AIM-7 Sparrow

TomS said:
pathology_doc said:
TomcatViP said:
The Firebee is seen flying with wingtip IR augmentation Pods what looks weird for a radar test shot.
Click to expand...

It might also have been used to help with optical target tracking by kinetheodolites on the test range.

Did any of the early Sparrow development work ever dabble in IR?
Click to expand...

See the first attached file in this post about the Diamondback missile. It mentions a Sparrow III-IR missile as a possible loadout for the F3H-2 in 1957.
Click to expand...
I think this gives us an idea of what happened to it. I found a mention of it in this report about the systems going into the proposed F4H-1 and F8U-3
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/tr/AD0367910
A change in the operational concept is required if value is to be derived from the proposed weapon system flexibility to be achieved through the use of IR Sparrow III missiles or other mixed load capabilities when targets of interest approach those spelled out in the operational requirements. The preliminary study shows that for high speed targets VT/VF - 1, the rear hemisphere area (high probability area for: IR seeker) Is not attainable because of the inability of the interceptor system to attain a proper launch position. For cases where VT/VF - 0.8 or less marginal capability exists for the IR technique. Thus, reappraisal of the tactical use concept for IR capability is indicated.
Click to expand...
Followed by
21. Analysis of system performance resulting from use of the Sparrow III IR seeker will begin as soon as sufficient data is supplied by the contractor. To date the information available to NRL is not adequate to warrant an analysis.
22. Results of incorporation of the Sidewinder missile in the system will be investigated. Forthcoming study effort will initially be based upon estimates of missile performance, since design of the Sidewinder Ic [This is the Aim9D] will not be frozen during the remaining study interval.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have a good official source for the range of the RIM-7H and RIM-7M please? Estimates in well thought of secondary sources vary from 14.6km to 26km
 
Archamus33 said:
FFX said:
AN/AWW-14(V) said:
pathology_doc said:
Did any of the early Sparrow development work ever dabble in IR?
Click to expand...

Sparrow-winder
Click to expand...
Hello AN/AWW-14(V),
Is there more information about this?
Click to expand...
Not OP, but the IR-homing development team at China Lake and the Sparrow team at Pt. Mugu historically didn't cross-paths too much. In the early days there were also concerns about either stealing business from the other. To date, the only acknowledged Sparrow IR-homing developments are the AIM-7R test vehicles.
Click to expand...
Today I found two pictures so far at the Flickr site of the user G. Verver.
NAF China Lake F-4B Phantom II BuNo 151435, Sparrowwinder Belle Baby, China Lake, 19 June 1968. Official U.S. Navy photo
Click to expand...
https://flic.kr/p/2oFAwPB
View: https://flic.kr/p/2oFAwPB

https://flic.kr/p/2oFyemC
View: https://flic.kr/p/2oFyemC
 
fightingirish said:
Archamus33 said:
FFX said:
AN/AWW-14(V) said:
pathology_doc said:
Did any of the early Sparrow development work ever dabble in IR?
Click to expand...

Sparrow-winder
Click to expand...
Hello AN/AWW-14(V),
Is there more information about this?
Click to expand...
Not OP, but the IR-homing development team at China Lake and the Sparrow team at Pt. Mugu historically didn't cross-paths too much. In the early days there were also concerns about either stealing business from the other. To date, the only acknowledged Sparrow IR-homing developments are the AIM-7R test vehicles.
Click to expand...
Today I found two pictures so far at the Flickr site of the user G. Verver.
NAF China Lake F-4B Phantom II BuNo 151435, Sparrowwinder Belle Baby, China Lake, 19 June 1968. Official U.S. Navy photo
Click to expand...
https://flic.kr/p/2oFAwPB
View: https://flic.kr/p/2oFAwPB

https://flic.kr/p/2oFyemC
View: https://flic.kr/p/2oFyemC
Click to expand...
Very similar in concept to the French MICA in both radar and IR versions. Not to mention what the Soviets did previously with many of their AAM's which had both radar and IR variants of the same missile.
 
The IR Sparrow III is mentioned in Airtime's F-4 Phantom book. It claims an IR Sparrow III was successfully tested in 1957 but was cancelled.
 
