Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

I bought recently one Hasegawa missile kit and I saw picture about F-4E model that carries AIM-4 Falcon AAM-s. Is this missile ever carried in Vietnam and by F-4E? And why?

F-16.net Sponsor

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

Yes, F-4s did carry AIM-4s in Vietnam.

From http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html:

Quote:

The AIM-4D was used in combat in South-East Asia by some F-4D Phantoms, which were equipped with special LAU-42/A launchers for this purpose. 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 nitrogen 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 fuze, 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 The AIM-4D was gradually withdrawn from use beginning in 1969, and by 1973, the AIM-4D was no longer operational with the USAF.

The final variant of the Falcon was the experimental XAIM-4H, of which only 25 were built in 1970/71. It was an improved AIM-4D with an active laser proximity fuze, a new warhead, and enhanced manoeuverability. The proximity fuze consisted of 4 laser beams in the nose, perpendicular to the missile axis, which effectively created a disc-shaped detection zone around the missile nose. However, because of the Falcon's general problems, and because the AIM-9 Sidewinder proved to be an increasingly successful and versatile IR homing missile, the AIM-4H project was aborted in 1971.

The final Falcons in USAF service were the AIM-4F/G's used by the F-106A interceptors. When the latter was phased out in the 1980's, the Falcon ceased to be part of the USAF inventory.

Other Falcon variants and developments are the GAR-11/AIM-26, GAR-9/AIM-47, and AGM-76 Falcon missiles.

I was assigned to the First Test Squadron, my first active duty squadron in the USAF, Clark Air Base 1970.

Our assigned F4's tested these weapons daily, modified several times (engineers were available) then they were sent into duty in South East Asia (Vietnam).

Squadrons from all over Asia flew these weapon very effectively (at the time) in that conflict. Hell'va system back then......

Quote:

Squadrons from all over Asia flew these weapon very effectively (at the time) in that conflict.

Pretty wild statement.
It is clear that the AIM-4 was ill-suited for dogfights - no wonder as it never was intended for maneuvering targets.
So what is the basis of your statement, Meathook? AIM-4 had 5 confirmed kills (a minor fraction of all AAM kills in SEA) against how many misses? (not to speak about aborted launches)
Unless you can provide some sort of statistics that proves it was better than Aim-7/9 in Vietnam, I'd say you are wrong.

"Five Falcon kills out of 48 attempted launches during Rolling Thunder were not enough to justify the missile's continued use as a major F-4 weapon, and it's withdrawal proceeded as F-4Ds were progressively re-wired for AIM-9s. On 14 July 1968 the USAF terminated the engineering programme that would have produced a better Falcon by the following year (although it was resumed in 1970), but the missile remained in theatre until 22 August 1971, when the USAF declared 776 AIM-4ds 'excess to SEA needs due to their limited air-to-air capability'. It marked the end of the combat career for a weapon that Robin Olds described to the author as being 'as useless as tits on a boar hog' "

Thats a quote from USAF F-4 Phantom II Mig Killers 1965-68 by Peter E. Davies, Osprey Publishing. Its on page 73.

In the same page the author also states that

"the AIM-4's success rate was so poor that it was exceeded by the F-4D's other 'new' weapon, the SUU-23/A gun pod, which was used to achieve six MiG kills"

George

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

Of course part of the problem is the AIM-4 was not intended for close range knife fights. It was envisioned as an interceptor missile to take down bombers.

HK, here's a picture to help you with your modeling project:

The answere to question about the E is yes. It seems some of the arriving E briefly carried them, but switched to the AIM-9 soon after arriving to Vietnam.

From another group...

Those jets (ED) and (ZF) certainly had Falcons when they first arrived in SEA. and were converted to AIM-9E Sidewinders during the deployment. The AIM-9J arrived later in the year... September I think but that went onto the dedicated MiGCAP flights and mostly lead and element lead jets.

Not sure about the 4TFW's F-4E's though.

The 432TRW got the AIM-9E sometime in mid 1971 and I would expect most of the wing's jets to have been Sidewinder capable by early 1972.

Except for the first six Combat Tree aircraft that were new additions in late 1971 and early 1972.

There are pictures showing many of the TDY F-4E's with Falcon rails still fitted in the spring period of 1972.

The Falcon finally vanished from the Phantom at Udorn during the mid summer of 1972 I think. There would bound to be stragglers but summer 1972 is a good bet.

The TDY 'E' model first showed up at Udorn in 1972 .

