Alternative AAM history: AIM-4H enters service.

[pathology_doc]

For all the issues Falcon had in Vietnam, it has to be remembered that unlike Sparrow and Sidewinder, every Falcon kill was an impact kill, implying that on those occasions when things actually worked, it might have been the better missile. AIM-4H was in development to sort out Falcon's worst problems, including that need to hit in order to explode, but ended up getting the axe. But what if it hadn't? AIM-4D was faster than Sidewinder, as fast as Sparrow... could an AIM-4H which sorted out the reliability issues and the inflexibility with cooling have saved the brand?

And once that's done, where to from there? The F-106 remained in service for thirteen years after Vietnam was over, and given the importance of its mission, would certainly have benefited from having a better IR missile. That AIM-4H was not continued solely to give the Six a better weapon greatly perplexes me.

 

[Pioneer]

Interesting pathology_doc
I guess the development of the Aim-4H wouldn't just be about equipping the USAF's F-106, but also other operators of the Aim-4 Falcon - Sweden , Canada, Denmark, Turkey, Greece and Switzerland. For the Aim-4 Falcon was a critical part of such weapons systems as the McDonnell Douglas F-101 Voodoo, Saab 35 Draken, Convair F-102 Delta Dagger and Dassault Mirage IIIS.
Given that one of the principle issues with the Aim-4 was that it was designed to destroy large non manoeuvring bombers, a production Aim-4H Falcon could open up the sales of F-101, Saab 35, F-102 and Mirage IIIS a more attractive and versatile option....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Scott Kenny]

For all the issues Falcon had in Vietnam, it has to be remembered that unlike Sparrow and Sidewinder, every Falcon kill was an impact kill, implying that on those occasions when things actually worked, it might have been the better missile. AIM-4H was in development to sort out Falcon's worst problems, including that need to hit in order to explode, but ended up getting the axe. But what if it hadn't? AIM-4D was faster than Sidewinder, as fast as Sparrow... could an AIM-4H which sorted out the reliability issues and the inflexibility with cooling have saved the brand?

And once that's done, where to from there? The F-106 remained in service for thirteen years after Vietnam was over, and given the importance of its mission, would certainly have benefited from having a better IR missile. That AIM-4H was not continued solely to give the Six a better weapon greatly perplexes me.

I doubt it.

The AIM-4 needed to be stored in a clean room, or at least an environmentally controlled room. The AIM-9 could be stored on a rack outside in the weather. In fact, in the fly-off between them, that's exactly what the AIM-9 team did.

 

[pathology_doc]

In fact, in the fly-off between them, that's exactly what the AIM-9 team did.

Pray tell me more.

"Fly-off" here is relative, of course, since both missiles went into service and even Falcon had a service life of ~32 years.
Then again, the Sidewinder team was going deliberately for simplicity.

I do wish someone would publish a detailed history of Falcon development.

 

[GTX]

I do wish someone would publish a detailed history of Falcon development.

Sean O'Connor's (forum member @SOC) Arming America's Interceptors: The Hughes Falcon Missile Family is a pretty good start

 

[Scott Kenny]

In fact, in the fly-off between them, that's exactly what the AIM-9 team did.

Pray tell me more.

"Fly-off" here is relative, of course, since both missiles went into service and even Falcon had a service life of ~32 years.
Then again, the Sidewinder team was going deliberately for simplicity.

I do wish someone would publish a detailed history of Falcon development.

There was a comparison test done, USN Sidewinder versus USAF Falcon, in 1954. Falcon was kept in a climate controlled space, Sidewinder was left outside on the loader rack.

 

[uk 75]

This is an interesting thread. The Falcon family appeared in many books in the 1960s and the missile did get used by Sweden and Switzerland as well as the US/Canada air defense role.
The US and Canada kept them it seemed because they were part of a package with the F106 and F101 that carried them. I always assumed it was cheaper to do that than refit with Sidewinders and Sparrows.
Swedem were pretty good at modifying missiles and were also Sidewinder and Skyflash users. I assume they thought Drakens and Falcons worked against Il28, Tu16 and Tu95 but also Migs and Sukhois.
Switzerland presumably thought Falcons were better than R530s for their Mirages.
As an interesting aside Falconlike missiles appear on VG models at a BAC 1964 Secret Exhibition for the MOD. Genie was considered for RAF Lightnings but as far as I know Firestreak/Red Top ruled it out for the RAF/RN. However, given the various types of Falcon I might be wrong.
F104 seems mated to Sidewinder so no scope for Falcons there. F4 also seems to have a Sidewinder/Sparrow combination as default.

