OT: Heat Seeking Missiles

I read this years ago - so from memory.............

During the Indonesian 'conflict' - back in the 1960's - between the UK and then communist Indonesia, out front line fighters were Lightnings and Javelins - the opposition were operating some P-51 Mustangs.

To prepare for any possible A-to-A, the RAF undertook some tests in the UK using a Lightning and the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight Spitfire.

The results proved that the Lightning would have extreme difficulty downing the Spit (read Mustang!) using the then current Firestreak IR missiles. The seeker in the Firestreak was just not sensitive enough to detect the exhaust heat from the Spitfire

The Spit could out-turn the Lightning, but could not shoot it down and the Lightning could not get on the tail of the Spit to use cannon.

The Lightning could disengage at will - and could thus dictate the fight, but it would have had a hard time downing a P-51.

Of course the Firestreak was not exactly the world's best IR missile - and today's missiles are much more sensitive - but I suspect it would not be the walkover that Hollywood - or Raytheon's PR department - would have us believe ???

Ken

Don't you believe it. The AIM-9L version of the Sidewinder is an exceptionally sensitive and accurate missile. The 9L can lock on to the kinetic heating of an airframe in a head-on engagement, so it would have no problem locking on to the exhaust manifold of a piston engine. I used to be in the RAF and I serviced these missiles. Some pilots would take great joy in locking on to civilian light aircraft - with acquisition (ie non-functional) missiles, I hasten to add! :-) One jockey even used to keep a score of his "civvy kills".

Bear in mind that this was nearly ten years ago. Goodness knows how capable modern missiles such as ASRAAM and AIM-9X are... Why do you think that modern combat aircraft have such an extensive countermeasures suite?

Yeah - I used to do the same thing to a guy that used to jump me with an A-7...friend of mine that would recce my voice on the radio. A Cessna

...and I was also willing to fly a lot lower over the desert than he was.

A friedn of mine had been a weapons guy in the USAF back during Vietnam. When he came back to the states he was trained for working on the F-4 weapons systems. The AIM-9D (his words) was capable of locking onto a zippo lighter flame from about 50 yards away. The guy at the end of the big hangar would run back and forth and the rest of the trainees would watch the fins swivel.

Also, the AIM-4 Falcon missiles were fired in anger by F-102's against ground equipment during the war in Vietnam. I read this in the Wings of Fame artice on the F-102.

I've been told by a couple of pilots that the the Israelis have even used AIM-9's and Pythons against ground targets when no other options were available. I can easily see that a continuous rod warhead would be fairly effective against light skinned vehicles.

Hope this helps!

-andy

What is a "continuous rod warhead"?

Doug Wagner

The AIM-9C version was not a heat-seeker. Instead it had a semi-active radar homing seeker. While unsuccessful in its original air-to-air role, the AIM-9C was modified for use as an anti-radar missile with the designation AGM-122 Sidearm. Apparently it was used with some success in Desert Storm by USMC AH-1s.

Speaking of Desert Storm, the RAF Jaguars had a couple of Air to Ground kills using AIM9s - however, these were launched in mistake due to weapons selection errors.

Remove nospam to reply!!

PaPaPeng wrote

That would take some fancy flying and split-second timing. At the closing rates involved, it would be almost superhuman, I would think. Especially if there's a need to wait for the engine to spool up to speed and then a wait for the 'burner to light. But then, I'm not a jet jockey, either, so maybe it's not all that difficult... (c:

RobG

Actually, (being a former jet engine designer...) there is no (or very little notable) change in RPM between MIL power and MAX. The burner just lights. You get the extra thrust from adding heat to the cycle to increase the velocity of the gas post-turbine exit - hence the term "re-heat" across the pond. No spool time, but htere can be a light-off delay depending on where you are in the flight envelope - high and right is bad.

And I'd still think a P-51 wouldn't have much of a problem crossing the jet-wake if the pilot just let go of the controls and then recovered from the dive...a jet might produce some pop or locked stalls due to a rise in inlet distortion or temp (an F-14A might have a particularly hard time...) but that Allison or Rolls should keep on chuggin'.

As I've said previously, I'd just hit him with a close, Mach 1.5+ sonic boom. At a lower altitude, if possible...

Good thought. I suspect a P-51 would have a greater fuel endurance.

If you had such a gun onboard. There were several Marks that were gunless.

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.