F-104 with AIM-9C?

[Rule of cool]

Well, the M730 chassis is rated for six-ton payload, and Chaparral mount is about two tons at most. So there are reserves to fit the generator and radar.

And the radar is not exactly targeting. It's illumination only radar; it's slaved to the optical sight, with no independent capability to search or track (at least initially). Basically the radar is only illuminating the target tracked by optical sight. A much simpler system than any kind of proper tracking radar.

You need some sort of search capability, even 60s fighter radars could sweep back and forth, up and down to scan a sector of sky. Could the Army mount the F8E radar onto an M108 chassis?

 

[Dilandu]

Could the Army mount the F8E radar onto an M108 chassis?

It would be very costly, and kinda defeat the whole idea of Chaparral as simple, relatively cheap system (even with radar upgrade). Aircraft radars aren't usually well-prepared for being hauled off-road by tracked carrier.

You need some sort of search capability, even 60s fighter radars could sweep back and forth, up and down to scan a sector of sky.

It's simpler to just have initially radar slaved to optical sight in first version (Improved Chaparral) - with a small scope, so radar could be used as sight at night/bad visibility conditions. And add search capability in later versions.

 

[Rule of cool]

It would be very costly, and kinda defeat the whole idea of Chaparral as simple, relatively cheap system (even with radar upgrade). Aircraft radars aren't usually well-prepared for being hauled off-road by tracked carrier.



It's simpler to just have initially radar slaved to optical sight in first version (Improved Chaparral) - with a small scope, so radar could be used as sight at night/bad visibility conditions. And add search capability in later versions.

A carrier fighter radar would have to reasonably tough to withstand the deck park salt spray and the shock of catapults and arrestor wires, but I take your point.

I think too much simplicity in this case leads to ineffectiveness. The Chaparral was linked to a lightweight, mobile search radar/IFF and was tail chase only, which likely makes an optical sight ok because you know the aircraft is leaving before firing on it. A SARH Chaparral would have head-on engagement capability which is likely at longer range and requires some on-board seach and tracking capability to search the approach zone and get a lock.

 

[Dilandu]

A carrier fighter radar would have to reasonably tough to withstand the deck park salt spray and the shock of catapults and arrestor wires, but I take your point.

True, but constant high-frequency shaking from the off-road movement and vibrations from tracks would create a different kind of stress, not exactly similar to the naval conditions. I'm not saying that it won't be possible - just that I have doubts about how easy it would be, to put a fighter radar directly on land chassis.

I think too much simplicity in this case leads to ineffectiveness. The Chaparral was linked to a lightweight, mobile search radar/IFF and was tail chase only, which likely makes an optical sight ok because you know the aircraft is leaving before firing on it. A SARH Chaparral would have head-on engagement capability which is likely at longer range and requires some on-board seach and tracking capability to search the approach zone and get a lock.

Problem is, that US Army just got a major screw up with Mauler - which failed exactly because it was overcomplicated - and Chaparral was deliberatedly chosen to be as simple and dumb as possible. The Army wanted the system that would work for sure, and would not be too much of headache.

If Army wanted a more complicated system with automatic fire control, they would likely choose the competing solution from Hugh; it involved AIM-4 Falcon missiles (IR versions) in launch containers, with automatic fire control system based on IR telescope (basically the analogue of F-106 infrared system). But it have troubles during testing, and while none of them were concerning, Army still decided to choose the Chaparral.

 

[Rule of cool]

Rabbit holes are like sci-fi tractor beams.

We started with the 9C as a cheap and dirty SARH capability for mostly non-US F104 users, which I'm really warming too BTW, to now major upgrades to the 9C and using it as a SAM!

Personally I'm with @MadRat , the purpose of the 9C is to cause an enemy to avoid or be shot down, so it fails its mission. I think the evolution of IR missiles would edge out the 9C rather than updating it during the 70s being the way forward.

 

[Dilandu]

Rabbit holes are like sci-fi tractor beams.

True)

We started with the 9C as a cheap and dirty SARH capability for mostly non-US F104 users, which I'm really warming too BTW, to now major upgrades to the 9C and using it as a SAM!

Well, yes, but isn't it interesting to explore all possibilities?)

Personally I'm with @MadRat , the purpose of the 9C is to cause an enemy to avoid or be shot down, so it fails its mission. I think the evolution of IR missiles would edge out the 9C rather than updating it during the 70s being the way forward.

Generally I agree, by mid-1970s the all-aspect IR missiles would become available anyway.

 

[NMaude]

And the radar is not exactly targeting. It's illumination only radar; it's slaved to the optical sight, with no independent capability to search or track (at least initially). Basically the radar is only illuminating the target tracked by optical sight. A much simpler system than any kind of proper tracking radar.

Basically a lightweight land-based version of the original RIM-7H Sea Sparrow.

If Army wanted a more complicated system with automatic fire control, they would likely choose the competing solution from Hugh; it involved AIM-4 Falcon missiles (IR versions) in launch containers, with automatic fire control system based on IR telescope (basically the analogue of F-106 infrared system).

A MIM-4E/F/G Falcon would've be interesting especially if Hughes was able to put into production a MIM-4H Falcon.

 

[MadRat]

I had the impression the Falcon lacked the thrust impulse to be SAM ordnance. Falcon was perhaps friendlier for hand reloading.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Falcon was perhaps friendlier for hand reloading.

I dunno, the Sidewinder's long tube is easier for a 2-man lift. Or 3-man, whichever the USN deck crews actually do.

While the Falcon fins are in the way.

 

[NMaude]

I dunno, the Sidewinder's long tube is easier for a 2-man lift. Or 3-man, whichever the USN deck crews actually do.

While the Falcon fins are in the way.

On the other hand the Falcon IIRC was only 6.5ft long.

 

[Scott Kenny]

On the other hand the Falcon IIRC was only 6.5ft long.

That's actually kinda the problem. There's no easy places to grab and lift a Falcon, while a Sidewinder can be carried on the shoulders of 2-3 people.

 

[MadRat]

It's a 2-3 person job to manually load a Sidewinder. One guy can support the missile in an emergency but its safer with two. One person to guide the procedure and ensure attachment. With a lift one guy can do it all.

In this age we are trying to eliminate human error. Way better to use machines so we aren't paying disability for people that only served once. I know a guy that got hurt 2 years in doing stupid **** and has been getting 100% disability yet did 30 years at a regular job and retiredfrom there, too. Never underestimate stupidity.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It's a 2-3 person job to manually load a Sidewinder. One guy can support the missile in an emergency but its safer with two. One person to guide the procedure and ensure attachment. With a lift one guy can do it all.

In this age we are trying to eliminate human error. Way better to use machines so we aren't paying disability for people that only served once. I know a guy that got hurt 2 years in doing stupid **** and has been getting 100% disability yet did 30 years at a regular job and retiredfrom there, too. Never underestimate stupidity.

Yes, in the 2010s and beyond we are trying to stop human errors and injuries.

But this is a 1960s/70s proposal.

 

[Rule of cool]

But this is a 1960s/70s proposal.

While this idea has grown on me, I think it has a pretty definite shelf life, not due to the missile itself but to the fighters.

In the mid 60s there were only a handful of Mach 2 fighters available for export in the world, but by the time the 9C is due for an upgrade in the mid 70s the F4 was reasonably widespread, the Mirage F1 was entering service as were the F14 and F15 while the f104 was on the way out. I think that by the mid 70s operators wouldn't be looking to upgrade the missile but upgrade their fighters that could use the later versions of the Sparrow or the Super R530. This is in addition to all aspect versions of the Sidewinder and enhanced engagement envelopes of similar IR AAMs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

While this idea has grown on me, I think it has a pretty definite shelf life, not due to the missile itself but to the fighters.

[...] I think that by the mid 70s operators wouldn't be looking to upgrade the missile but upgrade their fighters that could use the later versions of the Sparrow or the Super R530.

I'm thinking that AIM-9C Dual Beam would be more likely for Chapparal and especially Sea Chapparal than (most) aircraft users.

I'm sure a few countries would want the Dual Beam for their fighters, but it might end up as them re-adapting Radar Chapparal to aircraft than Dilandu's original idea.

 

[NMaude]

It has occurred to me that with the current electronics state-of-the-art that an active-radar version of the AIM-9X could be made (Call it the AIM-9Y).

 

[Scott Kenny]

It has occurred to me that with the current electronics state-of-the-art that an active-radar version of the AIM-9X could be made (Call it the AIM-9Y).

Could, but why?

Doesn't the IR seeker have a way bigger field of view?

 

[NMaude]

Could, but why?

A good question, one reason would be as an all-weather weapon.

Doesn't the IR seeker have a way bigger field of view?

I'm fairly certain the a radar-seeker would have a wide field-of-view.

Now as for an active radar-seeker I could see one being designed and built using a modified design of the AIM-120's seeker design.

 

[Dilandu]

It has occurred to me that with the current electronics state-of-the-art that an active-radar version of the AIM-9X could be made (Call it the AIM-9Y).

Easily - after all, there are millimeter-wave radar seekers for Maverick missiles. It's just that on Sidewinder's typical combat ranges IR seekers are considered more efficient.