HARM intercept

[mikeCK]

I have a mechanical question. I sent a flight of F-18s and and EA-6B to take out a Sam radar. I fired about 4 HARM missles. As they approached, the SAM site started firing SAM missiles at the HARMs and destroyed all of them. I wasn't aware that there was a land based SAM That was capable of taking out a small missile moving that fast. I mean, the HARM isn't a cruise missile or harpoon. It's small and fast. I just don't think that should be possible....am I wrong?

Not sure what type of SAM it was...gecko maybe?

[Primarchx]

SAMs are only limited by what they can detect/track/illuminate/guide/etc, how quickly they can orient & launch and the speed of the object they're trying to intercept. HARMs don't have any magical protection from an intercepting missile.

[SaneStatistician]

Did you have jammers on and close by? How many engagement cycles did the bad guys have? Have you tried firing more HARMS, and closer to the target?

[mikeCK]

Well no magical effect...accept that they are small and very fast. Like intercepting and AMRAAAM with another air to air missile

I mean, it's 12 feet long and moves at Mach 2 from 65nm away...it's not a air launched cruise missle which is big and can be tracked for a long period of time. Of you could shot down HARMS like that, why would they ever work? Just seems a little to efficient to me...especially with EA-6b jamming

[NakedWeasel]

In general I can agree with the sentiment that what can be seen, can be killed. But I'd also have to hold that up to the standard of what is historically accurate as well. To my knowledge, there have been no AGM-88 shoot downs in combat. AFAIK, no modern analogues of the HARM have ever been shot down in combat, either.

The HARM is certainly not magic, but it does put the High-speed in HARM. That in itself is a protection.

[navwarcol]

Agree that it is unlikely to shoot down an inbound HARM, their rcs is quite small, but that is not the main reason they are difficult to shoot down. The normal defense against them is to turn off the radar they are homing on, and that defense would make it even more unlikely (obviously) that the same radar could track them and guide a SAM.
Anything could happen though, but I would say it is incredible luck to shoot down one, what's more four.

[mikeCK]

Yep. I believe there were 8 missiles launched destroying 4 HARMs. Just doesn't seem right and defeats the purpose of a SEAD run prior to attack.

[mikeCK]

ORIGINAL: SaneStatistician

Did you have jammers on and close by? How many engagement cycles did the bad guys have? Have you tried firing more HARMS, and closer to the target?

I had two EA-6Bs with hammers on. Fired the HARMs from about 60nm
SAMs never targeted my aircraft presumably due to jamming

[ComDev]

May I ask what system the defending SAM was?

[NakedWeasel]

Particularly unlikely for an early model mobile SAM system like the Gecko/Osa. Historically, these weren't the most reliable weapons, even against aircraft of their era. A single HARM should be over-kill against a SA-8.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

I have a mechanical question. I sent a flight of F-18s and and EA-6B to take out a Sam radar. I fired about 4 HARM missles. As they approached, the SAM site started firing SAM missiles at the HARMs and destroyed all of them. I wasn't aware that there was a land based SAM That was capable of taking out a small missile moving that fast. I mean, the HARM isn't a cruise missile or harpoon. It's small and fast. I just don't think that should be possible....am I wrong?

Not sure what type of SAM it was...gecko maybe?

Please post the message log.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: mikeCK
I have a mechanical question. I sent a flight of F-18s and and EA-6B to take out a Sam radar. I fired about 4 HARM missles.

4 HARMs. Not enough. You know how many HARMs were fired in Iraq and Kosovo? _THOUSANDS_.

I mean, the HARM isn't a cruise missile or harpoon. It's small and fast. I just don't think that should be possible....am I wrong?

The Russians had the tech to intercept vsmall, vfast targets since at least the early 80s (SA-10, designed with SRAM in mind).

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: mikeCK
Well no magical effect...accept that they are small and very fast. Like intercepting and AMRAAAM with another air to air missile

The latter is also feasible (the Russians claim the R-77 can do it), but it's not practical because you're trading one AAM for another. OTOH breaking a HARM attack is worth a few SAMs.

I mean, it's 12 feet long and moves at Mach 2 from 65nm away...

Was the detection and interception made at 65nm? If not then what does that figure matter?

it's not a air launched cruise missle which is big and can be tracked for a long period of time.

It's big enough and it has zero VLO treatment (among other details, the cruciform wings are *superb* reflectors). RCS depends very little on physical size.

Of you could shot down HARMS like that, why would they ever work? Just seems a little to efficient to me...especially with EA-6b jamming

HARMs have worked OK when fired _in big numbers_, against _old_ radars and SAMs.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel
In general I can agree with the sentiment that what can be seen, can be killed. But I'd also have to hold that up to the standard of what is historically accurate as well. To my knowledge, there have been no AGM-88 shoot downs in combat. AFAIK, no modern analogues of the HARM have ever been shot down in combat, either.

No HARM or similar ARM has been fired against 1980s+ SAM/Radar systems AFAIK. Against ancient stuff they've worked OK. Against modern stuff who knows.

The HARM is certainly not magic, but it does put the High-speed in HARM. That in itself is a protection.

Tell that to the guy in this forum who considers the SS-N-12/19 "easy targets".

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel
Particularly unlikely for an early model mobile SAM system like the Gecko/Osa. Historically, these weren't the most reliable weapons, even against aircraft of their era. A single HARM should be over-kill against a SA-8.

Greek army SA-8 operators beg to differ.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

Particularly unlikely for an early model mobile SAM system like the Gecko/Osa. Historically, these weren't the most reliable weapons, even against aircraft of their era. A single HARM should be over-kill against a SA-8.

SA-8 was one of the better low end systems. the Iraqi's did actually set these up once Tomahawk routes were known to try and bag a few on the way in. You wouldn't do that if you didn't think they would be effective.

I'd be interested in where you're getting this impression?

Mike

[navwarcol]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

ORIGINAL: mikeCK
I have a mechanical question. I sent a flight of F-18s and and EA-6B to take out a Sam radar. I fired about 4 HARM missles.

4 HARMs. Not enough. You know how many HARMs were fired in Iraq and Kosovo? _THOUSANDS_.

That is true, but the misses were not shoot downs by SAM batteries for the most part. Most of the misses were Iraqis being smart and turning off their systems, and the HARMs not always (not even often) doing "as advertised" to account for that.

SA-8 however should be able to take down a HARM.

[NakedWeasel]

Like most people here, I can only go by what I've read, or in this case, not read- about the SA-8. My first knowledge about the Gecko comes from the Beqaa Valley in '82. AFAIK, this was the first real test of the SA-8 in large numbers under actual combat conditions, and the total tally for the OPFOR in that conflict was three Israeli aircraft out of nearly 200 engagements. It is unknown if any such kills were due to SA-8 involement. This was at a time that the SA-8 was supposed to be at the top of it's game, the Soviet Union's most State of the Art SAM system.

In decades afterwards, the system became less and less prevalent, the kill ratio became less and less indicative of a world beating front-line SAM system. According to this timeline, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ietnam_War there are no definitive reports of an SA-8 being the cause of a successful shoot down of any American pilots since records of SAM engagements were made public after Vietnam. Some shoot downs are certainly possible, as in several cases the aircraft was shot down by a missile, it's positive ID unknown. But even if a couple occurred, there a very few as compared to all the other engagements in US history.

Now, please understand, I'm no expert, of course. I can only speculate through the prism of a Cold War era military brat who read volumes of Janes Defense for countless hours at the base library... But so far I haven't really seen any impressive kill ratios for the SA-8 against Western pilots, tactics, and aircraft. The respect is there, absolutely- it is obviously lethal to less advanced aircraft, especially helicopters- and if completely dismissed could certainly wreck a flyer's whole day. But in a heavily jammed environment, and utilizing the West's typical A2G stand off weapons systems like the Maverick and the HARM, the SA-8 doesn't seem particularly dangerous, as compared with other more modern systems like the SA-11, SA-13 and SA-19.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. [:'(]

[mikmykWS]

That's great but unfortunately isn't specific enough to really help us look at the issue.

Ok guys thanks for posts on this. The dev team will discuss and come to a consensus on this.

Thanks!

Mike

[ComDev]

The SA-8 supposedly shot down over 30 Tomahawks during the 1991 GW.

Also, counter-battery radars can see arty shells at considerable distances. Doppler is king [:D]