AGM-88 question.
-
IADS and EMCON would be good enough for the SAM, no need for the hard kill of HARMs
What do you mean by ‘EMCON’ - radio silence? By the tracking radars - yes, but not by the acquisition ones, plus there is a INS/GPS guidance (+ ‘radar turn off protection’) onboard the HARM so ‘blip’ of radio emission is enough to guide on For a static system radar discipline is crucial, movers though are more flexible
-
@mookar:
What do you mean by ‘EMCON’ - radio silence? By the tracking radars - yes, but not by the acquisition ones, plus there is a INS/GPS guidance (+ ‘radar turn off protection’) onboard the HARM so ‘blip’ of radio emission is enough to guide on
a blip is not really as accurate. Plus it depends which HARM you mean…. comes down to which F-16 is being modelled.
-
Even if we assume perfect HARM GPS accuracy, the angular accuracy + map accuracy (considering very small bumbs and hills and ditches) can not be accurate enough to guarantee 100% kill rate on INS launches. ==> Even modelling EMCON and somewhat worse INS shots would make the SAM hunting much more interesting. Visual spotting + bombs would become more frequent.
-
So before doing that, we would better try to improve SAM emission and launch tactics, and interconnection search radars - SAM sites. (ie : real IADS).
+1
-
Once a SAM site turns off it’s radar. the SAM is essentially stupid (except for newer fire and forget anti radiation SAMs/missiles). You have to model the AI for those kinds of tactics. The newer HARMS are an awesome weapon. They are completely FAF.
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/harm/
They even have a “self protect” mode which makes it VERY difficult for a SAM to bring one down. Continued evolution of the HARM is on going. Newer guidance systems with terrain mapping is being developed so as to identify the area of the SAM threat as well as the radar emitting vehicles used by the SAM (even when the SAM radar has been turned off).
-
Once a SAM site turns off it’s radar. the SAM is essentially stupid (except for newer fire and forget anti radiation SAMs/missiles). You have to model the AI for those kinds of tactics. The newer HARMS are an awesome weapon. They are completely FAF.
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/harm/
They even have a “self protect” mode which makes it VERY difficult for a SAM to bring one down. Continued evolution of the HARM is on going. Newer guidance systems with terrain mapping is being developed so as to identify the area of the SAM threat as well as the radar emitting vehicles used by the SAM (even when the SAM radar has been turned off).
I wonder what era F-16s and what era combat environment people would prefer in BMS. I quite enjoy what little Ive seen of Molni’s 80’s theater, for all its flaws. Would be pretty cool flying it with a block 30 cockpit for example. I wonder if the majority of people would like that though, it seems like most people would prefer to fly CCIP’d jets in BMS, or maybe Desert Falcons.
This thought occurred to me because the same thing is relevant of the HARM, it comes down to which HARM, when.
-
It could be great if counter presision guided munition capability could be implemented
-
It could be great if counter presision guided munition capability could be implemented
Yes sir,
The Patriot. It is designed not only as a surface to air missile, but it is also a surface to missile missile. Oh boy, now I’m getting dizzy.
-
a blip is not really as accurate
Ok, maybe I put it wrong, by ‘blip’ I meant a short turn on of the tracking radar (or whatever emitter)
-
@mookar:
Ok, maybe I put it wrong, by ‘blip’ I meant a short turn on of the tracking radar (or whatever emitter)
your phraseology was not under attack, merely your assertion.
-
your phraseology was not under attack, merely your assertion.
And it was: that short turn on of the tracking radar does provide the HARM with guidance info, how reliable it is I do not have the expertise to say As far as it’s known tracking radars are switched on either before the SAM launch or after the SAM launch. This radar discipline proved effective to an extend in 1991 Desert Storm with a small amount of HARM actually hitting tgts (success of the SEAD/DEAD was largely due to smart/dumb bombs, clusters), and 1999 Serbia where ~700 AGM88 were launched and a few actually hit;) Anyhow, either these claims about low hit ratio of an american weapon were wrong, which I doubt especially coming from american sources, or the modeling of the round in BMS is wrong. How many of you guys have shot at a yellow emitter and scored hits on it even if switched off after AGM88 launch? I know I have, a lot. This supposedly is the behaviour of the new AGM88D’s which means they most likely are the ones modelled in BMS:)
The above said does not mean to me that the effectiveness of the round should be degraded in any way in BMS’s further development because an effective weapon for dealing with SAMs is absolutely essential! -
Once a SAM site turns off it’s radar. the SAM is essentially stupid (except for newer fire and forget anti radiation SAMs/missiles).
The SAM will go ballistic, but chances are, if done at enough distance, that the ARM will also miss. AGM-88 has a relatively small warhead; a small miss distance makes a difference. AGM-45 will land in some other continent.
They even have a “self protect” mode which makes it VERY difficult for a SAM to bring one down.
We may be talking about different “self protect” features here, but if you are referring to the targeting mode, SP is a mode connected to the launching aircraft’s EW suite, to enable automatic quick programming of the missile to target an emitter threatening the aircraft. Nothing to do with making the missile’s interception less possible.
@mookar:
How many of you guys have shot at a yellow emitter and scored hits on it even if switched off? I know I have, a lot
The problem is that it doesn’t switch off. There is only a very specific case in BMS in which the radar will switch off, and in that case your HARM will surely miss. The fact that it disappears from your RWR is because of the current “radar mode” simulation. You can also test this by firing two HARMs at the same emitter, and look where the second one lands.
