HARM in POS mode
-
<p>why would the HARM need radar when in pos mode? say you mark the position of TG and it’s GPS coordinates are identified by the aircraft, then the HARM should have a mode that turns off it’s radar and turn on it’s GPS, if it can be supplied by one.</p>
-
<p>@Alfred that is the basic idea of POS mode, yes. but it’s not a huge warhead… gps and inertial guidance won’t pinpoint strike the radar dish.</p>
-
<p>BMS simulated AGM-88<strong>C</strong> which does not have GPS capability, hence the requirement for the targeted emitter to be active for the HARM terminal guidance to work.</p>
-
<p>The purpose of the agm88 is not to be guided by GPS but to track an emitter<br /><br />if you want to DEAD on GPS positions there are munitions far more efficient for that </p>
-
<p>@DUSTOFF17 <br />The -C with <strong>Block V</strong> software ( as well as the -B with <strong>Block IIIA</strong>) has the following capabilities:</p><ol><li>Ability to target GPS jammers (HOJ).</li><li>Limited geographic specifity.</li><li>Glide inhibit.</li><li>“Ability to maintain target lock-on, even if the emitter turns off.” (<u>via software upgrade</u>)</li></ol><p><br />The IOC for both software upgrades of the -C and -B were around 1999, fielding around <strong>2000</strong>. <br />On the other hand, the -C with <strong>Block IV</strong> software was fielded around <strong>1991-1993</strong> (sources are not clear), did not have these capabilities above. According to some sources, it had the following features:</p><ol><li>Signal processing upgrade.</li><li>Increased TOO mode capability.</li><li>Double seeker range sensitivity.</li><li>Improved warhead, greater lethality.</li></ol><p><br />There have been several upgrades on the software which makes questionable to simply talk about -A, -B or -C versions. Just to give an overview, here are the main versions (not necessarily in IOC chronological order): AGM-88<strong>A Block IA</strong>, AGM-88<strong>A Block II</strong>, AGM-88<strong>B Block II</strong>, AGM-88<strong>B Block III</strong>,AGM-88<strong>C Block IV</strong>, AGM-88<strong>C Block V</strong>, AGM-88<strong>B Block IIIA</strong>, AGM-88<strong>B Block IIIB</strong>, AGM-88<strong>D Block VI</strong>, etc.<br /><br /><br /></p>
-
<p>@Mav-jp <br />The AGM-88D Block VI and the AGM-88<strong><u>B</u></strong><strong> Block IIIB (yes, a </strong><strong><em>-B</em></strong><strong>) </strong>did have a GPS/INS (replacement of the standard “mechanical guidance gyros”). The -D was never fielded, but the AGM-88<strong><u>B</u></strong><strong> Block IIIB </strong>was fielded in the late 90s, early 2000’s. The USA never used them, but other countries like Germany and Italy did so, according to some sources.<br /></p>
-
-
<p>@Mav-jp but the HARM is the fastest, others come in glide form which takes a while.</p>
-
<blockquote>BMS simulated AGM-88<strong>C</strong> which does not have GPS capability, hence the requirement for the targeted emitter to be active for the HARM terminal guidance to work.</blockquote><p>does that mean that you still need emission from the source even when in the POS mode?</p>
-
<blockquote>@Mav-jp <br />The AGM-88D Block VI and the AGM-88<strong><u>B</u></strong><strong> Block IIIB (yes, a </strong><strong><em>-B</em></strong><strong>) </strong>did have a GPS/INS (replacement of the standard “mechanical guidance gyros”). The -D was never fielded, but the AGM-88<strong><u>B</u></strong><strong> Block IIIB </strong>was fielded in the late 90s, early 2000’s. The USA never used them, but other countries like Germany and Italy did so, according to some sources.<br /><br /></blockquote><p>That’s not the point GPs is used to improve accuracy of the INS but the whole point t of the HARM is to home on radar emission , else better employ a GPS ammunition <br /><br /></p>
-
<blockquote>does that mean that you still need emission from the source even when in the POS mode?</blockquote><p><br />I expect you’ll hit the ground somewhere close to the radar, but you (probably) won’t hit the radar dish.<br /><br />It’s 150 lbs warhead, which sounds like a lot, but I suspect a majority of that is the weight of heavy tunsten fragments, than raw explosive charge. (Compared to eg. GBU-39 SDB, which is 250 lbs and presumably more accurate guidance to a GPS target.)<br /><br />I think the HARM warhead is about spraying large pattern of tungten fragments, which will be coming in at high mach… vs a more conventional explosive or armor-piercing warhead.</p>
-
<p>@Alfred Yes, you need your SAM target to be emitting for a HARM to hit in <strong><em>any </em></strong>mode.<br /><br /></p>
-
<p>If we want to implement INS/GPS in our HAMRS we should implement also the Sa20 Sam</p>
-
<p>@Revientor Bring it on :-)</p>
-
<p>@Mav-jp Sure, never claimed the contrary. <br />It is perhaps interesting to implement a HARM version compatible with the time frame simulated in BMS. </p>
-
<blockquote>@Mav-jp Sure, never claimed the contrary. <br />It is perhaps interesting to implement a HARM version compatible with the time frame simulated in BMS. <br /><br /><span style=“background-color:#dcdcdc”>4.35 introduced INS deviation , it would mean for more recent versions to reduce this deviation </span><br /><br />It’s very easy to do but honestly a bit overkill since the only situation were you eventually see a difference is when seeker has lost track and guiding on last known “positio” where new models have less deviation than the old<br /><br /><br /><br /></blockquote><p><br /></p>
-
<p>BMS HARM cannot target GPS coordinates like SDB. I tested it in 4.34 and it didn’t hit when fired at a TGP locked target.</p>
-
<p>@airtex2019 <br />I agree an all what you have said… and this weapon “works” just as you have supposed to, the main thing is not the weight of the bullets <em>(please let me call them so)</em>, but the speed they are sprayed on the hitting area.<br /><br />With best regards.</p>
-
<p>This is an interesting topic, and one I am of 2 minds . As someone who is more DEAD then SEAD, there are situations where a HARM with GPS would definitely be nice. However, having our HARM version has made me a better Weasel . Without the “Magic Bullet”, I’ve had to learn other ways to accomplish the mission. In the Hornet I use SLAM a lot. I’ve had to rely more on tactics such as using terrain, etc.</p>
-
<p>@drtbkj <br />So it is, dear Joe. And here we are, with “the talk”.<br />In my humble opinion, choosing between SEAD and DEAD is only a matter of strategical, more than tactical, decisions.<br />I mean for that: what is more useful for our troops (yeah, it’s always all aimed to them, you know)? Calling for a JTAC (an aspect to be still full implemented in Falcon, as far as I know) or a more generic air support, with TOO and stuff of that same kind? First come first. <br />And the second is: what kind of SAM battalions we have there, first (this may drive to SEAD) or second generation (and this one could drive to DEAD instead)? But, first of all: what do we know about their presence in the area of our interest? And are those informations reliable, and how much? And this may drive to the conclusion: may I have JSTAR or drone (= local, more useful because it’s real time constatly updated) support, if available? And to this conclusion too: the relevance of having a 3D map, and correctly reading and interpreting it when planning sorties.<br />Can you realize now how much work is behind a TE (or a campaign, it’s the same) properly conceived and done, and all the others, and what is the meaning and relevance of a briefing seriously made before taking off?<br />All seen in those Discord discussions of ours, remember? And here they come, eh eh eh. <br /><em>“Learn to think before you shoot”</em><br /><br />With best regards.<br />Gianni.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p>