Sparrow or Sidewinder?

After playing the mission that simulates the first scored kills of the F-18 against 2 Libyan MiG-21s (I forget the name), I researched the original encounter to find out what the actual pilots did. One of the F-18 pilots who scored a kill mentions that he fired an AIM-9 first, then a sparrow. He lost track of the AIM-9 and thought it had (or would) miss and so fired a sparrow. The sidewinder did hit, however, and the sparrow chased after the smoldering MiG. The other F-18 dispatched the other MiG with just a single sparrow.

So... my question is why would an F-18 pilot fire a sidewinder first? I understand the Soviet doctrine and reasoning behind firing two seeker types in tandem and firing the IR first (so it doesn't track the radar missile), but they usually fielded equal range variants of a particular IR and radar missile for that purpose. The article I read mentions he got a lock at 10 miles, hot. I could find no information about the specific range when he launched the sidewinder, but 10 miles seems way too far for an AIM-9. Why would you not lead with a Sparrow first? The only reason I can think is so that you aren't stuck guiding the Sparrow. IIRC, switching to the AIM-9 causes the Sparrow to lose tracking, no? Still, by the time you know a Sparrow is going to miss, you would be in ideal range for the AIM-9, which seems like a better situation. Am I missing something here? Am I underestimating the real effective range of an AIM-9?

Don't know the encounter details, but my guess would be that due to ROE (Rules of Engagement) they had to get close to obtain a visual ID and confirm them to be enemies. After that, they used the weapon more suitable for close combat.

Similar with the recent shoot down of Su-22 in Syria, where the first weapon used was Aim-9X, and the Aim-120 only after the X has failed.

Don't know the encounter details, but my guess would be that due to ROE (Rules of Engagement) they had to get close to obtain a visual ID and confirm them to be enemies. After that, they used the weapon more suitable for close combat.

 

Similar with the recent shoot down of Su-22 in Syria, where the first weapon used was Aim-9X, and the Aim-120 only after the X has failed.

Here's the article I am referencing some of this information from

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/this-vfa-81-f-a-18c-driver-scored-the-first-of-only-two-u-s-navy-mig-kill-during-operation-desert-storm/

Bit of a different scenario. Apparently an E-2 confirmed them as bandits, and they were flying head on towards each other. The Su-22 shoot down was an attempt to get it to divert from its course, allegedly towards a US-aligned rebels position. I remember the pilot mentioning he drove right up next to the guy, flashed his weapons, tried communicating, but the Su-22 pilot kept course. Since it was basically shooting a non-maneuvering target, the decision to use the AIM-9X, I believe, was to use the lower cost missile and provide real world combat data for it.

Listen to this podcast:

https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/017-desert-storm-mig-kill/

Its an interview with US Navy Captain Nick “Mongo” Mongillo, and they listen to and break down the audio from the engagement.

Its well worth the time to listen to it

Basically, the E-2 had declared them “bandits”. The flight lead didn’t hear the call however and ordered a visual ID. So that’s what they did. As soon as they could confirm they were bandits- since they were in visual range), he was in a position to fire either an aim-9 or Aim-7 so he fired the aim-9. He had thought it missed and the general rule is that if the first one misses....try something different. So thinking the sidewinder missed, he cued up a sparrow and fired. Right then the aim-9 hit. So there was no strategy other than trying a different weapon when he thought the first didn’t work

Same thing happened with the F/A-18e shoot down of the SU-24 over Libya. He fired an AIM-9x which came off the rail and just dropped (it was NOT decoyed by flares. That claim all stemmed from a guess by a contributor author to popular mechanics made on his twitter account). Since the aim-9 malfunctioned, he switched to an Aim-120 and used that.

So seems to be a standard thing to fire a radar missile if the IR fails and not Simply firing another aim-9

Listen to this podcast:

 

https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/017-desert-storm-mig-kill/

 

Its an interview with US Navy Captain Nick “Mongo” Mongillo, and they listen to and break down the audio from the engagement.

Its well worth the time to listen to it

Thanks very much!

