Talk:De Havilland Firestreak

Effective?

I thought it was pretty ineffective. I'd like to see some sourcing about its effectiveness. I feel sure it was never used in combat and its replacement would seem to argue it was not seen as being totally effective. --John (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's all in the wording. Firestreak was "effective" when it is taken in the correct contexts; comparing it to the Fairey Fireflash and its contemporaries. With the benefit of hindsight, it doesn't look like a marvellous weapon, but it did what it was meant to do, it saw frontline service (if not combat) and ultimately was developed into the far superior Red Top. So a better choice of words and a reference should sort it out. Emoscopes ^Talk 19:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that Red Top was superior?

Firestreak was very reliable. It was a tail-homer, but remember that the Fleet Air Arm and the RAF only got the all aspect AIM-9L in 1982. The missile seeker was slaved to the launch aircraft's radar until lock was achieved. I think the AIM-9G was the first AIM-9 model to have the ability to slave the missile seeker to the launch aircraft's radar. So from a 1960s/70s/early-80s point of view Firestreak would have seemed acceptable.

Red Top had some reliability issues (I learned this from a guy who used to be in the RAF in the Javelin/Lightning/Phantom days).--Toddy1 (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Red Top was superior because it was faster and had a greater lock-on and firing range, plus all-aspect capability (and not only against high-altitude supersonic targets, since it was known to lock on to subsonic Buccaneers at low level). Firestreak's limited effectiveness led to the old gag among Lightning pilots: 'I'm inside minimum gun range... Closing to Firestreak range...' As for reliability, all 1960s air-to-air missiles had reliability issues. Over Vietnam, the Sidewinder achieved 80 kills from 452 successful launches, a ratio of less than 18 per cent. And that is not counting missiles that failed on the pylon. In the USAF, Phantom pilots had to run a missile check after tanking on the outbound flight to the combat area, and they had to return to base unless they had at least two Sidewinders (out of four) and two Sparrows (out of four) responding to the selector dial. It was therefore quite normal to experience 50% failure with AIM-9s and AIM-7s, and even higher failure rates were common. And in combat, the remaining missiles often wouldn't fire. So, less than 18% kills from successful launches is even worse than it looks, because successful launches were were quite hard to come by.

According to the Fleet Air Arm's Sea Harrier pilots, who ought to know, the vaunted AIM-9L did not in fact have Red Top's all-aspect capability and would only lock-on from the rear hemisphere.

Firestreak, of course, has a 100% kill ratio because it was only used once, to shoot down a pilotless Harrier headed for the Inner German Border, and it worked as advertised. Then again, in RAF service, the Sidewinder, in AIM-9G form, was only used once, by accident, when a Phantom crew returning from a live-weps exercise forgot they'd got live weps on and bounced a friendly Jaguar, the Sidewinder's expanding-rod warhead duly bandsawing the back end off the Jaguar. The Jaguar pilot ejected safely and the Phantom crew had to buy him a few drinks that evening. The wreckage was kept on display at the Jaguar's base at Bruggen so people could see what those missiles actually did.

Although the Saudis and Kuwaitis acquired Firestreak for their Lightnings, and although the RAF may have kept reserve stocks of Firestreak after the F2A Lightnings were retired from RAF Germany in the 1970s, the F6s on QRA at Binbrook from 1968 to 1988 were, so far as I know, always armed with Red Top. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Firestreak was designed as an anti-bomber weapon for use at the high altitudes Soviet nuclear-armed bombers were likely to attack the UK from. For this reason an infra-red (IR) homer was chosen as at high altitudes cloud and other IR blanketing phenomena, poor weather, etc., are almost entirely absent. In addition Firestreak could be fired from almost anywhere within the rear hemisphere of the intended target.

It was for the reason that the intended target was a bomber that Firestreak carried a relatively large warhead compared to some contemporary AIM's. Work on Firestreak BTW began in 1951 and it entered service in 1958.

During development over 100 Firestreak rounds were fired at Woomera from RAAF Sabres at Jindivik targets with a 'kill' rate of over 80%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.153 (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Some 1958 Flight info here: [1]

1957 test footage here: [2]] and here :[3] - the targets are Meteor drones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Naming

