 |
AirTalk.org
Aviation discussions newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sujay Vijayendra
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 4:32 am Post subject: AIM-54 Phoenix missile |
 |
|
Anyone know why the AIM-54 Phoenix is carried only by the F-14?? Why hasnt
the air-force developed a long range air to air missile like the phoenix? As
far as I know, the AIM-120 is about the longest range modern missile they
have in their arsenal.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Daryl Hunt
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 4:50 am Post subject: Re: AIM-54 Phoenix missile |
|
|
"Sujay Vijayendra" <svijayen (AT) purdue (DOT) edu> wrote
| Quote: | Anyone know why the AIM-54 Phoenix is carried only by the F-14?? Why hasnt
the air-force developed a long range air to air missile like the phoenix?
As
far as I know, the AIM-120 is about the longest range modern missile they
have in their arsenal.
|
The Air Force decided they didn't need anything longer rang than the
AIM-120. Since all new missiles were to be for both the AF and the Navy,
the AIM-155 which was the followon for the AIM-54 was cancelled in 1992.
Instead, the AIM-120 was to be used. T4eh AIM-155 was lighter and smaller
than the AIM-54.
The current AF AC did not have compatable elecrtronics for the AIM-54. And
the size and weight of the Phoenix didn't really work well for the F-16 nor
the F-15. The lighter AIM-120 fit the role that the AF decided it needed.
And it works on all Radar Fighters in both the AF and the Navy without
severe modifications.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith Willshaw
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 11:27 am Post subject: Re: AIM-54 Phoenix missile |
|
|
"Sujay Vijayendra" <svijayen (AT) purdue (DOT) edu> wrote
| Quote: | Anyone know why the AIM-54 Phoenix is carried only by the F-14?? Why hasnt
the air-force developed a long range air to air missile like the phoenix?
As
far as I know, the AIM-120 is about the longest range modern missile they
have in their arsenal.
|
Because its a honking big , expensive missile designed
to kill Soviet bombers at long range. Each one is 13ft long
15inch dia and weighs in at around 1000lbs.
The AIM-120 is 12ft long , 7ich dia and weighs only 350
lbs. For a highly agile fighter the extra weight and drag
of the AIM-54 is a disadvantage that has to be considered
in the balance against it extra range. While I dont have
the figure to prove it I'd suggest AIM-54 us somewhat
less agile than the smaller missiles too, making it less useful
against small manoeveuring targets.
Keith
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Minyard
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 2:04 pm Post subject: Re: AIM-54 Phoenix missile |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:32:30 -0500, "Sujay Vijayendra" <svijayen (AT) purdue (DOT) edu> wrote:
| Quote: | Anyone know why the AIM-54 Phoenix is carried only by the F-14?? Why hasnt
the air-force developed a long range air to air missile like the phoenix? As
far as I know, the AIM-120 is about the longest range modern missile they
have in their arsenal.
No longer needed. The AIM-54 required a specific radar, etc. It was a fleet |
defense fighter designed to take out squadrons of Soviet bombers which
carried long range anti-ship missiles. That threat no longer exists.
The AIM-54 and the AWG-9 radar were both, originally, USAF programs,
but as needs were assessed and platforms evolved, it became a
USN project.
Al MInyard
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 4:44 pm Post subject: Re: AIM-54 Phoenix missile |
|
|
Sujay,
originally, the AWG-9&AIM-54 combo was developed from the AN/ASG-18&AIM-47
combo, which was the first high-performance, long-range, LDSD PD radar ever.
The AIM-47, although developed from the (pretty nifty) Falcon family of USAF
AAMs, was probably the best and most effective up to its time.
Anyway, the AN/ASG-18 and AIM-47 were installed on three Lockheed YF-12A
interceptors, armed A-12 OXCART derivatives, preceeding the SR-71, which the
USAF evaluated in the mid 60's. The whole system proved very successful in
tests, and was even able to track ICBMs fired from Vandenberg AFB, even if
no actual shoot-downs were attempted. The system was backed up by two IRST
sensors, but these were dropped during the course of system testing. The
AN/ASG-18 was just as range-capable as the AWG-9, but, AFAIK could only deal
with a single target at a time. The AIM-47 actually out-ranged the AIM-54
due to its better kinematic performance - as much as the fact that the
YF-12s were usually underway at a speed of Mach 3.2 when launching (so that
the AIM-47 was tracked at speeds well over Mach 4.4).
