Jump to content

F-106 and AIM-4D


Recommended Posts

The Six never carried AIM-4Ds operationally, only AIM-4E (GAR-3), AIM-4F (GAR-3A) and AIM-4G (GAR-4A) "Super Falcon" missiles.

The SARH -guided AIM-4F superseded the E-model quite quickly.

A typical loadout would comprise two AIM-4F on the forward trapeze launchers and a pair of IR-guided AIM-4G on the rear rails.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did the F-106 which was used until the early 80s rely on a missile that even in the 60s performed extremely poorly over Vietnam? If the F-106 was ever called on to intercept enemy bombers would there have been any realistic chance of success using the AIM-4?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did the F-106 which was used until the early 80s rely on a missile that even in the 60s performed extremely poorly over Vietnam? If the F-106 was ever called on to intercept enemy bombers would there have been any realistic chance of success using the AIM-4?

because the missions weren't the same at all!

the F-106 was an interceptor, mainly intended to intercept bomber groups (hence the genie nuke)

...same for canadian Voodoo's, that carry very similar load, for a very similar mission...

the problem with the falcon missiles (ignition time?) weren't a big issue in homeland defense... and a Bear isn't the same kind of target as a small MiG...

Edited by mingwin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to use Brassin AIM-4D 1/48 released this month with Trump F-106?

Eduard will release AIM-4G Falcons on March, so you will be able to use them for your F-106.

Edited by Solo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did the F-106 which was used until the early 80s rely on a missile that even in the 60s performed extremely poorly over Vietnam? If the F-106 was ever called on to intercept enemy bombers would there have been any realistic chance of success using the AIM-4?

A lot of the limitations often publicly identified with the AIM-4 series in Vietnam had to do with it being used in tactical, fighter versus fighter situations. In the strategic defense role against bombers, the limited cooling time for the IR versions and the lack of maneuverability (which was greatly improved when they deleted the "flipper" deflection limits) didn't matter against a bomber. It also had the advantage of fitting in the weapons bay of the F-102 and F-106, which were basically designed around them. To put an AIM-9 or especially an AIM-7 in those bays would have required massive modifications.

Regards,

Murph

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to http://www.f-106deltadart.com

[...]

However, it became soon apparent that the AIM-4D was ill-suited for the close-range dogfights encountered over Vietnam, and only 5 kills were achieved with the Falcon. The main problem of the missile was seeker cooling. The limited amount of on-board coolant meant that the seeker could not be pre-cooled for any length of time, which in turn meant that it had to be cooled more or less shortly before firing, i.e. when close-range combat had already started. This cooling, however, took up to 5 seconds which is like eternity in a dogfight, so that most targets were out of reach again when the missile was finally ready. Moreover, when the coolant was exhausted after several aborted launches, the Falcon was just useless dead weight, which had to be brought back to base for servicing. Another problem of the Falcon was the lack of a proximity fuse, which made it effectively a hit-to-kill missile. Part of the blame for the abysmal combat record of the AIM-4D has been given to the fighter pilots, who did not make good use of the Falcon's relatively long lock-on range (9.6 km / 6 miles), which would have made BVR kills possible. However, this blame is somewhat unjustified, because combat rules required visual identification of essentially every potential target before engagement, making the deployment of the Falcon in Vietnam questionable at best. The AIM-4D was gradually withdrawn from use beginning in 1969, and by 1973, the AIM-4D was no longer operational with the USAF.

[...]

Edited by Airfixer
Link to post
Share on other sites

The following comments are not a slam on the quoted poster; I'm simply using them to point out certain common tired talking points that are repeated ad nauseum.

Another problem of the Falcon was the lack of a proximity fuse, which made it effectively a hit-to-kill missile.

Snicker... guffaw. "Effectively"? Since it was designed without a proximity fuse it wasn't "effectively" a hit to kill missile. It was designed, built, and employed as a hit to kill missile. Literally. Given the small size of the missile and its warhead and the large size and lack of maneuverability of its intended bomber targets that wasn't a ridiculous design parameter.

Part of the blame for the abysmal combat record of the AIM-4D...

As opposed to the abysmal combat records of the contemporary AIM-7D/E and AIM-9B? They were ALL in the single digit Pk range, from 6 to 9%, varying by only one or two percentage points from each other. A huge amount of the comments that pass for wisdom on aviation model sites about the AIM-4 derives from Robin Olds. He also similarly disparaged the use of a gun pod on the F-4; how did that work out? That's not to say the AIM-4 was a "death dot", far from it, but the discussion of its effectiveness on teh interwebbzz is usually grounded in ignorance and lack of context. BTW, how was its performance against countermeasures versus the contemporary AIM-7D/E and AIM-9B/C/D?

Regards,

Murph

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with the AIM-4, according to what Gen. Olds told a group of us who dined with him one time, was the cockpit acrobatics required in order to get ready to launch the AIM-4 from a Phantom. You basically needed three arms and six hands to do it. The missile was an unreliable POS - everyone I've ever heard who had anything to do with them agreed on that - but as noted, so were many missiles of that era. The fact is however, that the AIM-9 was a much simpler system to use.

Edited by Jennings
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...