AIM-4.

This coolbert:

This too makes for a very sad and depressing read. A weapons system, that which was to be relied upon during time of war, found that when actually used the performance less than adequate, perhaps MUCH more than less than adequate.

The AIM-4 Falcon. An air to air missile that would have been used as the weapon of choice, American and Canadian interceptor air defense aircraft engaging in combat Soviet long-ranger bomber attacking southward toward North American during a Cold War that became 'hot"! A nuclear conflict the defense of North American airspace the responsibility of NORAD and the various warplanes as carried in the inventory at the time, F-102, F-106, Avro Arrow if it had flown, etc.

The AIM-4 Falcon air to air missile, coming in two versions, radar homing and infra-red homing:

* "The GAR-1 had semi-active radar homing (SARH), giving a range of about 5 miles (8 km)."

* "The GAR-2 (later AIM-4B) was a heat-seeker, generally limited to rear-aspect engagements"

The Falcon, when actually deployed and used in combat during the Vietnam War, missions of air superiority and air supremacy, FOUND TO BE SORELY LACKING, NEXT TO USELESS, IF NOT INDEED TOTALLY USELESS, NOT EVEN WORTH THE EFFORT TO FIRE AT AN OPPONENT AS DESCRIBED BY AMERICAN PILOTS AT THE TIME!!

"The USAF deployed AIM-4 in May 1967 during the Vietnam War . . . The missile's combat performance was very poor."

"By the beginning of June, all hated the new AIM-4 Falcon missiles. I loathed the damned useless things. I wanted my Sidewinders back. In two missions I had fired seven or eight of the bloody things and not one guided. They were worse than I had anticipated. Sometimes they refused to launch; sometimes they just cruised off into the blue without guiding. In the thick of an engagement with my head twisting and turning, trying to keep track of friend and foe, I'd forget which of the four I had (already) selected and couldn't tell which of the remaining was perking and which head was already expiring on its launch rail. Twice upon returning to base I had the tech rep go over the switchology and firing sequences. We never discovered I was doing anything wrong." - - Col. Robin Olds.

That F-4 Phantom designed to operate in a nuclear environment, aircraft in combat not engaging in "dogfights"  as was the case during the Great War and World War Two. Aerial combat thought by the experts to be limited to warplanes firing missiles at one another from a distance, even beyond the line-of-sight, and nothing more. GUNS of the 20 mm Vulcan variety being fitted to the F-4 after the fact, most belatedly so!

This deployment and use in the skies over Vietnam WAS NOT a type of mission as originally envisioned for the Falcon! American and Canadian interceptor aircraft closing on an intruding Soviet bomber and firing Falcons would not have been engaged in a "dogfight", and also have a rear weapons officer to control and initiate the firing sequence [the F-4 had a rear weapons officer too!]. Perhaps, and ONLY perhaps, when used as intended the Falcon would have performed at least adequately? But from the description of Colonel Olds, the Falcon was not up to the task under any circumstances, NOT EVEN close in performance to anticipated, with all that would have meant for NORAD and North American cities under nuclear attack if and when a Soviet attack had actually occurred!!

The damned things just did not work! And that without your adversary even taking any counter-measures!

coolbert.