Missile Discussion General

[Czechnology]

Place for questions and general discussion.

Namely had some questions about which sidewinders we'll be compatible with, aswell wondering about that silly AIM-4, was it phased out by the time of the E models we're getting, or can we reasonably expect that we're going to be carrying them on pylons for some missions?

Aswell, Sparrow discussion. Know the missiles themselves aren't something to write home about, but really wondering the effectiveness we can expect in game. Know in reality that the Sparrow in this time period had an atrocious hit rate, but reading memoirs a lot of that is atleast partially chalked up to a couple things.

Namely two I hear a lot is pilots not really knowing launch envelopes, rougher than designed for weather conditions, and rough/improper ground handling damaging missiles. Obviously don't know if this is objective fact, but there's definitely a lot of mention of Sparrows failing to come off the rail or just dropping off and not lighting, not to mention claims of them simply going ballistic and not tracking properly, though that last comment is very easy to discredit due to that first point of pilots not being totally aware of launch envelopes. 

Really culmination of the second question is what performance can we expect in game? Failure rate is something thats not a real factor in most DCS missions, and we have the benefit of hindsight to study launch envelopes and have them readily available for study.

Reminder to make the distinction between the flat E Sparrow and the E-2, E-2 is very naturally going to have a better hit rate with the improved tracking and maneuverability.

We've not really got a good simulacra in DCS as it stands, best I know everything capable of firing a Sparrow fires high letter models with Pulse Doppler radars, so it's something I'm wondering at.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Czechnology

[Fangs Out]

Also the Aim-4 IIRC had problems as well in Vietnam with reliability . But that was chalked up to the fact that the AIM-4 didn't have a proximity fuse

[Quid]

For the missile types, based on the -34 from 1973, it would be the AIM-4D, AIM-9B/E, AIM-7D/E/E-2.  The AIM-9J was apparently brought into South East Asia  in 1972 (not added to the -34).  If HB's intent is a 1974 or 1975 aircraft, it might also have the AIM-9N.

WRT missile reliability, I think you answered your own question with the second half of your post.  DCS doesn't simulate random failures of missiles.  They never come off stupid, they never drop and fail to fire their motor, they never fail to separate, they aren't flown 50 times before being off-loaded for servicing and are literally dead on the rail, etc.  So, I'd expect like all missiles in DCS they will always come off, fire their motor, all of their systems will power on, the missile will begin tracking, and it will only be thrown off by chaff or maneuvering.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Quid

[DSplayer]

This is a nice little (not really little) document that details the AIM-9J's SEA Introduction and has hit rates for some of the missiles that the USAF had used along with some nice history and stats.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA486826.pdf

Spoiler

 

 

It's good to note that the AIM-4 remained in the USAF inventory well into the 80s due to the USAF still operating the F-106 which basically necessitated the usage of the Falcons since they couldn't carry any other conventional IR or SARH missiles in their internal weapon bays. There are F-4E pictures where they're loaded with AIM-4s.

Spoiler

 

In the perfect world of DCS, the AIM-4, especially the later model G, might actually do pretty well if you're about to fire within good parameters. You'll just have to suffer from the lack of a proximity fuse. Also it seems like the AIM-4 can actually pull a good amount of Gs according to the official Standard Missile Characteristics documents.

Edited November 26, 2022 by DSplayer

[Heinlein]

personally I am more curious about the mavericks we're getting. I guess they are fired by the WSO but looking forward to see how it looks like in game with the old CRT screen. 

[KlarSnow]

The AIM-4D was in many ways a generation ahead of its time, it had a cooled seeker that had "semi All aspect" capabilities (in burner and at or forward of the wing line) it had the ability to be cued to the radar in some field of view off boresight, and it was pretty maneuverable. This all however was marred by several very severe drawbacks "most" of which were due to its integration with the F-4, not really the missiles fault itself. F-102/6 drivers and other jets (draken/Mirage 3) that utilized it had none of the issues that were prevalent with the Phantoms implementation of the AIM-4D.

The primary issues that gave it its terrible reputation were 3 fold. First, most egregious and obvious was the 2 minute cooling time limitation combined with a 3-5 second time to actually get the missile cooled and ready to fire. This issue was actually known and the fix was on the way before the AIM-4D was deployed to vietnam, However it garnered such a terrible reputation that by the time the fix was in (2 hour cooling limit, ability to pre-cool 2 of your 4 missiles and have them ready to go for 1-2 hours instead of 2 minutes) was implemented essentially right as they were relegated to the sideline in 1968, after 1968 most AIM-4D's had the extended cooling implemented.

