Sidewinder
The missile that has rattled enemy pilots since 1958.
- By Preston Lerner
- Air & Space magazine, November 2010
During Desert Storm, most fighters packed Sidewinders: F-16s armed with the missiles await the next mission.
USAF/TSGT Fernando Serna
(Page 3 of 5)
Several years of development passed before the missile was ready to be fired in a simulated combat environment. In August 1952, astronaut-to-be Wally Schirra, flying an AD-4 Skyraider, launched a heat-seeker toward a propeller-driven Grumman F6F Hellcat that had been turned into a radio-controlled drone. Final score: Hellcat 1, Sidewinder 0. In fact, all 12 of the first Sidewinders missed the target. On several tests, Amlie flew in the right seat of the attack aircraft. After one failure, he wrote a memo quoted by Elizabeth Babcock in her history of China Lake, Magnificent Mavericks: “Missile took off like a big-assed bird, never saw it again.”
The 13th test, on September 11, 1953, was the charm. The Sidewinder fired by Lieutenant Commander Al Yesensky missed the drone by two feet, but if the missile had been equipped with a warhead and a proximity fuse, it would have destroyed the Hellcat, so the shot was declared a success. Four months later, an unarmed Sidewinder scored its first direct hit, punching a hole through the number 1 engine of a QB-17 drone. Then, on February 17, 1954, the Sidewinder did the unthinkable: It brought down—in cartwheeling flames—another QB-17 thought to be indestructible because it had survived so many missile attacks over the years.
The Sidewinder had shown its fangs.
CONVENTIONAL MILITARY WISDOM circa 1967 held that close-in dogfights were a relic of the past. Radar-guided AIM-7 Sparrows, developed by Sperry Gyroscope and Douglas Aircraft and first deployed in 1958, were supposed to take out bogeys while they were still miles away, and if that didn’t work, AIM-9 Sidewinders would finish the job long before enemy pilots got close enough to fire cannon. Thus, the F-4B Phantom wasn’t even equipped with a gun. Which meant that Navy Lieutenant Denny Wisely couldn’t do anything other than give his North Vietnamese adversary the finger as they passed canopy to canopy in the airspace near Hanoi.
The date was April 24, 1967, and Wisely was embroiled in an epic furball: three F-4s against eight or nine MiG-17s. Twice, he was in position to fire the gun he didn’t have. Compounding the problem, his Phantom had been loaded with only one Sidewinder instead of the usual four (a fast turnaround of the aircraft between missions didn’t leave enough time for ground crews to install the full ordnance load). He was carrying four Sparrows, but he figured he was too close to the nimble MiGs to use the long-range missiles.
“We’re not going to get radar lock in this environment,” Wisely recalls radioing his backseater, Lieutenant (junior grade) Gary Anderson. “I’ll just keep pulling the airplane up, using the afterburner as necessary, then unloading it and turning so you can reach around in your seat and really check our six.”
Zooming up and down between the treetops and 5,000 feet, Wisely waited for the right shot for his single Sidewinder. Twice, he saw Sparrows punched off by other Phantoms fly harmlessly into the distance. Then he spotted a MiG sidling in behind an F-4. Wisely rushed in behind it, heard his Sidewinder growling, and fired. Another North Vietnamese pilot must have alerted Wisely’s prey. But as the MiG banked right to escape the missile, the ’Winder struck and exploded.
“It was just ‘Thank you very much, MiG,’ ” Wisely says today.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »





Comments (10)
The story behind the development of the sidewinder is more interesting than the missile. If I have my facts correct, the early development occurred without authorized funding of any kind, and it was only much later in the development cycle that the project was legitimized.
Posted by robert jansen on September 15,2010 | 02:54 PM
Can somebody explain how the "expanding rod warhead" worked on the sidewinder ? I've never really figured that one out......
Posted by Jim Page on September 21,2010 | 11:37 AM
Expanding rod warheads - used on a variety of missles including the Talos (don't know if any current missles use them) - are pretty neat. A circle of heavy wire is spooled around the explosive charge. The charge is fired by a proximity fuse when the missle is in the right location relative to the target aircraft. When detonated the wire expands at very high speed in an enlarging ring. When the wire impacts on the plane the wire slices through a large length of the aircraft's skin, weakening the integrated structure so the aircraft fails structurally and goes down.
GP
Posted by Gregory Paul on September 25,2010 | 02:29 PM
I believe Jansen is right. An engineer at China Lake figured out that a plain old 5" HVAR could be configured with a heat seeker and fins to guide it. He put them together and they worked! Great weapon. To my knowledge there were no expanding rod warheads. They did not need them since they flew right up the tailpipe of the target aircraft and exploded.
From the PI, we flew P5Ms on the Formosa Patrol in '54 and '55. We were there to ensure that the Chinats and Chicoms did not go at it. One night at 6000 ft with darkened ship, a large flight of F86s crossed dead ahead of us going west to China. We assumed they were headed for White Cloud, a new Chicom airfield near Canton. Next day we heard on the QT that those Chinats were armed with new sidewinders and blew some 20 MIGs out of the air. The Chicoms were screaming bloody murder and violations of international law.
Note: Paul's description is correct. I saw movies of expanding rod warheads used on old target drone B17s. They were nasty and cut the tail off the aircraft.
Posted by L.K.Weber, CDR USN (Ret) on October 3,2010 | 02:35 PM
In the 1980's my company sent me to a conference on aerospace instrumentation. At one of the mixers I found myself talking to an engineer from one of the Navy test ranges. He explained that Sidewinders, even with the warhead removed, had a proclivity for hitting the drone and knocking it out of the sky. Because drones are expensive, they deliberately programmed an offset into the Sidewinder’s guidance system to ensure it would miss the drone. He then commented that the Falcon missile never needed an offset programmed in, as it always missed the drone. Around the target range the Falcon was known as the "friendly missile".
Posted by Jeff Tonn on October 19,2010 | 11:16 PM
" ... ( the missile ) shared several qualities with another heat-seeking predator native to the Mojave Desert: the sidewinder rattlesnake ... ( so ) the name Sidewinder was adopted. "
Really ? I always thought it was the serpentine motion after launch in the early days that gave the Sidewinder its name.
Posted by Chris Black on October 24,2010 | 11:48 PM
Anybody out there involved with Vulcan/Chapparal in the late 60's.
Chapparal used the Sidewinder for outgoing, Vulcan (20mm cannon) for incoming aircraft.
Chapparal on a tracked modified cargo carrier, Vulcan on a modified armored personnel carrier.
As senior gunner I fired three Sidewinders. the Vulcan/ Chapparal was not used in combat that I know of.
Posted by Bruce R. Colbert on October 29,2010 | 10:27 AM
I remember Wally Schirra describing some of the early aerodynamics tests on the original AIM-9. Dr McLean mounted a gadget on the passenger's side of an automobile to suspend a scaled-down model with a couple of guys in lab coats taking measurements as the vehicle raced up and down the flats. As Wally liked to say, "It was crude but it worked better than most computers."
Posted by Barrett Tillman on November 6,2010 | 06:53 PM
The expanding-rod warhead consists of adjacent steel rods running the length of the warhead all the way around the circumference. The rods are welded to each other at alternate ends, forming a continuous ring of steel that, on detonation, opens in an accordion fashion. See Wikipedia's entry for "continuous-rod warhead."
Posted by Cliff Lawson on December 2,2010 | 12:54 PM
Folks,
In addition to the correct description of a continuous rod warhead, they are not as effective against smaller targets and if the missile comes in from the side and explodes there is a good chance the expanding ring will miss. But against large aircraft targets, they are hell to play.
Jack E. Hammond
.
Posted by Jack E. Hammond on December 6,2010 | 02:29 AM