Hughes AIM-4 Falcon

The first air missile, and it is after ww2

We dont talk about aim 4 and aim 7

In an undocumented and denied incident. 3 mig 29s were shot down with this missile from an old F4D Phantom.

I doubt this was made in 1949 as I think the missile is the D version of the GAR 1 known as the Gar 1D. I don't know when or where this was filmed but I think the Airman carrying the nose of the missile might be Elmer "Hank" Graslie. At least it certainly looks like him. I worked with Hank in Galena Alaska in 1960. Doubt there is anyone alive who would have worked with either of us.

I loaded these missiles on the f-106. They were controlled by Norad which would track the target and send a signal to the plane and then it could shoot it down. They carried 2 infrared and 2 radar seeking aim-4 in its internal weapons bay.

But back to the IR Falcons and the Sidewinder. I'd have picked the nose-leading, simple, proximity fused Sidewinder over the Falcon any day of the week. Or the Red Top. Falcon tail chased, was incredibly complex to operate, fizzled out on the rails early, was unreliable in inclement weather and wouldn't detonate except with a direct hit. As for the SARH ones, their range was short and again, they were tailchasing and had no prox fuses. That's why we designed the AIM-7D eh?

Ah. What I meant to say was that I didn't agree with your point on the Sidewinder being worse than the IR Falcons in a frontal aspect engagement.

At any rate, if you were to tell me to scramble with either a D phantom 4 AIM-4Ds or a C phantom with 4 D/E sidewinders to shoot down some heavies, I'd pick the C any day of the week. At least I can engage them from 8-9 knots out and I know my missile won't quit on me when I pickle it oof the rails. Then again, perhaps you have experience to the contrary?

I suppose if you wanted to compare the SARH Falcons as well, you'd have better luck with the R.530. I don't know very many people who worked on that or had actual combat experience with that missile. Again, unfair comparison. R. 530 came out a decade later and was built for a very different engagement regime and role.

...Marginally better or just as good in the rear aspect angle of engagement at high altitudes against nonmanoeuvering bombers. But I won't agree with you on the stern attack bit. The IR AIM-4s were guilty of that as well.

Are you talking about the entire Falcon Family incl. the SARH ones or just the IR ones? Because I do recall a vet I met in D.C. saying that the the IR seekers on the AIM-9D being completely useless from the frontal aspect, especially in inclement weather. Apparently because of the seeker element's tuned wavelength. Thrown off by clouds and dust very easily or something like that. Plus it had complex electronics that were prone to failure. I suppose you could say that the AIM-4D might have been..

I guess what forrest is driving at is that the AIM-9 would have been better in all flight and engagement regimes than the IR versions of the Falcon family. Perhaps those with experience in this discussion (e.g. the obvious falcon fan here Genie who has apparently worked the Falcon ad nauseum) could provide a few REASONS as to why the Falcon might have been supposedly better or worse? Like seeker sensitivity and wavelength range? Or the tracking and steering methods? Engineering side? Anything?

Yeah, but it's got Falcon in the name. And when it's in the name, Falcon punch is the game XD

china's technology is unsurpassed in USA it's doomed and never will revamp subtle pieces to the puzzle might as well restart program analysis. China has advanced it's ability in missile tech. and nonuclear capablitiy