If an EA-18G is ever in a WVR situation, things have gone seriously awry.

It would be so much simpler for a Super Hornet with the HARM against a Russian SAM though right right?

You wouldn’t use a Super Hornet/HARM to target an S-300/400 site though.
To play Devil’s Advocate- the Super Hornet could at least get closer before being spotted, and with its towed decoys, and EA capabilities, it’d have a higher chance of survival.

Russian land-based SAM systems have no serious equals, IMO. Yes, AEGIS is the best sea-based system, but Patriot doesn’t hold a candle to the S-300PM, let alone the S-400. Mind you, the gap is narrowing. Medium-range systems like MEADS or even VL-MICA are just as effective as advanced Russian offerings like the 9M96 or Buk-M2, but nobody has really matched what the S-300PM offers, or the S-300V series for that matter.

Are you speaking in terms of the engagement envelopes, or in terms of the hit probability? I certainly wouldn’t want to be flying towards a target that had PAC-2/3s defending it.

Thought i would start something about SAM destroyer Aircraft.

When we talk about wild weasel aircraft do these have any differences from normal aircraft apart from the addition of anti radiation missiles? Do they have any different avionics or external pods? I think the USAF uses F16’s that have the designation CG or something. Are the F16’s just standard and get the designation when they carry HARM’s on a SAM destroyer mission or do the pilots train especially for this role?

I have heard ALARM is alot better than the HARM missile is the US upgrading or replacing HARM with something better? I did hear something about using GPS bombs i think?

http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Radiation-Missiles/AGM-88E-AARGM_a001155005.aspx

In the short term, the newest variant of the HARM will be far more capable, and eventually the JDRADM will be used.

As for avionics on the F-16CJs-

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html

he F-16CJ/DJ Block 50D/52D have the HARM avionics/Launcher Interface Computer (ALIC) resulting in a full autonomous employment capability of the HARM missile. This capability adds the SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) mission to the already extensive list of missions the F-16 is capable to perform.

The aircraft features full integration for the advanced AGM-88 HARM II and Shrike anti-radiation missiles, a Lockheed Martin Pave Penny laser ranger pod and the Texas Instruments (now Raytheon) AN/ASQ-213 HTS (HARM Targeting System). The pod is mounted on the starboard intake hardpoint and contains a super-sensitive receiver that detects, classifies, and ranges threats and passes the information to the HARM and to the cockpit displays. With the targeting system, the F-16CJ/DJ has full autonomous HARM capability. The HTS pod can be omitted however – in that case, RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft support the F-16 in sorting and prioritizing targets in dense threat environments.

Very nice display. That was a pretty quick take off roll, though further than 100m.

it is undoubtedly the largest signature of any 4th generation plane

only the f-15 is even in the same class

you’re comparing the side RCS of an amraam to that of the flanker’s massive tails?

that’s not a winning proposition . . .

Not to mention the Flanker’s engines.

I strongly doubt anybody here is able to say that with any confidence. Yes, the SH RCS is substantially lower and will offset the more powerful Flanker radar to some unknown degree, but I can’t quite believe it would gain a first-look first-shoot advantage like a true stealth aircraft such as the F-22 would. With external weapons, the difference in terms of RCS just doesn’t even come close to being big enough, IMHO.

Unless the SH is clean (in which case its presence will hardly put the fear of god into the Flanker pilot), it is not unreasonble to expect the Irbis to detect it at up to 150nm, BTW (assuming a RCS of 1m²).

My point wasn’t about the Irbis’ power, but the Flanker’s RCS. If all things are equal but the radar, then it’d be simple to say that the more powerful radar has the advantage(but all things aren’t equal here). What I am saying is that the APG-79 also has a very long range, so with the offset of the increased Flanker RCS(vs the SH), doesn’t make it a certainty that the Irbis will have the first look advantage.

http://ozzyblizzard.blogspot.com/2008/12/air-power-australia-flanker-analysis.html

6) The ability to achieve first shot is not dominated by kinematical performance in the vast majority of cases; information is the critical asset in this instance. The F/A-18F has significant RCS reduction in the frontal aspect, reducing its clean RCS to<.5m2 (likely .1m2). Even when carrying weapons the Rhino’s frontal RCS would be far smaller than a Flanker’s (SU-30’s frontal RCS is an estimated 4m2 + weapons). In real terms this will significantly reduce the flanker’s detection radius (although not to the level of VLO). Furthermore the F/A-18F is equipped with the AN/APG-79, LPI AESA radar. The exact detection and track performance of Irbis/BARS PESA and the APG-79 AESA radars are classified, but considering the generic performance bonuses AESA systems enjoy it is probable the AN/APG-79 provides better D&T performance. Additionally the LPI AESA’s random frequency modulation makes it extremely difficult to effectively jam; the system should enjoy much better ECCM performance than its Russian peers.

But even if the generationally inferior Russian radars enjoy comparable D&T performance the Rhino’s reduced RCS means it will detect the Flanker first. Furthermore the massive power output and single frequency use of the Russian super PESA’s means they will be detectable by the Rhino’s fully digital AN/ALR-67(v)3 RWR well outside said radars detection footprint. The combination of ESM/RWR detection, superior radar performance and smaller RCS ensures that in the vast majority of scenarios the Rhino will detect the Flanker first. First look is critical to enabling first shot (hence the term first look, first shot, first kill). Once you detect the threat without being counter detected the pilot can take the positional advantage or disengage at will, by achieving first look the Rhino enjoys the ability to prosecute the engagement on his own terms. Attaining positional advantage significantly increases the chances of a successful engagement; engaging the enemy while remaining undetected (outside of the threats radar footprint i.e. anywhere but in front of it) while in a high energy state and possibly from higher altitude will have devastating effects on the target.

Delaying the detection of the missile shot as long as possible increases the NEZ dramatically, gives the pilot less time to react and keeps end game energy high through lack of target evasion. First look has nothing to do with kinematical performance and everything to do with information dominance, the high ground in contemporary warfare and the dominating factor in modern BVR engagements. Considering the Super Hornet will most likely enjoy first look, and is equipped with BVR missiles that provide a 30% larger engagement envelope I think its reasonable to assume in most occasions the F/A-18F will achieve first shot, and again kinematic performance has little to do with it.