HARM RUK mode
-
That’s the problem I have with RUK: the fact that it requires a steerpoint defeats its whole purpose as a slapshot towards a popup threat
The purpose of RUK isn’t a quick response to an unplanned emitter. Don’t use a screwdriver to dive a nail. RUK is employed against a pre-planned emitter with large uncertainty in position. PB is designed for maximum range without off axis (won’t fire outside 10 degree window facing). And EOM is for a well known emitter position providing significant off-axis capability.
The F-16’s TOO mode is HAS or HAD and it doesn’t have a self-defense mode like F-18.
-
The F-16’s TOO mode is HAS or HAD and it doesn’t have a self-defense mode like F-18.
Yeah, this is what I am talking about. Gotta use HAS or HAD. Btw, self-defense mode is not modeled in current version of f-18 right?
-
MARK (whatever number on ICP) -> Slew HUD/FCR -> TMS UP -> TMS UP -> ICP NUM 0
come on, do some multitasking
HAS/HAD mode:
Slew->TMS UP->shootHave fun with the rest of your steps.
-
HAS/HAD mode:
Slew->TMS UP->shootHave fun with the rest of your steps.
You should know that the rest of the steps contains two steps only.
OSB whatever and Pickle.
-
The purpose of RUK isn’t a quick response to an unplanned emitter. Don’t use a screwdriver to dive a nail. RUK is employed against a pre-planned emitter with large uncertainty in position. PB is designed for maximum range without off axis (won’t fire outside 10 degree window facing). And EOM is for a well known emitter position providing significant off-axis capability.
The F-16’s TOO mode is HAS or HAD and it doesn’t have a self-defense mode like F-18.
Interesting. I got my info straight from the 34-1-1
page 172
“Range Unknown (RUK): opportunity/Self-defense mode. The seeker is activated immediately after launch with a 120° FOV. Used when the range is completely unknown in self-defense.”page 178
“RUK is a self-defense mode used when you have a specific threat painting you but have no information on its range.”Anyways, here is a nice visualization of the different profiles:
-
Interesting. I got my info straight from the 34-1-1
page 172
“Range Unknown (RUK): opportunity/Self-defense mode. The seeker is activated immediately after launch with a 120° FOV. Used when the range is completely unknown in self-defense.”page 178
“RUK is a self-defense mode used when you have a specific threat painting you but have no information on its range.”Anyways, here is a nice visualization of the different profiles:
http://i.imgur.com/9xccOsi.jpgand this is the same in BMS , seeker is activated at launch with correct FOV angles
that does not mean it does not need a steerpoint
-
That’s cool, I’ll just have to get quicker at creating markpoints
-
Interesting. I got my info straight from the 34-1-1
page 172
“Range Unknown (RUK): opportunity/Self-defense mode. The seeker is activated immediately after launch with a 120° FOV. Used when the range is completely unknown in self-defense.”page 178
“RUK is a self-defense mode used when you have a specific threat painting you but have no information on its range.”Anyways, here is a nice visualization of the different profiles:
http://i.imgur.com/9xccOsi.jpgThis picture has been the source of much confusion. Many see 3 cones and think this must be the 3 different kinds of POS mode in F-16 (EOM = EOM, PB = PB, TOO=RUK). But it is not necessarily. What name has been given various HARM use in F-4, F-18, F-16, etc. has not been consistent. In certain planes there is a non-turning HARM use where the missile is lofted in a geographic direction and at some time/altitude turns on and looks. It doesn’t go for a waypoint or anything and it was known as “PB” which is distinctly different than the “PB” mode used in F-16 which does seek a geographic location. You see the confusion! F-16 PB mode was probably named because it is kinda sorta similar to F-4 unguided mode but not really. F-18 driver looking at a synthetic Maverick-like view would call this “Target of Opportunity” while F-16 driver will call it “HARM as Sensor” despite being essentially the same.
I wonder what is the origin of this picture. I think it wasn’t F-16 specific and may be some Power Point presentation for a general (pardon pun) audience. BMS isn’t exactly like real F-16 in some ways. Difference between PB and EOM/RUK would be more pronounced.
-
i remember reading in the book “Viper Pilot” by Dan Hampton that he used the harm in a self defense manner similarly described to original post. i don’t have the book with me at the moment. anyone remember this?
-
It would be stupid not to have MADDOG type mode on a HARM and SEAD platform. Even if the missile is blessed with GPS guidance.
-
It would be stupid not to have MADDOG type mode on a HARM and SEAD platform. Even if the missile is blessed with GPS guidance.
