Sparrow vs Amraam

Can’t AMRAAM function in SARH mode as well?

Yep thats it, I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the manufacturer sent someone out to one of the carriers after they started to get complaints about the sparrow during Nam and he couldn’t believe what he was seeing when he got there. The weapons were being treated with no respect to their maintenance requirements.

If my recollections are correct, munitions crews were observed rolling Sparrows along the flightdeck on their wings & fins – bump, bump, bump.

Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

The advantage of Sparrow over AMRAAM is at close range, where the target illumination from the F-15’s radar is going to be a lot stronger than the emission from the AMRAAM’s battery powered seeker. With this sheer illumination power, being “xrayed” as it is called, the Sparrow can lock on to the target faster than the AMRAAM.

there was no F/A-18 Hornets in this engagement. Two F-14’s and two F-15’s. the Tomcats fired two AIM-54’s and the F-15, two AIM-120’s all four missing their intended targets (two Mig-25’s) that were already some fifty miles away when missiles were released. anyway the two Foxbats ran out of gas trying to get away from the missiles so we chocked up two kills from it!

That was the biggest problem with the early Sparrow’s valve driven electronics, the fact that they have to have lots maintenance or they don’t work as designed. Plus the fact that the RoE made most engagement’s happen within its effective minimum range. Sky Flash and the 7M didn’t have those problems.

Same problem as an IR missile at short range, however that is why the AMRAAM has the data link, so that it can be looking in the right place when the seeker goes active. That is of course if you remember to fit the data link to your Tornado F3, opps. To be honest, the fire and forget system in the AMRAAM does give you options in how you plan your engagement, which in employing a SARH weapon you do not have.

Yep thats it, I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the manufacturer sent someone out to one of the carriers after they started to get complaints about the sparrow during Nam and he couldn’t believe what he was seeing when he got there. The weapons were being treated with no respect to their maintenance requirements.

Considering the numbers fired in comparison to AMRAAM the Sparrow has quite a good record. Even the bad rap that it got during Vietnam was slightly unfair as the weapon accounted for a significant number of the total kills by US fighters and many of the issues were due to bad training, handling and maintenance. For example the USN earlier on during the war would constantly bolt the same weapons back on the wings regardless of launches and traps without significant maintenance. The AIM-7 required detailed and careful maintenance before and after each mission which wasn’t happening, once this had been picked up the ground crews given better training in the weapon system then things got better.

That was the biggest problem with the early Sparrow’s valve driven electronics, the fact that they have to have lots maintenance or they don’t work as designed. Plus the fact that the RoE made most engagement’s happen within its effective minimum range. Sky Flash and the 7M didn’t have those problems.

There are also advantages to non active missiles like Sparrow and Skyflash, with fire and forget systems like AMRAAM there is a risk that they will home on the wrong target once they go active.

Same problem as an IR missile at short range, however that is why the AMRAAM has the data link, so that it can be looking in the right place when the seeker goes active. That is of course if you remember to fit the data link to your Tornado F3, opps. To be honest, the fire and forget system in the AMRAAM does give you options in how you plan your engagement, which in employing a SARH weapon you do not have.

Considering the numbers fired in comparison to AMRAAM the Sparrow has quite a good record. Even the bad rap that it got during Vietnam was slightly unfair as the weapon accounted for a significant number of the total kills by US fighters and many of the issues were due to bad training, handling and maintenance. For example the USN earlier on during the war would constantly bolt the same weapons back on the wings regardless of launches and traps without significant maintenance. The AIM-7 required detailed and careful maintenance before and after each mission which wasn’t happening, once this had been picked up the ground crews given better training in the weapon system then things got better.

There are also advantages to non active missiles like Sparrow and Skyflash, with fire and forget systems like AMRAAM there is a risk that they will home on the wrong target once they go active.

Good night

Well then you’re basically touching on a budgetary issue and not a technical one.

Reminds me of the press conference, during the actual war itself, given by “Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf”. When after showing to the press, AH-64 gun camera video footage of the same helicopters attacking Iraqi armoured vehicles, he then turned around and wondered out loud as to why the Apache pilots used their Hellfire missiles to destroy the Iraqi vehicles when they could have used the “cheaper” 30mm cannon instead!

If a cheaper weapon was actually available to use instead, it probably was a waste of money… but who cares?? Just because the Sparrow was used when it didn’t need to be used doesn’t imply that it isn’t a useful weapon in other situations… and it doesn’t mean it’s an unreliable weapon one either – so stop calling it that.

Well, the sparrow is reliable

No, i am not saing it is irrilevant, i say that an ureliable missile carried in large number and used, as stated by many sources in visual engagements is a waste of money.

Well then you’re basically touching on a budgetary issue and not a technical one.

Reminds me of the press conference, during the actual war itself, given by “Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf”. When after showing to the press, AH-64 gun camera video footage of the same helicopters attacking Iraqi armoured vehicles, he then turned around and wondered out loud as to why the Apache pilots used their Hellfire missiles to destroy the Iraqi vehicles when they could have used the “cheaper” 30mm cannon instead!

If a cheaper weapon was actually available to use instead, it probably was a waste of money… but who cares?? Just because the Sparrow was used when it didn’t need to be used doesn’t imply that it isn’t a useful weapon in other situations… and it doesn’t mean it’s an unreliable weapon one either – so stop calling it that.

I remember 1999 , amraam and phoenix VS MIG 25

Yep, my mistake, I though it was earlier than 1999. Two AIM-54 fired by two F-14D’s, don’t know how AMRAAM were fired in the engagement by the Hornets. On the whole the record for the AMRAAM is a lot better that the Sparrow because of its design and more modern electronics. If the state of the art in the 1950’s had allowed an active radar Sparrow II to be built to the same specs as an AIM-120, the Sparrow III (SARH) versions would never have seen the light of day.

Obviously the pilots involved selected to use the AIM-7 instead of the AIM-9 in most of the air combats – and they must have had their reasons for doing so, presumable because the Sparrow ensured a better likelihood of a kill?

I don’t know… the second kill by usn F 18 was done by a AIM-9 : the pilot fired a first missile he though was a sparrow, but, seeing a strange smoke plume, realized something was doing bad with the AIM 7, so reselected the Sparrow mode on the trigger and fired a second missile (a sparrow this time). the sidewinder hit the target( MIg 21) and the sparrow flown in the ball of fire.
(source “the Pentagon Paradox” J.P. Stevenson)

Read somewhere that AIM-7M SSKP was about 33% in GW1. AIM-120 record was very good until an incident back in 93 (I think) where a large number of AMRAAMS (and a few AIM-54s) were fired well outside their no escape zones at Iraq aircraft in the southern no fly zone by USN Hornets and Tomcats.

I remember 1999 , amraam and phoenix VS MIG 25

No, i am not saing it is irrilevant, i say that an ureliable missile carried in large number and used, as stated by many sources in visual engagements is a waste of money.

Read somewhere that AIM-7M SSKP was about 33% in GW1. AIM-120 record was very good until an incident back in 93 (I think) where a large number of AMRAAMS (and a few AIM-54s) were fired well outside their no escape zones at Iraq aircraft in the southern no fly zone by USN Hornets and Tomcats.

You started of by arguing that the Sparrow was unreliable but now you’re just saying that it’s irrelevant, what exactly is your line of argument?

What do you mean by all its kills weren’t BVR? Have you got a source for that, or were those the actual RoEs? Obviously the pilots involved selected to use the AIM-7 instead of the AIM-9 in most of the air combats – and they must have had their reasons for doing so, presumable because the Sparrow ensured a better likelihood of a kill?

And if they fired 2 missiles to every target it means that :

1
they knew the radar missile does not work well
2
for exemple the F15 was so big and expensive because it had to carry ineffective missiles…

Like I said, I don’t know for sure if the USAF pilots actually fire their Sparrows in pairs, but I’m sure someone else on the forum will soon enlighten us.

sorry for the form of my post reply:(

And if they fired 2 missiles to every target it means that :

1

for exemple the F15 was so big and expensive because it had to carry ineffective missiles…

Yes, it is a far better record than the ones showed in Vietnam by E version, but the real problem is that the shots of gulf war were not BVR so the real need for radar guider missiles (with heavy and not cheap radars and so on….) seems strange to me;)

Sparrow always had fame to be ureliable, even the last version the M war fired (source Jane’s “F14 Tomcat – how to fly and fight”) 71 times in gulf war obtaining only 26 kills.
I have not rates for AIM 120 can you help me?

Hmmm, seems like a pretty good record to me!:cool:
Do you know of any other SARH or other medium range AAM with a better record?:rolleyes:
Besides, if the American pilots fired the Sparrow in pairs at each individual target I guess that would mean that at least 50% of all missiles are doomed to failure anyway, wouldn’t it (although I’m not familiar with actual USAF tactics or procedure in this respect) ?

Most of the coalitions’ air to air kills against Iraqi air force targets were carried out with using the AIM-7 Sparrow,

by the way.