AGM-88 HARM

Well the "C" then. I don't think there were booster improvements from the initial version until the "G".
 
jeffb said:
Forest Green said:
The question, which version?
Click to expand...
Interesting thread which is mostly speculation but interesting nonetheless:
Click to expand...
Just what part of those images showing the missile remains identify the missile variant?
And wouldn't a more precise way of defining missile variants be using block designations?
Did the US upgrade all its HARMs into block V and/or block VI?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
totoro said:
jeffb said:
Forest Green said:
The question, which version?
Click to expand...
Interesting thread which is mostly speculation but interesting nonetheless:
Click to expand...
Just what part of those images showing the missile remains identify the missile variant?
And wouldn't a more precise way of defining missile variants be using block designations?
Did the US upgrade all its HARMs into block V and/or block VI?
Click to expand...
The claim is that BSU-60 A/B is the part numbering for the AGM-88's "fixed tailfin assembly“.
 
That sounds credible enough, as HARM's fin designations do match that. But doesn't that only show the missile is in fact, a HARM?

My question is what part of the numbering shows the actual model/variant of the HARM? A/B/C/D or any of the block increments?
 
Last edited:
www.defense.gov

Additional Defensive Weapons to be Shipped to Ukraine, Official Says

A major presidential drawdown authority security assistance package is about to be unveiled, a senior Defense Department official said.
www.defense.gov
- Additional high-speed, anti-radiation missiles, known as HARM missiles, for integration into Ukrainian aircraft to seek and destroy Russian radars.
Click to expand...
www.defense.gov

Senior Defense Official Holds a Background Briefing

A senior defense official held a background briefing.
www.defense.gov
First, we are providing additional High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles. These are the HARM missiles. Ukraine has successfully employed these missiles. They have successfully integrated them onto Ukrainian aircraft, and this enables Ukraine to seek and destroy Russian radars, so we'll be providing additional HARM missiles.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I think the warhead is proxy fused tungsten, so it is probably heavy for its size and doesn't damage the target overly instead opting for a area effect. HARM hits are rarely dramatic; the few images I've seen from the war in Serbia seemed to only dig holes in the vehicle rather than destroy it. That's enough for suppression. The hit rate in Serbia was also extremely poor; this lead to many changes to the missile long term (terminal radar homing, GPS integration) and in the short term led F-16CJ units in 2003 to adopt tactics around other weapons. At least some units would equip the lead plane with cluster bombs or Maverick to directly target AD systems with eyes on the target while the wingman carried HARM as a suppression / quick reaction weapon to cover the flight leader.
 
Yeah, the warhead is designed to go after the soft radar antennas - that's perfectly sufficient to mission kill, after all. The OIF tactics you describe would be too dangerous (for both sides) in Ukraine though - that's only tenable against an obsolete and severely degraded threat.
 
Trident said:
Yeah, the warhead is designed to go after the soft radar antennas - that's perfectly sufficient to mission kill, after all. The OIF tactics you describe would be too dangerous (for both sides) in Ukraine though - that's only tenable against an obsolete and severely degraded threat.
Click to expand...
These were definitely techniques optimized against single digit SAMs that generally had single engagement capability, which allowed one plane or element to take the heat while the other worked over the target. The towed decoys were apparently very much a Weasel's friend.

I'd hate to be an F-16CJ operator against a double digit air defense. I think the only safe thing you could do is lob HARM at max range. An F-35 on the other hand seems purpose built for that role; I wonder when the CJ units get the upgrade.
 
TomcatViP said:
SEAD, that's the mission name (and not DEAD).
Click to expand...

Well SEAD here include destruction of the SAM's. While DEAD is destruction of not only the SAM system but also the entire component of the air defense unit which includes command post etc.



Josh_TN said:
I think the warhead is proxy fused tungsten, so it is probably heavy for its size and doesn't damage the target overly instead opting for a area effect.
Click to expand...
I would expect more catasthropic result tho. Heavier tungsten fragment let's say 150 grain (9.7 gr) will penetrate 0.5 inch of steel. Especially the tweet claims. "few meters". Any missiles inside the launcher would have been penetrated and may cook-off. That assumes 5 meters distance.

