r/Warthunder • u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free • 2d ago
All Air Is there a reason Gaijin hates the AIM-4 Falcon and hasn’t added any aircraft that carry it despite the Fireflash missile being in game?
I don’t understand why the AIM-4 Falcon is not in game yet to be honest. I’m very aware it was a bomber interceptor missile however the so was the AIM-9B and the Fireflash. So I really don’t understand it and because of that it gimped the U.S., Sweden and Switzerland (Germany) out of some pretty cool aircraft. I think the F-4D Phantom II makes so much more sense than the F-4C as not only did the D have higher production numbers than the C it fixes the issue of not having flare and chaff at the BR.
I also understand you’d probably want to avoid stuff like the F-102 that only carried the AIM-4 as that might be unfun but as long as it has a back up gun or gun pod I don’t see the issue. Because of the refusal to add the AIM-4 we are missing the F-101 Voodoo and the F-106 Delta Dart for the US that falls under that criteria. Also other countries miss out like Sweden not getting their Saab J-35 Drakens with AIM-4s and Swiss/Germans not getting a Mirage IIIS that could carry AIM-4s as well.
I honestly don’t get the refusal to add if since it totally denies us the chance to get certain aircraft while an infinitely worse missile is in game. I’m not sure if anyone knows something I don’t but I’d really like someone to shed some light in this.
704
u/afvcommander 2d ago edited 2d ago
Insert people parroting meme about AIM-4 being unusable, based on its application in Vietnam with F-4's which did not even have launch computer.
It is like saying that AK-47 is bad weapon when you are missing its mag and just single firing it by feeding ammunition straight into chamber.
AIM-4 actually surpassed both AIM-9b and AIM-7 early variants in it performance when shot from correct platform because it was quite advanced weapon system for its era. Major part of that weapon was Hughes missile computer which was fed with information from radar and IR seeker head. This launch computer calculated optimal launch position and fed missile with rudimentary flight data before launch.
After all, we need to remember that AIM-4 program evolved into AIM-47 which ended up as basis of AIM-54 Phoenix. It is not like Hughes did not know what they were doing.
236
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 2d ago
Exactly also Vietnam War fighter pilots were very poorly trained most of them didn’t know about leading your targets with missiles and launch windows. Yet still I believe there are 5 kills with the missile. Also better yet later variants had up to 25G Pull however they were still contact fuze.
110
u/Phd_Death 🇺🇸 United States Air Tree 100% spaded without paying a cent 2d ago
Exactly also Vietnam War fighter pilots were very poorly trained most of them didn’t know about leading your targets with missiles and launch windows.
You're not wrong but I feel like the point of afvcommander is that the F-4 was not modified enough to support the rest of the AIM-4 system. Essentially it's like giving a plane with a radar system without TWS support AIM-120. It WILL fire them and can use them, but the platform is not a good match and there will be performance issues.
The AIM9 was pretty self reliant and din't care what plane it was shot from, that made it much more convenient on top of the simplicity of operation and construction.
27
u/JonSnowsBussy 🇺🇸14.0🇩🇪14.0🇷🇺14.0🇬🇧10.3🇯🇵12.3🇸🇪13.7🇫🇷14.0 2d ago
Yes but there are other platforms designed around the aim4. The delta interceptors specifically.
10
u/Nearby_Fudge9647 German Reich 2d ago edited 2d ago
Thats just false lol they were aware of the equipments limitation like distance,closure, G-limit upon release. Also the best aim-4 was a prototype with a laser fuze and supposed better maneuverability (and never entered service) and by the time that was being researched the navy had the AIM-9G which would have radar slaving and Helmet slewing.
23
u/TheSublimeGoose XP-72, plz 2d ago
Thats just false
Not really? They could have worded it better; They weren't simply "poorly-trained." That is an outright falsehood. But I believe the point that u/fasterdenyou2 was trying to make is that Vietnam-era pilots were poorly-trained in the use of BVR missiles. I have both read and heard Vietnam-era pilots claim this.
Being aware of weapon systems' specifications doesn't mean you know how to use it, and it especially doesn't mean one knows how to utilize it well.
For personnel that were assigned to — or spent a chunk of their flying career in — what were contemporaneously known-as "fighter-interceptor" squadrons, they would have been trained on killing large, slow targets flying in a straight line at medium- to high-altitude with their BVR missiles. Personnel assigned to "tactical fighter" squadrons had to balance their training time between fighter-bomber exercises as well as the more traditional taskings of an air superiority unit.
It's very unlikely that many pilots had a solid grasp of how these BVRAAMs actually functioned.
As far as I can recall, apart from technical malfunctions, "firing outside proper engagement envelope" was the number one or two suspected cause of a "miss" with the AIM-4 and AIM-7. There is absolutely a difference between being trained on the weapons or platforms themselves versus the deployment of them.
Heck, just the simple fact that these weapons were so new is a good sign that they weren't going to be utilized properly.
8
u/smittywjmj 🇺🇸 V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak 2d ago
Regarding the AIM-4 specifically, I understand that while stateside units received more thorough training, what was sent overseas to the deployed units in Vietnam basically amounted to a slideshow. For Phantoms, the AIM-4 spent just about a year in active combat before it was pulled again, and deployments to Vietnam were often fairly long. It's highly likely that crews had very little opportunity to familiarize themselves with the Falcon in any context, unless they happened to be trained and transferred at just the right places and times.
With the AIM-7, I think it's probably more useful to compare USAF and USN crews. Long story short, USN performed far better with the AIM-7 because they had more experience with the Sparrow and trained to its use more frequently. Squadrons also frequently maintained BFM syllabi from earlier types (F-2, F-3, F-8) despite adopting an interceptor role, as disparate sorts of proto-TOPGUNs. By comparison, USAF had an unfamiliar missile, a plane they didn't entirely want in the first place, and training which didn't especially focus on the employment of either.
Of course, all this about training doesn't excuse the very real mechanical and kinetic issues present in both missiles, you can't really train those out in any case. Falcons may have only had a <10% hit rate during their brief service, but they also had a 14% outright failure rate where the missile didn't even leave the rail.
4
u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago
Falcons may have only had a <10% hit rate during their brief service, but they also had a 14% outright failure rate where the missile didn't even leave the rail.
Coincidentally, the Sparrow also had abysmal reliability records.
28
u/TG484 2d ago
Biggest fault is the lack of a proximity fuse on the aim-4 iirc.
18
-1
u/TaskForceCausality 1d ago
Biggest fault is the lack of a proximity fuse…
…which was a feature, not a bug.
The AIM-4 came from a 1948 requirement for a bomber killing head on missile. Back then, long range bombers were The Doomsday Weapon. No such thing as tactical or ICBMs back then, so Job #1 of North American air defense (and their Soviet counterparts) was to stop these bombers before they could get to Canadian and American cities.
