Talk:AIM-7 Sparrow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconMilitary history C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
Additional information:
Associated task forces (general topics):
Taskforce icon
Military aviation task force
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
Weaponry task force
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):
Taskforce icon
Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)


"The warhead is of the continuous-rod type." can someone explain what this means? -- Cabalamat 18:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Continuous-rod warhead --Dual Freq 18:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added more info on various foreign copies of AIM-7 -- Adeptitus 19:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AIM-7 First Flight[edit]

Does anybody have the dates when the first AIM-7 was released, and the date when it made it's first powered flight? AVKent882 (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Dates. And end of life/ service. I expect within United States Military it is already out of service (replaced by AIM-120 AMRAAM), but a date would be nice. Similiar dates for some of the foreign users (not necessarily included them for their variants. Wfoj2 (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selenia Aspide[edit]

Despite what usually written in foreign press, and despite the manifest similarity, Selenia Aspide was not a version of AIM-7 (at least on board)... So I moved it to separate page. --Attilios 09:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Split Sea Sparrow[edit]

Any opinions on replacing the Sea Sparrow or RIM-7 Sea Sparrow redirects with portions of this article that pertain to Sea Sparrow? Certainly seems to be enough for a separate article. --Dual Freq 02:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Over 100 articles already point to Sea Sparrow, so that might be the best name to use, though not really the formal name --Dual Freq 02:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparow Missile (ESSM) isn't the same missile as the RIM-7. It is now VLS ready as deployed in the new DDG 51 flight II ships Navarch 14:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems enough time has passed for objections. The propossal makes sense. I have been bold and went ahead and did it.--Cerejota 10:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fox 1[edit]

I removed the line saying, "Its radio abbreviation is 'Fox One'". That made it sound like "Fox 1" meant Sparrow, when it really means any U.S. or NATO semi-active radar-guided missile [1]. I wouldn't mind seeing an explanation of 'Fox 1' included, but think it should be worded better that what was there. Steve8675309 03:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Also see Weapon Fix Firing Codes - Extract US DoD Document, unclassified. Perhaps see how the AMRAAM page cover this. That page's wording same concept is probably better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfoj2 (talkcontribs) 21:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I would appreciate a new paragraph in the article to explain how Sea Sparrow differs from the "SM Standard-1/-2/-3" missiles and why americans have two different naval SAM systems for the same purpose? Standard missiles look like way superior in all aspects compared to the Sea Sparrow. Is it a price issue, SM-2 costing too much? 12:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would disagree with "same purpose" point, they are very different weapons. Sea Sparrow is a 231 kg (510 lb), short ranged missile, with a 10 nautical miles (18.5 km) range. SM-1's (RIM-66) weigh 621 kg (1370 lb) and even the RIM-66B has a range of 25 nautical miles (46.3 km) and the RIM-67C SM-2ER from the 1980s have a range of 100 nautical miles (185.2 km). The missiles perform different functions and are used on different platforms. NATO Sea Sparrow is used as one of the last layers in air defense, SM-2 etc are first or second depending on if you count combat air patrol aircraft. Asking why there are two would be like asking why the army has Stinger missiles and Patriot missiles. --Dual Freq 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SM-2 requires complex weapon systems that basically require the ship to be constructed as a dedicated missile carrier, see Aegis Combat System. Sea Sparrow requires a lot less equipment and a smaller amount of space on the ships. That's why it was deployed on Aircraft carriers, supply ships, smaller frigates and other ships not designed for air defense purposes. It's kind of a better than nothing, but longer ranged than the point defenses like Phalanx CIWS system. A paragraph might not cover all of it, but its basically because different missiles are more cost effective and more appropriate for different situations and different ships. There's also Rolling Airframe Missile and Evolved Sea Sparrow missile that fill other gaps in air defense. Other countries have similar layers of missile defense, the UK has Sea Wolf missile and Sea Dart missile, France has Standard Missile and Crotale missile just to name a few others. --Dual Freq 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, that says it all! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I will add some more. Originally Sparrow was a launcher (8 missiles)- 100% above deck, and perhaps NO magazine (spare),pretty easy to add if adequate free deck space, then the wiring of it. Some ship had this easily added after being built (for Example Knox class frigates). The SMs/Standard have a larger capacity magazine and require a fair amount of internal volume for the magazine, then the launcher directly above. It has some consideration of also being a point/self defense weapon, instead of a area defense weapon. For range consideration. most guided weapons will allow aircraft to launch weapon from outside the range of the Sea Sparrow. Wfoj2 (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese "copies"[edit]

I've removed the section on the PL-4 (unsourced) and PL-11 (some sources). As these are at best unlicensed copies, which I doupt the PRC admits, they are prabably better covered on their own page, with proper sources. - BillCJ (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should find a new picture[edit]

The current main picture has this F-15 taking up most of the space and a tiny little AIM-7 Sparrow below it. Someone should find one that has more missile and less airplane Masterblooregard (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sparrow contrast with AMRAAM[edit]

It would be hard to find and keep current, but should consider fact Sparrow is past its prime, at what point in time do different users discontinue using (retire) Sparrow, being replaced by AMRAAM or other options. Wfoj2 (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AIM-101 designation[edit]

Regarding the AIM-101 designation, it's a bit odd that it doesn't exactly fit in the 1955-1961 designation system for USAF guided missiles because other US air-to-air missiles were designated with the prefix GAR in the 1955-1963 timeframe. However, AIM-101 may actually belong in the 1961-1963 designation system (see for more info) because the interim 1961 USAF designation system for missiles utilized a three-letter prefix (launch environment, mission, and vehicle type). (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Vahe DemirjianReply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AIM-7 Sparrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do they use "speed (kmph) and "range" (km) as metrics for measuring a missiles performance, they seem like irrelavent or metrics, especially when they change depending on the launch platform is also moving, maneuvering targets etc. I think we should just put kinetic energy, deltaV (if we can get it) and drag coefficent or something. (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible use by Ukraine?[edit]

The AIM-7 (variant unknown) is reported to be part of the latest US military aid package to Ukraine (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]