HARM RUK mode
-
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.
-
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.
HAD/ALIC database/HTS I know the least about and is assuredly the most advanced. From what I’ve heard the ALIC database is developed between flights using data gathered from previous flights. In BMS when you put down a PPT you’ll see a corresponding entry on the HAD screen. The old Falcon 4 method of knowing about every emitter and displaying it as if the HAD was the world’s best radar set is surely overstating its capabilities for on the fly recognition. What it mostly does is correlate what it sees now to a stored contact. Can it or how well does it generate a brand new contact that previously wasn’t in database in a single flight? No clue. Is the location refinement good enough for EOM shots routinely? No clue.
-
Latest HTS has possibility for PT (precise targeting) or how is it called.
It is more than enough for EOM.
It has been discussed and there was a document linked that reveals that latest verion of HTS is precise enough for JDAM delivery.BTW. Does anybody knows why in BMS HAS mode cannot be used against most of AAA? In BMS i see that they do not appear on HAS display so they cannot be attacked in HAS mode.
However i noticed that they appear of HTS display and can be attacked if HTS is carried. -
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.
In this case maybe the most appropriate SOI should be FCR in SP with RNG 40nm, the the mark will be by default 20nm on the nose. Then you create the mark putting your SAM spike on your 12 and magnum or come back to recommit.
Right Mav-jp?
-
A few radars were changed to be untargetable by HARM. It’s more than just AAA. One of the higher number (17? 19?) SAMs is as well. This is to reflect that some radars are outside of the frequency range the missile can track. If HAD can select it and shoot out a missile but the missile can’t actually home on it that should probably be changed.
-
So why there is “A” able to be selected in HAS threat table when this kind of radar won’t even pop up on HAD screen?
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.
Some guy some time ago said on forum that some F-16s have LOR mode which stands for launch off RWR. Not sure if thats true.
However i can confirm that real Carapace is able to create waypoints that looks like PPTs. You can use them to launch HARM on them as they are just waypoints. Information is taken from (unclassified) MLU update manual.
And many SAMs are faster than HARM, so they gonna nail you before HARM reaches the target.
-
Different kind of A? Search radar supporting fixed-AAA as opposed to the gun dish system on a ZSU-23-4? Maybe BMS didn’t update the HAS threat tables along with their changes to the more used modes? I know for a fact one of the patches since 4.32 made some previously HARM-able emitters not HARM-able. I distinctly remembering that surprising and biting me in the butt the very mission after I patched and discovered it the hard way.
I’ve heard of F-18s having that. Maybe it was developed for 16s as well.
-
So why there is “A” able to be selected in HAS threat table when this kind of radar won’t even pop up on HAD screen?
Maybe the “A” will work on the old firecan. However, if modeled correct, the KS17 or KS19 does have PK below 19k feet in clear sky using optic sights iirc.