The Falcon has been discussed often some pilots apparently were fine with it but since one famous pilot said it was useless that is what it’s imagine has been afterwards.
additionally it can not be more useless than Super 530F is on Mirage F.1 currently.
Mirage IIIS with Falcon would also be nice.
4 Likes
I think the fact that it’s still got 100% votes for yes shows that this needs added ASAP.
Plus the Rb-27/28 (upgraded AIM-4s) would be a nice addition to the Viggens and Drakens.
And AIM-4Ds for F-4s, especially the C which needs a bit of a buff.
3 Likes
With the T-tanks it would be more maneuverable as the MiG-21 and with a gun + 4 AIM-4 it’s basically a MiG-21S. Missile being more maneuverable but requiring a direct hit.
Overall a real shame this hasn’t been added yet to WT.
2 Likes
Came across some rather… interesting F-106 info on twitter of all places lol
(Credit goes to user Heatloss on X)
5 Likes
The Falcons were perfectly fine. Especially the super falcons, which had a limited all-aspect capability.
Around half of the AIM-4Ds fired in Vietnam were fired out of envelope. It’s hard to blame the missile when the manufacturer says it won’t hit! and it had a better envelope than 9B or E, and only a worse maneuvering envelope than 9J, but a better range envelope afaik.
AIM-4D also had a limited all-aspect capability, unlike 4B or 4C. They were also known for being exceptionally accurate, which is why Hughes chose to stick to a contact fuse to improve reliability compared to the unreliable proximity fuses of the time.
3 Likes
It can’t. XAIM-4H was a standard Falcon size, and the 106 could only carry Super Falcons. GAR-3/3A, GAR-4/4A. GAR-3 and -4 were severely problematic and were nearly immediately replaced by 3A and 4A, which are AIM-4F and 4G respectively.
1 Like
I love to see my research making the rounds! The director gunsight was a test only. It did have a “Snap-Shoot” gunsight much like the Mirage 2000’s tracer line sight, but without the line and only range crosses.
The 106 was notable in Have Doughnut for being able to tangle with the 21F-13 in almost every scenario while having the speed and acceleration to dictate the fight.
Another neat feature I’d like to see would be multi-sensor locks, as the MA-1 system could slave the IRSTS and Radar to one another to better deal with clutter or ECM. It also had anti-chaff-tracking circuits, though I don’t know how those worked. It’d be a neat 10.3 or 10.7. It had no RWR or countermeasures, so it’d have to stay below 11.0.
2 Likes
Would you like to try that one again? The XAIM-4H was a further upgrade of the AIM-4D. Which the Dart could carry 4 of. iirc the F-106 was used as one of the testbed aircraft for the XAIM-4H.
1 Like
That would be a nice quality of life improvement for most jets in game.
The dart could NOT carry AIM-4, 4A,-4B, 4C, or 4D. 4E, F and G were its armament. 4E was dropped nearly immediately because of, to the best of my knowledge, diffraction issues with the radome and aerodynamic issues.
1 Like
It’s unique to MA-1 of the six and… a few versions of the MiG-23. Oh, and 4.5/5th gens. F-8 Crusader could not.
1 Like
It’s not unique as the F-4s and F-14s also incorporate similar functionality from western aircraft.
The F-4 and F-14 did not have sensor slaving in the same way. In the MA-1, it integrated track information from both. The IRST of the F-14 did not do that. The TCS of the F-14 and TISEO of the 4E were slaved, but did not automatically integrate tracking information like with MA-1.
1 Like
I was not expecting to see you here, but I have been very pleasantly surprised! Thank you for your research on the F-106!
1 Like
I still play this game because of my friends. One of them pinged me with this thread so I felt a little obligated to chime in.
1 Like
Okay… and? Those, as I’m sure you’re aware, are not the XAIM-4H. And if you’ll give me a little bit I’m certain I’ve seen a picture of ground crews loading a -4D into the bay of a 106.
I can wait! Make sure you’re not mistaking the 102 for the 106. The two had 3 separate bays, a total of 6 doors, whereas the six had two doors and one bay.
1 Like
Yeah I know, some of these old photographs make it really hard to tell them apart sometimes.
I know. I’ve seen most of the 106 ones, and I’ve never seen a standard Falcon. It’d require a complete reprogramming of MA-1 for the correct lead angle, as MA-1 was set up to provide optimal lead for Super Falcons, not the standard Falcons. Firing with improper lead could be done, but there’s no guarantee it’d hit due to the flight envelope differences between the GAR-2 family and GAR-4 family.
I can’t figure out how to edit on this new site so I’ve just deleted and reposted this.
1 Like
I’ve seen it before, I know it exists. I’m not crazy. I just can’t find it.
Regardless this was about the XAIM-4H, which was an experimental missile made almost a decade after the AIM-4D. Whether or not the Dart even tested it before the project was canned is what I’m trying to find out now. And quite frankly I can’t find anything on its testing other than it shot down a QF-104A.
It makes sense that the Dart would’ve tested it considering it was one of two aircraft still in USAF service that mainly used Falcon missiles and their derivatives, but the USAF doesn’t operate logically.
I did learn, however, that the F-15 briefly used AIM-4s at Eglin, and that the AIM-26s on the Dart were slung under the wings on the same rails designed for the Seekbat missiles.
That’s cool.
2 Likes