In Reality: Does ARM hit targets if target does not radiate anymore?

[morphin]

Hi

I have two questions maybe somebody can answer

1) In Reality does ARM hits the targets if after launching the target stops radiating? I think it should go the latest known position and "could" hit (Maybe less probability if the position was not exact known when the target last radiated)
In CMANO it seems that the missiles miss the targets ("has detonated" or "malfunctioned" or "explod on top" are the messages i see) but i have never seen a hit.... (even when the position of the target is known)

2) In CMANO you can BOL launch ARM missiles, but they miss always the targets if the target does not radiate (also if you have an exact location of the target the missiles miss all the times). In reality do you launch BOL ARM missiles on NON-Radiating targets (with exact position known)?


Thank's

Andy

[Raptorx7_slith]

If the ARM has "ARM target memory" as a characteristic then yes the missile will "remember" where the radar was even if it stopped radiating. Missiles that have this off the top of my head are the AGM-88C and the AARGM.

[Sardaukar]

I think AARGM also has MW seeker.

[CCIP-subsim]

It depends on the missile.

If you go back to the AGM-45, it will miss because it loses guidance the moment the radar is turned off and has no fallback. There's a small chance it'll hit, but it's very poor because the missile is pretty unstable in flight and has a tiny warhead - so it doesn't have to miss by much to have no effect. Very old, first-generation ARMs are similar.

Then you have somewhat more advanced missiles, starting with versions of the AGM-78, that incorporated a gyro to help the missile maintain its flight path in case the radar shuts down - these are not position keepers (they only maintain the missile's flight path), and the missile might still miss, but the probability of hit is much higher. But they don't actually 'know' where the target is and do not aim at a location - just mimic the missile seeker's behaviour as if it were still tracking a radar signal.

Then with the various versions of the AGM-88 - they do actually have a built in GPS/INS that allows them to actually store locations of targets. However, they are not designed to target locations, and as with most ARMs, their warheads are relatively small and move at extremely high speeds anyway so they're not the kind of weapon you want for targeting something that's not emitting. They're designed for BOL launches and for autonomously finding targets - but those targets have to be known emitters.

Newest versions/AARGM probably could be used to target just a location - but for reasons of doctrine, I can't imagine it being used on anything other than an active/recent emitter. It's too easy for a potential emitter to move if the contact is more than a couple of minutes old, and there's a million other weapons that could hit a pair of GPS coordinates instead. ARMs are too expensive to lob at area targets - and then again, if you really need it and expect that an emitter could go live any time, there's BOL.

As for dealing with that in CMANO, well, that's why it's good having mixed loadouts, or pairing aircraft with ARMs together with aircraft that have other weapons (cruise missiles, AGMs, glide bombs - SDB is a favourite) that work well for hitting locations and/or are good at making radar operators panic and reveal themselves [:)]

[CCIP-subsim]

Also: "has detonated" and "exploded on top" are the correct effects. ARMs are not impact weapons, and most are too small to carry a warhead large enough to cause damage over more than a tiny area on impact. So they explode above/some distance away from their target and shower it with shrapnel instead - works well against fragile targets like radars. So any direct hit by an ARM is a malfunction by default, since it's not supposed to do that.

[morphin]

ORIGINAL: CCIP-subsim

Also: "has detonated" and "exploded on top" are the correct effects. ARMs are not impact weapons, and most are too small to carry a warhead large enough to cause damage over more than a tiny area on impact. So they explode above/some distance away from their target and shower it with shrapnel instead - works well against fragile targets like radars. So any direct hit by an ARM is a malfunction by default, since it's not supposed to do that.

Yes your right, but i see most often no effect on SAM Sides for "has detonated" and "exploded on top" messages...
(No reduction on the "damage" number)....

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: morphin

Yes your right, but i see most often no effect on SAM Sides for "has detonated" and "exploded on top" messages...
(No reduction on the "damage" number)....

That depends on the SAM type too. ARM can track SPAAG like shilika and tunguska's FCRs, but sharpnels could not tear the armor some new holes. Not unless the missile is directly hit at it, or the sharpnels can accurately disable small FCRs compare to the size from large and static SAMs or other EW radars.

That is why it's ideal to accompany with traditional AGM, when you have to clean up scattered but persistent AA threats.

[Scar79]

Depends on generation of ARM. Old AGM-88 or Kh-31/58 couldn't do this. But modern ones, like AARGM with MMW-radar or Kh-58UShK with IIR-seeker, can...at least in theory.

[morphin]

ORIGINAL: Dysta
]
That depends on the SAM type too. ARM can track SPAAG like shilika and tunguska's FCRs, but sharpnels could not tear the armor some new holes. Not unless the missile is directly hit at it, or the sharpnels can accurately disable small FCRs compare to the size from large and static SAMs or other EW radars.

That is why it's ideal to accompany with traditional AGM, when you have to clean up scattered but persistent AA threats.

Yes, that's everything fine. I'm not sure if this is modeled in CMANO in this detail... hitting a non-radiating target, beccause the target stopped radiating a short time ago (a few seconds to 1 or 2 minutes ago). Precisely i mean stop radiating after firing the ARM missile....

[thewood1]

I think the radar location memory is modeled. I remember vaguely a discussion about HARM capabilities.

I just double-checked...the HARM is modeled as having target memory. It's listed in the db parameters. I think that is what you are asking.

[User2]

Modern ARMs can hit as precise as accurately they can measure SAM's location.
I've read that during the war in Yugoslavia experienced SAM crew placed decoy emittor 100-300m behind the radar/FCR. For an ARM that was still far enough, +-300m was within the margin of error. So it headed towards decoy instead of the turned off radar.

Also they used wooden logs to protect crew control posts from nearby explosions of ARMs.

[CCIP-subsim]

ORIGINAL: morphin

ORIGINAL: CCIP-subsim

Also: "has detonated" and "exploded on top" are the correct effects. ARMs are not impact weapons, and most are too small to carry a warhead large enough to cause damage over more than a tiny area on impact. So they explode above/some distance away from their target and shower it with shrapnel instead - works well against fragile targets like radars. So any direct hit by an ARM is a malfunction by default, since it's not supposed to do that.

Yes your right, but i see most often no effect on SAM Sides for "has detonated" and "exploded on top" messages...
(No reduction on the "damage" number)....

Remember that unless you're checking it in Editor mode or have an "omniscient" setting for spotting, you don't get an instant update on the unit status. It has to be spotted by a sensor which can do an adequate BDA on the target status (which also sometimes gives an inaccurate assessment).

But as others have mentioned - could be other reasons of course, from an actual miss, to targets that are able to resist shrapnel damage, to spoofing/active defences.

[thewood1]

You can also play in the editor and after the missile disappears, tuen on god's eye view to see what happened.

[morphin]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

You can also play in the editor and after the missile disappears, tuen on god's eye view to see what happened.

Thank's for all the answers. I will make a test scenario to find out more.
In a game i don't play with god's eye view normally...[:-]


Andy

[thewood1]

Then that's why you have the question. Its the easiest way to see what is happening. Its the first ting I do if I think there is an issue. It sometimes depends on if you are playing strictly as a game or to learn a little bit about how things work.

[Rory Noonan]

ORIGINAL: morphin

ORIGINAL: thewood1

You can also play in the editor and after the missile disappears, tuen on god's eye view to see what happened.

Thank's for all the answers. I will make a test scenario to find out more.
In a game i don't play with god's eye view normally...[:-]


Andy

This is the best way to isolate what's going on and pin down any issues; like any experiment you want to control as many variables as possible. In a scenario with 2,000+ active units and a whole bunch of other stuff going on it's easy to miss something and be confused by the results.

[mavfin]

The other thing I do when I'm done with the scenario is look at the log of the scenario. If you understand what's going on there, you can find out quite a bit.

[thewood1]

The log file is under utilized by players who are trying to understand the game. I used to use the recording feature on smaller scenarios and then look at the printed log while it was replaying. Helped a lot in understanding the game.

[morphin]

Thank's for all the help and hints

Andy