Red Tops on Phantoms?

[Reparty]

From reading some accounts, there are opinions that the DH Red Top was a superior missile, at least up to the AIM-9D/G era.

But not so much in the later AIM-9L/M as introduced from the early-to-mid 1980s.

 

Just thinking out loud that 4 x Red Tops on an FAA or tactical era Phantom fitted on twin inner pylon launchers would look quite impressive, and give a Sea Vixen a run for its money.

 

[Giorgio N]

The Sidewinder is not comparable to the Red Top as the two missiles are the result of quite different design philosophies.

The Sidewinder was meant as a cheap and lightweight weapon, capable of being used by a large range of aircraft. No particular equipment is required on bord the aircraft to use a Sidewinder, so much that a good number of types with no radar have been wired for use with this missile (for example the Hawk in RAF service).

The Firestreak and the following Red Top missiles were designed to be integrated with sophisticated (for the times) fire control systems and could not be used by types lacking such control systems. They were also larger missiles, with twice the weight and 3 times the warhead.

In a sense we could say that the Red Top was designed to be the primary weapon for an interceptor, being a part of the overall system comprising the aircraft, the fire control system and the missile

The Sidewinder on the other hand was one of the possible weapons carried by a large number of types, integrating other missiles on interceptors and providing self-defemce capabilities to tactical fighters. There were of course exceptions even in USAF service to this, and some types used the Sidewinder as a primary weapon (for example the F-104).

Regarding the Phantom, integrating the Red Top would have made little sense because this type main weapon as interceptor was not the Sidewinder but the Sparrow, a missile with better performance than Red Top. Using the Red Top in place of the Sidewinder for self defence on the other hand would have meant an expensive integration process and it's likely that the missile pylons used for the Sidewinder could have not carried the heavier Red Top.

 

All the above is of course relevant to the real missiles, nothing prevents a modeller from bulding a what-if FAA Phantom with Red Tops.. 😎

[iainpeden]

Apparently it was considered.

 

https://defenceoftherealm.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/weapon-file-red-top/

[Dave Fleming]

Red Top's capability as a bomber interceptor is shown by it's retention in service until the Lighting was phased out (There were plans put forward in the 70s to equip the Lightning with a 4x AIM9 weapons pack) so although dated,. the weapon retained capability - especially in terms of range, speed and warhead size.

 

It's also worth considering that Hawker Siddley started work on a shorter range AAM in the late 60s, and whilst economics and NATO standardisation meant the MOD choose the AIM9 as it's dogfight/short range missile, the work put into Tail Dog and SRAAM led eventually to ASRAAM.

[pigsty]

By some accounts Red Top had an all-aspect capability that the AIM-9 didn't gain until the L/M models came along.  And, unlike Firestreak, all the components were laid out in the right order.

 

Both the British missiles had custom electronics that, being from the 1950s, were full of bulky components like valves and were pretty much tailored to the carrier aircraft.  Adding that to something like a Phantom would have been a nightmare.  The AIM-9 takes much less wiring and, in use, is nearly self-contained, once a cable has been led to the cockpit to allow the pilot to hear the firing cue.  This will have been one reason why the RAF didn't pursue fitting Red Top to the Phantom.  Others will have been the limited number available and, I would guess, the cost of building another smallish batch when thousands of AIM-9s were available.

[Troffa]

10 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

Red Top's capability as a bomber interceptor is shown by it's retention in service until the Lighting was phased out

I would suggest that this fact demonstrates that Red Top Missile, as part of the Integrated Weapon System that was the Lightning, was considered perfectly adequate for it's intended task, and that spending  £N Million on integrating AIM-9 on a platform (Lightning) that was (intended) to be retired by 1980 was considered an unnecessary expense by the Treasury.   (Where N is an Integer between 10 and 200)

 

From a practical aspect, I would be interested to see how much of an extension on a Inboard Pylon would be required to ensure that the Red Top wing would clear a Phantom wing. 

 

[Reparty]

Nothing that an adapted TER couldn't cope with.

[Giorgio N]

On 7/27/2018 at 9:13 PM, pigsty said:

By some accounts Red Top had an all-aspect capability that the AIM-9 didn't gain until the L/M models came along.  And, unlike Firestreak, all the components were laid out in the right order.

