AGM-88 HARM implementation FA18/F16

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, jojojung said:

The HTS is much more sophisticated then the TOO Harm Mode in the F18. Because you get range and deviation data with the HTS pod and thats very significant IRL. 

The simplyfied and magic HARM TOO Mode in the F18 is known for many years now, but ED didnt fix anything.  

If you think there is an issue that has not already been reported or acknowledged, or you have unclassified data that would help please make a thread or PM me 

thank you

[bushido]

I have not tried the HTCS yet, still very much learning the F16 at this stage. 

I understand that the current representation on the F18 is likely simplified that would explain the difference between the two aircraft when using only the missile seeker.

Thanks for the info all.

[AlexCaboose]

5 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

If you think there is an issue that has not already been reported or acknowledged, or you have unclassified data that would help please make a thread or PM me 

thank you

TOO uses the HARM as a sensor. So does HAS in the Viper. However, the Hornet picks up emitters instantly without any modeling of scan cycles. Doesn’t seem much different than how the Viper models restrictions on laser codes being programmed on the ground only (physical limitations of the weapons), Maverick bore sighting procedures, etc. that the Hornet doesn’t include.

[BIGNEWY]

I have spoken to the team. 

We don't have any additional data on the HARM for the Hornet and the design is based only on what is available, same for boresight on the hornet. 

Please remember we can only use publicly available data, if we come across useable data later its something we can revisit. 

thank you 

[AlexCaboose]

4 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

I have spoken to the team. 

We don't have any additional data on the HARM for the Hornet and the design is based only on what is available, same for boresight on the hornet. 

Please remember we can only use publicly available data, if we come across useable data later its something we can revisit. 

thank you 

What about the laser codes that physically cannot be changed in the air? 

Edited February 22, 2023 by AlexCaboose

[Aquorys]

13 minutes ago, AlexCaboose said:

What about the laser codes that physically cannot be changed in the air? 

Valid point, but I think it should go in a separate thread, because it's not related to the HARM.

[BIGNEWY]

43 minutes ago, AlexCaboose said:

What about the laser codes that physically cannot be changed in the air? 

 

its not a topic for this thread, but eventually the codes will only be editable on the ground, once we have the UI in place for it.  

[jojojung]

vor einer Stunde schrieb BIGNEWY:

I have spoken to the team. 

We don't have any additional data on the HARM for the Hornet and the design is based only on what is available, same for boresight on the hornet. 

Please remember we can only use publicly available data, if we come across useable data later its something we can revisit. 

thank you 

Thanks @bignewy for your passion!

we know that HAS mode in the Viper and TOO mode in the Hornet both use the same harm sensor itself.

But you already know how the seeker of the harm missle works because from the available data from the Viper. My question is, why the same senor system should work complitly different in the Hornet. And when ED has nearly no data for the Hornet Harm TOO why ED then doesnt rely on the available data of the missle Sensor on the other planes to build the Hornet system based on the available data rather then doing things that are highly wrong and based more in fantasy. Instead it seems that ED overpowered the Hornet because no data in some ways (like MAV alignment, laser codes or FM).

Edited February 22, 2023 by jojojung

[NineLine]

54 minutes ago, jojojung said:

Thanks @bignewy for your passion!

we know that HAS mode in the Viper and TOO mode in the Hornet both use the same harm sensor itself.

But you already know how the seeker of the harm missle works because from the available data from the Viper. My question is, why the same senor system should work complitly different in the Hornet. And when ED has nearly no data for the Hornet Harm TOO why ED then doesnt rely on the available data of the missle Sensor on the other planes to build the Hornet system based on the available data rather then doing things that are highly wrong and based more in fantasy. Instead it seems that ED overpowered the Hornet because no data in some ways (like MAV alignment, laser codes or FM).

 

This is just not something we are going to do, even basing it on another aircraft is making an assumption. If we get more data from another source we will be happy to revisit. As a business, most anything we put in the game must have a source that we can point to.

Thanks.

[Hulkbust44]

11 hours ago, jojojung said:

The HTS is much more sophisticated then the TOO Harm Mode in the F18. Because you get range and deviation data with the HTS pod and thats very significant IRL. 

