AIM-4 falcons

[upyr1]

I know they sucked, and the E didn't carry them but the C did and so did the 102 and 106

[KlarSnow]

The F-4D/E could both carry them, the C could not. at least not unless it got upgraded later in life, but that was one of the defining splits between the F-4C and the F-4D when the F-4D came out.

This is the line from the 1970 -1 for all the USAF F-4's (C/D/E) On two pages, but the loadout is the top, and then on the next page it has the limitations.

Edited March 13, 2022 by KlarSnow

[TLTeo]

Some -Es did carry the Falcon:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/0/6/5/1684560.jpg?v=v40

For what it's worth, the Viggen also was supposed to carry it (but we don't have it in DCS, probably because it was not a thing by the time the AJS upgrade came around). In fact, there are even pictures of F-15As firing them.

 

Edited March 13, 2022 by TLTeo

[Dragon1-1]

I think we'll get the Falcon, the F-4 just wouldn't be complete without this silly thing that, if you fire all of them at the target perfectly within parameters, then maybe, just maybe, you can get one of them to guide. And when it misses, you're free to move it and scrap the MiG with your gun.  

[Ala13_ManOWar]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I think we'll get the Falcon, the F-4 just wouldn't be complete without this silly thing that, if you fire all of them at the target perfectly within parameters, then maybe, just maybe, you can get one of them to guide. And when it misses, you're free to move it and scrap the MiG with your gun.  

What gun? Not the one in your F-4C/D .

It's funny how those weapons were once the latest state of the art technology and pretty much useless at the same time. But I wonder, since they co-existed with Sidewinders of several versions, how they weren't ever updated with newer tracking devices?

[Dragon1-1]

I was talking about the F-4E. It could carry the AIM-4, and it sometimes did, though presumably not by choice.  And besides, C and D could carry gunpods, and, if the only other option is Falcons, they'd better.

AIM-4 seeker was upgraded, AIM-4G and D were less impossible to use, but the main problem was a dinky warhead (barely larger than a Hydra rocket) with no proximity fuze. The former was also addressed somewhat with the G version, but by the time they got to fixing the latter, USAF figured they might just as well use Sidewinders.

Edited March 13, 2022 by Dragon1-1

[QuiGon]

21 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I know they sucked, and the E didn't carry them but the C did and so did the 102 and 106

And the Viggen!

Edited March 13, 2022 by QuiGon

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I know mate, just for the sake of joke. Any Navy Phantom would be either suited and it's even funnier how that happened at the time .

[upyr1]

15 hours ago, KlarSnow said:

The F-4D/E could both carry them, the C could not. at least not unless it got upgraded later in life, but that was one of the defining splits between the F-4C and the F-4D when the F-4D came out.

This is the line from the 1970 -1 for all the USAF F-4's (C/D/E) On two pages, but the loadout is the top, and then on the next page it has the limitations.

 

 

15 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Some -Es did carry the Falcon:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/0/6/5/1684560.jpg?v=v40

For what it's worth, the Viggen also was supposed to carry it (but we don't have it in DCS, probably because it was not a thing by the time the AJS upgrade came around). In fact, there are even pictures of F-15As firing them.

 

 

I stand corrected, on the E not using them.....so I'd like them even more. 

7 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

What gun? Not the one in your F-4C/D .

It's funny how those weapons were once the latest state of the art technology and pretty much useless at the same time. But I wonder, since they co-existed with Sidewinders of several versions, how they weren't ever updated with newer tracking devices?

The C and D could carry gun pods. I think comonality may have helped kill the Falcon. The Sidewinder was used by all the services while the Falcon was USAF to the best of my knowledge 

5 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I was talking about the F-4E. It could carry the AIM-4, and it sometimes did, though presumably not by choice.  And besides, C and D could carry gunpods, and, if the only other option is Falcons, they'd better.

AIM-4 seeker was upgraded, AIM-4G and D were less impossible to use, but the main problem was a dinky warhead (barely larger than a Hydra rocket) with no proximity fuze. The former was also addressed somewhat with the G version, but by the time they got to fixing the latter, USAF figured they might just as well use Sidewinders.

 

I figured a gunpod was part of the equation there too. 

2 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

I know mate, just for the sake of joke. Any Navy Phantom would be either suited and it's even funnier how that happened at the time .

A D with  falcons , early Sparrows, and no gun might as well be unarmed. 

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, QuiGon said:

And the Viggen!

