I know HARM missiles are primarily designed for hitting terrestrial radar stations for SAM sites, but the principle of the weapon made me wonder if they could theoretically be used to knock out AWACs.
If the AWAC painted the attacker with a radar signature, couldn’t the attacking plane launch a HARM missile and simply let the missile follow the enemy radar signal back to its source (the AWAC)? I heard that HARM missiles also have a very long range- 80 miles or so. Would it be possible for a fighter to launch a missile like this at an AWAC as soon as the AWAC detects the fighter?
In an aerial battle, an AWAC seems like a pretty big target. In Clancy’s The Bear and the Dragon, a Chinese Mig force does what amounts to a suicidal attempt at shooting down an American AWAC. While this is fiction, other than that example, I cannot think of any instances where an American AWAC was shot down by an enemy aircraft.
I should also add that when I mention AWAC I am referring to the E-3 hawkeye…just realized that AWAC refers to a TYPE of aircraft, not a specific model.
For the record Hawkeye refers to a specific plane, the umman E-2. The E-3 is designated Sentry.
Yes, a HARM could shoot down an E-3 provided the crew were dumbasses and let it happen.
“Damn Bob, somebody fired a HARM at us.”
“Yeah Ted, that’s a bitch.”
“It’s gonna ride our transmission and blow us right the hell out of the sky.”
“Yeah, I suppose we could stop transmitting so it had nothing to home in on but… nah.”
“It would have been a good idea for us to have sent one of the fighters we’re controlling to take out the threat.”
“Whatcha gonna do?”
“I’ve had a good run, I regret nothing.”
I don’t think the flight envelope of an A-G missle would work well but to be used against an airplane you need an enemy that is fairly cooperateive.
They get sort of confused when a ground-based radar moves, so I would guess that HARM is not up to tracking a target that is moving several hundred kilometers per hour.
Yes, HARMs are (er, were, see below) only good against actively transmitting radar sites. Over the years the technology has improved but so has the complexity - it used to be easy to distinguish a “Soviet” radar, but now countries use radars from wherever they can, resulting in a very difficult IFF (Identify/Friend/Foe) situation for the HARMs.
Newer models with GPS (called AGM-88D Block 6, retrofits were scheduled to happen last year) could foil this - SAM site fires up it’s radar, HARM targets it, plots the position with GPS, SAM shuts off and still gets hit. It’s not perfected, but as always work is being done.
This won’t work against an airplane which is constantly moving. But for the sake of argument, let’s say that a HARM could track an aircraft.
As Padeye said, several things would have to go wrong before this could happen. The AWACS are very valuable assets and as such are guarded closely or kept far from the fight (think aircraft carrier in the air). So, an aircraft (no AWACS would be flying within range of ground SAM sites) would need to penetrate the fighter cover to get within 60-80 miles of the AWACS unseen by both the AWACS and its defensive ring. It then would have to fire a missile that again would go undetected by either the AWACS or its escorts. The missile would then have to track the AWACS while the oblivious crew continued to transmit energy.
So how would an airforce go about knocking these birds down? They are very valuable assets, and I’m sure many nations are aware of their capability. Losing one would certainly have a chaotic impact of a battle as well.
I mentioned HARM missiles, because they are the only kind of missile I know that can track an enemy radar stream BACK to its source, and they have pretty long range for an air-to-air missile. If the US was up against equally competent enemies, how would they destroy the enemy AWACS? Does this boil down to the simple answer of ‘on the ground’? Is it impossible for one to get shot down given the tactics/technology used?
Space based lasers, particle beams or good old fashioned death rays might be ideal for the job. I think this issue of Popular Mechanics details some weapons along these lines. Of course you could always use some nukes targeted for airbursts in the general area of the target.
Well, you could hit an E-3 with a standard heat-seeking Sidewinder, of course. It’s still an airplane!
The problem would be getting the aircraft close enough to actually fire the missile.
To do this, send a group of fighters toward the AWACS at high speed. Get close, maneuver like you’re going to shoot, and get the AWACS defensive airplanes to rush to its defense. The AWACS turns tail and runs with its minimum defensive complement (the rest are fighting off your fighter group #1). Now send in Attack group #2, with orders to shoot down the fighters first. You send in 10 fighters, they have 5 left on the AWACS. Missiles fly, leaving you with 4 fighters and a vulnerable AWACS. It’s now just an airliner, so your fighters line up behind it and fire off 4 heat-seekers. Scratch one AWACS.
Cost to you: 6 downed fighters with the last ditch defense, call it 3 for the first confrontation. Nine fighters lost for one AWACS. If you can keep up this loss rate, more power to you. If not, the war will be short!
Not impossible , just expensive. While in the novel mentioned , the chinese wasted an entire regiment to get close , but no cigar. Red storm rising , also by clancy , he projected the then new F-19 stealth fighter , ( now the 117) to get as close as 50 miles to an american awacs , while training to shoot down russian mays , which was an analog of the sentry.
Probably the easiest way , would be to use F-14s and their phoenix missiles , in home on jam , and use the energy of the radar itself to guide the missiles in,
The (admittedly quick-and-dirty) calculations above for fighter losses were based on the fact that you were trying to shoot down an AWACS. The side with the AWACS will obviously have better intel and SA, and will thus be able to deploy and vector its fighters more efficiently. That’s why you lose 6/10 fighters in a (successful) effort to shoot down five of theirs. YMMV, of course.