This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the AIM-9 Sidewinder article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
The intro says "AIM-9 is one of the oldest, least expensive, and most successful", but has a listed cost of over half-million USD ($664,933). Which is more than the ultra expensive Tomahawk cruse missile $569K (USD 1999). http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article1.html says they should be around $55K (USD 1999)Larek (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AIM-9X is very different from the 1999 AIM-9M. The unit cost listed in the box is the total program cost divided by number purchased. I believe this counts all costs, R&D, etc for AIM-9X program. It cost money to make new things and that cost rolls into the unit cost. Maybe that's not what people expect for that infobox item. You could look for something more recent that leaves out program costs. Inflation is also a factor. $569,000 1999 USD for a Tomahawk = $1040704 today. That was 15 years ago and probably didn't count all program costs. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article presently states that the seeker for the pre-FPA (focal plane array) AIM-9's used Cadmium Sulfide photoresistors. I am almost certain that this is NOT the case - in my experience CdS cells are not sensitive to thermal IR at all. I think that the AIM-9B may have used PbS (lead sulfide) but more recent models, like the Lima and Mike, use more sensitive, exotic sensor materials like Indium-Antimonide (InSb) or Mercury Cadmium Teluride (HgCdTe) which are much more sensitive than PbS - and that this was the enabling technology behind the all-aspect ability. The article also states that the nose is glass - glass doesn't transmit thermal (long-wave) IR very well - I think that the AIM-9 seeker window is probably pure Silicon, just like the windows on passive IR sensors used in building motion detectors. Finally, the article states that compressed gas cooling was used for the Mike and Lima. I am not sure but I THOUGHT that Peltier device cooling was used for at least one variant, so that it had an indefinite length of active seeking time while on the rail. Can anyone verify either the article or my recollections? I do not have all the references lined up to actually make these changes to the article. Sbreheny (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in this article that talks about the familiar growl pilots hear when the sidewinder is armed. Thats how many people distinguish this missile from others.
The 'growl' isn't something specific to the Sidewinder... the growl is a feedback mechanism designed to allow the pilot to know how well the seeker tracking the target.SidewinderX (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? I was under the impression that the growl, at least for the reticle-based Sidewinders, was actually the sound of one of the electrical signals in the seeker being fed to the pilot's headphones. In other words, an early "hack" at a simple feedback means which stuck because it worked well. Sbreheny (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that many people besides fighter pilots use the sound an AIM-9 makes on lock-on to distinguish the type of missile; the pilot is the only one who can even hear it, and he ought to know what sort of missiles he is carrying already! The only exception I can think of is maybe people who get a kick out of watching HUD combat footage on Youtube, if any of those videos include the headphone audio. In any case, I don't think the sound is unique to the AIM-9, I think the AIM-9 simply has had the most public exposure.
Early history - the tale of Sidewinder is fascinating and one that China Lake is justifiably proud. Best single reference on web of early days is American Heritage article [1] but there are several books out on the subject that cover same ground.HJ00:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the "General Characteristics" section I've added the version of the missile, since different versions of the Sidewinder obviously have different specifications. From the text, I've guessed it refers to the AIM-9B (it gives the date as 1956). The discussion of the guidance systems of the Sidewinder and Enzian missiles is very interesting and would be made easier to follow with diagrams (& the Enzian description probably wants to go on the page for that missile). -- Cabalamat 00:35, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I do believe the Sidewinder was created at China Lake not Inyokern as stated. In 2002 the 50th anniversary was celebrated for the Sidewinder. If that's the case, Sidewinder's development was done at China Lake in 1952. Quill and Pen (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
needs moar data table.mnemonic 15:10, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
word. i can do a data table for it. however, the problem is youve got a vast variance among the AIM-9. You've got the AIM-9 L, M, and X, as well as this goddamn AGM-122A. So what do you build a table off of, amigo? Avriette 01:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'll have a go at transferring one of the other nicely-laid-out data tables from another missile to this page at some point soon. They do have some things in common, since they're part of the same series, but differences will either have to be in ranges (such as cost) or indicated individually. Dancraggs18:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it's my fault for not finding the pre-existing page for the SIDEARM. however, the two munitions are so closely related that its really better to just merge the two articles. Avriette 01:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That may be, but I think you have it backwards. The Sidearm article should be merged into the Sidewinder article, seeing as the Sidewinder is the older and more widespread missile and the Sidearm was developed from it. Indrian 04:38, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't taking polarity into account when I added the merge notice. I just figured since there was one resultant article that somebody would Do The Right Thing. Thanks. Avriette 06:32, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
There is one sentance that seems to beg for futher elaboration, specifically; "The AIM-9M-7 was a specific modification to AIM-9M in response to threats expected in the Persian Gulf war zone." Nothing about what what modifications were made or what threats were accomidated is mentioned. I would contend that without that supporting information the statement as-is is non-value-added.
The AIM-9X should be a separate article due to the fact its a vast departure from the rest of the AIM-9 series.
Whilst the AIM-9X has many advances on some of the earlier versions, it is still classed as an AIM-9 missile, and as such it should stay on this page so that modifications can be listed in addition to the characteristics of the earlier versions. Dancraggs18:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AIM-9X is truly a significant upgrade and would have been an entirely new missile had the international ASRAAM program proceeded as originally envisioned under the Family of Weapons MOA (US to develop AMRAAM; UK and Germany to develop ASRAAM). However, the German seeker team had issues and ASRAAM ground to stop leading US to initiate AIM-9X to handle latest IRCM threat. Interestingly, UK revived ASRAAM and approached US to rejoin the program, but the the US had not only begun AIM-9X, but upgraded requirement based on recent exploitation of AA-11 Archer (R-73) and was not longer interested in the proposed ASRAAM configuration. Oddly enough, the UK had gone to US Hughes company for a replacement seeker (since the Germans were still in a lurch*) and that seeker is basically the same for both AIM-9X and ASRAAM. AIM-9X does use existing rocket motor, fuze and warhead, which allowed it to proceed more rapidly into development due to lower risk and cost. It is truly "not your father's Sidewinder", but is certainly part of the Sidewinder family.HJ00:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The seeker eventually was developed for IRIS-T SRM
It was not only the seeker of the missile, but the Thrust Vector-Control that made the difference. The soviets used TVC since 1982 in their AA-11, while the Sidewinder still had Canards. It was a big surprise for the NATO-forces 1990, when they realized that all their air-combat-simulations had been useless for years. Goethe528 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note the Aim-9X is a totally different missile systems than the Aim-9, congress refused to pay for a new missile system, so the Aim-9 was "upgraded". Odds are the DOD having seen it work once, will pull this trick again. If you want details you will have to talk to the DOD, since most of the info on the missile system is still classified, as it is still in use.
looking for more info after looking here, I searched google and discovered that the same exact text appears on a number of other sites.
I suspect this article was largely cut and paste
e. Correcting for this spin would normally require some sort of sensor to tell which way is "down" and then adding controls to correct it. Instead, small control surfaces were placed at the rear of the missile with spinning disks on their outer surface. Airflow over the disk spins them to a high speed. If the missile sta
On different websites like www.answers.com and www.search.com I often read my own words and my wikipedia pictures are there too. So if you find some text similar to wiki's, other places, it could have been cut and pasted from wikipedia. Necessary Evil20:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, I noticed that there is no article for the explosive tritonol in Wiki. The chemical Picric acid is very similar or related. It may be used in the fuse or booster but I don't know for sure. The US military makes extensive use of tritonol (i.e. the Mk.8x series et al), it seems important enough for it to have its' own article but I don't have enough information to create the article myself. Any takers? 76.178.173.18013:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it stands for Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode but what is it really and what technology or modifications did it involve? Also, was the AN/AVG-8A VTAS (Visual Target Acquisition Mode) a development that was related to SEAM? Wikiphyte02:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VTAS - Versatile Target Aquisition System developed for Naval Weapons Center (China Lake, CA) approx. 1983. VTAS was used to track airborne weapons via a microwave link for the purposes of testing anti-jamming capabilities etc... VTAS recieved an Outstanding Achievment Award as the first unmaned weapons testing and tracking system. The principle was based on data from a known ground based microwave transponder coupled with an onboard aircraft weapons microwave transponder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.188.49 (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to the US Foreign Cooperative Test (FCT) Program should be Foreign COMPARATIVE Test ... which is exactly what the title implies: Comparing a foreign technology or system against a US one or a US requirement if no US equivalent exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.215.89 (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last week I took this picture at the Dutch Military Aviation Museum, but I can't find anything about the missile. The name would suggest that it is related to the AIM-9, perhaps a paragraph about it is in order? - Dammit (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, but what seems odd to me is that the missile looks so different from the regular variant, the missile I photographed is very short (say 40-50 cm) and even the fins are shaped differently. - Dammit (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Sidewinder missile is composed of sections [3] and the front 40-50 cm is the seeker head and the front movable fins - your picture suggest AIM-9A or -9B as described in [4]. So your picture must IMHO be the front section of a dummy Sidewinder missile. The aft section is the rocket motor and four fixed fins and the middle sections are the warhead and the fuze section. A live warhead and a live rocket motor are too risky to exhibit - so the DIM-9 has perhaps concrete instead. The front end's seeker head is very fragile; when I was in the air force I heard about some armourers who removed a jammed live missile by hitting the seeker head with a wooden wheel chock ;-( That must be why the DIM-9 was invented but the museum has only room for the front section. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk)23:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked an acquaintance about this and they used a ATM-9L for firing practice and a DATM-9L for loading and handling practice. This seem to be confirmed over at designation-systems.net. DIM-9 might be a Dutch designation rather than a United States designation. Two way time (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
while a dummy training bomb can be dropped, it is rare for them to make dummy missiles that can be fired. They woudln't be dummies then, they would be missiles without warheads, but still dangerous because of propellants and other materials. So there is three kinds of dummy missile: inert missiles the same size and shape as the regular missile, but without active seeker or motor or warhead, for training ordnance crews in loading and unloading safely. There are missiles that consist of just a seeker head (since that is the important part as far as pilot training is concerned), which can be attached to an aircraft and used in air combat training to try and acquire a lock on opponent aircraft (considered a 'kill') with zero risk of accidental firing. And there are missiles which combine both functions, with an inert motor and warhead but an active seeker, so both ground crews and aircrews can use them to safely train with, usually painted a distinct color to minimize risk of accidentally loading a live missile. I've never heard of a seeker-only AIM-9, but its certainly possible. Or they simply display the seeker as the part of most interest, assuming most people know what the rest looks like. 64.222.110.16 (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The F22 page refers to the Sidewinder as both an air-to-air and an air-to-ground missile. However this article makes only a mention of an anti-tank experiment in China Lake, regarding the AIM-9s air-to-ground capabilities. Shouldn't this role be covered more extensively? --Ferengi (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you refering to the "Air to ground loadout" in the Specs section? That is the "mission" loadout, what it could carry in the air-to-ground role, with the AIM-9 and -120 for self-defense against other aircraft, not as sir-to-ground weapons. That's all I could find on the F-22 page. Btw, AGM-122 Sidearm was an air-to-ground weapon, made as a modification of old USN AIM-9C stocks. Presumably the airframe, at least the early ones, needed little modification for the role. - BillCJ (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was referring to that section, thanks for clearing it up. Maybe there should be a clarification in the F-22 article regarding what mission loadout and roles are. It would avoid confusion for people with elementary knowledge on the subject like me. --Ferengi (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last line in the comprisemed technology section bothers me.
"In the 1960s, the possession of the K-13 in the Soviet arsenal caused major changes in the USAF bombing tactics, forcing bombers from high-altitudes down to lower levels, below enemy radar coverage."
First, this isn't cited in any way. Second, while the K-13 may have contributed to the change in strategy, I believe the development of high altitude surface-to-air missles, like the SA-2_Guideline had a much larger contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SidewinderX (talk • contribs) 14:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, years ago I saw on discovery channel a documentary about a plane crashed on a lake which was later revealed it was involved in the testing of the aim-9 seeker against solar radiation. seems to be this one: 1948 B-29 Lake Mead crash --Jor70 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In its first combat use by Israel over Lebanon and by the United Kingdom during the Falklands War, the "Lima" reportedly achieved a kill ratio of around 80%..."