Basically, the E-2 had declared them “bandits”. The flight lead didn’t hear the call however and ordered a visual ID.

I'm surprised we don't lose more aircraft in situations like these. A MiG-21 (or really just about anything) is about as likely to kill an F-18 as vice versa. Hell, a Cessna 175 modified to carry sidewinders would be a threat. I guess it all comes down to coordination, tactics, and pilot experience.

Same thing happened with the F/A-18e shoot down of the SU-24 over Libya. He fired an AIM-9x which came off the rail and just dropped (it was NOT decoyed by flares. That claim all stemmed from a guess by a contributor author to popular mechanics made on his twitter account). Since the aim-9 malfunctioned, he switched to an Aim-120 and used that.

Yes, I remember watching a video of some press conference (I guess) where the pilot was describing the events. Said it failed to track outright. I'm sure there were some hush-hush meetings behind closed doors about that one. Not a good look for our most advanced sidewinder, no matter how many times it has been tested successfully against target drones.

By the way, as for the dcs mission itself, I have a lot more trouble than the pilots did, although it's mostly because I'm trying to get both kills for myself because I'm greedy. Is it just me or is trying to use TWS mode with Sparrows pretty much pointless? Or it seems the AI knows exactly what to do. I'll get track of both targets early in the engagement easily enough. But by the time I'm in a decent enough range to fire, I will inevitably lose one or both of them. Often, I'll lose lock after firing the first sparrow on the primary. Usually the MiGs first split up in opposite directions and one dives to the ground to fly past us, meaning there's no way the radar can keep scanning for both and I rarely if ever get the chance to fire on the secondary before its lost. I know how to use the system and I've read all the guides. It just doesn't seem super viable in a combat scenario with AIM-7s due to its range (AIM-120s are a different story). Better to STT one and have your wingman take the other one.

Then there's the bomb target. Well, I haven't really mastered that yet, but SEAD really drags its ass in that mission. There's always something left on the ground to fire on me even after circling around a couple times. I think I just don't know how to use the radio system, because the \ key doesn't even give me options for my wingman in this particular mission. The game mentions something about having "allied flight reports enabled." I'm not sure where that option is.

Also, is there any way not to have your Sparrows default to LOFT mode?

In the Western aircraft, you don't use Sparrows in TWS. There's a reason for that. If you recall, in TWS, bandits (or anyone else) do not get a lock alarm (the spike). Which is why TWS was so nice. The Sparrow, however, depends on reflected radar energy off the target. That reflected radar signal IS the lock signal and is quite powerful. If you go into STT mode, they get a spike alarm. (So does everyone near him. Nobody gets a "launch" signal because the Sparrow is not emitting anything; just listening.) That spike is what the Sparrow is guiding on. It needs a direct spike to track. Locking in TWS is nothing more than a normal scan signal which everyone with an RWR can see and is referred to as "nails" as opposed to "spike". The TWS signal is a normal RWS signal and is just what the scanning aircraft's computer is keeping track of, NOT a true lock signal.

Basically, the E-2 had declared them “bandits”. The flight lead didn’t hear the call however and ordered a visual ID. So that’s what they did. As soon as they could confirm they were bandits- since they were in visual range), he was in a position to fire either an aim-9 or Aim-7 so he fired the aim-9. He had thought it missed and the general rule is that if the first one misses....try something different. So thinking the sidewinder missed, he cued up a sparrow and fired. Right then the aim-9 hit. So there was no strategy other than trying a different weapon when he thought the first didn’t work

 

Same thing happened with the F/A-18e shoot down of the SU-24 over Libya. He fired an AIM-9x which came off the rail and just dropped (it was NOT decoyed by flares. That claim all stemmed from a guess by a contributor author to popular mechanics made on his twitter account). Since the aim-9 malfunctioned, he switched to an Aim-120 and used that.

