Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!cbnews!mcvax!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian@uunet.UU.NET From: mcvax!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian@uunet.UU.NET (Adrian Hurt) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Sparrow miss rate off Libya Message-ID: <6076@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 29 Apr 89 01:24:26 GMT References: <5735@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5763@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Computer Science, Heriot-Watt U., Scotland Lines: 23 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Adrian Hurt In article <5763@cbnews.ATT.COM> nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby) writes: > > Apples to Oranges. Sparrows are Radar Guided, Sidewinders are > Infra-Red seekers. Sparrows supposedly have a longer range and are > easier to lock on. Sidewinders are damn deadly. I am surprised no-one has yet mentioned one factor. Sparrows are "semi-active radar homing". They have a radar seeker, but no transmitter. The launching aircraft must continue to track the target with its own radar right until the missile hits, or the missile will have nothing to look for. By contrast, Sidewinders are "fire and forget" missiles. You let it off, and it will find the target's engine all by itself. Now, if someone else looks like they're about to fire at you, which would you rather do? Continue to track the target, or take evasive action of your own? "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk