AIM-7 Sparrow & RIM-7 Sea Sparrow

It’s even got vectored thrust during the boost phase (has a integral boost/sustain grain) so in theory you could probably use it in very close too if you’d swapped out it’s SAR seeker for say the AIM-120’s seeker.

Just a note: ESSM has a boost only rocket motor http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-162.html

I should have specified. I’m including operators that actually use the AIM-7 on their aircraft. According to either the June or July issue of AFM, the Swiss use the AIM-120 and AIM-9, but it didn’t say anything about the AIM-7. Does the Luftwaffe indeed use the AIM-7?

No, but AIM-120 with F-4!

ESSM is solid propellant just like AMRAAM. and a lofted profile alone is still inferior to the missile being ramjet powered all the way. but i do agree an ESSM with an AMRAAM seeker would on these arguments be superior to AMRAAM itself.

JDRAAM is the still-on-paper AMRAAM replacement. i think it stands for “Joint Ducted Ramjet AAM”. see the other thread on BEST DOGFIGHT MISSILE.

my main issue with this idea is that the heavy ESSM when deployed as a long range AAM (Phoenix replacement) would have an inferior NEZ to the likes of AMRAAM, JDRAAM and Meteor. solid rocket-powered missiles (even with boost/sustain) are on the way out because they bleed energy very fast when they have to make turns to intercept a maneuvering target, especially during terminal homing..

1. AMRAAM is a solid propellant missile. ESSM would have a FAR more NEZ than AMRAAM.

2. For a long range shot you’re going to loft the thing which means when the missile enters the target area it’s got LOADS of energy.

even boost/sustain motors stop burning within seconds of launch, and the missile essentially glides the rest of the way. thrust vectoring to increase maneuvrability in terminal homing (at long range) would be useless simply becacause the ESSM would not be exhausting anymore…

If you’d read what I wrote I mentioned the thrust vectoring being useful AT THE BEGINNING OF FLIGHT. Also in a lofted trajectory you’re coming down as you enter the target area so you’ve still got plenty of energy.

this greatly reduces NEZ, especially against todays supermaneuvrable fighters. thats why ramjet power is coming in because the missile is powered all the way, reducing energy bleed. hence JDRAAM, Meteor and R-77PD.

I’m not saying ramjet power doesn’t have it’s merits (well except for it’s limited max speed) but then we’re comparing ESSM to AMRAAM. Both solid propelled missiles. BTW what is “JDRAAM”?

The thing is ESSM is almost double the weight of an AMRAAM however the lengths are pretty close to the same so it should even fit into the internal bays of the F-22. Where the air launched AIM-7 has about three times the range of the land-launched version if you applied the same to ESSM that should give you about 85 miles of range from the air. It’s even got vectored thrust during the boost phase (has a integral boost/sustain grain) so in theory you could probably use it in very close too if you’d swapped out it’s SAR seeker for say the AIM-120’s seeker.

my main issue with this idea is that the heavy ESSM when deployed as a long range AAM (Phoenix replacement) would have an inferior NEZ to the likes of AMRAAM, JDRAAM and Meteor. solid rocket-powered missiles (even with boost/sustain) are on the way out because they bleed energy very fast when they have to make turns to intercept a maneuvering target, especially during terminal homing.

even boost/sustain motors stop burning within seconds of launch, and the missile essentially glides the rest of the way. thrust vectoring to increase maneuvrability in terminal homing (at long range) would be useless simply becacause the ESSM would not be exhausting anymore.

this greatly reduces NEZ, especially against todays supermaneuvrable fighters. thats why ramjet power is coming in because the missile is powered all the way, reducing energy bleed. hence JDRAAM, Meteor and R-77PD.

The thing is ESSM is almost double the weight of an AMRAAM however the lengths are pretty close to the same so it should even fit into the internal bays of the F-22. Where the air launched AIM-7 has about three times the range of the land-launched version if you applied the same to ESSM that should give you about 85 miles of range from the air.

True. The answer to the Phoenix’ retirement perhaps? 😀

Wow. That’s pretty cool.

Is there an air-launched equivalent to the ESSM?

I mean in terms of seeker performance, fuzing, etc.

Perhaps the AIM-7P?

AIM-7P was still born. The AIM-7R was suppose to have dual-mode guidance but it was still your basic AIM-7. The ESSM is the RIM-162. About the only thing it’s got in common with the original is that the forbody is 8″ in diameter. That’s it. There is no air-launched version.

I don’t think you would need it. AIM-9X and the likes are very effective new WVR weapons. And AMRAAM at close range, say, within 10km, is very deadly and would be very hard to escape from.

The thing is ESSM is almost double the weight of an AMRAAM however the lengths are pretty close to the same so it should even fit into the internal bays of the F-22. Where the air launched AIM-7 has about three times the range of the land-launched version if you applied the same to ESSM that should give you about 85 miles of range from the air. It’s even got vectored thrust during the boost phase (has a integral boost/sustain grain) so in theory you could probably use it in very close too if you’d swapped out it’s SAR seeker for say the AIM-120’s seeker.

Finland doesnt use Sparrows on their Hornets, they use AMRAAMs.

The economy variant Don Chan? I would not want to be in there if a sudden real-life threat emerged, necessitating launch of the real missile on the lower left…

*OFF-TOPIC ALERT*

Sea Sparrow humour. Dates unknown.
Japan.
NATO?

Totaly new build.

The ESSM ( despite its name) has little to do with the original Sea Sparrow.

RIM-162 ESSM

Are ESSM remanufactured Sea Sparrows or are they new build?

PhantomII,

The ESSM is quite capable of engaging targets close in or out to it’s max range. And when I thought about an airborne equivalent of ESSM, I thought why? Current missiles – like the AIM-9X – can do the job just as well against close in targets. Now, when you talk BVR, again why would you need an ESSM equivalent? AMRAAM uses active seeker terminal guidance and is fire and forget, while the ESSM uses CW terminal guidance like the old AIM-7. But like I said the AMRAAM can also be used effectively against targets fairly close in, where it would go active almost from the moment of launch.

There is no airborne equivalent of ESSM.

Thanks for the update on Singapores Vipers SOC I didn’t know that.

And as I mentioned earlier, you’re correct about the Luftwaffe’s Phantoms.

If I’m not mistaken, they are the only Phantom operator to never use the AIM-7.

GDL, I must say I’m confused about what you’re referring to when you talk about the AIM-9X.

The ESSM is still considered a BVR weapon is it not? I mean compared to the SM-1 and SM-2 its got a short-range, but it can still engage targets out of range of the Mark 1 eyeball right?

I was just wondering if there was an airborne equivalent with similar seeker performance, fuzing, warhead, etc. Obviously the folding fins part wouldn’t apply.

The Luftwaffe never used the AIM-7 on their F-4s to the best of my knowledge. When they desired BVR capability, they launched the F-4F ICE program to add the AIM-120.

And Singapore uses the AIM-7 on their F-16s as well.

Wow. That’s pretty cool.

Is there an air-launched equivalent to the ESSM?

I mean in terms of seeker performance, fuzing, etc.

Perhaps the AIM-7P?

I don’t think you would need it. AIM-9X and the likes are very effective new WVR weapons. And AMRAAM at close range, say, within 10km, is very deadly and would be very hard to escape from.

Wow. That’s pretty cool.

Is there an air-launched equivalent to the ESSM?

I mean in terms of seeker performance, fuzing, etc.

Perhaps the AIM-7P?

The ESSM has been designed, as another evolution of the RIM-7 series, to better handle the new generation of high speed anti-ship missiles first and foremost. The quad pack fitting is brilliant too, gives you an amazing ripple fire effect if you have multiple inbound targets, provided the ship can handle all the tracks.

Evolved Sea Sparrow can quadruple the missile loadout of a ship, each vertical launch cell can fit 4 ESSM.