HARM intercept

HARM intercept (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series

Message

mikeCK -> HARM intercept (2/21/2014 7:25:21 PM)
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 -> RE: HARM intercept (2/21/2014 7:42:34 PM)
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 -> RE: HARM intercept (2/21/2014 7:57:26 PM)
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 -> RE: HARM intercept (2/21/2014 7:57:45 PM)
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 -> RE: HARM intercept (2/21/2014 8:05:33 PM)
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 -> RE: HARM intercept (2/21/2014 8:12:36 PM)
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 -> RE: HARM intercept (2/21/2014 8:25:36 PM)
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 -> RE: HARM intercept (2/21/2014 8:32:53 PM)
quote: 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 -> RE: HARM intercept (2/21/2014 8:34:12 PM)
May I ask what system the defending SAM was?

NakedWeasel -> RE: HARM intercept (2/21/2014 8:37:48 PM)
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 -> RE: HARM intercept (2/21/2014 10:14:34 PM)
quote: 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 -> RE: HARM intercept (2/21/2014 10:19:36 PM)
quote: 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_. quote: 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 -> RE: HARM intercept (2/21/2014 10:24:12 PM)
quote: 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. quote: 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? quote: 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. quote: 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 -> RE: HARM intercept (2/21/2014 10:26:51 PM)
quote: 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. quote: 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 -> RE: HARM intercept (2/21/2014 10:28:36 PM)
quote: 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 -> RE: HARM intercept (2/22/2014 12:40:13 AM)
quote: 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 -> RE: HARM intercept (2/22/2014 3:52:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sunburn quote: 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_. quote: 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 -> RE: HARM intercept (2/22/2014 4:23:25 AM)
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_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_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 -> RE: HARM intercept (2/22/2014 5:00:05 AM)
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 -> RE: HARM intercept (2/22/2014 5:27:04 AM)
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]

NakedWeasel -> RE: HARM intercept (2/22/2014 5:28:00 AM)
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.

NakedWeasel -> RE: HARM intercept (2/22/2014 5:30:40 AM)
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.

Dimitris -> RE: HARM intercept (2/22/2014 6:51:45 AM)
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.

mikmykWS -> RE: HARM intercept (2/22/2014 1:21:12 PM)
quote: 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

mikeCK -> RE: HARM intercept (2/22/2014 4:38:22 PM)
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

mikmykWS -> RE: HARM intercept (2/22/2014 7:42:28 PM)
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

mikeCK -> RE: HARM intercept (2/22/2014 8:58:01 PM)
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

mikmykWS -> RE: HARM intercept (2/22/2014 9:19:32 PM)
If its shrikes they are a much slower missile and could very well be targeted.

mikeCK -> RE: HARM intercept (2/26/2014 12:47:19 AM)
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.

NakedWeasel -> RE: HARM intercept (2/26/2014 1:01:53 AM)
Pics, or it didn't happen? Samey same? [:D]

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.71875