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]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 12:47:01 AM

NakedWeasel

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

Saw that someone on a forum asked a great question: Why don't they make visually identical, self-propelled, heavily-armored versions of these emitters? Such a device could even be used as a lure to bring in aircraft that could then be targeted by hard-kill assets in the area. That's frightfully wicked. The expense and ordinance expended on such a thing would totally justify it's cost.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to NakedWeasel)

Post #: 91

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 12:47:12 AM

VFA41_Lion

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

Can't tell if serious or not... but EW sorcery simulation is something I can get behind!

_____________________________

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 92

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 12:49:10 AM

NakedWeasel

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

I was being completely serious. Just adds an additional element of realism to the game.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to VFA41_Lion)

Post #: 93

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 1:28:16 AM

bvoid

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Quick question - are you raising such a ruckus when your SM-2/3s are shooting down DF-whatever (a _much_ faster target) in spades? If not, why not?

I was messing around with DF-21ds, and the yankee CTF could not shoot down a single one. For some reason they would not fire interceptors at all, but had no problem firing sams at enemy planes.

The DF-21ds had 100% hit ratio (1 malfunction) and pretty much blew up a ship with each hit. Are they supposed to be uninterceptable?

< Message edited by bvoid -- 3/27/2014 2:28:49 AM >

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 94

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 1:30:12 AM

thewood1

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

It might be that the emitters themselves are so delicate, relatively speaking. If not built as a pretty close copy, I would think the EW systems would pretty quickly see the difference.

(in reply to NakedWeasel)

Post #: 95

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 1:45:22 AM

mikmykWS

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bvoid

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Quick question - are you raising such a ruckus when your SM-2/3s are shooting down DF-whatever (a _much_ faster target) in spades? If not, why not?

I was messing around with DF-21ds, and the yankee CTF could not shoot down a single one. For some reason they would not fire interceptors at all, but had no problem firing sams at enemy planes.

The DF-21ds had 100% hit ratio (1 malfunction) and pretty much blew up a ship with each hit. Are they supposed to be uninterceptable?

Did any of your ships carry SM-3?

Mike

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 3/27/2014 2:45:44 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to bvoid)

Post #: 96

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 2:26:10 AM

NakedWeasel

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

A slight curiosity about aircraft EW... Apparently, the USN F/A-18E/F's are now carrying the ALE-55 towed EW decoy. But looking in the DB, I can't see it. Is that an oversight, or was it not included by design?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 97

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 3:06:19 AM

AlmightyTallest

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline

quote:

A slight curiosity about aircraft EW... Apparently, the USN F/A-18E/F's are now carrying the ALE-55 towed EW decoy. But looking in the DB, I can't see it. Is that an oversight, or was it not included by design?

I think they took note of it in the DB3000 thread, I posted info on the system there the other day. Additional info on it's use and some specifics in this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3571131

quote:

No haven't implemented those specifically and not sure you'd have to go to the trouble.

Mike

Edit: Just added to our list though. Why not..sigh

Lol, to be honest, I don't know how you developers keep up with all the info and so many systems to implement.

We do appreciate your efforts though.

< Message edited by AlmightyTallest -- 3/27/2014 4:14:39 AM >

(in reply to NakedWeasel)

Post #: 98

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 3:54:20 AM

ckfinite

Posts: 377
Joined: 7/20/2013
Status: offline

quote:

Saw that someone on a forum asked a great question: Why don't they make visually identical, self-propelled, heavily-armored versions of these emitters? Such a device could even be used as a lure to bring in aircraft that could then be targeted by hard-kill assets in the area. That's frightfully wicked. The expense and ordinance expended on such a thing would totally justify it's cost.

This came from a slightly questionable source, but I've heard that the Chinese make very good radar simulades for a variety of systems, and that a number of countries have bought them. It would probably be cheaper to use an inexpensive simulade (not needing a receive side is a huge cost-saver) with some of the inflatable SAMs than it would be to armor a emitter.