 

Speaking of the viggen we basically have the bulpup 

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Yeah, gunpods were there, but I believe a read somewhere about the actual numbers and only a handful of kills were done with the gun, apparently the SUU-16/23 was so unstable while firing you hardly could hit a thing nor aim properly with it due to crazy dispersion. Most kills in the Phantom were done using AIM-9 of any kind IIRC, most meaning like 60% or something like that. I can't recall the percentage for guns, obviously SUU pods, but it was nearly ridiculous and that with USAF since Navy couldn't use them in catapults, of course. If that were correctly modelled in DCS I guess we will experience it, I hope so indeed, I'd like to know how it really was, though definitely not with the E model we get at first but hope we can with later releases.

I mean, unreliable missiles, gunpods with which you couldn't hit a thing, that could be epic when we have them all .

Edited March 13, 2022 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Dragon1-1]

USMC used them, I believe. Robin Olds didn't like them, so Wolfpack in particular didn't fly with them, but other squadrons did. They had a large dispersion due to pylons not being rigid enough, but worst of all, they didn't have a proper sight. For the gun to work, you had to get rather close to a very nimble MiG, and then eyeball the shots, so it's not hard to see why they weren't favored. That said, they would at least fire reliably, and the bullets would go where they were supposed to, and not explode prematurely, or go chase the sun, like both Falcons and Sidewinders were known to do. The thing about gunpods, I believe, was more about morale, as they gave a pilot a weapon that wouldn't just fail randomly.

Edited March 13, 2022 by Dragon1-1

[TLTeo]

As far as I understand, in Vietnam gunpods were used more for a2g than a2a, especially for the USMC.

[Voyager]

At least according to the guest on FPP F-106 episode (37:22) the F-4 was missing some of the fire control equipment the Falcon actually needed to perform right. 

 

He doesn't go into the details, just that they worked very well on the F-106 with the fire control computer the F-4 didn't have. 

Definitely worth digging into what was actually going on if the AIM-4 ever gets modelled.

If I had to guess, I'd suspect it had some sort of mid-course correction thing going on that was supposed to put the missile where it needed to be when the sensor was ready to roll, as opposed to being hot off the rails, but that is purely speculation right now. 

[upyr1]

15 hours ago, Voyager said:

At least according to the guest on FPP F-106 episode (37:22) the F-4 was missing some of the fire control equipment the Falcon actually needed to perform right. 

 

He doesn't go into the details, just that they worked very well on the F-106 with the fire control computer the F-4 didn't have. 

Definitely worth digging into what was actually going on if the AIM-4 ever gets modelled.

If I had to guess, I'd suspect it had some sort of mid-course correction thing going on that was supposed to put the missile where it needed to be when the sensor was ready to roll, as opposed to being hot off the rails, but that is purely speculation right now. 

We need the century series while we have Bruce Gordon as a sme.

[streakeagle]

One thing to consider on the AIM-4 employment with the F-106: no combat experience.

Early AIM-7s had a 50% PK in peacetime evaluation. 8-10% in combat. F-4s may not have had the same equipment as an F-106, but once the missile left the rail, it was an IR homer independent of the aircraft. The AIM-4 needed a direct hit to do damage, and the only thing they really hit well in Vietnam were slow trucks at night when the AIM-4's seekers could see them very well.

[TLTeo]

To be fair I think the Vietnam numbers need just as much context as the peace time ones.

A *lot* of AIM-7s and AIM-9s failed to hit not because they were bad or had issues, but because they were fired outside of the envelope. The same will definitely holds for the AIM-4.The weapons weren't good, but for most of the war the training was just as bad if not worse.

Beyond that, there are two more issues that aren't really brought up. First, from what I can tell (and likely what Bruce Gordon refers to), the AIM-4Ds on the F-4 only used their internal coolant, so the time they had active on the rail was like 2 minutes, after which they were useless. On the other hand the Century Series fighters supposedly used a reservoir of coolant from the pylon (which I think is what Bruce Gordon was referring to, unless the MG-10/MA-1 radars could slave the IR seeker head to their los, like more modern systems), so the missiles could be used for longer even if you didn't get within a shooting position quickly. Second, the AIM-4E, F and G carried by the F-106 did get a larger warhead and (possibly?) better fusing, but those missiles never made it to the F-4 fleet.

So yeah, was the AIM-4 a good missile? Probably not, especially not its implementation in the Phantom. Was it significantly worse than an AIM-9B or D? Also probably not, especially the improved ones carried by the ADC interceptors.

