WI: AIM-68 Quetzalcoatl/Big Q Missile Adopted?

Delta Force

Banned
The AIM-68 Quetzalcoatl/Big Q was intended as a replacement for the AIR-2 Genie nuclear rocket. It would have been faster (Mach 4 vs. Mach 3), longer ranged (over 40 miles vs. 6 miles) and lighter (500 pounds vs. 800 pounds) than the Genie, and would have been armed with a 0.5 kiloton warhead, possibly the W30. Although smaller than the 1.5 kiloton W25 on the Genie, the focus was more on intercepting single bombers, and possibly maneuvering aircraft.

As interesting as a replacement for the Genie would have been, I'm thinking a conventional variant could have been even more interesting as a replacement or supplement for the AIM-7 Sparrow, as it would have higher or comparable speed and range while carrying a heavier warhead in a more compact (although somewhat heavier) design. The main issue is that the AIM-68 would have used guidance systems from the AIM-4 Falcon, but perhaps that would have lead to both the AIM-68, AIM-4, and/or the AIM-26 Falcon receiving some of the improved guidance systems planned for the Falcon, rather than being abandoned in favor of the AIM-9 Sidewinder.

So I'm wondering, could the AIM-68 Big Q and improved variants of the AIM-4 Falcon and/or AIM-26 Falcon have been viable alternatives to the AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-7 Sparrow used by the United States Navy and eventually adopted by the Air Force instead of the Falcon missiles?
 
don't think so, the Navy had better PR for the Sidewinder, as the stats show that the Falcon wasn't noticeably worse in A-A hits, and the radar Falcons were better than the Sparrows.

Later Falcons did have proximity fuzing, one of the problems found over SEAsia

The Swedes kept building Falcons under license till they retired the Daken fighters.

To keep them in US service, probably would have needed for USAF Fighters to have more shootdowns with them
 
Obviously an interceptor missile, so you need the USAF to keep flying dedicated interceptors, which means a credible Soviet bomber threat. As with many things, avoiding the quagmire of Vietnam helps too.
 
Unless you limit USAF to interception, which means staying out of every war it's fought since 1953,:rolleyes: increased BVR performance is no help. Even with an HE warhead, you can't fire into a furball...:eek::rolleyes:
 

Delta Force

Banned
I was thinking more in terms of a dogfighting missile. From what I've read, the Falcon series didn't perform that much worse than the Sidewinder, which is more remarkable considering that the Falcon had a contact fuze instead of a proximity fuse, had problems with a limited coolant supply, and was never designed for dogfighting.
 
I knew Weapons troops in the Air Force that worked on both Falcons and Sidewinders and everyone HATED Falcons.There were many maintenance procedures that could only be performed by Hughes personnel and missles would come back and fail to pass acceptance checks and have to be turned back over to Hughes for repair. Hughes would sometimes refuse to accept them back since they had passed their checks when turned over to the operational troops. I was told by a few pilots who had flown them that the acquisition parameters were horrible. They were very happy when their F-4Cs &Ds were reconfigured to carry AIM-9s
 

Delta Force

Banned
I knew Weapons troops in the Air Force that worked on both Falcons and Sidewinders and everyone HATED Falcons.There were many maintenance procedures that could only be performed by Hughes personnel and missles would come back and fail to pass acceptance checks and have to be turned back over to Hughes for repair. Hughes would sometimes refuse to accept them back since they had passed their checks when turned over to the operational troops. I was told by a few pilots who had flown them that the acquisition parameters were horrible. They were very happy when their F-4Cs &Ds were reconfigured to carry AIM-9s

So I guess when it worked it worked quite well, the key qualifier being when it worked?
 
Has anyone ever read the 'Ault Report'? It provides some fascinating insights into AAMs in the Vietnam era, particularly the back end of rework, loading and having 'up' fire control systems.

BTW Quetzalcoatl is about the dumbest name for a weapon ever.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Has anyone ever read the 'Ault Report'? It provides some fascinating insights into AAMs in the Vietnam era, particularly the back end of rework, loading and having 'up' fire control systems.

I read that a while ago. What did it have to say about the AIM-4?

BTW Quetzalcoatl is about the dumbest name for a weapon ever.

The Gearing class is the Quetzalcoatl class in Mexican service, but the Aztecs lived in Mexico.
 
I read that a while ago. What did it have to say about the AIM-4?



The Gearing class is the Quetzalcoatl class in Mexican service, but the Aztecs lived in Mexico.

Nothing, it was a Navy report and the Navy didn't use the AIM4.

Yes, the Aztecs were Mexican and they use words with lots of 'z's in them all the time.
 
AIUI, that is a good description for a lot of weapon and sensor systems in use during the 50's-70's(the A-6 Intruder systems come to mind).

The Ault Report mentioned the A6, it said that the A6 squadrons didn't consider an A6 serviceable unless the sensor/weapons system was serviceable, so wouldn't launch an aircraft with u/s systems. In contrast F4 squadrons would still launch aircraft whose sensors/weapons systems were u/s, which didn't help air to air performance.
 
Top