Looking for Performance Comparison: IR Falcon vs Firestreak

[Stan in YUL]

Not really much out there, any help appreciated.

Thanks

[sandiego89]

Imagine the Firestreak info is harder to come by, as I don't think it was actually ever used in combat?, and likely had much fewer test firings. 

The actual use of the Falcon in Vietnam came up with pretty lackluster results.  It was complex, did not have proximity fuse and other shortcomings. It was really intended as a bomber killer and MAY have been OK at that.   

The USAF Red Barron report had some findings on the Falcon.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/falcon-frustration-the-f-4d-the-aim-4d-and-the-mission-that-prevented-robin-olds-from-becoming-a-jet-ace/

The US Navy Ault Report is a fascinating read if so inclined, but focuses more on tactic and on the sidewinder and sparrow, but the IR sections on the sidewinder might provide some ideas. 

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/ault-report.html   

[jcf]

The main reasons for the AIM-4D issues in Vietnam are covered in this entry over on Andreas Parsch's site:
AIM-4

[Stan in YUL]

Thank guys.  The ask was to determine if the Firestreak could have been considered as a step up from the Falcon for various operators (assuming the sidewinder was not in the running). I think just from the stats the Redtop might be considered so.

[Weaver]

IIRC the RAF evaluated the whole range of available weapons at some point in the late 1950s: they wern't very impressed by Falcon, and they had all the access to Firestreak data.

[Stan in YUL]

IIRC the RAF evaluated the whole range of available weapons at some point in the late 1950s: they wern't very impressed by Falcon, and they had all the access to Firestreak data.

Good point! The only soft factor would be how much the "home grown" factor was valued.  I suppose a better question would be a Red Top vs Sparrow III winner.  Those two were closer in performance but the aircraft radar would have been the decider from the start.

[Weaver]

IIRC the RAF evaluated the whole range of available weapons at some point in the late 1950s: they wern't very impressed by Falcon, and they had all the access to Firestreak data.

Good point! The only soft factor would be home much the "home grown" factor was valued.  I suppose a better question would be a Red Top vs Sparrow III winner.  Those two were closer in performance but the aircraft radar would have been the decider from the start.

I think the RAF was quite open to US weapons on a technical basis, but obviously the government would have been less keen to spend foreign exchange (a problem at the time) on something when there was a home-grown alternative. As you say, the problem with Sparrow was adding a CW illumination function to the Lightning's radar: apparently a non-trivial job due to it's design and the limited space available. What they really wanted was Genie for a high-probability head-on kill, but we'd have had to supply the warhead material ourselves, and the UK nuclear program was struggling to produce enough fissile material for strategic weapons, so there was none to spare for tactical ones.

It's definitely better to think of Firestreak and Red Top as "IR Sparrows" rather than "big Sidewinders". They were designed with big warheads to bring down big bombers, and IR was just the technology that matured first in the UK and needed the least support from the firing aircraft.

[jcf]

Harold makes some important points and something to bear in mind is that, like Falcon, Firestreak was not an agile dogfighting missile. It was an anti-bomber weapon. Also, again like the IR Falcon, it used liquid cooled valve/tube electronics so it probably had a similar warm up time. Not an issue against a bomber, but it would be against a fighter. Redtop was an improved Firestreak with solid-state IR electronics, but it also wasn't a dog-fighting missile. At the time Sidewinder was a relatively unique concept and the problems with the IR Falcons in Vietnam were a result of them being used in a way for which they were not designed under restrictive ROE. It was not down to any inherent flaws in the design, it was a matter of the wrong match for a particular use.

Also when speaking of the Falcon it's good to remember that there were several different types of the basic design using differing systems. In period, in terms of comparable developments on both side of the Atlantic, it was a matter of horses for courses and not down to a particular inferiority of superiority of one over another. Everybody knew something better was going to be required which is why development continued on air-to-air missiles.

[Stan in YUL]

Thanks gents for your observations!

[sandiego89]

......... It was not down to any inherent flaws in the design, it was a matter of the wrong match for a particular use........

I also can't imagine the designers at Hughes imagined their bomber killer Falcons would even be used to plink cheap trucks along the Ho Chi Mihn trail!

[jcf]

......... It was not down to any inherent flaws in the design, it was a matter of the wrong match for a particular use........

I also can't imagine the designers at Hughes imagined their bomber killer Falcons would even be used to plink cheap trucks along the Ho Chi Mihn trail!

At least in that case the electronics had time to warm up.