Am I moronic or are anti-radar radiation-seeking missiles moronicly easy to defeat? Can't you just deflect them with radiation-emitting missiles launched from the radar site, the same way flares obfuscate IR signatures? And turn off the radar that's being hunted while your radiation-emitters are in the air, for added obfuscation.
Or is there some obvious reason that this wouldn't work which I'm too moronic to see?
>radiation-emitting missiles
"radiation-emitting" requires high energy that is not available in a missile
All modern radar guided air to air missiles radiate on their own moron. You can have effective radar with the same amount of energy a microwave outputs
Yeah but HARMs can tell diffrence beteween microwave radiation and a radar. Otherwise those things could not be fired ever or they would go after any source of radiation like neadby WiFi tower or something.
All fire control radars radiate microwaves
I am not the anon who thinks it would work to spoof a HARM, I'm just saying that missiles can and do have powerful radar emitters on them.
yes I am, it's still a very detectable radar signature. Again I don't think spoofing the HARM would work, but putting radar in a missile is not some kind of sci Fi solution. Commercial satcom HPAs can send data to a satellite 22,300 miles above the equator with like 40 watts TPO, you don't need a 10Kw radar set to get returns or have your chirps detected by a receiver designed for it.
>All modern radar guided air to air missiles radiate on their own moron
>A small final stage high frequency tracking radar directed in a 20 degree cone is the same output as a tracking radar searching the entire horizon
>And turn off the radar that's being hunted while your radiation-emitters
1st even when you turn them off there is still the data on the direction and intensity you had before - you then have the missile loiter in the area: the enemy can now either not use their SAMs allowing you to fly past and finish your airstrike - destroyed SAM or destroyed mission target, either option is a win
The missile also emits itself and can see the dead zone where the enemy reciever is lensing incoming signals into the reciever
You’re comparing a radar strapped to a missle built to be strapped to an aircraft with radar equipment that is so large its required to be towed with a truck.
Equip the decoy missile with an articulated radar refractor and aim a tight beam from the ground station at it; boom: the decoy missile now transmits/broadcasts however much noise the ground station tight-beams at it.
As people mentioned earlier in the thread, doppler effect allows you to filter fa's moving emitters out of valid targets
anon, you just turn off your radar
HARMs have historically had a terrible probability of kill, but they DO make it so you basically can't turn on your radar for more than 20-30 seconds at a time, or you risk a HARM being sent your way.
My guess is the next-gen SEAD missile, currently called Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW) will have radar guidance, but will likely have optical sensors for terminal guidance if it loses the radar source so even if it loses its primary target, as long as it can visually confirm SAM launchers, radar dish, etc it can still get a kill.
You know those captchas that show images is training ai recognition right? You probably have helped the MIC develop a missile to destroy a target based on imrec.
No, they dont need your fricking captchas to do that. You dont even need ai
>select the SA-300 radars in the boxes below
Now that would be a captcha but I've never got something that /k/
We're apparently only training AIs to target buses and stairs so presumably we're actually training Russian SRBM guidance systems.
>Can't you just deflect them with radiation-emitting missiles launched from the radar site, the same way flares obfuscate IR signatures? And turn off the radar
They mostly remember where the radar came from and just go there. A radar beacon could maybe work, there were some attempts by Russia early in the counter-attack phase to entrench the radar and then place clusters of radar reflectors on wrecked vehicles nearby so that it would be a stronger signal source than the radar itself but I don't know how successful they were.
>when Northrop signs on to Pride Month
Truly, the woke gay west are Russia's real enemy.
>You know those captchas that show images is training ai recognition right?
I'm doing my part by getting them wrong at least 4 times each.
Current HARMs have active radars to help them find their target when a radar is shut down and begins to move.
It's only a matter of time before Tacit Rainbow 2.0 gets made now that the US knows that treaties signed with russia are meaningless
Oh I am aware they have terminal active radar guidance already, but it's still not ideal. The newer versions even use millimeter-wave radar.
yikes
> The Naval Research Advisory Committee reported in 1989 that the project was not progressing well. In 1991 a DoD audit found numerous management problems. The program was canceled in 1991 (FY 1992), without any production units and at a total cost of around $4 billion
There were successful tests and in the subsequent years Israel(who else would it be), released the functionally similar IAI Harop which has already laid waste on the S-300 in the Armenia-Azeri conflict almost singlehandedly.
the US has cancelled or simply refused to purchase more successful projects than most countries have ever funded
The appeasement of russians in the 90s was the second biggest mistake after Lend-lease.
ADATS and AGM-124 are good examples of that.
