RE: HARM intercept

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: HARM intercept

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 >> RE: HARM intercept

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: HARM intercept - 2/26/2014 3:18:01 PM

Yokes

Posts: 298
Joined: 3/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to mikeCK)

Post #: 31

RE: HARM intercept - 2/26/2014 4:07:16 PM

mikeCK

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline

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

< Message edited by mikeCK -- 2/26/2014 5:11:06 PM >

(in reply to Yokes)

Post #: 32

RE: HARM intercept - 2/26/2014 6:22:21 PM

Yokes

Posts: 298
Joined: 3/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

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...

(in reply to mikeCK)

Post #: 33

RE: HARM intercept - 3/25/2014 11:59:15 PM

mikeCK

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline

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

< Message edited by mikeCK -- 3/26/2014 1:13:32 AM >

(in reply to Yokes)

Post #: 34

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 2:02:29 AM

Rob322

Posts: 578
Joined: 8/16/2004
Status: offline

Interesting. Well that's consistent with what Sunburn was saying about the SA-10 being capable.

(in reply to mikeCK)

Post #: 35

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 2:38:32 AM

AndrewJ

Posts: 2318
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline

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!

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!

(in reply to mikeCK)

Post #: 36

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 2:51:11 AM

mikeCK

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline

Edit

< Message edited by mikeCK -- 3/26/2014 3:53:04 AM >

(in reply to AndrewJ)

Post #: 37

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 2:52:19 AM

mikeCK

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline

quote:

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

< Message edited by mikeCK -- 3/26/2014 3:55:38 AM >

(in reply to Rob322)

Post #: 38

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 2:52:26 AM

AFIntel

Posts: 157
Joined: 7/23/2002
From: Saginaw, TX
Status: offline

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...

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?

(in reply to mikeCK)

Post #: 39

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 2:57:44 AM

mikeCK

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by mikeCK -- 3/26/2014 4:06:58 AM >

(in reply to AFIntel)

Post #: 40

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 3:06:12 AM

NakedWeasel

Posts: 500
Joined: 1/14/2014
Status: offline

I have a modern-day Israel and US Vs. Syria, and Iran scenario, and I have never seen the Syrian SA-6's take down HARMs. In fact, it's always the other way 'round.

_____________________________

Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!

(in reply to mikeCK)

Post #: 41

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 3:08:05 AM

mikeCK

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline

Dunno. Happened to me. See the exported log 5 or 6 posts above. Here is a portion.

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

< Message edited by mikeCK -- 3/26/2014 4:10:30 AM >

(in reply to NakedWeasel)

Post #: 42

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 3:18:18 AM

NakedWeasel

Posts: 500
Joined: 1/14/2014
Status: offline

Yeah, that's a bugger, all right. Strange that there weren't any other modifiers to reduce the final die roll...

_____________________________

Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!

(in reply to mikeCK)

Post #: 43

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 3:44:46 AM

AFIntel

Posts: 157
Joined: 7/23/2002
From: Saginaw, TX
Status: offline

In reality, it is almost impossible for SA-6 GAINFUL to engage HARMS, (I'd say impossible, but if you threw 1000 GAINFUL against 1000 HARMS, two of them will inevitably occupy the same airspace at the same time).

I've got to sign off, butt I can try to explain tomorrow why it's unrealistic for it to happen once, let alone multiple times.

(in reply to NakedWeasel)

Post #: 44

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 3:48:38 AM

AFIntel

Posts: 157
Joined: 7/23/2002
From: Saginaw, TX
Status: offline

�and, actually, looking at your previous post, it appears they were SA-N-6 GRUMBLE (navalized version of the SA-10) and not SA-6. Big difference. That is possible, although not as probable as it appears the game makes it.

(in reply to AFIntel)

Post #: 45

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 4:32:56 AM

NakedWeasel

Posts: 500
Joined: 1/14/2014
Status: offline

Well craponacracker! I totally missed that. Yes, big difference indeed. But even so, that would be a very costly engagement for the OPFOR. Even if they shot them down, those SA-N-6'S are not cheap.

_____________________________

Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!

(in reply to AFIntel)

Post #: 46

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 4:51:01 AM

Rob322

Posts: 578
Joined: 8/16/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

quote:

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

It was the SA-N-6, not the SA-6. The SA-N-6 is the naval version of the SA-10, not the 1960s era SAM.

(in reply to mikeCK)

Post #: 47

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 6:55:08 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

Indeed.

SA-N-6 is modern system, navalized SA-10. It's not old SA-6 as others said too. And it's capable of taking out HARMs.

http://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/DataWeapon?ID=1674

It's Russian name is S-300F Fort.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Rob322)

Post #: 48

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 9:58:05 AM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I also noted the hit/miss rate was 6/5. Not exactly a slam dunk.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 49

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 11:30:46 AM

bvoid

Posts: 108
Joined: 5/16/2013
Status: offline

I have noticed this too. Some sams can shoot down the HARM, but others can't. I-HAWK's are annoying buggers, and must be saturated. Older sams can't seem to detect/intercept the harms. So the worst is when you have an I-HAWK covering an SA-5 - in a proper integrated system.

The scenario "Operation David's Sling" is a good one to see this in action.

(in reply to NakedWeasel)

Post #: 50

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 12:32:44 PM

mikeCK

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline

Assuming that SA-n-6 can shoot down harms, the kill rate seems exceedingly high. I think I lost about 80% of my missiles. I mean, these aren't slow sub sonic cruise missiles... these are supersonic air launched high-speed (and relatively small) air to ground missiles. It's not a scud or other ballistic missile .

I don't know just seems a bit counterintuitive but I could launch 10 harpoons against a site with SA-n-6 missiles and only 2 might get through??

(in reply to bvoid)

Post #: 51

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 12:50:09 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

The SA-10A/B/SA-N-6 was designed to engage (among other target types) incoming SRAM missiles, a missile faster and with smaller RCS than the AGM-88 series. So a good Pk against the HARM is not unreasonable, IMHO.

VLow-fliers like the Harpoon/Exocet/ALCM are actually a tougher target for the early S-300P/F as the 5V55K/KD missile was not optimized against low-altitude targets. The improved 5V55R/RUD (SA-10B) rectified this, and the 48N6 (SA-20) further improved this.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to mikeCK)

Post #: 52

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 1:03:08 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

mikeCK < If you mean that only 2 out of 10 Harpoons _impact_ a ship armed with SA-N-6, it is very likely that the majority of the blocked Harpoons are defeated by other systems than the Grumble. Both the Kirov and Slava classes (users of the SA-N-6, in addition to the modified cruiser Azov) have very strong point-defence systems and a full array of jammers and decoys. The message log should be able to tell you precisely what is happening.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 53

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 1:12:55 PM

jtoatoktoe

Posts: 208
Joined: 10/9/2013
Status: offline

I have Hawk Missiles ruining my HARM raids in Canary's Cage....had better luck with Mavericks.....and also lost 3 Hornets on Egress because I had to use Mavericks closer in :(

(in reply to NakedWeasel)

Post #: 54

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 1:16:05 PM

NakedWeasel

Posts: 500
Joined: 1/14/2014
Status: offline

That's why I stated it seemed strange that were no other modifiers. Base probability to hit is 75%, final probability to hit is 75%.

_____________________________

Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 55

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 1:22:25 PM

NakedWeasel

Posts: 500
Joined: 1/14/2014
Status: offline

Well, sorry about the Hornets, hopefully those pilots got out OK.

That said, I'd consider the loss of three jets a good trade for a Russian cap ship armed with SA-N-6s.

_____________________________

Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!

(in reply to jtoatoktoe)

Post #: 56

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 1:22:30 PM

mikeCK

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

mikeCK < If you mean that only 2 out of 10 Harpoons _impact_ a ship armed with SA-N-6, it is very likely that the majority of the blocked Harpoons are defeated by other systems than the Grumble. Both the Kirov and Slava classes (users of the SA-N-6, in addition to the modified cruiser Azov) have very strong point-defence systems and a full array of jammers and decoys. The message log should be able to tell you precisely what is happening.

NOT harpoons..these are HARMS being shot out of the sky. Smaller, faster and shorter flight time.
I POSTED THE MESSAGE LOG above in a post about 9 or 10 up. Again, here is a portion

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

There is no way a missile fielded in 1984 (and modified over time) has a 75% hit rate on HARM missiles

< Message edited by mikeCK -- 3/26/2014 2:24:20 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 57

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 1:26:17 PM

mikeCK

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline

Two people have told me to post/ look at the log. I posted it already but this thread is moving so it's not obvious...so here it is again. I get that it is possible to hit...just not at that rate. No way

" weapon (SA-n-6a Grumble is attacking AGM-88c harm #1419 with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Die roll: 21-Hit"

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

< Message edited by mikeCK -- 3/26/2014 1:13:32 AM >

(in reply to Yokes)

< Message edited by mikeCK -- 3/26/2014 2:28:17 PM >

(in reply to NakedWeasel)

Post #: 58

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 1:30:54 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Uhm okay? What should the PoK be like, then?

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to mikeCK)

Post #: 59

RE: HARM intercept - 3/26/2014 1:35:07 PM

mikeCK

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Uhm okay? What should the PoK be like, then?

Lol..ok. I don't know. But I do know that there are very few weapons systems (if any at all) that can achieve a 75% hit rate on anything. This is a SAM, attacking a small ATG missile traveling at 1500 Mph (around Mach 2).

So I have no idea. I would guess around 35% maybe 50%-70% against slowed ASMs

Look, it's not my game. If everyone thinks it's realistic that a SAM System fielded in 1984 can pluck small missiles traveling right at it at Mach 2 (so closing speed of what...like Mach 5 or 6) from the sky at a 75% rate, then fine.

Or for that matter (as posted on this page above) it's realistic for an aircraft to close with a HARM and shoot it down with cannon fire????????

Seems to me like the computer sees HARMS as the same missile as a HARPOON when calculating

< Message edited by mikeCK -- 3/26/2014 2:42:09 PM >

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 60