Edited March 29, 2022 by TLTeo

[upyr1]

11 hours ago, TLTeo said:

To be fair I think the Vietnam numbers need just as much context as the peace time ones.

A *lot* of AIM-7s and AIM-9s failed to hit not because they were bad or had issues, but because they were fired outside of the envelope. The same will definitely holds for the AIM-4.The weapons weren't good, but for most of the war the training was just as bad if not worse.

Beyond that, there are two more issues that aren't really brought up. First, from what I can tell (and likely what Bruce Gordon refers to), the AIM-4Ds on the F-4 only used their internal coolant, so the time they had active on the rail was like 2 minutes, after which they were useless. On the other hand the Century Series fighters supposedly used a reservoir of coolant from the pylon (which I think is what Bruce Gordon was referring to, unless the MG-10/MA-1 radars could slave the IR seeker head to their los, like more modern systems), so the missiles could be used for longer even if you didn't get within a shooting position quickly. Second, the AIM-4E, F and G carried by the F-106 did get a larger warhead and (possibly?) better fusing, but those missiles never made it to the F-4 fleet.

So yeah, was the AIM-4 a good missile? Probably not, especially not its implementation in the Phantom. Was it significantly worse than an AIM-9B or D? Also probably not, especially the improved ones carried by the ADC interceptors.

 

I'd love to see how the Vietnam era missiles work out for us. The falcon's problems were they lacked a proximity fuze and the F-4 lacked the coolent. 

[Voyager]

On 3/28/2022 at 10:26 PM, TLTeo said:

To be fair I think the Vietnam numbers need just as much context as the peace time ones.

A *lot* of AIM-7s and AIM-9s failed to hit not because they were bad or had issues, but because they were fired outside of the envelope. The same will definitely holds for the AIM-4.The weapons weren't good, but for most of the war the training was just as bad if not worse.

Beyond that, there are two more issues that aren't really brought up. First, from what I can tell (and likely what Bruce Gordon refers to), the AIM-4Ds on the F-4 only used their internal coolant, so the time they had active on the rail was like 2 minutes, after which they were useless. On the other hand the Century Series fighters supposedly used a reservoir of coolant from the pylon (which I think is what Bruce Gordon was referring to, unless the MG-10/MA-1 radars could slave the IR seeker head to their los, like more modern systems), so the missiles could be used for longer even if you didn't get within a shooting position quickly. Second, the AIM-4E, F and G carried by the F-106 did get a larger warhead and (possibly?) better fusing, but those missiles never made it to the F-4 fleet.

So yeah, was the AIM-4 a good missile? Probably not, especially not its implementation in the Phantom. Was it significantly worse than an AIM-9B or D? Also probably not, especially the improved ones carried by the ADC interceptors.

 

He mentioned something about the computer as well and some system that should be calibrated before or during flight. 

I also recall at one of the AIM-9/AIM-4 fly-offs, the Hughes team had brought a metric ton of support equipment for the falcon, that the Sidewinder team didn't need or care about at all. 

I think it was more than just the coolant, but have never really dug into the century series fighters to know what. 

I've just seen enough odd things in the whole Sidewinder vs Falcon stuff to suspect there is something very wonky that was going on in the Falcon that later IR missiles just didn't bother with. 

If you look at most very 1st generation systems, they pretty often do things in really weird ways compared to what is found to work later. Look at the differences between the Mannlicher M1894, the Luger and the M1911, and realize they competed against each other. 

I think if we really want to see the AIM-4 Falcon, it's probably worth digging into how it actually functioned, and was intended to function. The reality may be stranger than we can guess. 

[Dragon1-1]

On 3/29/2022 at 5:26 AM, TLTeo said:

So yeah, was the AIM-4 a good missile? Probably not, especially not its implementation in the Phantom. Was it significantly worse than an AIM-9B or D? Also probably not, especially the improved ones carried by the ADC interceptors.

They had no proximity fuze and a rather heavy warhead, meaning they weren't as nimble as an AIM-9. OK as bomber killers, maybe, but not for fighter to fighter combat. If anything, AIM-4D was the best "dogfight" version of the Falcon, and even then, it left a lot to be desired due to the fact it needed a direct impact. Sure, better training and short cooling time played part, but these were far from the only problems with the AIM-4. There's a reason this line was discontinued in favor of AIM-7 and AIM-9.

