http://www.armedforces.co.uk/raf/listings/l0039.html http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-88.htm

AIUI, ALARM is more capable, but HARM is cheaper and more plentiful. ALARM is more likely to get the target, HARM is more likely to hit Bulgaria, but if you can afford a whole bunch more, it doesn't matter as much. The radar still has to shut off or eat the missile.

Just a thought, With the western militaries going towards less,smarter wepaons is not the ALARM the ideal SEAD weapon as opposed to the ( and i know ithis is an exageration) shotgun approach of HARM?

Hey, I'm new to the board but I have some experience with the HARM, but not the ALRM. The HARM is an effiective weapon system for what it was designed for, however it does have it's limitations which the USAF and USN are always upgrading to get rid of based on current and future threats, an example would be the AARGM and the HDAM. http://www.rps.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055752.pdf#search='HARM%20HDAM%20Raytheon' http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aargm.htm

Acoording to the Jane's Defence Weekly, 12 April 2006 (Vol 43, Issue 15) pg 11, "Physically the same size as the legacy AGM-88B/C High Speed Anti Radiation Missile, the upgraded Advanced Anti Radiation Guided Missile retains the HARM's aft section's rocket motor and fins, and the warhead in the midsection. However, it includes a new guidance section in the nose and a modified common control unit. A new mid-section provides improved anti-radiation homing and also netted targetting capabilities with a real-time intelligence feed via an integrated broadcast satellite receiver. A fully funded upgrade will also see a GPS section inserted and software modifications to afford a secondary capability to engage emerging time-critical strike targets in a point-to-point mode. The AARGM is to execute trial firings with the point-to-point upgrade later in 2006, ahead of a 2008 production decision.