Talk:AIM-9 Sidewinder

message: The intro says "AIM-9 is one of the oldest, least expensive, and most successful",  but has a listed cost of over half-million USD ($664,933). Which is more than the ultra expensive Tomahawk cruse missile $569K (USD 1999). http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article1.html says they should be around $55K (USD 1999)Larek (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: AIM-9X is very different from the 1999 AIM-9M. The unit cost listed in the box is the total program cost divided by number purchased. I believe this counts all costs, R&D, etc for AIM-9X program. It cost money to make new things and that cost rolls into the unit cost. Maybe that's not what people expect for that infobox item. You could look for something more recent that leaves out program costs. Inflation is also a factor. $569,000 1999 USD for a Tomahawk = $ today. That was 15 years ago and probably didn't count all program costs. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget p&p Bosley John Bosley (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost 

message: The article presently states that the seeker for the pre-FPA (focal plane array) AIM-9's used Cadmium Sulfide photoresistors. I am almost certain that this is NOT the case - in my experience CdS cells are not sensitive to thermal IR at all. I think that the AIM-9B may have used PbS (lead sulfide) but more recent models, like the Lima and Mike, use more sensitive, exotic sensor materials like Indium-Antimonide (InSb) or Mercury Cadmium Teluride (HgCdTe) which are much more sensitive than PbS - and that this was the enabling technology behind the all-aspect ability. The article also states that the nose is glass - glass doesn't transmit thermal (long-wave) IR very well - I think that the AIM-9 seeker window is probably pure Silicon, just like the windows on passive IR sensors used in building motion detectors. Finally, the article states that compressed gas cooling was used for the Mike and Lima. I am not sure but I THOUGHT that Peltier device cooling was used for at least one variant, so that it had an indefinite length of active seeking time while on the rail. Can anyone verify either the article or my recollections? I do not have all the references lined up to actually make these changes to the article. Sbreheny (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeker 

message: There's nothing in this article that talks about the familiar growl pilots hear when the sidewinder is armed. Thats how many people distinguish this missile from others.
:The 'growl' isn't something specific to the Sidewinder... the growl is a feedback mechanism designed to allow the pilot to know how well the seeker tracking the target.SidewinderX (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that many people besides fighter pilots use the sound an AIM-9 makes on lock-on to distinguish the type of missile; the pilot is the only one who can even hear it, and he ought to know what sort of missiles he is carrying already! The only exception I can think of is maybe people who get a kick out of watching HUD combat footage on Youtube, if any of those videos include the headphone audio. In any case, I don't think the sound is unique to the AIM-9, I think the AIM-9 simply has had the most public exposure.
64.223.92.229 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growl 

message: Early history - the tale of Sidewinder is fascinating and one that China Lake is justifiably proud. Best single reference on web of early days is American Heritage article  but there are several books out on the subject that cover same ground.HJ 00:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe the Sidewinder was created at China Lake not Inyokern as stated. In 2002 the 50th anniversary was celebrated for the Sidewinder. If that's the case, Sidewinder's development was done at China Lake in 1952. Quill and Pen (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidewinder 

message: needs moar data table.mnemonic 15:10, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
: word. i can do a data table for it. however, the problem is youve got a vast variance among the AIM-9. You've got the AIM-9 L, M, and X, as well as this goddamn AGM-122A. So what do you build a table off of, amigo? Avriette 01:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll have a go at transferring one of the other nicely-laid-out data tables from another missile to this page at some point soon. They do have some things in common, since they're part of the same series, but differences will either have to be in ranges (such as cost) or indicated individually. Dancraggs 18:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-org 

message: it's my fault for not finding the pre-existing page for the SIDEARM. however, the two munitions are so closely related that its really better to just merge the two articles. Avriette 01:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: The AIM-9X should be a separate article due to the fact its a vast departure from the rest of the AIM-9 series.
:Whilst the AIM-9X has many advances on some of the earlier versions, it is still classed as an AIM-9 missile, and as such it should stay on this page so that modifications can be listed in addition to the characteristics of the earlier versions. Dancraggs 18:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIM-9X page 

