AIM-4, AIM-26, AIM-47 Falcon, HM-58, RB27, and RB28

[dy031101]

XAIM-4H Falcon, the development of the Falcon missile family that promised to correct the deficiencies of the previous iterations- poor dogfight performance.

The US forces decided to stick with the Sidewinders, so the XAIM-4H did not go into active service.

But what if it did?





My interest on this topic has been going on and off- the most recent one (that brought up this thread) came from my inquiries about F-89H Scorpion.  This interceptor is equipped with two wingtip pods, each of which carrying three AIM-4 missiles, 21 2.75" rockets, and a bit of fuel.

I figured if XAIM-4H was accepted into service, that kind of pod would have packed serious firepower.  What if the idea behind those pods were taken by other aircraft manufacturers and incorporated into their designs?

I could think of a couple of candidates:

• a F-104B modified with an all-weather radar, inflight refuelling probe, and the wingtip pods
• an interceptor version of F-5E/F with the wingtip pods...... maybe minus the AA rockets

Given my usual awful sense of scale and lack of full knowledge on what effect pods like those would have on a supersonic aircraft, however, I tried put them to scales in Photoshop...... those are LARGE pods and that was the end of the experiment......





Anyway, on other uses, I remember seeing somewhere a picture of a F-15 having their missile rails modified to fire surplus AIM-4 missiles in support of EA-6B development.  I suppose that other aircraft can have their Sidewinder rails modified in the same way for AIM-4H.

[dy031101]

An F-104 armed with AIM-4?  That would take some creativity.

The original idea was that, since F-104 and F-5F don't have many hardpoints wired for AAM carriage, the pod could have added a lot to the firepower...... IF they weren't so large......

I suspect that if a pod the size of the Scorpion's was put on the F-104's wingtip, the -104 wouldn't be supersonic, assuming it could get off the ground?
But a quartet of AIM-4s on a -104 mmmmmmmmmm!

An F-104 armed with AIM-4?  That would take some creativity.

If it was a F-104G then it's simple.  But if it's a F-104A/C...... maybe a dual rack adaptor for underwing hardpoints?



Seeing that the topic was expanded a bit...... Swedes liscence-manufactured AIM-26B as Rb-27.  But these missiles managed to last into the '90s...... had there been any upgrade to these missiles?

I'm trying to imagine a F-102 armed with AIM-4H and Rb-27......

[elmayerle]

Could be either kind of warhead, I'd reckon.  ISTR that the AIM-26 was built with both.  Certainly you can still get a fairly powerful conventional warhead with in the volume and weight values for a nuke warhead (and, yes, I'm speaking from a certain amount of experience, here).

[dy031101]

A few minutes ago I thought about the AIM-26, and I thought about all the European spinoffs of the AIM-7, then......

What if, instead of being supplanted by the Sparrow, the AIM-26B received upgrades to become more capable (seeker like those used in real-life on the AIM-7, better rocket motor, better fuel, and etc.)?

What if, instead of the Sparrow, this improved AIM-26B became the basis for the Skyflash and Aspide?

[Weaver]

Entirely by accident, I seem to have acquired a supply of 1/100th and 1/144th AIM-54 Phoenixs. I wonder how these scale out in 1/72nd scale compared to various advanced Falcon projects?

[Mossie]

Not sure how long the AIM-4H would have been, but length wise the Phoenix is almost exactly twice that of the AIM-4 series, so a 1/144 AIM-54 should work well.  I worked out the other dimensions too, the AIM-54 has 2.3 times the diameter & 1.8 times the wing span.  So nobody would really know any different if you didn't tell them, or chopped their hand off if they came anywhere near with a tape measure!

[Weaver]

Cheers Mossie: of course, the 1/100th Pheonixs (Pheoni?) could be 1/72nd "Super Falcons"....

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Not sure how long the AIM-4H would have been, but length wise the Phoenix is almost exactly twice that of the AIM-4 series, so a 1/144 AIM-54 should work well.  I worked out the other dimensions too, the AIM-54 has 2.3 times the diameter & 1.8 times the wing span.  So nobody would really know any different if you didn't tell them, or chopped their hand off if they came anywhere near with a tape measure!

You can always clip the nose on the missile and create an IR guided version to complement your RADAR guided weapons.  That way you would have a family of weapons based on the same missile shape to add to the confusion.

[Mossie]

Cheers Mossie: of course, the 1/100th Pheonixs (Pheoni?) could be 1/72nd "Super Falcons"....

That they could!

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Cheers Mossie: of course, the 1/100th Pheonixs (Pheoni?) could be 1/72nd "Super Falcons"....

That they could!

Scale-O-Rama is always good.  One of the reasons I acquired a few 1/72nd scale weapons sets was for that purpose.  The Phoenix standing in for the AIM-26 Falcon sounds like a good idea.  The real AIM-26 Falcon was 28.0 cm (11.0") at its widest point on the missile body and just over 2.13 m (7.0') in length. 


Now for what I really wanted to comment on...

Trying to think of ways to use the AIM-4 shapes that I have in the multitude of Monogram/Revell kits and the Hasegawa weapons sets. 

Caveat: We are all very aware of the short comings of this weapon in real life so don't bother spitting in the punch bowl okay.

In real life the AIM-9B Sidewinder was carried by the F-86.  So how about a pair or quartet of AIM-4 Falcons instead?  The Hasegawa F-4 kits all had AIM-4 launcher adapter units for the one or two versions of the Phantom (C, E/EJ) that did carry the weapon in real life.  So it might be practical to take those same launcher adapter units and mount them on the F-86 in place of the AIM-9 launcher adapter units.  Another aircraft that could also be armed with these weapons is the F-100.  In real life there was a specially built inboard stores pylon that carried a pair of AIM-9 Sidewinders on an inverted "Y" shape pylon.  So why not switch these out for AIM-4 Falcons?  In this case it might be a bit of a problem trying to mate up the LAU parts from the Hasegawa Phantom kits so a bit of imagination might be required to find a source for an alternative LAU that will pass muster for carrying the AIM-4 Falcon.  The LAU associated with the AGM-65 Maverick comes to mind.  Not as is with the triple round set up but cut apart to provide three separate launch rails that can be adapted to a stores pylon of your choice.  The Maverick and Falcon share a lot of family history with both weapons originating with Hughes so it is not too much of a stretch of the imagination to modify the Maverick LAU parts to come up with an appropriate looking Falcon LAU.  This could also create an opportunity to modify the Falcon to be used as an early IR guided ground attack missile if you chose to use the Maverick triple launch unit as is but your choice of airframes is going to be limited.   

[Weaver]

Caveat: We are all very aware of the short comings of this weapon in real life so don't bother spitting in the punch bowl okay.

Actually, there's a dead simple response to that sort of thing: in this reality, the USAF lost patience with Hughes and threw the Falcon at the Sidewinder team to sort out, using their "radical simplicity" approach. China Lake would have sold their grannies for glue to get another 1.4 inches of body diameter to play with....

Rather than put them on elaborate twin/triple pylons, why not exploit their small size and weight by having a series or very small single pylons that can be fitted to aircraft in addition to the standard pylons, thus adding a self-defence capability without losing pylon space? You could add them to the undersides of an F-105's intakes, for example, or under the outer wings of a Crusader, thus giving it more on-board kills.

How about non-US aircraft? Weight would be critical for lightweight fighters, so how about fitting them on a Gnat or Fiat G.91? Hunter? Export Lightning (using the fuse, outer wing and overwing pylons, you could carry six) ? CF-100?

[rickshaw]

One thing I've never understood about the Falcon series of missiles.

The USAF found in Vietnam that they took too long to "warm up" when engaged in dogfights and that they were very unreliable yet you have them seeing long service with the Swedish and Swiss airforces.   So, where the Swedish/Swiss ones different to the USAF ones and made more reliable and had quicker "warm up" times somehow to make them more useful in dogfights?

I can imagine they would have been fine as "bomber destroyers" but did they improve radically their dogfighting abilities?

[jcf]

Anders covers the issues well:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html
Note that the AIM-4s used on the F-4D the problem was one of seeker-head cooling rather than warming up.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-26.html
The Swedes used the conventionally armed GAR-11A/AIM-26B/RB-27.
Definitely a bomber interceptor missile rather than a dog-fighter.

[GTX]

Anyone interested in the Falcon family should look at this:  The Hughes Falcon Missile Family by Sean O'Connor

Regards,

Greg

[The Big Gimper]

Thanks for sharing Greg.