AGM-88 HARM implementation FA18/F16

I noticed the HARM mode in the

Additionally, the HARM interface on the Hornet also doesn't appear to have the same scan time or emitter count limitations as the Viper (for what should be the same as its the same AGM-88 seeker with the same limitations).

Is this an omission from the Viper modelling, an abstraction in the Hornet's modelling or actually how it is supposed to be? Will we see these weapon limitations carried over to the Hornet eventually?

I was just about to open a similar thread, when I noticed yours.

This is indeed pretty odd. I love the very detailed and realistic implementation on the Viper, but how come the HARMs don't have all those restrictions (scan times and number of emitter types that can be displayed simultaneously) when used on the Hornet? They are exactly same missiles afterall?! :huh:

It's a good question indeed.

The answer might be :

-It is somehow simplified for the hornet.

-The hornet mission computer helps the HARM in the search, so the missile is actually searching all the time, all the codes, and the mission computer or weapon control system store that data to present it all at once.

It is true for example that the integration in the hornet is different and its tied to the RWR without the need of a HTS. So within that integration I guess there is some advanced functionality, for example the SP mode where you can engage targets behind you with the HARM (don't know if realistic but it is impressive).

Ok, enough guesses and speculation on my side :), Now please the real experts chime in.

I also don't think we have a warm up time in the Hornet? I think it's usable as soon as you select it. Does the seeker warm up automatically with no WOW?

-The hornet mission computer helps the HARM in the search, so the missile is actually searching all the time, all the codes, and the mission computer or weapon control system store that data to present it all at once.

That would increase the search time a lot, as the HARM seeker needs to perform a complete scan for each emitter frequency! But that's not the case, as the HARM in TOO mode lists all the emitters pretty much instantaneous.

So I rather think it's a simplification on the Hornet, which is kinda disappointing :(

They are exactly same missiles afterall?! :huh:

The platform and avionics software is completely different. McDonnell Douglas/Boeing vs. General Dynamics. Also you have to take into account that the Hornet is multi-role with no specific mission, while the Block 50 Viper is, while still multi-role, specifically designed with SEAD in mind. Not to mention the differences between USN and USAF doctrine. I wouldn't be surprised if the Block 50 has SEAD QoL upgrades that the Hornet never got.

The platform and avionics software is completely different. McDonnell Douglas/Boeing vs. General Dynamics. Also you have to take into account that the Hornet is multi-role with no specific mission, while the Block 50 Viper is, while still multi-role, specifically designed with SEAD in mind. Not to mention the differences between USN and USAF doctrine. I wouldn't be surprised if the Block 50 has SEAD QoL upgrades that the Hornet never got.

But we're talking about HAS/TOO which uses the seeker of the missile and it's limitations! Scan times are definitely not aircraft limitations, but missile seeker limitations and the same thing is probably true for the limited number of emitters (frequencies) that can be scanned at once!

I've thought of another plausible explanation.

Since i guess any dedicated F16 squadron, will ALWAYS use the HARM with the HTS pod, maybe they have modelled the HARM HAS mode using old documentation coming from earlier HARMs blocks and/or F16 models?

They did something similar in the hornet, using documentation from spanish F18A litening pods...

I guess there will be substantial differences in cappabilities between HARMs blocks given the advances in digital signal processing...

The thing is that the F-16 has a lot of publicly available documentation describing this while the F/A-18 does not.

I'd also like to see some educated guess being done so that both modules are up to the same standard, as it doesnt make much sense to have incredibly detailed systems in one module and simplified versions in others, but I don't know how ED can approach the documentation problem.

I agree with QuiGon,

At least, not all emitters should pop up instantaniously in the Hornet, since each wipe would use different frequency. Hence the filter option to improve search speed when the emitter type is known, right now is pointless.

Anyway HARM in Hornet is still heavy WIP so maybe TOO mechanization includes these nuances in the next pach

Wow.

So many of you who've never ever seen the cockpit of a real Hornet let alone been in the position to use a HARM so quick to assume that it's implementation is inaccurate based on a single F-16C video.

Well done gents. No, really.

Is the software suite integration in the Hornet more advanced when it comes to computing launch parameters et cetera for HARM?

Also is the TAS pod for the hornet the same what the HTS is for the F16?

I've thought of another plausible explanation.

 

Since i guess any dedicated F16 squadron, will ALWAYS use the HARM with the HTS pod, maybe they have modelled the HARM HAS mode using old documentation coming from earlier HARMs blocks and/or F16 models?

The introduction of the HTS pod has not changed how the HARM works when used without the pod.

Wow.

