I mean they probably weigh about the same overall. If there was any notable differences they would have to change the body of the missile to adjust for it, then it wouldn’t be the same as AIM-26A except for warhead like your source says
1 Like
I’ll put it in tomorrow, thanks
1 Like
Has to be said that a lot of its bad reputation wasn’t from the missile itself, but how it was employed.
-In every purpose-built interceptor using it, the Falcon sat in a nice, enclosed, climate controlled internal weapons bay until it was time to be fired. It never had to deal with dust or pebbles getting kicked up into it, or the freezing cold air for extended periods of time. Reliability in Vietnam was also worsened by the hot and humid air alongside crude maintenance practices, which impacted the Sparrow even more (and led to its ABYSMAL reliability rates). This isn’t the end of it either, as meeting an enemy fighter in Vietnam was also very rare and those Falcons could spend several missions going from hot and humid to freezing cold several times;
-The Falcon-armed interceptors enjoyed a great deal of automation made possible by their intended mission: the Hughes MA-1 FCS would automatically choose the best intercept course (and steer the plane accordingly), pre-align the seeker, cool down the seeker, fire it at the optimal range. In the F-4 this all had to be done manually step by step, and coolant was limited as it was stored in the pylon instead of being provided by the internal weapons bay;
-The AN/APQ-120 in the F-4 also wasn’t made specifically to work with the Falcon (unlike the integrated Hughes FCS) and communication wasn’t exactly 1:1, though I wish I knew more. Lacking all the automation features it of course wasn’t be able to steer or instruct the pilot on the optimal course or when to fire it, and thus was left to whenever the pilot felt that he was in range;
-The impact fuse was chosen for a very specific reason: bombers are big and easy to hit, despite its smaller warhead when compared to Sidewinder, it had a much greater kill probability than it;
-All said and done, it was a much superior missile to the Sidewinder once it was in the air. Faster, greater range, greater G limit, a much superior seeker with limited all-aspect capability (versus none from the Sidewinder) and a limited degree of LOAL possible - the MA-1 could instruct the Falcon to steer to a given heading and elevation and point its seeker at a specific location after launch… within pretty strict limits, to get around the issue of fuselage blanking.
8 Likes
Well said, given 100% reliability which is something we enjoy in game the missiles will likely be really good even without a proximity fuse
2 Likes
If I remember right as well, proxy-fuses were surprisingly not as reliable as most think during this point, which is another reason for hit-to-kill
Infared iirc i have a nice source
equivalent to a 9J apparently, because they acc put effort in and “all aspect” ish from the indium antimony seeker, same kind used in 9L but less advanced
1 Like
I asked them before and they said that the info is outdated and they cant trace where its from so its not the greatest source as of right now
Be my guest to ask the swedish national archives or american
1 Like
Yes, the first AIM-9B captured by the USSR was exactly due to that - ended up nicely embedded in the back of a MiG when the proxy fuse failed. I don’t think any Falcon ever hit a MiG in vietnam without detonating.
1 Like
To be fair I think before the 9L standard missiles were very unreliable
That’s why the falcons can be added as they have the rep for being poor due to reliability which isn’t translated in game
3 Likes
Would the Japanese AAM-2 also be fitting here as it too is an upgrade to the AIM-4, like Sweden’s RB28?
English language info is unfortunately scarce, but the reported specs are pretty decent. Probably about equal to R-60M in most cases.
4 Likes
Yes i forgot i wanted to add it to the list thank you
AIM-4 missiles also went to Japan. The Japanese used AIM-4D and created the XAAM-2 missile based on it.
3 Likes
I left them out of users because I have found only one source (AAM 2 wikipedia) stating japan even had possession of the missiles and its unclear if they serviced the AIM-4D after the AAM2 experiment
3 Likes
Yeah it’s wizard and should be added to the game
2 Likes
No F-102 posts? Lucky for you I happen to have made one! The Deuce - Convair’s F-102A Delta Dagger
The AIM-4 and AIM-26 are missiles we need in the game, and their inclusion will open War Thunder up to many more vehicles!
6 Likes
Added it Ty
A more in-depth (and realistic) flight performance breakdown
All data from SMC (standard missile characteristics) and using ideal rocket equation for delta V. Rounded to nearest .1 mach, 1g, and 1m/s.