 

[Dilandu]

For all the issues Falcon had in Vietnam, it has to be remembered that unlike Sparrow and Sidewinder, every Falcon kill was an impact kill, implying that on those occasions when things actually worked, it might have been the better missile. AIM-4H was in development to sort out Falcon's worst problems, including that need to hit in order to explode, but ended up getting the axe. But what if it hadn't? AIM-4D was faster than Sidewinder, as fast as Sparrow... could an AIM-4H which sorted out the reliability issues and the inflexibility with cooling have saved the brand?

The problem was not in the missile but in the plane. AIM-4 Falcon was designed to be used by interceptors with sophisticated automatic fire control system, that pre-locked their seeker on target before launch (using plane radar or IRIS to receive targeting data).

In Vietnam, they were used from F-4, which have much less advanced - primitive, to be exact - fire control system. Instead of automatic locking on target, F-4 required manual. For which AIM-4 simply wasn't well-adapted. It have long lock-on time - which was NOT a problem, if the missile starts to lock on as soon as interceptor radar started to track the enemy, but IS a problem if pilot need to do it manually.

So the solution would be to send F-106 instead of F-4 into Vietnam by USAF. The F-106 interceptor with advanced fire control could use AIM-4 Falcon efficiently.

 

[Scott Kenny]

F4 also seems to have a Sidewinder/Sparrow combination as default.

USN F-4s had Sidewinders, early* USAF Phantoms were Falcons. At least until Col. Olds got ahold of them, and had his techs rip out the Falcon wiring and add the necessary wiring for Sidewinders back in, presumably acquired from some USN folks.

* the first Phantoms the USAF had were USN production. I'm talking about the first Phantoms produced for the USAF.

 

[uk 75]

How many F4 customers got the aircraft with Falcons instead of Sidewinders? That is what I meant by default.

 

[Scott Kenny]

How many F4 customers got the aircraft with Falcons instead of Sidewinders? That is what I meant by default.

Just the USAF, as far as I know.

Edit: and apparently the JASDF's F-4EJs.

 

[Hood]

As an interesting aside Falconlike missiles appear on VG models at a BAC 1964 Secret Exhibition for the MOD.

During 1964 BAC proposed fitting their P.45 fighter variant with a pulse-doppler radar for a radar-guided version of the HM.45, a licence-built Hughes GAR-11 Falcon. It was only a PV though.

 

[Archibald]

other operators of the Aim-4 Falcon - Sweden , Canada, Denmark, Turkey, Greece and Switzerland.

Now that's what I call exotic (and exotic deltas): Drakens, a one of-a-kind Mirage, and the one and only export customers of the F-101B and F-102...
I never quite understood the logic of Greece and Turkey getting second-hand F-102s. Phantoms, F-104 and F-5s makes export sense, but F-102s ? How did they got there ? http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f102_5.html

 

[SOC]

How many F4 customers got the aircraft with Falcons instead of Sidewinders? That is what I meant by default.

I don't know if they were delivered in place of Sidewinder at the outset, but Japan's F-4EJ did carry AIM-4Ds at one point.

 

[Scott Kenny]

How many F4 customers got the aircraft with Falcons instead of Sidewinders? That is what I meant by default.

I don't know if they were delivered in place of Sidewinder at the outset, but Japan's F-4EJ did carry AIM-4Ds at one point.

Huh, I stand corrected, then! (what's this forum use for the "my mind has been blown" emoji?)

 

[uk 75]

As this is such a good Falcon thread, did any other aircraft get them or were suggested as carriers. The Avro Arrow comes to mind.
Also, did Lockheed ever propose any F104 with Falcon options?
The Gloster Javelin or HS Sea Vixen had underwing points that could have been used for Falcons.

