AIM-4 Falcon

[KJ_Lesnick]

From what I remember, the AIM-4 started out as a bomber-defense missile that was then re-purposed into a fighter-to-fighter and then fighter-to-bomber missile: I'm curious why they never designed such a weapon with a proximity fuze and how much effort it would have taken to have enlarged the design to carry a proximity fuse with a 10# blast-frag warhead at minimum and 50# at the upper end?

[kerick]

The reasoning behind the Hughes arrow is one of life's mysteries. It never made any sense to me. What good is something that if it misses the target by a foot doesn't go off at all. Useless.

[Snowtrooper]

The Swedes actually updated the Falcon (at least the AIM-4C based Rb 28, don't know if they tinkered with the AIM-26B based Rb 27 too) with a proximity fuse, an improved seeker head with better CM resistance and capable of limited all-aspect attacks, and other "undisclosed modifications". Supposedly it was even better than the cancelled AIM-4H would have been. All without enlarging the missile - basically, they just kept the basic aerodynamic shape and changed the innards bit by bit.

Also, the basic AIM-4 design WAS enlarged, twice even - both for the AIM-4E/F/G "Super Falcon" and AIM-26 and its variants.

[KJ_Lesnick]

The Swedes actually updated the Falcon (at least the AIM-4C based Rb 28, don't know if they tinkered with the AIM-26B based Rb 27 too) with a proximity fuse, an improved seeker head with better CM resistance and capable of limited all-aspect attacks, and other "undisclosed modifications".

That's interesting

Also, the basic AIM-4 design WAS enlarged, twice even - both for the AIM-4E/F/G "Super Falcon" and AIM-26 and its variants.

What I meant was since it was designed early on as a missile for bombers to defend against fighters, to a missile to protect fighters against fighters, to a missile to allow fighters to kill bombers.

The last part could have used some growth...