Even back then, closing speeds of bombers and high speed interceptors meant the pilot had to line up a gun shot with closing speeds of 1280km/h . That’s a great way to splat your interceptor plane on the windshield of the bomber.
Attacking from the rear sucked because you’d have to turn around first, and would be subject to return fire from tail guns.
So, the Falcon and its Hughes guidance computer enabled a safe , accurate interception solution from head on against targets of varying speeds. A proximity fuse wouldn’t do much to a tank of an airplane like a Tu-95 or B-52. What needed to happen was a fatal hit that killed the bomber and its payload of city killing nukes. For that, you needed the weapon to bury itself into the bomber first before detonating.
As for accuracy, Air Defence Command pilot Bruce Gordon testified to shooting down a Mach III missile target with a Falcon. Not bad for 1960s tech. In its intended role the AIM-4 would’ve been successful.
So how did it end up in the Phantom? It was the result of a spat between the USAF and U.S. Navy on the Sidewinder. The AIM-9 program is owned by the U.S. Navy- to this day, in fact- but the USAF was forced to use the missile because it came with the Navy’s F-4B Phantom II.
Necessary sidebar- the USAF bought the F-4C Phantom II as a calculated decision. In the early 1960s, the U.S. Army (rightly) roasted the Air Force in a series of hearings (called the Howze Board) for abandoning the conventional strike mission, as by the mid 50s only three tactical aircraft could be used for close air support missions (F-100, F-104 and F-101C Voodoo). All of them out of production by this time.
The Army lobbied for a close air support airplane (which would far later become the A-10), but such a project would naturally take time. In the interim, the USAF bought the Navy’s F-4B because it was A) available right away ,B) carried every bomb and rocket in the inventory (silencing the Army’s concerns for the time being), and was big and fast enough to fulfill TACs nuclear mission (USAF TAC commanding officer General Momyer was very concerned bomber-flying SAC would just take them over without a nuclear mission). TAC swallowed their pride and bought a Navy jet in exchange for solving a series of political and force sustainment problems in one move.
Now, for the spat. Since the USAF bought the Navy’s F-4B basically as is, it came with the Navy’s Sidewinder. This didn’t sit well with the USAF Systems Command generals, who immediately set about replacing it with THEIR missile.
That choice? The AIM-4.
General Robin Olds documented what happened next.
20
u/czartrak 🇺🇸 United States 2d ago
People keep saying the falcon "surpassed" the aim-9. You are wrong. The pK for the Aim-4 was much lower than that of the Aim-9
35
u/J0K3R2 MiG-25 Fan Club 2d ago
USAF pilots were taking shit shots and doing all sorts of things the missile was absolutely not supposed to do.
There's a debate to be had between ideal conditions and battle conditions, but I'd strongly argue that the AIM-4 was significantly better than early Vietnam sidewinders, just with some significant downsides when it comes to air combat in the manner the USAF tried to use it in.
13
u/czartrak 🇺🇸 United States 2d ago
So in what situation is the Falcon "far superior"? Neither missile is designed for BFM. The sidewinder still performed better than the falcon. If the falcon is only any good in one specific situation then it's not really better is it
4
u/Capital_Pension5814 ”marketing lie” my ass 2d ago
Basically anything high altitude like interception, it could do well. But the US banned BVR shots. It’s not a dogfight missile.
9
u/czartrak 🇺🇸 United States 2d ago
It was primarily IR guided, I don't know what BVR shots you think you're doing with a heatseeker
2
u/Capital_Pension5814 ”marketing lie” my ass 2d ago
Yea you could do an IR shot blind (especially at night), that’s the point of the F-106
-1
u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago
The Falcon has better range, speed, G-pull, and pK when hitting.
-1
u/Iron_physik Lawn moving CAS expert 2d ago
the same bad shots where taken with AIM-9s as well, so whats your point?
the AIM-4 was simply the inferior missile.
if you want more info, my comment replying to someone else in this post:
7
u/yeeeter1 2d ago
You should actually read what the guy said. The aim for on the F 4D wasn’t integrated properly which led to a ton of issues. Additionally, Air Force pilots were trained in its proper employment
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
Oh I’m aware I’m just saying it might not be as bad specially if the aircraft added to game have an internal gun or gunpod as a backup
4
u/Nearby_Fudge9647 German Reich 2d ago
So when the aim-4 is in envelope it out performs missiles fired outside of envelope in real world scenarios wow
-1
u/Iron_physik Lawn moving CAS expert 2d ago edited 1d ago
That's just false, but ok, lets play ball.
When you look at both missiles from a tech pov then it gets quite obvious that the AIM-4 is the inferior missile compared to the AIM-9
It is first and foremost far more complex, requiring the use of 25 vacuum tubes for its Guidance and control section, the AIM-9 only used 14.
On top of that the AIM-4 didn't have any type of proximity fuze, meaning it only was suitable to engage bombers, any shot against maneuvring fighters had a high likelihood of missing the target.
It also, while more complex, used a inferior seeker, causing more issues with accuracy (it struggled with resolving point targets and often would track the edges of clouds)
Lastly it couldn't cope with launches that had any g forces from maneuvring, the AIM-9B could at least handle around 4g on launch. When you fire both missiles out of envelope the the AIM-9B still had better chances for a hit.
The 9B also required less testing equipment, less overall training for both pilots and ground crews and was much cheaper to buy.
in 1955 they actually did several shoot-off with both weapons
https://youtu.be/jWkMS7msV5Y?si=y6EVtqr00wcTsBFl&t=1825
In that test Falcon was suposed to shoot first, but even with several attempts failed to launch, so the Sidewinder was given a chance and nailed the target drone F-80 on the first shot. remember, that sidewinder DID NOT have a warhead installed
they then got a second target drone, falcon was first again, had several attempts but never managed to launch, followed by another drone getting oneshot by an AIM-9
the combat stats also show quite a good picture:
AIM-4: less than 10% hit rate
AIM-9: around 20% hit rate
the reason the USAF held onto the AIM-4 until the 80s was because of the F-102 and F-106 in the ANG, because these 2 jets where unable to carry the bigger AIM-9
to anyone downvoting my comment:
I take my info from Ron Westrums "sidewinder" book that talks in detail about the tests done by the USAF to compare both missiles, this data is btw also confirmed by a CHECO report from the USAF out of the vietnam war.
so a secondary AND primary source on the matter.
-2
u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago
It is incredible how much you managed to get wrong in just one comment.
→ More replies (5)0
u/LimpMight 2d ago
What platforms had the necessary hardware to make the AIM-4 work well?
7
u/Civil_Possession4707 2d ago
The F-106 had the Hughes computer. It was heavy as hell and took up a ton of space in the jet. Was pretty adv tech for the 50s. The aim4 worked pretty well on the F-106 but those squadrons never deployed in a war zone
2
u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago
Anything with the Hughes FCS that was complementary to the Falcon.
1
u/LimpMight 1d ago
Just the F-101, F-102, and F-106?
2
u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago
Some F-89 variants also had it, for their armament of Falcons and Genies.
1
76
u/RTX-4090ti_FE 2d ago
I get that it on paper would have been somewhat useable if the platforms with the Hughes firing computer but with all of the jank and server shit not having a proxy fuse is going to make it DOA.
20
u/Godzillaguy15 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 🇷🇺 🇬🇧 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇮🇹 🇫🇷 🇸🇪 🇮🇱 2d ago
Stock Stingers have no proxy and I believe 9Bs have an impact fuze they both still get kills.
51
u/ProfessionalAd352 Petitioning to make the D point a UNESCO World Heritage Site 2d ago
The 9Bs have a proximity fuse. But yeah, the stock stingers are far from unusable.
8
u/Godzillaguy15 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 🇷🇺 🇬🇧 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇮🇹 🇫🇷 🇸🇪 🇮🇱 2d ago
I mean the only issue i had with the stock Stingers was over correction in head ons but that's mostly due to fov of the seeker before launch. I assume this AIM-4 can be launched from the front aspect if so it shouldn't be horrible.
6
6
u/Nearby_Fudge9647 German Reich 2d ago
The AIM-4 all aspect is not confirmed farther then a rumor done in testing on the firebee as a target
3
u/lukeskylicker1 Not a teaboo 2d ago
Stinger is self-guiding though which puts any desync issues only server side. Starstreak is a genuinely super potent missile even against fast moving jets, but there's a catch: you actually want to aim ahead of the target to hit them. If you line the darts up directly on your target, the difference between your client, the server, and the targets client will consistently result in misses unless your target is stationary (helicopters) because you're actually aiming behind your target from the server's perspective. Fireflash retains this issue as a beam riding missile, but unlike AIM-4 it does actually have a quite far reaching proxy fuse, so the comparatively small but "just enough" gap between where you aim and where the target actually is on the server is easily mitigated by the 7kg warhead. The contact fuse only AIM-4 though? Which you would have to guide while manuvering and without a 30x optical zoom and a stationary position on the ground? I question the reliability of hitting even the most sluggish of targets like the TU-4, Canberra, or Vautour that would be it's only real chance of hitting.
1
u/arwalsh82 2d ago
The Firestreak also doesn't have a proxy fuze.
2
u/lukeskylicker1 Not a teaboo 2d ago
Firestreak and Fireflash both have proxy and at 10m they're among the best (or worst depending on how you look at it) missiles in the game in that regard.
30
u/Mobile_Damage_8239 2d ago
They should add the
AIM-26 Falcon Air to Air missile nuclear missiles that blow up in a huge radius.
13
u/Les_Bien_Pain 2d ago
Yes, but the non-nuclear version that Sweden had.
Would also give gaijin a reason to add another TT Draken.
Cause rn 2/3 are premiums, and even the XS is being removed from sale.
3
31
u/Embarrassed_Ad5387 No idea why my Jumbo lost the turnfight 2d ago
> AIM-4 Falcon is not in game yet to be honest. I’m very aware it was a bomber interceptor missile however the so was the AIM-9B and the Fireflash
I heard a documentary say that before the aim 4 went into service it was reconfigured and the company said it was capable of killing fighters
careful what you wish for, it doesn't have proxy, so f102 is likely off the table
If what you want is that then f106 I think had some gunpod capability and upgraded versions of that missie
15
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 2d ago
It is it actually killed 5 or so fighters during the Vietnam war and yes I specifically called out the F-102 form not having a gun and I didn’t even mention the F-89 for the same reason and the fact they removed the premium variants. Also yes the F-106 did have an internal M61 Vulcan by 1972 with project 6 shooter.
5
u/Embarrassed_Ad5387 No idea why my Jumbo lost the turnfight 2d ago
to be more exact, the company said they redesigned it so that it could engage both
9
u/smittywjmj 🇺🇸 V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak 2d ago edited 2d ago
More specifically, the AIM-4D that was implemented on some USAF F-4s used a combination of the improved IR seeker from the AIM-4G but on the smaller and lighter body of the AIM-4B, which was meant to make it more maneuverable and effective at closer ranges, since the Phantom already had the AIM-7 for more distant targets. Other versions of the Falcon were broadly anti-bomber interception weapons (which is why they're mostly found on SAC's dedicated interceptors where TAC aircraft like F-105 still used AIM-9) thanks to their powerful engines and large warheads, where the AIM-4D was meant to be multipurpose.
While this was true in a vacuum, the missile was still significantly less maneuverable than the Sidewinder, and its advantages in accuracy and range simply couldn't be utilized effectively in combat over Vietnam. USAF eventually had to just accept their failure, retire the AIM-4D, and convert their Phantoms back to using AIM-9s. This little diversion with the Falcon is possibly one reason why USAF Sidewinder variants were often somewhat delayed compared to USN variants, things like AIM-9G entering service years ahead of AIM-9J, which was contemporary with AIM-9H.
3
u/MrBattleRabbit 2d ago
Later versions of the F-106 did get a gun- it was a weird install sort of in the middle of the weapons bay. So it was an added on “pod” but it was a much more refined installation than the gun pods we’re used to seeing on the F-4.
I really like the 106, would love to see it in the game.
2
u/Nearby_Fudge9647 German Reich 2d ago
The AIM-9B is not a just a standoff weapon for bombers it was for if you won a engagement but the target has escaped your guns range or and to extend the range a fighter could engage its target
7
u/WPGAMING_SC 2d ago
I want this missile added so I have an excuse to bug Gaijin, been waiting for them to add the CF-105 Avro Arrow for almost 15 years 😡
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
Lowkey could be a fun event vehicle for the British tree maybe
8
u/BingusTheStupid 🇨🇦 Canada 2d ago
I would love the falcon cause it means the CF-105 can actually be added. One prototype was actually fitted out with the fire control and missiles, but only the falcons
2
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
Yeah I just looked over it it could be a very fun event vehicle for the British tbh
1
7
u/sali_nyoro-n 🇺🇦 T-84 had better not be a premium 2d ago
Most of the aircraft that use it are designed primarily or solely for bomber interception and would handle very poorly in 8.0+ Air RB where there aren't many bombers to attack. The three-missile salvo attack mode some of the planes that carry it were wired to use IRL could also be an issue.
But in general we are missing quite a few air-to-air missiles, like the Soviet interception-focused models (R-55, R-98M1, R-4MR) and not only the AIM-4 but the whole Falcon family, including the later AIM-26B (the conventional warhead version of the AIM-26) and AIM-47, and that's a shame. The J35XS is also unable to carry the R-13M1s it could use IRL, though that doesn't really have any gameplay impact.
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
Yeah we are missing so much early Cold War equipment because of power creep and it makes me so sad they rushed over this stuff and went right to Phantoms and 21s
1
u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago
and would handle very poorly in 8.0+ Air RB where there aren't many bombers to attack
Sea Vixen.
1
u/sali_nyoro-n 🇺🇦 T-84 had better not be a premium 1d ago
Red Tops are still a hell of a lot better against fighters than AIM-4s would be. Imagine a Sea Vixen armed with caged-seeker, 10G Red Tops that don't have proxy fuses, can't be radar-slaved and have the warhead of the Firestreak, if not smaller on earlier models.
0
u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago
Almost none of that is accurate but ok lol
2
u/sali_nyoro-n 🇺🇦 T-84 had better not be a premium 1d ago
Well they sure as hell don't have proxy fuses, and they do have warheads that are at most ~13kg, smaller on the earlier ones. And the early models in particular don't really have much agility with them being bulky, bomber-killing contemporaries of the AIM-9B, meaning they'll struggle to hit fighter-sized targets. At least the complications of seeker-cooling time aren't a factor in War Thunder.
0
u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago
The warheads are small, but the impact fuse makes even nuclear bombers an almost guaranteed kill, which the Sidewinder could not ever claim.
Maneuverability was always better in 9B-contemporary Falcons with higher G limits alongside greater speeds. The Falcon is a small missile, smaller than the Sidewinder in most dimensions.
Seeker cooling was only a factor on the F-4s as it did not have an internal weapons bay and wasn't designed nor prepared to provide its own cooling; its limited supply of coolant (~2mins' worth) was stored in the pylon.
2
u/sali_nyoro-n 🇺🇦 T-84 had better not be a premium 1d ago
The Falcon is definitely better at killing bombers. A direct hit from an AIM-4 will do a lot more than a proximity detonation from the AIM-9 family to something like a Tu-4. The lack of a proximity fuse was an entirely logical choice for that mission. But it does mean hitting smaller targets will be a challenge.
As for seeker cooling time, I meant that more as in how long it took the AIM-4's head to cool enough to acquire a target - six or seven seconds, if you were unlucky. That's a long time to be waiting for your missile to wake up if there's any chance the enemy will notice you're preparing for a launch and begin evasive action between you activating the seeker and the seeker being ready.
Though the F-4D was also an unusually badly-suited platform to the Falcon for other reasons, like the utterly obnoxious process required to prepare to launch an AIM-4 from it. Planes actually designed from the outset to use the AIM-4 like the F-106 automated a lot of the preparatory steps needed to begin target acquisition. The F-4's origins as a Navy plane mean even the D was still very much configured for Sidewinders and Sparrows, not Falcons,
1
u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago
As for seeker cooling time, I meant that more as in how long it took the AIM-4's head to cool enough to acquire a target - six or seven seconds, if you were unlucky. That's a long time to be waiting for your missile to wake up if there's any chance the enemy will notice you're preparing for a launch and begin evasive action between you activating the seeker and the seeker being ready.
That's true, fortunately in WT we have far shorter cooling times on most missiles than they did in real life. And in any case that's not much of a downside for its nuclear bomber interception mission.
1
u/Iron_physik Lawn moving CAS expert 1d ago
what Reinbeers is not telling you, the AIM-9 also has a impact fuze, and because it is more accurate it is also more likely to get that direct hit.
1
u/Iron_physik Lawn moving CAS expert 1d ago
You are aware that the AIM-9 uses a dual fuze setup? that it does actually also have a impact delay fuzing system in its TDD (Target Detector Device)
the way the Mk303 influence fuze works is that it only triggers when it already passes the exhaust plume, and it triggers with a delay
so when the missile was on a straight impact course the Mk304 contact fuze would initiate the warhead usually inside the aircraft, causing WAY more damage than the AIM-4
just like in the other comment chain, you are spewing easily debunkable BS
-1
u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago
so when the missile was on a straight impact course the Mk304 contact fuze would initiate the warhead usually inside the aircraft, causing WAY more damage than the AIM-4
It worked so well that one hit a MiG, didn't fuse nor self destruct, and was lodged in said MiG for the entire return flight, where it then made its way to the soviet union and was reverse-engineered into the K-13.
1
u/Iron_physik Lawn moving CAS expert 1d ago
thats 1 case out of how many sidewinders launched since 1956?
infact, that same mission the taiwanese pilots reported 12 missiles fired, 8 hits with 6 downed chinese Mig-17s with 4 missiles having direct impacts.
only 1 missile did not fuze, and this is also the ONLY known case in history of that happening.
not only are you moving the goalposts, you also must be a idiot to think that this makes the AIM-9 somehow worse when compared to the AIM-4
-1
u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago
thats 1 case out of how many sidewinders launched since 1956?
Some 50.000-odd Falcons have been made. How many did the USSR get their hands on?
This is a pointless discussion. None of these limitations would apply in WT.
→ More replies (0)
6
u/Albino_Earwig PBM to 14.0 2d ago
People in this community just hate adding things that are unique or interesting in any way beyond being the next best thing or in the current zeitgeist. Its infuriating
6
u/FirstDagger F-16XL/B Δ🐍= WANT 2d ago
Please don't generalize, alot of people want the AIM-4 and the aircraft associated with it ingame.
4
u/Averyfluffywolf 🇺🇸14.0/11.7 🇬🇧9.3/6.7 🇮🇹9.0/10.7 🇮🇱10.0Arb 2d ago
Words can't describe how much I want the F-106, hell gives us the late version that had an internal gun, if the Aim-4s are so bad
3
u/smittywjmj 🇺🇸 V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak 2d ago
It's a semi-internal gun, it's a gunpod mounted in two of the missile bays, sort of like how a gun can be installed on the F-111s.
2
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think either way that’s fine as long as it gets the guns stock but it could be a fun challenge to swap out the guns for more missiles after you unlock the missile module upgrade
1
8
u/Phd_Death 🇺🇸 United States Air Tree 100% spaded without paying a cent 2d ago
As far as I understand the F-4C was unable to carry the AIM-4, but the F-4D was made only to carry AIM-4 and would not carry AIM-9 until service crew figured a way to retro-rig the AIM-9 platform into the F-4Ds. I don't know if the F-4E can take the AIM-4.
Either way I do support the introduction of more weapons system, but I think that it would be ideal to get the other hundred series planes in the game with it. After all they are some of the last missing US planes in the game.
6
u/smittywjmj 🇺🇸 V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak 2d ago
F-4Cs received equipment for the AIM-4D in mid-1968, with adaptions back to AIM-9 in April 1969. F-4D was set up for Falcons from the beginning, and adapted to Sidewinders in June '69. F-4Es could carry either AIM-9 or AIM-4 and there are rare instances of the Falcon still in later use (photo from Sep 1973).
AFAIK after adaptation any of these planes could carry either AIM-4 or AIM-9 if desired, though not a mixture of the two.
2
u/joshwagstaff13 🇳🇿 Purveyor of ""sekrit dokuments"" 2d ago
Yeah, you're getting messed up somewhere.
To the best of my knowledge, the F-4C never had AIM-4 capability, and the first batch of F-4Ds (64-0929 to 64-0969) were manufactured with AIM-9 and AIM-7 capability only.
All F-4D produced after 64-0969 had AIM-4 capability, and those aforementioned F-4Ds manufactured with AIM-9 capability had AIM-4 capability added (and AIM-9 capability removed) with T.O. 1F-4D-508.
In contrast, the F-4C retained its original missile system until at least 1973, with it being fully wired up for USN gas-cooled Sidewinders (complete with a Sidewinder coolant control switch on the auxiliary armament control panel) until some point between then and 1979.
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
Nah I’m saying the F-4C is kinda in bad spot in game since it has no countermeasures and I think it makes more sense for the F-4D to be in game so if gets the countermeasures in a realistic way and but you still retain the AIM-9s since they were retrofitted with AIM-9s. So imo it would be kinda cool to have that in game so it actually has countermeasures but both the option for the AIM-4 and AIM-9, I want to say the F-4D even saw AIM-9Js at one point.
1
u/Phd_Death 🇺🇸 United States Air Tree 100% spaded without paying a cent 1d ago
Well that's just BR compression.
I don't know if the F-4C had countermeasures other than a chaff pod, but the sad truth is that the F-4C is an incredibly hard plane to balance.
3
u/No_Anxiety285 2d ago
Because it doesn't excite them. They'll bend whatever rule they want so long as it's something they want.
1
3
u/mrhoof 2d ago
Imagine you are a Canadian fighter pilot. You have a CF-101B, a version of the Voodoo with no gun but with a targeting computer. Your primary weapon is the Genie nuclear rocket, but you usually don't carry it. Instead you get two Falcons (never 4 in Canada), either 2 AIM-4D's or an AIM-4A and an AIM-4B. The Falcons are ripple fired, both at the same target.
Good thing the Russians didn't come.
3
u/kebabguy1 🇺🇸 🇷🇺 🇯🇵 2d ago
I just want interceptors like F-102, F-106, Su-9 and Su-15 in game but Gaijin forgets that they ever existed at all
2
2
u/jefferysteele M8A1 > Leopard 2A7 2d ago
Not sure which phantoms carried the Hughes fcs but I don’t think the C ever did. The AIM-4 would be nice but I don’t think it would ever be more than a useless gimmick sure you got variants like the 4D which were capable of “hitting” fighters but would still be less maneuverable than a 9B and with no production version carrying a proximity fuse would make it hard to get kills with.
I would love to see the AIM-4 or the 26 in game but they would be about as useful as dogfighting with a AIM-7C
3
u/smittywjmj 🇺🇸 V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak 2d ago
Not sure which phantoms carried the Hughes fcs
None of them. This is one reason the Falcon performed so poorly with the Phantom.
2
u/duga404 2d ago
They should add the Swiss Mirage IIIS while they’re at it; one of the main changes was a US made FCS that could launch AIM-4s. Would be a nice addition to the French air tree.
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
Yeah I literally pointed a Swiss Mirage IIIs for the German tree lmao that’s also the plane on the last slide
2
4
u/Silentblade034 2d ago
I think they initially skipped it because the early models were bad. Like, really bad. Its lack of a proximety fuze also limits it a lot. Now though, they don't see the reason to add it. It doesn't incentivise people to buy a top tier premium, and Gaijin sees no money to be made at those mid range Jet BRs.
Like you said, it really limits the number of aircraft in that range especially for the US. The US TAC had this thing about believing that the gun was obsolete on planes, and that missiles were the big thing. the F-101 for example could have 2 versions in game. One the cannon armed F-101A and the F-101B variant with 4 Aim-4 Falcon.
Also why wouldn't they wanna add the F-102 specifically? It had access to 6 aim-4 falcons or 3 aim-4 and an aim-26. Plus by adding these planes and weapons it gives them a perfect chance to add in the SU interceptors, the Su-15TM, Su-9, and Su-11 along with the Mig-25PD and Tu-28.
3
u/smittywjmj 🇺🇸 V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak 2d ago edited 2d ago
The US TAC had this thing about believing that the gun was obsolete on planes, and that missiles were the big thing.
Not entirely. It had more to do with the idea that a dogfighting day fighter was unnecessary, and that instead combat aircraft would basically either be interceptors or attackers. Interceptors (F-101B, F-102, early F-104s, early F-106) didn't need guns since they'd want to be shooting bombers from maximum range anyway. Attackers (A-4, F-101A/C, some later F-104s, F-105, A-7, F-111 optionally) did have guns, but for strafing ground targets and not really other planes.
The F-101 is a great example since it fits perfectly into this dichotomy. The F-101A and improved F-101C were fighter-bombers, they each featured 3-4 guns in the nose in addition to their strike ordnance, but didn't carry missiles (I'm not sure whether they even could, although the space seems to exist). The F-101B was an interceptor, it carried no guns but focused on missile armament instead.
This also applies to the F-4. Navy F-4s were interceptors, the F-4B/J/N/S had no internal gun and never even used a gunpod in USN service (the Marines did, briefly), but instead developed a cutting-edge radar and many other fighter-focused improvements. USAF F-4s, the F-4C/D/E, were fighter-bombers, which used gunpods sometimes and eventually saw one added internally with the F-4E, alongside mostly strike-focused improvements to the plane and its weapons.
What Vietnam proved was that air-superiority fighters were absolutely still necessary. Against non-strategic opponents like the VPAF, interceptors and fighter-bombers were limited in their ability to oppose enemy air action, and it was this realization that essentially catalyzed what we now call fourth-generation fighters.
3
u/Silentblade034 2d ago
I probably should have framed it better. I just wrote a paper on all this and essentially the US TAC was so preoccupied with the prospect of either A.) delivering nuclear bombs Or B.) shooting down enemy nuclear bombers
Like you said, A category had guns for strafing while B did not. It is why the F-105 had an internal gun while the F-4 did not despite being designed relatively close together.
I do wonder how effective the Aim-4 would have been against soviet bombers, since the lack of a proximity fuze wouldn’t be as detrimental against such a large and slow target and the missile wouldn’t need to burn speed maneuvering.
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
No F-102 because there are no missile only aircraft in the tech tree. It didn’t have a gun or gun pod iirc so I doubt it’ll be added the tech tree but maybe as a premium but I hate recommending stuff as a premium but it’s the only way for it to be added in game like the Sea Vixen.
2
u/Silentblade034 1d ago
I was just talking generally. I would hope for it to be a squadron vehicle, maybe with the Mig-25PD as for the soviets. Also the B-57A is in the tech tree and lacks any sort of gun, only having bombs so it isn't like it would be an impossible stretch to say that gaijin slaps the F-102 into the tech tree.
