AGM-88 question.
-
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 Iām getting dizzy.
-
a blip is not really as accurate
Ok, maybe I put it wrong, by āblipā I meant a short turn on of the tracking radar (or whatever emitter)
-
@mookar:
Ok, maybe I put it wrong, by āblipā 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 itās 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 AGM88Dās 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 BMSās further development because an effective weapon for dealing with SAMs is absolutely essential! -
Once a SAM site turns off itās 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 āself protectā mode which makes it VERY difficult for a SAM to bring one down.
We may be talking about different āself protectā features here, but if you are referring to the targeting mode, SP is a mode connected to the launching aircraftās EW suite, to enable automatic quick programming of the missile to target an emitter threatening the aircraft. Nothing to do with making the missileās 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 doesnāt 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 āradar modeā 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 Falconās main flaws for me (to the point of having batteries that are out of missiles still radiating and inviting ARMs over). Improvements to the AIās 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 ā¦ because they were used mostly in preventive. Maybe sometimes with āno SAMsā 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 āradar modeā simulation.
I might be wrong about this but the time SAM appears on my RWR is the time itās āredā (tracking). Different SAM radar modes have to do with the PRFs but thatās tech stuff Iām not too familiar with.
-
because they were used mostly in preventive. Maybe sometimes with āno SAMsā in the vicinity.
Whoa, whoa, you mean shot at ānothingā? I doubt it, HARMs are employed either on TOO or a self defence mode, and not a āgo-on-see-what-you-could-findā manner It has to know what itās 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 ānothingā? I doubt it, HARMs are employed either on TOO or a self defence mode, and not a āgo-on-see-what-you-could-findā manner It has to know what itās 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, etcā¦) - 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 tablesā¦ have you actually read the manual?
-
@mookar:
Whoa, whoa, you mean shot at ānothingā? I doubt it,
Doubt it if you want.
-
@mookar:
Whoa, whoa, you mean shot at ānothingā? I doubt it, HARMs are employed either on TOO or a self defence mode, and not a āgo-on-see-what-you-could-findā manner It has to know what itās 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, etcā¦) - hence Suppression of enemy air defence, and not destruction thereofā¦have you actually read the manual?
Do you have any specifics of those particular instances, Iām curious about it Was HTS utilized, what mode were the launches performed throughā¦? 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 āacquisition-fireā time. What do you mean by āacquisitionā - tgt fixed by battalion level Surv, theatre Surv, Civi Surv, or tracking radar of the SAM itself? The time āfrom tgt acquisition to missile launchā 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 ā2 minā stated by you are false by a considerable margin even for 20+ year-old systems
-
We may be talking about different āself protectā features here, but if you are referring to the targeting mode, SP is a mode connected to the launching aircraftās EW suite, to enable automatic quick programming of the missile to target an emitter threatening the aircraft. Nothing to do with making the missileās interception less possible.
Not quite correct. You see, if a SAM were to attempt to shoot down a HARM, the HARMās āself protectā mode would be engaged. The HARM then targets the SAM launcher that is now emitting (locked on) to the HARM (if it can even lock on to it). Much in the same way as a SAM locks on to an aircraft in āself protectā mode. You have to lock up the HARM and fire the SAM. By that time, the HARM has, most likely, impacted on the radar emitter. Like I said, it is very hard to shoot down a HARM. Now, if you pepper the area of impact with AAA or non guided weapons, then maybe you might get a golden bebe that takes it out. Good luck with that.
-
Like I said, it is very hard to shoot down a HARM. Now, if you pepper the area of impact with AAA or non guided weapons, then maybe you might get a golden bebe that takes it out.
Exactly itās not a piece of cake to plink it, high speed round and a miss of the SAM of around 5-10-15 meters
-
@mookar:
People have to define their terms when it comes to āacquisition-fireā time. What do you mean by āacquisitionā - tgt fixed by battalion level Surv, theatre Surv, Civi Surv, or tracking radar of the SAM itself? The time āfrom tgt acquisition to missile launchā 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 ā2 minā stated by you are false by a considerable margin even for 20+ year-old systems
Well, the HARM can āloiterā to the targeted area and look for any emissions. Depending on launch parameters, a HARM can stay in a fluid search mode for over 8 minutes. This tactic was used quite well in ODS. Cat and mouse. And, as for SAMās requiring 2 min (if not more) to sweep the radar and actively lock on to an air contact can take more than 2 minuets. By that time, the cat has made the kill. It is part of the HARMās capabilities. It has been proven in combat (ODS).
-
@mookar:
Exactly itās not a piece of cake to plink it, high speed round and a miss of the SAM of around 5-10-15 meters
Exactly.
Just to add, I have read somewhere (;)) that HARMs have around a 90%+ kill rating when radar sights were actually emitting.
-
@mookar:
People have to define their terms when it comes to āacquisition-fireā time.
+1 on this. Are we talking peace-time? war-time? ROE? Many factorsā¦ I would definitely be quite upset if my country spends tax money in a system that needs two minutes to fire a missile in war-time to a known to be approaching force.
For example quick lookup on Wikipedia (yesā¦ I knowā¦) cites Tor/SA-15ās reaction time as less than 10 seconds. Is this a realistic number? Maybe, in the most favorable test conditions, it is. Maybe, in the least favorable, 2 minutes is correct. Anyhow, 2 minutes ready-time does not mean 2 minutes radiating. Serbians
that they can shoot down airplanes with very little air time. IMO, the times we get in the sim from the moment we get the (non-search) threat in RWR until it fires feel right.The HARM then targets the SAM launcher that is now emitting (locked on) to the HARM
Do you have any documentation supporting that feature? Iāve never heard about it and, deviating from the assigned target doesnāt make much tactical sense to me. To my best knowledge the only features of legacy AGM-88 (with PNU) are flex, glide, and geo-location.
Anyway donāt take me wrong. I donāt defend that a system is or isnāt able of intercepting an incoming ARM. I say that some modern system like Patriot/S-300/AEGIS claim having this capability. Pk? Who knowsā¦ I donātā¦
Just to add, I have read somewhere (;)) that HARMs have around a 90%+ kill rating when radar sights were actually emitting.
As historically seen in ODS/OAF/OIF, gunners will immediately shoot the emitter down as soon as they know they have an ARM inbound. Even before, soviet doctrine dictates to minimize FCR on-air time. This PK is as operationally relevant as is the AIM-120ās against a non-maneuvering target. This was the main reason driving the upgrade of the HTS to be capable of pinpointing an accurate location for follow-on PGM attack, and the development AARGMās active seeker features.