Slam AGM-84E Problems

Quick rundown for the SLAM:

for best employment, ensure you have an idea of the target beforehand, either from a picture in the brief or using the tpod for targeting.

Align the SLAM (currently bugged(?) to one at a time) and employ at range.

orbit around the launch point or any ranged position at the rear but roughly inline with the SLAM terminal path

use DL guidance for terminal, otherwise the weapon can deviate somewhere around 50m from a 40 mile launch. The INS of the SLAM will lose accuracy faster than an aircraft's INS system, so longer flight times will have a greater deviation from the designated point.

Remember the SLAM is used for long range standoff. If you are within <30 miles of the target, a SLAM is not needed and employment of a JDAM is much preferable due to greater accuracy

If you need longer to acquire a target, set the distance to 15-20 miles to give ample time to acquire the target. as the weapon dives, levels out and then dives again, you may need to work out when the missile will be in the first dive, as acquiring a low target during the terminal level flight is difficult and leaves little room for error.

As the seeker is fixed to the missile body, it is not possible to look around without altering the flight of the SLAM.

I was skeptical about these missiles, but after a few tests I am very happy. You can destroy a single tank, but it is not a weapon for destroying tanks. Missiles have definitely more impact force than HARM. Which is strange, because theoretically the same explosive heads are there. Probably Harmy is flawed from the very beginning and nobody thinks that correcting them is right.

Definitely not the same Warhead as the SLAM have a 488 pond warhead, HARM a 143 pound fragmentation warhead.

SLAM is for priority targets, the other for rendering radars inoperable, completely different usage and warhead selection.

You shouldn't be riding with the missile to target.

Fire from 50 miles at angles 30 with the flt parameter set to high, oribt around your launch point or slightly behind it.

wait for the seeker to power on and then guide it terminally onto the target.

Again, the datalink is supposed to allow you to launch and then fly away from the target, not launch and piggyback the missile.

If fired in the high flt parameter from an 18 going at mach ~80 at angels 30, the missile itself will travel at mach 90+, possibly 1+ on its way into the target. It will only be slow if you fire it low down due to the increased drag

You shouldn't be riding with the missile to target.

Yeah I figured, after noticing that the seeker is waaaay worse than the C-802 AKG seeker. (I guess the SLAM also is a lot older missile than the AKG)

Yeah I figured, after noticing that the seeker is waaaay worse than the C-802 AKG seeker. (I guess the SLAM also is a lot older missile than the AKG)

I dont think the seeker is worse per say as it is just a maverick seeker, just that its datalink is far worse than the AKG and thus that ruins your picture on the way in.

just that its datalink is far worse than the AKG

oh, interesting. Any theories as to what about the DL is worse? Different frequency probably, but anything else aswell?

oh, interesting. Any theories as to what about the DL is worse? Different frequency probably, but anything else aswell?

If there is a situation where something in JF-17 is better than another thing, your first question shouldn't be 'why is the other thing worse', but rather 'why is JF-17s so good'

So reading through this, I think many of you are missing some point. One big one is, this is an old missile. It was developed in 1990, and retired in 2000. Its inaccurate, because it was pretty inaccurate. Although 40 to 50 meters from 50 miles away was pretty damn accurate for the time. In order to be pinpoint it needs terminal guidance. Unfortunately that means getting a bit closer. But I can still stay out of range of short and medium range SAM. Also if you can ripple them, and guide each one in from a different direction. That seems like a pretty good way to overcome a heavily defended target. Still it's an older system, and if you have JDAMs, and JSWOs its probably better to use those. If like me you like the late cold war era it's going to be a lot of fun.

If there is a situation where something in JF-17 is better than another thing, your first question shouldn't be 'why is the other thing worse', but rather 'why is JF-17s so good'

Well JF-17 is like 20 years newer. So that might be a contributing factor. The Walleye DL is pre Desert Storm era. All of the JF-17s systems are 2005-2010 era. I suspect we have better DL now, if we still use man in the loop weapons at all. The SLAM, and Walleye fit better on a desert storm-Bosnia era F-18C.

Bosnia? You mean the Yugoslav Wars? Do you mean rather at beginning (1991) or near end (2001) ?

Bosnia? You mean the Yugoslav Wars? Do you mean rather at beginning (1991) or near end (2001) ?

It was certainly used during Operation Deliberate Force, in 1995.

Datalink performance was bad apparently. Frequency interference issues with F-15E's using GBU-15s.

It seems strange that a weapon with 54nm range, only has optimal datalink range of about 40-50nm. Maybe this was a by product of using a 'off-the-shelf' Walleye datalink?

So how is the slamer different from this? Accuracy? Range? Still needs riding with it?

The AKG is a pretty old weapon too. Probably it's just that ED is more aggressive with shaders, but image quality should be comparable

Well JF-17 is like 20 years newer. So that might be a contributing factor. The Walleye DL is pre Desert Storm era. All of the JF-17s systems are 2005-2010 era. I suspect we have better DL now, if we still use man in the loop weapons at all. The SLAM, and Walleye fit better on a desert storm-Bosnia era F-18C.

The AWW13 datalink didnt begin going into serivce for the F/A18C/D until around 1994. Its post gulf war.

the older preceding AWW9 was the aged cold war datalink pod that was in use in the gulf war and the one that proved unreliable. AWW13 was the follow on next generation improvement to address those shortcomings as well as provide new capabilities.

