AIM-7 SPARROW: Development And Evolution Of A Pioneering But Troubled Weapon System

The AIM-7 Sparrow was a highly ambitious and sophisticated piece of 1950s technology, which pushed the boundaries of what was possible to cram into a missile body and airframe. Although its performance was disappointing in Vietnam, it remained the primary armament of USAF fighters until the AMRAAM entered widespread service in the late 1990s.
Despite its importance to Cold War aviation history, I struggled to find any good single books or videos on the Sparrow. This is my attempt to fill that gap.
Key sources.
I used a very wide range of documents, books, forums and other media to assemble this video. Some important and interesting ones are:
Michel's "Clashes" covers Sparrow performance data in some depth
...as does the Navy "Report Of The Air-To-Air Missile System Capability Review, July - November 1968"...
...and "All The Missiles Work: Technological Dislocations And Military Innovation" by Steven Fino
"F-15 Eagle Engaged" by Steve Davies and Doug Dildy is a useful resource for the Sparrow's implementation on the F-15
This absolutely excellent thread on Secret Projects, covers key aspects of the weapon: www.secretproj...
A typically great blog on Tailhook Topics on early Sparrow: tailspintopics...
"Iranian F-14 Units In Combat" by Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop contains multiple stories and extensive data tables about the use of Sparrows by the F-14 against Iraq
A useful DCS post - I find this forum generally quite good for in-depth performance and firing sequences as people are trying to model those aspects into the game: forum.dcs.worl...
A slightly less structured, but also insightful War Thunder forum post: old-forum.wart...

[@JohnLocke-y9e]

USAF F4 WSO, 1700+hrs in F4C,D,E, combat in Vietnam, Fighter Weapons School graduate: This is an excellent treatise on the AIM-7. I can expand on the area you excluded-aircrew training. It was terrible. Once out of a training squadron, there was little follow-on teaching as hardly anyone knew how the missile worked or what the best tactics were. It wasn't until the mid-70s that we began to get a handle on how to employ the E3 version correctly. In a maneuvering fight max range rule of thumb was 6 miles in the front quarter, 4 miles in the beam quarter, and 2 miles in the rear. Min range was 2 miles in the front, 1 mile on the beam, and 3k feet in the rear. A 6 mile front launch meant that the target could not escape the missile. Of course one still had the fuze issues etc. The slat F4E featured a major cockpit modernization that put the missile/gun switches on the throttles and stick and were a great improvement. However, we still had the APQ-120 radar, pulse only, with a nasty altitude line issue caused by an ogive shaped antenna caused by the installation of the gun. One more thing, it might have been nice to mention Ritchie's WSO, Capt. Charles DeBellevue :)

[@AlanToon-fy4hg]

And that is why both are aces. Thank you for serving...

[@manuelkatsos5104]

Also a doco on Combat Tree and Teaball would be great.

[@RogerSanGabriel]

Thanks for posting thanks for your service.

[@reinbeers5322]

You might know the answer to this, so I'll ask: was there ever a published minimum altitude for the Sparrows prior to the M model with its inverse monopulse seeker? Reports of them being unreliable at low altitude are common, but exactly how bad was it?

[@LupusAries]

Yeah, a crew is a team, and the kills belong to both. I only play DCS, but given that my stick work is better than my radar work, it has given me a keen appreciation for WSOs/RIOs. Better that someone who knows what he's doing handles that, instead of me mucking about. And the second set of eyes is very appreciated. As is dealing with the Tomcat INS....Looking at that thing I wonder how much work it must've been to navigate the Phantom. One thing I was wondering about Ritchie's (and deBellevue's) Success was that aside from having a really, really good WSO is that he might've also had a really good crew Chief and Armourer? Just thinking about one of the comments that one of the guys wrote on one of the earlier on the "The Fight Between Two Legendary US Aces That Gave The Phantom A Gun"-video, about the rocker grate and how that trashed a load of Thank you for your service and taking the time to write to us all. It would be very interesting to have an interview here with you, to see how flying the F-4 was from the WSO's perspective.

[@LoaderX73]

I loaded a lot of AIM-7s on F-15s... There was thing that the pickle button had to be pressed and held until the rocket motor fired. There is what was called a missile motor fire wire. That wire was connected to the LAU-106 and would uncoil during ejection. The idea is for the rocket motor to fire at the moment the wire was fully extended. A short pickle would cause the missile to fall away harmlessly, as described in the video. Funny story-- I was covering a launch of an F-15 one day and an inert missile with no wings or fins activated on the aircraft. All 4 wing wells cocked like it was trying to do it's post-launch 45 degree roll. Shut the jet down, downloaded the missile. I was leaning on the missile whilst it was on a trailer, waiting on ammo to come get it, and it activated again. The hydraulics are LOUD. Scared the absolute crap out of me and I took off running like it was a live missile. Everyone around laughed at me running from an inert missile with blue bands all over it. I ran like it counted and didn't care what they thought.

[@geodkyt]

"The radar, it turned out, was not a great deal of use against the backdrop of the sea, which is a prominent feature in naval combat." I literally LOL'ed.

[@AndrewGivens]

A Drachism of sorts? Nice.

[@whyjnot420]

@@AndrewGivens More like typical British understatement. Not enough snark to call it a Drachism. :P

[@AndrewGivens]

@@whyjnot420 agreed. Drach takes sarcasm to camp levels. However, Pound doesn't usually indulge in such over humour, so this is perhaps his directional equivalent for the moment? Whatever, it certainly landed.

[@AnimeSunglasses]

Yes, that was a good one. I agree it was Drach quality, tho perhaps not a Drachism for the books.

[@Mishn0]

The description of the motor fire function is a little off. Ejecting the missile doesn't "pull a pin". There's a cable on the aft ejector foot that extends from a reel as the foot extends. A microswitch closes at the correct extension distance and if the timing is correct, sends voltage down the cable to light the motor. We had a test set that used compressed nitrogen instead of the explosive cartridges to fire the feet down and it recorded that the correct timing and extensions were achieved. It wouldn't fire the motor if the aft foot extended more quickly than the forward foot. You don't want to light the motor if the missile is pointing up at the aircraft! Maybe the cold-soaking of the ejector carts was causing timing issues? There's also a circuit breaker in the cockpit that needs to be set to allow motor fire voltage. We would pull that breaker when loading for safety. The RIO was supposed to push it back in once they were in the air. At least once during a training missile shoot, that didn't happen and the missile just dropped into the ocean after it was ejected. Sad RIO face...

[@Easy-Eight]

Over 40 years past I was trained to pull functional checks on the AIM-7 system. I did tens of dozens of those in the USAF. Generally, it took us about 10 odd minutes per station to run a functional check. There were four stations. Between set up, the check, running the check lists, and close up the whole process was 45 - 90 minutes, generally took up a little more than an hour on average.

[@vernmeyerotto255]

20 checks plus front and rear signal? If everything was working right, it took longer to hook the equipment up than to punch off the stations. We were using the 383 checker to analyze the RF sent to the launchers too, but it was computerized so it went quickly.

[@Easy-Eight]

@@vernmeyerotto255 I have not pulled a functional check since 1981. Honestly, by December of '81 I was in business school learning accounting, finance, and economics. I was a 462 in the USAF. The only testing machine I remember was "the beer can". I do remember loading dozens of AIM-7F on the F-15 through the years. The ignition wire was fastened to the missile by an 8" pipe hose clamp. Weird days. Best job I ever had.

[@vernmeyerotto255]

@@Easy-Eight 321, fire control systems... radar, optical sight and bombing computer on F4Es. The 20 checks verified the presence of signals through the umbilical connector within certain voltage limits at trigger pull. We used a 406 box to verify RF radiating at the front and rear signal horns at the launcher. It was crude, but at least let us know the the missle had the proper prelaunch data. That was every 45 days. We did full radar calibration, including missle launch simulations on each station with a computer verifying the validity of the launch data at least once a year. I know the guys in Thailand ran every system through radar cal prior to Linebacker II, and one of the SOF officers had caught the weapons guys providing rough handling to AIM7s at a flightline entry point during Linebacker I. They returned 8 missles for functional check after that - 7 failed, so that was corrected before Linebacker II as well. That may have helped Capt. Ritchie a bit. Yup, best job I ever had. By 1980, I was busy working on a BSEE.

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

Very nice. IIRC, AIM-7M was born out of Britain's Skyflash, itself a development of AIM-7 as sold to Britain, which pioneered the inverse monopulse system. It would have been nice to cover Skyflash and also the Italian Aspide in this video, although I do appreciate your coverage of Iranian experience.