Oh, and the project scared russians shitless to such an extent that they tried claiming that the 18kg warhead of the 200kg missile was meant to be a nuclear device and was a breach of arms limitation treaties.
>anon, you just turn off your radar
They remember your last known location.
And then they miss, especially if they're basing the location off a 20-30 second window of radar broadcast that doesn't get repeated.
Come on, HARMs simply aren't as good as you're implying.
A near miss from a HARM will frick your radar up.
what does the performance curve look like? w/o at least a basic idea of cep as a function of detection time, this discussion is total guesswork.
>captcha: nvgb8
>Defensive AIDS
kek
for offensive AIDS you'll have to ask the ukraine biolab branch >:^)
Most modern HARMs have inertial guidance as a secondary guidance. It will just keep heading towards the last radar emission. Not a problem for AWACS, since they are flying, but for a SAM site this is still a problem
There's so much explosive in this it doesnt matter and the big system like s400s have no time to pack up and leave
The point is blap one or two active radar sites, forcing the others in the AO to switch their radars off lest a HARM buries itself so far up the operators ass the words "LOCKHEED MARTIN" are stamped on the roof of his mouth.
You can. But thats why they're so expensive to have methods against that. Obvious one would be - you get a lock on radar, it aing gonna just teleport or wanish. You keep flying to it with inertial guidance, if signal doesnt match basic rules.
You can't pack enough electrical power into a missile. Even AMRAAMs only activate their radars for the last 5-10 miles.
>am I moronic
Yes. There’s no good radar emitting decoys outside of maybe some naval towed ones and they’re not exactly launchable. Turning off your radar only makes you slightly harder to hit with more modern ARM’s, as they’ll remember your location and guide themselves in with their own active sensors or inertial guidance - the missile knows where it is and it’s coming for your ass
>Turning off your radar only makes you slightly harder to hit with more modern ARM’s, as they’ll remember your location and guide themselves in with their own active sensors or inertial guidance
>NATO reportedly fired 743 HARMs during the course of the 78-day campaign, but could confirm the destruction of only 3 of the original 25 SA-6 batteries.
HARMs have horrible combat operational records. They're still nice to have, but they're not some magic bullet.
>HARMs have horrible combat operational records. They're still nice to have, but they're not some magic bullet.
They worked fantastic because an SA-6 with radar off can't shoot anything down. The serbs shot over 1000 SA-6/SA-3 for 2 kills.
Like I said, nice to have since they make it suicide to turn on your radar for an extended period of time, but again, no magic bullet.
I don't think we really want to talk about the effectiveness of Serbia's IADS considering they fired off more than 3 times the amount of SAMs than Iraq did in the '91 Gulf War but scored fewer hits and managed to damage or destroy fewer aircraft than Iraq did in 91, 03 or Afghanistan did in 01.
You can claim that only DEAD counts, but that's rather silly. Even before considering that if you can get an enemy radar to stop directing whatever it just fired you've also caused attrition to their inventory.
The Serbs were so terrified of HARMs that they were constantly repositioning after emitting/launching in order to avoid being destroyed. The AGM-88s effectiveness at SUPPRESSING the serbian ADS is what caused so few SAM units to be destroyed.
You can either attempt to use your SAMs and die like the Iraqis, or you can be overly skittish and risk not having your SAMs provide adequate protection of your airspace. Both are considered successes for the missile.
>The Serbs were so terrified of HARMs that they were constantly repositioning after emitting/launching in order to avoid being destroyed. The AGM-88s effectiveness at SUPPRESSING the serbian ADS is what caused so few SAM units to be destroyed.
>You can either attempt to use your SAMs and die like the Iraqis, or you can be overly skittish and risk not having your SAMs provide adequate protection of your airspace. Both are considered successes for the missile.
This is good thinking, the russian pig propaganda tends to cater the "they could not prevent 100% of losses!" type of shit but the MAIN question is - at what efficiency can you make the enemy AA work at?
If they go from 100% to 10%, it's a huge disability. 90% of air attacks are succesful after that and if you fight against the west, you also have to worry about fighting the best GROUND forces in the world.
>to 10%
more like 1% in case of serbs
I guess the only winning move is to have your radar always on, but also prioritize your anti-air to destroying anti-radar missiles.
This requires having very effective point defense systems because the frickoff big long range ones will exhaust their capacity very quickly.
It also doesn't work if the enemy deploys numerous towed decoys like MALD that confuse your systems and hide actual aircraft around them.
>HARMs have horrible combat operational records. They're still nice to have, but they're not some magic bullet.