 

[Dilandu]

As this is such a good Falcon thread, did any other aircraft get them or were suggested as carriers.

Well...


(albeit they were used only for testing of missile warning system)

 

[SOC]

There was a comparison test done, USN Sidewinder versus USAF Falcon, in 1954. Falcon was kept in a climate controlled space, Sidewinder was left outside on the loader rack.

At this point Falcon was not yet intended for external carriage. Early models did not enjoy being mounted externally for various reasons, this is why the F-89J eventually stopped carrying the AIM-4C externally altogether and relied on the Genie.

As this is such a good Falcon thread, did any other aircraft get them or were suggested as carriers. The Avro Arrow comes to mind.
Also, did Lockheed ever propose any F104 with Falcon options?
The Gloster Javelin or HS Sea Vixen had underwing points that could have been used for Falcons.

I don't believe Falcons were ever considered for the F-104, but they did test the Genie from it at one point. Falcon was one of the two weapons considered for the Arrow, the Sparrow II being the other.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Falcon was a

As this is such a good Falcon thread, did any other aircraft get them or were suggested as carriers. The Avro Arrow comes to mind.
Also, did Lockheed ever propose any F104 with Falcon options?
The Gloster Javelin or HS Sea Vixen had underwing points that could have been used for Falcons.

Hawker P.1103...

 

[Dilandu]

I don't believe Falcons were ever considered for the F-104, but they did test the Genie from it at one point. Falcon was one of the two weapons considered for the Arrow, the Sparrow II being the other.

F-104 would have the same problem as F-4; no internal weapon bays and rather unsophisticated fire control system. At best, F-104 could use AIM-4D in manual mode (and, well, F-4's Vietnam experience clearly demonstrated, that it isn't much help).

 

[pathology_doc]

As this is such a good Falcon thread, did any other aircraft get them or were suggested as carriers. The Avro Arrow comes to mind.
Also, did Lockheed ever propose any F104 with Falcon options?
The Gloster Javelin or HS Sea Vixen had underwing points that could have been used for Falcons.

Except the Javelin and Sea Vixen already had Firestreak, and Sea Vixen later got Red Top, so the need for an IR Falcon is zero while the ability to use a SARH Falcon is dependent on the radar having an illuminator mode, which both aircraft lacked.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

There wasn’t enough technical know how in all of Christendom to make an air combat weapon out of the AIM-4.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

The problem was not in the missile but in the plane. AIM-4 Falcon was designed to be used by interceptors with sophisticated automatic fire control system, that pre-locked their seeker on target before launch (using plane radar or IRIS to receive targeting data).

In Vietnam, they were used from F-4, which have much less advanced - primitive, to be exact - fire control system. Instead of automatic locking on target, F-4 required manual. For which AIM-4 simply wasn't well-adapted. It have long lock-on time - which was NOT a problem, if the missile starts to lock on as soon as interceptor radar started to track the enemy, but IS a problem if pilot need to do it manually.

So the solution would be to send F-106 instead of F-4 into Vietnam by USAF. The F-106 interceptor with advanced fire control could use AIM-4 Falcon efficiently.

F-106 couldn’t see the sky without GCI while F-4 became a world standard. Bring the F-106 to Vietnam? Sure, just bring SAGE along with it.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There wasn’t enough technical know how in all of Christendom to make an air combat weapon out of the AIM-4.

Beg to differ. AIM4s were good at wrecking bombers, catching 150lbs of missile with 20lbs of boom in it does a lot of damage.

Also, see AIM26/47/54, though those are admittedly about like comparing a T-rex with a goose.

 

[pathology_doc]

There wasn’t enough technical know how in all of Christendom to make an air combat weapon out of the AIM-4.

Falcon -4D had a direct hit rate not much worse than the other missiles' total kill rates (including proximity detonations). The issue with Falcon and Sparrow, perhaps less Sidewinder, was the reliability of the electronics.

Also, see AIM26/47/54, though those are admittedly about like comparing a T-rex with a goose.

AIM-26 is probably the closest relation - a bigger, beefier cousin, if you will, which for once had a proximity fuze (though never an IR seeker). -47 is a completely different beast that merely goes by the same name, and -54 can be seen as the developed version of -47 which actually reached service, albeit with a name change. AIM-54 (with AWG-9) is Hughes finally getting it right, something like 20 years after it first started working on AAMs, although -47 might have been just as good if any of its platforms had actually been adopted.

What I would like someone to explain to me is why developed versions of AIM-9, which unlike AIM-9B do have a cooled seeker, don't have the coolant-supply issue that the AIM-4D had.

Horseshtt. F-106 couldn’t see the sky without GCI while F-4 became a world standard. Bring the F-106 to Vietnam? Sure, just bring SAGE along with it.

One of the US assets in Vietnam was the offshore PIRAZ air defence network, with fleet guided missile cruisers acting as fighter directors (as well as scoring some Talos and Terrier kills of their own). No, it's nowhere near SAGE, but it doesn't need to be; it's adequate to the task of vectoring fighters in for the kill against the NVAF.

There comes a point at which the six's own radar takes over for the terminal acquisition and intercept, even if the SAGE system flies it there and tags a target for it, because one of every two missiles launched is supposed to be SARH, requiring illumination, with the IR weapon going first so it doesn't track on its colleague.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Beg to differ. AIM4s were good at wrecking bombers, catching 150lbs of missile with 20lbs of boom in it does a lot of damage.

Also, see AIM26/47/54, though those are admittedly about like comparing a T-rex with a goose.

I’d take an AIM-7 hitting a bomber as a much worse bad day. Phoenix and its immediate ancestors were a different story.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Falcon -4D had a direct hit rate not much worse than the other missiles' total kill rates (including proximity detonations). The issue with Falcon and Sparrow, perhaps less Sidewinder, was the reliability of the electronics.


AIM-26 is probably the closest relation - a bigger, beefier cousin, if you will, which for once had a proximity fuze (though never an IR seeker). -47 is a completely different beast that merely goes by the same name, and -54 can be seen as the developed version of -47 which actually reached service, albeit with a name change. AIM-54 (with AWG-9) is Hughes finally getting it right, something like 20 years after it first started working on AAMs, although -47 might have been just as good if any of its platforms had actually been adopted.

What I would like someone to explain to me is why developed versions of AIM-9, which unlike AIM-9B do have a cooled seeker, don't have the coolant-supply issue that the AIM-4D had.


One of the US assets in Vietnam was the offshore PIRAZ air defence network, with fleet guided missile cruisers acting as fighter directors (as well as scoring some Talos and Terrier kills of their own). No, it's nowhere near SAGE, but it doesn't need to be; it's adequate to the task of vectoring fighters in for the kill against the NVAF.

There comes a point at which the six's own radar takes over for the terminal acquisition and intercept, even if the SAGE system flies it there and tags a target for it, because one of every two missiles launched is supposed to be SARH, requiring illumination, with the IR weapon going first so it doesn't track on its colleague.

PIRAZ worked with the Navy’s planes. There was no comparable USAF system there and besides the subject here is the AIM-4 family (NOT AIM-54 & ancestors) which was carried by USAF jets. So PIRAZ is nice but doesn’t help this refighting of the war with this supposedly superior fighter/missile combo.

 

[pathology_doc]

Sean O'Connor's (forum member @SOC) Arming America's Interceptors: The Hughes Falcon Missile Family is a pretty good start

From Sean O'Connor's paper, quoting GTX's post for reference, the kill rate was marginally better than for Sparrow. Three of the misses are described as passing within 20, 10 and 10ft of the target, the latter two of which might have become kills with a proximity fuze.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Falcon -4D had a direct hit rate not much worse than the other missiles' total kill rates (including proximity detonations). The issue with Falcon and Sparrow, perhaps less Sidewinder, was the reliability of the electronics

So it was an evil conspiracy that no one wanted the AIM-4D in Vietnam? Robin Olds anyone? Where are the hit rates you’re using coming from? Anti bomber testing?

