce during it's punitive campaign running through the night of the 9th & daytime on 10th destroyed or disabled multiple strategic items that will hurt/hamper the PakistanAirForce for quite some time to come . Details below .
This is not US, but a company depended only on export. There is no reason to downplay the range. And there are basic physical limitations of the Saab 3000 platform. Its not full fledged AWACS like Sentry or Phalcon.
All of the above are "claims" not verified, except for the AIM-120D kill, which occurred in an optimal scenario.
They themselves are saying that a 350km "detection" range means tracking will be less than 250km.
In my opinion, India wanted to catch a PAF pilot alive. In that process, they lured the PAF aircrafts and shot a two or three down, but the impact of SAM was so lethal that the pilots died. We could see one video where Akash air defence is taking out a PAF aircrats, and it's falling with huge flames.
It's not exactly correct. Brahmos NG's initial 300 km limit was due to MTCR restrictions, that will most likely have been changed by now. We need it to do 500-600 km. Original Brahmos came with MTCR restrictions too, so range extensions have been quite modest. The 800 km version if a modernized variant of Oniks, so we can use that now. And there's a 1500 km version in the works too.
So we need Brahmos at 600-800 km and ALBMs at the same range 'cause many targets are at those ranges. And naturally we need missiles of all types with a range of 1500 km 'cause of targets in depth, like Chengdu, Chongqing, their ICBM silos etc.
Basically our missile designs are based on the targets we face.
SIPRI claims we have 150 Meteors.
NG export version will be 300km with 200kg warhead and NG domestic version will be a little more than 300km and 300kg warhead for us imo.
I think there's room for some level of equivalence.
Brahmos has a 4T motor while NG will have a 2T one. And the volume difference is also twice as much. Only the warhead will be big, but the electronics will be much smaller, and there should be potential for more fuel due to it being a much more modern design. So we could see it end up with a higher fuel fraction than the original Brahmos. Better fuel, guidance, fuel control etc can further add range.
So you will continue hearing news about it being 290 km, but once the programs nears its end the actual achieved range will be revealed. It will be way more than 300 km. For tactical relevance, we need 600 km at the minimum. Missiles like this do not travel straight to their targets but use off-path waypoints in order to complicate tracking, that's how they manage to stay hidden until the final moment.
Kinda like this:
ISR will help figure out the best pathing with the least potential for intercept instead of just flying that 300 km distance. The drawback of powerful radars is they primarily function within a particular sector while turning off the other sectors. Brahmos tries and gets behind the radar's LoS. Non-nuclear ships face the same problem, they cannot constantly provide full power to all 4 arrays, hence the need to work in pairs.
Otoh, BMs fly straight towards their targets using high speed by taking the shortest distance. That's why BMs and CMs are not comparable when it comes to range.