cannot reproduce kill a SAM need at least 2 harms

[flankerjun]

one harm can only kill 60% of the SAM 19，is that true in reality?

 

通过我的 V1955A 上的 Tapatalk发言

 

 

[NineLine]

It depends, a kill is not guaranteed by no means. I have seen 1 kill a SAM, I have seen it needing 2. If you have a real bad day it kills you (most of my flights). 

[TrichomeCharlie]

Sometimes just damaging it is enough to make it inoperable from what I understand....

[Foka]

In DCS SAM stop working when their health bar (like in real life vehicles have that health bars) fall below 50%.
And HARMs work like that.
 

 

 

[okopanja]

On 2/17/2023 at 3:53 AM, flankerjun said:

 

one harm can only kill 60% of the SAM 19，is that true in reality?

 

通过我的 V1955A 上的 Tapatalk发言

 

 

 

The SA-3 battery that downed F-117A in 1999, was targeted by no less than 24 anti-radar missiles (23 HARMS and 1 Alarm). Not a single one hit them. Closest call was 100-200 meters. They considered that as being hit, since one fin on a single rocket on launcher and attached cabling got damaged.

Furthermore they downed F-16 being a part of package designed specifically to take them out. ALE-50 was found in extracted state near crash site, and this was confirmed by the operator who quickly decided that "target" is fake and looked up for the real target. On this occasion 2 HARMs were fired on them, which missed the target.

In addition, the number of launched HARMs in that conflict significantly outnumbers total number of radars. That said, some of the radars got hit. In many cases the attributed damage was low enough to put them back in operation just few days later, however there were cases where radars were totally destroyed.

So simply answer to your question is: if the crew knows what they are doing probability of hit can be rather low. If the crew is incompetent, the odds can be as bad as 100%.

 

 

[p1t1o]

HARMs optimised to destroy antennae with blast/frag, so light armour is quite effective, however "mission kill" should be possible with a good close hit on most radars although phased-arrays should be more resilient.

[ruxtmp]

The Serbians also used a very large volume of decoys that emitted appropriate or very near real radio waveforms to draw HARMs away from actual resources and deplete supplies.

[ESzczesniak]

There’s a reason the mission is often SEAD (suppression) instead of DEAD (destruction). Like almost all warfare, new technology doesn’t stay new very long and the opposition finds ways to counter the new threat. 
 

In the case of anti radiation missions and air defenses, it’s been learned to not make yourself a target long. Integrated AD’s can pass off from various emitter’s so none stay a target very long. And a competent crew sorts decoys rather well. So destroying the entire network is very challenging. 
 

However, if you accept the goal is simply to get the strike package through, you can force the network offline with enough SEAD assets. If you can keep enough HARM’s in the air, you can force the radars off for a short window to avoid destruction.  Then add a bit of advanced jamming and some decoys, whatever radar sites do light up long enough to launch, may not launch on a very high PK solution. Hence the more common/practical mission being SEAD instead of DEAD. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by ESzczesniak

[Dragon1-1]

DEAD might also follow SEAD, particularly against isolated SAM sites. You use ARMs to force the site to turn off for a while, and sneak a bunch of CBU-loaded strike aircraft to kill it for good. JSOWs, SDBs, CBUs and LGBs are useful for that, the latter lofted from behind the terrain, while another aircraft buddy lases them from outside the SAM's WEZ. In that role, the HARM won't necessarily be the killing shot, but it should allow aircraft with more powerful weapons to get in close, and/or unmask for a loft attack without getting shot at.

[norman99]

On 4/21/2023 at 6:04 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

You use ARMs to force the site to turn off for a while, and sneak a bunch of CBU-loaded strike aircraft to kill it for good.

Yep, it’s just a shame that CBUs in DCS are so ineffective against SAMs.

[Dragon1-1]

This is, again, due to primitive damage model and, to some extent, inability to adjust the bombs' height of function. That said, CBU-87s should work well enough to kill softer skinned SAMs, especially if dropped in pairs, and CBU-97s make short work of them (but then, they make short work of anything). Do not expect to kill multiple sites in one DEAD sortie unless flying a Mudhen loaded to brim with SDBs.