As for the Korat and Da-Nang F-4E's... They arrived in late 1968 and early 1969. I don't really know how they were configured since it wasn't often they were photographed with either Sidewinders or Falcons between 1968 and 1972. Most of their missions were outside the MiG threat areas in that time frame.

If I ad to comment I would expect them to be Falcon up to mid 1971 and Sidewinders (AIM-9E) after that just like the rest of the SEA based Phantoms.

Slightly off track I know but it might be of interest F-4D 66-7463 was hauling Falcons during her first four kill missions.

After all Robin Olds (from 555TH) AIM-4 misses he told them to "NEVER" install them on his planes again.. Aim 9 & Sparrow from then on. They flew them (AIM 4) for awhile in 1966 at least.

Olds tells quite a tale about how he had the Falcons trashed. Sidewinders at Ubon in 1967 was the AIM-9B.

But, when he left Ubon in September 1967 those jets (they were not E models) were re-converted back to Falcons.

There might have been some waifs and strays that were transferred to other bases that kept their Sidewinders for a while into 1968 but it seems the Falcons were replaced for the most part.

My understanding of that situation is that there was not an 'Official' conversion to Sidewinders until mid 1971 that was not fully complete until mid 1972. And that was involving Thailand and South Vietnam based squadrons. Certainly between mid 1971 and 1972 there would have been a bit of mix and match in SEA.

F-4D's with Falcon rails were at Lakenheath as late as mid 1975.

At F-4 WCS at Lowry they still taught AIM-4's thru at least 1976

Since I was there RoAF and you were not, I'll let you do your own research, if you dont agree with me or not given access to the same information I have, that too does not bother me...think what you will.

Quote:

Since I was there RoAF and you were not

You're right, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. You or I (or both) could be wrong, but numbers don't lie.

Out of the 220 (give or take a few) US air to air victories in SEA only 5 were obtained using AIM-4. That's 2.3% of all the kills. If that's "very effectively" in your book, I can't imagine what would be ineffective for you.

George111 posted a quote from USAF F-4 Phantom II Mig Killers 1965-68 by Peter E. Davies, Osprey
"the missile remained in theatre until 22 August 1971, when the USAF declared 776 AIM-4ds excess to SEA needs due to their limited air-to-air capability"
But you know better - it was "very effective"
If the AIM-4 was so effective, why did Robin Olds refuse to have them on his plane? I guess he was wrong too...

I guess it's just too hard for some people to recognize a mistake they made - I can live with that.

Hi folks,
Sorry for the late reply, I just came back from Turkey.

For the benefit of this conversation, allow me to add one more quote from a different book -USAF F-4 Phantom II Mig Killers 1972-73, Osprey- (by the same author, Peter E. Davies).

pages 10, 11.
"According to Col Bill McDonald, the AIM-4D was also 'much too sensitive to any jarring, or even stray voltage misalignment'. Most of the F-4Ds operated by the 555th TFS in 1971-1972 were still wired for the AIM-4D, despite the lack of success in Rolling Thunder. Col Mike Cooper of the 555th TFS recalled, 'We did everything in our power to get them abolished. The were useless. A friend told me I was due for a ticket from the Environmental Protection people for littering the countryside with damned little AIM-4s! I fired more than a dozen. It was ineffective, and twice the price of an AIM-9"

George111

To a large extent, the F-4 Phantom interceptor concept was a total failure in Vietnam. Shooting Bear bombers over rthe sea was a different ball game than fighting little Migs over the jungle, just like Guysmiley pointed out above.

I wonder if the AIM-4D would have been considered successful if it had been used against bombers while defending the fleet. That is a situation where its extra range would have possibly made it more useful than the AIM-9. Did it have a head on capability like the AIM-7? If it performed well in that kind of role i can see why they kept using the later versions on the F-106.

No question AIM-4D was a failure in Vietnam. I have heard Robin Olds in person go on about how he didnt have any use for the missile. He also didnt like the gun pods. I have never heard a pilot from the Vietnam war say they liked the AIM-4. But it was still a step ahead of any A2A missiles used before it.

I find it very interesting how the failure of the F-4 BVR concept lead to the F-4E dogfight version, and then the F-4F came out with no BVR capablity at all! What a transformation of the Phantom which was first built without any guns. Then the F-4F gets fitted with new A2A weapons systems that finally let it live up to its origional conception, a beyond visual range high speed platform. The F-4 was simply built ahead of it's time, a bridge between the old weapons age and the new digital "smart" age.

Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

AIM-4 Falcon missiles on F-4E?