Skyflash vs Sparrow

[KJ_Lesnick]

The Skyflash was based on the Sparrow: Which was more capable

[Weaver]

Depends which generation of Sparrow you're talking about. What happened was that after the AIM-7E, progress in electronics allowed the size of the basic guidance package to be reduced to half it's former size. The issue then was what to do with the newly available volume.

The USAF was looking at a mass air battle over central Europe against tactical aircraft with limited ECM. They felt the most important thing would be to score as many BVR kills as possible before the merge, thereby evening the odds a bit. Therefore they decided to use the volume for range, moved the warhead from behind the wins to ahead of them, and fitted a longer motor.

The RAF was looking at taking down Soviet bombers over the North Sea. Given that these aircraft were large enough to have powerful and sophisiticated ECM, they decided that electronic sophistication was the most important thing, so they stuck with the short AIM-7E motor and used the volume for a completely new inverse-monopulse seeker with greatly improved ECCM capabilities.

Skyflash was never used in combat so it's performance is theoretical, but when it was test-fired in the States, the USN admiral in charge said it was the most successful missile they'd ever tested.  IIRC, Sparrow didn't reach the same levels of accuracy, reliability and ECCM until the AIM-7M, which was another generation of electronics down the line.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Weaver

Depends which generation of Sparrow you're talking about. What happened was that after the AIM-7E, progress in electronics allowed the size of the basic guidance package to be reduced to half it's former size. The issue then was what to do with the newly available volume.

The USAF was looking at a mass air battle over central Europe against tactical aircraft with limited ECM. They felt the most important thing would be to score as many BVR kills as possible before the merge, thereby evening the odds a bit. Therefore they decided to use the volume for range, moved the warhead from behind the wins to ahead of them, and fitted a longer motor.

The RAF was looking at taking down Soviet bombers over the North Sea. Given that these aircraft were large enough to have powerful and sophisiticated ECM, they decided that electronic sophistication was the most important thing, so they stuck with the short AIM-7E motor and used the volume for a completely new inverse-monopulse seeker with greatly improved ECCM capabilities.

Both made logical sense for their own purposes.

Skyflash was never used in combat so it's performance is theoretical, but when it was test-fired in the States, the USN admiral in charge said it was the most successful missile they'd ever tested.  IIRC, Sparrow didn't reach the same levels of accuracy, reliability and ECCM until the AIM-7M, which was another generation of electronics down the line.

Just to make sure my figures are correct

• The Skyflash was conceived in the late 1960's; development began in the early 1970's and it entered service in 1978 correct
  
• The AIM-7M was in service in the early 1980's
  

Am I right or wrong?

[Weaver]

Weaver

Depends which generation of Sparrow you're talking about. What happened was that after the AIM-7E, progress in electronics allowed the size of the basic guidance package to be reduced to half it's former size. The issue then was what to do with the newly available volume.

The USAF was looking at a mass air battle over central Europe against tactical aircraft with limited ECM. They felt the most important thing would be to score as many BVR kills as possible before the merge, thereby evening the odds a bit. Therefore they decided to use the volume for range, moved the warhead from behind the wins to ahead of them, and fitted a longer motor.

The RAF was looking at taking down Soviet bombers over the North Sea. Given that these aircraft were large enough to have powerful and sophisiticated ECM, they decided that electronic sophistication was the most important thing, so they stuck with the short AIM-7E motor and used the volume for a completely new inverse-monopulse seeker with greatly improved ECCM capabilities.

Both made logical sense for their own purposes.

Skyflash was never used in combat so it's performance is theoretical, but when it was test-fired in the States, the USN admiral in charge said it was the most successful missile they'd ever tested.  IIRC, Sparrow didn't reach the same levels of accuracy, reliability and ECCM until the AIM-7M, which was another generation of electronics down the line.

Just to make sure my figures are correct

• The Skyflash was conceived in the late 1960's; development began in the early 1970's and it entered service in 1978 correct
  
• The AIM-7M was in service in the early 1980's
  

Am I right or wrong?

Yes, that's right.