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

AIM-120s are currently well over 10nm in seeker range. The main issue vs Torpedo is the target size, the target speed and the thinking time.

If you were using IRST as opposed to RWR and had a very long range missile like Meteor, you could theoretically send it straight there rather than on an arc intercept from sensible ranges, however I’m not aware of this ever having been tried.

The other issue is that an active sonar ping is less directional than a radar beam, so the weapon sees on a wider angle during a slower intercept.

submarine detect and engage other at about 3-4 km , they are slow and no way as maneuver as fighter , also torpedo dont swim a ballistic arc to target thus only bearing are needed

Exactly, sub-to-sub is more a like a slow speed AIM-9 kill on an airliner from close range rather than a BVR intercept. No radar is required, missile homes from the very start, large target that’s very hard to miss.

but triangulation isnt accurate enough for targeting

I know the exact document this is from:

http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~anita/new/papers/militaryHandbook/sig-sort.pdf

Triangulation techniques using one aircraft is actually less accurate than interferometric techniques, however it is less complicated, so for more complex AESA signals it may be better.

Tranche 1/2 Typhoon achieves about 1deg bearing accuracy with wing-tip triangulation, Rafale achieves 0.5deg with interferometry. This is bearing accuracy so naturally range accuracy is roughly along the same percentages. E.g. at 50km, 0.5deg accuracy equates to a sphere almost 1km wide. Radar, by comparison, gives you a sphere diameter of the order of just tens of metres. So for targeting purposes at distance active targeting is 1-2 orders of magnitude better than passive targeting.

I work as a defence analyst, so have a fair understanding of how sonar works!

Then you should know that the latest US and UK heavyweight torpedoes are active sonar homing (along with many others probably), so the initial source of targeting sub-to-sub, is irrelevant. The submarine is also travelling at a maximum speed of ~30-35 knots and is huge, the torpedo is also usually doing 80kts maximum or less (except for short range super-cavitating ones) making it a non-equivalent target engagement in every single respect from start to finish.

Your usual blah blah…

Take a chill pill bro’. Your fake sales pitch no longer works, deal with it.

Look, I SAID “more than 10 NM” at the time because i wasn’t sure to be cleared to say 20 NM.
FSO can’t be included in a rearward shot, DDM-NG definitely was.
Sme infos about DDM-NG capabilities (bloggish style and in french, , sorry about that, but it is due to audience : http://www.portail-aviation.com/2014/02/exclusif-le-ddm-ng-un-detecteur-de_8513.html)
Picard is not a pilot, and never claimed to be
The original article is here http://www.defesanet.com.br/rafale/noticia/10893/Shooting-Down-an-Aggressor-on-My-Six–Vive-la-difference-/
It is a painful process to scroll up long conversations on FB. I already did once, now you will have to trust me. or not.

Cheers

10nm, 7.8nm, 20nm, weren’t sure you were cleared… Facebook… FAIL!

You are tiresome… I told you on another (indian) forum that i had asked to pilot the distance of the first shoot you mention, even copy/pasted a Facebook dialog i had with him, and you keep denying… A shot mentioned in an article, and a photo illustrating this article do not imply that the shot was done at the exact same moment the photo was taken. When directly involved pilots or industrial engineers are kindly reported to you by forumers, it maybe time for you to realize that facts can contradict your Faith no?
Anw about the above mentioned shot, a picture will be released as soon as pilot got Dassault, french AdA and DGA clearance.

As are you sir. Pilots… journalists… show me hard physical evidence. I asked for the altitude of this 20nm range over the shoulder shot with MICA and everything went quiet. Why? The BS processors burnt out, that’s why.

Meanwhile I offer this evidence of a 10nm range shot requiring 2 aircraft and laser:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-radar-could-boost-rafale39s-export-prospects-318499/

So all you really have, with entirely passive targeting, is a 7.8nm shot as kindly demonstrated here:

In a defesanet article, a brazilian pilot claimed a rearwards passive shot over a Mirage 2000 C (apparently becuase of the code on screenshots “India”, aka RDI radar).
Here is the photo we’re discussing about. (on left side mid screen, btw interesting feature is the little red “rocket like” symbol, meaning highest degree of alert from spectra, lil gift info)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]231570[/ATTACH]

So yes, the range was 7.8 NM at the moment the photo was taken.

I know the pilot, talked to him while i was writing about DDM-NG etc. He did confirm me that the effective range of shot was 20NM.
I posted a copy paste of dialog on FB on IDF, still Lukos denied it with arguments like “even pilots tend ro say porkies” “if you trust FB” etc. Complete denial…
It would be tideous for me to search for it again, but you can find it on MMRCA thread on Indian Defence Forum (or typhoon vs Rafale or Typhoon, can’t remember)

So thanks, passive targeting will work after you’ve been killed dozens of times with active targeting from over 20nm away.

Shot was taken at 20nm but somehow the target got to 7.8nm? Okay LOL.

It’s certainly possible to triangulate when you introduce third parties but the most common use of third parties for detection is AWACS and ground radar, so we may see these used in a targeting capacity at some point. Until then it’s likely that one aircraft will go active whilst the others remain passive, a technique that been successfully demonstrated already, relying on combat proven active targeting for air targets and passive targeting for ground targets plus terminal homing.