The simplyfied and magic HARM TOO Mode in the F18 is known for many years now, but ED didnt fix anything.  

There is nothing wrong with the Hornet TOO. Yeah it's too precise, but so is ever ED sensor. The "tables" are categorized differently in the Hornet where you can select a class to lessen the search time. However, the Hornet also has the ALR-67 and ASPJ contributing to tell CLC what to expect. So yeah the HTS is a more precise system overall, but the Hornet CLC puts it's way above a non-HTS Viper.

2 hours ago, jojojung said:

Thanks @bignewy for your passion!

we know that HAS mode in the Viper and TOO mode in the Hornet both use the same harm sensor itself.

But you already know how the seeker of the harm missle works because from the available data from the Viper. My question is, why the same senor system should work complitly different in the Hornet. And when ED has nearly no data for the Hornet Harm TOO why ED then doesnt rely on the available data of the missle Sensor on the other planes to build the Hornet system based on the available data rather then doing things that are highly wrong and based more in fantasy. Instead it seems that ED overpowered the Hornet because no data in some ways (like MAV alignment, laser codes or FM).

 

Hornet has the ALR-67 and ALQ-165 that contribute, making "scans" a non factor when the other systems detect something. This is also how you have TOO emitters outside the HARM FOV. 

[Hulkbust44]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

This is just not something we are going to do, even basing it on another aircraft is making an assumption. If we get more data from another source we will be happy to revisit. As a business, most anything we put in the game must have a source that we can point to.

Thanks.

What functions you specifically need more info on? Some things missing are range known/unknown functions, land/sea select, PB target profiles, and HARM MSI trackfile creation and correlation, to name a few.

[jojojung]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb Hulkbust44:

There is nothing wrong with the Hornet TOO.

And thats the problem! How do you come to this point? Any real pilot says its a lot simplyfied in the Hornet but also the HARM implementation in DCS at all. There a interviews out there in which the pilots are doubting the harm IRL in general because it is very unprecise together with some other problems.

And then the DCS hobbypilots saying that all the things are correct here with the HARM in the Hornet by throwing some technical systems around, but again no prove at all. I have to say I stick to those who know what there are talking about.

Only one little thing to think of: The HTS is one of the most advanced systems for SEAD, right? There are a lot of F16 wings is didicated to this role. The hole system has this main goal it was developed only for this purpose.
By understanding how the HTS works, which is quite well known (compaired to all the other stuff) you can see, how difficult it is for the system to build up more and more data to get a more precise location of the emitter (PGM 5... PGM1, elipse data etc). You can get an imagination how complicated it is to get rid of the deviation. It depends on the direction of the emitter to do triangulation and so on.
In contrast here it is said then, "yeah the hornet does all this in a build in process doesnt need anything and put out nearly exact location data in milliseconds. Proof? Sorry classified but ARGD/6685 and THDJ/5435 are connected".
Sorry if I'm doing some parody its not to do any HARM
That RWR and HARM are coupled does not magicaly solve all the other problems with deviation etc. which needs more and more minutes to get a solution.
I found this argumentation from ED and from many Hornet fanatics very questionable. Thats my point! I'm flying the hornet too, its one of my favorite airplanes in DCS but I want a sim and not a sim for some planes (cold war fighters and to some point the F16 which are well documented) and for some planes its more a kind of guessing (same for MAV alignement and a lot of other things). Thats not how it sould work!
ED has said itself that there would be a workaround for the F18 TOO. But there was no big change at all. Too precise, too fast, too arcady. The longer an arcady system implementation stays in the game the more difficult it will be for ED to do the update to a not so magical system when the finally get some documents.

Edited February 23, 2023 by jojojung

[falcon_120]

34 minutes ago, jojojung said:

And thats the problem! How do you come to this point? Any real pilot says its a lot simplyfied in the Hornet but also the HARM implementation in DCS at all. There a interviews out there in which the pilots are doubting the harm IRL in general because it is very unprecise together with some other problems.

And then the DCS hobbypilots saying that all the things are correct here with the HARM in the Hornet by throwing some technical systems around, but again no prove at all. I have to say I stick to those who know what there are talking about.

