JSOW, MALD and HARMs

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

JSOW, MALD and HARMs

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> JSOW, MALD and HARMs

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

JSOW, MALD and HARMs - 10/24/2014 3:47:20 PM

hellfish6

Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline

A sales pitch, but maybe it'll give someone some ideas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pu_PKpEhqU

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: JSOW, MALD and HARMs - 10/24/2014 4:31:05 PM

magi

Posts: 1529
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline

Cool......

(in reply to hellfish6)

Post #: 2

RE: JSOW, MALD and HARMs - 10/24/2014 5:38:21 PM

Dutchie999

Posts: 117
Joined: 10/8/2014
Status: offline

Personally I am not a fan of the AGM-88 HARM. I find the AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER much better for SEAD. It has double the range, which means you can fire from beyond the range of 99% of the SAM missiles out there. And targeting can be easily done from AWACS, ELINT or the radar warning receiver on the aircraft you are firing from. For a fast and accurate firing position of the SAM you can also try to triangulate the signal by flying your aircraft very wide. The most important advantage I find is that the SLAM-ER drops down to 60ft AGL (it is of course based on the sea-skimming Harpoon missile) and is therefore impossible to see for enemy SAM until the very last moment when it is too late. The harpoon just drops down in a linear line towards the emitting radar and stays high in the air too long. So enemy SAM can easily shoot it down. The only advantage I can see for the HARM missile is that for example a F/A-18 can carry 4 of them and only 2 SLAM-ER and since the SLAM-ER doesn't look for the emitting radar of a SAM Bn but has a IR seeker it can also hit a TEL and not the search and/or engagement radar. Leaving the SAM (if it has multiple TEL) still capable to shoot down your aircraft.

(in reply to magi)

Post #: 3

RE: JSOW, MALD and HARMs - 10/24/2014 5:40:55 PM

VFA41_Lion

Posts: 228
Joined: 1/30/2014
Status: offline

HARMs cost half the price of a SLAM-ER, if buying the latest and greatest version of it. An 88C costs only around $300,000 while a SLAM-ER will set you back two million dollars. HARMs are just way more cheaper.

_____________________________

(in reply to Dutchie999)

Post #: 4

RE: JSOW, MALD and HARMs - 10/24/2014 6:35:55 PM

CapnDarwin

Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline

harm has a couple more advantages to consider.
1). Missiles hitting other small missiles is very hard to do without very sophisticated hardware and software.
2). A harm seen by radar operators generally forces a radar shutdown. That's as good as a kill since it can't shoot at you. The Slammer being in the weeds is hard to see so radars aren't clicking off for it.
3). Speed. HARM is 1420mph vs 530 for the Slammer. I can get a Harm on target 3 times faster if a threat pops up in range.

It still does a good job.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to VFA41_Lion)

Post #: 5

RE: JSOW, MALD and HARMs - 10/24/2014 8:58:51 PM

scottb613

Posts: 186
Joined: 8/9/2014
Status: offline

Can a HARM hit a missle ? I always thought they were strictly for taking out radars ?

Regards,
Scott

(in reply to CapnDarwin)

Post #: 6

RE: JSOW, MALD and HARMs - 10/24/2014 10:06:30 PM

ExNusquam

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: scottb613

Can a HARM hit a missle ? I always thought they were strictly for taking out radars ?

Regards,
Scott

Darwin is referring to missiles engaging the HARM in point #1 above.

However, a HARM has hit the tail radar of a B-52. It could probably hit an ARH missile given the correct engagement geometry, but I can't fathom that would be.

(in reply to scottb613)

Post #: 7

RE: JSOW, MALD and HARMs - 10/24/2014 11:26:42 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

2). A harm seen by radar operators generally forces a radar shutdown. That's as good as a kill since it can't shoot at you. The Slammer being in the weeds is hard to see so radars aren't clicking off for it.

True up until the point that they could be engaged with higher end Russian systems. Many SHORAD systems are now assigned with protecting the long ranged one from attack.

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 10/25/2014 12:27:00 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to ExNusquam)

Post #: 8

RE: JSOW, MALD and HARMs - 10/24/2014 11:37:10 PM

CapnDarwin

Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline

Mike,

Very true these days. SLAM-ER is another sub-sonic cruise missile. That speed makes it more vulnerable to interception and also allows for a longer engagement window compared to a HARM.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 9

RE: JSOW, MALD and HARMs - 10/25/2014 4:55:51 AM

Agiel

Posts: 39
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

As has been the case for every other mode of warfare, the success of SEAD/DEAD operations are contingent on how the disparate tactics and technologies come together. Simply employing only one part of the whole likely isn't going to get you the desired result.

For instance, when dealing with a target defended by a top-tier SAM like the SA-21 I fire JASSMs or JSOWs along with MALD-Js so that the actual missiles get lost amongst the decoys, which makes the life of the SAM operators hell. On a different attack axis I have SEAD shooters and jammers observing strict EMCON flying below the radar horizon, only to have them ascend to attack altitude at a distance at which the SAM has little to no time to react.

(in reply to hellfish6)

Post #: 10