In any case , without any lock the missile needs a point to fly to , wether it is preprogrammed ( we could program a steer point by default 15nm in the nose of the AC) or steer point from AC…
Harm will never perfectly mimic the real anyway since this is sensitive information we don’t want to go further
-
HARM is already quite accurate in BMS.
There are some missing things like SEAD datalink, manual threat input trough DED, tracking indication on HAS screen.
However all of above are described in non classified manuals. -
The seeker head does not go active at launch it goes active 20 miles from the active steer point.
-
even in RUK?
-
Correct - I have tested this.
Place one threat 30 miles from steer point and one, same type, at 10 miles from steer point - launch harm at 40 miles from steer point in RUK - it will over fly the first threat and kill the one 10 miles from steer point. By adjusting the distances I proved the seeker head goes active at 20 miles from steer point
-
I forget exactly where RUK goes active, pretty sure it’s very soon after launch. What you have to be careful of in that test is that since the missile lofts itself nose high and the detection pattern points up with it, it’s possible (probable) for a HARM to overfly an emitter without detecting it despite being actively seeking at that time. I have done that very same test and found out RUK can nose up blind despite being active. Try that same test but launch in a 30 degree dive or something to cancel the loft of the missile and you should find it doesn’t overfly near emitters.
It would be stupid not to have MADDOG type mode on a HARM and SEAD platform. Even if the missile is blessed with GPS guidance.
Then the third of a million dollar missile is stupid. Or rather it’s stupid when attached to an F-16. On older or less dedicated air frames the HARM is only deliverable semi-ballistically. You would config it on the ground for the specific emitter and fly to the right place on the map and hurl it and it would go along the azimuth of launch to find what it could find. The earlier model HARMs don’t have GPS (INS only), it was added later.
Now the F-18 has a self defense mode where a missile could be armed hot and auto-fire in self defense linked to the RWR. I’ve never heard of this being a CJ/CM capability but it might have it by 2017 in a way that’s not public. HAD-selected HARM shooting is pretty darn fast but I’m not sure it is able to display a threat that has never emitted before at that location. A lot of the ALIC stuff depends on a running threat database to associate emitters to.
-
In any case , without any lock the missile needs a point to fly to , wether it is preprogrammed ( we could program a steer point by default 15nm in the nose of the AC) or steer point from AC…
Harm will never perfectly mimic the real anyway since this is sensitive information we don’t want to go further
You can shoot a moving target with a 120 without lock and it has smaller FOV than the HARM. I would assume it maintains the vector that comes off the rail until it gets a lock. I also assume thst HTP can deploy the HARM in any of the three modes. I don’t blame you not changing it until you get some solid docs. Until then the trees and weather look great.
-
The HARM doesn’t need a point destination in general use (true PB not to be confused with the F-16 POS mode called PB).
HTS (HTP?) is only associated with HAD afaik (HAD being essentially EOM if the HAD range is high confidence). POS is a LOAL thing so there’s nothing for the airplane to do but give it parameters. Sensors don’t enter the equation for POS. Maybe HTS aides in HAS/TOO/DA shooting but I think probably not.
BMS HARM is pretty good for the most part. EOM/PB should get HUD ASL with loft cues. I don’t know what TI does exactly. CD would be a cute trick. EOM off-axis capability prediction footprint is practically a placeholder. Over the shoulder maneuvering is really bad. I’m not sure if the real item can search for more than one threat type at once in priority. POS modes can go after SPI other than steerpoint. ALIC is more of a campaign ongoing database/sniffer than a true discover all the SAMs sensor. HARM use as an AA radar sensor is interesting.
As far as using the HARM in BMS I wouldn’t suggest that we’re getting anything but the full value out of the weapon as is.
-
So you saying that HTP passive ranging is good enuff to use EOM on unknown emitter? Can you enter known emitter coors in HAD and then verify with the HTP when theyre active? In r/l.
-
That’s cool, I’ll just have to get quicker at creating markpoints
Creating markpoints should take almost zero time. Default Markpoint type depends on sensor state; ie what is currently SOI. For exmaple, with TGP in area or point track and SOI, pressing MKPT on the ICP will take you straight to TGP MKPT. Simply press TMS up to save the location (check coordinates appear in DED) and then 0-MSEL to make it the current active steerpoint.
Check pg 68 of the BMS -1 for more info on using Markpoints. They’re an invaluable tool and we were reminded of this when lead had a bad flightplan due to a sync issue/glitch so I was able to send steerpoint/markpoint data via IDM.