No. The overall issue with the Vietnam era air to air missiles was that they were designed to shoot down high flying, non maneuvering bombers.

 

[pathology_doc]

Where are the hit rates you’re using coming from? Anti bomber testing?

Read the reference I provided. This was from actual dogfighting.

IIRC Olds was particularly annoyed because the AIM-4's malfunctionings cost him ace status. O'Connor goes in depth into the reasons why the missile had issues, including crew training, but for copyright reasons I'm not going to post it all here. The numbers he crunches suggest that when fired within parameters, the -4D's direct-hit kill rate IN COMBAT was equal to the hit-or-proximity rate of anything else, and that a proximity fuze would have scored it more kills with fewer missiles fired as a consequence.

From the article. Emphasis in bold is mine, which is why AIM-4H is one of the big what-ifs of air combat. All three missiles really needed reliability fixes, but the AIM-4D had an additional inbuilt handicap which the -4H was supposed to have rectified, had it gone into production.

At this point, the AIM-4D began to build a less than stellar reputation among F-4D units. Bythe end of August, F-4D crews had attempted to fire twenty-five AIM-4Ds, with seven missiles failing to leave the launch rail. Of the eighteen missiles actually launched, none scored hits with the possible exception of the first missile fired on 2 June, although near misses were common. To be fair, the missions described above also saw six AIM-9s and fifteen AIM-7s fired, with only a single kill scored by each weapon. If the AIM-4D was not living up to expectations, neither was anything else.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Read the reference I provided. This was from actual dogfighting.

IIRC Olds was particularly annoyed because the AIM-4's malfunctionings cost him ace status. O'Connor goes in depth into the reasons why the missile had issues, including crew training, but for copyright reasons I'm not going to post it all here. The numbers he crunches suggest that when fired within parameters, the -4D's direct-hit kill rate IN COMBAT was equal to the hit-or-proximity rate of anything else, and that a proximity fuze would have scored it more kills with fewer missiles fired as a consequence.

From the article. Emphasis in bold is mine, which is why AIM-4H is one of the big what-ifs of air combat. All three missiles really needed reliability fixes, but the AIM-4D had an additional inbuilt handicap which the -4H was supposed to have rectified, had it gone into production.

Not proving much here with this evidence. You’re telling me that they should have expended more resources on a missile family that was already very well funded to get the same results they were already getting.
-4H was going to outperform upgraded AIM9s?
Post Vietnam it was Olds that made the USAF go with AIM7/9 for all its tactical fighters?
We’ll ignore the 6-7 second settling in time vs Sidewinder.

It really pisses people off that the USN for a long while developed the superior tactical air launched missiles.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Olds should have had more faith in the missile that didn’t get him any kills vs the ones that did.
You can’t make this stuff up folks.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

The overall issue with the Vietnam era air to air missiles was that they were designed to shoot down high flying, non maneuvering bombers.

Seeing as a huge amount of effort went into improving reliability through improvements in storage conditions and transport of missiles I would say that original design wasn't too much of an issue in Vietnam. Limitation maybe, but there were other lessons to learn.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Seeing as a huge amount of effort went into improving reliability through improvements in storage conditions and transport of missiles I would say that original design wasn't too much of an issue in Vietnam. Limitation maybe, but there were other lessons to learn.

Absolutely especially vacuum tube electronics. But when you’re using a a tool designed for one purpose and applying it to another, those limitations aren’t reduced just by increasing reliability.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What I would like someone to explain to me is why developed versions of AIM-9, which unlike AIM-9B do have a cooled seeker, don't have the coolant-supply issue that the AIM-4D had.

Much, MUCH bigger coolant bottles. Sidewinders had 30min of coolant available, Falcons had 2min.

I’d take an AIM-7 hitting a bomber as a much worse bad day. Phoenix and its immediate ancestors were a different story.

Would you rather have a 50lb warhead blow up some distance away from you, or a 7.5lb warhead blow up in you?

Depending on where that Sparrow goes off, you might survive it. I doubt any plane, even a beast like a B36, B52, or Tu95, would survive an internal explosion with 7.5lbs.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Much, MUCH bigger coolant bottles. Sidewinders had 30min of coolant available, Falcons had 2min.



