Future AGM-88C HARM behaviour ?

[TwojaStara]

Hi, does any body know if the unability of HARM to target low band emitters is going to be simulated? As per [1] it should not be capable of targeting below 0.5Ghz (λ=0.59m) - so radars like P-18 (150-170Mhz) should not be targetable by AGM-88C HARM ?

 

Also second question,in case of emitter ceasing to transmit, is HARM in DCS going to have chance to miss or not ? According to [2], HARM C (Block III/IIIA/IV/V) variant should miss as it doesn't have GPS receiver ? (only -D gets the GPS):

 

The main improvement of HARM Block VI is the incorporation of a GPS navigation system. This greatly increases accuracy when radar lock is lost after emitter switch-off, because the GPS guidance keeps the missile within a narrow box towards the last known emitter position. This is especially desirable in wars, where enemy radar installations are deliberately placed near sensitive civilian areas, like schools or hospitals. This often prevented the use of earlier HARM missiles in the Kosovo campaign, because a deviation after radar loss could lead to unacceptable collateral damage.

 

In case the HARM will still get accurately to the old emitting location (even with emission off; let's assume simplification for DCS ), would it miss if the target would be on the move ? (e.g. Osa/Tunguska/Tor?)

 

[1] - http://www.ausairpower.net/API-AGM-88-HARM.html

[2] - http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-88.html

[Frederf]

Non-GPS HARM still attempt to hit with IMU memory but Pk is significantly lower because IMU coasting without radiation homing is only so good. GPS-INS models are much superior and can be used to hit radars reliably which have shut down mid-engagement and even target radars which never turn on during engagement (if provided target data is sufficiently accurate). Naturally moving radars are not hit by either type.

 

C model contains originally Block IV software (later V) however and does not have GPS or HOJ capability. A C with VI is a D model.

[TwojaStara]

Ok, I've tested it today with our new shiny Hornet HARMs:

a) we cannot target on EWRs which is good

b) 4/4 times I was able to force HARM (launched at edge of S-75 range , from 33k feet) to miss by disabling radar emission of whole S-75 sam site (from template) - by going into Combined Arms Tactical commander mode, This makes it even better fun when it's done automatically by IADSScript: if anyone is interested: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=118175

[Anklebiter]

Cool! Were they hitting consistently when you left the site on at that range?

[TwojaStara]

Cool! Were they hitting consistently when you left the site on at that range?

They were hitting like 2-3 out of 4 when I was not shutting down SAM.

 

 

When I was in charge of SAM and disabled radio emissions all of them missed.

[Blaze1]

Non-GPS HARM still attempt to hit with IMU memory but Pk is significantly lower because IMU coasting without radiation homing is only so good. GPS-INS models are much superior and can be used to hit radars reliably which have shut down mid-engagement and even target radars which never turn on during engagement (if provided target data is sufficiently accurate). Naturally moving radars are not hit by either type.

 

C model contains originally Block IV software (later V) however and does not have GPS or HOJ capability. A C with VI is a D model.

Good post Frederf. The bold part of your statement is of course pretty critical.

[delevero]

Thought you guys might find this usefull.

 

 

Harm

distance altitude speed

70nm 40.000ft 380

50nm 30.000ft 400

35nm 20.000ft 400

25nm 10.000ft 400

15nm 1.000ft 550

Edited January 18, 2019 by delevero

[vincentb]

HARM features

 

Hi all,

 

I'm a bit confused so far with ranging for the HARM. I understand that in TOO and SP modes the HARM will not have range information available. Is this true in all circumstances (I could imagine after detecting the same sensor for a while during flight that changes in direction of the contact during flight could permit range approximation by the HARM sensor)?

 

Is there any way in which you can use the information of the HARM as sensor (i guess TOO mode) to train your other sensors to the area? In some youtube videos featuring HARM deployment in other sims it is mentioned that Handoff can also be to the ground radar giving an approximate position. Is this an actual feature of using the HARM as sensor or just an artifact of that other simulation?

 

And is the pre-brief (PB) mode exclusively dependent on pre-programmed waypoints or can these be adjusted in flight based on information of your sensors/datalink?

 

Thanks a lot in advance

[Ramsay]

I understand that in TOO and SP modes the HARM will not have range information available. Is this true in all circumstances (I could imagine after detecting the same sensor for a while during flight that changes in direction of the contact during flight could permit range approximation by the HARM sensor)?

In SP mode the RWR passes the threat type to the HARM, direction is determined by the pilot from the RWR (not the HARM).

 

In TOO mode AFAIK, HARM as sensor will only give type and azimuth

 

Is there any way in which you can use the information of the HARM as sensor (i guess TOO mode) to train your other sensors to the area? In some youtube videos featuring HARM deployment in other sims it is mentioned that Handoff can also be to the ground radar giving an approximate position. Is this an actual feature of using the HARM as sensor or just an artifact of that other simulation?

 

AFAIK, the RWR, etc. can be used to triangulate the approx. position of a threat, however it's not automated, for that you require something like the F-16 HARM Targeting System (HTS) pod.

[vincentb]

In SP mode the RWR passes the threat type to the HARM, direction is determined by the pilot from the RWR (not the HARM).

 

In TOO mode AFAIK, HARM as sensor will only give type and azimuth

 

 

 

AFAIK, the RWR, etc. can be used to triangulate the approx. position of a threat, however it's not automated, for that you require something like the F-16 HARM Targeting System (HTS) pod.

 

Thanks for the answers. I see, you'd think that due to the big speed difference between the jet and even mobile ground/naval-based radars that a rapid estimation whether something is approximately in range of the HARM would not be extraordinarily difficult to calculate for such a sensor.

 

1) Is there a way to get an accurate bearing using the RWR?

 

2) Do you also happen to know whether PB waypoints can be edited mid-flight?

 

Thanks