AIM-4 falcons

[_BringTheReign_]

2 minutes ago, Kirk66 said:

I have personal experience

Genuinely very grateful that you are here lending your actual experience to these discussions, it has been so great reading through all your posts! Thank you for sharing!  

[Kirk66]

Thankyou - happy to share some great memories while I still have them!

Vulture

[Kirk66]

Meanwhile, back to the AIM-4...They were also used by Swiss on their Mirage 3S - anybody know how those were regarded? The Swiss usually don't get bad equipment...

Vulture

[TLTeo]

And speaking of other users, the Greek and Turkish Air Forces also used them because somehow they had F-102s, the Canadian Air Force used them on F-101s, the Swedish Air Force used modified Falcons on both their Drakens and (early) Viggens, and the Finnish Air Force also used them on Drakens.

Edited April 23, 2022 by TLTeo

[Dragon1-1]

20 hours ago, Kirk66 said:

Meanwhile, back to the AIM-4...They were also used by Swiss on their Mirage 3S - anybody know how those were regarded? The Swiss usually don't get bad equipment...

They don't, but neither does the US. The Swiss also don't get to shoot them very often. The Mirage was an interceptor, so the use case would've been akin to an F-102, big bombers against blue sky. I don't know if the 3S had the "extra Falcon gear" often alluded to in this thread, but probably not. I think they might not have realized what a lemon the AIM-4 was in real combat, at least until the reports from Vietnam started coming through.

[TLTeo]

53 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

at least until the reports from Vietnam started coming through

The Swiss Mirages entered service in 1967. They would have had plenty of time to evaluate the missile.

I think it's more likely that, as you say, they felt it was good enough for an interceptor - like basically all its other users.

[Dragon1-1]

I'm not sure how forthcoming the US would be with data on frontline missile performance in an ongoing war, particularly if it was so overwhelmingly negative. 1967 were Rolling Thunder days, the air war over Vietnam had only been going on for a few years, and the NVA had only started punching back a year or so before. The Falcon didn't yet have the chance to disprove itself at the time the Swiss adopted it. The data existed already, but I'm not even sure it left Vietnam by the time, nevermind getting to the Swiss. 

Edited April 23, 2022 by Dragon1-1

[Bremspropeller]

The Mirage IIIS used a full-up TARAN system and had extensive re-works made (one of the reasons why Switzerland wouldn't in the end buy 100 of them). They used AIM-26s, not AIM-4s.

The aircraft had a map-display projector and a different cockpit, starting with the panel-colour, but it was an altogether different affair. Their ASIs were metric, which is a funny twist.

The IIIS later got strakes on the pitot-boom and specially designed canards (they differ from other canard-designs for Mirages).

It's an awesome sub-type of the MIII, but I don't want to highjack the thread...

[ustio]

Sorry for a bit derail. but do we know which sidewinder will we get?

[KlarSnow]

I would assume B, P, P5, L, and M (all the ones in the game right now) initially, and then at some point all the USAF ones inbetween, they all were compatible with F-4E's up through the 9M, obvioiusly if they are making a "pre date X" version then any sidewinders that are pre that date wouldnt be available, but the DMAS/ARN-101 F-4E should be able to support everything upto the 9M.

 

So the ARN-101/DMAS variant should be compatible with AIM-9B, E, J, N, P, P5, L, and M. For the Pre-DMAS variant, then it would be compatible with B, E and J, and depending on the exact date, possibly P's (P's are upgraded J's essentially)

Edited April 26, 2022 by KlarSnow

[tavarish palkovnik]

....

 

 

Edited February 23 by tavarish palkovnik

[Kalasnkova74]

On 4/23/2022 at 3:24 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

I'm not sure how forthcoming the US would be with data on frontline missile performance in an ongoing war, particularly if it was so overwhelmingly negative. 1967 were Rolling Thunder days, the air war over Vietnam had only been going on for a few years, and the NVA had only started punching back a year or so before. The Falcon didn't yet have the chance to disprove itself at the time the Swiss adopted it. The data existed already, but I'm not even sure it left Vietnam by the time, nevermind getting to the Swiss. 

 

The AIM-4 is probably one of the most misunderstood weapons systems in American Cold War history.

First, a primer. The AIM-4 was built to solve a specific problem, which was NOT shooting down enemy fighters. That was considered an obsolete task in 1948, when the prevailing mindset of USAF leadership was that WWIII against the Soviets was just around the corner. After all, every two decades since 1914 we’d fought a cataclysmic global war, so it stood to reason we’d nuke ourselves into oblivion before 1970. 
 

Rather the AIM-4s job was to shoot down high flying Soviet nuclear bombers in head on interceptions. To assist with that, the AIM-4 had a hit to kill fuse. A subject of great lambasting later when it was misused in Vietnam (more on that later), the hit to kill fuse is a mission critical feature if you’re trying to take down a huge 4-engine Tu-95 or similar. A proximity fuse isn’t what you want against a resilient aircraft like that, and remember…WWIII. One damaged bomber making it through equals multiple cities getting nuked. So the missile should hit, bury itself into the Soviet bomber’s fuselage and THEN detonate, maximizing damage. 
 

To ensure the missile got there in the first place, Hughes- the builder of the AIM-4- also produced a fairly user friendly (for the time) guidance system to go with it. The Falcon worked like an AIM-54/AWG-9 (which was made by the same firm much later). The missile was part of a symbiotic guidance system, one where the Hughes guidance system (such as the MG-13) would track, lock, and manage firing functions automatically. All the pilot or pilot/weapons officer needed was to maneuver the interceptor to an ideal launch position (speed/altitude/ etc) , lock the target no closer than six miles , and the Hughes fire control computer managed the rest. The pilot gave launch consent for the AIM-4- after that the Hughes system triggered the IR seeker activation, queued the missile coolant, extended the missile from the launch bay and fired the Falcon to ensure highest probability of kill. 
 

When employed as designed using a Hughes semi-automated fire control system against high altitude targets , the Falcon was capably accurate. Bruce Gordon cites instances when F-106s would knock down BOMARC target SAMs using the Falcon, and it even acquired high off boresight IR missile capabilities (a first for the USAF before the AIM-9L) when the ADC F-101Bs and F-106s were updated later.

So why did the sugar turn to manure? It was a Pentagon dispute over the USAFs next IR missile. After being compelled to buy the capable US Navy F-4B more or less as-is by Robert McNamara, the USAF System Command Generals were forced to accept using the U.S. Navy’s AIM-9B at first. Bad enough they had to adopt a NAVY aircraft, but they weren’t about to keep using the Navy’s missiles. They had some things to say about the next generation of Sidewinder missile.  Things the USN didn’t care for, and negotiations for a new Sidewinder variant shared between the branches collapsed . 

(Incidentally, this is one reason why Cold War era USAF Sidewinders are not compatible with their Navy contemporaries.)

So spurned, the USAF System Command generals told the Navy they could take their AIM-9 and shove it. They had a solution in mind- just take the USAF Falcon and lobotomize it onto the F-4D Phantom II. An IR missile is an IR missile, right? 

There was one problem- the F-4 wasn’t built to accommodate the Hughes guidance systems fitted to the Voodoos, Delta Darts and Delta Daggers. Adding the 50s era mechanical computer to the F-4D would be ruinously expensive , they’d lose AIM-7 capability and would take years to complete - and Vietnam was raging. 
 

So all the steps the Hughes computer managed so well in the Air Defense Command aircraft needed to be done manually in the F-4. Switchology was kludged up, the IR seeker had to be manually activated, the coolant manually triggered 90 seconds before anticipated launch (not a problem against a bomber flying a predictable course and heading , but nearly impossible in a dynamic dogfight), and making matters worse the damn thing was carried externally. The AIM-4 was designed in an era when engines didn’t have a lot of thrust and drag was the enemy , so they were built to be carried internally until just before launch. 
 

External carriage of the weapon meant the seeker was crazed to uselessness by the environment , and the Southeast Asian humidity didn’t help. The Falcon , designed to be launched with a guidance computer against non maneuvering bombers at high altitude, was deployed to Vietnam attached to a plane it wasn’t designed for, launched in a Rube Goldberg scheme nearly impossible to do manually in combat, at low altitude in an environment it was never tested in, against maneuvering fighter sized targets at low altitude in a regime completely outside its design requirements - and with a hit to kill warhead design meant to knock down Tupolev bombers, not Mikoyan light fighters.
The fact five MiGs were shot down at all with a weapon completely unstable for that mission is a remarkable testament to the 8th TFW’s level of skill. 
 

Naturally, the USAF System Commands turf war permanently damaged the reputation of the AIM-4 as a tactical dogfighting combat weapon system. A regime it was never built for. The AIM-4- used as directed on the manufacturer label - was nonetheless successful as a high altitude interceptor weapon. One wouldn’t want to use it to shoot down a MiG-17, but then Ferraris are terrible cars to tow with.
 

What should have happened in the 1960s? The USAF System Command people should have swallowed their pride, ordered the Navy’s follow on Sidewinder and had done with it. Put the Navys AIM-9D on USAF Phantoms , Thuds and Huns and we’d have a much better outcome. 

Edited August 23, 2024 by Kalasnkova74

[tavarish palkovnik]

 

....

Edited February 23 by tavarish palkovnik