message: looking for more info after looking here, I searched google and discovered that the same exact text appears on a number of other sites.
I suspect this article was largely cut and paste
e. Correcting for this spin would normally require some sort of sensor to tell which way is "down" and then adding controls to correct it. Instead, small control surfaces were placed at the rear of the missile with spinning disks on their outer surface. Airflow over the disk spins them to a high speed. If the missile sta
search for some of this on google.
:I'll investigate this when I make modifications to this article soon. Thanks for the heads up. Dancraggs 18:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On different websites like www.answers.com and www.search.com I often read my own words and my wikipedia pictures are there too. So if you find some text similar to wiki's, other places, it could have been cut and pasted from wikipedia. Necessary Evil 20:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright 

message: On a side note, I noticed that there is no article for the explosive tritonol in Wiki. The chemical Picric acid is very similar or related. It may be used in the fuse or booster but I don't know for sure. The US military makes extensive use of tritonol (i.e. the Mk.8x series et al), it seems important enough for it to have its' own article but I don't have enough information to create the article myself. Any takers? 76.178.173.180 13:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HE 

message: I know it stands for Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode but what is it really and what technology or modifications did it involve? Also, was the AN/AVG-8A VTAS (Visual Target Acquisition Mode) a development that was related to SEAM? Wikiphyte 02:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEAM and VTAS 

message: The reference to the US Foreign Cooperative Test (FCT) Program should be Foreign COMPARATIVE Test ... which is exactly what the title implies: Comparing a foreign technology or system against a US one or a US requirement if no US equivalent exists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.215.89 (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FCT reference 

message: Last week I took this picture at the Dutch Military Aviation Museum, but I can't find anything about the missile. The name would suggest that it is related to the AIM-9, perhaps a paragraph about it is in order? - Dammit (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to  the prefix D means dummy, so IMHO DIM-9 Sidewinder is a dummy Sidewinder missile for training ground personnel. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense, but what seems odd to me is that the missile looks so different from the regular variant, the missile I photographed is very short (say 40-50 cm) and even the fins are shaped differently. - Dammit (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sidewinder missile is composed of sections  and the front 40-50 cm is the seeker head and the front movable fins - your picture suggest AIM-9A or -9B as described in . So your picture must IMHO be the front section of a dummy Sidewinder missile. The aft section is the rocket motor and four fixed fins and the middle sections are the warhead and the fuze section. A live warhead and a live rocket motor are too risky to exhibit - so the DIM-9 has perhaps concrete instead. The front end's seeker head is very fragile; when I was in the air force I heard about some armourers who removed a jammed live missile by hitting the seeker head with a wooden wheel chock ;-( That must be why the DIM-9 was invented but the museum has only room for the front section. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked an acquaintance about this and they used a ATM-9L for firing practice and a DATM-9L for loading and handling practice. This seem to be confirmed over at designation-systems.net. DIM-9 might be a Dutch designation rather than a United States designation. Two way time (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: while a dummy training bomb can be dropped, it is rare for them to make dummy missiles that can be fired. They woudln't be dummies then, they would be missiles without warheads, but still dangerous because of propellants and other materials. So there is three kinds of dummy missile: inert missiles the same size and shape as the regular missile, but without active seeker or motor or warhead, for training ordnance crews in loading and unloading safely. There are missiles that consist of just a seeker head (since that is the important part as far as pilot training is concerned), which can be attached to an aircraft and used in air combat training to try and acquire a lock on opponent aircraft (considered a 'kill') with zero risk of accidental firing. And there are missiles which combine both functions, with an inert motor and warhead but an active seeker, so both ground crews and aircrews can use them to safely train with, usually painted a distinct color to minimize risk of accidentally loading a live missile. I've never heard of a seeker-only AIM-9, but its certainly possible. Or they simply display the seeker as the part of most interest, assuming most people know what the rest looks like. 64.222.110.16 (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  DIM-9 Sidewinder 

message: The F22 page refers to the Sidewinder as both an air-to-air and an air-to-ground missile. However this article makes only a mention of an anti-tank experiment in China Lake, regarding the AIM-9s air-to-ground capabilities. Shouldn't this role be covered more extensively? --Ferengi (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you refering to the "Air to ground loadout" in the Specs section? That is the "mission" loadout, what it could carry in the air-to-ground role, with the AIM-9 and -120 for self-defense against other aircraft, not as sir-to-ground weapons. That's all I could find on the F-22 page. Btw, AGM-122 Sidearm was an air-to-ground weapon, made as a modification of old USN AIM-9C stocks. Presumably the airframe, at least the early ones, needed little modification for the role. - BillCJ (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was referring to that section, thanks for clearing it up. Maybe there should be a clarification in the F-22 article regarding what mission loadout and roles are. It would avoid confusion for people with elementary knowledge on the subject like me. --Ferengi (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of doing that, but I'm not sure what wording to use. I'll keep thinking on possible wordings. - BillCJ (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air-to-ground? 

