ARM attack - Bearing only launch

[LuckyJim1010]

I have a TU22 with a AS-4 ARM.
My target is an RAF radar station on the East Coast
The RAF Unit Radar is active

I want the Blinder to launch the ARM (range 165NM) on a Bearing only attack on the RAF Radar unit

At max range the Blinder does not detect the RAF Radar. I'll test and see what range it does

But my thinking is this; Blinder launches the Kitchen towards the RAF unit knowing it is there and radiating.

The ARM fly down the bearing until 10 nm from the target when it should detect the RAF Unit radar and home in.

But is this sort of attack possible ?

I've tried everything to get this to work but so far the only time I get an ARM launch is when the carrying aircraft detects the Radar at about 70 nm range.

Any ideas ?

[Der Zeitgeist]

I just tried it out, it seems impossible to launch the AS-4 Kitchen ARM with a bearing only attack. It always says "target out of range" in the weapon allocation window. Which is a shame, really, because blind firing anti radar missiles on suspected enemy emitter locations is a pretty common tactic.
It seems you have to target the missile on actual emitter targets, and the ESM gear in the Blinder seems rather short ranged.

A good and also plausible workaround is to have a dedicated EW plane fly with the ARM-shooters. In my test, I used a Badger J. It is able to pin down the emitters at much longer range and it can also jam the enemy radars, which is a good idea anyway, since I had one AS-4 actually shot down by an I-Hawk site it was targeting.

When using jamming support, another missile went through, however, and scored a direct hit on an air traffic control radar. It took out the radar and the whole airfield around it with its 350 kt warhead. [:D]

[mikmykWS]

The KH-22MP ARM doesn't really work that way. It needed to see a target prior to launch (I'm 95 percent sure on this one). What kind of Radar are you targeting if I might ask?

Mike

[LuckyJim1010]

RAF Type 84/85

[BKLANDIN]

ORIGINAL: Der Zeitgeist

When using jamming support, another missile went through, however, and scored a direct hit on an air traffic control radar. It took out the radar and the whole airfield around it with its 350 kt warhead.

Twisted evill [:D]

[MR_BURNS2]

It would actually also make sense for Harm´s and british ALARM etc. since many of them are fired pre-emptive just in case some Radar goes online while friendly aircraft are over the area.

[LuckyJim1010]

My thoughts as well.

[Primarchx]

I've heard this said yet I've never heard of it actually being done operationally. ALARM may be different from HARM since it has a loiter functionality.

ORIGINAL: MR_BURNS2

It would actually also make sense for Harm´s and british ALARM etc. since many of them are fired pre-emptive just in case some Radar goes online while friendly aircraft are over the area.

[Der Zeitgeist]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

The KH-22MP ARM doesn't really work that way. It needed to see a target prior to launch (I'm 95 percent sure on this one). What kind of Radar are you targeting if I might ask?

Mike

It's not just the Kh-22MP ARM, it's all other ARM missiles as well, it seems. I just tested it with Shrike, HARM, and Standard ARM, and they all are unable to launch bearing only. The weapons allocation windows says "target out of range", even if the spot that is klicked to manually target is well within weapons range. I also checked release altitudes, which were well within limits.

[ExMachina]

Regarding preemptive use: http://defense-update.com/products/h/harm.htm

Specifically:

HARM can operate in three modes: preemptive,
missile-as-sensor and self-protect. In long-range preemptive
scenarios, HARM is fired before locking on to the threat radar. Targeting is provided through preflight planning or cued via on- or off-board sensors.

[Primarchx]

But when has that actually been done operationally? My reading (and I LOVE Wild Weasel stuff) has not indicated this method has been used. Now that may be that I'm not reading the right stuff or a USAF doctrinal issue or that the capability isn't all it's cracked up to be.

ORIGINAL: ExMachina

Regarding preemptive use: http://defense-update.com/products/h/harm.htm

Specifically:

HARM can operate in three modes: preemptive,
missile-as-sensor and self-protect. In long-range preemptive
scenarios, HARM is fired before locking on to the threat radar. Targeting is provided through preflight planning or cued via on- or off-board sensors.

[thewood1]

I am seeing way too many posts citing manufacturers' claims about missiles and systems. Those are good starting points, but doctrine and realistic capabilities need to come into play. I saw somewhere that a missile capability should changed because a manufacturer video showed it. My Volvo also has a speedometer that goes to 160 mph...my doctrine says under 100 is more realistic.