[bies]

I've heard Bruce Gordon talked about AIM-4 Falcon missile, he stated the missile had very positive opinion in air defense squadrons for reliability and high performance, but poor opinion in tactical squadrons. An explanation was Falcon had very limited amount of coolant so it last for limited time allowing IR sensor to see the target - you had to know where you are going to use it, it was not a problem during bomber or recon aircraft interception, but it was a big problem during maneuver air combat against tactical fighters.

[FlyingTaco21]

The ault report pointed out many missile failures were due to issues associated with tropical settings and that no one really knew how to take care of missiles that return on aircraft. Vietnam was really the first war where missiles were used and everyone was doing stuff for the first time in combat conditions. Tech around that time was tube based in a lot of cases and the batteries were a bit questionable. No standardized reconditioning practices in place etc 

[G.J.S]

17 hours ago, FlyingTaco21 said:

The ault report pointed out many missile failures were due to issues associated with tropical settings and that no one really knew how to take care of missiles that return on aircraft. Vietnam was really the first war where missiles were used and everyone was doing stuff for the first time in combat conditions. Tech around that time was tube based in a lot of cases and the batteries were a bit questionable. No standardized reconditioning practices in place etc 

You mentioning “tropical settings” made me remember something, I may be thinking of something else - but I’m at least 80%sure it’s to do with the Falcons.

I seem to remember hearing something about the electronic potting compounds used in the components being very susceptible to the warm and moist conditions, resulting in failures.

Again - I may be thinking of something else, but I’m pretty certain it’s to do with the AIM-4.

[FlyingTaco21]

Would not be surprised in ye olde tymes  capacitors were often made of paper and even wax coated paper degrades. there was an antifungal coating put on radio components  that served in the tropics but I'm also thinking about batteries many of thr older missile such as those used on earlier talos missiles were single use and could actually mess up the electronics if they sat on the rail too long (that is assembled armed loaded onto launcher and powered) .. not saying that us the case because I know more about radios from the time than missiles, and what I so know tends to focus on ship launched  but just knowing about the components available at the time .. lots of points of failure.  There was typhon system before the aegis system that most us warships carry, but it was canceled because the concept outpaced what could be achieved reliably with what was available at the time. 

[Kirk66]

On 3/13/2022 at 3:01 PM, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Yeah, gunpods were there, but I believe a read somewhere about the actual numbers and only a handful of kills were done with the gun, apparently the SUU-16/23 was so unstable while firing you hardly could hit a thing nor aim properly with it due to crazy dispersion. Most kills in the Phantom were done using AIM-9 of any kind IIRC, most meaning like 60% or something like that. I can't recall the percentage for guns, obviously SUU pods, but it was nearly ridiculous and that with USAF since Navy couldn't use them in catapults, of course. If that were correctly modelled in DCS I guess we will experience it, I hope so indeed, I'd like to know how it really was, though definitely not with the E model we get at first but hope we can with later releases.

I mean, unreliable missiles, gunpods with which you couldn't hit a thing, that could be epic when we have them all .

 

Well, no. I have personal experience using the SUU-16 and SUU-23 on the F-4C against towed dart targets, using a fixed mil setting on the (admittedly really basic) sight. This is in RTU, and the student pilots had really no problem hitting the dart (which is a lot smaller than a real jet); even sometimes destroying it on the first pass - which would really piss off the rest of the flight waiting to shoot! In the pit, we would lock up the dart (trying REAL HARD not to lock the tow plane!) and give range calls to the pilot. I don't remember any cases of gunpods jamming. This is in 1977, so basically 10 years after the gun battles over NVN (and pretty much the same jets - many of them had Mig kill stars on them).

There are some suggestions that the slightly bigger dispersion of the gunpods was a benefit in air to air combat - the fixed M61s in the F-105, F-104, and F-4Es had so little dispersion that they were "laser" guns; you absolutely had to be on target to get any hits, while the gunpods had a bigger cone of shells to hit the target (and it doesn't take many 20mm hits to kill a Mig).

F-4s towed targets for other fighters. It was "interesting" watching someone come at you and his nose lighting up as he shot at the target you were towing (in a turn, of course). F-4s were OK, but F-15s seemed to be coming right at you during their passes! They liked those high angle shots, probably due to their better sight system.

The book "Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam, 1965–1972" does an excellent job of explaining the use of guns and gunpods. Highly recommended!

Vulture