Benjdragon
Airman
- 13
- Sep 18, 2015
Would a modern imaging infra-red seeker head be able to lock onto a piston engine WW2 type aircraft, like a Japanese Zero or a ME-109.
Modern missile seeker heads.
- Thread starter Benjdragon
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Sounds silly, but I have wondered the same!
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Biff will weigh in on this, but I pretty much know what he'll say.
And that would be yes.
Modern technology in missiles use more than heat, they use a combination of radar and passive infra-red and the prop of a WWII fighter creates a large enough "image" for a missile to lock onto, not including the engine block and exhaust.
Matter of fact, the technology is such, that a lock (at closer ranges) can be made on even a Nieuport 17 (or comparable WWI aircraft).
And that would be yes.
Modern technology in missiles use more than heat, they use a combination of radar and passive infra-red and the prop of a WWII fighter creates a large enough "image" for a missile to lock onto, not including the engine block and exhaust.
Matter of fact, the technology is such, that a lock (at closer ranges) can be made on even a Nieuport 17 (or comparable WWI aircraft).
Gents,
I've not uncaged (heat seeker self track phraseology) on a WW2 aircraft, I would think it would have no problem with it. The AIM-9X was the last version I flew with and it was awesome compared to the version that preceded it by light years! Good missile.
Cheers,
Biff
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Biff, the AIM-9G was able to "see" even the heat generated from a propeller, but did you have any experience with the AIM-120?
The combination of radar and infra-red sounds like it would be nearly impossible to beat.
The combination of radar and infra-red sounds like it would be nearly impossible to beat.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
That's a good question, but it seems to me that unless the pilot saw the inbound missile at a distance, the rate of closure would be too great for them to react in time.
GrauGeist,
I have flown with AIM-9M/9X, AIM-7M/MH, and AIM-120 A, B, and C. None are dual seekers. The 9 is a heat seeker, the 7 is semi-active and the 120 is active. The US doesn't to my knowledge use a multi spectrum seeker.
AIM-120 should not have a problem with a prop driven aircraft.
Cheers,
Biff
Elmas,
The AIM9X would not have a problem turning with a Zero. However to complete the intercept the missiles are usually very much supersonic and turn radius is not much of a factor in its success or failure.
Counter measures and maneuvering prior to intercept are the biggest factors to success or failure.
Cheers,
Biff
Thanks Biff!
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
So, all we needed in 1942 to defeat the dreaded Zero were heat seeking missiles? Bad planning by the AAF!
For some reason this thread reminds me of a cartoon series or books where there was a massive EMP detonation and countries were scrambling to get ww2 and later prop planes to work to do battle again. Some were adapting newer weapons to older platforms. for the life of me I can't remember the name of it.
I have those books from when I was a kid...
The Seventh Carrier was the name of the series...
Token
Senior Airman
Yes.
AIM-9X has an advertised air-to-ground mode of operation. It is far harder to track and kill a moving truck in the desert than a piston engine airplane in blue sky.
IR seekers work by contrast, not gross temperature. Higher temperatures essentially just mean greater contrast. Older, non-imaging, seekers, like Stinger Block 1 and SA-14/16/18, can easily track prop / reciprocating engine aircraft. Even uncooled first generation IR seekers, like SA-7, can do so. For confirmation you have to look no further than the shoot down of T&G Aviations DC-7 on Dec 8, 1988. This aircraft was killed by an uncooled SA-7. And there are many videos / pictures out there of early AIM-9's killing F6F-xK's at China Lake.
Uncooled AIM-9B taking out an F6F:
T!
Last edited:
Glider
Captain
I think I am right in saying that the old Red Top missile could home onto the heat of the targets fuselage that had been heated by the friction with the air. Assuming that is correct, then homing onto a hot engine would be pretty straight forward.
Token
Senior Airman
I have never uncaged a 9X on anything, but I have done various earlier versions (D to M), as well as MANPADs, on multiple targets, including small gas powered drones, GA aircraft, and reciprocating engine helos. No problem.
T!
Yup that was it, thanks for the reminder...