The article lead calls this missile the de Havilland Firestreak. The internet calls it the de Havilland Firestreak. Google Books says it's mostly de Havilland, not Hawker Siddeley. My 1972 copy of "Missiles of the World" calls it "de Havilland Firestreak". So why is the article called "Hawker Siddeley Firestreak"?! And if you think that's more correct for some reason, then why not "British Aerospace Firestreak"? I suggest a move. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the naming obscures the fact that this was originally a product of Fairy, which had built the earlier design. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And (despite the earlier move-undo merge) I don't think the manufacturer's name is part of the missile's WP:COMMONNAME, although that might just be over here. However, even in British publications, I can't recall ever seeing the missile being mentioned as "(so-and-so) Firestreak", except perhaps Fairey (as mentioned above), but rather things like "so-and-so's Firestreak" or "Firestreak, built by so-and-so". I'm also pretty sure that WP:MILHIST (and not just the nailed-to-the-perch WP:ROCKETRY) discourages the use of manufacturer's names in missile page titles, but I can't for the life of me re-find the page where I found that now. Perhaps there should be a general discussion on the subject of using manufacturer's names in missile titles? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• The Observer's World Aircraft Directory, by William Green, pub F Warne, 1961, page 178, "de Havilland Firestreak A.A.M."
• Jane's Fighting Ships 1961-62, page 239, lists British carrier borne aircraft and British naval guided missiles. In each case the maker is listed next the the aircraft/missile name. The maker for "Firestreak" is listed as "de Havilland".
• Jane's Fighting Ships 1966-67, page 268, as 1961-62 edition, but now lists the manufacturer as "Hawker Sideley" [sic].
• Postwar Military Aircraft: 1 Gloster Javelin, by Maurince Allward, pub Ian Allan, 1983, pages 46-7 and others use "de Havilland Firestreak" and "Firestreak".
• RAF Aircraft Today: 2 Lightning, by Arthur Reed, pub Ian Allan, 1984, page 28 uses "Firestreak".
• The Last of the Lightnings, by Ian Black, pub PSL, 1996, pages 27 and 141 use "Firestreak".
• RAF Museum Website uses "Hawker Siddeley Firestreak" in the title and "Firestreak" and "Firestreak Mk1" in the text. (Note that some caution is required with museum websites.)
• Air warfare: an international encyclopedia, Volume 1, by Walter J. Boyne, pub ABC-CLIO Inc, 2002, page 267 uses "de Havilland Firestreak" and refers to Red Top as based on the ""Firestreak Mk.IV"

Note the editor who said that this missile was a Fairy product was mistaken, as was explained to him elsewhere.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What we have now is a mess, with the article under one title, and the talk page under another! Most of the missile articles on WP follow the "name" or "name (missile)" format, per WP:ROCKETS, and this artcle should follow that format until the conventions are changed. It does seem alot of hte Brtish missiles use the manufacturer in the name, and it might be good to raise this issue at one place, probably WT:MILHIST, with notes to WTAIR and WTROCKETS. Note that there are some users at WPROCKETS, one in particular, who seem to go out of their way to assert their independence from WPAIR and its naming conventions, so it probably won't be easy to change the currently accepted format "name"/"name (missile)" format. Personally, I'd prefer all the military atmospheric/sub-orbital missiles follow the WPAIR M-d-n format, but missiles do change manufactures at a more frequent pace than aircraft, so it could be a mess too. - BilCat (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you do a request for change - as any change is likely to be disputed.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The most recent changes are already being disputed, so a change may be the outcome of these discussions. - BilCat (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Where are they being disputed?--Toddy1 (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: The most recent changes (to this article's name) are already being disputed (here). The article should not have been moved from Firestreak back to Hawker Siddeley Firestreak without discussion to begin with, and moving the article without the talk page to [De Havilland Firestreak]] has only made it worse. - BilCat (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Firestreak was a de Havilland Propellers design and so early references to it would have been to DH [4]. Hawker Siddeley later took over DH and it became a HS product.

The de Havilland Propeller company - the part of DH that originally designed and produced airscrews - also designed and built Blue Streak.

IIRC, DHP later merged with the HS Guided Weapons department upon being acquired by HS. Red Top was also initially the "de Havilland Red Top"[5]

Just name it Firestreak (missile). Look at R-33 (missile) or Meteor (missile) and many others. Show me one missile article where the title includes the manufacturer's name.--Arado (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• de Havilland Firestreak, per COMMONNAME. Oh, and Vickers Vigilant. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

'Fireflash' and 'Firestreak' were almost certainly manufacturer's names, whereas 'Red Top' is the Ministry of Supply (MoS) Rainbow code name by which it would have been known-by when in development. Why Red Top never became known as 'Firestreak Mk IV' in service I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.153 (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Trials

The following book describes some of the Firestreak trials: Venom, De Havilland Venom and Sea Venom: The Complete History, by David Watkins, pub The History Press Ltd, 1 July 2009, ISBN-10 0752452002 ISBN-13 978-0752452005.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Warhead size

The info box gives the warhead size as 50lbs. In the text it starts that the warhead is 19.3lbs. This is a significant discrepancy. 19 pounds makes it effectively the day size as an AIM-9 warhead. At the bottom of the article it talks about a modernized version with a larger, more effective expanding rod warhead, but the missile being described is the Red Top missile, which has its own article, so I see no reason to give that weight in the summary of the article on the Firestreak. I also find it very unlikely that that the interior of the missile needed to be both heated and cooled. The ammonia cooling was for the seeker head, as mentioned in one place in the text, not for the electronics. Why would you need to cool electronics hanging in a small tube in -40deg air outside a jet moving at 600-1,400mph? The fact that other parts of the missile needed heating to stay warm enough suggests the opposite. Why would the parts only freeze AFTER the missile is launched? The missile electronics are only active for a short period when the seeker head is active, not even long enough to build up dangerous heat in the electronics. So what is dangerous is the missile freezing up while hanging outside a jet flying at hundreds of miles per hour for an hour or more per flight. That is why the missile body is HEATED during normal flight. The seeker is cooled once active, as is the case with most IR missiles.

2600:1000:B12B:C46A:0:49:1AA5:A301 (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)