[@AndrewGivens]

I think the Skyflash might get its own little video at some point. I shouldn't be surprised, because he'll get the chance to talk UK defence procurement politics, which is *always* great fun as a discussion... Really! Maybe not upbeat, but fun.

[@ramal5708]

Skyflash is miles better than the AIM-7M, sadly it was never tested in combat.

[@atempestrages5059]

A 1 hour deep dive on the Sparrow shortly after the Phantom drops? Excellent work- can't wait to watch this over tea.

[@cliffalcorn2423]

Great job, loaded many AIM-7s while serving as Aviation Ordnanceman in the U.S Navy.

[@lancerevell5979]

During my time in the USAF as an avionics tech on F-101 and F-106 interceptors at Tyndall AFB, Fl. in the late 1970s, we once had a group of brand new F-15A Eagles down here to use our Gulf missile range. Two Eagles had serious failures. One was evident looking down the line of aircraft , and seeing one's nose out of line. Pilot seriously over-geed it and the entire cockpit/nose section "bent" downwards several degrees. It was flown back to Langley AFB. The second Eagle had a couple holes in it's belly! It seems when the pilot fire the starboard forward Sparrow, the missile fired and launched, taking pieces of the mounts with it! The plane was trucked back to Langley AFB. Teething troubles on a new plane I guess. 😅

[@Blakearmin]

Dude, I love your videos! I haven't watched TV in over ten years, now. But if stuff like this was on there, high quality, great and normal-speaking narration, in-depth, I would totally watch it still. You're amazing!

[@justforever96]

Same. More like 15 years for me, although I never watched it extensively. The programming is mindless drivel, even the "educational" stuff, and I hear it's much worse now. At least you could watch kind of basic, overly-simplified history with some interesting images at one time, now it's just aliens and propaganda

[@jr7392]

I haven't watched since the history channel showed history programs and discovery had science stuff. Wings of the Red Star and the like were actually good, if a bit simplified as you point out.

[@chriskortan1530]

Another great video that demands my time on Friday! In one year Not a Pound has risen to the ranks of Drachinifel, Rex and Greg's Airplanes but covering early and cold war jets. The only other one I've found who covers Soviet stuff is Paper Skies. Now if he matched Drach's output, I'd never get anything done.

[@notapound]

Thanks so much for this! Great to hear that you’re enjoying the videos!

[@alexandermonro6768]

He's only human! No-one can match Drach's output! Thanks for the great videos, Pound.

[@briancavanagh7048]

You are watching the exact same stuff as me! All of it excellent.

[@brianrmc1963]

This is so fascinating. I had no idea an active seeker head was experimented with. I was able to shoot both a AIM-9M and AIM-7M. The Sparrow warhead looks like a 500# bomb going off when it fuses.

[@baremetalmafia]

What were you flying? Pilot? WSO/RIO? Very interesting stuff. Sounds like 80s experience considering the M models stated. Not a lot of info out there about US 80s mil aviation as we weren’t engaged in any large scale fighter fights.

[@brianrmc1963]

@@baremetalmafia F/A-18A

[@gotanon9659]

The US was the first to use an Active seeker head on a weapon which was the ASM-n-2 Bat anti ship glide bomb and it was experimented with for shipborne SAM application in the Bumblebee program both of which is a WW2 program

[@evandoerofthings6538]

I think these missile videos are among your best! I'm only a few minutes in and i can already tell this will be great!

[@orangelion03]

Outstanding presentation sir! I have a soft spot for the Sparrow. I started my engineering career as a junior engineer/technician in 1978, working for General Dynamics Pomona division. GD was second source for Sparrow at the time, and I worked in the test equipment group in support of production and field maintenance requirements. In that group, I worked on Sparrow, Standard, Phalanx, Stinger, and DIVADS programs. My senior project was an airframe pressure/vacuum test stand for Sparrow. Graduated from Cal Poly Pomona as a ME in 1980 and continued to work for GD for another year before going on to work in testing for nearly all of the SoCal based aerospace companies at one time or another...chasing contracts =) Retired in 2020.

[@michaelmoorrees3585]

Never worked at GD, but got my EE at "GD West", as many called Called Cal Poly Pomona, due its proximity to that GD facility, and many GD engineers moonlighting as instructors at the school, and also many students doing internships, at GD. Closest work, I did in that area, was at Perkin Elmer's Applied Science Division, in the mid 1980s, in Pomona.

[@richardmartin8998]

Fantastic video. The level of depth you went into to explain why Sparrow failed when it counts - in combat - was brilliant. For years the mantra has been "it was useless" with various reasons being given around ROE, pilot proficiency and overly optimistic test profiles. Nobody really mentions the storage, handling inherent design and quality issues in fighters and Sparrow rounds as being the root cause of the failures.

[@JohnLocke-y9e]

Not THE root cause, one of the root causes for sure. Kill chain has lots of parts with all the things mentioned play a part.

[@georgehave]

Very informative. Reminds me of the torpedoes in the early years of world war 2. Finally they worked out the reasons and finally had a workable weapon

[@hmmjedi]

An excellent dive into a much maligned AAM. Just a note the Iranian Tomcats carried the AIM-7E4 as this was designed to work specifically with the F-14...

[@MM22966]

It's kind of funny to realize the Iranians started out with hundreds of top of the line 4th-gen fighters in the 80's, and forty years later they are reduced to piloting monkey-model Soviet planes, homegrown F-5 copycats, and...their few remaining Tomcats and Phantoms. It makes me wonder what the Saudis are going to look like in 50 years, when the oil has run out and they can't afford their expensive Uncle Sam-gifted toys anymore.

[@jedinight235]

I didn't know an E-4 variant existed.

[@MM22966]

@@jedinight235 It was the one after B-4.

[@robertpainter8044]

My mom worked for Raytheon back in the day. She actually had a golden Sparrow tie tack and other memorabilia. I used to joke with her about them getting fan letters from NVAAF pilots for all the times the Sparrow failed over Vietnam (it only had a .11 or 11% hit rate In the early going)

[@gotanon9659]

Cant fault the weapon when the guys the use it doesnt even know how to use it!

[@wlmac]

The answer to your question about Steve Ritchie's prowess with the Aim-7 is in the photo that shows them painting the red star on the intake splitter. His Crew Chief Reggie Taylor in the photo made sure that the weapons tested prior to every flight. That was not SOP and I think ramp side test equipment still being developed.

[@naoakiooishi6823]

Magnificent! To understand the modern air combat & aircraft the advent of the weapon systems is equally important factor. I read about the Sparrow in the book "Engineering the Phantom II" by G. Bugos in which it mentioned its development history as 1Sperry 2Douglas and 3Raytheon in few pages but yours describes a lot more, helps me to visualize what it has been. Thank you from my heart!

[@callsignblitz5223]

Your missile development docs are thr most comprehensive source here on YT! Next should be the aim4 falcon

[@reinbeers5322]

A Falcon video would be very nice. Like the Sparrow it was also the victim of poor handling and an unsuitable launching aircraft, as it worked perfectly fine in the Convair Deltas.

[@RichardCorongiu]

The Sparrow has 2 naval cousins The RIM7 and the RIM162 The latter had some significant improvements via some designers in Australia. In fact becoming the 162. The US navy tested it in the mid 201x near Hawaii. As far as i know it is integrated in many US and Australian ships including Arleigh Burke Ticonderoga and Australian Air Warfare Destroyers

[@basedyt6485]

I wait all week for these. The missile videos are awesome, I usually watch each 3+ times. That said, can we PLEASE get an examination of the M39/ADEN/DEFA, the Hispano-Suiza cannon & US derivatives, & of course, the M61 Vulcan? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!!

[@Flamehazard]

I watched this entire video in its entity, genuinely love how deep you go into the mechanics of each version

[@chugachuga9242]

It’s 5am I should be asleep, but not until after I watch this.

[@dxv1l_x]

3am for me and my phone is dying

[@jameseasterbrooks5363]

The one AIM-7F I shot off my F-14A during a missile shoot in W-291 off of San Diego was a PDSST shot at 15 NM on a non-maneuvering BQM-37 and flew straight and true for a bulla-bulla fireball.

[@mamo4731]

Something that would've been nice to talk about is the usage of a secondary emitter using CW signals allowing doppler filtering rather than the LPRF signals from contemporary radars( french and soviet). And finally the return to homing on the main radar tracking signals, but in this case its HPRF rather than LPRF or CW. And what the outcome of using the main tracking signals rather than a secondary one is

[@Jack2Japan]

Another great history lesson

[@impguardwarhamer]

is it weird that I find missile videos more interesting than aircraft ones

[@ivancho5854]

Absolutely. 👍

[@toddwheeler1526]

My father, USN 56-60 was a member of the BLACK ACES VF41. In 1959, Point Magu, VF41 won the Top Gun competition with the A3 Demon and the Sparrow. My dad was the leader that designed and brought to life the "lock-on/tone system " that is in common use today. VF41 went on to defeat the Air Force as well. Afterwards, the Navy shared the new development and why VF41's kill ratio was so high. Dad was awarded for his contribution. He served aboard the Independence, Forrestal and the Intrepid.

