Were harms really THIS useless circa 86? Other questions...

[Sublimearrepentido]

Playingbthe DCE tf68 86 version.

I cant count the dozens of harms launched. I see one outta 50 seem to hit. Its the AI using them but jesus I thought the HARM remembered enemy emitter positions??

They seem to use them waaay better against the Iranians.

Whats the deal?

Also are rockeyes still bugged?

Please see some other questions I have on the refueling tree he turkey thread guys

[near_blind]

That campaign is using a script that simulates a competent SAM site operator recognizing a likely HARM shot and shutting down his radars. If the AGM-88C in the sim does have an INS, it's almost certainly only rudimentary enough to keep the seeker vaguely oriented towards where the emitter was last detected so the seeker can reacquire if the radar flips back on. The AGM-88E might be a bit different, but we don't have those in game.

 

As for real life, a thing to understand is that the HARM is a suppression weapon. There's a reason SEAD and DEAD are two separate mission types. The idea behind SEAD isn't necessarily to destroy the air defenses around a target, it's to degrade or otherwise negate the ability of the defenses to exert control over a section of air space. Imagine it like this.

 

You are a SEAD element for a strike package striking a target. The target is defended by a SAM, which you detect and shoot a HARM at. It will take two minutes for the HARM to "time out". During those two minutes the SAM operator has two options: radiate or don't radiate. If he radiates, he can engage your strike package, but he risks his radars getting blown up by the HARM. If he doesn't radiate, he loses his ability to engage your strikers but lives to see another day. Depending on the value and availability of replacements this might be more important than preventing the local baby formula factory / chemical weapons plant from getting bombed.

 

That's a single HARM. now imagine at the end of that two minute period, you shoot another HARM, that's another two minutes for your strikers to do their business. Ideally the attack will be completed by the time your run out of missiles.

 

This is the doctrinal reason the HARM exists. In reality they have an extremely low hit percentage, and that's not a bad thing because we don't shoot them with the intent that they're going to kill every time. The HARM is a support weapon, sort of like a machine gun pinning troops in a trench. You shoot them early and often to force the enemy IADs to keep its head down and allow your bombers to do their job. If you're attempting to go in and actually physically destroy a SAM site, there are better tools for the job.

Edited May 15, 2020 by near_blind

[Sublimearrepentido]

That campaign is using a script that simulates a competent SAM site operator recognizing a likely HARM shot and shutting down his radars. If the AGM-88C in the sim does have an INS, it's almost certainly only rudimentary enough to keep the seeker vaguely oriented towards where the emitter was last detected so the seeker can reacquire if the radar flips back on. The AGM-88E might be a bit different, but we don't have those in game.

 

As for real life, a thing to understand is that the HARM is a suppression weapon. There's a reason SEAD and DEAD are two separate mission types. The idea behind SEAD isn't necessarily to destroy the air defenses around a target, it's to degrade or otherwise negate the ability of the defenses to exert control over a section of air space. Imagine it like this.

 

You are a SEAD element for a strike package striking a target. The target is defended by a SAM, which you detect and shoot a HARM at. It will take two minutes for the HARM to "time out". During those two minutes the SAM operator has two options: radiate or don't radiate. If he radiates, he can engage your strike package, but he risks his radars getting blown up by the SAM. If he doesn't radiate, he loses his ability to engage your strikers but lives to see another day. Depending on the value and availability of replacements this might be more important than preventing the local baby formula factory / chemical weapons plant from getting bombed.

 

That's a single HARM. now imagine at the end of that two minute period, you shoot another HARM, that's another two minutes for your strikers to do their business. Ideally the attack will be completed by the time your run out of missiles.

 

This is the doctrinal reason the HARM exists. In reality they have an extremely low hit percentage, and that's not a bad thing because we don't shoot them with the intent that they're going to kill every time. The HARM is a support weapon, sort of like a machine gun pinning troops in a trench. You shoot them early and often to force the enemy IADs to keep its head down and allow your bombers to do their job. If you're attempting to go in and actually physically destroy a SAM site, there are better tools for the job.

 

I get it. I distinctly just remember reading Shrikes would go dead if emitters were turned off - this began in VN. HARMs were supposed to be a upgrade as turning the emitters off would still cause the harm to hit the emitters last known spot. The problem was it only killed the radar truck.

Other things on that campaign - sead and dead flights do their jobs... really poorly. Whereas in TF Delta they absolutely savage the enemy. Youd think walleyes - a circa 1960s weapon wouldnt be as effective as harms but Ive watched F18As destroy 2 EWRs and 2 SAM sites in one sortie after I got shot down. In TF 68 I think mayben10 SAMs got hit in 18 missions. It was a total clusterfck. We only ever got 2 EWR sites and the cargo convoys. Everything else barely got touched. What a mess.

It feels like the AI has no brain at all in TF68 (80s) battle group delta the ai feels competent.