I also agree with the various comments in this thread about overhauling the SAM AI being a higher priority than simulating (or not) the anti-missile capabilities of newer systems/ships. At the moment the lack of SAM threat is one of Falcon’s main flaws for me (to the point of having batteries that are out of missiles still radiating and inviting ARMs over). Improvements to the AI’s EMCON/ambush tactics, maybe coupled with smart re-location during the campaign, should bring them to the threat level they deserve!
-
@mookar:
and 1999 Serbia where ~700 AGM88 were launched and a few actually hit
Yep … because they were used mostly in preventive. Maybe sometimes with “no SAMs” in the vicinity.
Hence, figues means nothing except that they fired ~700 missiles and some have hit a target.
-
The fact that it disappears from your RWR is because of the current “radar mode” simulation.
I might be wrong about this but the time SAM appears on my RWR is the time it’s ‘red’ (tracking). Different SAM radar modes have to do with the PRFs but that’s tech stuff I’m not too familiar with.
-
because they were used mostly in preventive. Maybe sometimes with “no SAMs” in the vicinity.
Whoa, whoa, you mean shot at ‘nothing’? I doubt it, HARMs are employed either on TOO or a self defence mode, and not a ‘go-on-see-what-you-could-find’ manner It has to know what it’s going after, what if mid-flight it detects an SA2 for example and then an acquisition radar pops up, which one would it go for ;)?
-
@mookar:
Whoa, whoa, you mean shot at ‘nothing’? I doubt it, HARMs are employed either on TOO or a self defence mode, and not a ‘go-on-see-what-you-could-find’ manner It has to know what it’s going after, what if mid-flight it detects an SA2 for example and then an acquisition radar pops up, which one would it go for ;)?
Again incorrect, HARMs have mainly been fired in the general direction of suspected threats (SATINT of SAM Btns setting up, ELINT of some Low Blow from someones FCR yesterday, etc…) - hence Suppression of enemy air defence, and not destruction thereof.
which one would it go for? obviously, the one which has been selected on the threat tables… have you actually read the manual?
-
@mookar:
Whoa, whoa, you mean shot at ‘nothing’? I doubt it,
Doubt it if you want.
-
@mookar:
Whoa, whoa, you mean shot at ‘nothing’? I doubt it, HARMs are employed either on TOO or a self defence mode, and not a ‘go-on-see-what-you-could-find’ manner It has to know what it’s going after, what if mid-flight it detects an SA2 for example and then an acquisition radar pops up, which one would it go for ;)?
Typical example :
- you are asked to strike an objective with a typical package. 1 flight strikes, the other do SEAD escorts. You are in the SEAD flight.
- you know that there might be SA2 and SA6 in the vicinity of your target.
- intelligence tells you a SA2 or SA6 can go from acquisition to shoot in 2 min.
-> so you shoot 1 HARM looking for SA2 at the target and the other for SA6. You have not detected them, it is preventive shots. Time to Targt should be 2 mins.
Then your wingman does the same 2 minutes later.
What is the logic behind that ?
If there are SAMs, they will be vicious and could turn on their radars at the last moment to attack the strikers. But if they turn on their radars when HARMs are in flight, they will be targeted.
So either they remain silent for 2 min, or they are targeted by HARMS and get destroyed.
Then your wingman missiles give another 2 min of radar silence.All in all, you gave 4 minutes to the strike flight to drop ordnance and get away, without endangering either flight. Nobody gets targeted, nobody has to do an evasive, you dont know if there is even SAMs, but at least this way you are safe.
What if they are able to turn on the radar, shoot, and going back to silent in 1 min ? Then you shoot at 1 min away, and your wingman shoot 1 min after. 2 mins of coverage.
FYI, even an SA-10, quite modern, has around 2 min of time between acquisition and fire.A fighter can do 8NM per minutes, no problem. 4 mins is more than enough to strike and get back to safety.
-
Preemptive missiles were fired in ODS as well to protect the ingress of strike packages, effectively suppressing the enemy air defenses (alerted about the incoming HARM either by EW radars, ground observers, or COMINT).
There were some successful hits, either on the suspected threat, or by the missile flexing to some other emitter in the threat table that came online near by.
-
Again incorrect, HARMs have mainly been fired in the general direction of suspected threats (SATINT of SAM Btns setting up, ELINT of some Low Blow from someones FCR yesterday, etc…) - hence Suppression of enemy air defence, and not destruction thereof…have you actually read the manual?
Do you have any specifics of those particular instances, I’m curious about it Was HTS utilized, what mode were the launches performed through…? Obviously systems operate differently in RL than in BMS and the last time I checked the manual it was about the BMS ones, stating in addition to that many of them are incomplete, inaccurate or outright not simulated ;).
FYI, even an SA-10, quite modern, has around 2 min of time between acquisition and fire.
People have to define their terms when it comes to ‘acquisition-fire’ time. What do you mean by ‘acquisition’ - tgt fixed by battalion level Surv, theatre Surv, Civi Surv, or tracking radar of the SAM itself? The time ‘from tgt acquisition to missile launch’ as a specification of SAM systems is the time from tracking radar acquisition to missile launch, because this is the system significant spec, other scenarios include different assets outside of the organization of the battery itself and are a feature of the AD network and not the SAM system itself be it integrated Chances are the ‘2 min’ stated by you are false by a considerable margin even for 20+ year-old systems