Tactics for HARM on SA-10 "Grumble"

[LowGlow]

With the Viper modules comes a quick start mission for the Nevada map called "HARM on the Range - Russian SAMs". In that mission you have to suppress 4 different russians SAMs with exactly 4 HARMs loaded onto the Viper.

Question: Is there actually any way to defeat all 4 SAMs with only 4 HARMs?

The first 3 SAMs are not really a challenge, you can easily put them out with one HARM each. However the 4th and last SAM in this mission is a SA-10 "Grumble" (S300) and that is indeed a challenge! Not only does it have a phased array radar (silent RWR) and a long range, but it also simply shoots down your HARM, no matter if you shoot from high or low altitude, no matter if shot from far away or very close to the target.

The only way I can put the Grumble out is sort of cheating: landing, rearming, and finally shooting 2 successive HARMs onto the SA-10, in which case the Grumble is overwhelmed to track and shoot down both HARMs close to each other. But ... I find that cheating, because it's not what the original mission designer had in mind, was it?

[razo+r]

Of course there is a way to defeat all 4 SAMs. Question is, do you want a realistic approach or a DCS approach?

The DCS approach would be to fly below 10m to the SAM and gun strafe the SAMs of your choice and use 4 HARMs on the SA-10 or the other way around, shoot the HARMs at the SAMs while you go in low for a gun kill on the SA-10.

A realistic approach would be having multiple F-16's (or in general multiple platforms with HARMs) along with maybe some jamming aircraft and make a coordinated attack on it.

But technically, you did already achieve your goal even if you didn't destroy the SA-10. If the goal is only to suppress them, then there is no need to destroy it as long as you can get the SA-10 to remain silent or busy / distracted.

Edited January 16, 2023 by razo+r

[chaos]

Also, if you like the realistic option.... Tne F-16 can only employ 2 HARMs. You can carry 4 but it'll only fire from station 3 and 7.

[Lace]

Remember many of the 'Instant Action' missions are meant training purposes, and do not have any expressed objectives or desired outcomes.  It is just a way to practice your HARM delivery against different emitter types.

[idenwen]

Fly in Range and get shot at, then fire the harm and stay in range to be shot at - so it can't shoot the harm. Just hope you can defend long enough that the harm can do it's thing.

[skywalker22]

On 1/16/2023 at 5:24 PM, LowGlow said:

With the Viper modules comes a quick start mission for the Nevada map called "HARM on the Range - Russian SAMs". In that mission you have to suppress 4 different russians SAMs with exactly 4 HARMs loaded onto the Viper.

Question: Is there actually any way to defeat all 4 SAMs with only 4 HARMs?

The first 3 SAMs are not really a challenge, you can easily put them out with one HARM each. However the 4th and last SAM in this mission is a SA-10 "Grumble" (S300) and that is indeed a challenge! Not only does it have a phased array radar (silent RWR) and a long range, but it also simply shoots down your HARM, no matter if you shoot from high or low altitude, no matter if shot from far away or very close to the target.

The only way I can put the Grumble out is sort of cheating: landing, rearming, and finally shooting 2 successive HARMs onto the SA-10, in which case the Grumble is overwhelmed to track and shoot down both HARMs close to each other. But ... I find that cheating, because it's not what the original mission designer had in mind, was it?

Indeed, the 4th last SAM site is a huge challenge. I also only succeeded with landing and rearming, and even that in my 5th attempt - with sending 2 HARMs one after another, which finally destroyed SA-10. I would say, that the mission is not designed to replicate the RL, specially not because you are there just by your self.

But in this misison, I see different issue: without HTS (HARM Targeting Pod) so in HAS mode, the accuracy is really not good... not by much, but for lets say, 30-50ft, enough not to damage the target. I didn't try the HARM accuracy with HTS pod. Maybe there is any glitch with this particular mission. But as much as I used HARM in HAD mode, it was spot on in over 80% for sure - here in this mission it worse then 50%.

Has anyone else noticed inaccuracy of the HARM at least in HAS mode? I have to try it with HTS pod on as well and HAD mode.

--

Tried the mission again, and again a missed shot

again:

Edited January 20, 2023 by skywalker22

[skywalker22]

Again missed by little (2nd target)... what is going on? Might be a bug of some sort... @BIGNEWY would you please ask the team to check... because HARMs in HAS mode (or in this particular mission) are far but being accurate.

 

I will paste a mission here... wait a sec.

f16_harm_HAS_mode.trk

Thanks a lot mate.

Edited January 18, 2023 by skywalker22

[BIGNEWY]

I am not seeing a problem when I test, if you want me to look at it closer please include a short track replay example. If possible make it on Caucasus and no mods installed

thanks

[skywalker22]

19 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

I am not seeing a problem when I test, if you want me to look at it closer please include a short track replay example. If possible make it on Caucasus and no mods installed

thanks

Ok, will do that tomorrow.

[okopanja]

3 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

Its actually pretty simple... you go one by one.

The only problem is that, at least without HTS (HARM Targeting Pod) so in HAS mode, the accuracy is really not good... not by much, but for lets say, 30-50ft, enough not to damage the target. I didn't try the HARM accuracy with HTS pod. Maybe there is any glitch with this particular mission. But as much as I used HARM in HAD mode, it was spot on in over 80% for sure - here in this mission it worse then 50%.

Has anyone else noticed inaccuracy of the HARM at least in HAS mode? I have to try it with HTS pod on as well and HAD mode.

--

Tried the mission again, and again a missed shot

again:

 

S-125M which downed F-117A and F-16CG was targeted by no less than 22 HARMs + 1 Alarm(found later). Only once the missile got to 50 meters from them, damaging cablings and fins on 2 missiles.

The one in DCS is better on paper featuring optical(thermal?) camera and better search radar.

[Rongor]

21 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

The only problem is that, at least without HTS (HARM Targeting Pod) so in HAS mode, the accuracy is really not good... not by much, but for lets say, 30-50ft, enough not to damage the target. I didn't try the HARM accuracy with HTS pod. Maybe there is any glitch with this particular mission. But as much as I used HARM in HAD mode, it was spot on in over 80% for sure - here in this mission it worse then 50%.

Has anyone else noticed inaccuracy of the HARM at least in HAS mode? I have to try it with HTS pod on as well and HAD mode.

If the emitter is still active and the missile has sufficient energy to reach the target, the HARM will hit, regardless if you carry the HTS or not.
The HTS becomes irrelevant the moment the missile is launched.

Before, the HTS provides a much better sensor than the one onboard the missile to generally detect emitters across a wide azimuth zone. Even if you reach PGM 1 precision in your triangulation, there will still be an error ellipse of which you can read out the diameter on the HAD.
The HTS triangulation is meant to offer you a location precise enough to slew other sensors to it and for example to be able to determine the exact location close by with your TGP's E/O-sensor. The HTS is not magically feeding the HARM with pin point coordinates, it is not turning the HARM into a JDAM.

Assuming the very likely case that the emitter you attacked went off the air while your HARM was homing in, the "misses" in your pics are actually remarkably precise on target.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Rongor
typo

[Whiskey11]

I can't speak much to the HARM's usage in default DCS, but I will speak to using HARMs against targets with point defense capabilities (SA-10, SA-12, SA-15, SA-17, SA-19, SA-20, SA-21, SA-22, and SA-23... not all of which are in game), the general tactic is "Don't".  There are other tactics which are far more useful to deal with those SAMs.  That's not to say you wont eventually get one through, but you'll be spending a lot of time weaseling to get a HARM through.  Your only real hope is to work as pairs to engage the SA-10.  Get the Flap Lid track radar pointed in one direction and HARM it from another.  Not workable in singleplayer, really.  

 

This goes to the broader discussion of how SAM sites work in DCS and the need for proper IADS to really replicate how these systems work IRL, or at least, in a more plausible way.  While it is true the Big Bird search radar and Tin Shield (both used with the S-300 system IRL) are used as EW sites, it really depends on the area and what the site is defending and how the site is deployed.  Forward S-300 bases will use it more than the static S-300 sites would... for instance.

[LowGlow]

Am 16.1.2023 um 17:52 schrieb razo+r:

Of course there is a way to defeat all 4 SAMs. Question is, do you want a realistic approach or a DCS approach?

The DCS approach would be to fly below 10m to the SAM and gun strafe the SAMs of your choice and use 4 HARMs on the SA-10 or the other way around, shoot the HARMs at the SAMs while you go in low for a gun kill on the SA-10.

A realistic approach would be having multiple F-16's (or in general multiple platforms with HARMs) along with maybe some jamming aircraft and make a coordinated attack on it.

But technically, you did already achieve your goal even if you didn't destroy the SA-10. If the goal is only to suppress them, then there is no need to destroy it as long as you can get the SA-10 to remain silent or busy / distracted.

 

Yeah, but my question rather was whether it was possible to shoot down those 4 different SAMs (different types and locations) in this mission with 4 HARMs in total, as this training mission was designed to practice shooting HARMS, not gun strafing or anything else.

However from other people's responses, it seems there is really no way to shoot down the 4th and last SA-10 with only a single HARM left.

Like I said, by landing and re-arming I can shoot down the SA-10 with only 2 HARMs easily, but that's not how this mission was designed.

Anyway, so I guess this particular training mission was not fully thought through, or who knows, maybe there is really some glory trick none of us has discovered yet. If the orignal ED mission designer reads this, hint appreciated. ;-)

Edited January 20, 2023 by LowGlow

[void68]

Since when is it not possible to launch 4 HARMs from a single ship? I did so multiple times. HARMs might be inaccurate due to the targeted emitter shutting down or bad resolution bc of having a target modes not best suited for this situation.

HARMs against SAMs with ABM is a bad idea as long as you don't overwhelm them with the shere amount (I don't remember exactly but they track like 30 targets or so and shoot 4x4 per site). HARMs or JSOWs are no choice against a (fully ammunitioned) SA10 site or SA15 (can attack 2 missiles at the same time with 2x4 racks).

Low level attack or hiding behind terrain is the best thing to do. As long as there are no SHORAD. Hide behind trees, in a river bed, use every hill or building complex for terrain masking, set your dumb bombs for pop-up. Or locate one of the emitters with the TGP / HTS, MARK the point, have your Mavericks boresighted and set to PRE mode, go in lowest level, do a pop up 20s before reaching the target, lock the Maverick seeker, "Rifle!", hit the deck, throw chaff (and flares, you never now) and you should be safe from now on. The Maverick will reach its target before the SA10 gets a lock on it, even if it's not inside the min reaction range.

HARMs are just for clearing a path through SAMs / AAA quickly. But everything with ABM isn't impressed at all and it just leads to waste of payload. SEAD (which means supression, not destruction) of course is possible... 4 times / aircraft exactly. Don't know if the AI crew in the Flap Lid / Command Unit counts your HARM attacks and just ignores you after having counterd four launches and look for other threats / targets, which means your SEAD mission ends exactly at that point as you got no A/G ordinance left.

There are quite some vids on the tube how to kill SA-10. As I said, as long as there are no AAA and short range IR / MANPADS or even small arms fire if you are out of luck they are quite easy to take out. In a setting which reflects reality... single ship no way. With neither weapon. In neither situation.

Edited January 24, 2023 by void68

[LowGlow]

Well, if it's so easy to take the SA-10 out, then maybe try. The mission "HARM on the Range - Russian SAMs" comes with DCS.

Like I said, I also tried low altitude attacks and finally shot the HARM from a very short distance onto the SA-10, doesn't work.

Shooting 2 consecutive HARMs onto the SA-10 works. Whether that's accurate or inaccurate behaviour, I can't say.

 

[Gaffer_DCS]

Try shooting the HARM in POS mode from close range. 

[Hobel]

Am 18.1.2023 um 20:12 schrieb skywalker22:

Ok, will do that tomorrow.

So?

[skywalker22]

50 minutes ago, Hobel said:

So?

Its not jet that tomorrow

Anyway, based on comments of others here, I guess there is no so-called "perfect shot", that there is still a (some) possibility AGM-88 misses its target. So there is no point of proving anything, if this is really the case here.

But I will surely do some more tests, and let you guys know, I hope I can manage to do them today.

ps: look my number of comments, nice.

[Hobel]

Am 18.1.2023 um 20:29 schrieb okopanja:

S-125M which downed F-117A and F-16CG was targeted by no less than 22 HARMs + 1 Alarm(found later). Only once the missile got to 50 meters from them, damaging cablings and fins on 2 missiles.

 

and what exactly was the situation like?
Which AGM88 was it and, above all, did the radar remain active the whole time?
what you describe can be recreated in DCS depending on how early or late you switch off the radar, so this comparison does not seem suitable to me.
we are discussing the accuracy of the AGM-88 when the radar is on.

because on the other hand there are a lot of actual videos and  older ones where the Harm goes  spot on to the emitter.

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, Hobel said:

and what exactly was the situation like?
Which AGM88 was it and, above all, did the radar remain active the whole time?
what you describe can be recreated in DCS depending on how early or late you switch off the radar, so this comparison does not seem suitable to me.
we are discussing the accuracy of the AGM-88 when the radar is on.

because on the other hand there are a lot of actual videos and  older ones where the Harm goes  spot on to the emitter.

The information comes from the book "Pad nocnog sokola" ("The fall of the nighthawk") written by the Slavisa Golubovic (unit member). Along with many details you asked for, it also describes the measures the crew took in order to survive HARMs. Now if this was result of measures or inherent design flaws I can not really judge. The image skywalker22 posted reminded me of description from the book of what unit counted as hit, even though the damage was minor.

While I agree with you that accuracy should be great as long is radar is continuously on and directed all the time toward missile. The SNR-125 turns with the target and the question here is if the beam will still be wide enough to be within the HARM's seeker cone or not. I suspect that exiting this cone will affect the accuracy.

In this particular case I could not reply the trk file to see if this was the case, since it does not show up in replay dialog (unsure why, folder is correct, perhaps you have hint for me?)

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by okopanja

[Hobel]

 

vor 10 Minuten schrieb okopanja:

The SNR-125 turns with the target and the question here is if the beam will still be wide enough to be within the HARM's seeker cone or not. I suspect that exiting this cone will affect the accuracy.

good point, but I would think that the rocket also senses the sidelobes, especially when the rocket is closer.

 

 

vor 14 Minuten schrieb okopanja:

In this particular case I could not reply the trk file to see if this was the case, since it does not show up in replay dialog (unsure why, folder is correct, perhaps you have hint for me?)

do you have the Nevada map?

He did the test there, so you must have the map to view the file.

[skywalker22]

What happens to the HARM if it looses the signal from emitting radar (when radar stops emitting)? Where is it pointing then? 

Here says this: If the system (target) is powered back down, the AGM-88 can still close with the target’s last known location using GPS guidance. Do DCS's HARM works same way?

Edited January 25, 2023 by skywalker22

[okopanja]

1 minute ago, skywalker22 said:

What happens to the HARM if it looses the signal from emitting radar (when radar stops emitting)? Where is it pointing then? 

I think this depends on mode, but I believe the most general answer is last known location. What happens next is that guidance error accumulates, since there is no more reference to compare to for corrections, eventually reducing the probability of kill.

Also I would expect that radars with slow spinning antennas would be more difficult to hit.

[Northstar98]

55 minutes ago, okopanja said:

While I agree with you that accuracy should be great as long is radar is continuously on and directed all the time toward missile. The SNR-125 turns with the target and the question here is if the beam will still be wide enough to be within the HARM's seeker cone or not. I suspect that exiting this cone will affect the accuracy.

According to this the mainlobe beamwidth of the transmit antenna ranges from 1-10° (depending on the mode, 1° for acquisition (though swept through 15° in elevation), 10° for target tracking/rangefinding).

However, like all radars it will produce sidelobes which may or may not be detectable by the HARM (which depends chiefly on the sensitivity of the HARMs seeker (which isn't going to be publicly available) and the radiation pattern of the antenna (which could be guestimated)).

Suffice to say though that DCS doesn't model radars with such fidelity - the SNR-125 in DCS has a beamwidth of 90°, as does every AI fire-control radar on land or sea that I've looked at.

[Hobel]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Northstar98:

Suffice to say though that DCS doesn't model radars with such fidelity - the SNR-125 in DCS has a beamwidth of 90°, as does every AI fire-control radar on land or sea that I've looked at.

It depends, when the radar is tracking a target the beam is only 45°.  So it has been at least with sa-10, with my last tests