Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

HELP! I Need Somebody!....

Recommended Posts

Not so long ago I was thinking in my mind,

oh how I would really want to know....

The answers in my time,

the facts on these three questions, oh


1) In which year did the USAF, and American armed forces operate the biggest variety of different aircraft,

2) If the F-105 ever used double rails for Sidewinder missiles,

3) and every aircraft, American and non, used the AIM-4 Falcon Crap-siles.



Edited by exhausted

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

all off the top of my head.....


not the USAF, but USAAF -- and the US in general -- WW2. so many different types from trainers to very heavy bombers, seaplanes (flying boats), floatplanes, very early helicopters ... Gen 1 Jets (P-59, P-80)


I'll look...but I know the G could carry a double Shrike rail. usually, ECM pods on both outer stations


F-89, F-100, F-101, F-102, F-106, F-4C/D (USAF Rhino - Navy always used 'winders it was their missile), Draken and Viggen (RB-** dirivetives)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I've read the Swedes did the Falcon right, improving it. Dave says electronics. I never really found anything on this. I find Gums's take interesting over at teh f16...



Gums, page 2::

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.


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


Same with -9b. We've created a deceptive legend from Vietnam that says 9b is "bad" but Formosan F-86 crews used their Sidewinders at high altitude where it completely changed the air war up there. And that was way back in 1958. Word search for Turkey-Shoot in Tom's article. The only thing I would add to Tom's conclusion mentioning missile vs fighter manueverability in "rare air" is that I suppose IR seekers perform better in thin and cold air way up high, and encounter less significant natural decoys (except the sun would be stronger).



Turkey-Shoot on 24 September




The air battle on 24 September actually signalized the end of the contest in the air, then – with their fighters having an advantage in high-altitude performance, but acting as perfect targets for CNAF Sidewinder-armed Sabres when flying that high and in a straight line, and also being at a considerable disadvantage when attempting to manoeuvre against the Sabre at a lower level – the Chinese pilots subsequently became much more careful when engaging in air combats. They could not know if all or only some of Nationalist F-86s were armed with AIM-9Bs and consequently had to expect a sudden attack from any of them. Furthermore the PLAAF could not know the performance of the AIM-9B at lower levels: it only knew that the missile functioned perfectly at high altitudes, where no aircraft could not manoeuvre very hard because of the rare air.



But, very, very few today who play games know what high altitude is, and most notably, none of the combat flight TheSims developers know. Perhaps, someday. And thanks to Migbuster for alerting me to teh f16 forum.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I believe it had to be sometime in the 1960's when concerning just the USAF and not the USAAF. There were at least ten types of fighters and interceptors in service during this decade, as well as four types of bombers, at least five types of transports, I believe at least three types of helicopters, three FAC aircraft, four trainer aircraft types, four reconnaissance types, and numerous other types as well. As far as which exact year of the 60's Im not yet sure.


2. I've seen photos of the F-105 carrying a twin rail AIM-9 adapter, here is a link to a website that has proof of the F-105's ability to carry two AIM-9s each on its outer pylons. http://www.burrusspt...05ordnance.html just click the external stores info link in the top left.


3. Wrench is exactly right, the AIM-4 was carried by all these types. The USAF used the AIM-4 on its F-4's from 1967 to 1972 because the AIM-4 was the USAF equivalent of the AIM-9 and was used on all other types of USAF fighters and therefore it made since to arm the F-4 with them due to familiarity USAF pilots and groundcrew already had with the AIM-4, and it was in greater supply. The AIM-9 was developed by the USN to equip the F-4B and in USAF service the AIM-9's used by the F-4C in 1965-67 over Vietnam, were just USN designed AIM-9B's delivered with the USAF's F-4C's which were basically F-4B's with limited modifications. Once the F-4D entered service, as this type was the first USAF designed variant it was intended to carry the existing USAF infra-red missile the AIM-4. The AIM-4 was not intended to be carried externally, and therefore it did not perform well on the F-4D/E, due to it's sensitive guidance systems, and its complicated firing process made it hard to use in a dogfight. Add this to the AIM-4's hit-to-kill only capability, and you have the missile who's performance in Vietnam was in legenadary Brig. Gen. Robin Olds' words, "As Useless as Tits on a Boar Hog".

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  


Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..