And yet NATO operated over Serbia with almost total impunity. It seems that those missiles worked as intended by suppressing Serbian Air Defense.
you don't just fly to the source, be it heat or radar, anymore. the target position and movement itself is estimated in a state filter. so a radar-source moving through the air at Ma>2 would just be ignored
>Am I moronic?
Yes you are Anon.
e.g. HARM is really dumb but it's not as stupid as you. Although it is technology from 80's. It is still able to remember the position where the signal radiation came from and is home in on this position.
The best defense against this type of missile is to turn off the "main" radar and use medium and short range AA around the battery to get them down.
The missile knows where it is, bearing and range to target along with ground speed, it could very easily tell is an emitter is moving like a decoy missile.
As for turning the radar off the missile uses the fact it knows where it is and where the target was to head to where it was even after the radar is off.
The best way to defeat them is to intercept them with hard kill APS, much cheaper than interceptor missiles and just as effective as you can place them a safe distance from the radar.
>the missile uses the fact it knows where it is
You mean it knows where it isn't.
>Am I moronic or are anti-radar radiation-seeking missiles moronicly easy to defeat? Can't you just deflect them with radiation-emitting missiles launched from the radar site, the same way flares obfuscate IR signatures? And turn off the radar that's being hunted while your radiation-emitters are in the air, for added obfuscation.
You are not going to put very many watts in a missile package but even if so - what if the coders make a filter that disregards moving emitters, huh?
Sure, you can mimic an aircraft (emit its faint signal from a drone/missile) or jam radars from airplanes (emit all kinds of stuff, plenty at once) but these are very distinct features, there is no such thing as static decoy that has the functionality of a radar - it is going to be a radar and a loss in itself.
Modern ARMs have computers and active seekers that can make target estimates and reject false targets etc., but even pretending that the year is 1980, making a false target for an ARM is hard. The decoy has to output similar power levels as the protected radar and with similar modulation and so forth, so you effectively have to duplicate the system you are protecting.
Jamming is much more against active radars because the reflected power is so weak that even a modest jammer can match the output.
Decoys exist.
Hahahaha how the frick are HARMs even real homie hahahah homie just turn your radar off homie like homie just turn your sensors all off haha
I don't know if you're trying to make a joke or don't realize that anybody that has radars already has radar detectors.
It's a meme, newfriend.
Photon counters pop up looking for a launcher/radar in the last location. They are extremely cheap, they can spot things they think are targets. Cars all have them these days. Russians who knows.
Decoys only really work with the self protect mode on the AGM-88, since they just go for the nearest pinging radar.
Currently, the Ukraine is only able to use the Pre-Briefed mode on the AGM-88C HARM, due to them not having an in-aircraft interface. meaning they have to know what and where the radar, on top that, this has to be done on the ground due to no in aircraft interface.
If and when they get F-16s, it will allow Ukraine to use the Target Of Opportunity mode. which will allow for targeting on the fly.
As other anons have said, there is only 2 real ways to stop a HARM
Turn off the radar and pray the missile misses, or try to shoot down the HARM before it hits (good fricking luck with that.)
have some HARM codes
>Turn off the radar and pray the missile misses, or try to shoot down the HARM before it hits (good fricking luck with that.)
russia advanced radars all have lasers for this thats why counter offensive is failing.
>russia advanced radars all have lasers for this
But does russia have T I G E R S?
>russia advanced radars all have lasers for this
may I see them?
I believe Ukraine has only shown off they have AGM-88Bs.
>different CVNs have different radar sets
Neat
>or try to shoot down the HARM before it hits (good fricking luck with that.)
Russia has literally been doing this easily with SHORAD
These missiles are not the wonderwaffle you think they are
>Russia has literally been doing this easily with SHORAD
May i see it?
Sure
https://static.rusi.org/403-SR-Russian-Tactics-web-final.pdf
Air Defence section
Saving others the effort
Single mention of HARMs being intercepted en mass with no evidence, also claims a significant of GMLRS are being intercepted again without evidence beyond referencing an author interview with no link to transcripts - in other words 'Source - Trust me bro'
Im sure you two armchair reddit experts know better than a defence think tank…who were interviewing the actual ukranian commanders
Cope.
>who were interviewing the actual ukranian commanders
may i see them?
Yes anon, the premier defence think tank in the UK and one of the oldest and most prestigious in the world was lying about who they were interviewing. Close your eyes and go back to sleep now
>they lost all credibility with me, supreme general of reddit, when they posted some facts i didnt like
Well at least youre honest about it
>reddit reddit reddit
You're not fooling anyone bunkertroony.
Cope.
>Opinion pieces are facts
Anon why do you exist.
nta but cmon, anon. i'm an extremist turbogay about open access & reproducibility in my academic work, but fact-finding and analysis of a full-scale war is a huge constraint on what you can publish and when.
fundamentally, what changes if you have access to the interview right now vs. when the embargo is lifted?
unless you have neatly catalogued multimedia depicting a bunch of intercepts, or a bunch of intercept data from the AD systems that you trust not to be faked for some reason, you're still dealing in RUMINT. guys telling war stories. half of them will be dead by the time they would have been cleared to speak to the public, too.
For you to unironicly accept that HARMS are being intercepted enmasse as the article claims you need to accept the premise that Russian SHORAD is capable of reliably engaging them -which also means that by extension all guided munitions of a similiar size are being intercepted at a similiar rate: unless you can provide a credible reason why HARMS are uniquely more vulnerable than the substantially larger GMLRS munitions
You also have to contend with the fact that both sides of the war are in full propoganda swing, if the Russians where able to reliably intercept HARMS as the article claims then Russians would have SHORAD batteries rigged for filming any intercept be trumpeting this across national media, not to mention that the defense industries of every nation would be clammoring for funding grants to develop the next generation of Anti-Rad munitions - neither of which has occured
And finally any explaination would need to be caviated with an explaination of why this amazing SHORAD that is invalidating HARMS enmasse has only started operating since the begining of the year
None of it passes a basic bullshit sniff test, and anonymous trust me bro interviews simply ad to the non-credible nature of the claims
You arent an authority on the matter, I trust a 200 year old institution and Ukranian general staff officers over you.
Post literally any evidence or source to the contrary
You have made the claim - Extraordinary claims require evidence to support them
Other than that you are already aware that appeal to authority is a fallacy used to deflect when you have no evidence to support your claims
>You have made the claim
rusi made the claim sperg lord if you dont like it go email them about it
You have made the claim - You attempted to cite them as evidence and have attempted to hide behind their reputation, as mentioned this is an appeal to authority
They provide no evidence to support the claim, therefor you have no evidence to support yours
my post here
points out the obvious holes in the claims, none of which you have attempted to refute
You aren’t an expert or any authority on the matter. Literally what weight does anything you say have? Why should we trust the “holes” you have picked in the report of people a million times more knowledgable and connected than you?
>You aren’t an expert or any authority on the matter. Literally what weight does anything you say have?
As mentioned Appeal to authority doesn't support your argument - It's a deflection
>Why should we trust the “holes” you have picked in the report
Because they are obvious statements of what effect we would see internationally if the single line in the report that mentioned HARMS is true - You don't need to "trust" me to realize that if it where true we would see actions taken in reaction to that
> people a million times more knowledgable and connected than you?
Again appeal to authority, backed up with further attempts at attacking your opponents credibility
You are missing the fact that just because someone works for a charity that recieves government gibs doesn't make them in anyway more credible if the only evidence they offer is an interview that they will not share any details of then anyone else because there is no accountability for false or incorrect information
You are here making this none argument because you have not a shred of evidence to present that doesn't revolve on trusting an unverified anonymous source
Appeals to authority are valid when they concern experts on the subject matter vs anonymous internet posters. Sorry but your “holes” dont fly bud, no matter how much drivel you type out.
They are full time employees of RUSI and carry the full organisational weight of the institution behind them. The sources are also directly cited in the report. This is pure cope and pilpul, and its not working.
All you would have to do to prove him wrong is find an actual source to support you, a single video of an intercept made by the supposed super SAM system that is intercepting HARMS - the fact you are busy with this shit rather than linking anything speaks volumes.
he's right that the link you provided offers no sources beyond anonymous interviews with someone who's validity as a source can't be verified, or even the content of the interviews for any sort of validation, if you're happy to take RUSI at face value with no fact checking then you will find that Russian fanbois will struggle very much since their other recent article is about pussian malfeasance since the dam
I dont need to, i have literal ukranian general staff and intelligence officers telling me via 2 RUSI analysts with PHDs. My trust in the source is very confident
Can you post literally anything to back up your claims? What are your credentials on the matter?
>i have literal ukranian general staff and intelligence officers
may i see them?
Sure
https://static.rusi.org/403-SR-Russian-Tactics-web-final.pdf
They are cited in this report by the premier western defence think tank.
Their evidence is presented in the report. Again, what is your authority to talk on the matter?
>They are cited in this report
I don't see anyone cited, may i see at least one?
Literally read the citations and introductions page. I know this is hard for you to cope with.
May i see anyone from the citations, please?
>My trust in the source is very confident
Good for you, Without anything verifiable mine isn't and you continuing to attack people's credibility rather than addressing the point that it's a unverifiable claim is circular wienerstroking for both of you
Nobody cares about your opinion because you are completely anonymous and have absolutely no authority or knowledge on the subject matter. Let me guess, people should listen to you over a doctor for medical advice as well because listening to an accredited professional is an “appeal to authority”? Nice try bud
They are in the report, listed with positions and names where applicable
>They are in the report
May i see a single one?
>Nobody cares about your opinion because you are completely anonymous
It's almost like this is a Japanese cartoon porn forum that has a few other discussion forums slapped on - you're still not posting anything you can actually back up
My backup is a report compiled by 2 PHD holders who work with the defence industry and are employed by the most prestigious think tank on the planet who are interviewing intelligence officers, generals and general staff of the ukrainian army.
What are your credentials and background to be able to claim they are wrong? Please provide them.
Read the report anon
Please show me a single person they quote. I'm not asking much.
Anon, the sources are listed in the report
Why can't you name me a single person sourced?
Anon, the sources are all in the report
Anon, why can't you name a single one?
Because he's desperately avoiding the fact that the sourcing is anonymous
The sourcing is listed in the report. Are you claiming that classified information is now “anonymous”?
Note that anon but here is the relevant quote. The author appears to be protecting the original identity of his review sources. Unless you can show the author is some sort of grifter or infowar operative then it’s good enough for me. The Ukrainian officers could just be full of shit, I guess.
I don't see any Ukrainian officers in there, though.
Go further back up the report to the original citations
I don't see any actual Ukrainian officers speaking in there either.
Then you cant read. Or understand how citations work. Not my problem
So you can't provide any. Glad we got that sorted out.
You cant read.
You can't source.
You cant cope.
You can't be a woman.
You cant have sex with a woman
Your mom is always available.
Your mother is dead
>you are completely anonymous and have absolutely no authority or knowledge on the subject matter.
Exactly the same as you as a fellow poster, that is why you are attempting to trade on the reputation of someone else and avoiding the point that the source for the HARM intercept is not named meaning it is as credible as any other anonymous source
Im not the one making claims about the incorrect nature of an expert report, post your credentials and if you prove to be as much of an expert on the subject matter as RUSI maybe i can take you a little more seriously.
>Please doxx yourself to prove yourself to an anonymous face on PrepHole
Kek no, the fact you are still fixating on this rather than posting any verifiable source says an awful lot
My source is verified: its the report by RUSI
https://static.rusi.org/403-SR-Russian-Tactics-web-final.pdf
Is your claim now that RUSI is lying about their sources? Please clarify your position
>My source is verified
No it isn't that is entirely the point, its a line of text in the RUSI report which is not a quote and doesnt pretend to be one, taken to summarize an interview
with an anonymous 3rd party, which they do not provide any and you are deflecting rather than posting any hard 1st party evidence
The parties are not anonymous, they are vetted and conducted by RUSI. Some of their names are not in the report due to being in intelligence or general staff positions and are under classification, but positions are listed for all of them.
Why are you claiming the RUSI - and by extension the ukranian army, is making things up, or lying?
>The parties are not anonymous
Then can you provide the name or transcript? No.
>Why are you claiming the RUSI - and by extension the ukranian army, is making things up, or lying?
Again I point out the report does not provide any quote regarding HARMS directly from their source.
That means that the line with regards the statement it is a 2nd party's abbreviated opinion of what was said to a 3rd party that is neither identified, nor directly quoted.
This means that we are reliant on the 2nd party being aware of all possible biases of the unknown 3rd party in order to accurately synopsisize the interview.
You have then taken that shorthand synopsis and used it to form your opinion that the HARM is obsolete.
A claim that it is obsolete, based on a 2nd hand interpretation of a conversation with someone you have no knowledge of.
I assume I don't need to explain the concept of Chinese whispers, nor hearsay.
There is no 1st party evidence presented.
The author of the article has not only their writing here but hosts a podcast discussing the war, its effects and conclusions taken from it - he is open about the fact that the conclusions he draws are his opinions and makes it clear when citing hard facts, if it isn't a quote it is opinion.
There is no 3rd party, interviews are conducted by RUSI and the report authors directly with the cited officers and officials. Please stop this desperate cope.
Again, are you claiming that both the ukranian army and RUSI are lying? What are you basing this on and what is your authority to do so?
>there is no 3rd party
OK, you're evidently to moronic to even spoon-fed at this point.
The interviewed officials have access to all relevant data and are in positions directly related to the subject matter they are cited for. There is absolutely no 3rd party and “chinese whispers” of any kind.
Why do you not trust the ukranian army sources, nor the ability of two PHD researchers to report their findings?
What are your credentials? Other than a mountain of cope and wild denials based on something akin to “russians didnt post video”?
Please elaborate mr reddit general
>ukranian army sources
which ones?
The ones directly cited in the report
there are no directly cited sources there
Re read the report carefully
>The interviewed officials have access to all relevant data
You have no way of evidencing that,
You have no idea of the details they have access to, the details that where discussed, the tone an tenor of discussion or what caveats where added to the interview - the Single line on HARMS is specifically not a quote, where other parts of the article that ARE 1st party quotes are clearly marked
That line is a shorthand opinion synopsis of the authors interpretation of the interview - we have no context nor quote from that interviewee, at all.
At that point your argument is that their interpretation is correct based on no 1st hand evidence being presented due to assumed expertise.
The argument based on this opinion of this expert with no hard evidence, is that ARMs are obsolete.
I am pointing out the simple fact that if this opinion was credible then there would be several direct logical follow ups, none of which are present.
You are then fixated on not addressing any of these but instead to attack others credibility for daring to point out the flaws in your assumption
I trust my source which is a prestigious western think tank staffed by PHD researchers who work directly with the defence industry and is headed by former generals and intelligence officials.
What are your credentials to say they are incorrect? Please cite at least some experience to qualify your position
> That line is a shorthand opinion synopsis of the authors interpretation of the interview - we have no context nor quote from that interviewee, at all.
Why do you not trust them to be able to interpret the information correctly? They objectively have far more experience and qualification than you on the matter
Even if a full transcript of the interviews were provided, why should we listen to you over them?
who's "we"? you're the one troony that begs everyone to believe you.
You are the one desperately trying to deny a credible intelligence report based on nothing more than your own feelings. I am challenging your stupidity
based on the lack of any sources. all you do is shill some bullshit appeals to authority when you'd be foaming at the mouth at globohomosexual if they were stating that russian gear doesn't work.
The sources are listed in the report
you can't list them because there are none
Re read the report carefully
re post any if you have them. you won't because you'll run away and keep parroting your lies.
Re read the report. I know it burns your eyes to do so but the information is all there
running away and parroting lies again. there is no source.
The sources are listed in the report anon
https://static.rusi.org/403-SR-Russian-Tactics-web-final.pdf
no they aren't, lying parrot.
Read the report anon
Do they still read in alabama?
nta but is this really it?
It is, specificly the HARM line is the authors statement based on the interview of citation 61
But it doesn't source any names
This is the point that has been made repeatedly in the thread, that the sources are for all intents and purposes "trust me bro" especially when the interviews are not directly quoted from but paraphrased
It doesnt matter, the names are classified and RUSI vetts them personally.
This is the one cope you desperately cling to that you base the entire report being incorrect on.
Even if RUSI named the individuals, what would you do with that information? Call them up to tell them they are wrong about their own experiences in the war?
Delusional, moronic and pedantic cope.
B = ukrianian general staff officer of the J7
O = international partner advisor to ukranian forces
AB = ukranian BDA official
Look like some very solid sources to me.
What are your sources?
>Even if a full transcript of the interviews were provided, why should we listen to you over them?
*Yawn* This is getting tiresome, your fixation on trying to make this a paperwork exchange is beyond dull at this point - how qualified does a person have to be to be valid in your argument? Don't bother with pretending to answer, the fact you keep coming back to it shows how disingenuous it is.
The fact that the major MIC corporations, upper command in the US and all EU militaries that have access to the same sources that the author has have not been beating the drum that ARM munitions need a radical redesign or increased funding to remain relevant, by your own logic means that either experts in dozens of fields are idiots and this 1 article is a savant, or their interpretation is either wrong or atleast missing certain context - and without any exposure to what was said in the interview means that there is no way to validate said context
You are the one demanding transcripts and videos whilst claiming the authors are lying anon. Please stop projecting
RUSI conducted a thorough and credible intelligence report and there is no reason to doubt anything contained within it. Especially on the word of an anonymous internet poster like yourself.
>Especially on the word of an anonymous internet poster like yourself.
*yawn*
>You are the one demanding transcripts and videos whilst claiming the authors are lying anon.
I know this is hard to understand for a someeone like you, but it is possible for someone to be wrong without it being a knowing lie.
>there is no reason to doubt anything contained within it
Then why are the logical conclusions of the report not evident?
You arent in any position to make any logical conclusions about HARMS or their capabilities against the russian IADS currently in ukraine, because you have absolutely no qualification on the matter.
RUSI do, and i trust their expertise
You don't need a PHD to know that fire is hot you absolute disingenuous cretin.
If the primary weapon for SEAD/DEAD missions was compromised the MIC of every major Western nation would be either in apoplectic seizures or be running around like Coke riddled monkey deamons to get funding as the entire concept of airland battle theory collapsed
You arent qualified to be saying any of that, and you have zero insight into the current workings of the MIC, or what they are thinking
But you are? As you are the one that has made the claim that HARMS is obsolete - as that was not stated in the report
No, i trust RUSI and their expert reporting on the matter
You are the one that has made the statement that HARMS is obsolete.
That statement is nowhere within the RUSI report - HARMS is mentioned in a single line only and the word obsolete not stated
That isnt what we are discussing. Stop moving the goalposts
That is entirely what we are discussing.
Because it is a statement not in the report, you are hiding behind the report to impune anyone else's right to disagree with your conclusion by pretending it is the direct conclusion of the report.
>Appeals to authority are valid when they concern experts
This is just circular reasoning.
I remember when that guy used to post on the B9 board lol. What a weird reality. Apparently he maxed out all his credit cards before leaving the US and now Russia is making moves to deport him back lol
>reverse deportation
Now this is new. It usually goes the other way.
>report of people a million times more knowledgable and connected than you?
You aren't dealing with the people you claim to be trusting - the article is written by 2 journalists who write for the RUSI institute in their spare time when they have nothing that they can actually cite as journalistic sources
> Dr Jack Watling is Senior Research Fellow for Land Warfare at the Royal United Services Institute. Jack works closely with the British military on the development of concepts of operation, assessments of the future operating environment, and conducts operational analysis of contemporary conflicts.
> Nick Reynolds is the Research Fellow for Land Warfare at RUSI. His research interests include land power, wargaming and simulation. Prior to joining RUSI he worked for Constellis.
He holds a BA in War Studies and an MA in Conflict, Security & Development from King’s College London
They sound a lot more qualified to talk on the matter than you do
>They sound a lot more qualified to talk on the matter than you do
This is PrepHole, you have no idea who any poster is, nor their qualifications - the fact they present nothing besides a claim without evidence remains unchanged
You know the board of RUSI includes people like General Petraeus and the former head of MI6 right?
These people are not in the habit of making shit up, and they have very powerful connections and access to people you don't.
Your wall of cope doesnt change the fact that the report is true
>Your wall of cope doesnt change the fact that the report is true
>Source My uncle works for Nintendo
Cope.
it must be painful for you to look in a mirror
>reeeeeeeeee
Seethe piggy 🙂
i don't assign the claim any particular weight. i'm just not discounting it outright. i don't have sufficient expertise on HARM to call bullshit. and since they aren't using a controlled vocabulary for quantifying the interception rate, "en masse" could mean any number of things.
re: SHORAD – we don't have any real public disclosure of how the KPS is using their HARM supply. without the most basic info about mission profiles, it's aggressively futile to dwell on what the intercepts must look like for the RUSI one-liner to hold up to scrutiny.
re: visibility in media war – yes, this is incongruous / a smell. we saw them showcase MALD wreckage in the way everyone would expect, so having no parallel reporting on HARM is something to bear in mind.
if you mean me, nah. i didn't bring rusi into the thread. other guy did.
>if you mean me
ah scratch that. nesting was wonky
>RUSI is not a valid source now
mmmm delicious piggy seethe *~~)
they lost all credibility once bunkertroons started spamming them
>with no evidence
defense think tanks are ontologically evil, obviously, but RUSI is a scholastically non-shit one. also nearly 200 years old & very invested in maintaining its reputation.
authors of their ukraine shit have suggested that their dude-trust-me sources are embargoed, not permanently omitted. we'll have to see.
mmmmm ya....no.
Lofted Pre-briefed AGM-88s usaully come down at about 400-700 m/s and at about a 45 degree angle, SHORAD AA usaully doesn't have the reaction time or at times even the radar angle to strike incoming HARMS, typically the only thing that can shoot at lofted HARMs are the very dedicated SAM sites themselves and that requires them to turn on radar sooooo.
Interesting reading. It confirms some things I’ve believed and there’s some stuff I had no idea about. The Strelets system, anti-thermal tank coverings and AD systems able to connect to external radars.
samegay
>TURN YOUR RADAR ON, SIR!
Would you do it brothers
...I think I'm gonna go for my gun. Just out of spite.
