HARM TOO mode

The advantages of TOO over SP:

 

1- When TD box is available, a better indication of emmitter line of sight through HUD

2- Better filtering

3- Can display more emmitters

 

Just a different tool in the HARM box. If SP works better for you, go for it.

to point 1: Does this mean we can see where the radar signal is on the ground? And if we have a Targeting Pod can we use the targeting pod to get range information after the TD box is set? And will the TD box be ready by the Friday update? (in the Video you said, is not ready for the Wednesday update, but now the update will come live on Friday :-) now I'm hoping)

1- When TD box is available, a better indication of emmitter line of sight through HUD

This makes sense. Sometimes in SP mode my HARM would fire at an emitter which I later discovered was basically straight below me. Obviously it didn't hit.

I wonder if it makes sense to try to fire at targets in TOO mode when they're somewhat centered in the TOO display, in a vaguely similar approach to the steering dot when firing A2A missiles.

Line of sight, not ground location. While this is enough to project a TD box, there is no inforamation of ground elevation at that LOS/ground intersection point, so there is no value to complete the trig value for range.

 

When the TGP is later available after HARM, then that point could be designated and the LRF could be used to determine range.

 

Only PB modes provides range without assistance from a non-HARM sen

sor.

 

The Hornet portion of the OB is already committed, the TD box will come in a later OB.

Hi Wags,

I've been dying for a month to understand something and you just talked about it. I hope you dont mind me asking, and surely Im not looking for a classified information you cant provide but just a mathematical insight.

Why is the hornet not able to determine range using LOS with the DTED just like the A10c does it using LOS with the DTSAS? Both planes have digital terrain elevation data but the a10c can compute range with the LOS even with the Mavericks. Even the TGP knows coordinates and range based on LOS when the laser is off.

What is the difference between both systems that makes the hornet unable to know range in HARM and Maverick (the mavs in the hornet need a TGT to "know" range)?

Hi Wags,

 

I've been dying for a month to understand something and you just talked about it. I hope you dont mind me asking, and surely Im not looking for a classified information you cant provide but just a mathematical insight.

 

Why is the hornet not able to determine range using LOS with the DTED just like the A10c does it using LOS with the DTSAS? Both planes have digital terrain elevation data but the a10c can compute range with the LOS even with the Mavericks. Even the TGP knows coordinates and range based on LOS when the laser is off.

 

What is the difference between both systems that makes the hornet unable to know range in HARM and Maverick (the mavs in the hornet need a TGT to "know" range)?

I'm so glad you asked that, because I'm wondering about the exact same thing too for several weeks now! I would really love to see a thorough explanation on that!

Most probably this is a matter of LOS angular precision. The HARM sensor clearly isn't that precis and that error in angle can lead to dramatic errors in ranging. At those ranges, even on a flat terrain, the range can be dramatically different.

The targeting pod can be used to range, because you have a really rough idea of the LOS to the emitter, so you can zoom in an acquire the target manually.

Just as an example, at 50 nm on a flat terrain, flying at 20 000 ft, an error of 1 degree in pitch angle can lead to an error of up to 18 nm.

Combined that with the fact that the emitter could be mountainous terrain, making it even harder to get an accurate range (because of multiple solutions possible due to the angle error), it's almost impossible to get an accurate range.

_____________

The reason why this works with the A-10C is the smaller range. The CCIP piper computes solutions for ranges of around 3 nm, tops. Translated to angles, a 1 deg from 10 000 ft at a range of 3 nm gives a max error of 240 meters, much better. At closer range and lower altitudes, that error becomes negligible.

The range of the HARM missile makes it impossible to compute an accurate range to target from LOS only.

"Yes, as far as the HARM concerns you are right, but that doesnt explain at all why the Mavericks in the a10c can do it and the Mavericks in the hornet cant. What I would like to know is, why if both platforms have digital terrain elevation data, LOS and GPS altitude should be more than enough to build range for different weapons. GPS alt + LOS + Digital terrain elevation data is all whats needed for this. Still, the hornet cant do it, and Id love to know if its due to a real life limitation or a DCS fail/lack of information classified."

But we don't have GPS altitude (yet) :)

But we don't have GPS altitude (yet) :)

What exactly do you mean?

I think what he means is like how the A-10C has DTE to determine ground elevation based on a map reference point.

e.g. When making a waypoint in the A-10C when the NAV is fully aligned, the elevation will be automatically filled in. Whereas on the Hornet you have to input the elevation manually.

Hi guys,

1st- The a10c and the hornet have the same terrain elevation database (DTED in the hornet and DTSAS in the hog).

2nd- The hornet doesnt even have AG radar and lacks of AGR (ranging) and CCIP works fine. The hornet has lots of systems in a "cheat" state so that others can work without issues. So im 100% that the lack of GPS altitude not being simulated is not the issue here.

Only Wags knows why the hornet cant do this.

Im sure the real one can, but they could not simulate it due to classified information. BUt would be nice to confirm this anyway.

Wags, you cant imagine how much I appreciate you replying to this. However I feel too much attracted to asking you if Im correct by saying that the mavericks at least should provide range without the need of a TGT considering all previously stated.

thanks a ton

Is TOO mode has greater shooting range than SP?

From an article I read, it is flying a loft profile in TOO, while in SP it goes straight towards target. This info may not be up to date.

From an article I read, it is flying a loft profile in TOO, while in SP it goes straight towards target. This info may not be up to date.

According to AusAirpower: TOO flight profile is 'straight'.

http://www.ausairpower.net/API-AGM-88-HARM.html

According to AusAirpower: TOO flight profile is 'straight'.

 

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/API-AGM-88-HARM.html

That article was a good read. Looks like until we get the F-16 with the HTS the HARM will be a little under done for doing dedicated SEAD missions. (Or if we had an F-4G.... I can continue to wish on that one) :helpsmilie:

Makes sense. Hard to do the lofting without range information.

The main problem I see with using SP mode is that when you have lots of emitters on the RWR, you will have a hard time cycling through all those to select your intended target. That's where TOO allows you to better point at and possibly discriminate between emmiters. SP mode is better in reaction to a launch (as the culprit would be selected automatically and your HARM fall back in SP mode - if you haven't deselected HARM Override) ; that is my understanding at least.

 

Also, a thorough briefing should give you a good idea about the whereabouts of a number of SAM systems, so that's one way to estimate range.

Not if you select Offset on the ALR 67, you'll see the RWR symbols in the HUD separated and be able to cycle between them easily...

Not if you select Offset on the ALR 67, you'll see the RWR symbols in the HUD separated and be able to cycle between them easily...

If you have 10+ emitters on the screen, you still have to cycle though all of it.

If you have 10+ emitters on the screen, you still have to cycle though all of it.

With DISPLAY on the ICMCP you can limit the contacts to be shown.

But I'm not sure what the max. no. of contacts will be. Guessing 6.

class emitters

In a sead mission there's SA2 and SA3's but also several Search radar's, when looking at the TOO page the Search radar box's are over the SA2 and 3's when toggling thru the radars I cant tell if the Harm's locked on the Search or Sam. I wanted to know what class is the search radar vs a SA2 or 3. I was trying to find info on a list of which category/class each radar would be under on the class page example would a search radar fall under H1 or H2 or HOS? I was thinking if an SA2 or 3 fell under an H2 then after selecting H2 the search radar box would not be displayed

In a sead mission there's SA2 and SA3's but also several Search radar's, when looking at the TOO page the Search radar box's are over the SA2 and 3's when toggling thru the radars I cant tell if the Harm's locked on the Search or Sam. I wanted to know what class is the search radar vs a SA2 or 3. I was trying to find info on a list of which category/class each radar would be under on the class page example would a search radar fall under H1 or H2 or HOS? I was thinking if an SA2 or 3 fell under an H2 then after selecting H2 the search radar box would not be displayed

I haven't dug into the specifics of limiting the display like that but I can tell you the ghetto method I use to verify if I have the search radar or the track radar locked. I just hit the cage/uncage button to handoff to the missile. That drops all targets from the display but the one you are locked on to. If I see the S versus a 2 or a 3 then just cage/uncage again, RAID/FOV switch once, then cage/uncage again and see what you have locked onto then.

You can also limit the number of displayed radars in TOO, but selecting LIMIT. And I believe that the SA-2 and SA-3 should fall under the H1 category, as they are older systems.

If a tracking/fire control radar is engaging you (they often do out of range), select PRI and it'll isolate active tracking/fire control radars.

Also, both SP and TOO modes are Direct Attack, meaning that the missile goes straight for the emitter, without taking anything else into account.