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/aww-13.htm

Although AWW13 can be used with walleye ERDL it was really used with the SLAM series including the newer SLAM ER given when it went into use. There are also far more interesting other uses for it like being able to get recon imagery from U2 mid flight or even have UAV video relayed real time. This is the same datalink pod was in production well into the 21st century and is still the primary DL pod today.

http://investor.raytheon.com/news-releases/news-release-details/raytheon-awarded-57-million-advanced-data-link-pods

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/turkey-orders-50-slamer-missiles-for-land-attack-02221/

https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1100&ct=2

can the coolie switch on the throttle of the TM WartHog be used to steer the AGM-84E SLAM, up-down-left-right ? I can't steer it, ran out of controls, I have Warthog in pinky switch mode for more controls.

It will not steer. I don't have TDC control checked for the FA-18C. So, I don't have to press enter.

It will not let me assign the mini stick in the FA-18C controls menu, or I would have chosen that control for 4 way switch.

Thanx.

btw, I can hit close to the target just by entering the waypoint. But close isn't good enough.

Well I ment the NATO intervention. So late 90's. But yes you got my point. It's a 90's era weapon. Compared to 21st century weapons its gonna come up short.

So...its a 90's era pod. Thanks for agreeing. The signal strength is probably more dependent on the weapon then the pod, but I could be wrong. Also it's still a much older pod. The U2 trick would be cool, but again I imagine the transmitter on the U2 was pretty damn powerful. Look I dont know the exact range of this system, and I bet you don't ether. But saying the DL on the JF-17 is better is kind of a no brainer. Again its 15 to 20 years newer. And it was retired in 2000, the SLAM, so limited capabilities seem like a given. I would think it had more then 25mi transmission range as well, and maybe it does, and will in game. But it's still an old PGM, so I wouldn't expect 21 century capabilities. I don't consider this to be a drawback. I love the older stuff, and would love a Desert Storm F-18. Even with a shittier DL pod.

So...its a 90's era pod. Thanks for agreeing. The signal strength is probably more dependent on the weapon then the pod, but I could be wrong. Also it's still a much older pod. The U2 trick would be cool, but again I imagine the transmitter on the U2 was pretty damn powerful. Look I dont know the exact range of this system, and I bet you don't ether. But saying the DL on the JF-17 is better is kind of a no brainer. Again its 15 to 20 years newer. And it was retired in 2000, the SLAM, so limited capabilities seem like a given. I would think it had more then 25mi transmission range as well, and maybe it does, and will in game. But it's still an old PGM, so I wouldn't expect 21 century capabilities. I don't consider this to be a drawback. I love the older stuff, and would love a Desert Storm F-18. Even with a shittier DL pod.

age doesnt matter. capabilities do. So assuming that just because something is newer doesn't mean its nessarily better especially since in this case its coming from developing country with a fraction of US defense budget and lacking experience in domestic aviation building.

Theres alot of technology on the jeff that isn't jaw dropping considering its a 2010+ aircraft.

look at the jeffs radar. Its 2000s mech array radar but less powerful than the APG73 of 90s vintage ( which really wasn't a new radar design but an upgrade of the APG65) . Its datalink is inferior to Link 16. Its targeting pod is inferior to Litening 2 AT from 2003, never minding to newer ones from a comparable time frame where the discrepancy would have been even greater. It lacks any off boresight ir missiles, and any helmet sight.

All the Jeff has going for it in terms of being more capable is fancier larger screens, and IR missile warning system. IF it werent for those two things, the Jeff would feel more like a 90s Gen 4.

It really more analogous to being a 21st century F-5. A inexpensive, tactical fighter utilizing modest technology.

SO even if it dates back to the 90s, if the AWW13 was really such subpar pod it wouldn't still be in use today, and would have already been replaced. Its clear whatever limitations there are are mostly to do with missile and not the pod. When SLAM ER eventually gets added in that will be a considerable upgrade over the SLAM. That was regarded as quite an effective and accurate standoff weapon for quite some time, but remains unique since it still hs man in the loop capabilities, if even longer standoff weapons like AGM158 are now in operation.

I probably do something wrong, but using the same procedure, and firing at the same range, my first SLAM go all the way to the target and the second one splash into the sea mid range from the target :(

Up, does anyone have a "clean procedure" to launch successively and successfully 2 AGM-84E please ?

However I have to say I'm impressed by the data link simulation which seems to depend on range, aspect and antenna selection :thumbup:

For the difference with the quality of C-802AKG datalink there are 2 possibilities:

- level of limitations simulations (maybe it's more accurate on AGM-84E)

- difference in datalink technology: since AGM-84E uses AGM-62 Walleye link it's probably analogic radio transmission. Being newer, the AKG variant of the C-802 may use digital signals.

Up, does anyone have a "clean procedure" to launch successively and successfully 2 AGM-84E please ?

Sonic131st has made a video [FR] showing how to attack two near by targets.

... I haven't tested the technique but the main features are

• launch the 2x SLAM with at least 55 seconds spacing

• tune the data link to the 1st and steer to target

• switch data link to the 2nd missile and repeat

In my case I have kill the target been nearly 25 - 30nm away from it.

How to do it? easy:

1 - Accelerate the F-18 to 500 knots and launch the missile.

2 - Open airbrakes and let me missile goes.

3 - Make a 360º loose turn while the missile continue its trajectory

4 - Follow the missile faaaar away from it

5 - Guide the missile on its terminal stage to the target

6 - Bummm, and you are at 25 - 30nm from the target

I'm pretty sure that if you sincronize it better you can remain at 40nm or more when the missile reach its destiny.

Sonic131st has made a video [FR] s

Great, my favorite language :lol:

Thanks :thumbup:

Did almost the same on my first try... difference was I was orbiting and shooting the second one after one 360. The only problems I had was the A/P not being able to cope with trims (I had to disengage it, trim ailerons, re-engage it) and the SLAMs getting shot down by the targets... switching the DL was no issue though.