Tried doing some math based on E Fleeman's book.

But then there is only that image so far and it's very zoomed up to say the least. Would love to see the full condition of the TELAR's.
 
stealthflanker said:
TomcatViP said:
SEAD, that's the mission name (and not DEAD).
Click to expand...

Well SEAD here include destruction of the SAM's. While DEAD is destruction of not only the SAM system but also the entire component of the air defense unit which includes command post etc.
Click to expand...
SEAD is just suppression of enemy air defense
DEAD is destruction of enemy air defense
Before E version with terminal MMW seeker, HARM is very often used as suppression tool, either to damage the antenna or force enemy to turn off their radar. I don't think Ukraine Mig-29 have dedicated ESM equipment like ASQ-213 so HARM probably launched purely in self protect mode
 
Wonder if some old ALARMs would be useful in this capacity. They had a parachute loiter model, so they could force the radars to shutdown for longer.
 
Forest Green said:
Wonder if some old ALARMs would be useful in this capacity. They had a parachute loiter model, so they could force the radars to shutdown for longer.
Click to expand...
I did vaguely remember reading from some memoir and they did mentioned that ALARMs were a lot more effective than HARM due to higher loadout and ability to loiter. Though to be fair, it probably no longer the case because modern AESA/PESA have very weak side lobes and HARM now have terminal seeker and datalink
9A21BC83-2EFF-46BC-B2E0-58F35A48C870.jpeg
 
Ronny said:
I did vaguely remember reading from some memoir and they did mentioned that ALARMs were a lot more effective than HARM due to higher loadout and ability to loiter. Though to be fair, it probably no longer the case because modern AESA/PESA have very weak side lobes and HARM now have terminal seeker and datalink
Click to expand...
Only the E version does AFAIK.

I'm also told the E version isn't technically a HARM even though it has the AGM-88 designation, because it's made by a different manufacturer.
 
Forest Green said:
Ronny said:
I did vaguely remember reading from some memoir and they did mentioned that ALARMs were a lot more effective than HARM due to higher loadout and ability to loiter. Though to be fair, it probably no longer the case because modern AESA/PESA have very weak side lobes and HARM now have terminal seeker and datalink
Click to expand...
Only the E version does AFAIK.

I'm also told the E version isn't technically a HARM even though it has the AGM-88 designation, because it's made by a different manufacturer.
Click to expand...
E and G have MMW seeker.
G version is basically very different but E version still use the same airframe and motor as basic HARMs
 
Ronny said:
E and G have MMW seeker.
G version is basically very different but E version still use the same airframe and motor as basic HARMs
Click to expand...
??? G uses an 11.5 inch motor and a completely different airframe and isn't in service yet?
 
Last edited:
Even then, the G version keeps the warhead and guidance of the E. The narrower front section necks up to the larger rocket motor.
 
I still find it shocking Ukraine has working aircraft. I had assumed (like most) that most would die first day and the survivors mopped up in a week.

Apparently these are being fired in Prebriefed mode, so presumably the target is set on the ground with some kind of off board electronics and the pilot has to navigate to roughly the correct launch point and the seeker does the rest if the target is illuminating. I would guess they attempt to time the attacks with HIMARS strikes to force the AD to either stay active or ignore the artillery rockets.
 
Josh_TN said:
I still find it shocking Ukraine has working aircraft. I had assumed (like most) that most would die first day and the survivors mopped up in a week.
Click to expand...

Well Serbia still have flyable MiG's TBH in 99's. as well as working air defense. Also supplies are constant.

I'm kinda feel the SEAD in 99's are somewhat forgotten.
 
Josh_TN said:
Apparently these are being fired in Prebriefed mode, so presumably the target is set on the ground with some kind of off board electronics and the pilot has to navigate to roughly the correct launch point and the seeker does the rest if the target is illuminating.
Click to expand...
Do you say "apparently" because you have some further info claiming they're used in prebriefed mode? Or do you say it because it's the logical way to launch them, given everything, in your personal opinion?

Unrelated to the above questions, prebriefed mode would likely require separate, third party electronic emission sensors near the the frontline. It would also require the enemy radars to be emitting on a fairly regular basis, from fairly the same areas. So the target area is somewhat predictable. If so, the HARM carrier plane could then
A) be kept ready to take off on a short notice, sort of like on a QR alert. It'd still have to be fairly close to the launch point. Not sure how far away from the enemy air bases that could be.
or B) periodically fly on patrol, 100-200 km away from the frontline, at a low altitude. I guess it could remain there for an hour or so due to the fuel limits, ready to pop up to high altitude and launch HARMs. It might still be risky if Russia happens to operate the upgraded A-50 planes nearby and if those planes happen to be able to pick up low flying planes from ground clutter at said ranges.

In either case, the effort seems like a harassment of Russian radars/SAMs. "We know we don't have the planes or the resources to cover everything 24/7. We have a chance to catch maybe one out of a few hundred radars per mission, a few times a day. But every little bit helps. And over time, it might aggregate to non-negligible losses to Russia."
 
I saw an article that stated the prebrief mode but I think they were operating under their own logical assumption, not reported fact. If the MiG-29 is the only carrier currently than it seems unlikely that aircraft are on patrol, particularly given the capability of the opposition. I would guess a quick strike is sent up and that the emitters being fired upon on things that are sitting near known high value targets within HIMARS range. They can be turned off or moved around to avoid ARM strikes, but that limits their ability to do the AD job.
 
stealthflanker said:
Well Serbia still have flyable MiG's TBH in 99's. as well as working air defense. Also supplies are constant.

I'm kinda feel the SEAD in 99's are somewhat forgotten.
Click to expand...
Serbia was not being prepared for invasion though and it lasted a total of 78 days and only 3 allied aircraft and 2 helicopters were lost. Serbian aircraft were reduced to inactivity, which was sufficient.
 
Forest Green said:
stealthflanker said:
Well Serbia still have flyable MiG's TBH in 99's. as well as working air defense. Also supplies are constant.

I'm kinda feel the SEAD in 99's are somewhat forgotten.
Click to expand...
Serbia was not being prepared for invasion though and it lasted a total of 78 days and only 3 allied aircraft and 2 helicopters were lost. Serbian aircraft were reduced to inactivity, which was sufficient.
Click to expand...
Were Serbia air bases targeted during that war? It's been so long I don't remember. I know they were particularly well hardened from the Yugo days (I think there were armored runways, underground hangers, etc) so it might not have even been effective to attempt it.

The relative failure of the air campaign to destroy SAM or other ground equipment is pretty well documented however. NATO over estimated its capability and handicapped itself in a couple of ways in an effort to avoid casualties, but also the counter measures adopted by the Serbs were very effective.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Were Serbia air bases targeted during that war? It's been so long I don't remember. I know they were particularly well hardened from the Yugo days (I think there were armored runways, underground hangers, etc) so it might not have even been effective to attempt it.

The relative failure of the air campaign to destroy SAM or other ground equipment is pretty well documented however. NATO over estimated its capability and handicapped itself in a couple of ways in an effort to avoid casualties, but also the counter measures affected by the Serbs were very effective.
Click to expand...
According to the Gospel of Wikipedia, 121 Serbia aircraft were destroyed. Very few of these were killed whilst airborne, so they must have mostly been destroyed on the ground.

en.wikipedia.org

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Additionally, reading through the list of aerial encounters, it doesn't look like any Serbia aircraft were flying after the start in March. A couple tried taking off in early April but turned back due to malfunctions. The bulk of it seems to have taken place from 24-25th March.

en.wikipedia.org

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Depends how you look at it, I don't know how many SAMs were destroyed, but the job seems to have got done anyway. So clearly SEAD was effective, even if DEAD was not.

Serbian Losses
Serbian MOD in 2013
1,008 killed (659 servicemen and 349 policemen)[21]
Acc. to FHP
304 soldiers and policemen[22]
Serbian claim in 2015
Economic losses of $29.6 billion[23]
Material losses:
Acc. NATO
120 tanks, 220 APCs, 450 artillery pieces and 121 aircraft destroyed[24][25]

I would say this broadly equates to good air superiority but is slightly short of full air supremacy due to the minor losses. Either way it's a level Russia would dream of having in Ukraine.

en.wikipedia.org

Air supremacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom