The concept seems very interesting, however I guess this solution had been implemented since 1958 when the Soviet Union began the development of SAM ( Surface Air Missile) SA 6 Gainful.

The SA 6 Gainful(2K12 Kub)
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2K12-Kvadrat.html

Those 3M9M missiles from the SA 6 Gainful also has been employed a ramjet rocket with solid fuel with the same purpose due for its advantages that has been mentioned in this article, however the ramjet propulsion were rejected by the successor from SA 6 Gainful that were the SA 11 Gadfly as the SA 17 Grizzly for several reasons.

This does not mean that someone could not improve such old technology, however the content of this article in this post above mention that ramjet propulsion with solid fuel has been developed as an innovation, and this actually would not be the case.

SAM are often much much bigger than AAM thus easier to use Ramjet , i think , up until now the only ramjet AAM is Meteor

My only intention here was to convey that intercept performance and g-limits weren’t entirely dependent on wing-size but also on velocity. I guess the point you’ve also introduced in response to obligatory’s original remark is that not all long range missiles have high wing loading either, which seems a fair point if your analysis is correct

i dont get it if the longer range missiles are not less maneuver than short , medium range missiles then what exactly the point of making medium range missiles ?

Accepted but the missile speeds at 24,000m will be higher than at 18,000m for a given intercept, and significantly higher than at 10,000m because of the reduced air density.

and they can retain their speed much longer after launch too

Doesn’t seem to have worked that well in real combat.

no no i mean it could have use that in theory , but in reality HARM seeker probably only know the bearing of target

The original HARM had a pretty poor hit ratio. Now that the AARGM has a terminal seeker it might not be that bad but the earlier variants would have benefited from better accuracy in case the radar is turned off. The missile would have needed the capability to keep in storage the location of the radar and navigate to the target point as accurately as possible.

in theory the seeker on HARM may use the azimuth /elevation method ( triangulate with the ground ) to locate enemy SAM radar

I want to see extra t/r modules on pylons, tail fin etc for this reason

triangulate need 2 point of significant distance from other ( create a triangle with target ) to be accurate
so i dont really think more antenna will help alot

DRDO claim Astra to have an active homing range of nearly 16 miles, which is 13.9 nm,
as compared to the BVR classifier of ~>5 nm

maximum active homing range 16 miles probably again target with RCS = 100 m2 , again fighter with RCS = 1m2 or lower the seeker range may be only 4 miles
at really short range you can basically launch missiles without range information , only bearing is needed Ex : rear shot demonstrate by DAS
also you maynot able to see enemy aircraft over 5 nm but

The term beyond-visual-range missile (BVR) usually refers to an air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) that is capable of engaging at ranges of 20 nmi (37 km) or beyond.

the main different is submarine usually cannot detect other at distance > 3-4 km while aircraft can actually detect other from 300-400 km hence when they engage aircraft need information about target bearing , speed , range while submarine may only need bearing