[@chs76945]

I appreciate this video. I've always heard that the "AIM-7 sucks" , and in the 1990s USAF maintenance community it was generally regarded that the Navy didn't know how to manage them correctly. It's great to hear some actual details on what this was all about.

[@petesheppard1709]

WOW! Thanks for a very informative, enlightening video! B-52 operations over N. Vietnam was LINEBACKER II; in the original LINEBACKER the BUFFs were restricted from operating up north.

[@ceremyjlarkson9475]

Great video! I love learning about air to air weapons, especially with you. I think you could do videos on damn near any weapon system and you'd have me hooked, even if it wasn't related to aircraft whatsoever.

[@terrygerhart6878]

really enjoy the detail provided and others comments that experienced the topic.

[@nmc052able]

I really love these long informative missile videos!

[@RichThur7]

In 1969 and 1970 I served as a fire control technician on USS Forrestal CVA-59. During the ships renovations after the catastrophic fire aboard in July 1967, her five inch 38 gun mounts, and other guns, were removed and replaced by the Basic Point Defense Surface Missile System (BPDSMS). This consisted of an eight bay Sparrow III launcher with a doppler target illumination director. It was intended for short range defense of the ship from air threats. Longer range threats were to be handled by the ship's air arm flying F4 Phantoms. The Sparrow missles were slightly modified with thicker flight wings to be more effective at low altitudes, and drawn from the aircraft weapons stores.

[@resurgam_b7]

A year well spent by you and 52 minutes well spent by me! I love the intricate breakdown of flaws and successes and the emphasis on the cutting edge (for the time) technology that was being deployed. Perhaps a little too ambitiously at first, but impressive developments all the same. The detail about missiles being jostled around on carriers and air bases contributing to their high rate of failure was very interesting to me. I'd love to see a similar breakdown of the AIM-54 Phoenix, or AIM-9 Sidewinder, or even the attempts at air to air rockets from late WWII.

[@nodirips_8537]

Another missile video! The Friday is the best day! It would be great to know more about other air launched missiles like the AGM-45 Shrike.

[@danielvandersall6756]

My Uncle flew the F4 in Vietnam; he remembered the complaints from pilots about the planes lack of a gun. Very simple reason; missiles were in their infancy and pilots wanted a reliable weapon. Now, the AMRAAM's newest model pushes it to around 100 miles range and almost guaranteed kills. A long way in 50 years.

[@stug41]

Fantastic presentation. I particularly like that you clearly understand the underlying systems of mechanisms responsible for various issues, and how operational use diverged from intended design.

[@Mr.Scootini]

Man. I love listening you and Greg’s airplanes whilst I’m working on a build on Flyout.

[@RubiconOfDeath]

Yet another excellent video. Thank you for covering obscure aircraft and little covered topics such as this. I learn something new every time I watch one of your videos. One topic I’d like to see covered, they you’ve slightly touched on in previous videos, post WWII service of the P-61 Black Widow. I feel like the topic of air defense immediately after the war, is something that isn’t covered. Thank you for all your hard work, keep it up. 👍

[@petesheppard1709]

Oh, and the Shrike ARM used the Sparrow airframe.

[@daniel_f4050]

Superb video. Back in the late ‘70s when I was in AF Junior ROTC we were told that the terrible reputation the Sparrow had earned over Vietnam was no longer applicable. Our Colonel claimed that it was going to guarantee NATO air superiority if the Russians were to attack Germany. I’m certain we all believed him without question.

[@Chilly_Billy]

Excellent presentation. I look forward to the AIM-54 video, which I'm sure is in the works. I also hope you will do a video on the AGM-65 Maverick family.

[@WychardNL]

Thank you for sharing this awesome video with a treasure of information ! My personal library contains much literature about military technology but still this video is very interesting. I hope you keep the future as interesting as this video... ❤

[@stevenscoggins170]

How frustrating that must have been to Phantom pilots to lose so many opportunities to destroy the North Vietnamese Air Force because of failure to launch or track.

[@skykeg4978]

I, like many others, am very grateful for the extra effort you put into accurately producing this video. Thank you good sir!!!!!

[@robertkelly3186]

Absolutely fantastic work!

[@okanieba267]

I was not aware that the Saporrow development went so back in the late 40´s. Awesome video, keep it up!

[@AlanToon-fy4hg]

There are some very good videos posted on YT that were done by China Lake. The poster, I believe, uses the name Baltica Beer. The videos are very in depth...

[@craigfox3205]

Obviously your next video (after the F5E video) should be an in depth study of the Ault report and detailed success and failures of the Navy and Air Force reaction to it with Top Gun and Red Flag.

[@snotcycle]

according to robin old's book "Fighter Pilot" the black mold that was native to south east asia absolutely LOVED eating the potting compound inside the sparrow missile.

[@Makeitliquidfast]

It's always informative at this channel

[@AC_702]

Your videos are top notch! Keep it up, Dude! Great learning and I love the humor!

[@mikeck4609]

By Desert Storm, the aim-7 in the hands of a trained F-15 pilot was deadly. Moreso than the aim-9 (in that war) which seemed to enjoy gobbling Russian flares. Shame it took so long but as you discussed, it was incredibly complex and requires a lot of things be done properly. I think the aim-7 gets a bit more of a bad rap than deserved due to the Navy’s issue with it in Vietnam. But, The vast majority of air to air kills the Air Force had- and the vast majority of ALL kills in Desert Storm- were aim-7 Great video!

[@foxhoundms9051]

A lot of the ships targeted in crossroads survived the blast. Prinz Eugen capsized and sank being towed away, cool pics of it.

[@samreichman5782]

Steve Ritchie said that he made sure to count 3 seconds after lock before squeezing the trigger. It needed 3 seconds to feed the the data to the missile. There’s an interview with him where he mentions it.

[@JeffBilkins]

Can't wait for the episode on the Phoenix missile and the F-14 and how that went.

[@MrOhdead]

Excellent vid! A bit of me hoped you might mention Skyflash as it seemed as a development of Sparrow to contend slightly with 7M.

[@drillthrallable]

In that hangar pic around 26 mins in it looks like they are working on two of those huge North American A-5 Vigilantes. Cool! I would enjoy your take on that type for sure. I used to repair and maintain SH-3 Sea King helicopters in the hanger on the U.S.S. Ranger CV-61 and it was indeed very tight in there.

[@stevebarnett-f5o]

Learnt a lot from this, great work.

[@foreverpinkf.7603]

Very detailed video. Thank you.

[@LeonardoSalvatore]

Thank you for this comprehensive video. It is just a great source of information!

[@stevengriffing8831]

My dad launched 200 Sparrows in testing missions at Point Mugu 1952-1955, from F3Ds and F7Us. He said success rate was 100%. But that was in the controlled environment of Research and Development. He said the lack of training and maintenance, coupled with the misuse tactically of the weapon made it much less reliable. As he put it, the contest was between "the Sparrow and the Bear", implying that Sparrow's primary target was the Tu-95 strategic bomber. Indeed, old photos I've seen of Mugu showing the drone squadron, looks like most were old B-26s - a lot easier to intercept than Mig-21,23s. He said Top Gun helped a lot in that regard. He also said the Sparrow program had too much money, tainting many decisions with political considerations. Captain C.W. Griifing retired in 1968 after 29 years as aerospace engineer. Commanding Officer of the Navy Space Systems Activity was his last tour of duty. Whenever I use Google Maps, I say "Thanks, Dad".

[@fahadali5046]

An absolutely incredible video 👍

[@aidanacebo9529]

very good. I love your deep dives into the history of these missiles. I still wish there was more to the Shafrir missile, that was an interesting one.

[@Eristtx]

Wow, great video. Must have put a ton of work into a topic that only appeals to DCS players and a few enthusiasts - yet you made the video. Probably won't bring you riches, but it will bring you recognition - so once again: thanks!

[@lllordllloyd]

Australian Phantom at 20:58. Cheers. You clearly made a massive effort on this video. Let us viewers appreciate creators like this. KZbin will probably demontitise the poor fellow on the excuse, oh... it's about war (of course, it's to allow Google to steal content).

