ALARM vs HARM

[lasttopol]

Good night everybody!

Recently I've read, that during Kosovo war usaf could not destroy some serbian radar, though they launched very many HARMs. But RAF could sweap the radar by just one ALARM! But after it I've seen info, that ALARM already is out of service. What of sayed is truth? Though, I guess, nothing. But anyway, I am interested by info about military application of the both missiles, their cost, quantity, etc.

[Guest IguanaKing]

HARM didn't have parachute loiter capability, ALARM did. This capability made the ALARM MUCH more dangerous to an intelligent opponent that actually knew how to use his radar. Not sure about what's in service and what isn't though.

[upyr1]

I would like to see the ALARM have the parachute in BS and future version of the sim.

[christopher m]

Tornado_Alarm Missle

 

In the old (and I mean old) Tornado sim by DI Digital Integration the

Alarm missles had this parachute feature.

 

It was cool...

 

Regards,

 

Yes, Correction sim was by DI Digital Integration

[Dudikoff]

In the old (and I mean old) Tornado sim by Entertainment Arts the

Alarm missles had this parachute feature.

 

Yes, the "indirect" mode. It was made by Digital Integration (DI), though. They made a few more nice sims (Hind, for instance).

[nscode]

HARM didn't have parachute loiter capability, ALARM did. This capability made the ALARM MUCH more dangerous to an intelligent opponent that actually knew how to use his radar. Not sure about what's in service and what isn't though.

 

Yup that could be it.. radars were used so that you turn it on, check what's there and then, after a few seconds turn it off. Than another radar would do the same. If alarm is out of service, this could be why it was brought back to service, as HARM's could only hit deacoys, weather radars and when some drunk senior officer comes to a radar site and wanting to see all the blips him self leaves the radar on for longer :mad:

[dynamocl]

The ALARM was a lot more expensive than HARM. HARM was good for retail, the ALARM wasnt popular due to the cost. No sales, no profits, no longer in use (although the RAF do have a stockpile to last a while).

[Force_Feedback]

In the first days of the 2003 Iraq war, two British Tornadoes carried HARMs while doing a low-level SEAD interdiction. The first was hit with an R-60MK From a Mig-29A, and rolled over in a fireball, the second one exploded as well, but the crew was able to eject. They knew it carried HARMs because one of the planes crashed inverted, and the pylons were still intact with unused HARMs on them. So I guess even the Brits are carrying HARMs now the stockpiles are low, or they were hoping for a surprise attack.

[GGTharos]

Yup that could be it.. radars were used so that you turn it on, check what's there and then, after a few seconds turn it off. Than another radar would do the same. If alarm is out of service, this could be why it was brought back to service, as HARM's could only hit deacoys, weather radars and when some drunk senior officer comes to a radar site and wanting to see all the blips him self leaves the radar on for longer :mad:

 

One of the issues of the HARM (that I know of) was unrestricted target re-acquisition. That means if you shut down the target radar and powered up another one of the same kind, the HARM would veer off towards it. Now that this has been corrected, the old tactics are unlikely to work so well again.

[nscode]

The point is that the first one wasn't on long enough to be detected, locked and fired. And the second one wasn't turned on soon. Radars were only used to get some idea of what is up there (in terms of threat detection, not targeting). Only if decoy transmiters were not attacked it would mean that there is no sead coverage at that time/place would they be activated in full targeting manar.

[Dudikoff]

The point is that the first one wasn't on long enough to be detected, locked and fired.

 

I think it's more a question of range. To actually see if there's something there radar has to operate for a short while and if there are SEAD aircraft on station in vicinity they could lock up and launch rather quickly. But I don't know how close the HARM has to come to actually lock onto target's position so that it can still score a hit even when the target stops emitting.

[britgliderpilot]

In the first days of the 2003 Iraq war, two British Tornadoes carried HARMs while doing a low-level SEAD interdiction. The first was hit with an R-60MK From a Mig-29A, and rolled over in a fireball, the second one exploded as well, but the crew was able to eject. They knew it carried HARMs because one of the planes crashed inverted, and the pylons were still intact with unused HARMs on them. So I guess even the Brits are carrying HARMs now the stockpiles are low, or they were hoping for a surprise attack.

 

 

I didn't think the Iraqi air force got off the ground in this latest one - got a link?

 

 

Don't even think of supplying an aeronautics.ru quote, you know better :P

[lasttopol]

Well, thanks for answers. But the story about the poor couple of Tornadoes, destroyed by Fulcrum - is compleately impossible! Even guessing, that in Iraq could be remained MiG-29s, they coudn't fly without tech support, armament and pilots.

And about the worth of this parashutev - just imagine, how ALARM is slowly falling down...the best target for Shilka (Tunguska)!

And what is range of ALARM? For HARM, as I know: 140 km against detected (recognized) radar, and 70 km for common emitter locking on.

And, what about the prices? (Just interesting, how much western people pay for defences).

[Pilotasso]

In the first days of the 2003 Iraq war, two British Tornadoes carried HARMs while doing a low-level SEAD interdiction. The first was hit with an R-60MK From a Mig-29A, and rolled over in a fireball, the second one exploded as well, but the crew was able to eject.

 

HUH?! did the Iraquis even take to the air?

[Force_Feedback]

I'm soo sorry for the date, it was during the first Gulf war in 91, the two kills were scored by Jameel Sayhood (Jamil Seyhud) in a mig-29A armed with two R-27R and 2 R-60MK missiles. The two tornadoes were shot down at 12:26 and 12:30 respectively. His mig was later show down by two AIM-7's, one of which he managed to dodge. The second sparrow hit the front of his mig, and he ejected from it.

 

Oh, it's all from an article in the "Aviation and time" magazine from the Ukraine, the original article is in English and is a translation into Russian, so I guess you can find the whole article somewhere on the net (it's a recent, objective analysis of the 1991/2003 Gulf war)

 

The interesting part is that when the Tornado wreck was recovered, along with its crew in 2003 (hence my confusion), the pylons still had HARMs on them, and not, the ALARM (We're talking 1991 here, so they had enough alarms in their inventory). The question is why would the Brits carry the HARM on a dangerous (and fatal)

[Pilotasso]

The crew was only recovered in 2003?!

[Force_Feedback]

The crew was only recovered in 2003?!

 

In fact, the UK denied that those planes were shot down until 2002

[Pilotasso]

Hmm this is very interesting...the first MIg-29 victories ever?

[britgliderpilot]

I'm soo sorry for the date, it was during the first Gulf war in 91, the two kills were scored by Jameel Sayhood (Jamil Seyhud) in a mig-29A armed with two R-27R and 2 R-60MK missiles. The two tornadoes were shot down at 12:26 and 12:30 respectively. His mig was later show down by two AIM-7's, one of which he managed to dodge. The second sparrow hit the front of his mig, and he ejected from it.

 

Oh, it's all from an article in the "Aviation and time" magazine from the Ukraine, the original article is in English and is a translation into Russian, so I guess you can find the whole article somewhere on the net (it's a recent, objective analysis of the 1991/2003 Gulf war)

 

The interesting part is that when the Tornado wreck was recovered, along with its crew in 2003 (hence my confusion), the pylons still had HARMs on them, and not, the ALARM (We're talking 1991 here, so they had enough alarms in their inventory). The question is why would the Brits carry the HARM on a dangerous (and fatal)

 

. . . . . I'm a bit sceptical about that report, for a number of reasons.

 

Will see if I can check the date for the HARM integration with the Tornado - not sure it was ever loaded to the Brit GR1.

Quick Googling says the German ECR variant was fitted with the HARM . . . . no mention on the GR1 yet. Will keep looking.

 

Tornado Down states that the ALARM going to the Gulf was so brand new that the squadrons had to deal directly with the manufacturers to get it set up - I don't think we had the HARM in service before ALARM, but again, I need to check.

[britgliderpilot]

No word on the GR1, but several sources saying the German Tornado ECR (dedicated SEAD variant fitted for HARM) did not arrive until too late for the first Gulf War . . . . .

 

 

Seems a bogus report, any chance you can give us a link to a copy of it?

 

 

Found a vague reference to a Russian claim that an Italian Tornado was shot down by a MiG23, but nothing else.

