What do we Know About the Sparrows That we are Getting?

[Czechnology]

Title says it all. What sparrows should we be expecting to be primarily using for each of our two phantoms, and how well do they perform?

Know what sidewinders we'll likely be using, but feel free to discuss them and make this a bit of a "Missile General" discussion.

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Czechnology

[Heinlein]

The E model could carry F and E aim-7's if I remember correctly. Honestly not much to write home about, but for the early 70's they were amazing when the main adversary was mig-21's armed with short range R3 missiles. The Aim-7F's have an effective range of like 12 miles. The biggest issue will be maintaining a lock if your target dives down below you and use the terrain as masking. So in general the F-4 sparrows will be quite easy to evade for someone who knows the bare minimum about missile evasion  

[upyr1]

I expect to fire all 4 off at a target

[Mig Fulcrum]

I'm not a super duper expert but as far as I know:

 

About E Phantom:

Standard early loadout would be 4x AIM-7E and 4x AIM-9E

But with the more modern variant you can expect AIM-7F and AIM-9J, I don't know about AIM-9L

 

About the naval variant it depends from the variant itself

S would have AIM-7M and AIM-9L (maybe even AIM-9M)

J can carry AIM-7F, AIM-7E, AIM-9G, AIM-9D (I think N would be very similar in terms of loadouts)

B is limited to AIM-7E and AIM-7D, AIM-9D or AIM-9B

[Northstar98]

For the F-4Es annouced, expect the AIM-7E-2 and the F. The AN/APQ-120 is a pulse-only, conical scanning radar which only provides basic CW illumination, so the M, M(H) and P are all out (as these require monopulse illumination, having inverse monopulse seekers).

The F we already have in DCS, though its seeker isn't high fidelity enough to really model the difference between a conical scanning, CW seeker and a monopulse seeker. The main difference in DCS between the F and the E is much shorter range for the E.

One thing to consider in DCS though is that the Phantom has a pulse-only radar with no MTI, meaning next to no LDSD capability. So expect much worse low-altitude performance compared to other Sparrow equipped radars in DCS (especially when finding targets in the first place).

A mid-ish 80s -1 (revised 1990) has a stores limitation diagram that includes AIM-9B/E/J/L/M/N/P however images of USAF Phantoms from the same era seem to have the AIM-9J/N/P. So essentially, the AIM-9P on the F-5E should give you a reasonable approximation.

[Biggus]

20 hours ago, Mig Fulcrum said:

I'm not a super duper expert but as far as I know:

 

About E Phantom:

Standard early loadout would be 4x AIM-7E and 4x AIM-9E

But with the more modern variant you can expect AIM-7F and AIM-9J, I don't know about AIM-9L

 

About the naval variant it depends from the variant itself

S would have AIM-7M and AIM-9L (maybe even AIM-9M)

J can carry AIM-7F, AIM-7E, AIM-9G, AIM-9D (I think N would be very similar in terms of loadouts)

B is limited to AIM-7E and AIM-7D, AIM-9D or AIM-9B

No AIM-7Ms on Phantoms in US service.  Possibly on other modernized Phantoms, but not with the radar it left the factory with.  USAF Phantoms aren't really my area but 9Ls were mostly a post-Gulf War item.

B/N/J/S could all carry the same air to air weapons.  It's a question of dates and locations rather than variant restriction.  F-4Js certainly carried AIM-9Ls around the time of the first Gulf of Sidra incident, and I'd expect F-4Ns to have carried them in the same time period.  I suspect but can't confirm that AIM-9Ms would have been on the last F-4S cruises.

[bies]

Big advantege of Phantom's Sparrows was the aircraft has been designed with 4 low drag semi-recessed pylons dedicated only for AIM-7 missiles.

They add very little drag having 4 big missiles blended in fuselage boundary layer having small drag index compared to aircrafts carrying missiles under the wings and having minimal impact on performance. Later on F-15, F-14 and F/A-18 had similar non universal low drag semi-recessed pylons as well as they proved to be successfull concept.

[LanceCriminal86]

On 7/28/2022 at 5:33 AM, Biggus said:

No AIM-7Ms on Phantoms in US service.  Possibly on other modernized Phantoms, but not with the radar it left the factory with.  USAF Phantoms aren't really my area but 9Ls were mostly a post-Gulf War item.

