First generation active radar missiles

A

Archibald

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
6 June 2006
Messages
11,843
Reaction score
13,534
Trying to wrap my mind around ARH missiles from the 50's... trying to pull an AMRAAM three decades ahead

- USN / RCAF Sparrow II

- RAF Red Dean

- USN Bendix Eagle

(USAF AIM-47 Falcon = SARH)
(Stupid question but... how did Hughes managed to put a workable radar / seeker into the AIM-47 Falcon when the other two failed miserably ? )

AMRAAM seemingly uses X-band seeker. So did AIM-47 and AIM-54 ? So that was the way to go ?

What are the pros and cons of K-band, Q-band and J-band tried on Sparrow II and Red Dean ?

K-band seemingly hates water vapor which is pretty much everywhere in Earth sky. No surprise Sparrow II failed !

Finally - how about Bendix Eagle and... the Soviets ? did the later tried ARH inthe late 50's ?
 
Last edited:
AIM-47 Falcon was SARH - it was AIM-54 which added ARH.
AAM-N-10 Eagle was the first ARH missile. It used midcourse radio command guidance, with an active seeker by Sanders derived from the Bomarc's AN/DPN-53. Seeker diameter was 12 in. Guidance range 10 nm.

Sanders made the pulse doppler active radar seeker. 300w peak power, 100w average. PRF 150-300 kc/s. Dish diameter 12in. Beam width 15 deg. Frequency C band. Conical scan frequency (after acquisition) 200-300 c/s. Max closing speed Mach 8. Max doppler frequency of target 80 kc/s. Range accuracy +-1% of range or 1,000 yards. Guidance range 10nm. Weight of Sanders seeker 90lb + 35lb for Bendix supplied antenna and gimbal.

Aerial is plane polarised with 4 dipole feeds each followed by a ferrite modulator in order to produce an electronic conical scan in track mode. Gain quite low as affected by feeds used by Bendix in home-on-jam mode. Power generated by a Sperry reflex klystron (1w) fed via a ferrite isolator to Sperry 3 cavity klystron power amplifier with gain of 20-25dB.
Click to expand...

The F6D-1 Missileer's AN/APQ-81 radar was GIANT and very high powered but even so maximum target range was 220 km.
 
Modern ARH missiles tend to use strapdown INS for the majority of their flight.
Often supplemented by datalink updates on the target from the launch aircraft.
Only when close to the target do they switch on ARH as it's only at close ranges that the seeker can reliably pick out and track the target.

A factor down to seeker dish area and the relatively low power signal the active emitter can produce from battery power.

The earlier use in the 50's is at those close ranges.
5nm was I think the sort of range for Red Dean.

This is partly why SARH was attractive, in that the missile could pick up the more powerful reflections from a fighter radar, and crudely fly toward them at greater distances.
As it closed the accuracy of the missiles flight would improve with the increasing strength of reflections.
 
K-band, Q-band and J-band -

Old Band Names

X Band - 8 to 12 GHz
Ku Band - 10.9 to 20 GHz
Ka Band - 20 to 36 GHz
Q Band - 36 to 46 GHz

New Band Names

I Band - 8 to 10 GHz
J Band - 10 to 20 GHz
K Band - 20 to 40 GHz

J band therefore overlaps X band a little.

J band is a smaller wavelength than X / I Band (traditional fighter radar wavelengths) which makes a smaller antenna easier to design. Range might be a little smaller. It was also considered to be better for ECM purposes in UK files, though why isn't explained (maybe just because existing jammers were X band).

K band / Q Band radars are even smaller wavelength. They were considered for the same reasons above. The short range wasn't likely to be a huge deal, as the seeker radars were short ranged, but the absorption in cloud etc was more of an issue.

Modern seekers usually home on main radar signals rather than a separate illumination channel, so X band it is.

ARH really needed accurate inertial guidance and mid course updates.

AIM-54 used SARH in midcourse to assist.
 
The diameter of the radar aerial (parabolic , cassegrain, etc) is a function of the wavelength. Which means the diameter of the missile, hence the aero drag is likewise a function. The range of the radar is dependent on both the installed battery power and the wavelength, with longer wavelengths being more penetrating. So big and draggy works well for long range but is no good for carriage (Red Dean or big weapons bay, with one or two rounds Sparrow II). Small and slick works well for short range as radio Falcon, but IR works better if you’re turning with the opponent, which you’re normally doing up close.

As pointed out above the breakthrough was INS, which allowed the radar to be used in the terminal phase only. The radar could now be small diameter so the missile was likewise slick.
 