Yes, I'd have enough time to run away after turning it on I think
harm can probably ignore the decoy by just checking for doppler effect from moving source or the fact the target is moving or moved then hone in on the last recorded location
imagine that you have a spotlight-seeking missile. it hunts spotlights that can illuminate entire football fields. you are trying to trick this missile with the flashlight on your cellphone. you will be not be successful
When LPI finally makes its way into AD systems the HARMs will be virtually obsolete.
if it were as easy as it sounds, they would already be doing it.
Technically it's possible with radar decoys.
does the HARM even need a replacement yet, or is it still doing the job just fine?
Its outdated and obsolete vs modern IADS, as RUSIs report shows
tell missile systems, that locked on targets dont move, its that easy
>Zigger shilling is in overdrive
So what happened today to merit such a reaction?
Cope.
YuriTarded
>Rushills unable to provide evidence for their moronic claims
>shilling in overdrive today
What happened? Is it the ATCAMS announcement? You’d think they’d get over it quickly considering they’ve been dealing with Storm Shadow for months now
i heard they lost another city today
>RUSI
>rushills
This board has officially gone full moron
you are free to end your shill campaign and leave
Watching your endless cope is so much more amusing
is that why you're crying in pain every time someone calls you out?
>says the guy screeching about “rushills” every time i post an intelligence report
Keep giving me bumps and yous 🙂
Yes you are a shill. cry about it like you always do.
You better email RUSI and inform them that they are russian shills anon.
Im sure they will take you very seriously 🙂
You will always be a shill. You will never pass.
Cope 🙂
Most newer harms are designed to keep track of the last location they detected when the radar is turned off.. it would probably be pretty easy to program them to also ignore the radar source that suddenly started moving at Mach 3..
I used to work on the AGM-88 for Texas Instruments back when that was done at the big TI facility on 183 in North Austin. So here's the stuff I can tell you. The missile remembers where it saw the radar source last. It detects the source passively, and doesn't send any signal itself. It has it's own multi faceted internal navigation and accurate map in it's memory of the operational area. So once the system detects its target, it keeps its location stored on the map and just chases it down. Lots of ways to defeat it. If the radar is on a mobile system, move quickly. Set up fake transmitters that turn on when the unit is active.. Though the HARM missile has ways of sniffing out the real signals vs the fakes. Simply intercept the missile. That was back in the early 1990's.. I'm sure it's been updated since then.. Probably.
Anons in this thread realizing
>RUSI reports are based on sources from Russian and Ukrainian first hand accounts
>They paint a partial picture of the conflict, and reflect the biases of each party
>To read the reports and believe that they are totally 100% correct is to be a total moron who misunderstands RUSI’s main goal with these reports
Anons in this thread
>desperately coping that they are wrong about a subject in which qualified experts and actual battlefield experience prove them wrong
Feel free to post any information otherwise that you have, or your qualifications
Hey anons, I’m unironically an expert in the field of electronic countermeasures and HARMS, worked for the Navy at Tyndall and the Air Force at Eglin. If anyone wants to cite me as an anonymous source, I’ll go on the record (anonymously) to say that Russia sucks donkey balls and has no real counter to modern, or even 30yo HARMS.
Noted. Thank you for your service.
You werent very good at your job then, because in field experience is proving thats not the case right now
To the moron fighting over the the RUSI report:
https://static.rusi.org/403-SR-Russian-Tactics-web-final.pdf
It's the exact same shit as "oh no! if well prepared you can defeat tanks, they are now obsolete!" and we know how it went.
HARMS are not ideally used in a vacuum, you do things to prevent intercept, have the wild weasel throw interference, maybe even jamming.
The equipment don't update to the latest version instantly, old HARMS will destroy old Radar who were first casualties in the war, now everyone try to field the last version ASAP.
The future will not just be better muh-stealth missiles or more missiles, it will be missiles communicating with each others, pretending to be the real one in turn while the target is also surrounded by extra equipment pretending to be the real radar...etc
A lot of the shit that worked before was because we didn't put actual tons of electronic everywhere.
The moron fighting over the report is the coping piggy who said it was literally impossible to intercept a HARM and that the entire report was fake.
Dont blame others for fighting ignorance and stupidity
I'm fighting ignorance and stupidity just answering you.
As I followed the shit flinging one of you is pushing HARM as basically obsolete, always intercepted, while the other pretend the report is bullshit.
My take is that the report is as legit as you can get but HARM would remain much more efficient if the Ukrainian weren't fighting with dozen of disadvantage and nearly no air-force.
>MUH RUSI SAID SO
meanwhile Millbloggers always complain about them being a threat. Why do you have to cope so fricking hard because your comprehension of the reality is so warped?