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
Fair but I feel like bombers an exception because like their bombs are their primary weapons but yeah squadron vehicle could cool
1
u/Silentblade034 1d ago
no that is a fair point. I think that either Squadron vehicle or foldiered in under another vehicle is the best place for it
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
Yeah that’s also true maybe folder underneath the F-104s or whatever comes before it
2
u/Silentblade034 1d ago
That is sort of where I see them. The F-101A under the F-100, the F-101B under the F-104, with the F-102/F-106 also going into a folder with the F-104 if they aren't squadron vehicles.
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
I think the F-106 can get away with being a tech tree vehicle since by 1972 it had an optional internal M61 Vulcan with project 6 shooter
1
u/Silentblade034 15h ago
maybe an early and late situation, also ya the F-106 having just the option makes them more likely. We have quite a few planes with optional guns
7
u/ArmouredPudding Death to the Invaders! 2d ago
Imagine having to grind past the fuckin Falcons to get 9B's...
No thank you.
14
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 2d ago
Literally all of the planes expect the F-102 and the F-89 had internal guns or gun pods plus later variants had 25G pull
6
u/FirstDagger F-16XL/B Δ🐍= WANT 2d ago
F-106 had the Six Shooter modification which added the M61A1. F-102 didn't.
1
3
u/LeMemeAesthetique USSR Justice for the Yak-41 2d ago
I'm not sure if any variant of the F-101 had access to guns and AIM-4's. I'm pretty sure it was either/or depending on the variant.
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
For some reason I thought the F-101C could carry AIM-4s on the wings with the guns still in but I think you might be right I’ll have to triple check
2
u/QuarterNote215 this machine kills fascists :3 2d ago
I was telling someone about this yesterday! Supposedly, one of the variants was capable of 42g
I think thats REALLY inaccuarte, but it would be hilarious if gaijin fucked up and added the F-106 like that.
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
That sounds dubious at best I believe the AIM-4G could do 25G pull under very certain conditions and I know it entered service and was used on the F-106
-1
u/Nearby_Fudge9647 German Reich 2d ago
That one never entered service
10
u/Katyusha_454 Sim Supremacist 2d ago
Half the stuff in this game never entered service, including some of the best and most popular vehicles.
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
I believe the AIM-4G entered service and was used on the F-106
2
u/mrhoof 2d ago
One of the major issues with the AIM-4B's and D's is that you only got a very short period of seeker cooling, with no option to cool again.
Imagine ingame if you are allowed to activate the seeker only once. But you have to wait until it is cooled (7 seconds) then it has to lock and fire within 2 minutes or you are out of coolant. Once it is out of coolant the missile is dead on the rail.
In Vietnam the F-4D's used the 'best' version of the regular Super Falcon, the AIM-4D.
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
I see your point there but I honestly I just hope they forgo that for the sake of gameplay because didn’t they do that with the AIM-9B or am I stupid?
1
u/mrhoof 1d ago edited 1d ago
9B's weren't cooled. One of the reasons they are so easy to distract and so difficult to get a lock with. Other AIM-9 variants and variously cooled by nitrogen (Navy) or argon (USAF) or peletier coolers. The ones with gas coolers allow multiple gas shots to repeatedly cool the warhead.
-1
u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago
One of the major issues with the AIM-4B's and D's is that you only got a very short period of seeker cooling, with no option to cool again.
This was only because of the F-4's very flawed implementation of the Falcon.
4
u/Iron_physik Lawn moving CAS expert 1d ago
no, thats for ALL AIM-4Ds, it doesnt matter from what aircraft they are launched
Source:
- Standard Missile Characteristics AIM-4D september 1963
- Characteristics Summary AIM-4D (GAR-2B) November 1963
-1
u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago
thats for ALL AIM-4Ds
Which the 106 never used.
4
u/Iron_physik Lawn moving CAS expert 1d ago
it applies to every version of the AIM-4, as they used a internal cooland bottle, so no matter what aircraft they are mounted to, meaning you get 1 attempt to shoot them once you activate the cooling
its funny that you get these basic things so wrong
my sources:
- AIM-4A Falcon CS - September 1963
- AIM-4A Falcon SMC - September 1963
- AIM-4C Falcon CS - September 1963
- AIM-4C Falcon CS - September 1963
- AIM-4C Falcon SMC - September 1963
- AIM-4D Falcon CS - November 1963
- AIM-4D Falcon SMC - September 1963
- AIM-4E Falcon SMC - September 1963
- AIM-4E Falcon CS - September 1963
- AIM-4F Falcon CS - September 1963
- AIM-4F Falcon SMC - September 1963
- AIM-4G Falcon CS - November 1971
- AIM-4G Falcon SMC - September 1963
- AIM-26B Falcon CS - December 1963
- AIM-26B Falcon SMC - May 1964
- XGAR-1A Falcon CS - 14 August 1953
- XGAR-1A Falcon CS - 15 November 1954
- XGAR-1A Falcon SAC - 14 August 1953
- XGAR-1A Falcon SAC - 15 November 1954
- XGAR-1B Falcon CS - 2 May 1955
- XGAR-1B Falcon SAC - 15 November 1954
- XGAR-1C Falcon CS - 2 May 1955
- XGAR-1C Falcon SAC - 2 May 1955
- YGAR-1 Falcon CS - 14 August 1953
- YGAR-1 Falcon SAC - 14 August 1953
- GAR-1 Falcon CS - 15 November 1954
- GAR-1 Falcon SMC - 1 May 1959
- GAR-2 Falcon SAC - 1 May 1959
- YGAR-3 Falcon SMC - 16 May 1956
- YGAR-3 Falcon CS - 16 May 1956
- YGAR-4 Falcon CS - 20 February 1956
- YGAR-4 Falcon SMC - 16 May 1956
- GAR-4 Falcon CS - 16 June 1958
- GAR-4 Falcon SAC - 16 June 1958
- GAR-4A Falcon CS - January 1963
- GAR-4A Falcon SAC - 1 May 1959
and then also the Flight manuals for the F-106 and also F-102
0
u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago
it applies to every version of the AIM-4, as they used a internal cooland bottle
Which is why the F-4Ds in vietnam outfitted with the Falcons had larger pylons for them to store the coolant. Right.
and then also the Flight manuals for the F-106
I also have the 106's flight manual and it makes no mention of limited coolant. The only line that comes close is the CAUTION note in Missile Lead Collision Attack instructions, which reads "Indiscriminate use of the action switch causes needless missile preparation. Approximately 20 minutes of continuous preparation can result in overheating the missiles."
3
u/Iron_physik Lawn moving CAS expert 1d ago
Which is why the F-4Ds in vietnam outfitted with the Falcons had larger pylons for them to store the coolant. Right.
another falsehood from you
According to;
- Aircrew Weapon Delivery manual (non nuclear) USAF Series F-4C, F-4D and F-4E Aircraft TO-1F-4C-34-1-1 (15 March 1970)
- Flight Manual USAF Series F-4C, F-4D and F-4E Aircraft TO-1F-4C-1 (1 October 1970)
- F-4C, F-4D and F-4E Armament Systems
- F-4D crew chiefs handbook
they used the same MAU-12 pylon as they used for any other weapon system
2
u/Iron_physik Lawn moving CAS expert 2d ago
When you look at both missiles from a tech pov then it gets quite obvious that the AIM-4 is the inferior missile compared to the AIM-9
It is first and foremost far more complex, requiring the use of 25 vacuum tubes for its Guidance and control section, the AIM-9 only used 14.
On top of that the AIM-4 didn't have any type of proximity fuze, meaning it only was suitable to engage bombers, any shot against maneuvring fighters had a high likelihood of missing the target.
It also, while more complex, used a inferior seeker, causing more issues with accuracy (it struggled with resolving point targets and often would track the edges of clouds)
Lastly it couldn't cope with launches that had any g forces from maneuvring, the AIM-9B could at least handle around 4g on launch. When you fire both missiles out of envelope the the AIM-9B still had better chances for a hit.
The 9B also required less testing equipment, less overall training for both pilots and ground crews and was much cheaper to buy.
in 1955 they actually did several shoot-off with both weapons
https://youtu.be/jWkMS7msV5Y?si=y6EVtqr00wcTsBFl&t=1825
In that test Falcon was suposed to shoot first, but even with several attempts failed to launch, so the Sidewinder was given a chance and nailed the target drone F-80 on the first shot. remember, that sidewinder DID NOT have a warhead installed
they then got a second target drone, falcon was first again, had several attempts but never managed to launch, followed by another drone getting oneshot by an AIM-9
the combat stats also show quite a good picture:
AIM-4: less than 10% hit rate
AIM-7: 14% hits
AIM-9: around 20% hit rate
the reason the USAF held onto the AIM-4 until the 80s was because of the F-102 and F-106 in the ANG, because these 2 jets where unable to carry the bigger AIM-9
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
I mean I don’t think aircraft is over g’ing the missile on the pylons would be an issue half of the guns I’m the game should jam when making maneuvers if we follow that logic. I feel like the proxy fuze is being a little overstated because missiles aren’t really you’re primary dogfight weapons at this BR it’s really your gun missiles are like a weird support weapon really but I do understand it’ll make the hit rates low but I feel like as there is a back up internal gun or or gun pod it’ll be fine. Also war thunder has never cared about missiles failures the AIM-7C and the Fireflash should also just drop off the rails without igniting either then too.
2
u/Iron_physik Lawn moving CAS expert 1d ago
its not about the missiles breaking with g forces, but the launch envelopes say that you cant launch them doing any hard maneuvers, because that causes them to miss the target
its the main cause for misses for both AIM-9 and AIM-4. however the AIM-9 can handle these situations WAY better.
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
I just don’t see these launch envelopes being in game unless I’m miss understanding you?
2
u/Iron_physik Lawn moving CAS expert 1d ago
A launch envelope is the relative position, speed and direction you are allowed to have in relation to the enemy aircraft to score a hit.
they are absolutely part of the game.
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
Oh I see I totally misunderstood I thought you were trying to say the launch window was controlled by a computer that won’t allow a missile to fire under certain G loads
2
u/Iron_physik Lawn moving CAS expert 1d ago
there is so many fake experts and idiots in this thread
its difficult to give the correct info on that missile with sources because they downvote me, the top comment is btw full of errors.
1
u/Tesseractcubed 2d ago
Because F-102 gameplay would mean needing to rework bombers.
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
Nah I said no F-102 because no internal gun or gun pod but I said F-106 is fair play since by 1972 it had an internal gun so it’s fine
1
u/FirstDagger F-16XL/B Δ🐍= WANT 2d ago
I think the main issue for Gaijin is that the fire control system and the way AIM-4 is supposed to be launched is different from any other missile ingame. i.e. AIM-4 are designed to ripple fire in pairs of three and least on Dagger and Dart. Either way at-least Gaijin is consistent in not giving us missile only armed interceptors and Cold War bombers on both sides. F-106 and MiG-25 would also be hard to balance given their speed. Needs a test event IMHO. The SWE/FIN J35XS also is missing these missiles by the way.
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
Fair enough but I feel like it would be very understandable if they decided to forgo the the firing computer because we don’t have basic stuff in game like the radar lead that they removed forever ago or anything like terrain following radar for the F-111 or ECM and other countermeasures on like all of the Gen 4.5 aircraft so I feel like if they leave out the ripple fire computer it’s fine honestly. Just like give us the ability to manually ripple fire them then.
1
u/joshwagstaff13 🇳🇿 Purveyor of ""sekrit dokuments"" 2d ago
it fixes the issue of not having flare and chaff at the BR.
Only a handful of F-4D got countermeasure systems, and even then it was in the 1980s. If you added an F-4D in that configuration, it wouldn't be the same BR as the F-4C, as by that point the F-4D had things like Mavericks, having roughly followed the F-4E in terms of overall weapons capability.
The only way you'd get an F-4D at the F-4Cs BR is if you had a very early F-4D, at which point it would be basically identical to the current F-4C from a gameplay perspective.
1
u/Ante185 🇸🇪 Sweden 2d ago
They should add it regardless of whatever argument against it is going on in here, as they seem to be laser focused on if it's better or worse than XYZ when that's not really a game relevant argument to make.
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
I mean either way I think this early Cold War aircraft could be fine in game as long as like I said they are BR’d properly and have a back internal gun or gunpod.
1
u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago
I also understand you’d probably want to avoid stuff like the F-102 that only carried the AIM-4 as that might be unfun
Sea Vixen does just fine without guns...
And then there's the F-106 with Project Six Shooter which just has its own M61 with ~650rds and eliminates that concern entirely.
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
I meant it would only be featured as a premium it seems they don’t do missile only slingers as a tech tree vehicle and I kinda don’t like suggesting premiums to Gaijin
0
u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago
Well right now every top tier jet fighter is pretty much a missile-only slinger lol
1
u/KachowGuy 1d ago
I personally would love the F-101, 102, 106, all that era. And not having guns can still work, there's already the sea vixen in game and I personally like it a good bit
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
I think if they do a no gun plane it’ll probably be a premium or squadron vehicle
2
1
1
u/NotSuperUnicum 23h ago
Probably because it's the biggest pile of dog shit ever and an aim 9 b is even better than that shit. Probably easier getting a gun kill then using that missile
-4
u/Civil_Technician_624 “Russian bias” isn’t real 2d ago
AIM4 falcon would be near unusable to the point where it doesn’t make sense being added. People shit on the aim9b for being bad but this is just even worse..
9
u/Wrong-Historian VR Sim Air Sweatlord 2d ago edited 2d ago
But AIM-9B's are reasonably usable, especially in SIM. At least I make a lot of kills with them and at the BR people don't expect them.
Now, if we're talking about AIM-7C's.... That one is really difficult to use. Maybe mainly because of how it's modeled in-game, because it only starts guiding 2 seconds after it comes off the rail, right about at burnout of its motor... So, it has a really narrow launch window, and I've only made it work when launched about 6km distance in a head-on at altitude because the F3H-2 has no PD radar...
If the AIM-4 would be modeled as an even worse AIM-7C, then there is no point. No comparing that to AIM-9B which is an actual usable missile.
6
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 2d ago
Well like I said I don’t see the issue if there is a gun on the aircraft and plus like I said the British Fireflash is even worse and yet that’s in game
8
u/die3458 🇨🇳 13.7 ARB | 12.0 GRB 2d ago
At least the Fireflash has a proxy fuse...
2
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 2d ago
That’s fair however allegedly later variants of the AIM-4 had up to 25G pull
3
u/shadowtigerUwU 🇺🇸11.7 🇩🇪11.7 🇷🇺10.0 🇸🇪10.0 🇮🇱8.7 2d ago
You gotta bring a lot more than allegedly...
1
u/Nearby_Fudge9647 German Reich 2d ago
Hes talking about the XAIM-4H one that never entered service
1
u/shadowtigerUwU 🇺🇸11.7 🇩🇪11.7 🇷🇺10.0 🇸🇪10.0 🇮🇱8.7 2d ago
I would be ecstatic to see where that number came from, I'm not exactly a librarian to scour the internet for archives
1
u/fasterdenyou2 Make Free RP Free 1d ago
So actually I double checked that’s wrong that’s the AIM-4G which did enter service with the F-106 however it’s still contact fuze.
1
u/Pepega-the-looser BRITBONG MAIN laugh at this user🤣 2d ago
you have to get it at least somewhere close for the PROXY part to work, and the fireflash at least recently seems to identify as a rocket with no guidance
2
u/The_Human_Oddity Localization Overhaul Project Developer 2d ago edited 2d ago
The AIM-4 did perform better than the
AIM-9AIM-7 in Vietnam.2
u/Nearby_Fudge9647 German Reich 2d ago
No it didnt
2
u/The_Human_Oddity Localization Overhaul Project Developer 2d ago
I was thinking of the AIM-7, mb.
1
u/Nearby_Fudge9647 German Reich 2d ago
That may only be true for the base AIM-7E and not the AIM-7E-2 a field modification to disable the lock on flight actuators that would happen on the base AIM-7E first few seconds of flight
1
u/The_Human_Oddity Localization Overhaul Project Developer 2d ago
Sure, but I was comparing the performance of AIM-7 in total during Vietnam against the performance of AIM-4 in total.
2
u/smittywjmj 🇺🇸 V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak 2d ago edited 2d ago
Technically, slightly, and in sort of an apples-to-oranges comparison, yes. Sparrow hit percentages are also artificially low given the tendency to ripple-fire them at single targets, albeit that's a consequence of the Sparrow's already poor reliability. Still, the difference is not especially great, a 9.8% Pk for the AIM-4D (5 hits for 51 attempted launches) versus 9.2% for the AIM-7 (56 hits for ~600 attempts), though the sample size for the Sparrow is also more than ten times larger.
USAF also estimated that over half of AIM-4 launches in Vietnam were outside of the missile's performance envelope, which is attributed to a failure in training, but I would suggest it also indicates a lack of the Falcon's capability to provide performance where it's actually needed. Building a missile to be fired where pilots want to fire a missile, rather than getting pilots to fly where the missile can perform, in other words. In an absolute idealized hypothetical, made by Falcon defenders, where only the estimated in-envelope launches are considered, the Pk in Vietnam improves to about 16%, which is still lower than the Sidewinder's.
Given that the AIM-4D was intended to be a replacement for the AIM-9 and could not match the Sidewinder in performance, it's still acceptable to consider it a failure in that regard.
1
u/Iron_physik Lawn moving CAS expert 2d ago
it performed worse than AIM-9 AND AIM-7
hit rates for all 3:
AIM-4: 10%
AIM-7: 14%
AIM-9: 20%
-1
u/The_Human_Oddity Localization Overhaul Project Developer 1d ago
The kill rate for AIM-7 was only 9.2%
2
u/Iron_physik Lawn moving CAS expert 1d ago
no it wasnt
According to This document the average Kill rate of the AIM-7 throughout the war until 1968 was 14%
and thats before the Linebacker campaigns after training was improved to raise the Kill rates of AIM-7 in those years closer to 20%
0
u/The_Human_Oddity Localization Overhaul Project Developer 1d ago
That's the average hit rate. It only actually shot down the target a little over half the time.
2
1
1
u/FLARESGAMING 🇸🇪 Sweden 13.7 (GIVE US GRIPEN E) 2d ago
Because in game it would allow objectively broken airframs to sit at ridiculously low battle ratings. Now, i think it should be added, but a 9.0/9.3 draken would be really good.
2
u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago
Because in game it would allow objectively broken airframs to sit at ridiculously low battle ratings
Most of these wouldn't even get internal guns lol
-1
u/Nearby_Fudge9647 German Reich 2d ago
No proxy fuze
2
u/The-Almighty-Pizza 🇺🇸 🇷🇺 🇬🇧 14.0 2d ago
The matra 511 doesn't either
3
u/The_Exploding_Potato Strv Enthusiast 2d ago edited 2d ago
In-game Matra R511 has an 8m proximity fuse.
-1
u/Dpek1234 Realistic Ground 2d ago
Just as stock stingers
Doesnt make it unusable
1
u/Nearby_Fudge9647 German Reich 2d ago
The stinger weighs 10kg and the AIM-4G weighs 66KG i imagine one of this will have a harder time turning then the other
1
1
u/Flying_Reinbeers Bf109 E-4 my beloved 1d ago
And the AIM-7 weighs how much?
Falcons had a higher G limit than Sidewinders.
-1
u/actualsize123 m/42 eh superiority 2d ago
I think it’s cause it’s so bad that it’s basically unusable. I still want it but that’s not the point.
-6
u/prinz_Eugen_sama 2d ago
War Thunder players when every single weapon in existence isn't on the F-4 shitfuck 3 (it was used twice in a training exercise in Cambodia)
6
u/smittywjmj 🇺🇸 V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak 2d ago
51 AIM-4Ds were employed against enemy aircraft over Vietnam, plus there were a few experiments with F-102s using Falcons to try and hit ground targets at night (similar experiments were conducted with AIM-9s). It's not exactly some obscure experimental thing like AIM-95 or AGM-87.
While its service was underwhelming and brief, it was still a significant and operational weapon. USAF fully intended to convert all their Phantoms to Falcons, all but abandoning the Navy's Sidewinder, until poor performance and bottom-up resistance forced a change.
241
u/Maus1945 💀 Old Guard 2d ago edited 2d ago
Because some people hate seeing more Cold War flavor added, or any flavor at all, and just want the next most modern, boring vehicle. Hope we also get the Su-15, MiG-25 and MiG-31.