Angels49 Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 In regards to these missiles what is the big diff. I know they look basically the same, but the RAF/RN have different req's than the USAF/USN ( is it still used). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlamgat9 Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 In regards to these missiles what is the big diff. I know they look basically the same, but the RAF/RN have different req's than the USAF/USN ( is it still used). Skyflash had a Marconi seeker and adapted control surfaces. Electronics were improved and, I think, it had a different motor giving better range. Externally they are virtuallly identical, which is why the RAF painted black dots on the fins of Skyflashes so they could be distinguished from Sparrows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Roberts Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 The Skyflash had supposed to be better performance than the Sparrow did up until the AIM-7M (Desert Storm vintage) came around and that version had performance closer to what the Skyflash had range and accuracy wise. Forgot about the dots on the fins, thanks for the reminder Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorth Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 The Swedes opted fot the Skyflash over the Sparrow for the Viggen did they not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlamgat9 Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 The Swedes opted fot the Skyflash over the Sparrow for the Viggen did they not? They did. The Sparrow didn't get close to Skyflash until the AIM-7M in the early '90s (as stated above). But even then the Sparrow only had a kill probability of 40% or so whereas I think Skyflash was above 50%. Active Skyflash could have given AMRAAM a run for its money but the RAF, probably rightly, went for standardisation with its allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatchet Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 From a book I have (Airborne Weapons of the West), Sky Flash' range was 31mi compared to 28mi for the AIM-7E-2 and 62mi for the -7F. The seeker was much better though, comparable to the 4 (or 5, depending on how you look at it) years younger -7M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdxtnt Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 (edited) There are a number of external differences between Sparrow and Skyflash that makes them easily recognizable. The Sparrow was painted overall white ,with the nosecone on live missiles being a very light grey colour. Skyfash missiles were painted overall light grey, again with the nosecone being very light grey (lighter than the body colour). The Skyflash was also easy to identify by the aerials on the forward nose section. These aerials were a very dark brown in colour................ The nosecones on both Sparrow and Skyflash drill missiles were made of metal and were generally painted in the same colour as the main body colour. I think the "dots" on the missile wings mentioned earlier were probably blue circles painted on the wings with the word "drill" in white letters. This was used to identify "drill" wings as these were not allowed to be fitted to live missiles.... Hope that helps. Gary (ex-Phantom bombhead) Edited December 11, 2007 by rdxtnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobski Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 There are a number of external differences between Sparrow and Skyflash that makes them easily recognizable. The Sparrow was painted overall white ,with the nosecone on live missiles being a very light grey colour. Skyfash missiles were painted overall light grey, again with the nosecone being very light grey (lighter than the body colour). The Skyflash was also easy to identify by the aerials on the forward nose section. These aerials were a very dark brown in colour................ The nosecones on both Sparrow and Skyflash drill missiles were made of metal and were generally painted in the same colour as the main body colour. I think the "dots" on the missile wings mentioned earlier were probably blue circles painted on the wings with the word "drill" in white letters. This was used to identify "drill" wings as these were not allowed to be fitted to live missiles.... Hope that helps. Gary (ex-Phantom bombhead) That helps me a lot, although I have a question: I've painted the 4 'live' Skyflashes on my Phantom FGR.2 my standard 'missile' grey, which is Humbrol 127. Is this correct? It seems to match the photos I have of Phantoms and Tornados with live weapons... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdxtnt Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 I've painted the 4 'live' Skyflashes on my Phantom FGR.2 my standard 'missile' grey, which is Humbrol 127. Is this correct? It seems to match the photos I have of Phantoms and Tornados with live weapons... http://www.aoou52.dsl.pipex.com/Models/hum...f.htm#morenotes If you look on this chart I would guess that the nearest Humbrol equivalent would be Humbrol 147 Matt Light Grey. It was a very light grey and obviously the radome would be a shade lighter than that too. I'm going on memory here and it's been quite a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now