AIM-4 performance

[PraetorH]

Recently I read the AIM-4 made five kills in Vietnam with 48 attempted launches. This is only a little worse ratio than that of the Sidewinder and actually a better ratio than that of the Sparrow, even though the low number of AIM-4 launches does not allow making too many conclusions (one hit less and the ratio would have been much worse, one more, it would have been much better)... Nevertheless, it is even more surprising considering the undeniable limitations of the Falcon like the lack of a proximity fuse. I had expected a worse performance after reading how Olds e.g. spoke about the weapon.

 

I have also heard the pilots in Vietnam did not really know how to use the AIM-4 properly. Is this true?

Edited April 1, 2011 by PraetorHonoris

[xclusiv8]

I think that those five hits were achived when the enemy didnt know you were there and was not manouvering. To bad we cant sneak up on the enemy in SF2

[MigBuster]

The AIM-4D was only meant for high flying big bombers thats for sure if what Ive read is anything to go by

 

Wasn't as easy to use as the AIM-9 (even the AIM-7 was preferred)- its said it was the most complex missile to operate anywhere - and this is the real issue!

 

Its firing sequence (not modelled in this game) was a nightmare, a long lock on time (4.2 seconds to cool) and once you had set off the coolant you had a limited time (~3 mins) to fire it before the coolant ran out and it was useless.

 

No way to set up a quick lock on and fire - F-4D pilots had to decide 90 seconds before the missile would leave the jet they were going to commit.

 

It says unbelievably that the AIM-4 had better flight dynamics than the AIM-9

 

The lack of proximity fuse though was just the icing on the cake.

 

 

Those 5 kills were a miracle - the missile was no use in a Dogfight - they should have wasted them all on the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

 

I think the statistic you need is the amount of times the bandit had moved out of the engagement zone after going through the AIM-4 setup!

[+daddyairplanes]

ONLY reason i have AIM-4 in my game is cause i want my F-102 and 106 in game. beyond that i pulled a COL Olds and got those G$#$@ned things off of my birds. Ini edits are a beautiful thing!

[Fubar512]

The AIM-4 earned the sobriquet "the $250,000 turn signal", because as the AIM-4 flew by a MiG without detonating, its contrail signaled the MiG pilot to perform a hard break.

[Toryu]

The AIM-4 was designed for ADC and their intercept-profiles, being vectored onto targets by GCA or their own radar.

They could predict intercept-times and thus, they'd easily be able to pre-cool the missile at the correct point.

Targets weren't maneuvering all that much, so the missile would hit dead-on most of the time => no need for a proxy-fuze.

 

As the AF was run by bomber-buffs at that time, no one really got the difference between an all-instrument ADC-intercept and an eyes-out-of-the-cockpit TAC/PACAF dogfight.

The result was the totally misplaced AIM-4 hung below the F-4s.

 

An ADC-crew did well with the missile, as they knew the system and understood it's limitations and performance-edges over the Sidewinder much better than the usual line-pilots.

In a dead-ahead-situation, the Falcon was just as vauluable and usefull and deadly as the Sidewinder - you only couldn't squeeze one off just like that.

Waepon-switchology and knowledge of weapon-performance-parametres weren't known too well by the pilots either, as reports showed later.

 

 

After all, blaming it all on the missile is a bit short-sighted. It wasn't designed for dogfighting and it's "hit-to-kill" fuze prevented some kills, but after all it was just another sign of the pilots' limited knowledge about their weapon employment-parameters.

Aerodynamicly and seeker-wise, the Falcon was way ahead of the contemporary Sidewinder.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Toryu

[KJakker]

A question, as well as a sort of what if idea, that I have have had about AIM-4 is this. How would the AIM-4 airframe have preformed if it had been equipped with a seeker head/electronics system, rocket motor upgrades, and proximity fuse, equivalent technologically to those its counterpart AIM-9 models received between 1964-1988?

[Emp_Palpatine]

The AIM-4 was designed for ADC and their intercept-profiles, being vectored onto targets by GCA or their own radar.

They could predict intercept-times and thus, they'd easily be able to pre-cool the missile at the correct point.

Targets weren't maneuvering all that much, so the missile would hit dead-on most of the time => no need for a proxy-fuze.

 

As the AF was run by bomber-buffs at that time, no one really got the difference between an all-instrument ADC-intercept and an eyes-out-of-the-cockpit TAC/PACAF dogfight.

The result was the totally misplaced AIM-4 hung below the F-4s.

 

An ADC-crew did well with the missile, as they knew the system and understood it's limitations and performance-edges over the Sidewinder much better than the usual line-pilots.

In a dead-ahead-situation, the Falcon was just as vauluable and usefull and deadly as the Sidewinder - you only couldn't squeeze one off just like that.

Waepon-switchology and knowledge of weapon-performance-parametres weren't known too well by the pilots either, as reports showed later.

 

 

After all, blaming it all on the missile is a bit short-sighted. It wasn't designed for dogfighting and it's "hit-to-kill" fuze prevented some kills, but after all it was just another sign of the pilots' limited knowledge about their weapon employment-parameters.

Aerodynamicly and seeker-wise, the Falcon was way ahead of the contemporary Sidewinder.

Very interesting indeed!

[Lexx_Luthor]

Emp to Toryu

Very interesting indeed!

It gets worse.

 

Thanks to MigBuster I was led to the f16.net and found Gums on AIM-4. Here it is...

 

 

 

Gums::

~~> http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-11321-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-15.html

:

:

:

The Falcon required a direct hit, as the fuse was a set of strips on the main fins that had to be crushed. It also had a small warhead.

 

Reason USAF tried it for the Phantom was it had better turn ability than the Sparrow or 'winder. It also tracked better due to the cooled seeker.

 

Biggest problem was Hughes and McAir used a highly integrated radar and armament system for the ADC birds. So our switchology was really simple compared the the jury-rigged Phantom implementation. They had to manually cool the seeker, and I don't think they had the "growl" we had for the 'winder. I seem to remember that the crew also had to fool with the power for the missile. So in the heat of battle, it was not a real easy missile to employ by the Phantom. So think about the Duke, who got all his kills with the 'winder. Easy to use, simple, neat prox fuse, etc.

 

With the Hughes/McAir weapon system at the time, I would have taken the Falcon into combat any day. And BTW, we couldn't fire a single missile. They went by "bays" and type. So min shot for a trigger pull was two. Crying shame a Deuce never had a Mig engagement. Their success would likely have been much better than the Phantom experience.

 

 

If Gums is right, this is very important for my strategic game, where the Soviets will capture air-air missiles like the Chinese captured Sidewinder in 1958. However, because the Falcon requires a complete weapon system design, and the Sovs will be under SAC~ATTACK at that time, they may have to go for the more simple Atoll copy instead of implementing a copy of the superior Falcon into their interception system like Gums described. ie...the Sovs will still go Atoll because, like TAC in Vietnam, it was simpler than going back and doing a deeper re-design of the F-4 for the superior but more aircraft specific Falcon. Or something like that.

[Heretic]

What a coincidence, I was actually planning opening a thread about the Advanced Falcon (AIM-26B) when under the shower last night.

 

There were times in my current campaign when the dire supply situation forced me to conserve my Sparrow-Es and equip AIM-26Bs instead. And I found those missiles fairly pleasant and nowhere near as abyssimal as the "original" AIM-4.

Maybe TK didn't get "it right" with those missiles, but in my experience the Advanced Falcon achieved a slightly better tracking rate than the Sparrow. The only drawback compared to its "successor" would be the shorter range and slower speed and hence a slightly higher tendency to "dumb out" and falling from the sky shortly before the target.

 

I'd say the AIM-26 is a good, radar-guided complement to the Sidewinders.

[MigBuster]

What a coincidence, I was actually planning opening a thread about the Advanced Falcon (AIM-26B) when under the shower last night.

 

There were times in my current campaign when the dire supply situation forced me to conserve my Sparrow-Es and equip AIM-26Bs instead. And I found those missiles fairly pleasant and nowhere near as abyssimal as the "original" AIM-4.

Maybe TK didn't get "it right" with those missiles, but in my experience the Advanced Falcon achieved a slightly better tracking rate than the Sparrow. The only drawback compared to its "successor" would be the shorter range and slower speed and hence a slightly higher tendency to "dumb out" and falling from the sky shortly before the target.

 

I'd say the AIM-26 is a good, radar-guided complement to the Sidewinders.

 

 

Cant really judge it - TK has to trade off performance against accounts, game play and take into account that the AIM-4D is easy to employ in the game. Of course we can just tweak the parameters to make it a bit better - the AIM-26B in game is an add on so is bound to be set up for game play.

 

 

Ive used the AIM-4A/B/C/D/E and F in game so have changed some of the params - just to get them to be consistent with each other and sometimes hit bombers flying high and straight! - its still painful using them though !

Edited April 3, 2011 by MigBuster

[MigBuster]

These unclassified docs give an idea of use and Kill probability

 

 

AIM-9B

 

AIM-4D

 

AIM-26B

 

 

Maybe also useful to note the warhead sizes!

Edited April 3, 2011 by MigBuster

[PraetorH]

Very interesting! Would there be any way to put the limited coolant and more complicated firing sequence in game? Now this would be amazing...

I imagine that lack of a proximity fuse was done to increase the kill probability when hitting a target. I have seen Sidewinders in game hitting bombers but they stay on target for they are hardly damaged. Not sure if this was like that in real life.

[Toryu]

The same could happen in RL: proxy-fuze not going off and the missile just hitting some unimportant part of the airframe (taking off half a stabilizer or a wingtip for example).

[Gr.Viper]

Would there be any way to put the limited coolant and more complicated firing sequence in game? Now this would be amazing...

Multiply the stock AIM-4 firing time by twenty, remove growl. To increase immersion pretend that pressing the button is RL initialization of launch procedure and add a prolonged cussing sample for the entire duration, preferably ending with "f*ing finally! Hey, where did those f*s go?".

[Siddley]

I thought I knew a lot about AA missiles until I read this thread. Fascinating stuff, thanks to all involved.

[Heretic]

The same could happen in RL: proxy-fuze not going off and the missile just hitting some unimportant part of the airframe (taking off half a stabilizer or a wingtip for example).

 

And that, kids...is how AA-2s are conceived.

 

:D

Edited April 4, 2011 by Heretic

[Icarus999]

Multiply the stock AIM-4 firing time by twenty, remove growl. To increase immersion pretend that pressing the button is RL initialization of launch procedure and add a prolonged cussing sample for the entire duration, preferably ending with "f*ing finally! Hey, where did those f*s go?".

 

 

 

LOL...