Only one little thing to think of: The HTS is one of the most advanced systems for SEAD, right? There are a lot of F16 wings is didicated to this role. The hole system has this main goal it was developed only for this purpose.
By understanding how the HTS works, which is quite well known (compaired to all the other stuff) you can see, how difficult it is for the system to build up more and more data to get a more precise location of the emitter (PGM 5... PGM1, elipse data etc). You can get an imagination how complicated it is to get rid of the deviation. It depends on the direction of the emitter to do triangulation and so on.
In contrast here it is said then, "yeah the hornet does all this in a build in process doesnt need anything and put out nearly exact location data in milliseconds. Proof? Sorry classified but ARGD/6685 and THDJ/5435 are connected".
Sorry if I'm doing some parody its not to do any HARM
That RWR and HARM are coupled does not magicaly solve all the other problems with deviation etc. which needs more and more minutes to get a solution.
I found this argumentation from ED and from many Hornet fanatics very questionable. Thats my point! I'm flying the hornet too, its one of my favorite airplanes in DCS but I want a sim and not a sim for some planes (cold war fighters and to some point the F16 which are well documented) and for some planes its more a kind of guessing (same for MAV alignement and a lot of other things). Thats not how it sould work!
ED has said itself that there would be a workaround for the F18 TOO. But there was no big change at all. Too precise, too fast, too arcady. The longer an arcady system implementation stays in the game the more difficult it will be for ED to do the update to a not so magical system when the finally get some documents.

 

Jojo i get your point and frustation, you want sources for the info provided, but the truth is there are no a lot of public data around. However i would say this, people that have worked with the hornet and superhornet, including not only personnel but also pilots, have repeteadly said that there is no coincidence the us navy does not use a HTS pod themselves (or an equivalent). 

In the case of the hornet, the whole MSI system, build tracks constantly with a level of confidence and precision, these tracks are build not only from the radar, but also from the FLIR, SPJ and the RWR. This is amazing, and it means that even when not emitting (radar off), the MSI system build tracks of enemy and ground units detected by the RWR, which as time passes improve confidence/precision of said tracks in the same way the HTS does (changes in angular precision, recevied mean power, etc...). For example in air to air mode, i've read you get a bearing only track if the sensor providing data is only the RWR, but paired with other hornets in the flight you can more or less triangulate the distance to the enemy, this is not enough to employ amraams silently, but could be enough to find the enemy using the FLIR, and from that moment ruse the radar just at the right time to launch the amraam and give the enemy planes virtually very time to react and gain SA. 

So in short, even this is not the answer you want, it is true that in the hornet the ASPJ/RWR/Mission computer via MSI are working together to provide tracks information to the pilot and to other weapons like the HARM. How exactly? Well i'm afraid this is unknown to us. On the other hand is not surprising to me that all the electronic living in the HTS pod in the vipers is something that can go (sort of) internally in a bigger plane like the superhornet, with more space and power available for the RWR gear.

[jojojung]

vor 47 Minuten schrieb falcon_120:

Jojo i get your point and frustation, you want sources for the info provided, but the truth is there are no a lot of public data around. However i would say this, people that have worked with the hornet and superhornet, including not only personnel but also pilots, have repeteadly said that there is no coincidence the us navy does not use a HTS pod themselves (or an equivalent). 

In the case of the hornet, the whole MSI system, build tracks constantly with a level of confidence and precision, these tracks are build not only from the radar, but also from the FLIR, SPJ and the RWR. This is amazing, and it means that even when not emitting (radar off), the MSI system build tracks of enemy and ground units detected by the RWR, which as time passes improve confidence/precision of said tracks in the same way the HTS does (changes in angular precision, recevied mean power, etc...). For example in air to air mode, i've read you get a bearing only track if the sensor providing data is only the RWR, but paired with other hornets in the flight you can more or less triangulate the distance to the enemy, this is not enough to employ amraams silently, but could be enough to find the enemy using the FLIR, and from that moment ruse the radar just at the right time to launch the amraam and give the enemy planes virtually very time to react and gain SA. 

So in short, even this is not the answer you want, it is true that in the hornet the ASPJ/RWR/Mission computer via MSI are working together to provide tracks information to the pilot and to other weapons like the HARM. How exactly? Well i'm afraid this is unknown to us. On the other hand is not surprising to me that all the electronic living in the HTS pod in the vipers is something that can go (sort of) internally in a bigger plane like the superhornet, with more space and power available for the RWR gear.

OK, lets say then, the hole HTS system eqivalent is build in the (super)Hornet. I think thats not the case, but just to do some thinking... 

You are flying alone and the emitter gets online for the first time... The sophisticated HTS need time to get a good solution. You need to change your position for triangulation etc. The ED Frankenstein Hornet TOO get the nearly exact position in just a millisecond. 

MSI can be excluded here because it gets online for the first time.

Do you find this realistic? A lot of things or systems are canceled by ED because of "Frankenstein" ist not wanted. But if it comes to the Hornet everything ist possibile even beyond the logic of engineering, because we all have no available data. Instead of doing conservative steps to get close to the real Hornet, ED just implement arcady style systems. That doesnt correspond to the rest of DCS which is by far the best sim we have!

Edited February 23, 2023 by jojojung

[falcon_120]

29 minutes ago, jojojung said:

OK, lets say then, the hole HTS system eqivalent is build in the (super)Hornet. I think thats not the case, but just to do some thinking... 

You are flying alone and the emitter gets online for the first time... The sophisticated HTS need time to get a good solution. You need to change your position for triangulation etc. The ED Frankenstein Hornet TOO get the nearly exact position in just a millisecond. 

MSI can be excluded here because it gets online for the first time.

Do you find this realistic? A lot of things or systems are canceled by ED because of "Frankenstein" ist not wanted. But if it comes to the Hornet everything ist possibile even beyond the logic of engineering, because we all have no available data. Instead of doing conservative steps to get close to the real Hornet, ED just implement arcady style systems. That doesnt correspond to the rest of DCS which is by far the best sim we have!

 

So in short:

-That the TOO mode in the hornet provides a TD box in the hud locating perfectly the enemy SAM is not realistic, at least not right away, period. This is something to improve by ED hopefully in the future

-On the other hand, if the radar has been emetting for enough time, and the RWR/MSI combination has time to gather enough info to build a quiality track, is not that rare to think that calling up a HARM you can hand off this info to the missile.

-This argument goes both ways, there are simplification of the same systems or very similar ones across the staple of ED modules all around, let me give you some examples: JDAMs need no align time in the A10C or AV8 but yes in F16/F18, F16 need to boresight maverick but no other modules needs to, F16/F18 can change weapon laser codes in the air while the JF17 needs to do so while in the ground (realistic), F16/F18/all FC3 rwr provides radar info perfectly and precise to 1 degree while it should not be like that (the f14 is the most credible implementation).... So a lot of work to do to lay a framework that homogenize systems across the board, a huge task that will take years over several iterations when time allows...

[jojojung]

vor 12 Minuten schrieb falcon_120:

So in short:

-That the TOO mode in the hornet provides a TD box in the hud locating perfectly the enemy SAM is not realistic, at least not right away, period. This is something to improve by ED hopefully in the future

-On the other hand, if the radar has been emetting for enough time, and the RWR/MSI combination has time to gather enough info to build a quiality track, is not that rare to think that calling up a HARM you can hand off this info to the missile.

-This argument goes both ways, there are simplification of the same systems or very similar ones across the staple of ED modules all around, let me give you some examples: JDAMs need no align time in the A10C or AV8 but yes in F16/F18, F16 need to boresight maverick but no other modules needs to, F16/F18 can change weapon laser codes in the air while the JF17 needs to do so while in the ground (realistic), F16/F18/all FC3 rwr provides radar info perfectly and precise to 1 degree while it should not be like that (the f14 is the most credible implementation).... So a lot of work to do to lay a framework that homogenize systems across the board, a huge task that will take years over several iterations when time allows...

My scepticism was pointing out to your first point. So far: Fully agreed. Perfectly placed TD Box is simply wrong. 

