Jump to content

F-15E and HARM: Yes or No


hvymtal

Recommended Posts

Trying to settle an argument. I know the F-15E is able to carry the HARM on various stations, but is it able to actually employ the HARM and will the HARM be an option in the DCS world module?

 

And no just saying what you "know," reliable sources or from RAZBAM please!

My Logitech Extreme3D Pro "Essentials" Profiles for FC3 and 25T:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/599930/

 

VERN0UL.png

 

Thrustmaster T.16000M, TWCS

 

FC3, F-5E, M2000C, AJS-37, C-101, F-14, NTTR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is google doc link

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcsef.ru%2Fmedia%2Farticles%2F4361%2F4361.pdf

page 2-9

The only USAF aircraft that carry the HARM are F-16C-D. Specifically, Block 30 to 52

 

From USAF fact sheet site:

http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104574/agm-88-harm/

Aircraft: Used aboard the F-16C

 

This is a direct PDF link

Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) for AGM-88E

Page 6

The AGM-88E AARGM is fielded on the F/A-18C-F and the EA-18G. Objective aircraft include EA-6B, F-16C/J and F-35

external carriage (post platform IOC).


Edited by mvsgas

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you :)

It is silly that the F-15E is not equipped to employ ARMs, but if it is a major capability that it lacks IRL, then it should reflect that in DCS.


Edited by hvymtal

My Logitech Extreme3D Pro "Essentials" Profiles for FC3 and 25T:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/599930/

 

VERN0UL.png

 

Thrustmaster T.16000M, TWCS

 

FC3, F-5E, M2000C, AJS-37, C-101, F-14, NTTR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-16C Blocks With AGM-88 HARM?

 

The only USAF aircraft that carry the HARM are F-16C-D. Specifically, Block 30 to 52

 

I was wondering, which blocks can carry the HARM? I know that the 50D/52D were the only ones intended to be "Wild Weasel" aircraft, but, according to this site, as well as others, blocks 30/32, 40/42, and 50/52 can also use it.

 

My question: If the 50D/52D were the only ones intended for it, yet all F-16Cs but block 25 could carry it, can the other ones employ the HTS, and therefore be able to effectively use the missile?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering, which blocks can carry the HARM? I know that the 50D/52D were the only ones intended to be "Wild Weasel" aircraft, but, according to this site, as well as others, blocks 30/32, 40/42, and 50/52 can also use it.

 

My question: If the 50D/52D were the only ones intended for it, yet all F-16Cs but block 25 could carry it, can the other ones employ the HTS, and therefore be able to effectively use the missile?

 

Keep in mind I am no expert, but AFAIK, The USAF block 30/32 where the first one made with the capability to use the AGM-88. They where actually used on ODS1. IIRC, F-4G where paired with F-16C block 30. The block 30/32 at the time ( not sure if still does) used the missiles own seeker to detect the targets.

52TFW_F-4G_F16C.jpg

 

USAF Block 40/42 originally did not have that capability. Pilots did not practice, weapons crews did not train on how to load them and the bases with blocks 40/42 did not even have the Dummy missiles. After the CCIP update, block 40/42 could carry both the HTS pod and the missile, but pilots and weapons crews still needed to train on it, so it took some time before you see them. Bases like in Osan AB now carry both pod and dummy missiles for training.

 

Now, on USAF block 50/52, those where intended for SEAD mission. They replaced block 30/32 on bases like Spangdahlem AB. The block 50/52 originally only did SEAD mission, they did not even carry the TGP, only the HTS pods. They where the first to carry the ALE-50 (among F-16). I think F-16.net is the one that specifically mention the 50D/52D, but do not confuse those with F-16D, two different things.

 

So, AFAIK, as of today USAF, AFR and ANG F-16C block 30 to 52 can carry the AGM-88. Block 40 to 52 can carry the HTS pod and it depends the mission of the Squadron to whether the train with them or not. So there might be units with block 30 to 52, but no pilots nor weapons crews are train so they can not use the missiles or the HTS pods.

 

Other countries have different capabilities and they get those capabilities at different times, so I am not sure what other F-16 can carry the AGM-88 outside of the USAF, ANG or AFR.

Some photo links. You can see them on:

- Block 50 of Shaw AFB

- Block 50 of Misawa AB

- Block 50 of Spangdahlem AB

- Block 40 of Osan AB

- Block 40 of Aviano AB --you can see the HTS pods but no missiles.

- Block 52 of of McEntire JNGB

and test Squadrons on Eglin AFB .