I can't dig up the quote (I gave the book away and I can't remember which book - might be Nigel Ward's book "Sea Harrier Over the Falklands"?), but I recall reading that every single Sidewinder fired achieved a kill. If that was so, the hit rate in the Falklands was 100%. Toby Douglass (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the C130 kill, the first missile fired, fell short & the second started a fire on port wing between engines, and Ward then used 240 rounds of 30mm cannon fire (all of it) before the Aircraft fell. Several more Lima’s Fell short & due to some inexperience at least two were not looked when fired, I have added some more data to the Falklands engagements backed up by a ref--Steve Bowen (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The SRM acronym is used in the text but there is no SRM entry in the list of acronyms beginning with "SR" and there is no explanation in the text what the acronym stands for. It's probably "short range missile", but it can't hurt to clarify or link to and update the list of acronyms. AadaamS (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the section "History" there's a paragraph starting with The Sidewinder incorporated a number of innovations over the independently developed World War II German Missile Enzian's "Madrid" IR range fuze that enabled it to be successful. - shouldn't this mention of an apparently unrelated device be edited-out? I don't mean a simple deletion of the above quoted phrase, as the following paragraphs are giving an useful information on the principles of the Sidewinder's seeker operation, but it makes little sense doing it in comparison with an unrelated missile. Perhaps it would be better if this section is moved to the Infrared homing article. (And yes - have I known how to rephrase it, I'd already done it.) --87.249.145.69 (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In the first encounter on 24 September 1958, the Sidewinders were used to ambush the MiG-17s as they flew past the Sabres thinking they were invulnerable to attack. The MiGs broke formation and descended to the altitude of the Sabres in swirling dogfights. This action marked the first successful use of air-to-air missiles in combat in history, and the downed MiG's as their first casualties." This is problematic. It's mostly a word-for-word copy of this source, which says nothing about shoot-downs, only that the Sidewinders disrupted the MiG formation. The bit about "the downed MiG's" (sic) has been added by a Wikipedia editor, presumably based on an enthusiastic misreading of the source. Were any MiGs shot down? How many? 87.115.189.96 (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, a continuous-rod or expanding rod-blast fragmentary warhead is the same thing as an annular blast fragmentary warhead – at least according to the linked article. If there is a difference in the warheads, other than the weight, the current wording fails to express it and the second wikilink is redundant. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just edit it yourself to say what is most likely meant? Ie: change "annular blast fragmentation" to something like "conventional blast/fragmentation warhead". Its obviously what is meant, its easy to verify and would probably have taken less time. Yes I am aware of the irony in this paragraph.94.175.244.252 (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that an annular blast fragmentary warhead was a fragmentation warhead which vectors its fragments in an annular pattern, while a continuous rod warhead expands a connected ring shaped wire in an annular pattern...if it fragments, it effectiveness is halved. I believe the original statement is accurate, regardless of what the linked article says..45Colt03:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In that same year but over Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, 51 out of the 55 Syrian-flown MiGs shot down were hit by Israeli Air Force Sidewinders."
I strongly doubt this, since they had Python 3 missiles at the time. Compare the Python article https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Python_%28missile%29#Python-3 :
"The Python-3 is a much-improved AAM with all-aspect attack ability, higher speed, range, and performance. It performed well before and during the 1982 Lebanon War, scoring 35 (other sources claim 50) kills.[7]"
I suppose the source-less 51/55 claim here is wrong as it most likely includes the Python 3's successes. I delete it for this reason. Feel free to reintroduce it if you have a proper source. Lastdingo (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't this article once explain where the "Sidewinder" name came from, and details about how the seeker was developed from the early spinning mirror into the later staring array, etc? Details about each variant beyond their operational history? The explanation of the name seems especially lacking..45Colt03:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty crappy article, to be sure. Ron Westrum's book is essential reading for this (it's a great book, even makes a good management textbook for technical laboratories too). That covers the early development and the original seekers well.
AIUI though, there really is nothing to the name. It's just a snake with IR hunting. Nothing about the technology or movement beyond that. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The only changes from the AIM-9L to the AIM-9M were related to the Guidance Control Section (GCS). "
The statement directly above this states the missile also received a new motor. One of these two appears incorrect or could use a little touch-up to better explain what it means. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The current article reads; "The warhead features a safe/arm device requiring five seconds at 20 g (~200 m/s²) acceleration before the fuze is armed, giving a minimum range of approximately 2.5 kilometers."
This seems a bit odd. I've looked around for sources but haven't found anything regarding a minimum distance or the electronic safe and arm Device (ESAD), so any further information or documentation/sources on this would be welcome. Alexandre.laroche (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AIUI, it was added as a reaction to the 1967 USS Forrestal fire. Although that was a Zuni rocket, the number of Sidewinders on deck, and the anticipated number post-Vietnam (when the USN would no longer be expected to fight a land war and could go back to being Top Guns) meant that there was an interest in making Sidewinder safer to handle. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The almost complete neglect of the AIM-9F version (thousands were made) despite its substantial technological difference is astonishing. This article is too U.S.-centric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.56.89.115 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The AIM-9 is made up of a number of different components manufactured by different companies, including Aerojet and Raytheon. The missile is divided into four main sections: guidance, target detector, warhead, and rocket motor.
