henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (01/27/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: moudgill@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Mayan Moudgill) > Again a vauge recollection of somebody saying that sparrows, > for all their range, were no-good for attack fighters, and > that pheonixs were worse. I'm not sure, but I think the > agility of the sparrow is low. Can anyone confirm? Depends on what you mean by "attack fighters". Both Sparrow and Phoenix were basically designed for bomber interception at substantial range. They don't look as good against maneuvering targets at short range. Their agility is limited, they take considerable distance to accelerate, and their guidance is designed for relatively calm battles, so to speak. (Sparrow requires continuous illumination of the target by the launch aircraft's radar. Phoenix uses some mixture of that, preprogrammed flight path, and command from the launch aircraft -- I've seen all three claimed, and it's not clear what's right, but all need either a predictable situation or help from the launch aircraft -- to get it within effective range of its own independent homing radar. Its great range does increase the chances of being able to fight a fairly calm battle.) A lot of the actual details are classified. Sparrow, except for its longest-range variants, is particularly useless in general. The continuous-illumination requirement means flying more or less towards the target until the missile hits, and at jet combat speeds this often brings the two aircraft within Sidewinder range. It is possible for the Sparrow to hit after the target has fired a Sidewinder that then destroys the Sparrow-launching aircraft. Phoenix is basically untried in combat and nobody knows how well it would work. Its extreme complexity is not a good omen. It's also very heavy and decidedly expensive. AMRAAM has the complexity, and very nearly the price tag, of Phoenix in a roughly-Sparrow-size missile. Its entry into service has been delayed repeatedly by horrendous cost overruns and poor reliability in tests. It doesn't need continuous illumination, but its guidance has the same doubtful aspects as Phoenix. Simulations show it is typically fired at near-Sidewinder ranges; its theoretical range is a bit longer, but not enough to be useful. A lemon. Might get cancelled. Sidewinder is the winner on proven combat effectiveness, ease of use, cost, reliability, etc. by a huge margin. Its range is limited and its infrared homing head loses effectiveness in bad weather, however. -- If the Space Shuttle was the answer, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology what was the question? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry