Posted on 01/18/2011 10:55:10 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Military to check under-performing Sparrow missiles
2011/01/18 22:45:41
Taipei, Jan. 18 (CNA) Following a poor showing by six missiles in a test firing Tuesday, three of which were U.S.-made Sparrows, the Ministry of National Defense (MND) said it will check each and every one of the remaining missiles to find out what went wrong.
MND spokesman Yu Sy-tue said 11 of the 15 scenarios tested at southern Taiwan's Jiupeng military base had successful outcomes.
"The 73.3 percent success rate was within the MND's target range of between 70 percent and 95 percent -- but barely a passing grade, " Yu said.
But President Ma Ying-jeou, who witnessed the military drill, said he was "not quite satisfied" with the results and demanded a review.
A total of 19 missiles with different ranges were fired, six of which missed their targets, translating into a 68 percent hit rate.
Three out of the six that failed to hit the targets were Sparrows, which have a poorer record than some other types of missiles.
In a 2006 exercise, there were incidents of Sparrows falling into the sea before reaching their targets.
Defense officials attributed the problem to incomplete combustion of its rocket propellant, early detonation of the fuse, and failure to explode upon reaching the target.
Pan Kung-hsiao, director of the Air Force Command's Department of Political Affairs, said the target drone's signal might have been to blame for the three Sparrows' poor performance and that the MND will try to contact the U.S. manufacturer.
A defense expert said the military might also have purposely used old and nearly dysfunctional missiles for the test firing.
Erich Shih, editor of Defense International magazine, said Tuesday's test scenarios were not based on normal simulated war situations.
For instance, Mica and Tien Chien II, mid-range missiles designed for striking at targets 40-50 km away, were used as short-range missiles this time, he said.
Kuomintang Legislator Justin S. Chou, a member of the legislature's Foreign Affairs and National Defense Committee, called the 68 percent hit rate "disappointing to the point of indignation."
If a military exercise under the watch of the commander-in-chief of the armed forces should turn in such a lousy score, there must be many other problems unknown to the public plaguing the country's defense system, according to Chou.
Tsai Huang-liang, a legislator of the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), expressed a similar level of disgruntlement over the missile tests.
"If things keep developing this way, how can our troops fight in a war?" Tsai said.
Shuai Hua-ming, a retired general-turned-KMT lawmaker, was more sympathetic.
He said the defense authorities should of course be called to account if the cause of Tuesday's problem was poor maintenance of the weapons system. However, if the problem was caused by a shortage of military budget, then the cure lies with increasing the MND's budget.
Shih seemed to agree, saying that "maintaining high-tech weapons calls for special expertise. Dwindling defense budgets have begun to affect the missiles' maintenance fees." (By Emmanuelle Tzeng, Chou Yung-chieh, Kelven Huang, Justin Su and S.C. Chang) ENDITEM/J
/johnny
AIM-7 Sparrows are 1950s technology and have all but been replaced by the AIM-120 AAMRAM
The history of the Sparrow missile dates back to 1947, when the U.S. Navy contracted Sperry to develop a beam-riding guidance system for a standard 12.7 cm (5 in) HVAR (High Velocity Aerial Rocket). The original designation for this missile project was KAS-1, but this was changed to AAM-2 in September 1947 and to AAM-N-2 in early 1948. The 5” diameter soon proved to be too small, so Douglas developed a new airframe of 20.3 cm (8 in) diameter. The first unpowered flight tests of XAAM-N-2 prototypes occurred in 1948. Development was difficult, however, and the first successful air-to-air interception was only done in December 1952. The AAM-N-2 Sparrow I entered service in 1956 with F3H-2M Demon and F7U-3M Cutlass fighters. Because of the inherent disadvantages of beam-riding guidance, like poor low-level performance, only 2000 Sparrow I missiles were produced, and it was withdrawn from service after only a few years.
haven’t sparrows always sucked? Just off the cuff, there seem to be a lot of stories of them not being the best missile we have. Thoughts?
Made with the Union label. That says it all I think...
AIM-7 Sparrow missiles have always been notoriusly inaccurate that is why we use the AIM-120 AMRAAM now. Just ask Vietnam and later pilots about their Sparrow experiences. Don’t know which version the TW are using which may play a big part in accuracy.
They keep upgrading them over the years, the ones they fire now are not the same as the ones used a decade ago.
Are Porsche turbos and F-22s, union labeled?
Probably, but I have a good friend who work for Raytheon so the horror stories I hear about management/union relationship brought that one to mind.
The Italians improved on the Sparrow by getting away from the CW illumination. It was still a semi-active rader homing(SARH), which required target illumination. Don’t know about the British Skyflash, which was another Sparrow derivative, except it was another SARH. The AIM-120 has full active radar homing, and the AIM-120D variant has a range approaching that of the old AIM-54 Phoenix.
Very easy to lose lock if they did work, as the pilot needed to keep the radar illuminating the target the whole way in. Great fun if there are gomers around.
Had a vague feelig that they had improved since then, what with the Sea Sparrow variants and all, but this sounds like the same old crap is still going on.
What? Does Raytheon have an unlisted phone number or something?
It does? The Phoenix was a darned big missile and it followed high-arcing tragectory to achieve it's long range. Just comparing the size of the missile you wouldn't think that the AIM-120D has anything approaching the range of the old AIM-54.
The planned replacement of the AIM-54, the AIM-152, was smaller than the Phoenix as well, yet still more range. Granted, the propulsion for the AIM-152 included ramjet. The program was cancelled, and later the Tomcat, its intended platform, was taken out of service. Lighter, more compact electronics help. Keep in mind that the mode of operation of the AIM-120 is significantly different than that of its AIM-7 predecessor. Electronics are way ahead, and it can also datalink with the launching aircraft.
Here, hear. Sparrows have always sucked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.