Unclassified AIM 7F info

[edpop]

Great information.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

That IS great info

[eloise]

That IS great info

This part is particularly interesting.
I could never imagine AIM-7 motor burn for that long, so much longer than AIM-120, almost approach the burn time of AIM-54

Capture.PNG (31.62 KiB) Viewed 7695 times

[madrat]

Doesn't AAM-4 of Japan use the Sparrow base? The long burn-time explains its jump to a 120km reach. It makes me think there was plenty of potential left on the table in our once-upon-a-time glut of Mk58 and Mk65.

[hornetfinn]

That IS great info

This part is particularly interesting.
I could never imagine AIM-7 motor burn for that long, so much longer than AIM-120, almost approach the burn time of AIM-54

Agree, this is really great info.

AIM-7F uses pure SARH guidance which means that it will fly fairly straight towards the target on a collision course. This also means that it usually has to fly at lower altitudes and against higher air resistance than AIM-120. To achieve that impressive 53 nmi aerodynamic range, it has to have a long burn time not to lose weight. AIM-120 having ARH guidance with mid-course updates tries to get as high and fast as possible to fly in thinner air with less air rresistance and exchange potential energy (altitude) to kinetic energy (speed). Naturally improved aerodynamics also play a role as AIM-120 definitely has lower drag than AIM-7.

Anyway, AIM-120 would not gain much from having similar boost-sustainer motor and neither would AIM-7 from having boost-only motor like in AIM-120. AIM-120 could pretty easily have similar sustain phase burn time as sustain phase thust is almost 6 times less than in boost phase. So 11 seconds of sustain phase would be similar to roughly two seconds in boost phase. AIM-120 has something like 7-10 seconds of burn time, so it could likely have something like 5 seconds of boost phase and 15 seconds of sustain phase if that was beneficial. Latest rocket motor designs seem to go for dual/multi-pulse (basically boost-glide-boost) instead of boost-only or boost-sustain.

[nastle]

range at 40 k altitude is over fifty nm but what about at 2 k altitude or lower ?

doesn't altitude effect range ?

[madrat]

Didn't AIM-7F have some mid-course correction where they could minimize time painting the target?

[basher54321]

range at 40 k altitude is over fifty nm but what about at 2 k altitude or lower ?

doesn't altitude effect range ?

Yes missile range would be less the slower and lower it is launched at. AIM-7F was probably under 16nm from Sea Level.

[edpop]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... -180112653

[ricnunes]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29400/canadian-destroyers-had-these-totally-wacky-sea-sparrow-missile-launcher-systems?utm_source=War+Zone+Wire&utm_campaign=cf8e3f00a1-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2021_12_29_04_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_51665f3aba-cf8e3f00a1-180112653

As usual, apparently one more "crappy" article by Mr. Tyler Rogoway which seems to completely lack proper research and is filled with lots of personal opinions!
So Mr. Tyler Rogoway says that Canadian Sea Sparrow launcher system is a "crap" because he things that it looks "laughably bizarre" (I won't disagree that it looks "bizarre" - but looks don't mean effectiveness) and because supposedly someone who worked with Sea Sparrows in the US Navy told him so. How about interviewing or looking for someone who actually worked with the actual system (a Canadian crewman/sailor)?? How about researching about the system itself instead of relying on outsiders opinions??

At least the article served for me to watch better photos/images from that system, which I never had the opportunity to see (with such good quality). In this regard, I thank you for posting this article

Anyway, my two cents about that system and what is stated in the article about it:
- IMO, it seemed that such system has an advantage over the more usual Mk-29 launcher system (which is mentioned in the article). For instance that Canadian Sea Sparrow system should have given the ship the ability to engage air targets coming from the left and right flanks (or port and starboard sides using naval parlance) at the same time. For the same situation and with a Mk29 launcher, first it must rotate left/port launch missile and then rotate to the right/starboard and shoot missile again or vice-versa. Of course that two Mk29 launchers could be used to offset this but this would have taken more space inside and on the ship, space which may not exist specially on smaller warships.
Also compared to the Mk29, the launchers of that Canadian Sea Sparrow system seemed to be much closer to the ship's Sea Sparrow missile magazine which should allow the process to reloading the launchers to be much faster. If I'm correct with this then the "reloading the system as a whole was a slow process" claim in the article should be false or close to false when compared to other similar systems, namely the Mk29 launcher.

- The article claims that "Weapon Control System wasn't really up to the task and just deploying the missiles and warming up their guidance systems could take minutes or longer". I don't know if that was true or not but that could probably be true. However I don't think that such system would be much or even any worse than similar and contemporary pre-AEGIS American systems in this regard.