Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!cbnews!nelson_p@apollo.com From: nelson_p@apollo.com (Peter Nelson) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Sparrow miss rate off Libya Message-ID: <5735@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 19 Apr 89 02:44:50 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 33 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Peter Nelson 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