Forum: General F-16 forum

I've seen some recent photos of F/A-18C's flying CAP over the Lincoln currently deployed to the 5th Fleet area of responsibility with live AIM-7 Sparrow missiles on the rails. Also, I recently saw another pic of a Hornet with Sparrows in AFM magazine. So, the Navy still utilizes Sparrow missiles in 2012? Does the Air Force as well, on Vipers? Why, with Amraams availabe for so long now?

F-16.net Sponsor

Are Sparrows flight time-limited?? If so, they might be trying to use up the airframe hours in an application where there is really little difference between Sparrow and AMRAAM.

Im surprised the Navy would even make room aboard the CVN for Sparrows as the battle group heads to the "front line" where action against the Iranians is always a possibility.

The Sparrow has some advantages over the AMRAAM, such as a larger warhead.

So from someone who is totally ignorant on the subject - would a Sparrow work better against something like a bomber sized target? (Because of its warhead size?)

Sparrows have always had such a low hit ratio, that's why I wonder why even carry them instead of Amraams?

ChippyHo wrote:

So from someone who is totally ignorant on the subject - would a Sparrow work better against something like a bomber sized target? (Because of its warhead size?)

To put it simply, yes. In reality there may be other factors to consider, such as the ability of the missile to get close enough, for its warhead to have an advantage.

sneakers wrote:

Sparrows have always had such a low hit ratio, that's why I wonder why even carry them instead of Amraams?

They didn't fair badly in the gulf actions. They just had a bad reputation after the Vietnam experience and will never shake that reputation no matter how well they work.

I believe the Sparrow had a kill ratio slighly below 40% in Desert Storm.

I like this link from pg 115-148 (particularly in relation to table 6 on pg 146) which gives a very detailed explanation on the performance of the AIM-7. Also explains a bit more on the "40%".

http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/up ... eapons.pdf

Sparrows did pretty well the last time they were used. You have to factor in other considerations than just hits, to make a determination of effectiveness. You have to look at how many were fired within their envelope/WEZ/NEZ, and how many of those scored hits. You have to understand that some were fired outside of their envelope, to mission kill Iraqi planes, and can't be counted against the Pk. Other factors might be how many missiles malfunctioned(if any). Similar issues have to be looked at with regard to AMRAAM kill records. Of the total number fired, how many passed within the lethal range of a target. How many were fired, with the intent of mission kills. How many just failed to perform as expected/at all.

Wrightwing
All excellent points! It's never as simple as it first appears to be - but let me ask this?
Wasnt the AMRAAM specifically designed to replace and address the short comings of the Sparrow?
Also - technology marches forward (one hopes) Isnt the AMRAAM a superior missile just by the virtue that it has far newer
technology?

ChippyHo wrote:

Wrightwing
All excellent points! It's never as simple as it first appears to be - but let me ask this?
Wasnt the AMRAAM specifically designed to replace and address the short comings of the Sparrow?
Also - technology marches forward (one hopes) Isnt the AMRAAM a superior missile just by the virtue that it has far newer
technology?

Given the choice between carrying an AIM-7M or an AIM-120C7/D, I'd take the AMRAAM every time, but the -7M is still a very effective missile(especially when good tactics and training are involved). The AMRAAM is just a lot more flexible though- it has fire and forget, home on jam, and passive modes/third party targeting, among other improvements in ECCM, GPS/inertial guidance, HOBS.

the sparrow is no longer effective vs an active threat.

There is an assumption that when something new comes along, all the old stuff goes away. Not true. While the F-22 may be the greatest air-to-air fighter ever, the reality is that the vast majority of US tacair is still of the F-15, -16, and -18 variety. The probability that one of the legacy fighters will be the primary air-to-air combatant in the next shooting war is very high indeed.

When I flew the F-4 we had AIM-7Es and AIM-9Es. When the AIM-7F and AIM-9P came along, we still continued to train with the older weapons because there were large numbers of them available, and the likelihood of using them if we went to war was high. When I flew the '-16 in the early days, we trained with both the AIM-9P and the '-9L because there were a lot more '-9Ps in the inventory than '-9Ls. We did the same when the '-9M came along. Despite the fact that the '-9L/M were our primary ordnance in the late 1980s, when we went to WSEP for live shots, we used '-9Ps because there was such a large inventory of them, and the employment parameters required better flying on our part.

Obviously you'd like to have the best stuff all the time, but the reality is that you use what you've actually got, not what you wish you had.

Forum: General F-16 forum

Sparrows in 2012