Would you rather have a 50lb warhead blow up some distance away from you, or a 7.5lb warhead blow up in you?

Depending on where that Sparrow goes off, you might survive it. I doubt any plane, even a beast like a B36, B52, or Tu95, would survive an internal explosion with 7.5lbs.

Considering AIM7 went on to be carried by all US fighter aircraft except for interceptors, it sounds like they preferred the 65lb and later 88lb AIM7 warhead.
Anyone have anti bomber testing hit rates of AIM7 vs AIM4 family?
You know the USN produced tactical air launched missiles became US standards while the Falcon family became interesting pieces of history?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Considering AIM7 went on to be carried by all US fighter aircraft except for interceptors, it sounds like they preferred the 65lb and later 88lb AIM7 warhead.
Anyone have anti bomber testing hit rates of AIM7 vs AIM4 family?
You know the USN produced tactical air launched missiles became US standards while the Falcon family became interesting pieces of history?

Yes, the Sparrow kept getting heavier and heavier warheads to make up for the poor terminal guidance.

The US also kept the F106, armed with AIM4s, flying into the 1980s.

 

[SOC]

Where are the hit rates you’re using coming from?

1. Davies, Peter E. USAF F-4 Phantom II MiG Killers 1965-68. Oxford: Osprey, 2004.
2. United States. Institute for Defense Analyses. Systems Evaluation Division. Air-to-Air Encounters in Southeast Asia. Vol. III. Arlington: IDA, 1969.​
3. Fino, Steven A. "Technological Dislocations and Military Innovation: A Case Study in US Air Force Air-to-Air Armament, Post-World War II Through Operation Rolling Thunder." Thesis. Air University, 2010.

There does happen to be a whole section called "references" at the end.

AIM-4D had a hit rate around 9.8%. AIM-7, around 9.2%. AIM-9, around 20%. The point was never to show that the AIM-4D should have been adopted, but rather to place its performance in the correct context - possibly fairing better than the AIM-7 (I say possibly due to the AIM-7 often being ripple fired, meaning its hit rate might actually be higher, something that is in fact mentioned), it comparatively wasn't the overwhelming failure it's often made out to be. Yes, it was wholly unsuited for the anti-fighter mission, and yes, there were several limitations, such as the pre-firing sequence being complex and time-consuming. And yes, the AIM-9 was even the more logical, suitable weapon, as it turned out.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Yes, the Sparrow kept getting heavier and heavier warheads to make up for the poor terminal guidance.

The US also kept the F106, armed with AIM4s, flying into the 1980s.

In a smaller and smaller role in smaller and smaller numbers. Sparrow was adopted by other nations as well. What are you getting at with this? That AIM4s were better and everyone got it wrong?

 

[Bruno Anthony]

1. Davies, Peter E. USAF F-4 Phantom II MiG Killers 1965-68. Oxford: Osprey, 2004.
2. United States. Institute for Defense Analyses. Systems Evaluation Division. Air-to-Air Encounters in Southeast Asia. Vol. III. Arlington: IDA, 1969.​
3. Fino, Steven A. "Technological Dislocations and Military Innovation: A Case Study in US Air Force Air-to-Air Armament, Post-World War II Through Operation Rolling Thunder." Thesis. Air University, 2010.

There does happen to be a whole section called "references" at the end.

AIM-4D had a hit rate around 9.8%. AIM-7, around 9.2%. AIM-9, around 20%. The point was never to show that the AIM-4D should have been adopted, but rather to place its performance in the correct context - possibly fairing better than the AIM-7 (I say possibly due to the AIM-7 often being ripple fired, meaning its hit rate might actually be higher, something that is in fact mentioned), it comparatively wasn't the overwhelming failure it's often made out to be. Yes, it was wholly unsuited for the anti-fighter mission, and yes, there were several limitations, such as the pre-firing sequence being complex and time-consuming. And yes, the AIM-9 was even the more logical, suitable weapon, as it turned out.

Yeah I saw REFERENCES many of which I have and none of them gave the AIM4 much praise. Nice research on a footnote weapon.