Talk:Anti-radiation missile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.


"Smart SAM operators learned to turn their radar off when an ARM"

Supposedly they also ran microwave ovens elsewhere with the doors permanently detached as decoys. Not sure if this is an urban legend or not. — Omegatron 18:28, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
This is true, but not like that. Microwave magnetrons were removed and a rotating focusing dish used to simulate radar rotation with car batteries providing power. During the Kosovo war, Serb forces used extensive decoys, wooden frames covered in tin foil with a heat source inside to simulate tanks, rotating microwave ovens to simulate SAM systems and so on. NATO pilots knew it was probably a decoy, but they couldn't take a chance at it so they were under orders to engage even suspicious equipment. Not an urban legend, there used to be videos of such attacks on YouTube a long time ago, not sure if they're still there. (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Some SAM systems utilise huge missiles which are able to accelerate up to incredible speeds (some as high as Mach 10), which means that if the ARM is to be useful in a 'duel' between an aircraft and a SAM site, the ARM should be able to fly to and hit the SAM site faster than the SAM can fly to and hit the aircraft." - Doesn't it depend on how soon the SAM can *launch* rather than how fast it can fly? Hitting the radar doesn't save you if the SAM is already on its way. - Richardcavell 02:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It would depend on the tracking systems used by the missile in question. If it is dependent on guidance from the launcher unit, then destroying the tracking radar on the ground would render the missile unguided. If it has it's own guidance radar, or an Infra-Red tracking unit, then you would have to use countermeasures and evasive action to avoid the missile, but you could at least prevent more missiles from attacking you in succession. Also, the primary mission of a SEAD aircraft is often to defend other aircraft; their own survival isn't quite as important.--Raguleader 20:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
No, it depends on the flight time of the ARM. Detection time is equal, ie the SAM complex detects the Fighter at the same time the Fighter detects the SAM complex. So the thing which matters is, will the ARM fly fast enough to kill the SAM detection equipment before the SAM can be guided to the Fighter. SAMs are guided by ground equipment, if you knock out the ground equipment with ARM before the SAM strikes you, you have a higher chance of survival by engaging ECM. Also in question is the ability of ground SAM complex to engage the ARM itself either with projectiles or with missiles such as the Tor M1 which is designed to hit missile profile sized targets (tests included baseball sized metallic sphere at 11km) as well as upgraded Soviet Shilkas which have radars capable of tracking missiles and thus provide a CIWS protection level to larger SAMs, a faster ARM would be harder to hit. (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

AMRAAM as ARM[edit]

Either the definition in the first section needs to be changed or the AMRAAM shouldn't be mentioned, because the AMRAAM in HOJ mode does not home in on the emissions of the enemy's radar but of its radar jammer. - Dammit 11:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Such things as multimode operations of missiles are irrelevant here, and you are just being dumb in harping on such things. (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Update-marking for section Air-to-Ground[edit]

Some IP tried to add an update-marking. I found the following hidden remark: "Cluster bombs have been been outlawed by treaty, the tactics here are no longer relevant." -- Tomdo08 (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The correct spelling is "antiradiation" missile[edit]

The correct spelling is "antiradiation" missile. You can see this spelling in numberous Wikipedia articles by searching for the article on "antiradiation missile" and just look for the many article in which this appears, such as in the High-speed antiradiation missile. The name "antiradiation missile" should at least link directly to this article. There are also hundreds of other words that start with "anti" and with no hyphen. (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

That appears to be somewhat of an ENGVAR issue, as many reliable sources and company product pages use the hyphen. Point taken about redirects, and I've created it. - BilCat (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)