The second issue that was also solved by the same or same series of modifications was that cooling the Falcon and not employing it, meant it had to go back to the depot (Stateside) to get refurbished. The deployed units were not able to refill the coolant bottles in the field after they were popped. This was also fixed by the same series of modifications that gave the missile 1-2 hours of cooling instead of 2 minutes.

The above two issues were primarily issues of the F-4's integration of the weapon. The F-102 and 106 did not have the fire control switchology complexity that the phantom had because the Falcon was designed to be integrated with the 102/106 Fire control system. It was kinda hacked into the phantom and that's why so much of it was suboptimal and complicated in the F-4. You were essentially manually doing all the things that the 102/106's Fire Control would take care of automatically (cooling, readying, cuing, and "uncaging" the seeker). The cooling and readying also weren't an issue because the missile was carried internally so all of that was handled by the internal weapons bay systems on the 102/106. The LAU implementation on the Phantom was essentially a bodge to make it work and it did not have all the systems and integration to support the missile that the 102/106 had.

Finally the third issue that was never fixed was the contact fuze. No prox fuze and no larger warhead was ever installed on the AIM-4D. There was a follow on variant of it that was cancelled in the early 70s that potentially would have fixed this, but there was no appetite for it and the AIM-9L was already in the works and was going to be better anyways at that point.

It should probly be implemented, although it was out of TAC service by at least the 80s, it would be a fun if difficult system to employ if implemented properly. For my money I would want both the pre mod and the post mod versions available to play with. Theoretically it had quite a lot of capability for the time, and I'm sure in DCS it would probly do much better once people have some practice than it ever would have done in the real world.

Edited November 26, 2022 by KlarSnow

[Omega417]

I know the launch envelope issue has been brought forward a million times for the AIM-7 WRT its atrocious hit rate. So I am very curious to see how the missile will perform when the ROE doesn't require the pilot to verify the target before launching. IIRC on the Fighter Pilot Podcast EP 106 the guest was talking about the AIM4 and how it worked perfectly in the environment its designed for (Large, non-moving target, at higher altitude). 

I'm sure there are a million studies that could probably be quoted at me, but from what I've read about the weapons systems of the Vietnam Conflict and the ROE for USAF/USN pilots, these are the opinions I have formed. 

Good Documentary about Sidewinder development. 

[Czechnology]

The big problem I always heard about the AIM-4 was very strange switchology that just didn't really work for a dog fight. I'm sure much like any missile, in the specific circumstance it's designed for it probably works phenomenally, but the problem is that limits it to almost entirely defense intercept style missions against bombers and such. It's obviously possible to use it against fighter sized targets, but it had a (speaking very relatively, compared to the AIM-9's "Just shoot the damn thing" switchology) complex series of steps to cool the seeker, that cooling only lasted so long, and then once you passed out of that timeframe of the missile seeker being cooled enough you were SOL and had a useless missile on the rack.

Same for the Sparrow, they knew the Sparrow was a damn fine missile if it was shooting in picture perfect parameters, was given all the TLC it needed on the ground, etc, and while it lacked the switchology issue, it did have issues when you tried to use it against a target that's at short range and maneuvering. The base E sparrow's seeker head will take over a whole second to actually start tracking towards a target after launch for example, one of the big advantages the E-2 brought to the table was the drastic shortening of this post-launch "Dead time" and faster tracking. Not to mention that in the realities of combat, it didn't get that perfect TLC, and it would suffer a lot shocks it just wasn't resistant to in landings, so if the missile went up on a mission, wasn't fired, repeat a few times, then when it's finally fired it's just not up to the task anymore. 

[Bozon]

On 11/26/2022 at 11:36 AM, DSplayer said:

This is a nice little (not really little) document that details the AIM-9J's SEA Introduction and has hit rates for some of the missiles that the USAF had used along with some nice history and stats.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA486826.pdf

  Hide contents

 

 

It's good to note that the AIM-4 remained in the USAF inventory well into the 80s due to the USAF still operating the F-106 which basically necessitated the usage of the Falcons since they couldn't carry any other conventional IR or SARH missiles in their internal weapon bays. There are F-4E pictures where they're loaded with AIM-4s.

  Hide contents

 

In the perfect world of DCS, the AIM-4, especially the later model G, might actually do pretty well if you're about to fire within good parameters. You'll just have to suffer from the lack of a proximity fuse. Also it seems like the AIM-4 can actually pull a good amount of Gs according to the official Standard Missile Characteristics documents.

 

Thanks, these tables are illuminating. The total number of AIM-7E no motor fire (NMF) and no launch is 39 vs. total 27 kills. So it was more likely that the missile will go stupid than it killing anything...

Even the AIM-9E had 15 cases of going stupid vs. just 6 kills.

[SgtPappy]

On 11/27/2022 at 10:15 AM, Bozon said:

Thanks, these tables are illuminating. The total number of AIM-7E no motor fire (NMF) and no launch is 39 vs. total 27 kills. So it was more likely that the missile will go stupid than it killing anything...

Even the AIM-9E had 15 cases of going stupid vs. just 6 kills.

I think I should also be mentioned that a lot later in the US' involvement in Vietnam in 1972, the USAF was more able to maintain and repair the missiles.

Steve Ritchie was able to pick some of the best taken care of AIM-7E's and managed to get a pretty high kill ratio with them.

[Elf1606688794]

On 11/25/2022 at 2:44 PM, Czechnology said:

but there's definitely a lot of mention of Sparrows failing to come off the rail

Sparrows don't "come off the rail" like a Sidewinder, they are mechanically forced away from the airplane when the impulse cartridges fire and the resulting exanding gas forces the lugs open and the ejector pistons to kick the missile away from the aircraft. There is a short cable that gets ripped out of a gelatin-like substance during the launch sequence, when it gets to the end, the rocket motor ignites, well, it's supposed to.

[Elf1606688794]

On 11/26/2022 at 2:43 AM, Heinlein said:

personally I am more curious about the mavericks we're getting. I guess they are fired by the WSO but looking forward to see how it looks like in game with the old CRT screen. 

Iirc, the WSO has the controls to lock on the Maverick but the pilot pulls the trigger. Also, the only Mavericks we loaded were TV guided, the IR and laser guided versions came later and I don't know if any Phantoms carried those.

Funny story, one night we were running a test on one of our Phantoms that had some issue with Mavericks (I don't recall the specific issue) on it's left inboard pylon. My crew chief was in the front cockpit, our 2 man in the back cockpit and I was on the ground. I saw the aircraft crewchief come up to the plane and do a double take on the TGM-65 (training Maverick) that was hanging on the pylon and he took off running for 7 or 8 steps before stopping and giving our 2 man the middle finger. Turns out our 2 man ("Biggie") was playing with the TGM and had locked the camera in it's nose onto the aircraft crewchief. "Biggie" got someone else just a couple minutes later and his second victim about crapped himself when he realized the missile's camera was locked onto him while "Biggie" sat in the back cockpit laughing his ass off.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Elf1606688794

[Heinlein]

hace 1 hora, Elf1606688794 dijo:

Iirc, the WSO has the controls to lock on the Maverick but the pilot pulls the trigger. Also, the only Mavericks we loaded were TV guided, the IR and laser guided versions came later and I don't know if any Phantoms carried those.

Funny story, one night we were running a test on one of our Phantoms that had some issue with Mavericks (I don't recall the specific issue) on it's left inboard pylon. My crew chief was in the front cockpit, our 2 man in the back cockpit and I was on the ground. I saw the aircraft crewchief come up to the plane and do a double take on the TGM-65 (training Maverick) that was hanging on the pylon and he took off running for 7 or 8 steps before stopping and giving our 2 man the middle finger. Turns out our 2 man ("Biggie") was playing with the TGM and had locked the camera in it's nose onto the aircraft crewchief. "Biggie" got someone else just a couple minutes later and his second victim about crapped himself when he realized the missile's camera was locked onto him while "Biggie" sat in the back cockpit laughing his ass off.

 

Cool. Will be interesting to see how HB solves that in terms of gameplay. 
I take it this was a while ago when the phantom was in active service

[SgtPappy]

7 hours ago, Elf1606688794 said:

Iirc, the WSO has the controls to lock on the Maverick but the pilot pulls the trigger. Also, the only Mavericks we loaded were TV guided, the IR and laser guided versions came later and I don't know if any Phantoms carried those.

Funny story, one night we were running a test on one of our Phantoms that had some issue with Mavericks (I don't recall the specific issue) on it's left inboard pylon. My crew chief was in the front cockpit, our 2 man in the back cockpit and I was on the ground. I saw the aircraft crewchief come up to the plane and do a double take on the TGM-65 (training Maverick) that was hanging on the pylon and he took off running for 7 or 8 steps before stopping and giving our 2 man the middle finger. Turns out our 2 man ("Biggie") was playing with the TGM and had locked the camera in it's nose onto the aircraft crewchief. "Biggie" got someone else just a couple minutes later and his second victim about crapped himself when he realized the missile's camera was locked onto him while "Biggie" sat in the back cockpit laughing his ass off.

 

That's a pretty good prank. I guess TAGM's only have working seekers and nothing else.

[Elf1606688794]

10 hours ago, Heinlein said:

Cool. Will be interesting to see how HB solves that in terms of gameplay. 
I take it this was a while ago when the phantom was in active service

I worked on F-4E's at Seymour Johnson AFB for a little over year and a half in 81/82/83. As a 462X0 weapons mechanic I was certified to load virtually every weapon in the Air Force inventory.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Elf1606688794

[Bremspropeller]

AIM-4 on a USAFE (Bitburg AB) pre-slat F-4E in '74:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Air-Force/McDonnell-Douglas-F-4E-Phantom-II/195878/L?qsp=eJxtjrEOwjAMRP/FcxZIVSAbXRhh4Acsx0Ck0ka2B6qq/07TSExsd/cs381A42D8sfuUGQIoo9ALHGQUfCuEGTAJCT6sQ01Uz47t/uB%2B4MIDy38EwftT4x3oKNZNa0FE4zMRZ%2BMINb9KZCmIlbbmZ1nS7IpmuVXr29XGpLnH7Q0bph6W5Quekz8m

[Elf1606688794]

4 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

That's a pretty good prank. I guess TAGM's only have working seekers and nothing else.

Training missiles including TGM-65's and CAP-9's only have active seekers while the rest of the missile body is empty or filled with concrete. Inert warheads are designated by a blue band around the body of the missile where the warhead is installed and live warheads which are generally a high explosive are designated by a yellow band.

[exhausted]

null

[Aussie_Mantis]

Dear @Czechnology,

Missiles is a pretty simple question.

AIM-7E-2 and AIM-7Fs will be our mainstays. Maybe AIM-7M/P if we're real lucky for the later one. Not really that reliable compared to SPAMRAAMs and MICAs, but they'll do, especially for the Cold War Era. 

As for winders, AIM-9B/J/N/P/P-4/P-5. 

AIM-9P-4 and -5 are the all-aspect sidewinder variations and can be differentiated from the rest of the Juliet-November-Papa family by their all-metal heads, much like the German JULI upgrade mating AIM-9L heads to AIM-9Js- note however that these do NOT have the same capabilities as the L. SLightly less G tolerance and slightly worse seeker that's more sensitive to flares and less to planes.

AIM-9L/M is a definite possibility for the later F-4E mod in the works.

If I recall correctly, if we don't get the double-inch spacers, we're going to have issues with clearance trying to mount the AIM-9s with a TER below them, but with the double 3-inch spacer this is more than possible. Interesting to note however is that the USAF, due to carriage and safety restrictions, may not have engaged much in this ability.

As for A2G missiles, expect stuff like Shrikes (in their 8 or 9-odd variants made for different Radar bands) Mavericks (early ones) and Bullpups, as well as possibly anything that China Lake or their Air Force counterparts decided to test by slapping on an F-4E. Full suite of guided bombs like Walleyes and GBU-15 (all variants except the "LARGE WING" Extended Range variants, which have carriage issues on the F-4E's outboard pylons and therefore can only have two mounted). What's interesting is that this F-4 is the only one cleared to carry the 3000 pounder TV-guided GBU-9 HOBOS Glide Bomb, which is, as they say in the business- a heccin' chonker.

THINGS NOT TO EXPECT:

 

Popeyes are Israeli and aren't mounted on the F-4E as standard.

AGM-78 Standard ARMs have been seen on some Israeli F-4Es but I'm uncertain if those are post-market modifications or not, since they're notorious for %#@&ing with their F-4's weapons loadouts. Sidewinders on the sparrow hardpoints... uuggggh.

If we're getting USAF TO F-4Es then don't expect any of the "funny funny Iranian" weapons, such as the M117 with a Hawk booster slapped on it, or their all manner of weird and quirky designs, such as the TV/laser-guided Phoenix/Hawk with a Maverick/Paveway warhead strapped to it.

There's been allegations thrown around that the F-4E could carry Matra Magics. I've never seen one do it.

AIM-2000C IRIS-T, ASRAAM and AMRAAM are out of the question for a USAF F-4E, even in 1991. Maybe they might have tested it, but I don't think we're getting it regardless.

AGM-65D Thermal mavericks are in the Manual, but I've never heard any F-4 pilots talk about carrying any. It could definitely carry them in its later variant with ARN-101 and DMAS but I'm not sure if it could actually use the Thermals channel or not. Laser-guided Mavericks are a Squid Thing and we don't talk about them Squids.

Even so, Naval Phantoms cannot into multirole, since they don't have any guidance computers or equipment allowing them to carry the wide range of A2G Armament that the USAF Phantoms did.

Yours,

Mantis.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Aussie_Mantis