Another HARM thread, understanding what the HARM needs to target / hit

[void68]

Descriptions / explainations on how a HARM works are both incomplete and contradicting, so I try to recap what I think I understood:

The POS modes (RUK, EOM and PB) require a waypoint the HARM flies to and then (depending on the mode lets say 15nm) activate its seeker to pick up the programmed emitter, let's say either "SA-10" for the FlapLid TR or "BB" for its BigBird SR. Even with pinpoint accurancy of the waypoint exactly on the mentioned site the HARM will miss (other than by luck) as long as the radar didn't emit - while the longer the emission the better the HARM will track and hit the target, right? Each Pof the three POS modi seems to work the same with just different off-bore, range and accurancy parameters.

So why does the SAM site just turn off its emitter once it detects a ARM in the air? The HARM is fired from 20nm, roughly 40s to impact. Just turn off the radar 10s prior to impact and the missile will miss and no F-16 will get in Maverick range / bomb toss range of 10nm in that time including detection time of 7s of the FlapLid.

So, as I need confirmation that it's not a bug, but a feature: yesterday a flight of 2x2 F16 from 180° different direction attacked a FlapLid. While my flight was painted by the FlapLid and four HARMS really rode that beam down in a nice pop-up then downwards track (ok, three of them predictably got shot down while one came through but missed) the other flight with no TR beam illumination on it got its HARMs fly high and straight across the SAM site with no intention to even hit at least the waypoint. No beam active, no HARM will be done?

If so, I should consider the HARM really being more of a SEAD, "DEAD only by luck"weapon. But what's the use of a 360k$ missile that could be rendered useless by just pausing your emitter for 10s?

Wikipedia tells me that the C got just poor INS and no GPS so it's pretty inaccurate the longer the unguided flight while the (inofficial) F16 manual tells me the more accurate the POS waypoint the better the HARM will hit. I would like to add "as long as the radar emits most of the flight", right?

In the given scenario: if the BigBird operator had decided while all eight HARMs in the air that the other flight ingressing dangerously close would have been a bigger threat and turn his FlapLid to this flight   these AGM88C would've homed? When / at what distance does the HARM decide not having to rely on emissions anymore but be 100% sure about the targets location? I remember to beat a SAM with anti-radiation-missiles you have to establish a constant lock on you once the missile is on the way - by posing such a threat to the SAM operator that he can't risk losing his sight on you.

[Roy35150]

Wild weasel tactics,

So we know 1 flight of vipers will TAUNT the sam op by flying just within the kill circle,

A second flight will then attack the emitting radar with harms,

Thing is the longer the sam emits and the closer the sam is the better the chance of a kill.

However even if the sam stops emitting the harm will follow its course and may get lucky if it gets a near miss as sams are mostly lightly armoured.

From what i can make out in the viper it really is a matter of luck depending on how crafty the sam op is and depending on the type of sam.

[okopanja]

5 minutes ago, Roy35150 said:

Wild weasel tactics,

So we know 1 flight of vipers will TAUNT the sam op by flying just within the kill circle,

A second flight will then attack the emitting radar with harms,

Thing is the longer the sam emits and the closer the sam is the better the chance of a kill.

However even if the sam stops emitting the harm will follow its course and may get lucky if it gets a near miss as sams are mostly lightly armoured.

From what i can make out in the viper it really is a matter of luck depending on how crafty the sam op is and depending on the type of sam.

The same SA-3 that scored against F-117A and F-16CG was targeted with no less than 23 confirmed HARMs during war in 1999 (you can check total number fired - it's astonishing). None if this did hit the SAM directly and only in one case fin of the missile and the cable leading to the launcher was damaged.

During the downing of F-16CG (lead of 4 ship DEAD enter the KZ with ALE-50) the SEAD group launched 2 HARMS which missed the target entirely. By the time missiles arrived the crew turned to the equivalent mode.

SAM crew competency plays a large role than the generation of the SAM being used.

Also: if you know precise location you do not use the HARM, but rather a cruise missile instead.

[Roy35150]

+1 agree,

These days they would simply use toms or drones if possible,

A mate of mine was a sniper in iraq but like me hes big into the viper.

He was telling me that 2 4ships of vipers would attack even a lone sam to get as high a pk rate as they can.

Thats 16 harms getting chucked at the same position so even a near miss could get the job done.

But he was saying that quite a lot of times they would miss completely?

Its definitely a hit or miss situation and down to the exp of the sam op.

[Sinclair_76]

The -88C we have is indeed a SEAD weapon. The -88D and further have GPS and not only INS to guide the weapon when the radar is turned off. Technically an accurate waypoint increases your chances of a successful HARM (C) engagement even when the radar is off. It's just one less error to deal with. 

 

The -88C is a late cold war weapon (design) where SEAD was an important enabler of large COMAO's. Sure, DEAD is better, but prior GPS, DEAD required SEAD anyhow.

 

With HARM's in the air, there is risk for the SAM operator. It adds friction to the OODA loop. This friction pretty much always compounds/snowballs in high stress circumstances, decreasing the chances of a successful SAM engagement.

[void68]

Zitat

Technically an accurate waypoint increases your chances of a successful HARM (C) engagement even when the radar is off. It's just one less error to deal with. 

Ok, so far so good, but even with a pinpoint accurancy waypoint just on the site the "non-beam-riding" HARMs of the 2nd flight (180° off) fired at the waypoint just ignored the waypoint and flew straight line, no descent till they ran out of kinetic energy. It was no miss due to INS inaccuracy, it was as if "no interest" in attacking the waypoint.

[RyanR]

Does the HARM pod help with "post-fire accuracy" at all?.... or is it just that you're closer?

When using the HTS, the HUD symbology seems really "optimistic" about the HARM hitting anything. Even with a steerpoint, you can often see that the specific radar isn't "on", and if is is on, it might as well be anywhere at PGM5.

-Ryan

[Roy35150]

Well i would think the pod gives the harm itself a better picture of its exact target when u would have multiple sams/Radars in close proximity of each other where as other modes such as  HAS may make the missile hit the wrong target,

As for pgm ive taken out all kinds of sams with pgm5 and head on shots.

Yes the odd time they will miss but the fact your closer to the sam would already be a major advantage for the harm itself.

The problem is getting that close in the fist place.

[EnzoF98]

20 hours ago, void68 said:

But what's the use of a 360k$ missile that could be rendered useless by just pausing your emitter for 10s?

The presence of a SEAD package with HARMs means the SAM operator can't focus entirely (or at all) on engaging the strike package, and in those 10 seconds you mention, won't be able to shoot at the strike package at all. The SEAD package and the $360k missile will have done their job of suppressing the SAM.

Edited May 15, 2024 by EnzoF98

[Hobel]

vor 20 Stunden schrieb void68:

The POS modes (RUK, EOM and PB) require a waypoint the HARM flies to and then (depending on the mode lets say 15nm) activate its seeker to pick up the programmed emitter, let's say either "SA-10" for the FlapLid TR or "BB" for its BigBird SR

 Unfortunately this is not yet the case, the modes make no difference in principle, the harm always goes 40nm active and searches in an area over 180° which can always lead to difficulties.

my opinion on the INS would also be that it is presented very pesimistically, the scattering is around 5nm, it should rather be in the range of a few hundred meters.

 

[okopanja]

42 minutes ago, EnzoF98 said:

The presence of a SEAD package with HARMs means the SAM operator can't focus entirely (or at all) on engaging the strike package, and in those 10 seconds you mention, won't be able to shoot at the strike package at all. The SEAD package and the $360k missile will have done their job of suppressing the SAM.

 

 

 

 

[void68]

Thank you all for the answers, giving me really a better overview on the HARM complex of problems.

[Roy35150]

Quick question just while were on the subject,

Does DCS actually simulate blinking sams?

I heard somewhere that the sams are always emitting due to performance issues,

The cpu would have to keep track of every sam in the mission which would kill your fps to no end.

Maybe im wrong but ive never seen a sam stop emitting... 

[okopanja]

9 hours ago, EnzoF98 said:

The presence of a SEAD package with HARMs means the SAM operator can't focus entirely (or at all) on engaging the strike package, and in those 10 seconds you mention, won't be able to shoot at the strike package at all. The SEAD package and the $360k missile will have done their job of suppressing the SAM.

Reality check: SEAD does pose a serious risk for a SAM and will limit the amount of the damage that it can cause to the strike group, but its effects are often overemphasized: example is unsuccessful DEAD mission with support of SEAD package, resulting in F-16CG being downed. In this particular case SAM did promptly relocate thus ceasing the operation for the duration of transport, so yes the effect is felt. 

https://www.politika.rs/sr/clanak/428640/Obaranje-F-16-pad-sokola-u-Zdralovac-FOTO

(there is actually a published book with signed accounts from each crew member, including those being outside of duty watching).

Hint: on older SAMs the roles and responsibilities are distributed among crew of multiple operators. See the picture from the article.

The situation is tracked based on P-18 radar picture. Inside P-18 cabin there is acting commanding officer + additional operator for the whole battery shift and he decides when is the right moment to engage the target. He may receive additional picture from command of the brigade, but in this case they worked independently.

In the background you can see the commander of the SNR-125 radar (Major Dotlić), working with radar picture provided by EWR P-18. It is him who transfers the order to FCR acquisition station the target. So at least 3 persons tracking the situation in air very closely.

Front are 3 more operators (in picture one is missing). Target acquisition station (basically guy who directs FCR toward target and facilitates the launch) and 2 guidance operators (F1 and F2 channel, one is not on the photo here). The guidance operators can choose between automated track and manual tracking (useful for stealth aircraft and targets carrying decoys).  The young dude sitting in front was actually the guy who acquired the F-16CG with FCR. The F1/F2 operators guided each his own missile until the hit (they do know the missile distance from target at the time of explosion). Once the target is hit the Acquisitions states places the FCR into equivalent, meaning the radiation stopped.

During the whole encounter the separate team was outside serving the decoy with the same parameters as the FCR, transmitting at the same frequency. FCR was turned off, but the decoy kept transmitting, thus resulting in 2 HARMs missing the target. It should be noted that decoy was also turned off at later point, since it is good to reuse it.

Aftermath: DEAD team changed their mind about taking out this nasty SAM crew (did take out F-117 and seriously damage another before this action).  BTW: it is typically hot in SNR-125 cabin, and there are high velocity fans in corners of the cabin but sadly with no shielding. The crew is more worried about fans taking out their ears or fingers. More than 20 years ago I visited this very same unit as a student and had a chance to see the ancient equipment these dudes worked with against way better equipped opponent. The visit left me wondering how could have they hoped to survive, but back then they did not tell us how they were doing it.

On modern SAMs this is more automated, but even with those ancient SAMs the operators are not really overwhelmed.

As said before: technology does rule, but the end the competency of the crew matters the most. In DCS everything was set so the SAMs do not actually pose a huge threat to the average player. To have a really challenge you would need high fidelity SAM (perhaps crewed in CA v2?). Now given the fact that many servers do not like enabling crewing of even SHORADs (people do not like getting hit while they fly low), I can only imagine if e.g. someone simulated a fully blown medium to long range SAM in DCS.

Edited May 15, 2024 by okopanja
typo fixes

[EnzoF98]

6 hours ago, okopanja said:

Reality check: SEAD does pose a serious risk for a SAM and will limit the amount of the damage that it can cause to the strike group, but its effects are often overemphasized:

I didn't mean to claim that the presence of a SEAD package or a single HARM in the air would render a site completely useless. I only wanted to answer why you'd shoot an expensive missile if it's just going to miss. I might have oversimplified my answer.

 

[jaylw314]

On 5/14/2024 at 7:37 AM, Sinclair_76 said:

With HARM's in the air, there is risk for the SAM operator. It adds friction to the OODA loop. This friction pretty much always compounds/snowballs in high stress circumstances, decreasing the chances of a successful SAM engagement.

I always thought the idea of ALARM's loitering mode was fantastic for that reason, but I don't know if it was ever used in practice.

[okopanja]

35 minutes ago, EnzoF98 said:

I didn't mean to claim that the presence of a SEAD package or a single HARM in the air would render a site completely useless. I only wanted to answer why you'd shoot an expensive missile if it's just going to miss. I might have oversimplified my answer.

 

Well the answer is simple:  you have a lot of them and it is still cheaper than loosing an airplane.

Historically the first anti-radiation missiles were much cruder and often did compensate the luck of precision with the powerful high yield warheads. Over the time the precision did improve, so these missiles could be smaller. From high explosive they went to more fragmentation warheads, which could still damage the radar antenna/equipment and possibly kill the crew. In most cases damage made by HARM to the radar is repairable.  In this particular case the crew had to be near the the FCR radar (separate from the cabin itself, but cabin had to stand next to it).

The availability of these in large numbers did mean that SAMs had to adopt the tactics and become more silent. E.g. in case of 1999 encounter, the DEAD/SEAD package knew rough area where the SAM could be located. The SAM itself could remain silent and turn it's EWR radar only when they were certain that there may be enemy aircraft in the air (this was the first indication that the trouble is there for the pilot). When the FCR radar became active the missile practically already flew. So the choice that the dance will start was made by the SAM crew, and the viper pilot although seeking to provoke the reaction, was actually reactive himself.

On modern SAMs you will often see the crew being on remote positions compared to launchers and radars. Still the described events occured 25 years ago => 1/4 of the century.

[okopanja]

49 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

I always thought the idea of ALARM's loitering mode was fantastic for that reason, but I don't know if it was ever used in practice.

Yes it was used in this conflict, at least one did not explode in impact.

SAM crews were more concerned about them, since travel distance/time was potentially shorter.

Here is the picture:

 

Edited May 15, 2024 by okopanja
Added picture from museum

[jaylw314]

28 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Yes it was used in this conflict, at least one did not explode in impact.

"This conflict..." ?  If you're pointing out it was used in the Balkans conflict, I know the ALARM was used, I was just wondering if the loitering mode was ever known to be used

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, jaylw314 said:

"This conflict..." ?  If you're pointing out it was used in the Balkans conflict, I know the ALARM was used, I was just wondering if the loitering mode was ever known to be used

I have to be explicit by conflict I mean NATO aggression in 1999.

yes, the hint is at the picture, the first paragraph of museum text explains why the missile is captured intact.

Edited May 15, 2024 by okopanja

[jaylw314]

2 minutes ago, okopanja said:

I have to be explicit by conflict I mean NATO aggression in 1999.

yes, the hint is at the picture, the first paragraph of museum text explains why the missile is captured intact.

LOL, nice little slide-in political statement there.  IIRC the International Court of Justice called it a lot less flattering things to other parties, so I was generously neutral calling it the "Balkans conflict"

That's an enlightening museum piece though.  I hadn't realized there was a third mode that would fall back to loitering.

[okopanja]

7 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

LOL, nice little slide-in political statement there.  IIRC the International Court of Justice called it a lot less flattering things to other parties, so I was generously neutral calling it the "Balkans conflict"

Without dwelling into the politics and being ironical my statement is still factual. As for justifications used 25 years ago and now, I can only say the belong to "pragmatic" politics driven by the flexible ethical norms of respective participants. Clearly different sides may never see it the same way, so I would not go any deeper than that.

Still I am glad you liked the piece. The location where it was found is in the region with the 3rd r.d. of 250th missile brigade was operating during the war, however I can not be sure if it was fired exactly on them or some other units. The number of utilized Alarams compared to the HARMs was significantly smaller, likely due to the production volume being significantly lower. One interesting fact is that the Serbian sources stated ~400 HARMs being fired, while the US sources states this number to ~800. One possible explanation is that large number of HARMs was simply not discovered.

If you ever travel to Belgrade, I would welcome you to visit the museum as a tourist since it has lots to offer in terms of aviation history(long tradition: Serbian Air Force was founded in 1912) and is conveniently located next to the international airport. Unfortunately the museum is temporarily closed due to the reconstruction works.

[jaylw314]

49 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Without dwelling into the politics and being ironical my statement is still factual. As for justifications used 25 years ago and now, I can only say the belong to "pragmatic" politics driven by the flexible ethical norms of respective participants. Clearly different sides may never see it the same way, so I would not go any deeper than that.

Still I am glad you liked the piece. The location where it was found is in the region with the 3rd r.d. of 250th missile brigade was operating during the war, however I can not be sure if it was fired exactly on them or some other units. The number of utilized Alarams compared to the HARMs was significantly smaller, likely due to the production volume being significantly lower. One interesting fact is that the Serbian sources stated ~400 HARMs being fired, while the US sources states this number to ~800. One possible explanation is that large number of HARMs was simply not discovered.

If you ever travel to Belgrade, I would welcome you to visit the museum as a tourist since it has lots to offer in terms of aviation history(long tradition: Serbian Air Force was founded in 1912) and is conveniently located next to the international airport. Unfortunately the museum is temporarily closed due to the reconstruction works.

That's why it's a good policy to stick with neutral on public forums, even if I do take one side or the other IRL

I would definitely love to visit Belgrade and the Balkans, but I'm hampered by having a spouse who would prefer see all the traditional tourist countries so the good news is the museum will probably be open again by the time I make it there!

[maxTRX]

6 hours ago, okopanja said:

..."pragmatic" politics driven by the flexible ethical norms of respective participants...

Nicely framed, lol. while on the side lines...  in another theater recently, one side made a sarcastic remarks about the other side still using "Vietnam era wild weasel tactics"...  back to the art of SEAD/DEAD.

[Hog_driver]

31 minutes ago, oldcrusty said:

...  in another theater recently, one side made a sarcastic remarks about the other side still using "Vietnam era wild weasel tactics"...  

I'd gladly use some Vietnam map for this