Talk:RIM-162 ESSM

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED to RIM-162 ESSM per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile → RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile — adopt the same naming convention as other U.S. missiles —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 00:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

• Support -- reason outlined above —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 00:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - although that name is getting a bit long... - Aerobird 02:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Perhaps RIM-162 ESSM then? The point is to at least use the DoD prefix. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the abbreviation "ESSM" in widespread use? Per guidelines, we should prefer the name most commonly used for the article title. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The official links use "ESSM" as an abbreviation. Just do a Google search. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

When I first found out about this missile, it took me a long time to figure out what "ESSM" meant - it seems to be very widespread. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 15:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-active radar homing

The Aegis/SPY and SEWACO/APAR versions will use datalink from the advanced radar (like SM-2 does, allowing a energy efficent path to the target), and semi-active homing only in the terminal phase (for increased accuracy). Orcaborealis 17:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll fiddle a bit, thanks. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 03:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not Sea Sparrow related?

Judging from the photo the RIM-162 looks like an upgrade of the Standard missile, not the Sparrow. The Sparrow has small triangular control surfaces, the Standard has long blades along its side. Also, RIM-161 is Standard Block 3 code, so RIM-162 should logically denote an even newer Standard variant. What is the truth? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

This article mentions that there is a quad-pack holding 4 ESSM in one VLS canister. This indicates they are smaller since a VLS canister can only hold one SM2. http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-7.html indicates ESSM was informally called the RIM-7PTC or RIM-7P with Tail Control. History of the Sparrow shows an evolution of the fins from larger, mid-mounted fins to folding mid-mounted fins and now tail mounted fins. You can't tell from the images, but look at the dimension numbers, ESSM weigh half of what SM's weigh but much closer to Sparrow. ESSM is also almost 1 meter shorter than RIM-66. Its physical size and function seem to indicate kinship with the sparrow despite the external appearance / placement of control surfaces. --Dual Freq 01:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Still, it looks more like a minaturized Standard than an upgraded Sea Sparrow. When I first saw this article, I thought somebody had used a Standard pic by mistake until I noticed it was firing from a Mk 29 launcher (which is too small for the Standard family). 71.203.209.0 10:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

They probably used aerodynamic ideas from the Standard Missile - Why not? Gorbalad (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Further information

"The improved ESSM Block II will be fielded by the US Navy from 2020." This missile is quite likely to get a different designation than RIM-162.

"Operational Range" - Let be careful with this term. There are different types of range. There is a theoretical Maximum range - energy and ballistic- then go look at AMRAAM and No-escape range. Then there is usage/ doctrine range - operators training - only fire when target is at this range, and expected range at intercept will be B. I don't know real range = suspect value quoted is the "theoretical Maximum range".
Missile is derived from RIM-7. - That was an original design idea. Actually I think when you look - RIM7 in Mk 41 VLS they missile body was significantly smaller than the SM missiles, It was only the Fins that kept them at a single missile to a cell/canister- drove changes in fins/strakes appearance to achieve the quad-cells.
Wfoj3 (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ESSM Consortium

Should there not be more information on the ESSM Consortium? Such as how it works, does every member get the same amount of say, what do the various members contribute (money/r&d/manufacturing). What are the companies involved? I know that Rayethon is the lead company, but it is not the only company involved in either design nor manufacturing of components eg BAE Australia, Nammo (Norway), Alliant (USA) etc. It would appear that much of the manufacturing is carried out in Germany, Norway & Australia. 144.139.103.173 (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)