What has a longer range the AIM-120 or the ESSM?

I just skimmed this thread from the dead. The basic idiocy contained herein brasses me off. (Not you stinger.)

There is really no comparison between the two, the ESSM has almost 2.5 times the kinematic performance of the AIM-120. When fired from a zero-zero condition, an AMRAAM is 20~25km SAM. The ESSM goes to over 50km. When fired from a zero-zero condition, the AMRAAM typically goes about Mach 2.5. The ESSM reaches in excess of Mach 4. The ESSM is essentially the forward one-third of the sea sparrow grafted to a 10" rocket motor, controls shifted from the wings to the tails.

Good points.

But, take into effect that,

from its onset,

AMRAAM (AIM-120) was intended as an air-to-air weapon.

In that envelope, its range is in excess of any surface-launched ESSM (RIM-162).

 

Not then that there equates an even fair comparison: naturally, a smaller-diameter missile like the 7" AMRAAM (or even Aster) could even come close to compraing the range achievable in the 10" main-body-diameter ESSM.

(Perhaps somewhere should propose an air-launched ESSM, just to see actually how far range-wise it could compare to an AMRAAM...? Then we'd have a fair comparison.)

Mind you though: an air-launched ESSM might be the perfect start point for a non-air-breathing long range AAM that, effectively, fills the role left vacant by Phoenix (AIM-54) in the USN (not that they deem that role specifically needs filled by something more capable than an AMRAAM,..yet. But both the range and warhead potential are there).

 

Then again though: Sparrow was originally an air-to-air missile, even if considerably mediocre in performance,

but became a very formidable weapon when developed into the surface-launched Sea Sparrow.

(...or maybe it was just superior marketing by the US upon NATO, seeing as we don't have any Sea Flash (Sky Flash was UK's Sparrow replacement), even though Italy has successfully adopted their Aspide (their Sparrow replacement) into a surface-launched SAM weapon, and developed it further into the Sea Killer anti-ship/surface attack variants, with some featuring a 50+kg warhead in an enlarged forward section, IIRC)).

 

Naturally, anything with a diameter larger than 7" (and length longer than 12&1/2 feet) is going to have the potential to always be able to outrange (and carry a larger payload than) anything that does use a 7" diameter.

So don't expect any AMRAAM variants to ever surpass ESSM, as any electronics wonders and rocket motor tech packed into AMRAAM could just as readily be engineered to fit into the larger ESSM and allow it to keep a considerable margin in capability above its smaller brethren (both of 'em are Raytheon stablemates).

Same as how any given Standard (current in-service rounds) are always going to be capability-superior to ESSMs.

 

Depending on how well the Norwegians continue to develop, and market, their NASAMS system that uses surface-launched AMRAAMs, they may or may not be able to upset the Sea Sparrow's predominance (Aster is still an inch less in diameter than Sea Sparrow's 8").

 

In some smaller vessels, ESSM isn't going to be one-for-one exchangeable for Sea Sparrow: in VLS cells, it can be.

But for anyone still using those eight-round trainable launchers, the ESSM is too big (weight and volume).

But a newer-technology surface-launched AMRAAM (in NASAMS or even modified SLAMRAAM guise) may prove more of an asset worth purchasing than it would be to hang on to older-generation Sea Sparrows whose electronics haven't been upgraded comparably.

There's little reason that any surfaced-launched AMRAAM can't occupy the same cubic space aboard any Sea Sparrow launcher.

But is the reduced warhead of an AMRAAM (20-25kg?)  when compared to the Sea Sparrow's (30-40kg?) worth the gain in using updated electronics that may improve engagement abilities?