 

So many of you who've never ever seen the cockpit of a real Hornet let alone been in the position to use a HARM so quick to assume that it's implementation is inaccurate based on a single F-16C video.

 

Well done gents. No, really.

Thanks for this very helpful contribution to getting behind how this all works...

If you would turn on your brain and think about how it actually works under the hood (seeker needs to scan each potential emitter frequency individually, hence removing emitters/frequencies from the list reduces total scan time) then you would understand this issue...

Don't know if they even consider different frequencies of radar systems (S,L...). I think right now is more like: Magic! there you have all the SAMs...

I suppose the tables in the F16 are actually grouped by emitter frequency band, so they might just use the same logic...

Don't know if they even consider different frequencies of radar systems (S,L...). I think right now is more like: Magic! there you have all the SAMs...

DCS does indeed not consider radar frequencies (with the exception of the Viggen, where different emitter frequencies are actually emulated). This doesn't matter here though, as the actual effect that comes from having to scan various frequencies is simulated for the Viper HARM, as it changes the total scan time depending on how many emitters (and thus frequencies) are to be searched for.

So why doesn't the Hornet HARM suffer from the same implications? It very much looks like it is just simplified for the Hornet in DCS.

I suppose the tables in the F16 are actually grouped by emitter frequency band, so they might just use the same logic...

As Wags has shown in the video you can group the tables as you want. You can put all kind of different emitters in a single table. I don't know if this is how it is IRL though.

Maybe I was not too clear in my previous post. What I meant is:

I dont think DCS right now have the underlying logic of assigning different frequencies to different equipments, they are just different units (SAM, aircrafts, whatever) and they use a flag to determine if a sensor like a RWR or HARM should detect the unit or not, rather than the most correct logic that would be if the sensor could detect anything on a given specific frequency band.

So I guess that while developing the HAS mode for the F16 they have come across an implementation using different tables, which i'm sure is correct, but the physics behind it are that tables groups emitters in a similar radar band.

So in order to replicate that in the hornet (Unless there is another explanation like that the hornet RWR is providing targets to the HARM sensor in TOO mode) they should replicate search times for different bands. Also in the hornet there are filters that rights now are something like "HOS" por hostile emitters, FRND for friendly emitters, etc... Something that seems quite arcadish, and it is more credible that those filters are actually used similar to the viper, in order to reduce search times.

EDIT: Sniped by Quigon, I agree with the previous post.

Just to make myself clear: I don't know if the current HARM TOO implemenation in the Hornet is wrong or not. The way ED implemented it for the Viper just seems much more realistic than it is in the Hornet. That's why I would like to know why those limitations that exist in the Viper HARM HAS mode do not exist in the Hornet HARM TOO mode. Maybe there is a good reason for this, but so far it just looks like the HARM in the Hornet is much more simplified and much more unrealistic than in the Viper, which migth be the result of insufficent documentation available to ED for the Hornet compared to the Viper. :dunno:

I would love to hear from ED or someone with actual knowledge on the issue. I'm not blaming anywone, I just want to understand the technology as I find this very interesting :)

I doubt will get an official statement from ED but with some luck maybe somone with direct knowledge on the missile will shed some light on the issue.

I doubt will get an official statement from ED but with some luck maybe somone with direct knowledge on the missile will shed some light on the issue.

HARM on the Hornet is simplified for now. Howerver, it will be adjusted for the Viper standard in future. So, what depends on missile (detection rate, for example) will be the same on both planes. But, please keep in mind, that some things are aircraft specific and they will remain different.

We just did

HARM on the Hornet is simplified for now. Howerver, it will be adjusted for the Viper standard in future. So, what depends on missile (detection rate, for example) will be the same on both planes. But, please keep in mind, that some things are aircraft specific and they will remain different.

Awesome, thanks! That's all I wanted to know! And that it will be adjusted on the Hornet in the future is great to hear! :thumbup:

I doubt will get an official statement from ED but with some luck maybe somone with direct knowledge on the missile will shed some light on the issue.

Well... :music_whistling::D

We just did

Cool thanks! I missed this one

Cool thanks! I missed this one

The time stamps are 12:14 and 12:15. So the chance is high that his post wasn't visible to you as you clicked on "new reply". ;)

But nice to know this will be adressed/adjusted. I had the same thought like many others here, "wait why is this so different on the Hornet.." :D

Yeah, still I've decided to leave my message to make visible my absolute failure and my deserved public embarrassement

Yeah, still I've decided to leave my message to make visible my absolute failure and my deserved public embarrassement

Ah man, you deserve better! Enjoy the weather this weekend and drink your helles.