AIM-4A
sea level
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M2.2
Max g: 15g
Max speed, M1.2 launch : M2.5
Max g: 17g
10kft (3km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M2.3
Max g: 15g
Max speed, M1.2 launch: M2.6
Max g: 17g
20kft (6km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M2.5
Max g: 15g
Max speed, M1.2 launch: M2.8
Max g: 16g
30kft (9km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M2.7
Max g: 14g
Max speed, M1.2 launch: M3.0
Max g: 15g
SMC
TLDR:
399m/s dV
17g
M2.7
AIM-4B
sea level
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M2.2
Max g: 15g
Max speed, M1.2 launch : M2.5
Max g: 17g
10kft (3km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M2.3
Max g: 15g
Max speed, M1.2 launch: M2.6
Max g: 17g
20kft (6km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M2.5
Max g: 15g
Max speed, M1.2 launch: M2.8
Max g: 17g
30kft (9km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M2.7
Max g: 14g
Max speed, M1.2 launch: M3.0
Max g: 15g
SMC
TLDR:
420m/s dV
17g
M2.7
AIM-4C
sea level
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M2.1
Max g: 15g
Max speed, M1.2 launch: M2.4
Max g: 17g
10kft (3km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M2.3
Max g: 15g
Max speed, M1.2 launch: M2.6
Max g: 17g
20kft (6km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M2.5
Max g: 15g
Max speed, M1.2 launch: M2.8
Max g: 16g
30kft (9km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M2.6
Max g: 14g
Max speed, M1.2 launch: M2.9
Max g: 15g
SMC
TLDR:
392m/s dV
17g
M2.6
AIM-4D
sea level
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M2.2
Max g: 15g
10kft (3km)
Max speed, M0.98 launch: M2.4
Max g: 16g
20kft (6km)
Max speed, M1.04 launch: M2.6
Max g: 16g
30kft (9km)
Max speed, M1.14 launch: M2.8
Max g: 16g
SMC
TLDR:
371m/s dV
16g
M2.6
AIM-4E
sea level
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M1.4
Max g: 13g
Max speed, F-106 maximum level speed (M1.0) launch: M1.7
Max g: 18g
10kft (3km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M1.6
Max g: 13g
Max speed, F-106 maximum level speed (M1.4) launch: M2.1
Max g: 18g
20kft (6km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M1.8
Max g: 12g
Max speed, F-106 maximum level speed (M1.6) launch: M2.4
Max g: 17g
30kft (9km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M1.9
Max g: 10g
Max speed, F-106 maximum level speed (M2.0) launch: M2.9
Max g: 18g
SMC
TLDR:
225m/s dV
17g
M1.5
AIM-4F
sea level
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M1.4
Max g: 13g
Max speed, F-106 maximum level speed (M1.1) launch: M1.6
Max g: 14g
10kft (3km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M1.5
Max g: 11g
Max speed, F-106 maximum level speed (M1.3) launch: M1.8
Max g: 15g
20kft (6km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M1.6
Max g: 10g
Max speed, F-106 maximum level speed (M1.6) launch: M2.2
Max g: 16g
30kft (9km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M1.8
Max g: 10g
Max speed, F-106 maximum level speed (M1.8) launch: M2.6
Max g: 18g
SMC
TLDR:
240m/s dV
15g
M1.8
AIM-4G
sea level
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M1.3
Max g: 12g
Max speed, F-106 maximum level speed (M1.1) launch: M1.6
Max g: 15g
10kft (3km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M1.5
Max g: 12g
Max speed, F-106 maximum level speed (M1.4) launch: M1.8
Max g: 15g
20kft (6km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M1.6
Max g: 10g
Max speed, F-106 maximum level speed (M1.6) launch: M2.2
Max g: 16g
30kft (9km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M1.8
Max g: 10g
Max speed, F-106 maximum level speed (M1.8) launch: M2.7
Max g: 18g
SMC
TLDR:
251m/s dV
15g
M1.8
AIM-26B
sea level
Max g (M1.0): 10g
Max g (M1.5): 15g
Max g (M2.0): 18g
10kft (3km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M2.3
Max g: 18g
Max speed, M0.98 launch: M2.4
Max g: 19g
20kft (6km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M2.4
Max g: 15g
Max speed, M1.04 launch: M2.6
Max g: 16g
30kft (9km)
Max speed, M0.8 launch: M2.6
Max g: 12g
Max speed, M1.14 launch: M2.8
Max g: 13g
SMC
TLDR:
577m/s dV
18g
M2.2
2 Likes
As for what the graphs portray those are very accurate, however, the flight tests contradict the graphs and a lot of it is all estimates based on what they have