Edited by mvsgas

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hornet did make an extensive use of HARM without HTS pod :music_whistling:

 

So it’s better with HTS but not mandatory.

 

HTS is just something for the F-16. Other aircraft could have the same technology in them. I bet that the F-4G, EA-6, Tornado ECR and the AE-18G are far better at detecting, sorting and targeting radars that the F-16 with HTS pod can.

 

For the F-16 without HTS pod, A-7, F/A-18 and other aircraft using the missiles seeker to find targets. The limiting factor is the missiles, after all, the seeker has to be disposable so it will never be as capable as an aircraft system. Specially with the early versions of the missile.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you :)

It is silly that the F-15E is not equipped to employ ARMs, but if it is a major capability that it lacks IRL, then it should reflect that in DCS.

 

It's not silly at all. In real life each aircraft has a SPECIFIC mission. Not because we want to sort people and assign them to different squadrons but because it's efficient.

 

The F-15E doesn't need the HARM because the SEAD mission is performed by the F-16CJ. The F-16CJ can't carry AGM-130 because the Strike Mission is performed by the Mudhen.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Primary Computer

ASUS Z390-P, i7-9700K CPU @ 5.0Ghz, 32GB Patriot Viper Steel DDR4 @ 3200Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce 1070 Ti AMP Extreme, Samsung 970 EVO M.2 NVMe drives (1Tb & 500 Gb), Windows 10 Professional, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, Thrustmaster Warthog Stick, Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle, Cougar MFDs x3, Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals and TrackIR 5.

 

-={TAC}=-DCS Server

Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3, i7-3770K CPU @ 3.90GHz, 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 @ 1600Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce® GTX 970.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-15E has the capability avionics wise to carry the HARM however as stated by others only F-16s perform SEAD in the Air Force. While capable, the accessory equipment needed to use the HARM on the F-15E has not and will not be maintained by any E-model units.

"It's amazing, even at the Formula 1 level how many drivers still think the brakes are for slowing the car down."

 

VF-2 Bounty Hunters



[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Virtual Carrier Strike Group 1 | Discord

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not silly at all. In real life each aircraft has a SPECIFIC mission. Not because we want to sort people and assign them to different squadrons but because it's efficient.

 

The F-15E doesn't need the HARM because the SEAD mission is performed by the F-16CJ. The F-16CJ can't carry AGM-130 because the Strike Mission is performed by the Mudhen.

 

This is all conjecture in my part so meaningless:

I think that is a whole different thing. I don't think anyone still uses the GBU-15/AGM-130. They are old weapons that had to be guided to the target. Also, outside of testing, I do not think I have ever seen a F-16 carry either, it would be dangerous for a single pilot to concentrate on guiding that weapons all the way down while in combat. It has been done in the past with many other weapons, but still risky. There are to many weapons now, more precise and easier to use.

 

Also, using the F-15E for SEAD does not make since. It is far more expensive than a F-16, so if you going to taunt some one to shoot at you, it does not make since to use a more expensive aircraft. Additionally, you risk two people instead of one. Lets face it, it is expensive to train Pilots and WSO, so it does not make since to put them both at risk when one pilot can do the job. Lastly, F-15E fully loaded is not the most agile thing out there. To me it does not make since to send a large and heavy aircraft to go dodge missile.

 

Some one will bring up the E/A-18G, which is all those things I mention (more expensive, crew of two, heavy and big) But the E/A-18G has a lot of system more suited to attack and defend against radars. Also, with three ALQ-99 pods jamming the hell out if the radar, I think it has a far better change to survive than an F-15E has. Plus you notice the navy still uses jamming aircraft not the USAF, I bet they know some stuff we don't.


Edited by mvsgas

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-15E has the capability avionics wise to carry the HARM however as stated by others only F-16s perform SEAD in the Air Force. While capable, the accessory equipment needed to use the HARM on the F-15E has not and will not be maintained by any E-model units.

 

 

And what would give you this idea that would make what you are saying true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering, which blocks can carry the HARM? I know that the 50D/52D were the only ones intended to be "Wild Weasel" aircraft, but, according to this site, as well as others, blocks 30/32, 40/42, and 50/52 can also use it.

 

My question: If the 50D/52D were the only ones intended for it, yet all F-16Cs but block 25 could carry it, can the other ones employ the HTS, and therefore be able to effectively use the missile?

 

Keep in mind I am no expert, but AFAIK, The USAF block 30/32 where the first one made with the capability to use the AGM-88. They where actually used on ODS1. IIRC, F-4G where paired with F-16C block 30. The block 30/32 at the time ( not sure if still does) used the missiles own seeker to detect the targets.

