HARM intercept

NakedWeasel · Post by **NakedWeasel** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:06 am

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.

mikeCK · Post by **mikeCK** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:08 am

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

NakedWeasel · Post by **NakedWeasel** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:18 am

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

AFIntel · Post by **AFIntel** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:44 am

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.

AFIntel · Post by **AFIntel** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:48 am

…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.

NakedWeasel · Post by **NakedWeasel** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:32 am

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.

Rob322 · Post by **Rob322** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:51 am

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

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.

Sardaukar · Post by **Sardaukar** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:55 am

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. ... on?ID=1674

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

thewood1 · Post by **thewood1** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:58 am

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

bvoid · Post by **bvoid** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 8:30 am

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.

mikeCK · Post by **mikeCK** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:32 am

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??

Dimitris · Post by **Dimitris** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:50 am

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.

Dimitris · Post by **Dimitris** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:03 am

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.

jtoatoktoe · Post by **jtoatoktoe** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:12 am

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

NakedWeasel · Post by **NakedWeasel** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:16 am

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%.

NakedWeasel · Post by **NakedWeasel** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:22 am

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.

mikeCK · Post by **mikeCK** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:22 am

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

mikeCK · Post by **mikeCK** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:26 am

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)

ComDev · Post by **ComDev** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:30 am

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

mikeCK · Post by **mikeCK** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:35 am

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

HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept

RE: HARM intercept