Do SARH missiles still have utility in modern warfare? It seems

bump for op, am curious.

>>34256382
They are cheap and are used in ESSM and russian AA (Buks, S-series)

>>34256382
In installations, their flaws are lessened. Sure, the radar returns need to be strong enough to track, but a Burke has a big fucking radar. Yeah, illumination needs to continue, but a Buk isn't exactly going to crank a HARM. In aerial use, they're objectively inferior to an active weapon, but, if you're broke, I'd take having 100 Sparrows over having 10 AMRAAMs.

>>34256659
I can see their utility on relatively low mobility things like ships and ground defense. I was referring moreso to their use on aircraft. It seems somewhat counter productive when you have to light up your target with a second, higher powered radar signal when you're trying to be cheeki breeki

>>34256382
In the sense that some missiles are better than no missiles, yes.

Also in a case of range. If you've got Sparrows and you're only going up against Sidewinders, you've got the advantage in first shot.

SARH are relatively low tech, and air war is a high tech game. Of course ARH are superior. However, that does not mean that inferior is completely useless.

>>34257165

>a Buk isn't exactly going to crank a HARM

I'm confused, what do you mean by crank?

>>34258611
dodge.

>>34258669

Thanks