(in reply to NakedWeasel)

Post #: 99

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 3:59:20 AM

NakedWeasel

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

No one could make the game perfect, but given time, energy, info, and heart- we can certainly make it damn close.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to AlmightyTallest)

Post #: 100

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 7:58:29 AM

Dimitris

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel
No one could make the game perfect, but given time, energy, info, and heart- we can certainly make it damn close.

Amen.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to NakedWeasel)

Post #: 101

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 8:04:26 AM

Dimitris

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel
A slight curiosity about aircraft EW... Apparently, the USN F/A-18E/F's are now carrying the ALE-55 towed EW decoy. But looking in the DB, I can't see it. Is that an oversight, or was it not included by design?

Thanks. We currently have ALE-50 for the 2014 & 2017 SH editions. Do you happen to have any firm IOC information for the ALE-55 ?

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to NakedWeasel)

Post #: 102

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 1:22:15 PM

AlmightyTallest

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline

quote:

Do you happen to have any firm IOC information for the ALE-55 ?

My apologies to you guys, I don't mean to butt in between the conversation, but figured the info would be helpful to you guys.

Seems to be 2006 for the IOC of AN/ALE-55

http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Protection-Systems/ANALE-55_a001668002.aspx

quote:

AN/ALE-55
Initial Operational Capability (IOC): 2006

Full rate production is 2011: http://www.deagel.com/news/BAE-Systems-ALE-55-Wins-Full-Rate-Production-Contract_n000009331.aspx

quote:

NASHUA, New Hampshire - BAE Systems received its first Full Rate Production contract for its ALE-55 Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures subsystem from U.S. Naval Air Systems Command worth $36.7 million, exercising a contract option modifying its firm fixed price.

Low rate production started in 2009 according to link above.

Unclassified 2012 report showing it's integration as block 4 into F-18C's and up.

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/2012-sars/13-F-0884_SARs_as_of_Dec_2012/Navy/IDECM_December_2012_SAR.pdf

quote:

There are four (4) IDECM variants in development, production, or sustainment. Blocks 1-3 are compatible with
F/A-18E/F aircraft only. Block 4 will be compatible with F/A-18C-F aircraft.

IDECM Block 1: A federated suite, consisting of the ALQ-165 On-Board Jammer (OBJ) and ALE-50 expendable
decoy.
IDECM Block 2: An integrated suite, consisting of the ALQ-214 OBJ and ALE-50 expendable decoy.
IDECM Block 3: An integrated suite, consisting of the ALQ-214 OBJ and ALE-55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoy
(FOTD).
IDECM Block 4: An Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) to the ALQ-214 OBJ to render it suitable for operation on
F/A-18C/D aircraft, while retaining all functionality, when installed on F/A-18E/F.

quote:

IDECM Block 2 (IB-2) ALQ-214(V)3. The ALQ-214 is in Full Rate Production (FRP) and all production contracts are
performing well. Current as of March 15, 2013 ITT Exelis has delivered two hundred seventy (270) ALQ-214(V)3
production systems under Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) 1 through FRP 7, and all deliveries have been at least
one month ahead of the contracted schedule.

IDECM Block-3 (IB-3) ALE-55. The ALE-55 is in FRP and all production contracts are performing well. Current as
of March 15, 2013 BAE Systems has delivered one thousand seventeen (1,017) Fiber Optic Towed Decoys (FOTD)
and two hundred thirty-five (235) Electronic Frequency Converters (EFC) under the LRIP 4 through FRP 1 contracts,
ahead of the contracted schedule. FRP 1 deliveries are complete. The FRP 2 through 4 contract was awarded on
December 17, 2012. FRP 2 deliveries are planned to begin in August 2013.

IDECM Block-4 (IB-4) ALQ-214 Engineering Change Proposal (ECP). All seventeen (17) Engineering Development
Models (EDM) have been accepted by the Government under the ALQ-214 ECP contract. Software deliveries
continue to lag behind scheduled release dates due to software integration and system anomaly fixes and
implementation. Government test schedules have been prioritized, however these delays have placed additional risk
to scheduled completion of required Government testing.

IDECM Block-4 (IB-4) Production. The FRP 9 through 11 contract was awarded on April 16, 2012. FRP 9 deliveries
are contractually scheduled to begin December 2013.

But this report seems to push the AN/ALE-55 IB3 back to an IOC of 2011 depending how you look at the IB specifications, and there's also mention of these going to Australia for their Hornets.

< Message edited by AlmightyTallest -- 3/27/2014 2:38:18 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 103

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 2:32:51 PM

mrfeizhu

Posts: 131
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline

The game is subjective there is little real life combat use of any of these systems, tests can show any thing people want them to show. When used in combat it seems western equipment/ training comes out ahead. Russian and Chinese equipment is mostly bought by poor nations Most of the gulf states buy western equipment. Why? ( If there after kick backs I am sure The Chinese or the Russians would pay more than Western companies.) So it must be better equipment. I know the Russian fans boys will disagree. But why would counties that have lots of money buy inferior military hardware. I know their military professionals may not be on par with there western counterparts but I am sure they are more knowledgeable than most of the computer chair generals and admirals that play this game. No offense to any active or retired military .

_____________________________

Old man sort of living in China for the last 10 years

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 104

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 2:49:50 PM

Dimitris

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrfeizhu
The game is subjective there is little real life combat use of any of these systems, tests can show any thing people want them to show. When used in combat it seems western equipment/ training comes out ahead. Russian and Chinese equipment is mostly bought by poor nations Most of the gulf states buy western equipment. Why? ( If there after kick backs I am sure The Chinese or the Russians would pay more than Western companies.) So it must be better equipment. I know the Russian fans boys will disagree. But why would counties that have lots of money buy inferior military hardware. I know their military professionals may not be on par with there western counterparts but I am sure they are more knowledgeable than most of the computer chair generals and admirals that play this game. No offense to any active or retired military .

Thank you for sharing with us your knowledge on the process of military procurement.

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 3/27/2014 4:35:25 PM >

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to mrfeizhu)

Post #: 105

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 4:28:15 PM

mikeCK

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrfeizhu

The game is subjective there is little real life combat use of any of these systems, tests can show any thing people want them to show. When used in combat it seems western equipment/ training comes out ahead. Russian and Chinese equipment is mostly bought by poor nations Most of the gulf states buy western equipment. Why? ( If there after kick backs I am sure The Chinese or the Russians would pay more than Western companies.) So it must be better equipment. I know the Russian fans boys will disagree. But why would counties that have lots of money buy inferior military hardware. I know their military professionals may not be on par with there western counterparts but I am sure they are more knowledgeable than most of the computer chair generals and admirals that play this game. No offense to any active or retired military .

No. What equipment is "better" is subjective and based on a lot of factors. What type of training have the people using these arms had? What are the maintenance requirments? What are you trying to do with it. In term of pure functional quality, I'm sure you will find Russian systems that are just as good if not better than western counterparts, many are not. You will have a hard time finding better SAM systems than the newest Russian SAMS. Many years ago the US was able to get a modern (at that time ...late 80's)soviet heat seeking AAM. They found that the weapon was superior to the Aim 9M. So don't assume

Where you buy depends on more than just how much it costs. How soon can you get delivery? What type of support and training is offered? Does the package include spare parts? What is the likelihood spare parts will be available after the selling nation retired the aircraft?. Is it compatable with other current weapons systems?

So, your analysis is waaaayy to simplified.

Edit: it was an AA-11 archer that I was thinking of. Arguably better than the sidewinder at the time

< Message edited by mikeCK -- 3/27/2014 5:40:08 PM >

(in reply to mrfeizhu)

Post #: 106

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 4:41:21 PM

ckfinite

Posts: 377
Joined: 7/20/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrfeizhu

The game is subjective there is little real life combat use of any of these systems, tests can show any thing people want them to show. When used in combat it seems western equipment/ training comes out ahead. Russian and Chinese equipment is mostly bought by poor nations Most of the gulf states buy western equipment. Why? ( If there after kick backs I am sure The Chinese or the Russians would pay more than Western companies.) So it must be better equipment. I know the Russian fans boys will disagree. But why would counties that have lots of money buy inferior military hardware. I know their military professionals may not be on par with there western counterparts but I am sure they are more knowledgeable than most of the computer chair generals and admirals that play this game. No offense to any active or retired military .

As others have mentioned, there's a lot more going on with these systems than you're considering. First, the Russians have made SAM development a national priority, unlike the west, and have prioritized anti-aircraft over ABM for their SAM systems. As a result, their SAM systems are typically more capable systems than their western counterparts against aircraft.

Furthermore, these aren't cheap by any means. A S-400 or S-300PMU2 costs somewhere north of $400 million, and if you're paying that kind of money, you expect a top-of-the-line system, and yet Iran, the Russian AD forces, and China are all trying very hard to get them. This isn't exactly the signature of a poor system.

Compounding this, think about the SAMs that the west has actually faced. The latest system was the S-200, in Libya, and captured I-HAWKs in Iraq. For less advanced systems, we've also faced S-125 Neva, and S-75F Dvina. The very latest systems were made in 1971 (I-HAWK) or in 1967 (S-200). This means that we've never actually faced an S-300 derivative, even the original, and it's widely considered to be a vastly superior system to any of the ones that I've mentioned.

(in reply to mrfeizhu)

Post #: 107

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 5:10:38 PM

NakedWeasel

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

Thanks for your info on the ALE-50/55. I'll admit, I had no solid knowledge of IOC for that system.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to AlmightyTallest)

Post #: 108

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 5:17:16 PM

AlmightyTallest

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline

No problem NakedWeasel, figured I'd throw it out there so they had the info asap. Another tool for the user to use in simulated combat.

(in reply to NakedWeasel)

Post #: 109

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 8:28:43 PM

mikmykWS

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

Added the AN/ALE-55 Decoy to our DB Request list. In the future please put this in our db requests string http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3436106 . This is so we can track it (we're not going to be intuitively looking in the SEAD string for it).

Thanks!

Mike

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 3/27/2014 10:17:29 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to AlmightyTallest)

Post #: 110

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 9:15:32 PM

NakedWeasel

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

Roger that, Mike.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 111

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 9:23:35 PM

AlmightyTallest

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline

Yea, sorry about that Mike, I really only discovered a few days ago the DB3000 thread was the place to make requests and submit info. Doesn't help either that I tend to stray off subject when I research links lol

< Message edited by AlmightyTallest -- 3/27/2014 10:24:10 PM >

(in reply to NakedWeasel)

Post #: 112

RE: HARM intercept - 3/27/2014 10:04:46 PM

thewood1

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

I just stumbled over this on Wiki for the S-300...

"Composite element to counter the radar missile programme is for s-300 system Paperboy-E,[85][96] the likelihood of intercepting missiles PIS type of HARM is 0.85 for missiles with active radar-guided, heat or body-managed system pointing the probability of interception of 0.85-0.99. Under the interception perceived inability of the object to cause harm because of his hit miss the target."

I am sure some of this is overblown, but note the call out on HARM specifically. The pk of 85% is interesting even as a marketing claim.

edit...forgot the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)

< Message edited by thewood1 -- 3/27/2014 11:22:51 PM >

(in reply to AlmightyTallest)

Post #: 113

RE: HARM intercept - 3/28/2014 12:18:00 AM

AlmightyTallest

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/25/2014
Status: offline

Nice info thewood1, the link has a lot of statistics on estimated chance to hit with various radar and missile combos.

It seems there are a lot of various S-300's and no two are identical in capabilites. The Composite element you mentioned doesn't seem to apply to all S-300 systems, it appears to be a special radar countermeasure system I can't seem to find any other sources for the Paperboy-E radar, unless it's known under a different name.

Is this Paperboy-E here?: http://www.almaz-antey.ru/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/53/281/644

In my translater it comes out to "Newsboy-E".

If so, then it would appear that some S-300 sites need the special radar in order to more effectively deflect ARM's then. It's an interesting countermeasure system, but doesn't seem to use the S-300's missiles to try and intercept ARM's. This sort of makes sence, why use an expensive long range missile to intercept ARM's? When you could have a similar jamming system like the Patriot had and use shorter range systems better able to handle PGM's and such like Tor.

< Message edited by AlmightyTallest -- 3/28/2014 1:29:00 AM >

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 114