[Der Zeitgeist]

The thing is, in this case actual doctrine is not relevant, because it actually seems to be a bug. Other weapons that can't use BOL clearly show that by reading "Weapon is not BOL capable" in the weapon allocation window. Anti radar missiles, however, just show "Target out of range", which is not the case.

[ExMachina]

But when has that actually been done operationally? My reading (and I LOVE Wild Weasel stuff) has not indicated this method has been used. Now that may be that I'm not reading the right stuff or a USAF doctrinal issue or that the capability isn't all it's cracked up to be.

AND

I am seeing way too many posts citing manufacturers' claims about missiles and systems. Those are good starting points, but doctrine and realistic capabilities need to come into play. I saw somewhere that a missile capability should changed because a manufacturer video showed it. My Volvo also has a speedometer that goes to 160 mph...my doctrine says under 100 is more realistic.

By these criteria, should anything past the current date be modeled? What about tactical nukes??

I think CMNAO is a sim/sandbox/game and that it sould allow the player to experiment around with weapons' capabilities, both proven and (reasonably) claimed

[Primarchx]

ORIGINAL: ExMachina

By these criteria, should anything past the current date be modeled? What about tactical nukes??

I think CMNAO is a sim/sandbox/game and that it sould allow the player to experiment around with weapons' capabilities, both proven and (reasonably) claimed

I appreciate that point. But I know Ragnar is very conservative in ascribing capabilities to items in the game that have not been vetted to a degree beyond advertising copy. TTPs are often in a place for a reason, too. If the method in question hasn't been used or is no longer used, there's bound to be a good reason why, even if the reason is not available in open sources or is too complex to accurately portray in C:MANO.

[thewood1]

I agree on reasonable claim, but is the manufacturer alone a reasonable claim?

[Wiz33]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I agree on reasonable claim, but is the manufacturer alone a reasonable claim?

Yes and no. depending on country and the law. A U.S. company making such claim will be liable for all kind of legal problem if it turns out to be flase.

[Fishbed]

Sounds reasonable to me that later western ARMs could have such a firing mode, but still by any operational aspects it seems more like a big waste of resources that would be seldom used. Would you take the risk of shooting an ARM without a lock on an emission source, and with no assurance that said source will activate before it gets out of the missile's targeting envelope, either by flying by or running out of fuel? [:)]

The only reason ALARM may have such a mode is because it has this clever parachute deployment option, that actually makes such an approach worthy: with the certainty that the missile will stay on station much longer, such an technique is arguably way more sound.

But then again, AS-4? Come on! The Martel was a western 80s something missile system, and still you had to know the radio band of the target you were striking before taking off, as you had to set-up the targeting specter on the ground. In that view, I'd venture that a bearing only, multiple band attack mode is a thing of late XXth century ARM, out of reach for poor mid-60s' Kh-22 ARM. And even then, remember that a HARM eats through its fuel reserves in 3 min, shooting through the sky at Mach 2. The enemy radar operator'd better be VERY cooperative. You just don't blind-shoot a specialized weapon asset with less than a 3 min targeting window, especially if the whole package relies on your SEAD efficiency.

[Der Zeitgeist]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Sounds reasonable to me that later western ARMs could have such a firing mode, but still by any operational aspects it seems more like a big waste of resources that would be seldom used. Would you take the risk of shooting an ARM without a lock on an emission source, and with no assurance that said source will activate before it gets out of the missile's targeting envelope, either by flying by or running out of fuel? [:)]

The only reason ALARM may have such a mode is because it has this clever parachute deployment option, that actually makes such an approach worthy: with the certainty that the missile will stay on station much longer, such an technique is arguably way more sound.

But then again, AS-4? Come on! The Martel was a western 80s something missile system, and still you had to know the radio band of the target you were striking before taking off, as you had to set-up the targeting specter on the ground. In that view, I'd venture that a bearing only, multiple band attack mode is a thing of late XXth century ARM, out of reach for poor mid-60s' Kh-22 ARM. And even then, remember that a HARM eats through its fuel reserves in 3 min, shooting through the sky at Mach 2. The enemy radar operator'd better be VERY cooperative. You just don't blind-shoot a specialized weapon asset with less than a 3 min targeting window, especially if the whole package relies on your SEAD efficiency.

You might want to read about the Kosovo air war (Allied Force) and the number of HARM's that were fired there...

[Primarchx]

How many of those HARMs were fired against emitting radars vs 'just being safe', blind launches? The Serbs ran an excellent asymmetric counter-air campaign against NATO in Allied Force that made SEAD operations a challenge.