Your second point is valid if the RWR/MSI suite is that strong in the hornet. Im a little sceptical but thats only based in my personal experiance.

What is fact is that the TOO get a valid solution too fast, when the emitter starts emitting for the first time. There is nearly no processing and triangulation time needed. ED knows that since years, no need to change because of missing documentation. Sorry ED, thats simply physics. 

Third point fully agreed. There is a lot of work to so but I dont see much progress. Its wrong for years now. Btw the F16 can't change laser codes in flight only when fully shut down.

[Hulkbust44]

5 hours ago, jojojung said:

My scepticism was pointing out to your first point. So far: Fully agreed. Perfectly placed TD Box is simply wrong. 

Your second point is valid if the RWR/MSI suite is that strong in the hornet. Im a little sceptical but thats only based in my personal experiance.

What is fact is that the TOO get a valid solution too fast, when the emitter starts emitting for the first time. There is nearly no processing and triangulation time needed. ED knows that since years, no need to change because of missing documentation. Sorry ED, thats simply physics. 

Third point fully agreed. There is a lot of work to so but I dont see much progress. Its wrong for years now. Btw the F16 can't change laser codes in flight only when fully shut down.

 

Yeah the TD box should be less precise, but as I understand it would be more precise than the HTS initially, think TWS vs STT. The HARM seeker FOV is some 4x smaller than that of the the HTS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an F-16 firing in "PB" at an HTS target that's just been detected would be terribly inaccurate compared to an F-16 using a HARM fired in HAS.You don't need triangulation to tell the HARM seeker to track a detected emitter. And in the Hornet, that emitter would've been processed by the ALR-67 and ASPJ helping the quick targeting process. 

[jojojung]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Hulkbust44:

Yeah the TD box should be less precise, but as I understand it would be more precise than the HTS initially, think TWS vs STT. The HARM seeker FOV is some 4x smaller than that of the the HTS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an F-16 firing in "PB" at an HTS target that's just been detected would be terribly inaccurate compared to an F-16 using a HARM fired in HAS.You don't need triangulation to tell the HARM seeker to track a detected emitter. And in the Hornet, that emitter would've been processed by the ALR-67 and ASPJ helping the quick targeting process. 

You are mixing things up a bit. Are you firm to the HARM and its systems? I will try to explain:

The HARM seeker itself does only get the bearing, no other data. If you rely on that alone you are gone. There is a very low probability of kill, maybe some selfprotecting stuff because the SAM will deactivate its radar because of the harm. The PB Mode is when you already know where the target is. If your intel is precise you dont need TOO or HTS at all.
Because the only function of the HTS is to get the location of the emitter to know when you are in a good firing zone.
You are wrong again about the handoff of the HTS to the HARM. There is no aspect why the HTS handoff should be less precise than a HAS or a magical Hornet TOO shoot, because like you prodicted both work same ways, which I - again- highly doubt. Only a PB shoot with exact intel data (because the SAM must be at the waypoint) is better.
The problem with the TOO Mode in the Hornet is not the quicker search time and that there are no tables with codes needed, thats not the point of discussion. To explain it more easy: with MSI in the hornet the RWR and the HARM are connected: there are no search codes and not so long progressing times like the HAS Mode because the RWR says the HARM "ok only look for SA 6 Im nailed".
If the ALR-67 and ASPJ only would helping the quick targeting handoff that would be fine from my understanding but as you pointed out the hornet TOO does not only the quicker handoff but also do an exact localization of the emitter in milliseconds when it comes online for the first time and thats the only point thats is problematic and by far unrealistically. But no one cares about.
Hope I cleared some things up a bit!

@BIGNEWY which data do you need exactly to make the implementation of the TOO HARM Mode better?
From my understanding it is clear, that its impossible to get precise location data (the TD Box very much on target) for a emitter who is emitting for the first time in a single flight (no datalink between flights) in milliseconds. And thats the way it works in the hornet at the moment in DCS. No sensor or MSI in the world could do that, its physically not possible without further data to feed the system. But if my point is not acepted from ED I will look for declassified documents.

Edited February 24, 2023 by jojojung