AGM-88 HARM implementation FA18/F16

How does the hornet TOO mode resolve vertical placement? If it was just RWR driven then it would only provide azimuth information, as SP and the RWR itself does.

I'm not sure why you believe the RWR is only capable of resolving bearing and not any elevation, because the EW display in the cockpit is 2D?

I'm sorry, but I lost understanding of the discussion here. I only understood two problems:

- difference of implementation in F-16C and F/A-18C (which will be corrected)

- very high precision of position of received signals (which we will correct too).

Could someone sumup and tell what are other problems? Thanks in advance!

You identified the main problems very well cofcorpse, the rest it's just philosophical discussions

I'm not sure why you believe the RWR is only capable of resolving bearing and not any elevation, because the EW display in the cockpit is 2D?

No you are wrong. TOO is HARM as a sensor mode, it uses the RWR for nothing. a/c RWR antennas have fan beam radiation patterns and don't resolve well in elevation, whilst using comparison methods (in amplitude, phase, doppler difference etc.) for providing an acceptable azimuth solution. Only most advanced systems (e.g. ESM) with interpherometers can give *some* elevation info, normally with way less accuracy that in azimuth.

The cool thing about the HARM though is that is equipped with a dish antenna on a gimbal, with a relatively thin pencil beam radiation pattern. The good thing about this config is that it provides same good (or bad) accuracy in all angles; the bad thing is that it needs to sweep in elevation and azimuth mechanically to provide a picture, which is time consuming.

If multiple HARM are carried do they cooperate scan?

If multiple HARM are carried do they cooperate scan?

No, as only a single HARM is active and provides the feed to your DDI/MPCD.

No you are wrong. TOO is HARM as a sensor mode, it uses the RWR for nothing.

Do you have a source for this?

Do you have a source for this?

Prove me wrong. Only SP mode interfaces with the RWR, which dump target azimuth and type to the missile before launch. But TOO mode is purely what the missile sensor sees, with the support of the HARM CLC computer in the aircraft to translate the raw signal into the TOO mode we have.

Prove me wrong. Only SP mode interfaces with the RWR, which dump target azimuth and type to the missile before launch. But TOO mode is purely what the missile sensor sees, with the support of the HARM CLC computer in the aircraft to translate the raw signal into the TOO mode we have.

So you don't have a source, just making things up because you THINK that's how it should work?

I really hope ED sticks with the documentation on this and ignore people who have no idea what they are talking about on the forums.

So you don't have a source, just making things up because you THINK that's how it should work?

 

I really hope ED sticks with the documentation on this and ignore people who have no idea what they are talking about on the forums.

What makes you wonder that I THINK and not that I KNOW? ;)

And I'm pretty sure ED is very knowledgeable about how HARM works and doesn't need your nor my lectures

Do you have a source for this?

Do you?

Do you?

Literally took 10 seconds of google to find multiple sources that the hornets CLC automatically queues the HARM seeker based on RWR detection.

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-88.htm

The CP-1001B/C HARM Command Launch Computer (CLC) is an electronics subsystem installed on the airframe to interface with the AGM-88 A/B/C HARM Missile. The CLC and associated software package are compatible with all AGM-88 A/B/C missiles. The CLC receives target data from the missile and onboard avionics, processes the data for display to the aircrew to the appropriate display, determines target priority, and collects aircraft data for pre-launch hand-off to the AGM-88 HARM missile. The CLC determines time coincidence between the AGM-88 HARM missile and the RWR directional data and pulse repetition intervals and formats. The identification data is processed by the CLC to perform target identification, prioritization, and display information. The CLC generates targeting commands to the AGM-88 HARM missile for appropriate target and provides Targeting and guidance information for the AGM-88 to Target Of Interest (TOI) on offensive attack missions.

Please keep in mind that the F16 DOES NOT have this same capability and cannot queue the HARM sensor with the RWR.

Hornet can cue HARM based on RWR but only in a particular mode. It doesn't do it all the time and it doesn't when HARM is used in TOO mode.

Literally took 10 seconds of google to find multiple sources that the hornets CLC automatically queues the HARM seeker based on RWR detection.

 

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-88.htm

 

 

 

Please keep in mind that the F16 DOES NOT have this same capability and cannot queue the HARM sensor with the RWR.

Did you miss the part when I said hornet uses the RWR in SP mode, but the HARM sensor in TOO?

Hornet can cue HARM based on RWR but only in a particular mode. It doesn't do it all the time and it doesn't when HARM is used in TOO mode.

Again, source?

Did you miss the part when I said hornet uses the RWR in SP mode, but the HARM sensor in TOO?

Please read again.

The CLC generates targeting commands to the AGM-88 HARM missile for appropriate target and provides Targeting and guidance information for the AGM-88 to Target Of Interest (TOI) on offensive attack missions.

I know we probably aren't going to get any real SMEs to come in here and comment on weapon employment, but everything I can find publicly on how HARMs are employed in the USN agrees that the RWR is used to cue the missile seeker.

I dont understand. What you have quoted doesn't say it generates the TOO feed using RWR. It says it can provide targeting and guidance info to the HARM by using the RWR, which we know. Because thats what SP is.

I dont understand. What you have quoted doesn't say it generates the TOO feed using RWR. It says it can provide targeting and guidance info to the HARM by using the RWR, which we know. Because thats what SP is.

You don't understand the difference between "self protection" and "offensive attack" against a target of interest?

So I just saw this thread and it is very confusing. What is it that is wrong now? And why ED says "Viper Standards"???? Aren't Hornet standards high enough to justify a well done simulation of the HARM? Quite insulting IMHO.

So I just saw this thread and it is very confusing. What is it that is wrong now? And why ED says "Viper Standards"???? Aren't Hornet standards high enough to justify a well done simulation of the HARM? Quite insulting IMHO.

The HARM modelling on the Hornet is currently simplified and will be raised to Viper standards eventually (search duration, frequency/emitter bands).

The HARM modelling on the Hornet is currently simplified and will be raised to Viper standards eventually (search duration, frequency/emitter bands).

Hey Quigon, that just repeats what I already said, hence know. Can you elaborate please?

You don't understand the difference between "self protection" and "offensive attack" against a target of interest?

I think you’re confused by terminology, as the USAF/USN have different names for the same function on the HARM.

I also suggest you chill with making assumptions about peoples knowledge here, you’re new on the forums while some of these guys have been around for a while so yes they might have better info than you..

Hey Quigon, that just repeats what I already said, hence know. Can you elaborate please?

Not sure what there is to elaborate further? :huh:

So I just saw this thread and it is very confusing. What is it that is wrong now? And why ED says "Viper Standards"???? Aren't Hornet standards high enough to justify a well done simulation of the HARM? Quite insulting IMHO.

We don't have a 3 minute warm up for the HARM. Viper does.

We don't have a 3 minute warm up for the HARM. Viper does.

That too, although that is a rather minor difference compared to the seeker behaviour in TOO/HAS mode.

That too, although that is a rather minor difference compared to the seeker behaviour in TOO/HAS mode.

I don't fly the Viper!!! Can you elaborate on those differences pls? I'd be much appreciated