I can confirm this. During Desert Storm, the F-4G and F-16 Wild Weasels flew in pairs, utilizing the superior emitter location system installed in the Phantom to find enemy SAMs, which could then be targeted by either of the aircraft. IIRC the AN/APR-47 emitter location system of the F-4G Wild Weasel was even more capable of locating enemy radars than the HTS pod of todays F-16CJs.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some one will bring up the E/A-18G, which is all those things I mention (more expensive, crew of two, heavy and big) But the E/A-18G has a lot of system more suited to attack and defend against radars. Also, with three ALQ-99 pods jamming the hell out if the radar, I think it has a far better change to survive than an F-15E has. Plus you notice the navy still uses jamming aircraft not the USAF, I bet they know some stuff we don't.

since the navy is almost guaranteed to be a major doorkicker it makes sense they put a premium on their native dedicated ewar platforms.

ewar/elint is responsible for quarterbacking tactical aircraft against radiating threats.

 

what i never quite figured out was the fate of tas (navy analogue for hts to be integrated into fa-18c), there were some articles about it getting tested around the late 90s but beyond that information is hard to find with casual searching.


Edited by probad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

since the navy is almost guaranteed to be a major doorkicker it makes sense they put a premium on their native dedicated ewar platforms.

ewar/elint is responsible for quarterbacking tactical aircraft against radiating threats.

 

what i never quite figured out was the fate of tas (navy analogue for hts to be integrated into fa-18c), there were some articles about it getting tested around the late 90s but beyond that information is hard to find with casual searching.

 

I think they didn’t procure it, plus the EA-6B Prowler ICAP II (HARM capacity) was already doing the job.

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, using the F-15E for SEAD does not make since. It is far more expensive than a F-16, so if you going to taunt some one to shoot at you, it does not make since to use a more expensive aircraft. Additionally, you risk two people instead of one. Lets face it, it is expensive to train Pilots and WSO, so it does not make since to put them both at risk when one pilot can do the job. Lastly, F-15E fully loaded is not the most agile thing out there. To me it does not make since to send a large and heavy aircraft to go dodge missile.

 

 

For the sake of being annoying and playing Devil's advocate: Tornado ECR (or EF.3 actually)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EF.3? Could you elaborate?

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how is it related to AGM-88 and F-15E?

I was comparing between F-16 and F-15E being used for Wild Weasel. If we look at most other aircraft used for Wild Weasel (i.e. E/A-6, F-4G, F-105G, Tornado ECR, etc.) They are all heavier, more expensive and have a larger crew than the F-16, but the USAF only have F-16 and F-15E regarding this topic, so hence my comparison of only those two.

 

So I guess I can clarify;

 

Also, of the aircraft available in the USAF inventory, using the F-15E for SEAD does not make since. It is far more expensive than a F-16, so if you going to taunt some one to shoot at you, it does not make since to use a more expensive aircraft. Additionally, you risk two people instead of one. Lets face it, it is expensive to train Pilots and WSO, so it does not make since to put them both at risk when one pilot can do the job. Lastly, F-15E fully loaded is not the most agile thing out there. To me it does not make since to send a large and heavy aircraft to go dodge missile.


Edited by mvsgas

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was simply trying to say that your argument of "large aircraft carrying heavy loads aren't ideal for SEAD" makes no sense when as you just said the vast majority of planes flying that mission are exactly that. The argument of "large plane with two crew members is too valuable and can't dodge missiles" has zero basis in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren't ideal for SEAD, you can also notice, all of those aircraft are retired or on the way out because they are not ideal for the job.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was simply trying to say that your argument of "large aircraft carrying heavy loads aren't ideal for SEAD" makes no sense when as you just said the vast majority of planes flying that mission are exactly that. The argument of "large plane with two crew members is too valuable and can't dodge missiles" has zero basis in reality.

you use european aircraft inventory to disprove american doctrinal policy? way to move the goalposts because you suddenly find yourself having to reach.

 

all european aircraft are expensive

the tornado is fairly expendable as far as the inventory goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren't ideal for SEAD, you can also notice, all of those aircraft are retired or on the way out because they are not ideal for the job.

 

 

In fact, the F-16CJ is an exception in the SEAD business, but you make it a rule :music_whistling:

USAF supported/ is supporting F-16CJ with RC-135, EC-130 Compass Call, UAV...god knows what.

 

 

If you want a more "stand alone" SEAD aircraft, you need bigger fighter like EA-18G Growler.

 

 

Most SEAD aircraft aren't being retired because they are unfit for the job, but because they are old and served their time...

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...