Ever hear the term 'max instrumented range'? That's typically the figure radar mfgrs will quote in their marketing material. Design goals' got nothing to do with it.
Sukhoi Su-30MKI
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
Ever hear the term 'max instrumented range'? That's typically the figure radar mfgrs will quote in their marketing material. Design goals' got nothing to do with it.
Oh, sure. Uttam Mk2 can detect a target up to 250 km and Hawk I also detects the same target at 250 km. Yeah, dude...
Why follow logic?
It follows the logic train of how OEMs advertise their systems on brochures. They just say <something or >something. That something is typically design goal or just standard figure. This helps maintain secrecy while providing relevant information.
Max instrumented range only means no matter what is detected beyond a certain range, it's discarded.
But this limit is purely software and can be removed based on the mode used and type of target.
What you are thinking of is the max unambiguous range, which is the literal maximum capability of the radar.
Max instrumented range is the max certifiable range based on lab testing. The actual range can vary in real world conditions based on environmental conditions (ew, target type, altitude/range, etc) or it may simply be classified by the home country.
IAF.
Common sense. Su-30MKI UPG. is specifically designed to counter J-20 behind our IADS cover using combo of Virupaksha & BEL dual-band IRST.
Real range of all radar systems is classified. So what's my source of 200kms tracking range against J-20/-20dBsm target? You or anyone don't need to know. Just reject every info with fallacy 'cause I simply don't care.
What logic? What's the mentioned rcs of things being detected at those range? Are they same rcs objects for both radar? Where is Official brochure for performane of uttam mk2?
Is this your logic? Its an insult to logic.
More mental gymnastics for the storyteller, I asked for proof, not your *logic*
So your source is pulling things out of your *censored* than gaslighting people by claiming its common sense.
Good to know.
No use arguing with your kind any more.
Everybody knows DRDO's fighter-sized target is 2 sqm.
So 250 km is for 2 sqm.
Purely looking at aperture size alone, the difference between Uttam and Virupaksha is 70% for their respective beamwidths. Meaning, if Uttam with a specific transmitted power provides 100 km for a specific target size, Virupaksha will do 170 km for the same transmitted power and target size. It's a simple question of proportions.
But Viru has more TRMs, more power, and more gain, so the difference comes up to more than 70% increase in range. This is how the logic train goes. Which means at tha bare minimum Viru can do 500 km against a 2 sqm target. In reality more, because of greater power density within the beam.
You don't even need the sqm figure, you just need to understand how a basic radar functions.
This requires the experience of looking at various systems and their comparative capabilities over many years because, like how I easily came to the conclusion above with the radar, you need to know how basic systems functions.
Take the PL-17 for example. The motor is more powerful than the one on R-37M, so it easily outranges the missile with just the boost-glide performance. The second pulse has two functions, something anybody and every who has even a basic understanding of missiles knows, one function is for kill, the other is for range extension.
A missile of this class has extended seeker performance against large RCS targets like AWACS. To activate the kill cycle, it activates the second pulse, regains energy, and activates the seeker for the kill. At this point, the missile's transit life is restricted to the battery life of the seeker. Once it's drained, it self-destructs. But in extended range mode, the control system activates the second pulse for range. Now this second pulse could be anywhere between a few seconds to many tens of seconds. The latter can boost range by as much as 50-60% while the former can only improve range by 10% or so to make the kill. This is how dual pulse works.
What end up being secrets are the specifics, like how long the second pulse can fire. And the specifics make all the difference in the world.
The problem is people like you who have no idea about how these systems actually work in the real world end up focusing on the sort of proof that nobody will provide and form your opinions that need to be spoonfed. You actually have to study and understand how basic systems function before you begin to understand even brochure specifications.
So yes, a lot of what I put up here is common sense. You are completely ignorant about how this stuff works.
How about you prove how much you know... Can you tell me exactly why Netra Mk1 cannot provide fire control while Netra Mk1A can? Try explaining with actual figures, even if you have to make them up. Let's see how much you understand about this topic. Let me give you a hint here, you actually need to have some foundational understanding of a radar system before you pass judgment.
As I said, I don't care about "your give me proof" nonsense. Those who have followed me since my time here know that I don't make predictions but spoilers. Don't quote someone if you don't want argument. It's that simple.
Lol, no.
Instrumented range - Radartutorial
You could have googled this.
Simply put, a radar may be able to detect and track a Flanker at 700 km, but if the instrumented range is 400 km, the radar will simply discard the Flanker echo from the pilot's display until it enters the 400 km instrumented range. It's done for the pilot's benefit due to the tactical irrelevance of the hostile Flanker at 700 km. The radar is still picking up the Flanker at 700 km, but as the pilot, you just don't know there's a Flanker at that range.
Lol, no.
The instrumented range is the maximum range of a radar in which echo signals can be displayed. It is not a measure of the actual range of the radar or its probability of detection. In most cases, the instrumented range is equal to the largest possible scale that can be set on the displays.Instrumented range - Radartutorial
www.radartutorial.eu
You could have googled this.