message: The last line in the comprisemed technology section bothers me. 
"In the 1960s, the possession of the K-13 in the Soviet arsenal caused major changes in the USAF bombing tactics, forcing bombers from high-altitudes down to lower levels, below enemy radar coverage."
First, this isn't cited in any way. Second, while the K-13 may have contributed to the change in strategy, I believe the development of high altitude surface-to-air missles, like the SA-2_Guideline had a much larger contribution.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SidewinderX (talk • contribs) 14:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromised Technology Section 

message: If I remember correctly, years ago I saw on discovery channel a documentary about a plane crashed on a lake which was later revealed it was involved in the testing of the aim-9 seeker against solar radiation. seems to be this one: 1948 B-29 Lake Mead crash  --Jor70 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Early development

message: "In its first combat use by Israel over Lebanon and by the United Kingdom during the Falklands War, the "Lima" reportedly achieved a kill ratio of around 80%..."
I can't dig up the quote (I gave the book away and I can't remember which book - might be Nigel Ward's book "Sea Harrier Over the Falklands"?), but I recall reading that every single Sidewinder fired achieved a kill.  If that was so, the hit rate in the Falklands was 100%.  Toby Douglass (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I remember read FAA pilots reports describing missiles passing thru --Jor70 (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Were they air-launched Sidewinders?  plenty of ship launched (non-Sidewinder) missiles missed.  Toby Douglass (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will need to reead my books but by memory I think ward's aim9 fell short on his c-130 kill --Jor70 (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes!  I think I remember this too - AIM9, didn't connect, he closed and used the cannon.  Toby Douglass (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the C130 kill, the first missile fired, fell short & the second started a fire on port wing between engines, and Ward then used 240 rounds of 30mm cannon fire (all of it) before the Aircraft fell.  Several more Lima’s Fell short & due to some inexperience at least two were not looked when fired, I have added some more data to the Falklands engagements backed up by a ref--Steve Bowen (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hit rate in Falklands 

message: The SRM acronym is used in the text but there is no SRM entry in the list of acronyms beginning with "SR" and there is no explanation in the text what the acronym stands for. It's probably "short range missile", but it can't hurt to clarify or link to and update the list of acronyms. AadaamS (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SRM Acronym 

message: I took out the physics section - a page on a missile isn't the place to discuss the history of this stuff. Probably Infrared homing is, but that is linked on the very first line William M. Connolley (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics 

message: In the section "History" there's a paragraph starting with The Sidewinder incorporated a number of innovations over the independently developed World War II German Missile Enzian's "Madrid" IR range fuze that enabled it to be successful. - shouldn't this mention of an apparently unrelated device be edited-out? I don't mean a simple deletion of the above quoted phrase, as the following paragraphs are giving an useful information on the principles of the Sidewinder's seeker operation, but it makes little sense doing it in comparison with an unrelated missile. Perhaps it would be better if this section is moved to the Infrared homing article. (And yes - have I known how to rephrase it, I'd already done it.) --87.249.145.69 (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Enzian "connection" (?) - a modest proposal 

message: "In the first encounter on 24 September 1958, the Sidewinders were used to ambush the MiG-17s as they flew past the Sabres thinking they were invulnerable to attack. The MiGs broke formation and descended to the altitude of the Sabres in swirling dogfights. This action marked the first successful use of air-to-air missiles in combat in history, and the downed MiG's as their first casualties." This is problematic. It's mostly a word-for-word copy of this source, which says nothing about shoot-downs, only that the Sidewinders disrupted the MiG formation. The bit about "the downed MiG's" (sic) has been added by a Wikipedia editor, presumably based on an enthusiastic misreading of the source. Were any MiGs shot down? How many? 87.115.189.96 (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First combat use 

message: The section called "name selection"; should it more properly, for an encyclopedia format, be called "Namesake"? Two way time (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name selection 

message: I think Portugal uses Sidewinders in their F-16s, and a picture in the F-16 page of a PoAF shows it carrying Sidewinders.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.67.103.254 (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Portugal not an operator? 

message: The current article says
: "The AIM-9H model contained a 25-pound () expanding rod-blast fragmentary warhead. All other models up to the AIM-9M contained a 22-pound () annular blast fragmentary warhead. The missile's warhead rods can break rotor blades (an immediately fatal event for any helicopter)."
However, a continuous-rod or expanding rod-blast fragmentary warhead is the same thing as an annular blast fragmentary warhead – at least according to the linked article. If there is a difference in the warheads, other than the weight, the current wording fails to express it and the second wikilink is redundant. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant and self contradicting paragraph 

message: "In that same year but over Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, 51 out of the 55 Syrian-flown MiGs shot down were hit by Israeli Air Force Sidewinders."
I strongly doubt this, since they had Python 3 missiles at the time. Compare the Python article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_%28missile%29#Python-3 :
"The Python-3 is a much-improved AAM with all-aspect attack ability, higher speed, range, and performance. It performed well before and during the 1982 Lebanon War, scoring 35 (other sources claim 50) kills.[7]"
I suppose the source-less 51/55 claim here is wrong as it most likely includes the Python 3's successes. I delete it for this reason. Feel free to reintroduce it if you have a proper source. Lastdingo (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli use over Bekaa valley 

message: "The only changes from the AIM-9L to the AIM-9M were related to the Guidance Control Section (GCS). "
The statement directly above this states the missile also received a new motor. One of these two appears incorrect or could use a little touch-up to better explain what it means. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  That doesn't seem right... 

message: The current article reads; "The warhead features a safe/arm device requiring five seconds at 20 g (~200 m/s²) acceleration before the fuze is armed, giving a minimum range of approximately 2.5 kilometers."
This seems a bit odd. I've looked around for sources but haven't found anything regarding a minimum distance or the electronic safe and arm Device (ESAD), so any further information or documentation/sources on this would be welcome. Alexandre.laroche (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: AIUI, it was added as a reaction to the 1967 USS Forrestal fire. Although that was a Zuni rocket, the number of Sidewinders on deck, and the anticipated number post-Vietnam (when the USN would no longer be expected to fight a land war and could go back to being Top Guns) meant that there was an interest in making Sidewinder safer to handle. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimum range 

message: The almost complete neglect of the AIM-9F version (thousands were made) despite its substantial technological difference is astonishing. This article is too U.S.-centric.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.56.89.115 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIM-9F 

message: I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited material in need of citations

message: Hi all, I'm cleaning up this article a bit and I'm going to be removing all information solely propagated by Ron Westrum in his book "Sidewinder". 
The second half of his information has remained as "citation needed" since May of 2021 and I have had zero luck finding any source that mentions part numbers at all which isn't just a direct copy of this page or which has any other source than the book itself. I'll also be removing the section about Colonel Stig Wennerström for the same reason. 
I haven't read the book myself but the citation for this piece of information mentions no page number for reference and for the part numbers being copied there is no citation at all. 
Regardless, even if it is mentioned in the book, the book has no named sources or works cited so it would fall under the "no original research" policy. If anybody disagrees with this change please feel free to let me know. 
Mameyn (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing section about Ron Westrum  

message: Hi everyone,
I've cleaned up the page a little bit and added some citations, and I've found a great deal of information regarding the specifications of the early variations, which are very under-represented on the page. However, I've run into some problems with finding and citing sources on these early variants. It seems to be that all of the detailed information on the variations is either on individually run military blogs with no citations or that it is on old USAF documents uploaded by a third party with questionable copyright status. I don't think either of these can be used to provide information. Is there any way to improve this or are there any sources on the early variants that are both public and cite-able? 
Thanks for any help!
--Mameyn (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: US government works are generally in the public domain, see Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States. You might even find them on official USG file servers by searching for their document designation/number. Phiarc (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Issues 

message: Hello.
I just uploaded in Commons an SVG image of a AIM-9L head wich may be interesting for the article.
100Polar (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIM-9 .SVG image 

message: I've been looking at the AIM-9 early training missiles and I have found the GDU Series which includes to my understanding the:
GDU-1/B (AIM-9D) (ATM-9D?)
GDU-5/C (?????)
GDU-6/C (AIM-9L) (DATM-9L-1?)
Does anyone have info on the GDU-5/C because all I can find is one reference mentioning it (Linked below), it is most likely a training missile of the G or H as they both already had training variants, but it is unclear. I have also found sources stating that the GDU series were earlier designated versions of the ATM and DATM variants of the missile (Also linked below), can I have clarity on this?
https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/asetds/u-g.html
http://www.designation-systems.info/dusrm/m-9.html BombBarded (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Training Missiles