B/N/J/S could all carry the same air to air weapons.  It's a question of dates and locations rather than variant restriction.  F-4Js certainly carried AIM-9Ls around the time of the first Gulf of Sidra incident, and I'd expect F-4Ns to have carried them in the same time period.  I suspect but can't confirm that AIM-9Ms would have been on the last F-4S cruises.

The S was also in USMC Reserve use into the 90s before they were retired.

[Bremspropeller]

On 7/28/2022 at 12:33 PM, Biggus said:

B/N/J/S could all carry the same air to air weapons.  It's a question of dates and locations rather than variant restriction.  F-4Js certainly carried AIM-9Ls around the time of the first Gulf of Sidra incident, and I'd expect F-4Ns to have carried them in the same time period.

Yep.

F-4N around the time of Eagle Claw:

[mettschnitte]

Am 27.7.2022 um 15:47 schrieb Northstar98:

as these require monopulse illumination, having inverse monopulse seekers

Sadly, i don't have a degree in radio wave technology. But if my research is correct, the monopulse seeker doesn't care wether the measured  signal is pulsed or continouus. At least, thats what online sources suggest.

If you know otherwise, please let me know! There is not much information on this topic, that's not hidden behind some crazy formula.

[Northstar98]

On 8/31/2022 at 8:10 AM, mettschnitte said:

Sadly, i don't have a degree in radio wave technology. But if my research is correct, the monopulse seeker doesn't care wether the measured  signal is pulsed or continouus. At least, thats what online sources suggest.

If you know otherwise, please let me know! There is not much information on this topic, that's not hidden behind some crazy formula.

Sorry - should've clarified.

With monopulse systems, they typically differentiate the beams by polarisation, so you need an illuminator capable of doing that, regardless of whether or not the illumination is pulsed or CW.

If you don't have the 4 polarised beams required for monopulse - you can't use an inverse-monopulse seeker*.

One advantage of inverse monopulse seekers (aside from greater ECCM, resolution and update rate) they can filter based on polarisation, they can filter out returns from the ground that will typically be scattered and unpolarised.

*EDIT: Some inverse monopulse seekers are capable of HOJ, which doesn't need to be configured for monopulse.

Edited October 8, 2022 by Northstar98

[Harlikwin]

On 7/27/2022 at 7:47 AM, Northstar98 said:

For the F-4Es annouced, expect the AIM-7E-2 and the F. The AN/APQ-120 is a pulse-only, conical scanning radar which only provides basic CW illumination, so the M, M(H) and P are all out (as these require monopulse illumination, having inverse monopulse seekers).

The F we already have in DCS, though its seeker isn't high fidelity enough to really model the difference between a conical scanning, CW seeker and a monopulse seeker. The main difference in DCS between the F and the E is much shorter range for the E.

One thing to consider in DCS though is that the Phantom has a pulse-only radar with no MTI, meaning next to no LDSD capability. So expect much worse low-altitude performance compared to other Sparrow equipped radars in DCS (especially when finding targets in the first place).

A mid-ish 80s -1 (revised 1990) has a stores limitation diagram that includes AIM-9B/E/J/L/M/N/P however images of USAF Phantoms from the same era seem to have the AIM-9J/N/P. So essentially, the AIM-9P on the F-5E should give you a reasonable approximation.

Yup broadly correct...

I'd expect 7E and 7F for both versions of the phantom we have. IDK on the 7M for the F4E, I've heard it both ways.

And yeah, in terms of look down shoot down, I think its down to 2 things, #1 the actual radar model that HB does, if its good the F4E should be pretty limited there and likely at low altitudes as well. Though given how the recent F1 radar should also do poorly in those situations and does just fine doesn't really fill me with hope, but HB has far more radar modeling experience so hopefully they make the F4 radar accurately to account for these issues. 
 

From the ED missile end of the equation I honestly don't think they really differentiate much in terms of SARH seekers at this point. Looking at it empirically there doesn't seem to be much difference between how say a Matra 530EM works and an Aim7M when it comes to guiding on lower flying targets or at low altitudes, both situations where the 530EM should fare far worse than a aim-7M. But thats also like a radar modeling problem cuz I'm sure the only thing the missile cares about is if the target is locked or not. 
 

For sidewinders for the F4E we have it should be able to 9B, 9E, 9J/N and the 9P1-5 series, as well as later on the 9L/M.

That being said, on the later 9L/M its an open question whether or not those airframes were integrated with the capability to use the more advanced seeker pointing capabilities of the 9L/M (i.e. SEAM like modes) as the earlier 9B/E/J/N/P1-3 did not have this. So the aim9B should have no uncage, the 9E and J/N/P should have uncage capabilities and its an open question if the f4E was upgraded with a SEAM computer (which could slave the seeker to a radar target, or order the missile to "nutate" the seeker in AF speak) to handle the 9L/M any better. Worst case they should behave like the 9J/N/P in basic boresight modes.

 

[Northstar98]

On 9/28/2022 at 9:19 PM, Harlikwin said:

Yup broadly correct...

I'd expect 7E and 7F for both versions of the phantom we have. IDK on the 7M for the F4E, I've heard it both ways.

AFAIK, the F-4E doesn't support monopulse encoding (typically polarisation) on its illuminator that inverse-monopulse seekers require.

All of the documentation I have only list conical-scanning Sparrows (even for documentation revised in 1990).

On 9/28/2022 at 9:19 PM, Harlikwin said:

And yeah, in terms of look down shoot down, I think its down to 2 things, #1 the actual radar model that HB does, if its good the F4E should be pretty limited there and likely at low altitudes as well. Though given how the recent F1 radar should also do poorly in those situations and does just fine doesn't really fill me with hope, but HB has far more radar modeling experience so hopefully they make the F4 radar accurately to account for these issues.

I mean, HB have done a radar (or rather a radar mode) that's a lot like what the Phantom has (i.e pulse only), so I've got hope there. However there's still things their radars don't do, that the Mirage does - namely things like altitude line clutter. Though this is before we talk about EW (where the Phantom's radar should be susceptible to inverse con-scan techniques and so should be pretty vulnerable to the DECM systems we currently have).

On 9/28/2022 at 9:19 PM, Harlikwin said:

 From the ED missile end of the equation I honestly don't think they really differentiate much in terms of SARH seekers at this point. Looking at it empirically there doesn't seem to be much difference between how say a Matra 530EM works and an Aim7M when it comes to guiding on lower flying targets or at low altitudes, both situations where the 530EM should fare far worse than a aim-7M. But thats also like a radar modeling problem cuz I'm sure the only thing the missile cares about is if the target is locked or not. 

Yeah, fairly certain this is the limiting factor here. I don't think there's any differentiation between SARH seekers beyond things like gimbal limits, ranges, countermeasure resistance etc (which is just a probability, as I'm sure you know) and whether or not its HOJ capable etc.

The R.530 SARH seekers are pulse; tracking targets using a range gate - which ground clutter should absolutely cause problems for, especially when the targets range matches the targets altitude (due to sidelobe ground clutter which pulse-seekers can't filter out, unlike doppler types - which should lead to them tracking on the altitude line).

I think you're right in that SARH seekers only really care about whether or not a target is locked + the countermeasure dice roll and whether there's somebody jamming (which is just a simple flag as far as I know).

On 9/28/2022 at 9:19 PM, Harlikwin said:

For sidewinders for the F4E we have it should be able to 9B, 9E, 9J/N and the 9P1-5 series, as well as later on the 9L/M.

That being said, on the later 9L/M its an open question whether or not those airframes were integrated with the capability to use the more advanced seeker pointing capabilities of the 9L/M (i.e. SEAM like modes) as the earlier 9B/E/J/N/P1-3 did not have this.

All I can say here is that -34s don't suggest as such and only mentions a boresight mode, there's nothing specific for the 9L/M and the only place it's mentioned is in the stores limitation diagram, with the LAU-105 as opposed to the Aero 3/B.

Only thing I haven't seen yet while skimming through is a cool switch.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Northstar98
Englishing correctly

[Harlikwin]

19 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

AFAIK, the F-4E doesn't support monopulse encoding (typically polarisation) on its illuminator that inverse-monopulse seekers require.

All of the documentation I have suggests only list conical-scanning Sparrows (even for documentation revised in 1990).

I mean, HB have done a radar (or rather a radar mode) that's a lot like what the Phantom has (i.e pulse only), so I've got hope there. However there's still things their radars don't do, that the Mirage does - namely things like altitude line clutter and this is before we talk about EW (where the Phantom's radar should be susceptible to inverse con-scan techniques).

Yeah, fairly certain this is the limiting factor here. I don't think there's any differentiation between SARH seekers beyond things like gimbal limits, ranges, countermeasure resistance etc (which is just a probability, as I'm sure you know) and whether or not its HOJ capable etc.

The Mirage's SARH seekers are pulse; tracking targets using a range gate - which ground clutter should absolutely cause problems for, especially when the targets range matches the targets altitude (due to sidelobe ground clutter which pulse-seekers can't filter out, unlike doppler types).

I think you're right in that SARH seekers only really care about whether or not a target is locked + the countermeasure dice roll and whether there's somebody jamming (which is just a simple flag as far as I know).

All I can say here is that -34s don't suggest as such and only mentions a boresight mode, there's nothing specific for the 9L/M and the only place it's mentioned is in the stores limitation diagram, with the LAU-105 as opposed to the Aero 3/B.

Only thing I haven't seen yet while skimming through is a cool switch.

Yeah IDK on the M sparrow thing. Like I said I've heard it both ways. What you say does make sense though, but I IIRC what I heard was that seeker doesn't require monopulse encoding, but can use it or older schemes or monopulse. IDK if that really tracks though.

As for the rest of it yeah, I do think HB will do a decent job with the radar model. 
And yeah it would be nice if ED modeled some differences between the different seekers at some basic level, the fact that an R3R or 530 is tracking as well as Aim-7M or 7P is well, not particularly realistic.

[SgtPappy]

With the AIM-7F reaching IOC in 1975 or so and the first F-4E that we are getting is from 1974, I don't think we would get the AIM-7F. It's probably going to show up with the later F-4E with DMAS which may also get AIM-9L's.

Just a guess.

[Northstar98]

18 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah IDK on the M sparrow thing. Like I said I've heard it both ways. What you say does make sense though, but I IIRC what I heard was that seeker doesn't require monopulse encoding, but can use it or older schemes or monopulse. IDK if that really tracks though.

I mean, it is capable of HOJ which is mostly used against noise jammers which don't have any monopulse encoding (and more resemble non-monopulse CW illumination) - so that makes sense. So maybe there's a case that hypothetically it could be integrated, though it isn't supported in documentation as yet.

18 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

As for the rest of it yeah, I do think HB will do a decent job with the radar model. 
And yeah it would be nice if ED modeled some differences between the different seekers at some basic level, the fact that an R3R or 530 is tracking as well as Aim-7M or 7P is well, not particularly realistic.

Agreed.

15 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

With the AIM-7F reaching IOC in 1975 or so and the first F-4E that we are getting is from 1974, I don't think we would get the AIM-7F. It's probably going to show up with the later F-4E with DMAS which may also get AIM-9L's.

Just a guess.

Yeah, almost certainly - meaning the latest we get is the AIM-7E-2.

EDIT:

Actually, I think I'm going to change my mind but there is a fairly major point of contention, the radar.

We're definitely getting at least the AN/APQ-120F(V), which supports TV display (required for Mavericks and Pave Spike). But if we get the AN/APQ-120(V)-10/-12, then if I'm reading the -34-1-1 correctly, that means we get CAA (which is essentially a vertical acquisition mode, scanning from ±6° in azimuth and +57° to -21° in elevation (with lock being limited to +45° to -9° due to FC computer constraints).

If we're getting the latter radar there's then the question of whether we're getting post or pre OFP P005. Post OFP P005 allows you to select between 3 different azimuth zones; left (centred around -15° azimuth), right (centred around +15° azimuth) and centre (centred on 0).

I might be reading it wrong, but the -34-1-1 suggests that the the AN/APQ-120(V)-10/-12 also provides for a digital FC computer, that (in addition to the CAA functions) handles the DLZ for the AIM-7E, F and AIM-9P/N-2 and P/N-3.

So it could be that we get AIM-7F, but might not get a DLZ for it.

 

If the AN/APQ-120(V)-10/-12 and OFP P005 are pre 1974 anyway then there's no issue, but if it is then we might run into some Frankensteining. Though I am confident that there's nothing prohibiting carrying or firing the AIM-7F.

Edited October 1, 2022 by Northstar98

[WinterH]

3 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

With the AIM-7F reaching IOC in 1975 or so and the first F-4E that we are getting is from 1974, I don't think we would get the AIM-7F. It's probably going to show up with the later F-4E with DMAS which may also get AIM-9L's.

Just a guess.

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Yeah, almost certainly - meaning the latest we get is the AIM-7E-2.

MiG-21Bis we have is technically from 1972 originally, but R-60M is from sometime either very late 70s or probably even 80s though, so I'm not fully sure that 7F is entirely out of the realm of possibility just yet.

[Harlikwin]

I'm pretty sure at least the 7F will be an "option" on the 74 F4E we get. Since they were in service after 74...

 

[Northstar98]

20 hours ago, WinterH said:

MiG-21Bis we have is technically from 1972 originally, but R-60M is from sometime either very late 70s or probably even 80s though, so I'm not fully sure that 7F is entirely out of the realm of possibility just yet.

To be honest I feel like the MiG-21bis is a bad example given that it has access to weapons it physically couldn’t guide (namely the Kh-66), let alone were in service. We also don’t know if the MiG-21bis was supposed to represent an early 70s version or something more all encompassing (which is easier as differences are minimal compared to a DSCG vs DMAS Phantom).

That said though, thinking about it, I’m actually going to change my mind given that the DSCG Phantom we’re getting could easily represent Phantoms beyond 1974 with the only real difference being the inclusion of the 7F (seeing as we’ll be getting Pave Spike). The DMAS spec being more early 80s up to the early to mid 90s.

EDIT:

Hold that thought as I have found a possible issue with consistency, concerning the radar and its software. They don't have ramifications for the AIM-7F per se, but depending on when these changes occurred could result in some Frankensteining where we have a 1974 Phantom, with the radar and software appropriate for that (i.e no CAA, possibly no DLZ for the AIM-7E/F and AIM-9P/N-2 and P/N-3) but with a missile that possibly came after that. I've included more information in an edit of my previous post, but I'll post the information below:

Spoiler

We're definitely getting at least the AN/APQ-120F(V), which supports TV display (required for Mavericks and Pave Spike). But if we get the AN/APQ-120(V)-10/-12, then if I'm reading the -34-1-1 correctly, that means we get CAA (which is essentially a vertical acquisition mode, scanning from ±6° in azimuth and +57° to -21° in elevation (with lock being limited to +45° to -9° due to FC computer constraints).

If we're getting the latter radar there's then the question of whether we're getting post or pre OFP P005. Post OFP P005 allows you to select between 3 different azimuth zones; left (centred around -15° azimuth), right (centred around +15° azimuth) and centre (centred on 0).

I might be reading it wrong, but the -34-1-1 suggests that the the AN/APQ-120(V)-10/-12 also provides for a digital FC computer, that (in addition to the CAA functions) handles the DLZ for the AIM-7E, F and AIM-9P/N-2 and P/N-3.

So it could be that we get AIM-7F, but might not get a DLZ for it.

 

If the AN/APQ-120(V)-10/-12 and OFP P005 are pre 1974 anyway then there's no issue, but if it is then we might run into some Frankensteining. Though I am confident that there's nothing prohibiting carrying or firing the AIM-7F.

Edited October 1, 2022 by Northstar98
added information

[LanceCriminal86]

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

To be honest I feel like the MiG-21bis is a bad example given that it has access to weapons it physically couldn’t guide (namely the Kh-66), let alone were in service. We also don’t know if the MiG-21bis was supposed to represent an early 70s version or something more all encompassing (which is easier as differences are minimal compared to a DSCG vs DMAS Phantom).

That said though, thinking about it, I’m actually going to change my mind given that the DSCG Phantom we’re getting could easily represent Phantoms beyond 1974 with the only real difference being the inclusion of the 7F (seeing as we’ll be getting Pave Spike). The DMAS spec being more early 80s up to the early to mid 90s.

EDIT:

Hold that thought as I have found a possible issue with consistency, concerning the radar and its software. They don't have ramifications for the AIM-7F per se, but depending on when these changes occurred could result in some Frankensteining where we have a 1974 Phantom, with the radar and software appropriate for that (i.e no CAA, possibly no DLZ for the AIM-7E/F and AIM-9P/N-2 and P/N-3) but with a missile that possibly came after that. I've included more information in an edit of my previous post.

 

It's not necessarily that it's a "snapshot" 1974 Phantom, it's just that the "early" will be the earlier serials that received the slat kits, but not TISEO or the later features. They'll have the upgraded RWR versus the APS-107 but retaining the old 107 antenna housing, have the later gun shroud, and as said the pod. Those jets were used through the early 90s in the reserves/ANG like the 110th in St. Louis.

In similar vein the "later" one will be the SNs from 71 or 72+ that had TISEO and got the later upgrades, and had slats at the start.

Edited October 1, 2022 by LanceCriminal86

[Elf1606688794]

On 7/29/2022 at 8:31 AM, bies said:

Big advantege of Phantom's Sparrows was the aircraft has been designed with 4 low drag semi-recessed pylons dedicated only for AIM-7 missiles.

They add very little drag having 4 big missiles blended in fuselage boundary layer having small drag index compared to aircrafts carrying missiles under the wings and having minimal impact on performance. Later on F-15, F-14 and F/A-18 had similar non universal low drag semi-recessed pylons as well as they proved to be successfull concept.

The F-15 did not have recessed launchers, still doesn't to my knowledge. Instead of being recessed like on the Phantom the launchers were mounted on the lower "corners" of the fuselage. These were far easier/quicker to load than the recessed launchers on the Phantom.

As a weapons mechanic I didn't find the recessed launchers on the Phantom advantageous to the load crews at all. It was kind of a pain in the rear end to get the wings and fins up inside the cavities w/o damage to the missile or the aircraft.

A disadvantage to the recessed launchers on the Phantom is that they were structural, meaning you couldn't jack or tow the aircraft w/o the aft launchers (or the appropriate spacers) installed w/o damaging the airframe in such a way that reinstalling the launchers became nearly impossible. Several times while I was at Seymour Johnson aircraft were either towed or jacked w/o the launchers or spacers installed and in at least one instance it took almost 24 hours to get the launchers back in and it was only done by jacking the aircraft again while someone used a flashlight to watch how the bolt holes in the launcher lined up with the bolt holes in the airframe.

[SgtPappy]

On 9/30/2022 at 5:24 PM, WinterH said:

MiG-21Bis we have is technically from 1972 originally, but R-60M is from sometime either very late 70s or probably even 80s though, so I'm not fully sure that 7F is entirely out of the realm of possibility just yet.

The distinction is that (and correct me if I'm wrong) the MiG-21bis was marketed as not being the original version that entered service in 1972, since so many of its weapons are from after that time period.

The F-4E we are getting has as mentioned by Cobra will be from the 1974 time period incorporating modifications from that time and earlier.

I'm betting the DMAS F-4E from the late 70s/early 80s will have the AIM-7F available but I suppose we'll have to just wait (hopefully not long) and see. Unrelated tangent: How fun would it be to release the Phantom on Halloween??  

[_BringTheReign_]

On 10/4/2022 at 9:27 PM, SgtPappy said:

Unrelated tangent: How fun would it be to release the Phantom on Halloween??  

I can only get so hopeful for the spooky on spooktober

I tell myself December 31st so I can sleep at night though hahaha

[Omega417]

On 10/4/2022 at 8:27 PM, SgtPappy said:

Unrelated tangent: How fun would it be to release the Phantom on Halloween??  

All they have to say is "Phantoms will be Phlying this Halloween" and the community would go nuts.

[Heinlein]

En 5/10/2022 a las 3:27, SgtPappy dijo:

How fun would it be to release the Phantom on Halloween??  

that is actually great marketing to give us something phantom related on Halloween