difference?

[blkspade]

Its not like your answer was particularly extensive, as in it didn't take that much more typing to get a point across that doesn't sound(read) like someone being short with someone. It not far-fetched to think the mode would had some use given the time of the projection and when the AMRAAM went into service. Also given that the 2 missiles coexisted in loadouts for a period of time. The AMRAAM turned out to be the better choice obviously, its not like it couldn't have turned out like the time they decided the gun was obsolete.

 

Stating that there's no such mode is not dismissive- it's a pertinent answer. Weapons employment manuals after 1983 (actually, 1991+, post AMRAAM) show this never happened.

 

The correct answer does not need to be justified at extensive length. That is, we don't discourse on why 2+2=4; it just is. Over-projections on specifications occur because of beliefs that functionality will be useful at a future point in time, when in fact they get superseded by performance and tactical requirements over that period. AMRAAM's potency removed any need to over-specialize the software Eagle's APG-63 in conjunction with Sparrow modifications to make two target functionality useful.

 

Why modify stocks, software, and potentially hardware (RAM, processor, transmission hardware) when you can have have it with a better weapon?

[GGTharos]

That's actually quite far-fetched. The radar is an MSA, and Sparrow requires an STT signal to home in on. Doable with ESA radars, MSA ... not very useful.

 

It not far-fetched to think the mode would had some use given the time of the projection and when the AMRAAM went into service.

[TAW_Blaze]

I was wondering, why does the NAVY still use sparrows (the P version, iirc)? Is there anything particularly better about it compared to the slammer?

[Growler]

I was wondering' date=' why does the NAVY still use sparrows (the P version, iirc)? Is there anything particularly better about it compared to the slammer?[/quote']

 

I guess Surplus? or Cheaper?. There is no other reason for not using AMRAAMs.

[blkspade]

Well somebody that actually dealt with these things seemed to think it made sense at the time to put it on paper. Obviously things sometimes things that are good in theory, don't pan out in practice. Its presence on the roadmap after 'AMRAAM (Multi Target)' would seem to indicate that would have been an option if the AMRAAM wasn't successful. Of course the F-15 has an ESA radar now, but no AIM-7s.

 

That's actually quite far-fetched. The radar is an MSA, and Sparrow requires an STT signal to home in on. Doable with ESA radars, MSA ... not very useful.

[GGTharos]

There was a similar 'mode' for Su-27 with R-27 that people kept mentioning. Turned out to be mostly bunk as well, pretty much for the same reasons.

 

@Blaze: They use it as a SAM, not sure if they still use it on aircraft. The AIM-7P is a far, far more advanced missile than the AIM-7MH though.

[Raven68]

Nice schooling GGTharos. You definitely have a respectable, wealth of knowledge.

This topic really got me curious on missile evolution and their guidance systems.

Although it's old, I couldn't help but share this link about the latest sparrow in service

and the demonstration to take down multiple targets at once.

[GGTharos]

They can do so because ships tend to have multiple illuminators.

[TAW_Blaze]

Thanks!

[Growler]

There was a similar 'mode' for Su-27 with R-27 that people kept mentioning. Turned out to be mostly bunk as well, pretty much for the same reasons.

 

@Blaze: They use it as a SAM, not sure if they still use it on aircraft. The AIM-7P is a far, far more advanced missile than the AIM-7MH though.

 

As a side note, the last time that the F-15E used Sparrows was Operation 'Northern Watch' (1 January 1997 – 17 March 2003).

http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/weapons/loadout-configurations/128-northern-watch

[Alfa]

They can do so because ships tend to have multiple illuminators.

 

...and the illuminators are usually ESAs.

[GGTharos]

I don't believe so - at least not until recently for the vast majority of ships. Some ships may have ESAs for this purpose, but most of those I am familiar with use illuminator dishes - take the Tico and AB, they have 4 and 3 dishes ... this translates to guiding 4 or 3 SM1/2 simultaneously, although the SPY radars allow for datalinks to keep 19 missiles in the air ... but you can only perform terminal guidance for as many missiles as you have illuminators.

 

SM6 gives this series of weapons an active radar seeker, so the illuminators are no longer needed and the missiles can be used to hit targets over the horizon (think datalink from E2).

[Alfa]

Well the Russian S-300F (Slava and Kirov class cruisers) has multichannel ESA missile guidance radars(one on Slava and two on Kirov) each capable of tracking and illuminating up to 6 targets simultaneously(and control up to 12 missiles in the air).

 

Kynshal(Klinok) and Kortik(Kashtan) missile systems also use multichannel ESA radars although not for terminal SARH illumination(since associated missiles aren't SARH).

 

The only Russian naval SAM system with multiple single channel directors is the Uragan(Shtil), which has 3 per system.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Alfa

[GGTharos]

Yep, I was aware of that for the naval S-300. Surprisingly the USN never did anything like that - the SPY transmits at good frequencies for surveillance, but not for illumination. The newest SPY variants are capable of multiple spectra, IIRC, but the technology is difficult and has been delayed a number of times.

 

It's also becoming moot (for SARH guidance that is) as SM-6 enters service.

[Alfa]

To be honest my insight to AEGIS AD is rather superficial, so I will take your word for it :) .

 

Considering that the system was designed specifically for countering saturation attacks, the fast response time assured via the multiple fixed arrays, the fast launch rate via the MK-41 VLS and the huge number of threats that SPY-1 can process simultaneously, I guess I always assumed that terminal target illumination would be done via this too or alternatively through an associated multichannel director unit - relying on 3 or 4 single channel illuminators seems quite a "bottleneck" for the type of scenarios the system was meant to deal with.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Alfa

[GGTharos]

The AEGIS AD can direct a lot more than a single ship's missiles. That is the whole point of it :)