AIM-9Ls - UK service - 1982
Thread Starter
AIM-9Ls - UK service - 1982
Hi,
This question raises its head quite a few times during debates. I would be grateful if someone could provide a definitive answer?
Was there any AIM-9Ls in UK hands before the Falklands? If so were these the missiles declared as part of UK NATO war stocks?
A common belief is that the US agreed to sell to the UK the very next batch of AIM-9L that was manufactured, allowing the UK to both use the AIM-9Ls and maintain the NATO war stock. Thanks in advance for any replies.
This question raises its head quite a few times during debates. I would be grateful if someone could provide a definitive answer?
Was there any AIM-9Ls in UK hands before the Falklands? If so were these the missiles declared as part of UK NATO war stocks?
A common belief is that the US agreed to sell to the UK the very next batch of AIM-9L that was manufactured, allowing the UK to both use the AIM-9Ls and maintain the NATO war stock. Thanks in advance for any replies.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Memory fades, but as far as I can remember they were on order, but not delivered by April 1, 1982. Shipments were expedited from US stocks, perhaps the C-130 contingent can provide more gen.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crucial Falklands role played by US missiles
Nicholas Watt
Friday September 6, 2002
The Guardian
Margaret Thatcher would have lost the Falklands war in 1982 if America had failed to provide crucial missiles to bolster British air defences, according to an adviser to the former prime minister.
America, which angered the Thatcher government with its initially even-handed approach to the conflict, was believed to have provided little more than intelligence once Washington lost patience with the Argentinians.
But British and American officials say in the BBC documentary that Washington provided the latest Sidewinder missiles at 48 hours' notice after the British task force came under fire.
Lord Renwick, a senior diplomat in the British embassy in Washington, who went on to become ambassador, told the programme: "My role was to go along to the Pentagon and ask them for 105 Sidewinder missiles. These were the very latest version, which were far more accurate than the earlier versions and we wanted them delivered within 48 hours. That meant stripping part of the frontline US air force of those missiles and sending them to the South Atlantic."
Lord Powell of Bayswater, Lady Thatcher's key foreign affairs adviser, said that Britain would have lost the war without such assistance.
His remarks were echoed by Richard Perle, an assistant US defence secretary at the time, who said: "Britain would probably have lost the war without American assistance. That's how significant it was."
Nicholas Watt
Friday September 6, 2002
The Guardian
Margaret Thatcher would have lost the Falklands war in 1982 if America had failed to provide crucial missiles to bolster British air defences, according to an adviser to the former prime minister.
America, which angered the Thatcher government with its initially even-handed approach to the conflict, was believed to have provided little more than intelligence once Washington lost patience with the Argentinians.
But British and American officials say in the BBC documentary that Washington provided the latest Sidewinder missiles at 48 hours' notice after the British task force came under fire.
Lord Renwick, a senior diplomat in the British embassy in Washington, who went on to become ambassador, told the programme: "My role was to go along to the Pentagon and ask them for 105 Sidewinder missiles. These were the very latest version, which were far more accurate than the earlier versions and we wanted them delivered within 48 hours. That meant stripping part of the frontline US air force of those missiles and sending them to the South Atlantic."
Lord Powell of Bayswater, Lady Thatcher's key foreign affairs adviser, said that Britain would have lost the war without such assistance.
His remarks were echoed by Richard Perle, an assistant US defence secretary at the time, who said: "Britain would probably have lost the war without American assistance. That's how significant it was."
Thread Starter
Thanks for giving me and many others on here a laugh!
An example of why 'The Guardian' should only be used to wrap fish and chips in!
Obviously the journalist and his sources had never heard of the AIM-9G! Most of the take downs of Argentine aircraft were rear-hemisphere which the G model could have easily coped with. IIRC there was only one attempted head-on shot.
An example of why 'The Guardian' should only be used to wrap fish and chips in!
Obviously the journalist and his sources had never heard of the AIM-9G! Most of the take downs of Argentine aircraft were rear-hemisphere which the G model could have easily coped with. IIRC there was only one attempted head-on shot.
But that was mainly due to the SHAR FRS1 being very new and the crews having had little time to practise autonomous radar intercepts in single seat fighters with head sector 9 Limas....
Most Mx kills were eyeball shots which 9Gs could have been used for; however, it wasn't just the wider aspect capability of the 9Ls which made them so tasty!
Most Mx kills were eyeball shots which 9Gs could have been used for; however, it wasn't just the wider aspect capability of the 9Ls which made them so tasty!