 

So seems to be a standard thing to fire a radar missile if the IR fails and not Simply firing another aim-9

It came off the rail and dropped? No ignition? lol well that sucks

Yes, I remember watching a video of some press conference (I guess) where the pilot was describing the events. Said it failed to track outright. I'm sure there were some hush-hush meetings behind closed doors about that one. Not a good look for our most advanced sidewinder, no matter how many times it has been tested successfully against target drones.

Who knows man...launch 20 tomahawks and 1-2 will fail. Sometimes crap just doesn’t work. Maybe pilot error...forgot to uncage and it hadn’t locked...anyone’s guess. But if it just dropped, it’s some type of mechinical/electronic failure as opposed to “its just not good”. They aim-9x did just fine downing the Su-22 over turkey

Relic,

No, he said it “came off the rails and I immediately lost the smoke trail...it just dropped”

So I think it ignited but decided it wanted to go get something on the ground really bad. Seeker malfunction? Dunno. All I know is no matter how good something is, sometimes it doesn’t work. No matter how bad something is, sometimes it does

I'm surprised we don't lose more aircraft in situations like these. A MiG-21 (or really just about anything) is about as likely to kill an F-18 as vice versa. Hell, a Cessna 175 modified to carry sidewinders would be a threat. I guess it all comes down to coordination, tactics, and pilot experience.

May be that the migs didn’t even know the F-18’s were there. Pilot training ain’t great and I doubt the best pilots are getting mig-21s. They didn’t even attempt to evade. Looking at some of the air combat, it seems like some of the Iraqis were just taking off, flying as fast as they could to burn fuel and then get back down

In the Western aircraft, you don't use Sparrows in TWS. There's a reason for that. If you recall, in TWS, bandits (or anyone else) do not get a lock alarm (the spike). Which is why TWS was so nice. The Sparrow, however, depends on reflected radar energy off the target. That reflected radar signal IS the lock signal and is quite powerful. If you go into STT mode, they get a spike alarm. (So does everyone near him. Nobody gets a "launch" signal because the Sparrow is not emitting anything; just listening.) That spike is what the Sparrow is guiding on. It needs a direct spike to track. Locking in TWS is nothing more than a normal scan signal which everyone with an RWR can see and is referred to as "nails" as opposed to "spike". The TWS signal is a normal RWS signal and is just what the scanning aircraft's computer is keeping track of, NOT a true lock signal.

I hope that I don't come off wrong, but I worked on F-4E and F-4G fighter radar in another life, so I just wanted to clarify some of your info about AIM-7 Sparrow guidance. You're correct that in (most) cases, a TWS radar doesn't support a semi-active radar missile, like the Sparrow. That's because the Sparrow seeker relies on a seperate (from the tracking radar) signal, one that is continuous wave (CW), rather than the pulse or pulse doppler signal used for search and track. To ensure the strongest CW return off of the target, a RWS radar normally uses the same antenna used for tracking to send out the CW signal. The Sparrow is fed a sample of the aircraft's CW signal (called Pseudo) and a simulated return off of the tracked target (called Sim Dop or Simulated Doppler), which it then uses to acquire the target aircraft once it leaves the launcher. The Sparrow then tracks the doppler shifted CW return signal off the target, while monitoring the CW signal from the launching aircraft, to ensure it stays on target. An aircraft that uses a scanning (moving) radar antenna normally can't maintain the CW illuminator signal on the target aircraft, while continuing to do TWS. Some fighters employed a separate antenna for the CW illuminator, like the original F-15A, which had a big CW illuminator horn above the scanning phased array tracking antenna. That's the simple version of how it works. Hope that helps.

The more modern Sparrows, homed in on a PD signal. Starting from the F-model and up. With the M and up only capable of homing in on a PD based signal due to the monopulse seeker being incompatible with a CW signal. This is why they removed the CW transmitters on the F15s not to long after it was introduced. Instead the main radar injects the necessary signal into its own tracking pulses with a very high prf and duty cycle (goes by ICW or CWI).

The reason TWS can't support a SARH missile is it isn't constantly illuminating the target. Yes for missiles such as the SM2 it only needs this constant illumination in the terminal phase (last 10 seconds or so) but it still needs it to hit. Without it TWS does not provide enough reflected energy for the weapon to home in on.