Simply put, a radar may be able to detect and track a Flanker at 700 km, but if the instrumented range is 400 km, the radar will simply discard the Flanker echo from the pilot's display until it enters the 400 km instrumented range. It's done for the pilot's benefit due to the tactical irrelevance of the hostile Flanker at 700 km. The radar is still picking up the Flanker at 700 km, but as the pilot, you just don't know there's a Flanker at that range.
Let me put this another way. Instrumented range is the advertised range while the 'operational' range may be +/-, depending on external factors, export modifications, etc.
Just range calculation whether instrumental or operational isn't the final word. The biggest problem in tracking low-RCS targets in the past was analogue signal-processing and outdated track algorithms which filtered out these low RCS targets as birds or insects in order not to overwhelm the pilot with information overload.
But now modern radar like Virupaksha backed by super large aperture with huge gain, fully digital beam forming, fully digital signal processing backed by AI enabled track algorithms all courtesy inherent super-computer enables it to filter out low-RCS target that are below a certain speed(using variantions in doppler shift) and then also track same very low RCS targets that are above a certain speed. This isn't just an evolution but rather a revolution in radar track.
People may find my 200kms tracking of 0.01m^2 target outrageous but so did everyone when I said MKI UPG. will have GaN AESA from the first batch itself or when India will procure Su-57. Rest, I leave everything to the reader's discretion.
Point is radar mfgrs will only provide standard range figures based on testing in controlled environments. The reason is that actual performance may vary depending on operational conditions that cannot always be predicted.
Virupaksha will certainly exceed the performance of the Ibris-E and RBE-2AA, the best radars from the Russian and French stables. That's good enough for the MKI UPG. Whether future variants can beat the AN/APG-85 (figures still unknown), remains to be seen.
Well whats source or logical explanation of this ?
Even data patterns says that their radar range of hawk i 2700 is only 200km for 1msq rcs
200km for 0.01msq means manned stealth is nullified. We only need ghatak tyoe fkying wing to do deep pentration
But even in 2026, both china and usa working on supersonic manned fighter jet.
Any explanation to this observation ?
Manned stealth is nullified? Lol. F-22 has -40dBsm and F-35 -50dBsm frontal signature in X-band. B-21 is supposed to be -70dBsm. It's just that J-20 isn't as stealthy as the above. So MKI UPG. will have a fighting chance with Virupaksha.
Since this "give me source" BS for every internet claim has turned quite infectious, well LRDE officials did disclose plenty of stuff "in-private" about the design goals of Virupaksha. There is also a video of Dr. BK Das regarding monstrous range of the same.
"Key Technical Specifications The following specifications are based on DRDO disclosures and confirmed reporting by LRDE officials: • TR Modules: Approximately 2,400 GaN-based Transmit/Receive Modules ...
Stealth detection range: Up to 200 km against low-RCS (0.01 m²) stealth aircraft such as China’s J-20......"
Source: DRDO Virupaksha Radar is stealth-hunting eye in the Indian sky
Since modern radars need very little dwell time to develop a faint radar spike into definitive track, thanks to immense progress in signal processing and enhance signal-to-noise ratio, developing a 200 kms detection of 0.01m2 target into full-blown radar track or 'track while scan' isn't that difficult for an ultra modern GaN AESA radar.
Thanks. I too dig into this and yeah, Virupaksha is optimised(and made) specifically to counter j20. And is expected see it in 200km range(i guess its non ew environment) ,
But even in ew environment, it should be around 130-150 km(as its gan) which is definitely giving a fighting chance against j20
-> I just hope amca(which is late) will be the first (or one of the) aircraft to field photonic radars. It will them neutralise any number advantage pf chinease
Nice to see someone smart enough to acknowledge my claims
. If you look towards my posting history, invariably all my claims have come true sans one or two.EW is the real black-art of aerial-warfare and it is even more secretive than passive stealth. Virupaksha will have enhanced ECCM against heavy EM clutter and thanks to its sensor-fusion backed by super-computer, with BEL Dual-Band IRST tracks, it should nullify all jamming and spoofing done by enemy stealth bogies.
AMCA MK2 will have Photonics based ROFAR. MK1 will have GaN-on-SiC AESA radar. Even later batches of MKI may also get this Photonics based radar, especially if it gets new engines with more electrical power(Item 177S, 117S or even full-blown 177).
India Begins Deep Indigenization Push for AL-31FP Engines Powering Su-30MKI Fleet - AlphaDefense.in
India has started a major effort to increase the indigenous content of the Russian-origin AL-31FP turbofan engines that power the…
alphadefense.in
Item 177S is being seriously considered by IAF.AL 31 FP won't be changed i think .India Begins Deep Indigenization Push for AL-31FP Engines Powering Su-30MKI Fleet - AlphaDefense.in
India has started a major effort to increase the indigenous content of the Russian-origin AL-31FP turbofan engines that power the…