[Force_Feedback]

No word on the GR1, but several sources saying the German Tornado ECR (dedicated SEAD variant fitted for HARM) did not arrive until too late for the first Gulf War . . . . .

 

 

Seems a bogus report, any chance you can give us a link to a copy of it?

 

 

Found a vague reference to a Russian claim that an Italian Tornado was shot down by a MiG23, but nothing else.

 

Errm, no links or something in the article, only some references to official Iraqi publications (evaluations, not the media or something), they did mention the "Gulf War Airpower Survey".

 

Well, later on in the article the loadout of the Tornadoes GR-1A ZA396/GE (they mention this type throughout the article) was disputed by the British authorities, as they claimed that it only carried a couple of JB.233 and no bodies were recovered. The Iraqi sources claim that on the evening of 19 January two charred bodies were found in the burned out wreckage, and the AGM-88 was identified on the pylons of the downed Tornado.

 

The article explains that there are two forseeable reasons to the secrecy of the crash coordinates, the HARM and the pilots' bodies being withheld from the public. a) RAF is deliberately disinforming due to pressure from the US Department of Defense, because the Tornado was shot down before the Americans shot down Seyhud, so to hide the error the AWACS crew made, not sending the F-15s in time and prevent the destruction of the Tornado, and it's crew. b) Nationalistic pride; the RAF doesn't want to admit the ALARM had very bad characteristics, and thus the Tornado was equipped with the HARM.

 

On the Mig being shot down: Two F-15C Eagles from the 58th TSF/33rd TFW, piloted by Cesar A. Rodriguez and Craigh H. Underhill each shot an aim-7m at the mig-29a, Seyhud managed to evade the missile from Underhill's F-15, only to get hit by the other one launched by Rodriguez. The American sources state that each of the F-15s shot down a Mig, thus giving Underhill a kill as well, while in reality it was the same plane they shot at. And since Seyhud managed to dodge the first missile, only one plane could have been shot down on January 19th.

 

The article is quite long and detailed (I omitted some details, like time and geographical locations), and I need my sleep now, so, no more questions until tomorrow :p

[britgliderpilot]

http://www.saunalahti.fi/fta/Day-3.htm

 

Shows a Tornado with that tail number.

 

Tornado Down recounts meeting Dave Waddington in captivity.

 

Also says he was shot down by a Roland SAM.

 

 

I can't find a single source that says HARM was integrated onto any Tornado by the time of the first Gulf War - ALARM was barely through testing.

 

It's very hard to keep aircrew losses secret in the West, despite what aeronautics.ru says.

 

 

I just don't believe that article.

[GGTharos]

From ACIG.org, regarding the MiG's kills:

 

 

Note 4: Extensive investigation of Iraqi interceptor operations during the IIPGW by the ACIG.org team, mainly conducted with the help of former IrAF interceptor-pilots, initially proved that no Iraqi pilot claimed even a single confirmed kill against any Coallition aircraft. Interviewed pilots stressed that they never fully recovered from the fact that they failed to shot down even one enemy, despite their sternous efforts to mount at least a single successful interception, and a number of air combats in which they fired missiles. On the basis of this as well as on the basis of additional evidence supplied from official USAF, USN, RAF and AMI documents, conclusion was that there is no basis for any of the known claims for downing of Coallition aircraft by IrAF interceptors in 1991. These entries will be kept in the list nevertheless as a designation of our position in regards to them, but they remain marked white. Additional Iraqi sources, however, are currently providing new – previously unpublished – information and details about various interceptions of US and Coallition aircraft. These are still under examination.

Note 5: Because of persistent problems with the R-13 and R-13R missiles they purchased previously from the USSR and Cz

[nscode]

I think it's more a question of range. To actually see if there's something there radar has to operate for a short while and if there are SEAD aircraft on station in vicinity they could lock up and launch rather quickly. But I don't know how close the HARM has to come to actually lock onto target's position so that it can still score a hit even when the target stops emitting.

 

We are talking about seconds... you turn it on, and if you see something, you know it's there.. if you don't... you don't. Doesn't mean there isn't anything there, but it's better to preserve the radar. Many times we got detonations first, and then air rade sirens.