The guidance and control unit (GCU) contains most of the electronics and mechanics that enable the missile to function. At the very front is the IR seeker head utilizing the rotating reticle, mirror, and five CdS cells or "pan and scan" staring array (AIM-9X), electric motor, and armature, all protruding into a glass dome. Directly behind this are the electronics that gather data, interpret signals, and generate the control signals that steer the missile. An umbilical on the side of the GCU attaches to the launcher, which detaches from the missile at launch. To cool the seeker head, a 5,000 psi (34 MPa) argon bottle (TMU-72/B or A/B) is carried internally in Air Force AIM-9L/M variants, while the Navy uses a rail-mounted nitrogen bottle. The AIM-9X model contains a Stirling cryo-engine to cool the seeker elements. Two electric servos power the canards to steer the missile (except AIM-9X). At the back of the GCU is a gas grain generator or thermal battery[citation needed] (AIM-9X) to provide electrical power. The AIM-9X features high off-boresight capability; together with JHMCS (Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System), this missile is capable of locking on to a target that is in its field of regard said to be up to 90 degrees off boresight. The AIM-9X has several unique design features including built-in test to aid in maintenance and reliability, an electronic safe and arm device, and an additional digital umbilical similar to the AMRAAM and jet vane control.
Next is a target detector with four IR emitters and detectors that detect whether the target is moving farther away. When it detects this action taking place, it sends a signal to the warhead safe and arm device to detonate the warhead. Versions older than the AIM-9L featured an influence fuze that relied on the target's magnetic field as input. Current trends in shielded wires and non-magnetic metals in aircraft construction rendered this obsolete.
Recent models of the AIM-9 are configured with an annular-blast fragmentation warhead, the WDU-17B by Argotech Corporation. The case is made from spirally wound spring steel filled with 8 lb (3.6 kg) of PBXN-3 explosive. The warhead features a safe/arm device requiring five seconds at 20 g (~200 m/s²) acceleration before the fuze is armed, giving a minimum range of approximately 2.5 km (1.6 mi).
The Mk36 solid-propellant rocket motor provides propulsion for the missile. A reduced-smoke propellant makes it difficult for a target to see and avoid the missile. This section also features the launch lugs used to hold the missile to the rail of the missile launcher. The forward of the three lugs has two contact buttons that electrically activate the motor igniter. The fins provide stability from an aerodynamic point of view, but it is the "rollerons" at the end of the wings providing gyroscopic precession to free-hinging control surfaces in the tail that prevent the missile from spinning in flight. The wings and fins of the AIM-9X are much smaller and control surfaces are reversed from earlier Sidewinders with the control section located in the rear, while the wings up front provide stability. The AIM-9X also features vectored thrust or jet vane control to increase maneuverability and accuracy, with four vanes inside the exhaust that move as the fins move. The last upgrade to the missile motor on the AIM-9X is the addition of a wire harness that allows communication between the guidance section and the control section, as well as a new 1760 bus to connect the guidance section with the launcher's digital umbilical.
The Sidewinder improved on the World War II-era Madrid IR range fuze used by Messerschmitt's Enzian experimental surface-to-air missile.[citation needed] The first innovation was to replace the "steering" mirror with a forward-facing mirror rotating around a shaft pointed out the front of the missile. The detector was mounted in front of the mirror. When the long axis of the mirror, the missile axis and the line of sight to the target all fell in the same plane, the reflected rays from the target reached the detector (provided the target was not very far off axis). Therefore, the angle of the mirror at the instant of detection (w1) estimated the direction of the target in the roll axis of the missile.
The yaw/pitch (angle w2) direction of the target depended on how far to the outer edge of the mirror the target was. If the target was further off axis, the rays reaching the detector would be reflected from the outer edge of the mirror. If the target was closer on axis, the rays would be reflected from closer to the centre of the mirror. Rotating on a fixed shaft, the mirror's linear speed was higher at the outer edge. Therefore, if a target was further off-axis, its "flash" in the detector occurred for a briefer time, or longer if it was closer to the center. The off-axis angle could then be estimated by the duration of the reflected pulse of infrared.
The Sidewinder also included a dramatically improved guidance algorithm. The Enzian attempted to fly directly at its target, feeding the direction of the telescope into the control system as it if were a joystick. This meant the missile always flew directly at its target, and under most conditions would end up behind it, "chasing" it down. This meant that the missile had to have enough of a speed advantage over its target that it did not run out of fuel during the interception.