Its a shame as to me the USSR is a much more compellling enemy. I look at the enemy aerial OOB for the iranian one and smh. F4E squad F5s and one F14 squad

The Russian aerial oob has like 12 squads tu22s.. tu142s. Mig 25s 23s 21s. Su17s. Theyre a real issue. Su24s. The entire campaign the red air is a huge issue.

While I ramble I never realized how many AS4s would be shot at a whack! Is this realistic? Holy hell! I cant try to down those cruise missiles with Aim54s - theres too many - gotta get rhe planes!

[jojo]

Well, DCE mission are generated automatically. It can't fine tuned as much as totally scripted campaign where the designer can go in much finer details.

 

By the way, DCE engine, or HARM effectiveness have nothing to do with HB or Tomcat :smilewink:

[Dahlbeck]

I don't know about the version we currently have in DCS, but I'm pretty sure the early versions of the HARM (and no, I'm not talking about the Shrike) didn't have any inertial guidance and would go dumb if the radar powered down.

 

Skickat från min H8324 via Tapatalk

[Sublimearrepentido]

Oh theyre still the best thing out there.

Better than scripted too.

Persistent damage. They keep gttn better.

If they only could write a casevac script that for ejected pilots a percentage or something increases with distance from enemy shore if over water. Id love a CSAR huey campaign. Itd be great as an excuse to use some less used western planes as CSAR guards..

Id kill for that and just troop transport and sometimes hot LZs.

Someone could do it for russians where if pilot ejects and is over russian land % of CSAR flight.

Probably never happen but only way I can imagine it besides an actual attack campaign. The only attack helo I can genuinely say id want is the hind or ah 1z.

 

Otherwise idk. Im so broke. Need a new comp. And I got my f14. Only MUST haves for me are F4, A6, or an Mi24 tbh right now.

Yeah yea if they rolled out a couple of different cold war jobs Id probably change my.mind fast. Id fly a b57 or il28. Lol

[Harlikwin]

That campaign is using a script that simulates a competent SAM site operator recognizing a likely HARM shot and shutting down his radars. If the AGM-88C in the sim does have an INS, it's almost certainly only rudimentary enough to keep the seeker vaguely oriented towards where the emitter was last detected so the seeker can reacquire if the radar flips back on. The AGM-88E might be a bit different, but we don't have those in game.

 

As for real life, a thing to understand is that the HARM is a suppression weapon. There's a reason SEAD and DEAD are two separate mission types. The idea behind SEAD isn't necessarily to destroy the air defenses around a target, it's to degrade or otherwise negate the ability of the defenses to exert control over a section of air space. Imagine it like this.

 

You are a SEAD element for a strike package striking a target. The target is defended by a SAM, which you detect and shoot a HARM at. It will take two minutes for the HARM to "time out". During those two minutes the SAM operator has two options: radiate or don't radiate. If he radiates, he can engage your strike package, but he risks his radars getting blown up by the SAM. If he doesn't radiate, he loses his ability to engage your strikers but lives to see another day. Depending on the value and availability of replacements this might be more important than preventing the local baby formula factory / chemical weapons plant from getting bombed.

 

That's a single HARM. now imagine at the end of that two minute period, you shoot another HARM, that's another two minutes for your strikers to do their business. Ideally the attack will be completed by the time your run out of missiles.

 

This is the doctrinal reason the HARM exists. In reality they have an extremely low hit percentage, and that's not a bad thing because we don't shoot them with the intent that they're going to kill every time. The HARM is a support weapon, sort of like a machine gun pinning troops in a trench. You shoot them early and often to force the enemy IADs to keep its head down and allow your bombers to do their job. If you're attempting to go in and actually physically destroy a SAM site, there are better tools for the job.

 

Yup perfect explanation of what HARM's are supposed to do. SEAD not necessarily DEAD.

 

Versus the earlier Shrike, the Shrike would basically go stupid if it lost the emitter, hence radar guys would cycle on/off to ditch them. The HARM has some basic INS/logic to keep headed toward the emmiter in the "beam", however its not "precise" it doesn't magically generate a GPS position of the target and fly to that, if the radar is off it will most likely miss. It knows that the target was on bearing XYZ when it turned off, so the HARM will keep flying in the "general" direction of the radar beam as best it can and hope the radar comes back on so it can more precisely target it. But it can also fly out of that beam, now to be fair it can probably pick up side lobes too, but at much shorter distances. Its ability to do these things more or less effectively also depends on what mode its in. SP for example vs PP is gonna give you different results/logic.

 

For DEAD:

 

Using the JF17 and the LD-10 as the example since its what I currently fly more, but the Hornet/harrier/Su25 etc its the same tactic. I basically wait for the SAM to shoot, and lob an LD10 at it. While I'm doing this I'm looking for the sam plume so I can lock the TGP onto the SAM site.

 

Then one of two things happens. Either Mr SAM has shut off his radar and I proceed to bore in the SAM and If I'm in range with my CBU-SFW's I immediately engage the launchers.

 

Alternately SAM keeps "on" I go defensive and the LD-10 often kills it. And THEN I go back with the CBU's.

 

If there is still a launcher, I still have a spare LD-10.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Harlikwin