"David E. Powell" wrote in message
s.com...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message m, David
E. Powell writes
Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and
other
fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.

No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against
fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low
priority for replacement or enhancement.

Whoa - Considering how long they served I would have thought the opposite.

No, Paul is correct. The Falcon did not have a very good record (F-4D's
accounted for five Migs with it over Vietnam). But remember that it was
really the first generation AAM in the USAF. A good summary of the Falcon
and its capabilities can be found at Andreas' site:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html

Maybe it was felt they had better odds against bombers.

It probably would have.

Or there was some
sort of upgrade by the '80s. Considering alot of ANG fighters that
escorted
bombers up and down the seacost in the Cold War carried them.

The Falcon did go through upgrades throughout its career. The final ones in
service (AIM-4F/G limited to use on the F-106) were undoubtedly better and
more capable than the early sixties variants, with greater range, larger
warheads, and better maneuverability than the original AIM-4A and later
AIM-4D. It still was not a 8great* missile, but developing further
improvments or going to the expense of trying to integrate a newer missile
into the F-106 as it approached the twilight of its career was not going to
happen.

The Swedes produced their own conventionally armed variant of the AIM-26,
the Rb-27, which served with their Drakens (and IIRC Viggens) up through the
mid-eighties.


I wonder if GWB ever flew with the nuclear version....?

Who knows? But it would have been unlikely, as the AIM-26 was phased out of
US service by 1971.

Brooks


DEP

Maybe that's why the F-106 got a cannon....