However, this system also requires the missile to have a fixed roll-axis orientation. If the missile spins at all, the timing based on the speed of rotation of the mirror is no longer accurate. Correcting for this spin would normally require some sort of sensor to tell which way is "down" and then adding controls to correct it. Instead, small control surfaces were placed at the rear of the missile with spinning disks on their outer surface; these are known as rollerons. Airflow over the disk spins them to a high speed. If the missile starts to roll, the gyroscopic force of the disk drives the control surface into the airflow, cancelling the motion. Thus the Sidewinder team replaced a potentially complex control system with a simple mechanical solution.
The Sidewinder subsequently evolved through a series of upgraded versions with newer, more sensitive seekers with various types of cooling and various propulsion, fuze, and warhead improvements. Although each of those versions had various seeker, cooling, and fusing differences, all but one shared infrared homing. The exception was the U.S. Navy AAM-N-7 Sidewinder IB (later AIM-9C), a Sidewinder with a semi-active radar homing seeker head developed for the F-8 Crusader. Only about 1,000 of these weapons were produced, many of which were later rebuilt as the AGM-122 Sidearmanti-radiation missile.
While the Sidewinder was in development, the United States Air Force (USAF) was developing its own heat seeking missile, the AIM-4 Falcon. The Sidewinder introduced several new technologies that made it simpler and much more reliable than the Falcon. The US DoD directed that the F-4 Phantom be adopted by the USAF. The Air Force originally borrowed F-4B model Phantoms, which were equipped with AIM-9B Sidewinders as the short-range armament. They initially referred to these as the GAR-8, but later adopted the same AIM-9 designation. The first production USAF Phantoms were the F-4C model, which carried the AIM-9B Sidewinder, from December 1964.
In combat in the Vietnam War, the Falcon proved rather disappointing and led to the adoption of the Sidewinder on every aircraft that could accept it. The Falcon could be seen on a number of interceptor aircraft into the 1980s, where its limited capabilities against manoeuvring targets meant little in the anti-bomber role. Outside those uses, the Sidewinder went on to be widely deployed by the USAF on every new fighter design. During the 1960s the USN and USAF pursued their own separate versions of the Sidewinder, but cost considerations later forced the development of common variants beginning with the AIM-9L.
When air combat started over North Vietnam in 1965, Sidewinder was the standard short range missile carried by the US Navy on its F-4 Phantom and F-8 Crusader fighters and could be carried on the A-4 Skyhawk and on the A-7 Corsair for self-defense. The US Air Force also used the Sidewinder on its F-4C Phantoms and when MiGs began challenging strike groups, the F-105 Thunderchief also carried the Sidewinder for self-defense. The USAF opted to carry only AIM-4 Falcon on their F-4D model Phantoms introduced to Vietnam service in 1967, but disappointment with combat use of the Falcon led to a crash effort to reconfigure the F-4D so that it could carry Sidewinders.
The Navy Sidewinder design progression went from the early production B model to the D model that was used extensively in Vietnam. The G and H models followed with new forward canard design improving ACM performance and expanded acquisition modes and improved envelopes. The "Hotel" model followed shortly after the "Golf" and featured a solid state design that improved reliability in the carrier environment where shock from catapult launches and arrested landings had a deteriorating effect on the earlier vacuum tube designs. The Ault report had a strong impact on Sidewinder design, manufacture, and handling.
Once the Air Force adopted the Sidewinder as part of its arsenal, it developed the AIM-9E, introducing it in 1967. The "Echo" was an improved version of the basic AIM-9B featuring larger forward canards as well as a more aerodynamic IR seeker and an improved rocket motor. The missile, however still had to be fired at the rear quarter of the target, a drawback of all early IR missiles. Significant upgrades were applied to the first true dogfight version, the AIM-9J, which was rushed to the South-East Asia Theatre in July 1972 during the Linebacker campaign, in which many aerial encounters with North Vietnamese MiGs occurred. The Juliet model could be launched at up to 7.5g (74 m/s²) and introduced the first solid state components and improved actuators capable of delivering 90 lb⋅ft (120 N⋅m) torque to the canards, thereby improving dogfight prowess. In 1973, Ford began production of an enhanced AIM-9J-1, which was later redesignated the AIM-9N. The AIM-9J was widely exported. The J/N evolved into the P series, with five versions being produced (P1 to P5) including such improvements as new fuzes, reduced-smoke rocket motors, and all-aspect capability on the latest P4 and P5. BGT in Germany has developed a conversion kit for upgrading AIM-9J/N/P guidance and control assemblies to the AIM-9L standard, and this is being marketed as AIM-9JULI. The core of this upgrade is the fitting of the DSQ-29 seeker unit of the AIM-9L, replacing the original J/N/P seeker to give improved capabilities.
As a Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) missile, the AIM-9C could be used from the frontal aspect of the target, provided a radar lock of sufficient quality was obtained.
In combat uses of the AIM-9L, opponents had not developed tactics for the evasion of head-on missile shots with it, making them more vulnerable.[citation needed] The AIM-9L was also the first Sidewinder that was a joint variant used by both the US Navy and Air Force since the AIM-9B. The "Lima" was distinguished from earlier Sidewinder variants by its double delta forward canard configuration and natural metal finish of the guidance and control section. The Lima was also built under license in Europe by a team headed by Diehl BGT Defence. There are a number of "Lima" variants in operational service at present. First developed was the 9L Tactical, which is an upgraded version of the basic 9L missile. Next was the 9L Genetic, which has increased infra-red counter-counter measures (IRCCM); this upgrade consisted of a removable module in the Guidance Control Section (GCS) which provided flare-rejection capability. Next came the 9L(I), which had its IRCCM module hardwired into the GCS, providing improved counter-countermeasures as well as an upgraded seeker system. Diehl BGT also markets the AIM-9L(I)-1 which again upgrades the 9L(I)GCS and is considered an operational equivalent to the initially "US only" AIM-9M.
The subsequent AIM-9M ("Mike") has the all-aspect capability of the L model while providing all-around higher performance. The M model has improved capability against infrared countermeasures, enhanced background discrimination capability, and a reduced-smoke rocket motor. These modifications increase its ability to locate and lock-on to a target and decrease the chance of missile detection. Deliveries of the initial AIM-9M-1 began in 1982. The only changes from the AIM-9L to the AIM-9M were related to the Guidance Control Section (GCS). Several models were introduced in pairs with even numbers designating Navy versions and odd for USAF: AIM-9M-2/3, AIM-9M-4/5, and AIM-9M-6/7 which was rushed to the Persian Gulf area during Operation Desert Shield (1991) to address specific threats expected to be present.
The AIM-9M-8/9 incorporated replacement of five circuit cards and the related motherboard to update infrared counter-countermeasures (IRCCM) capability to improve 9M capability against the latest threat IRCM. The first AIM-9M-8/9 modifications, fielded in 1995, involved deskinning[clarification needed] the guidance section and substitution of circuit cards at the depot level, which is labor-intensive and expensive—as well as removing missiles from inventory during the upgrade period. The AIM-9X concept is to use reprogrammable software to permit upgrades without disassembly.
The Navy began development of AIM-9R, a Sidewinder seeker upgrade in 1987 that featured a focal-plane array (FPA) seeker using video-camera type charge-coupled device (CCD) detectors and featuring increased off-boresight capability. The technology at the time was restricted to visual (daylight) use only and the USAF did not agree on this requirement, preferring another technology path. AIM-9R reached flight test stage before it was cancelled and subsequently both services agreed to a joint development of the AIM-9X variant.
The surfaces may be permanently "clipped", or may fold out when the missile is launched.)
The BOA design reduced size of control surfaces, eliminating the rollerons, and returned to simple forward-canard design. Although the Navy and Air Force had jointly developed and procured AIM-9L/M, BOA was a Navy-only effort supported by internal China Lake Independent Research & Development (IR&D) funding. Meanwhile, the Air Force was pursuing a parallel effort to develop a compressed carriage version of Sidewinder, called Boxoffice, for the F-22. The Joint Chiefs of Staff directed that the services collaborate on AIM-9X, which ended these separate efforts. The results of BOA and Boxoffice were provided to the industry teams competing for AIM-9X, and elements of both can be found in the AIM-9X design.
After looking at advanced short range missile designs during the AIM portion of the ACEVAL/AIMVALJoint Test and Evaluation at Nellis AFB in the 1974–78 timeframe, the Air Force and Navy agreed on the need for the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile AMRAAM. However, agreement over development of an Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile ASRAAM was problematic and disagreement between the Air Force and Navy over design concepts (Air Force had developed AIM-82 and Navy had flight-tested Agile and flown it in AIMVAL). Congress eventually insisted the services work on a joint effort resulting in the AIM-9M, thereby compromising without exploring the improved off boresight and kinematic capability potential offered by Agile. In 1985, the Soviet Union did field a short range missile (SRM) (AA-11 Archer/R-73) that was very similar to Agile. At that point, the Soviet Union took the lead in SRM technology and correspondingly fielded improved infrared countermeasures (IRCM) to defeat or reduce the effectiveness of the latest Sidewinders. With the reunification of Germany and improved relations in the aftermath of the Soviet Union, the West became aware of how potent both the AA-11 and IRCM were and SRM requirements were readdressed.
For a brief period in the late 1980s, an ASRAAM effort led by a European consortium was in play under a Memorandum Of Agreement with the United States in which AMRAAM development would be led by the US and ASRAAM by the Europeans. The UK worked with the aft end of the ASRAAM and Germany developed the seeker (Germany had first-hand experience improving the Sidewinder seeker of the AIM-9J/AIM-9F). By 1990, technical and funding issues had stymied ASRAAM and the program appeared stalled, so in light of the threat of AA-11 and improved IRCM, the US embarked on determining requirements for AIM-9X as a counter to both the AA-11 and improved IRCM features. The first draft of the requirement was ready by 1991 and the primary competitors were Raytheon and Hughes. Later, the UK resolved to revive the ASRAAM development and selected Hughes to provide the seeker technology in the form of a high off-boresight capable Focal Plane Array. However, the UK did not choose to improve the turning kinematic capability of ASRAAM to compete with AA-11. As part of the AIM-9X program, the US conducted a foreign cooperative test of the ASRAAM seeker to evaluate its potential, and an advanced version featuring improved kinematics was proposed as part of the AIM-9X competition. In the end, the Hughes-evolved Sidewinder design, featuring virtually the same British funded seeker as used by ASRAAM, was selected as the winner.
Hi all, I'm cleaning up this article a bit and I'm going to be removing all information solely propagated by Ron Westrum in his book "Sidewinder".
The second half of his information has remained as "citation needed" since May of 2021 and I have had zero luck finding any source that mentions part numbers at all which isn't just a direct copy of this page or which has any other source than the book itself. I'll also be removing the section about Colonel Stig Wennerström for the same reason.
I haven't read the book myself but the citation for this piece of information mentions no page number for reference and for the part numbers being copied there is no citation at all.
Regardless, even if it is mentioned in the book, the book has no named sources or works cited so it would fall under the "no original research" policy. If anybody disagrees with this change please feel free to let me know.
I've cleaned up the page a little bit and added some citations, and I've found a great deal of information regarding the specifications of the early variations, which are very under-represented on the page. However, I've run into some problems with finding and citing sources on these early variants. It seems to be that all of the detailed information on the variations is either on individually run military blogs with no citations or that it is on old USAF documents uploaded by a third party with questionable copyright status. I don't think either of these can be used to provide information. Is there any way to improve this or are there any sources on the early variants that are both public and cite-able?
This table compares AIM-9L, AIM-9M, AIM-9P-4/5 and AIM-9R. Most of the all-aspect section is dedicated to the AIM-9X, which isn't in the table, while the somewhat similar-sounding (per table) AIM-9R isn't mentioned in the article. The AIM-9R is, as I understand it, a cancelled variant that never entered service. The AIM-9M isn't mentioned otherwise in the article, aiui it's a further improvement of the AIM-9L and replaced it in US service, with several sub-variants up to at least AIM-9L-8 / AIM-9L-9. Ideally there would be an explanation of the AIM-9L and AIM-9M relationship, which models are for export, and the AIM-9X in the table instead of the AIM-9R.
I've been looking at the AIM-9 early training missiles and I have found the GDU Series which includes to my understanding the:
GDU-1/B (AIM-9D) (ATM-9D?)
GDU-5/C (?????)
GDU-6/C (AIM-9L) (DATM-9L-1?)
Does anyone have info on the GDU-5/C because all I can find is one reference mentioning it (Linked below), it is most likely a training missile of the G or H as they both already had training variants, but it is unclear. I have also found sources stating that the GDU series were earlier designated versions of the ATM and DATM variants of the missile (Also linked below), can I have clarity on this?
Some users have been adding the Russo-Ukraine War to the weapon's infobox. I've removed the most recent instance of this. Sources so far indicate that the AIM-9X is "reportedly" being sent. I know there were provisions for older AIM-9s to be sent, but I can't seem to locate that, now.
Anyways, if someone can provide a good source, I would appreciate it :)
.svg)
![[3]](http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14024/img/14024_106_1.jpg){kind=link}
