HARM Questions - Target Isolate LOTG/EOMG, TMS Right
-
Hi,
Was reading the F-16CM-34-1-1 manual on HARMs and have some questions:-
1. I don’t quite see a difference between LOTG and EOMG. Could someone elaborate?
2. The table on Page 221 - what do NC and SD stand for? (might help with remembering what they do)
3. Hotas controls page 222 - TMS right does not seem to select first threat nor step to next threat in HAS. It only cycles threats in POS threat table.Thanks in advance!
Update: I think the table on Pg 221 would have been clearer this way?
-
(I am not an expert and have no other knowledge of these systems … but here’s my personal mnemonic.)
- TI => Target Isolate (ok to glide but don’t flex)
- SD => Self Destruct? or Search & Destroy? or SEAD shortened? (don’t glide, don’t flex)
- NC => Non-Committed? (this one I’m also very unclear about … viz. the statement “missile will EOMG but not LOTG”?
my thinking: if the radar was on but now it’s off, then it’s probably not coming back on, so maximize hang-time and start looking for a better target)
-
(I am not an expert and have no other knowledge of these systems … but here’s my personal mnemonic.)
- TI => Target Isolate (ok to glide but don’t flex)
- SD => Self Destruct? or Search & Destroy? or SEAD shortened? (don’t glide, don’t flex)
- NC => Non-Committed? (this one I’m also very unclear about … viz. the statement “missile will EOMG but not LOTG”?
my thinking: if the radar was on but now it’s off, then it’s probably not coming back on, so maximize hang-time and start looking for a better target)
Good one on ‘SD’. The logic in ‘NC’ is strange since both EOMG and LOTG are Glides but the table says ‘OFF’ under the ‘Glide’ column.
-
A few months ago I flew a few rounds of TR#12 with ACMI recording, to experiment with the different modes … I didn’t really learn a lot, that I would actually apply tactically.
I remember observing Flex can result in some pretty extreme, unexpected outcomes – I fired a harm about 25nm south of the northwestern SA-2, that was off… the missile turned about 60 degrees and glided down toward the SA-4 Long-track search radar, up in the hills about 20nm further. That was very surprising.
But the overall matrix of possibilities { EOM, PB, RUK } x { GS on/off } x { 4 T/I modes } x { target emitting/quiet } became a little overwhelming… would be great material for someone to dive into to make a youtube video.
-
A few months ago I flew a few rounds of TR#12 with ACMI recording, to experiment with the different modes … I didn’t really learn a lot, that I would actually apply tactically.
I remember observing Flex can result in some pretty extreme, unexpected outcomes – I fired a harm about 25nm south of the northwestern SA-2, that was off… the missile turned about 60 degrees and glided down toward the SA-4 Long-track search radar, up in the hills about 20nm further. That was very surprising.
But the overall matrix of possibilities { EOM, PB, RUK } x { GS on/off } x { 4 T/I modes } x { target emitting/quiet } became a little overwhelming… would be great material for someone to dive into to make a youtube video.
I found this
. He explains each one (GS, TI, NC, SD, LOTG, EOMG). With regard to NC (will Flex and EOMG but not LOTG) he says the missile will Flex and glide EOMG to find a target. But if it finds a target then loses track, it will not glide LOTG but fly straight to the last known position. There is but it doesn’t quite explain NC. Both do not say what NC stands for but they call SD “Search Destruction” or “Self Destruct”. -
This post is deleted! -
I found this
. He explains each one (GS, TI, NC, SD, LOTG, EOMG). With regard to NC (will Flex and EOMG but not LOTG) he says the missile will Flex and glide EOMG to find a target. But if it finds a target then loses track, it will not glide LOTG but fly straight to the last known position. There is but it doesn’t quite explain NC. Both do not say what NC stands for but they call SD “Search Destruction” or “Self Destruct”.NC stands for ‘Non-cooperative’. I.e the targets are being non-cooperative and they don’t like being found and killed. They may shut off their radars in an attempt to throw off the HARM. Your HARMs will flex to find an alternative target, but once tracking and tracking lost the HARM will attempt to attack the last known location and hope that it’s close enough to do damage.
There’s no need to alter the manual’s table, it made sense and was correct as is.
-
NC stands for ‘Non-cooperative’. I.e the targets are being non-cooperative and they don’t like being found and killed. They may shut off their radars in an attempt to throw off the HARM. Your HARMs will flex to find an alternative target, but once tracking and tracking lost the HARM will attempt to attack the last known location and hope that it’s close enough to do damage.
There’s no need to alter the manual’s table, it made sense and was correct as is.
Not quite. The preceding text (before the table) structures glide and flex as being under the heading of target isolation. If the table logic is the right that way (which I am beginning to see now), then target isolate and “no flex” should go together as one ‘idea’ and then be paired with glide (permutations as in table) in the preceding text. Perhaps the heading could then have been ‘HARM Behaviour’ and under it you have ‘Target Isolate/No Flex’ and ‘Glide’. Also, the Glide column is “OFF” for NC when it can perform EOMG. So that can be confusing. The table could also be updated to indicate what “NC” and “SD” stand for.
-
The convention in information display is to put the independent variables as column headings and dependent variables as row headings. Professional documentation should be either that convention or if not, consistent throughout the document. Also, the purpose of this table is to explain given a setting, what will be behavior. Expounding on the label should be done in the descriptive text in order to keep the table as clean and straightforward as possible. As such, what “target isolate” means doesn’t belong in the table at all. Rewriting the table with such principles it may look like:
| | O | S | B | 10 |
| Behavior | TI | TI | NC | SD |
| Target Isolate | NO | YES | NO | YES |
| Loss-of-Track Glide | YES | YES | NO | NO |
| EOM Glide | YES | YES | YES | NO |The option native to the avionics is called “target isolate”. Introducing a new concept “flex” which is the inverse of TI and then using its inversion (not flex) is confusing. I would stick to the isolate-yes/no framework. This above is a field of YES/NOs which can be a bit unclear. An alternative display is to use a key word which can’t be confused with other behavior types. Every YES/NO gets its own A/B type behavior boolean to keep the ideas separate.
| | OSB 10 | | | |
| Behavior | TI | TI | NC | SD |
| Target Isolate | FLEX | ISOLATE | FLEX | ISOLATE |
| Loss-of-Track Glide | GLIDE-1 | GLIDE-1 | NO | NO |
| EOM Glide | GLIDE-2 | GLIDE-2 | GLIDE-2 | NO |Originally I invented the concepts “reacquire” and “hover” because I needed a one word descriptor of the separate behaviors of LOTG and EOMG for the table. But they were bad because it suggested that without the reacquire type of glide (LOTG) the missile wouldn’t reacquire an emitter which is not true.
-
The convention in information display is to put the independent variables as column headings and dependent variables as row headings. Professional documentation should be either that convention or if not, consistent throughout the document. Also, the purpose of this table is to explain given a setting, what will be behavior. Expounding on the label should be done in the descriptive text in order to keep the table as clean and straightforward as possible. As such, what “target isolate” means doesn’t belong in the table at all. Rewriting the table with such principles it may look like:
| | O | S | B | 10 |
| Behavior | TI | TI | NC | SD |
| Target Isolate | NO | YES | NO | YES |
| Loss-of-Track Glide | YES | YES | NO | NO |
| EOM Glide | YES | YES | YES | NO |The option native to the avionics is called “target isolate”. Introducing a new concept “flex” which is the inverse of TI and then using its inversion (not flex) is confusing. I would stick to the isolate-yes/no framework. This above is a field of YES/NOs which can be a bit unclear. An alternative display is to use a key word which can’t be confused with other behavior types. Every YES/NO gets its own A/B type behavior boolean to keep the ideas separate.
| | OSB 10 | | | |
| Behavior | TI | TI | NC | SD |
| Target Isolate | FLEX | ISOLATE | FLEX | ISOLATE |
| Loss-of-Track Glide | GLIDE-1 | GLIDE-1 | NO | NO |
| EOM Glide | GLIDE-2 | GLIDE-2 | GLIDE-2 | NO |Originally I invented the concepts “reacquire” and “hover” because I needed a one word descriptor of the separate behaviors of LOTG and EOMG for the table. But they were bad because it suggested that without the reacquire type of glide (LOTG) the missile wouldn’t reacquire an emitter which is not true.
Thanks for the helpful input. As someone new to TI, I am grasping the concepts better now. Not the easiest thing to write in a manual. I think as long as the preceding sections can explain TI/NC/SD and Flex/Glide in a pattern consistent with or complementary to the proceeding table’s layout and logic, the reader should understand. Some explanation on the rationale for NC and SD and what they stand for in a para before they appear in the table would be helpful too, since OSB 10 includes NC and SD as well. Thanks again.
-
NC => “non-coop” makes sense… thanks! I suppose the tradeoff of gliding is, longer hang-time at the expense of losing inertial accuracy for the position of the emitter that went dark. So NC => “if the radar switches off just continue straight at it and hope to get lucky”
Is there any RL chance of that tho… how would a harm know precisely when to detonate, if the target is not emitting… impact? Range information would be too poor, I would think. (Hmm… I suppose I don’t really understand how arms detonate, even in perfect circumstances.)
Remaining questions –
-
For NC, if the site was not emitting at time of launch, and still not emitting at the moment the seeker activates… but there are other targets of oppty… how does it decide whether to flex to a new target, or to EOMG for hang-time to wait for the intended target to light
-
Do the EOM/PB/RUK submodes interact with the TI modes in any special way? (viz. EOM: seeker activates late; PB: seeker activates mid-course; RUK: seeker activates early) Or eg. does EOMG only apply when fired in EOM mode? etc.
Seems like there are some good “pairings” tactically.
EOM+TI => SEAD for a specific, fixed site
PB+NC => long-range SEAD toward a well defended, target-rich area (cluster of SAMs)
RUK+SD => popup threat, target it specifically and kill it as quickly as possible -
-
I think HARM are radio or similar short proximity fuzed warheads like an air-to-air missile.
Sounds like NC is “we expect this emitter to be a pain and possibly go on-off at bad times so focus all efforts on him and nevermind the extra features”. I don’t think any of us really know at the level of an operating military. Certainly anyone who does know exactly shouldn’t be speaking about it openly.
1. I wouldn’t be surprised if HARM carries with it a running idea of which emitters have which relative value and which are still within its maneuver envelope. As EOMG continues the score number for the target emitter might be running down while the score number for a flex emitter might be a certain threshold, even going up if the HARM has a good idea of where it is and inside remaining envelope. Certainly at some point the logic has to give up on the target emitter and flex to the alternate. Those two goals, to delay and wait for primary and to change to alternate, are fundamentally at odds. There are compatibility possibilities though. A smart logic would loiter for a primary by steering in a way that maximized its footprint around already known alternative targets. As the alternative is just leaving the maneuver window that’s possibly when loitering for primary gets discontinued.
2. I wanna know too. EOMG sounds like it only applies to EOM. And who knows if the TI option shapes trajectory of affects mechanization. I wouldn’t think so.
-
I’ve done a few test runs on TR#12 HARM training. I can’t really get NC mode to exhibit EOMG at all (as I understand it) in either PB or EOM submodes.
Eg. firing at the northwestern SA-2 at stpt 56… if I fire ~30 seconds outside the ring (before the radar lights up) the acmi shows this:
- during initial burn, harm steers toward stpt 56
- around midpoint/apex (PB) or around the 2/3 mark (EOM) the seeker presumably switches on (hard to know this, just speculating from reviewing acmi)
- if the SA-2 has begun radiating, the harm drops sharply and attacks;
- if not, the missile begins turning left toward the SA-4 / Long Track to the northwest
I notice the docs (dash-34, sec. 3.3.6.2.1) say Flex will “filter out search radars” but my experience with TR#12 shows the missile eager to flex to the Long Track.
I suppose if there are really no other emitters nearby, incl search radars, NC mode might do a EOMG toward the primary intended target stpt.
-