”

Mig-31 max R-37 load is 4″

I am talking about the K-77M. R-37 I am pretty sure is a long range air to air missiles not medium range.

I can bet my leg that your number for SRBM is for the reentry warhead instead of the whole missile so to count the length of the total SRBM length is misleading,”

Your losing a lot of limbs here.

https://aviationweek.com/technology/…tection-claims ” [LEFT][COLOR=#333333][FONT=Georgia][SIZE=15px]NNIRT says that the Chinese DF-15 short-range ballistic missile has a 0.002 m2 RCS in X-band, but is 0.6 m2 in VHF.” Notice that they are talking about the missile and no war heads.

There isn’t much in that generic claim, but I can assure you they are referring to the re entry warhead because that when the warhead is tracked.

thank to the much weaker skin return of F-35,” Which is why I have taken in account of a low RCS tracking range. I am using stealthflankers aesa calculator put 64 modules(me counting the modules on the k-77m) put 10 watts per power, elevation 16 degrees and azimuth 120 degrees(no one knows how wide the radar beam is but it is said to be wider than it its previous counterparts just using this as an estimation), put .0001m2 for target RCS. Leave the everything the way it is(stealth flanker explained to me why he left those as a common reference). The 90% probability of lock on is at a 3.749km range. since we want to solve for the size of the radar beam
http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm I put 120 degrees for the angle and from point a to b I put 3.749kms for distance the total size of the radar beam is 12.987kms. Keep in mind the lock on range can be a longer distance than 3.749kms. Most aircraft radars work at a 40% PAE(power added efficiency) going over would be maintenance issues or damage on the long run however since missiles are one time uses I am assuming more power could be added than 10 watts and they appear to be LTCC and have claimed these kinds of modules are being used on their warheads which help with heating issues.

I am assuming that .0001m2 is the target reference for the front side of an F-35. And considering the tracking range the next topic would be speed. Assuming mach 4 speeds are going and mach 1 aircraft is flying straight at you the distance that will be covered for both sides(aircraft and missile) to meet each other would be 1.7/kms. Now I do not know if this is beyond your scope of knowledge since I do myself have the difficulty of fully understanding this but the next information we need is what is the range of EO DAS which I doubt sources of that can be found. Than next what is the jamming power of any of those decoys and we will see how much it would effect the detection and lock on range of the k-77m. BUT however the volume search of 50% detection probability is 6.038kms that the lock on is at 3.749kms jamming power of the decoys and an/apg-81 would have to be the same so no abnormalities like the aircraft radar having high jamming power than the decoy. Remember if the missiles own radar starts to notice a target popping out of the target it was detecting or tracking it might be programmed to still go after the original target which is why I am asking what range EO DAS is and if EO DAS is tracking the missile at farther ranges than the radar of the missiles(no one knows for sure) how fast is the F-35s reaction time to launch the decoy and what is the max jamming power of that small decoy and how can it further reduce the 90% tracking lock on and 50% probability detection range of the missile. I believe that stealthflanker and garrya can help with how far the host radar detection and tracking can be reduced with the jamming power being applied if they have the time and energy to do that.

Keep in mind with a launched decoy the host radar of the missile can see 2 targets depending how far or close it is. If the decoy is just jamming and the apg-81 is not jamming it might be programmed to go after the non-jamming F-35. If the F-35 starts jamming with the decoy than the F-35 still has a 50% chance of getting hit.

You only take into account the detection range without jamming and as someone who also used Stealthflanker calculator, the scan sector is not the size of the radar beam. What you found is the field of view of the radar rather than the beam size.
Nonetheless, your assessment of jamming is wrong, there is no requirement for APG-81 to be at the same level as the decoy because unless the kind of jamming used is a very simple amplify repeater such as on ALE-50 in that case the seeker see another target pop up and can be programmed to hit the first one. But with any other kind of jamming : barrage noise, RGPO, VGPO, Cross eye, cross polarization, cover pulse then the seeker of missile won’t be able to track the location of F-35, either the receiver will be overwhelmed with noise that it can’t see anything with low RCS or the lock will be break and missiles will miss because it was feed wrong range, velocity, angular information. I don’t have time or energy to go into detail for each kind of jamming, but you can pm garrys for link, he wrote a good piece on ECM.
If the decoy is jamming and F-35 is not jamming, the missile can’t be programmed to go after the non jamming F-35 because it can’t find the non jamming F-35. Have you try to find an ant in a dark room when someone else point a high lumen light at your face? that what happen to the missile, so it has 0% chance of hitting F-35 in that situation.
We know for sure that EODAS can track K-77M and R-37 from distance notably further than K-77M, R-37 can track F-35 with ECM. On one hand, you have an IIR system tracking Mach 5 missiles at high altitude aka bright target in low clutter, on the other hand, you have a tiny radar tracking a VLO target in high noise condition.

@moonlight What do you think of lock on jamming capabilities being added? Dual mode is considered a thing knowadays on missiles.

Home on jam is pointless against ALE-70, RT-1489/ALE, MALD-X, BRITE CLOUD or any decoys because they are detached from fighter when operating
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3859420}[/ATTACH]

Additional support comes from the fact that US military required the RCS reduction of the F-35 to be a 95% percent compared to 1st to 4th gen fighters (factor of 20, consistent with Russian estimations). Whether this is true or not, or tactical relevant or not or even compatible with Western practice of reporting min RCS values I don’t know, so please don’t kill the messenger!

To be precise, that is not a requirement from US military, but instead came from a document by Canadian government.
On top of that, the accurate wording is: “In an UNCLASSIFIED ILLUSTRATION of a stealth analysis, the F-35 had an approximately 95% percent improvement over first to fourth generations fighters-meaning a much smaller signature”
We do not know if that sentence mean a 95% improvement in detection range reduction due to much smaller signature? or a 95% improvement in exchange rate due to much smaller signature? the wording is vague and ambiguous and do not carry the same level of details and accuracy as data measured in anechoic chamber

[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3859314}[/ATTACH]

Russians are keen on stand-off weapons. Russian UHF radars claim 200 km detection range for 0.1 sqm target, with enough precision to guide SAMs. They also refer RCS for Western designs that are in that order of magnitude (0.1 to 1 sqm). They claim they have solved the detection problem of quadcopters and other extremely small radar returns. I personally remain very sceptical of the ability of a VLO or Ultra VLO or whatever to penetrate IADS without going low level as it has been done always.The Western RCS values are also misleading IMO, even
true

F-22, F-35 RCS is smaller than 0.1 m2 by several order of magnitude,
F-117 without radar absorbing material can obtain approximately 0.01 m2 at 0.5Ghz.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3859257}[/ATTACH]

So cool, but I think you should add Russian missiles like R-37 and R-77 too

Did India Shoot Down a Pakistani Jet? U.S. Count Says No.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tgettyimages-1134662001.jpg?w=800&quality=90.jpg Views:t0 Size:t134.6 KB ID:t3858565″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3858565″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”gettyimages-1134662001.jpg?w=800&quality=90.jpg”}[/ATTACH]
Indias claim that one of its fighter pilots shot down a Pakistani F-16 fighter jet in an aerial battle between the two nuclear powers in February appears to be wrong. Two senior U.S. defense officials with direct knowledge of the situation told Foreign Policy that U.S. personnel recently counted Islamabads F-16s and found none missing.

The findings directly contradict the account of Indian Air Force officials, who said that Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman managed to shoot down a Pakistani F-16 before his own plane was downed by a Pakistani missile.

It is possible that in the heat of combat, Varthaman, flying a vintage MiG-21 Bison, got a lock on the Pakistani F-16, fired, and genuinely believed he scored a hit. But the count, conducted by U.S. authorities on the ground in Pakistan, sheds doubt on New Delhis version of events, suggesting that Indian authorities may have misled the international community about what happened that day.

The news comes just days before the start of Indians general elections, in which Prime Minister Narendra Modi is seeking another term in office. In the weeks leading up to the election, tensions between India and Pakistan escalated to levels not seen in decades after a Pakistan-based militant group killed more than 40 Indian security officers in a Feb. 14 suicide bombing in India-controlled Kashmir. Both sides have been accused of spreading disinformation and fanning nationalistic flames.

Although the news likely wont sway Indian voters, Vipin Narang, an associate professor of political science at MIT, said the way the events have unfolded may affect Indians efforts to deter Pakistan in the future.

As details come out, it looks worse and worse for the Indians,Narang said. It looks increasingly like India failed to impose significant costs on Pakistan, but lost a plane and a helicopter of its own in the process.

The dogfight between the two nations occurred on Feb. 27, when India says a group of Pakistani jets entered its airspace in response to the first Indian air raid on Pakistani territory since a 1971 war. India scrambled its own jets and gave chase. During the aerial battle that ensued, Varthaman took a missile hit and ejected safely into Pakistani territory.

He was captured by the Pakistani army and released days later in an effort to de-escalate the crisis.

One of the senior U.S. defense officials with direct knowledge of the count said that Pakistan invited the United States to physically count its F-16 planes after the incident as part of an end-user agreement signed when the foreign military sale was finalized. Generally in such agreements, the United States requires the receiving country to allow U.S. officials to inspect the equipment regularly to ensure it is accounted for and protected.

Some of the aircraft were not immediately available for inspection due to the conflict, so it took U.S. personnel several weeks to account for all of the jets, the official said.

But now the count has been completed, and all aircraft were present and accounted for, the official said.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/04…BET9HQbrW2v6yM

That look very peaceful