AGM-88 HARM

Without wanting to go into politics, what would be needed for a HARM missile to be
A) fired from an improvised ground launcher
Or B) fired from a legacy Soviet airframe like mig-29?

Of course, at least some usefulness against electronic emission targets would be needed, we're not talking about a pure blind launch.
 
totoro said:
Without wanting to go into politics, what would be needed for a HARM missile to be
A) fired from an improvised ground launcher
Or B) fired from a legacy Soviet airframe like mig-29?

Of course, at least some usefulness against electronic emission targets would be needed, we're not talking about a pure blind launch.
Click to expand...

So, Northrop Grumman has advertised a ground-launched containerized launcher for AARGM (advanced HARM) or AARGM-ER. It presumably needs a booster of some sort but it seems like a relatively easy modification, especially if they've already been studying it.


www.thedrive.com

Northrop Grumman Shows Off Shipping Container-Launched Anti-Radiation Missile Concept

The idea pairs a standard ISO shipping container with the latest and greatest anti-radiation missile technology.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

This seems more plausible than adapting it to air launch from MiG-29, which would mean adding at least a precision ESM system and NATO-style launch rails.
 
I wouldn't rule out a MiG being modified to carry HARM. Perhaps one of the NATO-donated aircraft was tinkered with before ending up in Ukraine. It would be a "better than nothing" kind of modification, limited and fragile, but wacky wartime modifications have happened befor.

HARM might explain why a project 22160's emotional support TOR launcher suddenly combusted a couple days ago, and why Ukraine's Su-25s have had an easier time around Kherson lately.
 
I know harm has several launch modes and that not all require specialized esm equipment.
But what sort of modification, at a minimum, would be needed for a Soviet plane to launch harm even in the simplest of modes? And would that mode be equivalent of
"My rwr said there is something at azimuth X. My rwr and harm don't/can't talk to each other but I can still force a launch of harm via a special/custom rail interface and then that harm has a decent chance of locking onto said radar emission while in flight?"

If I am not mistaken, Soviet arm missiles worked in such a way that the missile seeker went active while not launched yet? They would achieve a "loose lock" and then get launched? Is that correct?

If so, then what would be needed for a Soviet plane to be modified to work with harm in the same way?
 
Well, HARM originally had 3 basic operating modes, not sure if later versions with guidance system upgrades added more to take advantage of the new capabilities.

Target-Of-Opportunity (TOO) is pretty much what you describe as the "loose lock" method. It uses the missile's own seeker to acquire a target.

Self-Protect (SP) by contrast uses the aircraft's RWR/ESM to hand off a target to the missile. This takes advantage of the system's prioritization algorithms to rapidly cue the missile seeker onto the threat considered to be the most acutely dangerous.

Pre-Briefed (PB) does not rely on a lock-before-launch process, it loads a pre-planned target location from the aircraft into the missile and fires it "blind" once kinematically in range. The hope is that the target will be active for the seeker to acquire once in the terminal phase. Later variants with GPS can accurately hit the pre-defined coordinates even if that doesn't happen, although if the target has moved from its known position (rather than just shut down) that doesn't help either.

All of these require communication between the aircraft and missile to some extent, but it seems that PB could perhaps be bodged to work with minimal integration. Especially with newer versions that include a GPS receiver it may be possible to jury-rig a system where the target is stored in the missile and it (rather than the aircraft) determines when the target is in range. Or you simplify the whole thing down to the bare bones, where the missile is launched essentially dumb and relies on the pilot to manually determine that the target is actually in range. That may require nothing more than a valid launch command to be transmitted.

I suspect there would have to be a safe separation trial though.
 
Last edited:
Trident said:
I suspect there would have to be a safe separation trial though.
Click to expand...

Definitely. After you've adapted the LAU-118 launch rails to Russian bomb racks and suspension lugs, and pulled MIL-STD 1553 bus wiring so it can actually talk to the aircraft (even if just for a simple go/no-go)
 
Ground launch seems more likely. We've seen Russia AAMs ground launched as SAMs in Yemen; it probably wouldn't be too hard to launch the weapon down the right bearing and hope that it acquired an active target.

Given how odd it is for this weapon to have been utilized by Ukraine's armed forces and Russian propensity for propaganda, I think we also have to consider the possibility that the incident was fabricated.
 
Don't forget that Harm has a passive launch mode with a loitering capability.
 
Last edited:
@sferrin : Well, yeah, I was about to swap "loitering" with a more explicative sentence like being fired without target allocation (you shoot the missile before entering/exiting a zone where a known SAM was reported).

Loitering has now another, more intensive, meaning.
 
Trident said:
Pre-Briefed (PB) does not rely on a lock-before-launch process, it loads a pre-planned target location from the aircraft into the missile and fires it "blind" once kinematically in range. The hope is that the target will be active for the seeker to acquire once in the terminal phase. Later variants with GPS can accurately hit the pre-defined coordinates even if that doesn't happen, although if the target has moved from its known position (rather than just shut down) that doesn't help either.

All of these require communication between the aircraft and missile to some extent, but it seems that PB could perhaps be bodged to work with minimal integration. Especially with newer versions that include a GPS receiver it may be possible to jury-rig a system where the target is stored in the missile and it (rather than the aircraft) determines when the target is in range. Or you simplify the whole thing down to the bare bones, where the missile is launched essentially dumb and relies on the pilot to manually determine that the target is actually in range. That may require nothing more than a valid launch command to be transmitted.
Click to expand...
From what I know, PB is one of the sub-modes under the POS mode(or PB mode in Hornets and Super Bugs, since they use a different naming for the individual HARM launch modes compared to Falcons.), namely EOM, PB and RUK. The most simple launch mode would be RUK, but that still would need a pilot input through the cockpit interface; same applies to the HAS mode(aka TOO for the F-18s). The only possibility for the Ukrainians to use HARMs launched from the air would be the case in which they've received MiG-29s from Poland and integrate HARM to those aircrafts, which is still unlikely to happen and is a moot point when we're talking about HARMs already used. So I'd also agree with others, that those HARMs used, if true, are launched from ground.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
The only possibility for the Ukrainians to use HARMs launched from the air would be the case in which they've received MiG-29s from Poland and integrate HARM to those aircrafts, which is still unlikely to happen and is a moot point when we're talking about HARMs already used. So I'd also agree with others, that those HARMs used, if true, are launched from ground.
Click to expand...

Yes, I wasn't suggesting this is a likely version of events, just thinking out loud how you might go about it technically. Worth noting that ground launching HARM, due to the inevitable LOS issues, is going to involve some form of modified PB mode, too.
 
TomcatViP said:
That F-16 registration code seems weird?... ("SWR-GK")
Click to expand...

SWR seems to be the artist's nickname or signature. See the lower right of the image.

I think I found this camo scheme as a DCS model.
 
TomcatViP said:
Good one. Thanks!
Click to expand...
www.digitalcombatsimulator.com

User Files

Combat Flight Simulator. Realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles, navy ships, world war two vehicles, trains and ships. Free download includes the Caucasus region and Black Sea that encompasses much of Georgia. It Including a Russian Sukhoi Su-25T ground attack aircraft...
www.digitalcombatsimulator.com www.digitalcombatsimulator.com

Artist is SWPixivyle.
 
That's surprising. I wonder if there modifications made to Ukr aircraft pre war then?
 
Josh_TN said:
That's surprising. I wonder if there modifications made to Ukr aircraft pre war then?
Click to expand...
Apparently Polish Mig-29s have a 1553 database so the first step is possible. But then you'd need new launch rails and an RWR capable of sending signal to the HARM?
 
Doesn't Turkish made drones have 1553 compatible bus? At least they (Baykar) are looking for qualified personals in their R&D.
 
Last edited:
Look @27:40 in the press briefing video:
-Mig 29 spare parts
- Anti-radiation missiles for Ukrainian aircraft (no precision or name of a systems)

Notice that he doesn't name HARM when all systems during the interview were precisely explained to the press.

www.c-span.org

Pentagon Estimates Russian Casualties Between 70-80K in Ukraine War

Defense Undersecretary Colin Kahl provided an overview of President Biden's recently announced $1 billion security assistance package to Ukraine, the 18th package for Ukraine. He addressed the military systems, weaponry, and ammunition provided to Ukraine and said that to date the United States...
www.c-span.org www.c-span.org
 
Last edited:
isayyo2 said:
Apparently Polish Mig-29s have a 1553 database so the first step is possible. But then you'd need new launch rails and an RWR capable of sending signal to the HARM?
Click to expand...
You should add Slovak MiGs as well. They've integrated quite a few western avionics with help of BAE and I'd be surprised if they were able to do that without changing the data bus.

Although the actual type of missile wasn't disclosed, I can't really think of it being anything other than HARM. I'd rather expect it to have been delivered alongside Slovak MiGs.

TomcatViP said:
Doesn't Turkish made drones have 1553 compatible bus? At least they (Baykar) are looking for qualified personals in their R&D.
Click to expand...
TB-2s are too small to use HARM.
 
Last edited:
The D version does need to know the GPS position though. Not sure whether that needs to be calculated prior to launch or not. The E version would have just found them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's some speculation about how the gps coordinates of emitters are being determined further down the thread linked to.
EDIT: Actually, just before the tweets linked to above.
 
If the missile is having GPS then it can be treated just like Himars and shot at any stationary target it doesnt even have to be used as ARM's. Also the twitter thread make no mention that missiles have RCS.. and if Russian cannot escape, why they cant try shooting down the missile. It is small but something like Buk or Tor can do.

Also i am still sceptical on aircraft. Like integrating new weapons are complex. Not only wirings or interface but also aerodynamics.. Can the AGM-88 safely separates from the aircraft ? How's the acoustics or vibration environment within the pylons, or whether the hardpoints can actually handle the missile in the first place. If the missile is using different voltage specifications than existing Russian missiles.. where one will put conversion equipment for it ?.

The most extensively foreign modified MiG's so far was MiG-29 "Sniper" which includes new radar but The Romanian didnt seem to put Western missiles.

Ground based Harm avoids most if not all of the problem and perhaps simpler to implement. Like say, Serbian modifications of ground based R-73's or Houthi's R-27's. More suitable for rapid wartime investment.

The twitter thread seems to make too light of all of those.

The following is my own take. Also included some RCS estimates.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1556921711286558721
View: https://twitter.com/Flankerchan/status/1556921711286558721
 
sferrin said:
Why would they need an excuse? Russia has been mobilizing pretty much as much as it wants with no repercussions.
Click to expand...

For domestic consumption. In the same way as they must know nobody on the international stage is buying their justifications for the war itself (So why bother? Well, to get the audience at home behind the issue.). If they have to call up more people now, those people need to feel it's for good cause, and the continued support of the regime by their relatives must not be jeopardized.

Maro.Kyo said:
TB-2s are too small to use HARM.
Click to expand...

Akinci? It'll haul 600+kg loads on the centreline. Not currently known to have been supplied to Ukraine (though actually on order, IIRC), but then the same could've been said about HARM until now, and it is in production. No indication that the missile has been integrated either, but again, the same is true of the jets in Ukrainian service...

Forest Green said:
The D version does need to know the GPS position though. Not sure whether that needs to be calculated prior to launch or not. The E version would have just found them.
Click to expand...

Even the E-model with MMW guidance won't necessarily help against shoot and scoot tactics. This kind of problem accounts for a lot of the perceived inaccuracy of Russian PGMs in this war, BTW - in many instances they are shooting at stuff that is no longer there (if it ever was), based on outdated intel. That Theiner guy is being daft if he truly believes in "absolutely no escape". The active terminal seeker was mostly added because even GPS isn't necessarily accurate enough to guarantee damage, depending on what source the geo-location derives from. That is to say, the missile will probably hit the coordinates it has been provided with just fine, but how close is this position to the actual location of the target? If the geo-location is based on high-res EO imaging it's probably good enough, but if it comes from SAR, ESM or even the missile's own (tiny) passive seeker, the relatively small warhead may not do much. Also, he glosses over the use of decoy emitters.

Last but not least, if only PB mode is available, that leaves the launch platform exceedingly vulnerable to pop-up threats. The Russians have failed to effectively suppress older versions of their own AD systems despite having ARMs that are properly integrated with their aircraft and which can respond to targets of opportunity. So what's the basis for assuming Ukraine will fare better against a more numerous and more modern threat, using missiles that can only be fired against *known* targets? I'm sure Ukraine will find it useful, but it's certainly not a game changer under the aforementioned circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Those are only speculations. Maybe it's time to pause and see what's the next incoming pieces of evidences, otherwise this thread might well end-up in the speculative projects section....
 
Trident said:
Even the E-model with MMW guidance won't necessarily help against shoot and scoot tactics. This kind of problem accounts for a lot of the perceived inaccuracy of Russian PGMs in this war, BTW - in many instances they are shooting at stuff that is no longer there (if it ever was), based on outdated intel. That Theiner guy is being daft if he truly believes in "absolutely no escape". The active terminal seeker was mostly added because even GPS isn't necessarily accurate enough to guarantee damage, depending on what source the geo-location derives from. That is to say, the missile will probably hit the coordinates it has been provided with just fine, but how close is this position to the actual location of the target? If the geo-location is based on high-res EO imaging it's probably good enough, but if it comes from SAR, ESM or even the missile's own (tiny) passive seeker, the relatively small warhead may not do much. Also, he glosses over the use of decoy emitters.

Last but not least, if only PB mode is available, that leaves the launch platform exceedingly vulnerable to pop-up threats. The Russians have failed to effectively suppress older versions of their own AD systems despite having ARMs that are properly integrated with their aircraft and which can respond to targets of opportunity. So what's the basis for assuming Ukraine will fare better against a more numerous and more modern threat, using missiles that can only be fired against *known* targets? I'm sure Ukraine will find it useful, but it's certainly not a game changer under the aforementioned circumstances.
Click to expand...
The MWR can home in on targets that have only recently moved though. If they are in the area of regard it will hit them.

Anyone know if the range of the D is the same as the E - 150km?
 
Josh_TN said:
I think we also have to consider the possibility that the incident was fabricated.
Click to expand...
I'll never forget that picture of a burned out ambulance in Gaza that was allegedly hit with a laser-guided bomb back in 2006. The picture made it into the Australian dailies. There was a neat round hole in the roof, right in the centre of the red cross, and this was presented as evidence that the Israelis bombed an ambulance out of malice, spite, or simply not caring.

Never mind that the hole was too neat and too clean, and about the right size for a rooftop ventilator, and never mind that a bomb big enough to make such a hole would not have left the body of the ambulance intact. Whichever journalist let that through evidently knew nothing about weapons and should have been fired, or knew it was a fabrication and should have been tarred and feathered and THEN fired.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom