Detection range of active radar homing

‘ Active homing range will be nearly 16 miles ‘ for Astra.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?113735-missile-flight-theory

Export grade seeker by Agat. Seekers for domestic consumption should have a higher range.

download to your computer, then upload

Wanted to link an image, impossible sorry.

An antenna so small as on a seeker can not physically receive long waves,
the V is the possible angles of return/deflection, which may at longer ranges count for km, i.e the signal does not return in strength,
but is deflected to a large degree.
But at closer ranges, -effective missile ranges, the fighter won’t be invisible

i am afraid i don’t follow you. could you rephrase your thoughts? wave length choice is dictated by size of what? parts on the plane? or the seeker in the missile?

do you want to say that majority of performance of ARH missiles won’t come from return of tiny radar returns from tiny features on the plane (otherwise invisible to longer wavelengths) but from direct radar returns of large surfaces?

I think the wave length chosen is dictated by size alone, and if this V represent radar deflection in degrees,
then it is clear that at short ranges, the distance between the top pillars (misdirection) is small, too small,
but the longer the length, (range) the more misdirection

i posed this question in another thread already, but it got lost in the noise. maybe this is a bit better, if far less visited, venue.

what sort of useful tracking ranges are seekers on meteor/aim120d and the like expected to have against the likes of f22, f35, j20, pakfa etc? 50% of their range against 4th gen aircraft? 20%? or even less?

VLO aircraft aren’t new, but the current and even future plans for BVR missiles keep including radar seekers. That’d suggest their users do expect them to be useful, even if at somewhat decreased ranges.

And there may be some logic behind it. On one hand, shorter wavelengths are easier to combat with radar absorbant materials, but on the other hand, each bandwidth will have its own set of parts of the plane to work against. L bands will totally miss all the little bumps and gaps, but sub X bands may very well be perfect to pick up on various tiny antennas, distributed EO arrays around the plane (which need to be transparent, meaning at best a gold tinted cover for total reflection against one angle) and all sorts of gaps on the plane. While we do know gaps have been worked on both on f22 and f35, isn’t it likely that different sort of gaps can be treated with different efficiency?

For example, gaps between plane parts that are separated only a few times in the lifetime of the airframe may be treated in the best way to combat radars. Gaps between panels for regular maintenance may be treated worse than that, but still fairly okay. Gaps between panels that are regularly opened and closed for each sortie may be harder still to treat.

On top of that what about various tiny scratches, dirt, bird droppings etc. that may happen between sorties or even during a sortie? Could all those concievably be aiding the sub x band radars? And if so, are the makers of aim120d, meteor etc counting on those to help keep their missiles relevant even against VLO planes?

‘ Active homing range will be nearly 16 miles ‘ for Astra.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?113735-missile-flight-theory

On the other question: No, you must have receiver exposed, you can shrink the receiver until it serve little practical use,
but that small area still has to be exposed.
I’d sooner make the receiver larger and made up of independent elements, so even if some elements are battle damaged, i’ll still have others working,
albeit degraded, -enter AESA