[@1joshjosh1]

This is a very interesting video that is for sure

[@loom1565]

Best sparrow breakdown I’ve seen

[@KaldekBoch]

I think this my favourite one to date.

[@georgeburns7251]

Most excellent presentation. Thank you.

[@jr7392]

Love the subtle humor "...was not of much use over the sea, which is a prominent feature of naval combat." Very "dry" sense of humor you might say, which is NOT a feature of naval combat.

[@la200dool4]

exceptional video just as always

[@AndrewGivens]

Wow! What a ride. As someone who grew up with the Sparrow being a combat-tested and developed system (I spent the bulk of my young years in the 1980s and was adolescent when Desert Storm happened), I really appreciate this deep dive. Seeing the early iterations, with all their expected limitations, was as far back as the *late 1940s* though?! I wasn't expecting that. It's a weird thing: In a time where very modern SAMs have reached the point of being (according to sources in the know) potentially 95% (or more) lethal on firing - in the best examples, anyway - hearing about Sparrow 'maturing' in its solid-state and digital forms to a 'bare' 50% kill probability absolutely puts into perspective how far 21st Century technology really is punching - when the 1991 Gulf War doesn't seem, to a mind from my time, to be a third of a century ago, but actually feels much more recent and contemporary than that. But, from a less than ten percent career start, that fifty doesn't seem so bad after all. - Great video, well worth the effort you put in. And, to quote John Mills, worth waiting for. Many thanks.

[@Basicallybaltic]

ladies and gents this is the moment you've waited for

[@richardthomas9263]

Excellent presentation, very informative.

[@JimTeam-x8z]

Fantastic video

[@alfonsovelasco9627]

Amazing as always !! Please the AIM 54 Phoenix next !!

[@davidbell6101]

good work.

[@--Dani]

Great content, 👍🏻

[@ameliafox9429]

Very very cool vid!!! Love learning about weapon systems like this

[@shaymcquaid]

Dude, I love your videos!

[@RogerSanGabriel]

I like your videos keep them coming.

[@paulwoodman5131]

🎉🎉. Thanks for this!!🎉🎉

[@UmHmm328]

Compliments for finding info on Israeli use of AIM7 during the 1973 War.

[@pizzagogo6151]

Aside from the great quality I’m just glad you just gave the sparrow some overdue exposure 😀. I’ve always felt it gets an unfairly negative rep because yes ultimately technology moved on & been out lived by its more developed & more famous cousin. Ok especially early in it was...well close to useless 😔& yes having to keep pointing your plane at the enemy was always limitation ...but it’s like laughing at people for using huge 80s mobile phones, in the 80s! A getting radar components down in size & robust enough to be in supersonic missile is the early 1950s was an amazing achievement!

[@ChristopherBourseau]

Well worth the wait! Great stuff

[@larcrivereagle5559]

Do you know when exactly the post-1991 explosive ejection fault was found and fixed?

[@johnmoore8599]

Well, that pretty much uncovers why the missile was so unreliable in Vietnam. It's like the Mark 14 torpedo in WWII. Plenty of issues that had to be unraveled or peeled like an onion.

[@bergkongs]

Much appreciated

[@RCAvhstape]

25:55 Lol at the guy maintaining the high-tech Sparrow missile with, of all things, a hammer.

[@kirilmetodii4833]

Ive been waiting for video for the sparrow for a long long time! Please continue the videos for rockets, can you add more soviet rockets and guided bombs/air to ground bombs as well

[@dsnsawcp4234]

Thank you the sparrow doc, I never knew that the sparrow was design as a only attach to the plane once weapon Makes sense now, of it’s poor service record

[@terrygardner3031]

I would be interested in the sea sparrow and if any of the problems of the Air to air version carried over to this weapon system?

[@cdfe3388]

Great video! If you’re looking for ideas, I’d love to learn more about the F3H Demon.

[@thurbine2411]

So the sparrow used a sort of conical scanning(is that method really in the conical scanning category?) to get it to change course but did the f4 also use conical scanning by rotating an antenna when locking a target?

[@DrScorpios]

If you do the sums you will realise that the Sparrow is a boost then coast weapon, so its maximum speed is something like its speed at flame-out. After that it is losing speed continuosly, more rapidly while manoeuvering.

[@nicholasmaude6906]

The reason why the Able shot Mk-3 missed its' air-zero point by about 1,300Ft was due to its' "California Parachute" tail fin assembly, it had terrible aerodynamics.