SOC said:
The IR Sparrow III is mentioned in Airtime's F-4 Phantom book. It claims an IR Sparrow III was successfully tested in 1957 but was cancelled.
Click to expand...

I found a Naval History article by Norman Friedman that says Sparrow IV was supposed to be infrared-guided. It might not have been the only attempt, though. And the article is sadly lacking in sourcing.

www.usni.org

Armaments and Innovation -The 70-Year History of the Sparrow Missile

For more than 40 years, the
www.usni.org www.usni.org

In 1951, before Sparrow I was even operational, BuAer had begun to see the Sparrow as a modular system, and explored alternative guidance systems. By 1956, the bureau recognized that beam-riding was not as promising as it once had seemed, because radar beams widen with distance from their emitters, decreasing accuracy and increasing chances of a miss. Sparrow II (AAM-N-8), developed by Douglas Aircraft with the Bendix Corporation handling the guidance components, would have an active-radar seeker. Sparrow III (AAM-N-6), under Raytheon’s development, would use a semiactive homing system. Sparrow IV never advanced to the point of receiving a missile designation, but it was to have used infrared (IR) guidance.
Click to expand...
 
Naval Fighters 108 (F4H-1) suggests that the IR guided Sparrow III was dropped when they added Sidewinders to the F4H-1's weapons fit. I've not seen any reference yet to a Sparrow IV.
 
SOC said:
Naval Fighters 108 (F4H-1) suggests that the IR guided Sparrow III was dropped when they added Sidewinders to the F4H-1's weapons fit. I've not seen any reference yet to a Sparrow IV.
Click to expand...
That would probably be like calling the AIM-9X the "Sidewinder-II". It just isn't done. The "Sparrow I, II, III" nomenclature was dropped some time ago.
 
They wanted to develop a IR or possibly combined IR and Radar guided AIM-7 but this requirement was rescinded in 1996.

image.png
Source:
 
I think some AIM-7Rs were actually built and used but the success of the AIM-120 killed off most interest in the program.
 
Shusui said:
That would probably be like calling the AIM-9X the "Sidewinder-II". It just isn't done. The "Sparrow I, II, III" nomenclature was dropped some time ago.
Click to expand...

When I mentioned Sparrow IV, I was referring to this:

"In 1951, before Sparrow I was even operational, BuAer had begun to see the Sparrow as a modular system, and explored alternative guidance systems. By 1956, the bureau recognized that beam-riding was not as promising as it once had seemed, because radar beams widen with distance from their emitters, decreasing accuracy and increasing chances of a miss. Sparrow II (AAM-N-8), developed by Douglas Aircraft with the Bendix Corporation handling the guidance components, would have an active-radar seeker. Sparrow III (AAM-N-6), under Raytheon’s development, would use a semiactive homing system. Sparrow IV never advanced to the point of receiving a missile designation, but it was to have used infrared (IR) guidance."

Yes, very old project, hence the dates in the 1950s. Yes, they don't use designations like that anymore. The point was that I've seen reference to an IR-guided Sparrow III, but not an IR-guided Sparrow IV. The above seems to suggest that the IR-guided weapon may have been intended to be called Sparrow IV. Or maybe it was something different than the IR-guided Sparrow III that was at least tested, who knows.
 
I suspect that if the Cold War had lasted a few years longer the AIM-7R would've entered full rate production instead of a handful of LRIP rounds (IIRC a few were fired in Operation Desert Storm).
 
Defence Updates has just posted this video about the USN's plans to deploy the NGELS launcher with the ESSM Block 2:


BAE Systems has been awarded a $37m contract by the U.S. Department of Defense Ordnance Technology Consortium (DOTC) to design and deliver a prototype deck launching system for the Next Generation Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (NGELS) in support of the NATO SeaSparrow Program Office (NSPO).
Click to expand...
The new launcher will leverage BAE Systems' Adaptable Deck Launcher (ADL) concept.
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how Next Generation Evolved SeaSparrow Missile with Deck Launcher will enhance air defense capability U.S. Navy?
Click to expand...
#defenseupdates #ESSMBlock2 #usnavy
Click to expand...
 
NMaude said:
Defence Updates has just posted this video about the USN's plans to deploy the NGELS launcher with the ESSM Block 2:

Click to expand...
A shame they didn't make the effort to show either the NGELS launcher or a Block 2 ESSM.
 
NMaude said:
AIM-7N? Is that the US DoD designation for the Aspide?
Click to expand...

No.

It seems to be an ephemeral designation -- it crops up a couple of times but never with details. This one says it's for NATO, so maybe a -7M with some localized capabilities or features. But if you scroll back through this thread you'll see other references, which probably are not all the same missile.
 
F-2 said:
I remember reading it was equal to AIM-9M but 1/3 the size.
Click to expand...
Can definitely file that under "good enough" for the job.

Kinda too bad that AMRAAMs were rolling into production right as the Sparrow R was starting up. Keeping about 1/4 of the BRVRAAM stockpile dual mode has some advantages. Especially if most of the aircraft doing Homeland CAP/interceptor can keep 1-2 Sparrows on the pylons, alongside the AMRAAMs. The heavier warhead is better for the nightmare scenario of 9-11, having to force down a hijacked airliner. (Note that as of 2022, Israel still keeps a Sparrow on their Eagles, for much the same reason.)

Also, dual mode seeker for Sea Sparrows!
 
Scott Kenny said:
Can definitely file that under "good enough" for the job.

Kinda too bad that AMRAAMs were rolling into production right as the Sparrow R was starting up. Keeping about 1/4 of the BRVRAAM stockpile dual mode has some advantages. Especially if most of the aircraft doing Homeland CAP/interceptor can keep 1-2 Sparrows on the pylons, alongside the AMRAAMs. The heavier warhead is better for the nightmare scenario of 9-11, having to force down a hijacked airliner. (Note that as of 2022, Israel still keeps a Sparrow on their Eagles, for much the same reason.)

Also, dual mode seeker for Sea Sparrows!
Click to expand...
AIM-7R like AIM-7P was the navy’s thing, they adapted AMRAAM at a slower pace and had a nerd with Sea Sparrow. It was very close to being adopted but I think it was low hanging fruit for budget cuts. ESSM was ultimately more important. Both systems have some relation

books.google.com

Force 2001

books.google.com
 
Does anyone have information regarding the CW/PD guidance radome used on the AIM 7F or any file/documentation on the seeker of the AIM 7P
 
Periscope Films has just posted this film about the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow:


This color educational/promotional film is about the NATO Seasparrow Surface Missile System. Sea Sparrow is a U.S. ship-borne short-range anti-aircraft and anti-missile weapon system, primarily intended for defense against anti-ship missiles.
Click to expand...
This is circa the late 1960s/early 1970s.
Click to expand...
Opening: A cowboy pulls a gun from a holster, troops fire a rocket, guns fire from a battleship. A missile is fired from a Bomber. Planes and ships fire missiles. Title: NATO Seasparrow Surface Missile System :)23-:54). NATO flags fly. Seasparrow Missile is fired into the air. Missile hits its target in the air and there is an explosion. A helicopter is over a U.S. Destroyer. U.S. Combat Support Ship. U.S. Ammunition ship. U.S. Attack Carrier. U.S. Cruiser. Seasparrow Surface Missile System is in place on a ship, it's tested. Missile flies through the air. KMN Bergen was a C-class destroyer built for the Royal Navy that also had the Seasparrow Surface Missile System. The Seasparrow Surface Missile System is explained and show via diagrams. Radar antenna on a ship :)55-3:13). A man works with a computer. Target detection. Radar tech console. Radar is watched. Radar screen (3:14-4:51). A general purpose computer. Launcher pointers. A man watches a radar screen. Missile is fired. Signal converter. Low light level television system. Radar tech watches radar. Guided missile sub system is shown via diagram (4:52-6:30). Launcher system is closed. It swivels. A Sparrow 3 missile is loaded in to be fired. It is then fired ion the sky. Radar techs watch screens. Performance indicator screens/buttons. Indicator lights on the general computer. A test set is turned on (6:31-8:26). Radar tech. Missile is fired. Planes fly in the sky. Plane flies by the ship. Radar tech. Ready mode. Radar screens. Track mode. Jet flies by. Radar antennas spin and move (8:27-10:54). Buttons on the computer panel. Radar is watched. Antenna spins. Computer. Radar tech. Radar screens. Target status lights. Missile is fired in slow motion (10:55-12:40).Radar operator watches screens. Missile hits target in the sky. Radar techs, antennas, screens. Seasparrow Surface Missile is fired (12:41-13:34). End credits (13:35-13:44).
Click to expand...

On another note given that the USN has already flight-tested an air-launched version of the SM6 (Minus its' Mk-72 booster stage) will we see an air-launched version of the ESSM Block II?
 
How come there is no credible claim from a credible source with regards to sea sparrow's ceiling reach? (Nor for the original Aspide for that matter) After all these decades, one would expect info for such an old missile would be declassified. China got its hands on aspides decades ago, so there's no way china and russia don't have all the relevant info. Could it be just pure inertia that prevented info to get declassified?
 
totoro said:
How come there is no credible claim from a credible source with regards to sea sparrow's ceiling reach? (Nor for the original Aspide for that matter) After all these decades, one would expect info for such an old missile would be declassified. China got its hands on aspides decades ago, so there's no way china and russia don't have all the relevant info. Could it be just pure inertia that prevented info to get declassified?
Click to expand...
There are people still using RIM7s, aren't there? Like Taiwan? I wouldn't expect any system still in use to have information released.

Also, remember that a Sea Sparrow is a point defense missile, it's only engaging things directly attacking it. So the ceiling is not particularly important in the engagement shape.

Even if some super high end anti ship missile cruises at Mach 3 at 30km altitude, if it makes a 45deg dive onto the target it will start diving at 30km away. That's ~30sec from impact. Assuming a Mach 3 Sea Sparrow (due to low altitude drag) is launched when the missile tips into the terminal dive, the interception will happen about 15km range and 15km altitude.
 
Is there any more information on the advanced "AIM-7Q" anywhere? I am very doubtful that it existed as a real program in its often-described form. It was supposedly planned to have a dual-mode seeker with active radar and IR homing, plus the ability to passively home in an enemy aircraft's radar emissions before switching to active radar/IR for the kill.

By 1980s standards where the active radar AMRAAM was cutting-edge technology that required a serious effort to make into an effective missile system these goals sound unrealistic. Even today it reads more like a wish-list of ideal features for the guidance system of a medium or long range air-to-air missile.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Is there any more information on the advanced "AIM-7Q" anywhere? I am very doubtful that it existed as a real program in its often-described form. It was supposedly planned to have a dual-mode seeker with active radar and IR homing, plus the ability to passively home in an enemy aircraft's radar emissions before switching to active radar/IR for the kill.

By 1980s standards where the active radar AMRAAM was cutting-edge technology that required a serious effort to make into an effective missile system these goals sound unrealistic. Even today it reads more like a wish-list of ideal features for the guidance system of a medium or long range air-to-air missile.
Click to expand...
I have seen references to an active sparrow in GAO reports as a low risk AMRAAM alternative I suspect this is the real AIM-7Q. Most of the development of the AIM-7R IR sensor seems to have been after this date and I suspect the two efforts are being confused.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Is there any more information on the advanced "AIM-7Q" anywhere? I am very doubtful that it existed as a real program in its often-described form. It was supposedly planned to have a dual-mode seeker with active radar and IR homing, plus the ability to passively home in an enemy aircraft's radar emissions before switching to active radar/IR for the kill.
Click to expand...
It's not impossible. Let's not forget; Sparrow is bigger than AMRAAM, both in diameter and weight. You could fit a small IR seeker on her - presumably, some derivative of Stinger's one - much easier than on AMRAAM. They may even go as simple as adding a small, narrow-angle IR sensor to radar fairing - merely for seeker to confirm that there are both radar and infrared signatures, and thus seeker is locked on real plane, not chaffs or decoy signal.

About passive homing - I believe, it's mainly the matter of signal processing? I.e. mostly the matter of software, analyzing what's got received by antenna? Again, Sparrow is big and bulky missile. It have size for some additional equipment.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom