Just stick to Kh-58 or R-37 form factor.

More realistic would be 12000m (39000 ft) where i put my calculation at. 65Kft is 20000 m and i dont think Su-57 would be flying that high or necessarily need to do it.

Similar characteristics doesnt mean the missile will be the same in any way as Kinzhal. Whether you like it or not You will NOT get Kinzhal’s range in form factor that fits inside Su-57 Internal weapon bay.

It might be accidental instead of deliberate.

British however were having a concept for protecting the pilot tho. In their P-125 concept.

[USER=”58228″]mig-31bm[/USER] can’t assure that the laser will point at the same area. Remember Ballistic missile can spin as means to resist Laser, letting the area being exposed cool down. Same as Aircraft, and aircraft can do it more freely without fearing of being miss. And no, unless the cockpit is exposed, you wont instantly blind pilot. Thus why you want the engagement time as short as possible. Aside from multiple target engagement. Once laser weapon become common i would expect LWR to be more common to warn pilot that he’s being exposed.

Maybe we can take this study to estimate how many aircrafts needed to saturate the laser based on its engagement time.

https://www.scribd.com/document/390262651/Cruise-missile-Defense

We assume the aircraft need to cover 100 Km of range for launch point. mach 0.9. 1 min engagement time. The laser will be saturated by 5 aircrafts. If we have faster aircraft like Mach 1.3, 4 aircrafts will saturate the laser. and so on. If longer ranging missile can be deployed, there could be no aircraft downed and the laser will need to deal with missiles. 1 F-35 can carry or expected to carry Meteor with some 160 km range and may carry as many as 4. and meteor might sustain up to M-3. surviving aircraft can deploy 4 missiles, the laser may have to deal with it and given that M3 missile will cover 150 Km range in just 2 minutes. The laser will be saturated by just 2 missiles, the third might get through.

[USER=”71228″]garryA[/USER] I’m already put the spreadsheet. start pulling the numbers. and you seem to have good source too.

The thing is that. As long as we still using mechanically steered laser. You would want the biggest power and mirror assembly you can get.

We are not yet in era where laser is electronically steered. Maybe then we can actually engage multiple targets and “time share” the laser so the beam will always point at hopefully same spot.

Anyway. I put my calculations in an excel spreadsheet long time ago :

http://www.mediafire.com/file/r25cdq2f6xkokra/LaserCalc.xlsx/file

It based on “Physics of Societal Issue”

You can trade off various parameters namely power, engagement time, target hardness and mirror assembly size. Wavelengths and radiation absorbed by target too.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”Tradeoff laser.png”,”data-attachmentid”:3842933}[/ATTACH]

For radiation absorbed by target, you can use following chart

http://www.eepw.com.cn/article/201604/289592.htm

No difference than engaging AEW or other large aircraft. Both YAL and A-60 are large aircraft with large RCS and potentially large heat signature too due to need of exhaust for cooling their laser assembly.

The laser makes no difference. You will need about 25MW, 3 m mirror assembly to engage aircraft target (25 Kj/sqm hardness) at 250 Km in 1 second engagement. If you desire capability against typical aircraft we have. 100 KW of same laser will do the same but at 1 Minute, meaning you have to aim for a full 1 minute against that target and there could be another one launching missile at you. Smaller mirror assembly will obviously doing less, meaning you have to illuminate the target much longer to obtain the necessary fluence. 1m diameter mirror with 100 KW laser will need 10 Minutes to get enough fluence to do the same job.