Suspicion breeds confidence
IIRC, the only time a head on lock-on was attempted it didn't work 
So they were all rear aspect kills. I beleive the L has a superior design warhead and proxy fuse to the G as well.
So they were all rear aspect kills. I beleive the L has a superior design warhead and proxy fuse to the G as well.
We had 9l's before the war, then they all suddenly vanished!
When reading the combat reports during dull moments in FI ( after the fighting!), it seemed to us that most of the kills were Christmas presents.
When reading the combat reports during dull moments in FI ( after the fighting!), it seemed to us that most of the kills were Christmas presents.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't we 'borrow' some from a NATO store on the QT? (duty rumor in ’83)
It's better to take and ask forgiveness afterwards than to seek permission beforehand and be turned down
It's better to take and ask forgiveness afterwards than to seek permission beforehand and be turned down
We had them briefly for the Wattisham F-4 wing _before_ the "conflict". They disappeared rather rapidly the weekend before the Task Force sailed.
Don't know whose inventory they were on.
Don't know whose inventory they were on.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Fife
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AiM9Ls
Sorry to come to this topic late. However, apart from the head-on aspect, a major advantage of the L over the G and earlier variants was its ability to counter the flare threat.
Wiggy, I think your memory is playing you tricks about the Wtm Wg getting 9Ls before the conflict. If my memory serves me right, our boffins developed the SWIFT mod for the 9G at extremely short notice in the lead-up to the conflict just in caser we couldn't get our hands on any Ls. Also, after the conflict we had to persevere with 9G(SWIFT)s for some time before getting Ls as the 9L procurement was earmarked for the SHAR.
Wiggy, I think your memory is playing you tricks about the Wtm Wg getting 9Ls before the conflict. If my memory serves me right, our boffins developed the SWIFT mod for the 9G at extremely short notice in the lead-up to the conflict just in caser we couldn't get our hands on any Ls. Also, after the conflict we had to persevere with 9G(SWIFT)s for some time before getting Ls as the 9L procurement was earmarked for the SHAR.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The British part of the EU
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But weren't the AIM 9 L's the self same missiles that had those pesky 'remove before flight' tags and pins removed by the (ever helpful) VC10 loadmonsters..........
No, those were Sea-somethings. Sea Skuas?
SWIFT didn't do anything to improve the off-boresight capability of the -9G. Are you sure you didn't mean SEAM? I remember claiming Fox 2s with SEAM which were hotly contended until QWIN checked the range and angle off!
SWIFT was very, very secret squirrel, IIRC.....
SWIFT didn't do anything to improve the off-boresight capability of the -9G. Are you sure you didn't mean SEAM? I remember claiming Fox 2s with SEAM which were hotly contended until QWIN checked the range and angle off!
SWIFT was very, very secret squirrel, IIRC.....
Last edited by BEagle; 16th Apr 2005 at 20:03.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Rompers Green
Age: 69
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags Think you are wrong. You can carry about 16 sidewinders in racking on a pallet and the missiles would be exposed and have their remove before flight flags on show. Sea Skuas / Slugs = Big Bullet in a big box – No flag visible!
The GR3’s had a last minute lash up job to carry sidewinders IIRC. I remember just after the war one of them had snag (probably with his weight on switches) and dropped two as he did a vertical take off from the tin strip at Stanley. Unfortunately one of them ploughed through a group of passengers waiting for Albert to arrive and take them home. Some nasty injuries but fortunately no one killed
The GR3’s had a last minute lash up job to carry sidewinders IIRC. I remember just after the war one of them had snag (probably with his weight on switches) and dropped two as he did a vertical take off from the tin strip at Stanley. Unfortunately one of them ploughed through a group of passengers waiting for Albert to arrive and take them home. Some nasty injuries but fortunately no one killed
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Fife
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aim9L
BEagle
SWIFT = SideWinder in Flare Threat, i.e. a mod that enabled the 9G to 'ignore' flares and home on exhaust IR.
SEAM = SideWinder Expanded Acquisition Mode. Must admit I can't remember what that did - probably because I never really understood it!
SWIFT = SideWinder in Flare Threat, i.e. a mod that enabled the 9G to 'ignore' flares and home on exhaust IR.
SEAM = SideWinder Expanded Acquisition Mode. Must admit I can't remember what that did - probably because I never really understood it!
It drove the seeker head into an expanded search pattern; thus you could fire the thing in lag as long as the seeker head could see the target and you weren't outside missile aerodynamic limits......I think. There was a SEAM/BST switch in the front and I think that the nws button was also used to slave the seeker head to the MCS? If this is bolleaux, please don't be too harsh as it was about 23 years ago!
I thought SWIFT was SideWinder Improved Flare Technology? And I know how it achieved that, but that might still be classified?
I thought SWIFT was SideWinder Improved Flare Technology? And I know how it achieved that, but that might still be classified?
Last edited by BEagle; 16th Apr 2005 at 22:31.
grobace
Have to agree to disagree about the Wattisham 9Ls in 82.
As to SWIFT, I spoke to some of the "boffins"at STCAAME in the early 80s, it certainly was not something that was invented and rushed into service, Barnes Wallis style.
Also, as I'm sure you know, it would not turn a G into an L; it was something else entirely.
(Could SWIFT even be fitted to the G? From fading memory I recall the SWIFT hardware was installed where the coolant bottle went on the American 9L's )
BEagle -You described SEAM pretty much as I remember it.
Have to agree to disagree about the Wattisham 9Ls in 82.
As to SWIFT, I spoke to some of the "boffins"at STCAAME in the early 80s, it certainly was not something that was invented and rushed into service, Barnes Wallis style.
Also, as I'm sure you know, it would not turn a G into an L; it was something else entirely.
(Could SWIFT even be fitted to the G? From fading memory I recall the SWIFT hardware was installed where the coolant bottle went on the American 9L's )
BEagle -You described SEAM pretty much as I remember it.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Fife
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AiM9Ls
Wiggy
We'll just have to agree to disagree about when the 9L came into RAF service unless someone in Air Def at the time comes up with a definitive answer.
However, notwithstanding what the STCAAME boffins said to you - and some of them were pretty good at the bull**** baffles brains bit - I am fairly sure about the background to SWIFT. Also, it was never used on the 9L (no need), but was indeed a module which went into the redundant space for a US-type coolant bottle on the 9G. Earlier versions of the AiM-9 also had this coolant bottle space, or at least the 9B did; I know 'cos I flew wirth 9Bs strapped on quite a few years ago.
For BEagle - I can't remember now exactly what the acronym SWIFT stood for, but like you, I have a recollection of what it did and how it achieved its aim. But I don't think we need to elaborate on that in this forum!
Finally, for Wiggy, thanks for your PM.
We'll just have to agree to disagree about when the 9L came into RAF service unless someone in Air Def at the time comes up with a definitive answer.
However, notwithstanding what the STCAAME boffins said to you - and some of them were pretty good at the bull**** baffles brains bit - I am fairly sure about the background to SWIFT. Also, it was never used on the 9L (no need), but was indeed a module which went into the redundant space for a US-type coolant bottle on the 9G. Earlier versions of the AiM-9 also had this coolant bottle space, or at least the 9B did; I know 'cos I flew wirth 9Bs strapped on quite a few years ago.
For BEagle - I can't remember now exactly what the acronym SWIFT stood for, but like you, I have a recollection of what it did and how it achieved its aim. But I don't think we need to elaborate on that in this forum!
Finally, for Wiggy, thanks for your PM.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grobace
You are wrong about 9L/SWIFT, it had a unique identifier but will not give any more detail here.
Beagle
You are pretty spot on a but SEAM, it drove an epicyclic scan pattern about the slave angle, bit like a daisy shape drawn by spirograph. It was driven from a something called the SEAM processor that was fitted to the MCS as a mod in the early 80's.
I heard the pins story as winder as well.
The IR detection side of 9L was also very different to 9G.
I recall the GR3 accident as being caused by jettison being selected on the ground. The rocket motors fired as the WOW came off, but the warheads were not armed. Regrettably, they did cause very serious injuries
Regards
Retard
You are wrong about 9L/SWIFT, it had a unique identifier but will not give any more detail here.
Beagle
You are pretty spot on a but SEAM, it drove an epicyclic scan pattern about the slave angle, bit like a daisy shape drawn by spirograph. It was driven from a something called the SEAM processor that was fitted to the MCS as a mod in the early 80's.
I heard the pins story as winder as well.
The IR detection side of 9L was also very different to 9G.
I recall the GR3 accident as being caused by jettison being selected on the ground. The rocket motors fired as the WOW came off, but the warheads were not armed. Regrettably, they did cause very serious injuries
Regards
Retard
A 'heptacyclic' pattern, IIRC? 7 'petal' search pattern around the origin?
And II also RC, many of the SEAM processors which were first fitted were NFG?
And II also RC, many of the SEAM processors which were first fitted were NFG?