Good info on Soviet ASM effectiveness

[erichswafford]

I found this in my book on the Tu-22. This is the only hard info I've been able to find re: the AS-4's exact operation and effectiveness. Sounds like it was fairly good.
The relevant text begins at the 3rd paragraph.

[erichswafford]

Second part.

[erichswafford]

This represents a fascination of mine. In the titanic Cold War matchup between Soviet land-based naval aviation and our CVBG's - which would be the victor? One thing that's always worried me about simulations such as Harpoon is this: would the Soviet ASM's have actually hit anything? Given the paucity of test data, and the unknown effects of ECM and ECCM - it almost seems impossible to figure out. The above text is my first crack at it. I'll keep looking.

One question for the technically inclined: these missiles used SARH initial guidance, with a handoff to ARH near the target. Now, given the difficulties with acquiring targets in this sort of lookdown situation, how was Soviet radar of the early 70's able to manage it? Does a ship show up as a huge 'blip' against the ocean? Please help me suspend my disbelief

[CV32]

ORIGINAL: kondor999
This represents a fascination of mine. In the titanic Cold War matchup between Soviet land-based naval aviation and our CVBG's - which would be the victor? One thing that's always worried me about simulations such as Harpoon is this: would the Soviet ASM's have actually hit anything? Given the paucity of test data, and the unknown effects of ECM and ECCM - it almost seems impossible to figure out. The above text is my first crack at it. I'll keep looking.

I've seen that material before, Erich. I don't have the book but I'm gonna guess its one put together by Yefim Gordon and Vladimir Rigmant? There's quite a bit of discussion that goes on behind the scenes among the Harpoon4 people, filtering the numerous sources (that one included) and coming up with a reasonable set of data.

One question for the technically inclined: these missiles used SARH initial guidance, with a handoff to ARH near the target. Now, given the difficulties with acquiring targets in this sort of lookdown situation, how was Soviet radar of the early 70's able to manage it? Does a ship show up as a huge 'blip' against the ocean? Please help me suspend my disbelief

Harpoon4 doesn't assign SARH guidance to the Kh-22. My understanding is that the missile seeker and launching aircraft were connected by datalink, so that the aircraft could in effect "see" what the seeker could "see", thereby permitting selection of targets (i.e. which blip to attack).

[erichswafford]

Actually it could do both. If you read the above text, it talks about how the target could be acquired by either the a/c's radar, or the missile's. That built-in redundancy was, I suppose, somewhat useful.

You're right about the book, btw. It's part of Midland's "Red Star" series. I think Yefim Gordon deserves some kind medal [&o] for providing this kind of info on how the guidance actually worked (or didn't!).

I know that the KSR-5 could use SARH or inertial for the initial guidance, before handing off to the on-board ARH system (presumably, once it had acquired the target). I also believe both the Kh-22 and KSR-5 could receive mid-course updates by remote datalink from another A/C (such as a Bear-D) that was illuminating the target (although this is, in my experience, pretty useless against a CVBG - you'll have Tomcats all over you if you try to get within SS radar range). And finally, instead of inertial for the initial guidance, it could home in via SARH with the launching A/C as the illuminator.

Sounds like the smartest move (not sure if this is possible) would be to acquire the CVBG by satellite, then use inertial to get the missile within ARH range - at which point it's pot luck. I'm assuming these babies would target whatever had the largest RCS - which is kinda crude but actually is exactly what I'd want it to do anyway. You could always send in a bunch of ARM KSR-5/Kh-22's to take out the AAW screen first, then follow up with your ARH toys.

Against groups without long-range air cover, you could probably get close enough to use the SARH or ARH-right-outta-the-gate methods.

Overall, it makes a surprising amount of sense. I'm just fairly skeptical about Soviet electronics reliability in these situations. Those SSM's were being maintained by poorly-trained conscripts and, by all accounts, were chock full of delicate/crappy Soviet-era electronics (semiconductor-based after 1972).

One wonders...

[CV32]

ORIGINAL: kondor999
Actually it could do both. If you read the above text, it talks about how the target could be acquired by either the a/c's radar, or the missile's. That built-in redundancy was, I suppose, somewhat useful.

Yes, of course. (Sorta goes without saying, that if the aircraft's own radar can acquire the target, it can pass targeting info to the missile prior to launch. Its the reverse that's unusual).

You're right about the book, btw. It's part of Midland's "Red Star" series. I think Yefim Gordon deserves some kind medal [&o] for providing this kind of info on how the guidance actually worked (or didn't!).

I suppose that kinda depends on whether you take everything Gordon says as gospel. [:)]

Sounds like the smartest move (not sure if this is possible) would be to acquire the CVBG by satellite, then use inertial to get the missile within ARH range - at which point it's pot luck. I'm assuming these babies would target whatever had the largest RCS - which is kinda crude but actually is exactly what I'd want it to do anyway.

The infamous RORSATs were useful for finding carrier battle groups (which invariably didn't want to be found), but they had fairly poor resolution and were subject to degradation in poor weather. Evidence of the obstacles facing a space based radar is borne out by the US SBR program. Also, not every bomber would have been equipped with a satellite datalink - probably only the Bear D maritime reconnaissance aircraft and maybe one Tu-22M per squadron.

You could always send in a bunch of ARM KSR-5/Kh-22's to take out the AAW screen first, then follow up with your ARH toys.

Assuming that the escorts were actively radiating, which might be an uncomfortably large assumption in most cases due to EMCON and that previously mentioned desire to avoid being found.

Against groups without long-range air cover, you could probably get close enough to use the SARH or ARH-right-outta-the-gate methods.

Preferably, for sure. Remember it was the Bear D's (and other assets) that were doing the searching so that the Backfires and Badgers could stay undetected for as long as possible.

Overall, it makes a surprising amount of sense. I'm just fairly skeptical about Soviet electronics reliability in these situations. Those SSM's were being maintained by poorly-trained conscripts and, by all accounts, were chock full of delicate/crappy Soviet-era electronics (semiconductor-based after 1972). One wonders...

Oh, I'm pretty sure a good many AS-4, AS-6, etc would have nose dived right into the drink after launch, as would some proportion of the Standards and Phoenixes rising to meet them. [;)]

[erichswafford]

Yeah, about the ARMS. I'm pretty much assuming you'd mix in some ARH's to get the escorts to light up, rope-a-dope style.

I still think relying on, say, a Bear-D to illuminate anything with decent air cover is suicidal. By the time those missiles need the datalink update, that Bear will have long since punched a smoking hole in the ocean.

I think it's more realistic to send them into the CVBG on inertial, and then let them figure it out

I just can't think of a way to keep the target(s) actively illuminated without exposing the illuminator to certain destruction via AIM-54. Maybe you could somehow time it to where the Bear-D lights up at just the right moment to get a fix, then use the datalink to update the mid-flight profile (basically refine the target solution since the CVBG will have moved since the missiles were launched). Then, I'm assuming the Bear would need to shut down quick and bug out - mission accomplished. What it can't do is just loiter there with its radar lit up. At least not for long.

I wonder if that's actually how they would have done it: use the Bear for a one-time update as close as possible to the target. Then the missiles come in, switch over to ARH (and ARM) and go to town on what they can see. Can you see any holes in that procedure?

[CV32]

ORIGINAL: kondor999
I just can't think of a way to keep the target(s) actively illuminated without exposing the illuminator to certain destruction via AIM-54.

I don't think they would be using SARH guidance, i.e. requiring continuous illumination of the target. As you point out, it just doesn't make for effective employment of the weapon in a F-14/AIM-54 environment.

Maybe you could somehow time it to where the Bear-D lights up at just the right moment to get a fix, then use the datalink to update the mid-flight profile (basically refine the target solution since the CVBG will have moved since the missiles were launched).

The carrier won't have gone far, certainly not outside the search cone of the incoming missiles. They'll be there in about six minutes or so. [;)]

Then, I'm assuming the Bear would need to shut down quick and bug out - mission accomplished. What it can't do is just loiter there with its radar lit up. At least not for long.

Absolutely, bug out and run would be the order of the day for the Bear. It has a half decent cruise speed, but could only pray that the Tomcats were too busy with the archers and their arrows.

I wonder if that's actually how they would have done it: use the Bear for a one-time update as close as possible to the target. Then the missiles come in, switch over to ARH (and ARM) and go to town on what they can see. Can you see any holes in that procedure?

That's essentially how it would be done, yes. The missiles might not even need the update. I'm curious, have you ever read Red Storm Rising?

[erichswafford]

Oh, you bet. Where do you think I got this fascination way back in the 80's about this subject? My favorite part has to be where the Soviets take out the CVN (or nearly so) and the Clemenceau. Quite clever of them...

My favorite scenario for Harpoon (Classic) was always the NACV 'Ambush' one.

Speaking of which, I played it the other day using HCE and my SSN's completely eradicated the CVBG before it could get more than a few hundred miles. Does HCE make subs a lot more stealthy? I can recall, when driving Russian boats, being unable to get within striking distance without a torp having long since ruined my day.

[CV32]

ORIGINAL: kondor999
Does HCE make subs a lot more stealthy?

Yes it does.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: kondor999

My favorite scenario for Harpoon (Classic) was always the NACV 'Ambush' one.

[OT]: Ahem, this scenario is available for MP play on the ANW side of things if you want to see how a human v. human match would turn out...

[erichswafford]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

ORIGINAL: kondor999

My favorite scenario for Harpoon (Classic) was always the NACV 'Ambush' one.

[OT]: Ahem, this scenario is available for MP play on the ANW side of things if you want to see how a human v. human match would turn out...

Where can I find it?!

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: kondor999

Where can I find it?!

It is on the ANW MP server. It is only functional for MP play and cannot (yet) be played solitaire. The MP Server instructions can be found:

http://www.harplonkhq.com/?page_id=18