So is the AIM-9A, by our current standards.Weird Harold wrote:Why would you hamstring your "fighter" with a POS like the AIM-4?
Yes, the AIM-9 got the contract.Weird Harold wrote:There is a very good reason that the AIM-4 is no longer in service.
The only thing POS about the AIM-4 is that it didn't receive the upgrades the AIM-9 had. It has some other advantages, primarily length (6.6' Vs 10'), it's much shorter than the AIM-9 and takes up less bay length. It's also faster and very similar to the AGM-65 Maverick. so any unit that can operate the Maverick can be adapted to use an IR updated Falcon with no need to alter the launch rail system.
Not really, the Israeli nickname for the early AIM-9 mods was the Hebrew word for "Bomb", the engine was highly unreliable (the reason US pilots in VN took to ripple firing 2 missiles at a target - so maybe one would work right). Proper upgrades to the AIM-4, with the addition of modern IR directors, would bring it up to modern standards and provide a missile that could easily be fitted to any ground attract aircraft (including helicopters) that currently use the AGM-65 Maverick without the need for a special long rail being attached to carry it.Dilandu wrote:Basically, the AIM-4 wasn't bad; just the AIM-9 was perfect.
(though this is getting off-topic of ships)