.

 

The all.aspect capability of the Red Top has been mentioned quite often but I believe that this should be put into contest. From what I remember reading, this missile could lock head-on on what were considered to be the most difficult targets that the Lightning was supposed to defeat, meaning bombers flying at supersonic speeds. Such a target would have presented quite a large IR signature, sure larger than what the AIM9-L requires for a succesful interception

[Patrick BK]

Fire streak was of it’s time with 50s technology and Redtop was Essentially a transistorised version of fire streak. 

One reallY important factor here would have been reliability, and Redtop wasn’t a great system in reliability terms.

it was supposedly all aspect but only against supersonic enemy aircraft. I am not qualified to comment on earlier versions of Sidewinder but the 9L reallY was all aspect and very reliable. Four 9Ls strappedto a lightningF2A/F6 would have been a better system than a couple of Redtops. As shown  down south, the performance of the 9L was stunning.

The Redtop is long gone, but in my period of engagement with the system, 81-84, (also 9Ls) it certainly wasn’t loved. The Lightning finished in 86, 4 years after the 9L came in service with the Sea Harrier and them floaty boatyard types. Sidewinder versions earlier than the 9L would not have been a suitable update, but the 9L certainly would. I would suggest that service timescales versus costs would have been a huge factor in any decision.

The Redtop would never be considered for a phantom, simply an inferior system

 

 

 

. Simply an inferior system

[fatalbert]

I remember seeing dozens of firestreak missiles on trailers at Hatfield in the Eighties being decommissioned ready for scrapping.

[Patrick BK]

That means they did their job!

[XV107]

1 hour ago, Patrick BK said:

The Redtop would never be considered for a phantom, simply an inferior system

 

It was, briefly,  though - there's at least one file in the National Archives on the matter. From memory, the greater expense of Red Top and a comparison of the respective capabilities of the Red Top and AIM-9 were such that going to the trouble of clearing Red Top for the Phantom couldn't be justified at a time when the UK was a bit short of cash. IIRC, the thinking at the start was that Red Top had some perceived advantages (the warhead's ability to give your average Soviet bomber a bit of a headache being one) which might make it a better option for the UK. These advantages weren't sufficient to see the plan go any further than 'bright idea'.

[Patrick BK]

Possibly when the spam can was being purchased? Look what happened when they decided to install speys! At the time of purchase we were in an economic crisis, cancel TSR2, order and cancel F111 Then settle for phantoms.  I could see an enquiry regarding home grown missiles, but the phantom had an integrated radar and missile system, could The Redtop, which also required an integrated radar system be integrated  with  MCS? Not a chance. The question may have been asked by the bean counters but I would think the answer would have been a very quick negative. The RAF did things like repair throwaway gyros, probably to save bucks, but you can only go so far. Side winder was a strap on and plug in system, Redtop wasn’t. 

Let us not forget size and weight considerations as well. I can’t remember the relative weights, but I think you will find that a Redtop is about 3 times the weight of a winder, much larger bang bit as well. It fires off a rail rather than drop like a sparrow so completely new launch bits as well for clearance purposes.

Still be interested to see a ‘what if’,

[XV107]

From memory, the file is 1965-66 time frame, so certainly while the procurement was underway. As I recall, the warhead weight of AIM-9 was thought to be possibly too light to deal with a Soviet bomber. 

 

One of the former Lightning pilots to be found on Pprune rated the Red Top as decent for its time and better than commentators often suggest, but pretty rapidly overtaken by technology.

[Patrick BK]

You are right about the effectiveness of the early winders versus the soviet bomber fleet. Hang a flare off a wingtip and bobs your uncle.

The Redtop had its problems though. But all systems were subject to updates. 

From conversations I had at STCAAME back in the  mists of time, the Firestreak was probably more reliable. Against this was the limited range and lack of allround detector ability.

 

Her is a further point, the firestreak was essential a tail chase weapon; stick four of them on a Javelin over the North Sea, I wonder what the chances were of getting a Jav to turn onto the rear of a fast moving bomber heading in?  Just a thought...

 

Re prune, you’d better not say anything against the Lightning!