I'm pretty sure if you launch a Sparrow in TWS the Hornet should switch to STT automatically. Not sure if this is working in game right now since I've not tried it - but it could explain the OP "loosing" one track after engaging the other one with a Sparrow.

I'm pretty sure if you launch a Sparrow in TWS the Hornet should switch to STT automatically. Not sure if this is working in game right now since I've not tried it - but it could explain the OP "loosing" one track after engaging the other one with a Sparrow.

No, I don't think so. At least the secondary target marked with "X" on the hud still shows while the first Sparrow is guiding towards the primary. I should maybe check to see if I lose lock the instant I switch to the secondary. However, it doesn't boot you out of TWS mode.

Also, after briefly checking wikipedia, I had no idea the AIM-120 was deployed as late as 1991. So any engagement of Soviet aircraft against NATO forces would have been the Sparrow against the R-27 and R-27ER. Kind of embarrassing I am just now finding out. I always pictured Flankers and Fulcrums flying against F-16s, F-18s, and F-15s armed with AMRAAMs. Being a Flanker pilot by nature, I don't feel so ancient anymore in comparison. Because honestly the Sparrow is kinda... meh. LOFT mode is nice, I suppose, in certain situations.

I hope that I don't come off wrong, but I worked on F-4E and F-4G fighter radar in another life, so I just wanted to clarify some of your info about AIM-7 Sparrow guidance. You're correct that in (most) cases, a TWS radar doesn't support a semi-active radar missile, like the Sparrow. That's because the Sparrow seeker relies on a seperate (from the tracking radar) signal, one that is continuous wave (CW), rather than the pulse or pulse doppler signal used for search and track. To ensure the strongest CW return off of the target, a RWS radar normally uses the same antenna used for tracking to send out the CW signal. The Sparrow is fed a sample of the aircraft's CW signal (called Pseudo) and a simulated return off of the tracked target (called Sim Dop or Simulated Doppler), which it then uses to acquire the target aircraft once it leaves the launcher. The Sparrow then tracks the doppler shifted CW return signal off the target, while monitoring the CW signal from the launching aircraft, to ensure it stays on target. An aircraft that uses a scanning (moving) radar antenna normally can't maintain the CW illuminator signal on the target aircraft, while continuing to do TWS. Some fighters employed a separate antenna for the CW illuminator, like the original F-15A, which had a big CW illuminator horn above the scanning phased array tracking antenna. That's the simple version of how it works. Hope that helps.

Interesting info, guys. Thank you. Does anyone then know how a MiG-31 guides its R-33 (SARH) missiles simultaneously against four targets?

Interesting info, guys. Thank you. Does anyone then know how a MiG-31 guides its R-33 (SARH) missiles simultaneously against four targets?

It has a passive electronically scanned array radar so can direct multiple beams to engage multiple targets with SARH missiles. First fighter to incorporate an electronically scanned array radar.

It has a passive electronically scanned array radar so can direct multiple beams to engage multiple targets with SARH missiles. First fighter to incorporate an electronically scanned array radar.

And I assume the reason the F-14 can engage multiple targets is due to the AIM-54 being active guided? Forgive me if this is kind of basic info, but I always thought every active guided missile is as good as semi-active until pitbull. How does that work? Does the guidance computer just give the missile an estimate on where to fly until it can acquire the target on its own?

One of the F-18 pilots who scored a kill mentions that he fired an AIM-9 first, then a sparrow. He lost track of the AIM-9 and thought it had (or would) miss and so fired a sparrow. The sidewinder did hit, however, and the sparrow chased after the smoldering MiG. The other F-18 dispatched the other MiG with just a single sparrow.

 

So... my question is why would an F-18 pilot fire a sidewinder first?

Pilots are human and they not always make the best decisions especially under stress. There was an article at tbo.com where MRT Fox explained his experience. Unfortunately the site no longer exists, but I keep a printed copy within his chapter in my Debrief book.

After the AWACS call, he says:

"Suddenly it was very obvious who he was talking about, so I went into a quick lock mode and got an immediate lock on a MiG-21, nose onto me at 10 miles.

We were closing on each other very fast.

Inside of 10 miles, you always select Sidewinder. Now, if I had been completely sane and rational at the time, after having gotten the lock... I would have gone to the Sparrow and taken a nine-mile Sparrow shot on him."

What I interpret is that as the bandit was about 10 NM out, he selected Sidewinder to go into ACM radar modes. For sure he was surprised, excited, nervous, and with low SA thinking on their ground attack mission until they understood the AWACS call. With the high closure speed, probably the MiG was within Sidewinder range before he could even think of using a Sparrow instead.

If missile misses or fails, you will see that pilots try to switch to another type when available and it is within launch parameters too. Look for "Cherry" Pitts kill (F-15C vs MiG-25) where he shot an AIM-9 (decoyed), then AIM-7 (missed), then AIM-9 (decoyed) and eventually another AIM-7 (hit) to the same aircraft in this order. Fox behaved just like Pitts: when he though that his AIM-9 was a dud, he just switched to AIM-7 and shot again.

And I assume the reason the F-14 can engage multiple targets is due to the AIM-54 being active guided? Forgive me if this is kind of basic info, but I always thought every active guided missile is as good as semi-active until pitbull. How does that work? Does the guidance computer just give the missile an estimate on where to fly until it can acquire the target on its own?

The F-14 only guides multiple AIM54s with TWS mode, which is not a true "lock". It's more or less a quick scan of an area with track files in the radar accurate enough to guide a missile. The AIM54 receives those track updates from the radar via a data link to the missile. Remember, the radar sweeps back and forth in a conventional non AESA or PESA radar array (like all the aircraft we have in game right now). A TWS track file gets updated every time the radar beam goes over the radar return, about every second or so.

The AIM120 operates the same exact way.

Where the AIM54 differs is that the AIM54 launched with a lock is only a SARH missile, like the AIM7, it never goes active... the AIM120 will go active a set distance from the target and hand off guidance to it's own seeker, and if it loses lock somehow, it can revert back to SARH guidance...

Played the mission a few more times. My only conclusion is that Sparrows are practically useless. If they were like this in reality, I can see why a pilot would just opt to close in for a sidewinder shot. Of course, I doubt they were this ineffective in reality. I've heard the drag values on missiles have been kind of screwy since a few updates ago. I don't know if it has been addressed yet, but my problem isn't the missile losing steam; it's the fact that almost every single time the radar loses lock at some point. It doesn't look like the enemy is notching me. It just straight up drops the lock. Now, the MiG-21 I fire at does usually start turning away from me, and I think I'm often chasing him when I lose the lock. It could be that or it could be him spamming chaff, but still... By comparison, AIM-120s are practically guaranteed kills. Unfortunately, most of the missions and the campaign that come with the F-18 module equip you with AIM-7s.

I'm just wondering if anyone else is having trouble with sparrows.

In the Western aircraft, you don't use Sparrows in TWS. There's a reason for that. If you recall, in TWS, bandits (or anyone else) do not get a lock alarm (the spike). Which is why TWS was so nice. The Sparrow, however, depends on reflected radar energy off the target. That reflected radar signal IS the lock signal and is quite powerful. If you go into STT mode, they get a spike alarm. (So does everyone near him. Nobody gets a "launch" signal because the Sparrow is not emitting anything; just listening.) That spike is what the Sparrow is guiding on. It needs a direct spike to track. Locking in TWS is nothing more than a normal scan signal which everyone with an RWR can see and is referred to as "nails" as opposed to "spike". The TWS signal is a normal RWS signal and is just what the scanning aircraft's computer is keeping track of, NOT a true lock signal.

To that, if you are in TWS and you have a target soft locked, and you fire the Sparrrow, it automatically goes to STT and drops all the other contacts.

v6,

boNes