henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (04/12/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
A letter in the Feb 13 Aviation Week (yes, I know I'm behind on my
reading...) observes that in the skirmish off Libya a few months ago,
the first two Sparrows fired, one at a range of 12 miles and one at
10, missed. At least the third one connected. "One would think
pilots in Soviet ready rooms are smiling over a 1-for-3 Sparrow
success rate from America's best."
Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edumaniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ (George W. Herbert) (04/13/89)
From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ (George W. Herbert) In article <5588@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >A letter in the Feb 13 Aviation Week (yes, I know I'm behind on my >reading...) observes that in the skirmish off Libya a few months ago, >the first two Sparrows fired, one at a range of 12 miles and one at >10, missed. At least the third one connected. "One would think >pilots in Soviet ready rooms are smiling over a 1-for-3 Sparrow >success rate from America's best." Suprise! In Vietnam, Over Israel, and everywhere else that guided missiles have been used in combat, they have had actual hit percentages in the range of 10% to 25%. The lower number reflects the performance of our intermediate generation sparrows. The 33% kill rate for sparrow over libya should be a cause for celebration (see! we TRIPLED thier effectiveness by only DOUBLING their constant-dollar cost.) and the 50% kill rate for sidewinder attempts (one broke and would not lock on, had to be turned off and another fired) was better than the 15-20% last real hit percentages I saw. george william herbert maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu
tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) (04/14/89)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) >In article <5588@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >... "One would think >pilots in Soviet ready rooms are smiling over a 1-for-3 Sparrow >success rate from America's best." >From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ (George W. Herbert) >Suprise! In Vietnam, Over Israel, and everywhere else that guided missiles have been used in combat, they have had actual hit percentages in the range >of 10% to 25%. At the risk of provoking a lot of heated discussion ... I think it's clear that there are a lot of ways of making AAMs miss. Some involve ineffective design. Others, involve what the enemy does. (evasive manuevers, jammers, decoys, etc.) However, one should not discount the effect that a missile has of putting your opponent on the defensive. If he sees launch smoke (or sees a missile contrail or hears radar lock-on warning), your enemy is not going to be thinking about anything except that missile. While your opponent is avoiding your missile, you use the distraction to set up a position of advantage. There was an article a while back in USNI Proceedings suggesting, that we build a cheap version of the Sparrow missile ("Smokey Sparrow") precisely to exploit this effect. I don't have any detailed info on the Libyan encounter. But from what I have heard, it's certainly possible that the Sparrows put the Libyans on the defensive, which the Tomcats pilots used to their advantage. Ted Kim ARPAnet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!ucbvax!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall PHONE: (213) 206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 ESPnet: tek@ouija.board
aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) (04/15/89)
From: aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) In article <5588@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >A letter in the Feb 13 Aviation Week (yes, I know I'm behind on my >reading...) observes that in the skirmish off Libya a few months ago, >the first two Sparrows fired, one at a range of 12 miles and one at >10, missed. At least the third one connected. "One would think >pilots in Soviet ready rooms are smiling over a 1-for-3 Sparrow >success rate from America's best." That assessment may be a little hasty. There are 2 factors I know of which affect this. 1. Missiles can be evaded *IF* the pilot has the energy and he knows the missile is on the way. 2. Sometimes a pilot will take an out of envelope shot at an oppent even if he knows the shot will miss. This is to make the bandit sweat a bit. It can also prevent the bandit from pressing an attack. This is because he will need to enter the missile envelope to press which can get him shot down. Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen Sherzer | DON'T BUILD MORE NUKES | | aws@iti.org | until we use the ones we have. | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) (04/18/89)
From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) In article <5640@cbnews.ATT.COM> tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) writes: >I think it's clear that there are a lot of ways of making AAMs miss. >Some involve ineffective design. Others, involve what the enemy does. >(evasive manuevers, jammers, decoys, etc.) However, one should not >discount the effect that a missile has of putting your opponent on the >defensive. If he sees launch smoke (or sees a missile contrail or Smart observation, and accurate. Getting someone to act defensively allows you to get into position for a better second shot, even if the first misses. Plus, they aren't shooting at you... oh, by the way: i just got a copy of Shaw's _Fighter Combat: tactics and maneuvering_. everyone interested in the subject should have it. george william herbert maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu
nelson_p@apollo.com (Peter Nelson) (04/19/89)
From: Peter Nelson <nelson_p@apollo.com> From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ (George W. Herbert) >Suprise! In Vietnam, Over Israel, and everywhere else that guided missiles >have been used in combat, they have had actual hit percentages in the range >of 10% to 25%. The lower number reflects the performance of our intermediate >generation sparrows. The 33% kill rate for sparrow over libya should be a >cause for celebration (see! we TRIPLED thier effectiveness by only DOUBLING >their constant-dollar cost.) and the 50% kill rate for sidewinder attempts >(one broke and would not lock on, had to be turned off and another fired) >was better than the 15-20% last real hit percentages I saw. What are the details for these figures? What missiles and what periods of time are they based on? I thought the Royal Navy claimed a 'hit rate' for AIM9L (Sidewinders) of >80% in the Falklands war. And I believe the Israelis were getting similar numbers with their Sidewinders against the Syrians at about that same time. I must say I was also a little curious about the Sparrow misses in the Libyan engagements. From the briefing, the Libyan planes should have been inside the envelope for those missiles. Is the Sparrow any good or is it another Phalanx project that only works when you rig the tests to make them too easy? BTW, off of Iran last year CNN had a film (tape) crew on a US Navy vessel during an engagement in which Standard missiles were being fired. One missile failed to launch and was ejected over the side. The reporter made no comment about this and doubting what I had just seen I called the Navy (Public Affairs) in Washington who confirmed it. How common is this sort of failure? --Peter
maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) (04/21/89)
From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) In article <5735@cbnews.ATT.COM> nelson_p@apollo.com (Peter Nelson) writes: > > What are the details for these figures? What missiles and what periods > of time are they based on? I thought the Royal Navy claimed a 'hit > rate' for AIM9L (Sidewinders) of >80% in the Falklands war. And > I believe the Israelis were getting similar numbers with their Sidewinders > against the Syrians at about that same time. These figures are primarily off the US Vietnam experience. The figures of 10% sparrow and 15% sidewinder are atmittedly using older models, but the fact remains that _most missiles miss._ In the falklands, the british achived a higher hit rate (82?84?% i can't remember and am not sitting on my ref.) The Israeli's get an average of about 20% hits, over their history. Recently, with 9L's, more like 50%. But sparrows haven't been tested recently (before libya, 1982 Syrian AF mysterious midair dissapearance ;). What I was saying was that missiles are and remain innacurate. Peacetime and non dogfight (most british shots weren't...) conditions lead to MUCh higher than real life hit %ages. > were being fired. One missile failed to launch and was ejected over the > side. The reporter made no comment about this and doubting what I had > just seen I called the Navy (Public Affairs) in Washington who confirmed > it. How common is this sort of failure? > About 5%, last i heard. And yes, I saw it too. ps-someone in switzerland (?) asked me a question about Shaw's Air tactics book. I cannot mail to them, and can't find anyone who can, so here goes: the book does not contain information about Air to Ground tactics, but does cover (at one point) using bombs against helicopters. george william herbert maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu
eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) (04/21/89)
From: eos!eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya)
It totally amazes me that sci.military dwells so long on such a minor point.
You should discuss means of evasion of Atolls, or other Soviet missiles
to understand why Sparrows miss so often. It will being like being a Soviet
(or maybe Libyan) pilot wondering about your chances.
Longish signature follows "Type 'n' now"
Another gross generalization from
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
"You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
"If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
{ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
Live free or die.fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (04/25/89)
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) In article <5797@cbnews.ATT.COM>, eos!eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) writes: > > It totally amazes me that sci.military dwells so long on such a minor point. > You should discuss means of evasion of Atolls, or other Soviet missiles > to understand why Sparrows miss so often. It will being like being a Soviet > (or maybe Libyan) pilot wondering about your chances. This is not the typical fighter-pilot mindset. They're worried about how come they missed hitting the target, not thinking about what happens when *they* are the target. This is called "target fixation", resulting in higher rates of shootdowns, flying into the ground, getting plastered by the guy you never saw who got behind you... 'sides, your wingman's supposed to watch out for you to avoid these sorts of problems. :}
adrian@uunet.UU.NET (Adrian Hurt) (04/29/89)
From: Adrian Hurt <mcvax!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian@uunet.UU.NET> In article <5763@cbnews.ATT.COM> nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby) writes: > > Apples to Oranges. Sparrows are Radar Guided, Sidewinders are > Infra-Red seekers. Sparrows supposedly have a longer range and are > easier to lock on. Sidewinders are damn deadly. I am surprised no-one has yet mentioned one factor. Sparrows are "semi-active radar homing". They have a radar seeker, but no transmitter. The launching aircraft must continue to track the target with its own radar right until the missile hits, or the missile will have nothing to look for. By contrast, Sidewinders are "fire and forget" missiles. You let it off, and it will find the target's engine all by itself. Now, if someone else looks like they're about to fire at you, which would you rather do? Continue to track the target, or take evasive action of your own? "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk