HARM intercept
Moderator: MOD_Command
- NakedWeasel
- Posts: 500
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:40 pm
RE: HARM intercept
Thank you, Mike. I wasn't really trying to get anything changed, just having a conversation really. But I appreciate you having having a listen, sir.
Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
- NakedWeasel
- Posts: 500
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:40 pm
RE: HARM intercept
Well that is significant. I believe it was said that the Iraqis had set them up along the TLAM's ingress routes? I suppose that would help. The Serbs shot down a stealth fighter that way.
Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
RE: HARM intercept
Carlo Kopp had a great article about the past combat record of Soviet/Russian SAMs and how it was affected (both positively and negatively) by "local" factors: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SAM-Effectiveness.html
(Which is of course interesting as a u-turn in itself, since Carlo used to be one of the earliest dawn-of-Web advocates of the "Bekaa & Desert Storm prove Russian stuff sucks" mantra...)
Has some juicy details on Bekaa too. Placing hardware on valleys instead of hills.... talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
(Which is of course interesting as a u-turn in itself, since Carlo used to be one of the earliest dawn-of-Web advocates of the "Bekaa & Desert Storm prove Russian stuff sucks" mantra...)
Has some juicy details on Bekaa too. Placing hardware on valleys instead of hills.... talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
RE: HARM intercept
ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel
Well that is significant. I believe it was said that the Iraqis had set them up along the TLAM's ingress routes? I suppose that would help. The Serbs shot down a stealth fighter that way.
Actually that story is very interesting because it really is a case of crew quality improving the capability of older systems.
Wonder what would happen if somebody cranked the side quality up or down a notch with these US vs. Older IADS type engagements?
Mike
RE: HARM intercept
Tell you what, I'm way past that point in the game but is started over.
I'm going to try the same raid again so this time I will make sure I save at the moment of launch and copy message log. When I get on the comp and get it started again, i will post the missile and radar type.
Edit: ok, radar is Bar Lock A type p-37
SAM is SA-2f guideline missile [s-75m volkhov]
Also. SA-3c goa's
I'm going to try the same raid again so this time I will make sure I save at the moment of launch and copy message log. When I get on the comp and get it started again, i will post the missile and radar type.
Edit: ok, radar is Bar Lock A type p-37
SAM is SA-2f guideline missile [s-75m volkhov]
Also. SA-3c goa's
RE: HARM intercept
Ok spend some time on this today testing.
SA-8, 3, 2, 19 not capable of firing at Harm in the game. The reason is the Harm is too fast. Harpoon 2/3 never modeled this limitation btw! If you want to see for yourselves create a test and see what happens. Try manual allocation and you'll see the reason the Harm cannot be engaged.
Only the SA-15 and other high end SAMS can do it.
If you can produce a log showing differently we'd really like to see it.
Thanks!
Mike
SA-8, 3, 2, 19 not capable of firing at Harm in the game. The reason is the Harm is too fast. Harpoon 2/3 never modeled this limitation btw! If you want to see for yourselves create a test and see what happens. Try manual allocation and you'll see the reason the Harm cannot be engaged.
Only the SA-15 and other high end SAMS can do it.
If you can produce a log showing differently we'd really like to see it.
Thanks!
Mike
RE: HARM intercept
Ok....lol, well they fired and blew them up for sure. The raid (new game) is on the way so I will print the message log. Not sure what happened the. But I lost almost all my harms before they got close. It's possible there are other Sams there (playing "Indian Ocean fight" from "war that never was" but as this is 1989...I doubt it. What really sucks is trying to shoot down planes with sparrows but that's off topic.
Anyway, strike on its way and I will advise
Anyway, strike on its way and I will advise
RE: HARM intercept
If its shrikes they are a much slower missile and could very well be targeted.
RE: HARM intercept
Tried again and this time there was no intercept. There were several planes in the area the first time so I am wondering if perhaps the HARMs were engaged with AAMs? Who knows.
Anyway, if you can't do it twice you never did it at all they say.
Anyway, if you can't do it twice you never did it at all they say.
- NakedWeasel
- Posts: 500
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:40 pm
RE: HARM intercept
Pics, or it didn't happen? Samey same? [:D]
Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
RE: HARM intercept
ORIGINAL: mikeCK
Tried again and this time there was no intercept. There were several planes in the area the first time so I am wondering if perhaps the HARMs were engaged with AAMs? Who knows.
Anyway, if you can't do it twice you never did it at all they say.
Flankers armed with AA-10's probably got them. I assume you are shooting at the facilities on Socotra?
Yokes
RE: HARM intercept
Whatever that island airbase is....trying to take out the airbase before my SAG gets close. Since my Diego 52's can't take off, I launched all my TASMs (about 20) from a cruiser in the task force and took out the runway
RE: HARM intercept
ORIGINAL: mikeCK
Whatever that island airbase is....trying to take out the airbase before my SAG gets close. Since my Diego 52's can't take off, I launched all my TASMs (about 20) from a cruiser in the task force and took out the runway
Hint: that runway only has one access point...
RE: HARM intercept
Ok, just had this happen AGAIN. This time I saves and exported the log. I am my iPhone so I will post in a minute but it says:
" weapon (SA-n-6a Grumble is attacking AGM-88c harm #1419 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die roll: 21-Hit"
Now I don't know about the Sa6 but holy cow...75% hit chance!!!!!
So I fired a crap load of HARMS and they all get shot down by the Sam sights they are targeting
Edit: I don't know how to attach a save but this is a cut and paste from the exported log. As you can see...hardly any HARMS got through:
3/14/2014 5:47:49 PM: Contact VAMPIRE #76 has been lost.
3/14/2014 5:47:47 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1447) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1419 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 21 - HIT
3/14/2014 5:47:46 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1445) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1418 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 23 - HIT
3/14/2014 5:47:46 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1446) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1418 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 40 - HIT
3/14/2014 5:47:44 PM: Contact VAMPIRE #77 has been lost.
3/14/2014 5:47:44 PM: Contact VAMPIRE #73 has been lost.
EDIT: This is the next few minutes
3/14/2014 5:48:39 PM: Weapon (SA-10b Grumble [5V55R] #1464) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1436 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 73 - HIT
3/14/2014 5:48:39 PM: Weapon (SA-10b Grumble [5V55R] #1465) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1436 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 63 - HIT
3/14/2014 5:48:22 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1457) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1439 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 37 - HIT
3/14/2014 5:48:22 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1456) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1439 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 83 - MISS
3/14/2014 5:48:22 PM: Contact: MOBILE #80 has been type-classified as: SAM (Classification by: AN/ASQ-213 HTS R7 Pod [Sensor: AN/ASQ-213 HTS R7 [PIP]] at Estimated 122 nm)
3/14/2014 5:48:22 PM: New contact! Designated MOBILE #80 - Detected by 510th Fighter Squadron [F-16C Blk 40 Falcon] #1 [Sensors: AN/ASQ-213 HTS R7 [PIP]] at 102deg - Estimated 122NM
3/14/2014 5:48:22 PM: Contact: SAM #79 was observed attacking a friendly unit and is now considered as hostile!
3/14/2014 5:48:22 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1459) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1440 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 79 - MISS
3/14/2014 5:48:22 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1460) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1440 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 98 - MISS
3/14/2014 5:48:21 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1455) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1438 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 26 - HIT
3/14/2014 5:48:18 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1453) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1435 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 9 - HIT
3/14/2014 5:48:17 PM: Contact: MOBILE #79 has been type-classified as: SAM (Classification by: AN/ASQ-213 HTS R7 Pod [Sensor: AN/ASQ-213 HTS R7 [PIP]] at Estimated 125 nm)
3/14/2014 5:48:17 PM: New contact! Designated MOBILE #79 - Detected by 492nd Fighter Squadron [F-15E Strike Eagle] #9 [Sensors: AN/ALR-56C TEWS] at 91deg - Estimated 114NM
3/14/2014 5:48:17 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1452) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1436 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 85 - MISS
3/14/2014 5:48:17 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1449) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1434 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 26 - HIT
3/14/2014 5:48:17 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1450) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1436 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 98 - MISS
" weapon (SA-n-6a Grumble is attacking AGM-88c harm #1419 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die roll: 21-Hit"
Now I don't know about the Sa6 but holy cow...75% hit chance!!!!!
So I fired a crap load of HARMS and they all get shot down by the Sam sights they are targeting
Edit: I don't know how to attach a save but this is a cut and paste from the exported log. As you can see...hardly any HARMS got through:
3/14/2014 5:47:49 PM: Contact VAMPIRE #76 has been lost.
3/14/2014 5:47:47 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1447) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1419 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 21 - HIT
3/14/2014 5:47:46 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1445) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1418 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 23 - HIT
3/14/2014 5:47:46 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1446) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1418 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 40 - HIT
3/14/2014 5:47:44 PM: Contact VAMPIRE #77 has been lost.
3/14/2014 5:47:44 PM: Contact VAMPIRE #73 has been lost.
EDIT: This is the next few minutes
3/14/2014 5:48:39 PM: Weapon (SA-10b Grumble [5V55R] #1464) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1436 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 73 - HIT
3/14/2014 5:48:39 PM: Weapon (SA-10b Grumble [5V55R] #1465) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1436 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 63 - HIT
3/14/2014 5:48:22 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1457) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1439 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 37 - HIT
3/14/2014 5:48:22 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1456) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1439 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 83 - MISS
3/14/2014 5:48:22 PM: Contact: MOBILE #80 has been type-classified as: SAM (Classification by: AN/ASQ-213 HTS R7 Pod [Sensor: AN/ASQ-213 HTS R7 [PIP]] at Estimated 122 nm)
3/14/2014 5:48:22 PM: New contact! Designated MOBILE #80 - Detected by 510th Fighter Squadron [F-16C Blk 40 Falcon] #1 [Sensors: AN/ASQ-213 HTS R7 [PIP]] at 102deg - Estimated 122NM
3/14/2014 5:48:22 PM: Contact: SAM #79 was observed attacking a friendly unit and is now considered as hostile!
3/14/2014 5:48:22 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1459) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1440 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 79 - MISS
3/14/2014 5:48:22 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1460) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1440 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 98 - MISS
3/14/2014 5:48:21 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1455) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1438 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 26 - HIT
3/14/2014 5:48:18 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1453) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1435 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 9 - HIT
3/14/2014 5:48:17 PM: Contact: MOBILE #79 has been type-classified as: SAM (Classification by: AN/ASQ-213 HTS R7 Pod [Sensor: AN/ASQ-213 HTS R7 [PIP]] at Estimated 125 nm)
3/14/2014 5:48:17 PM: New contact! Designated MOBILE #79 - Detected by 492nd Fighter Squadron [F-15E Strike Eagle] #9 [Sensors: AN/ALR-56C TEWS] at 91deg - Estimated 114NM
3/14/2014 5:48:17 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1452) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1436 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 85 - MISS
3/14/2014 5:48:17 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1449) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1434 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 26 - HIT
3/14/2014 5:48:17 PM: Weapon (SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM] #1450) is attacking AGM-88C HARM #1436 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die Roll: 98 - MISS
RE: HARM intercept
Interesting. Well that's consistent with what Sunburn was saying about the SA-10 being capable.
RE: HARM intercept
It's not just SA-10/SA-N-6's and the like. Did you know fighters can shoot them down - with their guns!

Although this was only a 73% hit chance, not 75%, so that's all right! [:D]
I guess this raises another question. If aircraft are assumed to be able to detect and engage HARMs and similar weaponry, why aren't they assumed to be able to detect and engage incoming SAMs and AAMs? If it seems absurd to suggest that a fighter could pick off an incoming HAWK, shouldn't it also be absurd to suggest it could pick off an incoming HARM? After all, if my fighter can shoot down a Standard ARM, why can't it shoot down a Standard missile? At the moment nobody seems to be suggesting this should be possible, so shouldn't the same principle apply to the heavy SAMs? I suspect that without a dedicated anti-PGM system (SA-15, various CIWS, and the like) the odds of taking on these small quick targets may be somewhat lower than indicated. Of course, there's that whole 'lack of evidence' problem... Darn those inconsiderate classification regulations!

Although this was only a 73% hit chance, not 75%, so that's all right! [:D]
I guess this raises another question. If aircraft are assumed to be able to detect and engage HARMs and similar weaponry, why aren't they assumed to be able to detect and engage incoming SAMs and AAMs? If it seems absurd to suggest that a fighter could pick off an incoming HAWK, shouldn't it also be absurd to suggest it could pick off an incoming HARM? After all, if my fighter can shoot down a Standard ARM, why can't it shoot down a Standard missile? At the moment nobody seems to be suggesting this should be possible, so shouldn't the same principle apply to the heavy SAMs? I suspect that without a dedicated anti-PGM system (SA-15, various CIWS, and the like) the odds of taking on these small quick targets may be somewhat lower than indicated. Of course, there's that whole 'lack of evidence' problem... Darn those inconsiderate classification regulations!
RE: HARM intercept
ORIGINAL: Rob322
Interesting. Well that's consistent with what Sunburn was saying about the SA-10 being capable.
Fine...but all but 2 of the kills were from SA-6's
Is this not a bug? I don't know much about SAM capabilities but the HARM is not a cruise missile. It seems to me, this is like shooting down an AMRAAM with a sidewinder.
Even if it is possible...75%! I can get that with tailpipe shots from a sidewinder
RE: HARM intercept
I know I'm late to the discussion and I think it was determined that an SA-8 didn't take out the HARM. The primary reasons why an SA-8 cannot target a HARM is:
a. The radar cross section (RCS) of the HARM is generally too small for the LAND ROLL TTR to accurately track; and
b. The GECKO missile is Radar Command Line of Sight (RCLOS)-guided. There is no seeker in the missile - it is guided via datalink. The radar and datalink use the same line of sight to the target. This means that at any point in the engagement, a straight line can be drawn from the radar, through the missile, to the target. The higher the target speed, the greater the G's the missile would have to pull to hit the target.
As an analogy - think of a quarterback throwing a football to a crossing receiver at a full run 30 yards away. The QB throws at where the receiver WILL be when the ball arrives. With RCLOS, the QB would need a "magic football" because he would throw the ball to the spot where the receiver IS NOW, and have to steer the football as it approaches the receiver. If you traced the path of the ball, it would be a giant arc that increases its curve as it approaches the receiver.
But, like I said, I think y'all already determined it wasn't a GECKO. We now return to our regularly scheduled forum post, already in progress...
a. The radar cross section (RCS) of the HARM is generally too small for the LAND ROLL TTR to accurately track; and
b. The GECKO missile is Radar Command Line of Sight (RCLOS)-guided. There is no seeker in the missile - it is guided via datalink. The radar and datalink use the same line of sight to the target. This means that at any point in the engagement, a straight line can be drawn from the radar, through the missile, to the target. The higher the target speed, the greater the G's the missile would have to pull to hit the target.
As an analogy - think of a quarterback throwing a football to a crossing receiver at a full run 30 yards away. The QB throws at where the receiver WILL be when the ball arrives. With RCLOS, the QB would need a "magic football" because he would throw the ball to the spot where the receiver IS NOW, and have to steer the football as it approaches the receiver. If you traced the path of the ball, it would be a giant arc that increases its curve as it approaches the receiver.
But, like I said, I think y'all already determined it wasn't a GECKO. We now return to our regularly scheduled forum post, already in progress...
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?
RE: HARM intercept
I'm not claiming an SA 8 took out my HARMS....
but see my post above with the log..almost all of my HARMS were taken out by SA-6's.
Will see what the devs say. I would think its a bug, especially seeing as how there was another example a fighter taking out a harm with cannon fire.
but see my post above with the log..almost all of my HARMS were taken out by SA-6's.
Will see what the devs say. I would think its a bug, especially seeing as how there was another example a fighter taking out a harm with cannon fire.