Seekers.
Bandwidth directly determines beam narrowness achievable with a given size of dish.
Beam width has implications for strength of signal and accuracy.

So X-band is good for Illuminating out to quite a distance on a reasonable size of dish but a beam rider....like Sea Slug, needs a much larger dish to produce a narrow beam of strength at greater ranges.

Q-band being much shorter needs a smaller dish for a given narrowness of beam, but looses effectiveness over a short distance.
So X-band might need a 30" dish but can be effective over ranges in excess of 60nm for AI radar, or 9ft diameter dish for a beam rider to get out to 30nm.
While Q-band might only need a say a 18" dish but is effectively limited to 20nm as an AI radar.
Obviously I can't remember the precise figure and am partly guessing here. I'm sure our experts can correct that.
 
Last edited:
Never realized before AIM-47 was SARH !
Also, Bendix Eagle was to be quite huge... just like Red Dean. Compared to them, Sparrow II looks even more... hopeless.

No surprise AMRAAM was unfeasible in the 50's hence Sparrow II failed... packaging a Red Dean into a Sparrow III airframe... yeah, sure dude.
 
Last edited:
Well keep in mind Red Dean had a specified seeker with mechanical dish and this drove up likely closest distance from target, driving up warhead size that all in turn drove up the rocket motor to get the package going to sufficient speed to catch that target.

Later on just changing to monopulse and a shorter closest distance allowed a much lighter missile.
 
Archibald said:
Trying to wrap my mind around ARH missiles from the 50's... trying to pull an AMRAAM three decades ahead
Click to expand...
Technically the first-generation were World War 2 glide bombs:

* US Navy "Moth" - part of SWOD program, the re-purposed Pelican glide bomb equipped with metric wavelength passive seeker to home on enemy radars:

1612883863892.png ]
(the "AA glide target target Mk-16" designation may be confusing, but decomissioned Pelicans were initially repurposed as flying targets, and then some of them were again re-purposed as anti-radar missiles)

Project was cancelled in 1945, apparently because Japanese radars weren't considered a big threat.

* USAAF's Aeronca GB-7C - part of GB series, GB-7 was a family of radar-guided bombs. GB-7A was semi-active, GB-7B was active, GB-7C was passive radar seeker with AN/APQ-17 homing system:

1612884079156.png

(here is GB-7B shown, GB-7C apparently was similar in general design)

At least 5 tests were conducted, but the development problems led to cancellation of the program.
 
Dear dilandu,
By 1945, most Japanese radars were on the bottom of the ocean!
Japan had hardly any ships afloat.
 
Archibald said:
Trying to wrap my mind around ARH missiles from the 50's... trying to pull an AMRAAM three decades ahead

- USN / RCAF Sparrow II

- RAF Red Dean

- USN Bendix Eagle

(USAF AIM-47 Falcon = SARH)
(Stupid question but... how did Hughes managed to put a workable radar / seeker into the AIM-47 Falcon when the other two failed miserably ? )

AMRAAM seemingly uses X-band seeker. So did AIM-47 and AIM-54 ? So that was the way to go ?

What are the pros and cons of K-band, Q-band and J-band tried on Sparrow II and Red Dean ?

K-band seemingly hates water vapor which is pretty much everywhere in Earth sky. No surprise Sparrow II failed !

Finally - how about Bendix Eagle and... the Soviets ? did the later tried ARH inthe late 50's ?
Click to expand...
Also keep in mind that the AIM-54 was not as high performing as the AAM-N-10 Eagle. Eagle had a booster section and a sustainer.
 
By some weird coincidence, after the Arrow demise, not only
a) Canada got BOMARC-B
but
b) Avro proposed in june 1959 a CF-100 Mark.8 with Bendix Eagles on the wingtips.

The real irony is that Bomarc-B and Bendix Eagle had the very same seeker - ARH, pulse-doppler - the AN/DPN-53.

Note that Bendix also worked with Avro and Canadair on the Sparrow II.

I'm wondering if Bendix didn't used their Canadair connection to swap one ARH missile (the failed Sparrow II, for the CF-105) with another ARH missile (Bendix Eagle, for the CF-100 mk.8).

This mean that (very remarquably) by 1962 the RCAF two air defense systems - CF-100 mk.8 Eagles and BOMARC-B - would have used the very same extremely advanced seeker : AN/DPN-53.
 
riggerrob said:
Dear dilandu,
By 1945, most Japanese radars were on the bottom of the ocean!
Japan had hardly any ships afloat.
Click to expand...
The idea Japan had hardly any ships afloat in '45 is incorrect. They had few major combatants still afloat, but there were still a lot of small escorts and merchantmen. And of course they had land-based radars in addition to naval ones.

And in any case the Anti-Radar Homing role Dilandu mentioned was only a small part of the programme, the active radar Bat (SWOD Mk 9 Mod 0) was used from April 1945 against Japanese shipping off Borneo, sinking several. The Mod 1's seeker was adapted for use against land targets such as bridges, and ISTR there was at least one shot against either a steelworks or oil refinery in the Home Islands.
 
GARGEAN said:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
AIM-54 used SARH in midcourse to assist.
Click to expand...
IIRC it is either SARH or ARH with midcourse, not both at the same launch.
Click to expand...

Nope.

AN/DSQ-26 seeker has an autopilot, but it's not sufficient to fly all the way to ARH range (6nm-13nm depending on target size).

You can launch AIM-54A in STT (single target track) or TWS mode.

If you use STT mode you are SARH all the way. This increases maximum range to 60nm.

If you launch in TWS mode (max range up to 50nm), the AIM-54A is flying on time-shared SARH until it gets to ARH range. The AWG-9 paints each target every 2 seconds as a SARH "course update" and the autopilot keeps it flying to the target in-between paints. That's why the TWS mode restricts the azimuth / elevation to a relatively small area - a full sweep of the AWG-9 is like 12-14 seconds, which would leave the AIM-54 unsupervised way too long.

It seems like the AWG-9 can send a "turn on ARH" command to the seeker, probably via pulse-width modulation of the radar, at the appropriate distance. If it fails to lock it in reverts to SARH. There's no rear-facing datalink antenna to receive course updates, this isn't like the AIM-120.

Zaslon and R-33 used SARH with TWS mode without ARH as the phased array allowed very rapid switching between targets.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the USSR and active radar homing missiles, I don't know of any work prior to the R-27, R-77 and R-37.

There was however serious interest in SARH and IR combined homing and several AAMs (K-100, K-23) were intended to use this. IR would be the accurate terminal seeker with SARH to get you in seeker range. However it was abandoned as technically too difficult.

Fakel designed some long range AAM missiles in the 1960s - V-148 was a 650kg liquid-propellant missile with a range of 250km designed for the Tupolev Tu-148 advanced interceptor. Maximum target speed was 4000km/h, warhead weight 60kg, length 5m, diameter 0.42m, span 1.02m. Guidance was SARH though.
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
GARGEAN said:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
AIM-54 used SARH in midcourse to assist.
Click to expand...
IIRC it is either SARH or ARH with midcourse, not both at the same launch.
Click to expand...

Nope.

AN/DSQ-26 seeker has an autopilot, but it's not sufficient to fly all the way to ARH range (6nm-13nm depending on target size).

You can launch AIM-54A in STT (single target track) or TWS mode.

If you use STT mode you are SARH all the way. This increases maximum range to 60nm.

If you launch in TWS mode (max range up to 50nm), the AIM-54A is flying on time-shared SARH until it gets to ARH range. The AWG-9 paints each target every 2 seconds as a SARH "course update" and the autopilot keeps it flying to the target in-between paints. That's why the TWS mode restricts the azimuth / elevation to a relatively small area - a full sweep of the AWG-9 is like 12-14 seconds, which would leave the AIM-54 unsupervised way too long.

It seems like the AWG-9 can send a "turn on ARH" command to the seeker, probably via pulse-width modulation of the radar, at the appropriate distance. If it fails to lock it in reverts to SARH. There's no rear-facing datalink antenna to receive course updates, this isn't like the AIM-120.

Zaslon and R-33 used SARH with TWS mode without ARH as the phased array allowed very rapid switching between targets.
Click to expand...
Great piece of info, thanks.
 
I know Red Dean didn't quite make it to live-fire trials (they were on the cusp of taking place when the axe fell, per Forbat), but did any of the others get that far? The US had both Sparrow II and Oriole IIRC, but details of how far Oriole got and exactly why they canned it seem thin on the ground.
 
The USN developed AAM-N-4 Oriole was supposed to be a longer range version of Sparrow for fleet defense based on essentially the same idea as the AIM-54 Phoenix. The missile itself looked like a larger version of Sparrow.

Oriole = 1500 lbs, 12 feet long, 11 inches diameter, range to 20+ miles
Sparrow = 500 lbs, 11 feet long 8 inches diameter, range to about 10 miles

When the first Oriole missiles for testing came available in 1947 - 48, they were found to have a range of about 10 miles at most. This was no better than Sparrow was managing and due to the state of solid fuel development at the time. There was some consideration given to using a ramjet but that never materialized.

One of the key design elements of Oriole was it was to be a "fire and forget" missile with active radar homing so the carrying plane could fire on multiple targets at once.

Because of the inability to get the missile out to the ranges desired, the program was short-lived and what missiles were made (about 60) were fired in testing of various sorts.
 
Another early AAM that was at least considered for active radar homing was the MX 799 / AAM-A-1 Firebird. While this Ryan developed missile saw testing from 1946 to 1949, it was ultimately dropped by the USAF in favor of the Hughes Falcon.

Proposed guidance was to be either radio CLOS (using an aircraft with 2 crew, a pilot and a "director"). until close to the target or beam riding. Once the missile approached the target it had an active radar seeker for the final approach. It's not clear how far testing on this got, but a number of these missiles were launched.

Aircraft at this time fitted with this missile (or other AAM's like the JB-3 or Falcon) were designated DF for "Director Fighter."
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The USN developed AAM-N-4 Oriole was supposed to be a longer range version of Sparrow for fleet defense based on essentially the same idea as the AIM-54 Phoenix. The missile itself looked like a larger version of Sparrow.

Oriole = 1500 lbs, 12 feet long, 11 inches diameter, range to 20+ miles
Sparrow = 500 lbs, 11 feet long 8 inches diameter, range to about 10 miles

When the first Oriole missiles for testing came available in 1947 - 48, they were found to have a range of about 10 miles at most. This was no better than Sparrow was managing and due to the state of solid fuel development at the time. There was some consideration given to using a ramjet but that never materialized.

One of the key design elements of Oriole was it was to be a "fire and forget" missile with active radar homing so the carrying plane could fire on multiple targets at once.

Because of the inability to get the missile out to the ranges desired, the program was short-lived and what missiles were made (about 60) were fired in testing of various sorts.
Click to expand...

Norman Friedman (from memory) said that Sparrow II was nothing else than the Oriole seeker repackaged into a Sparrow I / II / III common airframe. Aparently that move was made by Douglas, which was already part of Oriole.
 
Archibald said:
Never realized before AIM-47 was SARH !
Also, Bendix Eagle was to be quite huge... just like Red Dean. Compared to them, Sparrow II looks even more... hopeless.

No surprise AMRAAM was unfeasible in the 50's hence Sparrow II failed... packaging a Red Dean into a Sparrow III airframe... yeah, sure dude.
Click to expand...
It's important to note that one of the things Red Dean was criticized for (per BSP4) was the size of its components, and the fact that some of them were bulkier than their equivalents at the end of the war. The Americans actually HAD packaged a Red Dean into a Sparrow, a considerably smaller missile of less than half the weight. That they had not got it to work much if any better is a moot point; the relative size of the missiles speaks volumes.
 
I see what you mean, but at the end of the end the result is the same: an unworkable missile !

The real missed opportunity seems to have been the Bendix Eagle. I mean, at least that one seeker would have probably worked, since the DPN-53 was proved in the BOMARC-B.

A pity the USN a) mandated an enormous range, an enormous radar, and enormous and subsonic aircraft to carry it, and the Hawkeye on top of the whole thing
b) that McNamara insisted to blend the BOMARC-proven, ARH Eagle with the equally enormous, but SARH AIM-47 Falcon and put the whole thing into the YF-12 airframe.

I wonder if a reasonable missile with a reasonable radar could have build out of the BOMARC DPN-53 ? Can't help thinking that, while enormous and heavy, it would have been a pulse-doppler, ARH missile decades before the AMRAAM.

And unlike the Sparrow II DPN-21, the DPN-53 (BOMARC & Eagle) worked reasonably well... I've never heard BOMARC-B were allergical to the atmosphere water vapor, so it must have used a more practical band that K-band. Of course the price to pay was an enormous size and weight: 16 000 pounds for BOMARC, 1300 pounds for Eagle.
 
Last edited:
So I would like to ask the experts here the following questions.

Could a "baby Eagle" AAM have been created, using the BOMARC-B DPN-53 seeker ?
And provided an ARH AAM during the Vietnam war, even at a size and weight twice or triple the AMRAAM decades later ?

Where it gets really interesting is that the F-4J AWG-10 / APG-59 was, by itself, another DPN-53 offspring - kind of third one after BOMARC and stillborn Eagle.

Could an APG-59 handle a "baby Eagle" AAM ?

P.S In my TL I have Canadian Westinghouse pulling that feat, on the ruins of the Velvet Glove and Sparrow II programs. It is a way to leverage Diefenbaker love for the BOMARC-B in place of the unfortunate Arrow... and the missile ends on the Arrow. The commonality between the two help rescuing the latter at a crucial juncture: 1957-58.
 
Archibald said:
And provided an ARH AAM during the Vietnam war, even at a size and weight twice or triple the AMRAAM decades later ?
Click to expand...
Size, weight and envelope constraints for carriage and launch are going to be a PITA for a missile that size. Given the political requirement for positive ID before pulling the trigger, you're probably better off clearing and wiring the outer wing hardpoints of an F-4 for another pair of Sidewinders each.
 
Archibald said:
So I would like to ask the experts here the following questions.

Could a "baby Eagle" AAM have been created, using the BOMARC-B DPN-53 seeker ?
And provided an ARH AAM during the Vietnam war, even at a size and weight twice or triple the AMRAAM decades later ?

Where it gets really interesting is that the F-4J AWG-10 / APG-59 was, by itself, another DPN-53 offspring - kind of third one after BOMARC and stillborn Eagle.

Could an APG-59 handle a "baby Eagle" AAM ?

P.S In my TL I have Canadian Westinghouse pulling that feat, on the ruins of the Velvet Glove and Sparrow II programs. It is a way to leverage Diefenbaker love for the BOMARC-B in place of the unfortunate Arrow... and the missile ends on the Arrow. The commonality between the two help rescuing the latter at a crucial juncture: 1957-58.
Click to expand...
Well, with BOMARC, the missile used SAGE for most of its flight to the target. Once in the vicinity the SAGE operator(s) would direct the missile to begin active search and homing on the target. What did BOMARC in as a system was a combination of the USAF not really being hot on having it other than to try to deny the Army control of SAM systems, the system itself being fairly dangerous to crews readying and working on it, and the cost of the system.
The final nail in the coffin, so-to-speak, was BOMARC's relative inability to deal with ballistic missiles. The US Army's Nike Hercules and Zeus missiles were better bets for that as BOMARC was altitude limited by the use of ramjets for propulsion. As the Soviet bomber threat receded, BOMARC was really left with no mission. Hence, its short operational life.
The problem with any active radar homing missile of this era was not in the radar so much as in the necessary computer and controls to make allow the missile to home on a target unassisted. Until you get to solid state electronics, you really just can't cram the necessary systems into something small. It worked with BOMARC because you had an aircraft sized missile available along with relying on a ground intercept control system where most of the computational power was ground based.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
An interesting picture of a Sparrow I being mounted on an F6F out of Pt. Mugu. The radar and such for guiding it are in the pod under the fuselage.
Click to expand...
That's a really nice rendition of that photo! A note though, Sparrow I was passive (a beam-rider guided by the aircraft). Sparrow II was the fully active member of the family, and Sparrow III was semi-active (the aircraft illuminated the target, but did not guide the missile).
 
aim9xray said:
Sparrow I was passive (a beam-rider guided by the aircraft).
Click to expand...
In my understanding, 'passive' is usually reserved for things that don't require the launch vehicle to radiate energy; e.g. IR homing and anti-radar missiles; autonomous IR and TV glide bombs and AGMs.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
GARGEAN said:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
AIM-54 used SARH in midcourse to assist.
Click to expand...
IIRC it is either SARH or ARH with midcourse, not both at the same launch.
Click to expand...

Nope.

AN/DSQ-26 seeker has an autopilot, but it's not sufficient to fly all the way to ARH range (6nm-13nm depending on target size).

You can launch AIM-54A in STT (single target track) or TWS mode.

If you use STT mode you are SARH all the way. This increases maximum range to 60nm.

If you launch in TWS mode (max range up to 50nm), the AIM-54A is flying on time-shared SARH until it gets to ARH range. The AWG-9 paints each target every 2 seconds as a SARH "course update" and the autopilot keeps it flying to the target in-between paints. That's why the TWS mode restricts the azimuth / elevation to a relatively small area - a full sweep of the AWG-9 is like 12-14 seconds, which would leave the AIM-54 unsupervised way too long.

It seems like the AWG-9 can send a "turn on ARH" command to the seeker, probably via pulse-width modulation of the radar, at the appropriate distance. If it fails to lock it in reverts to SARH. There's no rear-facing datalink antenna to receive course updates, this isn't like the AIM-120.

Zaslon and R-33 used SARH with TWS mode without ARH as the phased array allowed very rapid switching between targets.
Click to expand...
Oh，I have a few questions. I want to know some data of AN/DSQ-26 seeker，such as average power, maximum power and how the seeker is activated, Final 60 nautical miles seems too far？ It's 110 kilometers，It was data link working at this distance？or use SARH like AIM-7？
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom