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 5 of 5)
“I didn’t want to fly out in front of the Fitter,” Dietz recalls. “So I pulled up as soon as I saw the missile come off the rail. When I rolled back over and looked down, all I saw was a fireball. The AIM-9 went right up this guy’s tailpipe, and his airplane blew up just like the movies. There was not a discernible piece left, just a bunch of metal in a huge fireball.”
Since Desert Storm ended, the world has changed radically, and nobody knows what the combat environment will look like if and when airplanes trade ordnance again. In the future, some military thinkers suggest, aerial engagements may feature more unmanned vehicles than conventional fighters, and the diminishment of the human factor could change the calculus of weapon design. At the same time, history has taught us that each advance in military technology expands the weapon-engagement zone, from ancient swords with a range of only a few feet to beyond-visual-range missiles that can destroy targets seen only on radar screens.
Under the circumstances, says Dik Daso, a former Air Force F-15 pilot who is now the National Air and Space Museum’s curator for modern military aircraft, the role of the Sidewinder is bound to shrink. “These days,” he explains, “the object is to deploy your radar missiles so that when you get to the merge [the point at which two fighters pass each other], hopefully you see nothing but fireballs. But in air-to-air combat, nothing ever goes perfectly, and I think the AIM-9 is the best fallback for self-defense that you can have.” Says Captain Jeffrey Penfield, a former F/A-18 pilot who, until recently, ran the Navy’s Air-to-Air Missile Program Office: “When you get in a mano-a-mano, visual-versus-visual engagement, the AIM-9 is the weapon of choice.”
Military procurement officials apparently agree. Since 2001, more than 4,000 AIM-9Xs have been built, and the missiles have been sold to 10 countries, bringing the total production to more than 200,000 Sidewinders flown by 51 nations during the past half-century. An upgraded Block II version is poised to start coming off the assembly line in Tucson (in the cavernous plant that Howard Hughes erected to build the Sidewinder’s original rival, the Falcon). Current plans call for production to continue into the 2020s. It should come as no surprise that there’s talk of certifying the AIM-9X for the next-gen F-22 and F-35 fighters. In fact, unless some new technology (lasers? directed-energy projectiles? space-time-continuum shredders?) renders heat-seeking missiles obsolete, AIM-9s will likely still be in military inventories a century after the first successful launch at China Lake.
This time around, nobody’s betting against the Sidewinder.
Frequent contributor Preston Lerner wrote “Black Day at White Sands,” a look back at the McDonnell Douglas DC-X, for the August 2010 issue.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5





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