The AIM-47 also utilized dual-mode SARH/IR terminal homing, and it has been
speculated that a 200kT nuclear warhead would have been fitted to production
weapons at some point in the development process. This ultimately turned out
to be both false and unnecessary, as on one occasion an AIM-47 trials round
skewered the vertical tail of a QB-47 target drone. With such accuracy
nobody needed nukes.
The proposed production F-12B interceptor was cancelled, and the YF-12s went
to NASA for high-speed research before Lockheed could begin evaluating the
AN/ASG-18 system in more intensive environments, such as heavy ECM.
Shortly after the USAF dropped the AN/ASG-18 and AIM-47 both were taken over
by the USN and then the development of the AWG-9 and AIM-54 was initiated.
Why were the AWG-9 and the AIM-54 not put into any other plane?
The answer is simple: needs at the time and the aircraft construction.
The AWG-9 was a huge system when designed for the F-111B, which was
developed for service aboard the USN carriers through the 1960s. Although
considerably updated and thus made lighter by almost 500kg, it remained a
huge system when it was put into the F-14, in 1969. And still, the F-14 was
not designed "around" the AWG-9 and the AIM-54, but first as a dogfighter,
armed with a gun, Sparrows and Sidewinders, to fight MiG-17s and MiG-21s.
Once this capability was developed, the designers went to find out how to
fit the AWG-9 and the AIM-54s on it. One of the results of this work became
the "paletts" on which the AIM-54s are mounted. Another was the largest
cockpit of any fighter aircraft ever.
Doing anything similar with any other type would not function for several
reasons. When designing the F-15, the USAF actually wanted to have an
aircraft like the F/A-18 later became, a dogfighter and a one-seater. Only
the shock from the appearance of the MiG-25 caused them to let the F-15
become as large as fast as it become, in order to be able to intercept
Foxbats. Clearly, the F-14 with its "long claws" would have been even better
for this task, but there was no way the USAF would buy a USN fighter (again,
like it did in the case of the F-4).
The F-16, on the contrary, was designed as a simple dogfighter, day-fighter
armed with the gun and Sidewinders only. Only after it entered service was
any separation testing for the use of Mk.82783/84 bombs done. All the
complex avionics was added to it even at a later stage.
Finally, the F/A-18 came into being as the YF-17, the competitor for the
same project like the F-16, which was then redesigned so to become suitable
to replace the A-7, but also support the F-14 in air-to-air. Consequently,
it was to be cheap and simple, not as complex as the F-14.
Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul F Austin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:13 pm Post subject: Re: AIM-54 Phoenix missile |
|
|
"Tom Cooper" wrote
| Quote: |
The AIM-47 also utilized dual-mode SARH/IR terminal homing, and it has
been
speculated that a 200kT nuclear warhead would have been fitted to
production
weapons at some point in the development process. This ultimately turned
out
to be both false and unnecessary, as on one occasion an AIM-47 trials
round
skewered the vertical tail of a QB-47 target drone. With such accuracy
nobody needed nukes.
|
Optical nuke?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:26 pm Post subject: Re: AIM-54 Phoenix missile |
|
|
"Paul F Austin" <pfaustin (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote
| Quote: |
"Tom Cooper" wrote
The AIM-47 also utilized dual-mode SARH/IR terminal homing, and it has
been
speculated that a 200kT nuclear warhead would have been fitted to
production
weapons at some point in the development process. This ultimately turned
out
to be both false and unnecessary, as on one occasion an AIM-47 trials
round
skewered the vertical tail of a QB-47 target drone. With such accuracy
nobody needed nukes.
Optical nuke?
|
What should that be?
Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Rasimus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 6:01 pm Post subject: Re: AIM-54 Phoenix missile |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:44:49 GMT, "Tom Cooper" <tom (AT) acig (DOT) org> wrote:
| Quote: | Why were the AWG-9 and the AIM-54 not put into any other plane?
The answer is simple: needs at the time and the aircraft construction.
The AWG-9 was a huge system when designed for the F-111B, which was
developed for service aboard the USN carriers through the 1960s. Although
considerably updated and thus made lighter by almost 500kg, it remained a
huge system when it was put into the F-14, in 1969. And still, the F-14 was
not designed "around" the AWG-9 and the AIM-54, but first as a dogfighter,
armed with a gun, Sparrows and Sidewinders, to fight MiG-17s and MiG-21s.
Once this capability was developed, the designers went to find out how to
fit the AWG-9 and the AIM-54s on it. One of the results of this work became
the "paletts" on which the AIM-54s are mounted. Another was the largest
cockpit of any fighter aircraft ever.
|
While I bow to your knowledge of the radar and AIM-54, as well as
history of the Iranian applications of the aircraft, I've got to
question some of your other assertions here.
Clearly by the time of production of the F-14, the anticipated threat
had migrated forward beyond MiG-17 and focussed more closely on 21,
23, 27 and future developments from the Soviet block. Additionally,
there was concern with free world designs used by swing
nations--aircraft like Mirage III and F-1, for example.
(As an aside, how does size of the radar or "paletts" for the Phoenix
result in a larger cockpit? Gotta say the F-105 cockpit was the
biggest single-seat office I ever saw and the F-15 operator station
isn't cramped, either.)
| Quote: |
Doing anything similar with any other type would not function for several
reasons. When designing the F-15, the USAF actually wanted to have an
aircraft like the F/A-18 later became, a dogfighter and a one-seater.
|
That is precisely what General Bellis and the F-15 design team created
in the F-15A, a world-class maneuverability dog-fighter and a single
seater. There was never anything else under consideration.
| Quote: | Only
the shock from the appearance of the MiG-25 caused them to let the F-15
become as large as fast as it become, in order to be able to intercept
Foxbats.
|
Hardly. The Eagle planform was heavily governed by the size of TabVee
shelters. The footprint of the aircraft fits very closely over the
footprint of the F-4. Intercept of the Foxbat was clearly a missile
matter and not one of aircraft performance. Early detection, long
range weapons and good intercept geometry were paramount. The speed of
the F-15 both initially and in the end product closely parallels the
top speed of the existing front-line fighters--just a bit over M-2.
| Quote: | Clearly, the F-14 with its "long claws" would have been even better
for this task, but there was no way the USAF would buy a USN fighter (again,
like it did in the case of the F-4).
|
The F-14 was optimized for fleet air defense. It was designed for the
interceptor role. The F-15 was designed as a tactical fighter for air
superiority. There is a considerable difference in the detail of the
two missions. It shouldn't be construed as a question of service
rivalry.
| Quote: |
The F-16, on the contrary, was designed as a simple dogfighter, day-fighter
armed with the gun and Sidewinders only. Only after it entered service was
any separation testing for the use of Mk.82783/84 bombs done. All the
complex avionics was added to it even at a later stage.
|
Sorry, but no. The F-16 (actually the lightweight fighter competition)
was to build a replacement for the F-4 fleet. The F-15 air superiority
fighter did the air/air mission and from its inception the F-16/F-17
programs were designed for ground attack. The "complex avionics" of
the CCIP conventional weapons release system were incorporated in the
first production A models.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Ferrin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 10:17 pm Post subject: Re: AIM-54 Phoenix missile |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 13:13:11 -0400, "Paul F Austin"
<pfaustin (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Tom Cooper" wrote
The AIM-47 also utilized dual-mode SARH/IR terminal homing, and it has
been
speculated that a 200kT nuclear warhead would have been fitted to
production
weapons at some point in the development process. This ultimately turned
out
to be both false and unnecessary, as on one occasion an AIM-47 trials
round
skewered the vertical tail of a QB-47 target drone. With such accuracy
nobody needed nukes.
Optical nuke?
|
Not again. LOL Besides it was IR and I got the impression Tarver was
talking about optical like a Maverick A or Walleye.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Ferrin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 10:19 pm Post subject: Re: AIM-54 Phoenix missile |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 18:01:25 GMT, Ed Rasimus <rasimus (AT) adelphia (DOT) net>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:44:49 GMT, "Tom Cooper" <tom (AT) acig (DOT) org> wrote:
Why were the AWG-9 and the AIM-54 not put into any other plane?
The answer is simple: needs at the time and the aircraft construction.
The AWG-9 was a huge system when designed for the F-111B, which was
developed for service aboard the USN carriers through the 1960s. Although
considerably updated and thus made lighter by almost 500kg, it remained a
huge system when it was put into the F-14, in 1969. And still, the F-14 was
not designed "around" the AWG-9 and the AIM-54, but first as a dogfighter,
armed with a gun, Sparrows and Sidewinders, to fight MiG-17s and MiG-21s.
Once this capability was developed, the designers went to find out how to
fit the AWG-9 and the AIM-54s on it. One of the results of this work became
the "paletts" on which the AIM-54s are mounted. Another was the largest
cockpit of any fighter aircraft ever.
While I bow to your knowledge of the radar and AIM-54, as well as
history of the Iranian applications of the aircraft, I've got to
question some of your other assertions here.
Clearly by the time of production of the F-14, the anticipated threat
had migrated forward beyond MiG-17 and focussed more closely on 21,
23, 27 and future developments from the Soviet block. Additionally,
there was concern with free world designs used by swing
nations--aircraft like Mirage III and F-1, for example.
(As an aside, how does size of the radar or "paletts" for the Phoenix
result in a larger cockpit? Gotta say the F-105 cockpit was the
biggest single-seat office I ever saw and the F-15 operator station
isn't cramped, either.)
|
The cockpit of the Crusader III looked pretty big too.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Ruch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 11:54 pm Post subject: Re: AIM-54 Phoenix missile |
|
|
"Sujay Vijayendra" <svijayen (AT) purdue (DOT) edu> wrote:
| Quote: | Anyone know why the AIM-54 Phoenix is carried only by the F-14?? Why hasnt
the air-force developed a long range air to air missile like the phoenix? As
far as I know, the AIM-120 is about the longest range modern missile they
have in their arsenal.
|
If you look into the history of the F-111B and F-14, you'll find that the
Phoenix was designed specificality to integrate with the AWG-9 fire control
system. The AIM-120 was designed as a replacement/follow-on for the AIM-7.
/------------------------------------------------------------
| Quote: | George Ruch |
"Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?" |
------------------------------------------------------------/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick Folkers
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:54 am Post subject: Re: AIM-54 Phoenix missile |
|
|
Not an expert but my understanding is that most air combat takes place a
lot closer than the max range of the Phoenix. Positive ID and friendly fire
in coalition circumstances certainly make it unlikely that anybody could use
a missile with a range of 80-100 NM. The origianl mission of the F-14 and
Phoenix was one of the few instances when you could expect to engage targets
at that kind of range. We can discuss for hours about fit to planes and
size of cockpits and radars but the mission of most AF sorties would not
permit firing of a missile at anywhere near the max range of the Phoenix.
"Sujay Vijayendra" <svijayen (AT) purdue (DOT) edu> wrote
| Quote: | Anyone know why the AIM-54 Phoenix is carried only by the F-14?? Why hasnt
the air-force developed a long range air to air missile like the phoenix?
As
far as I know, the AIM-120 is about the longest range modern missile they
have in their arsenal.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Ferrin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2003 7:36 am Post subject: Re: AIM-54 Phoenix missile |
|
|
| Quote: | Over the years while I was running exercises for the NATO Southern
Region at USAFE Hq, I handled a lot of USAF/USN exercises and the
outcome of Eagle-vs-Toms was always the same. The Toms got the
long-range intercept credits and the Eagles got lots of video of Toms
with pipper-burns.
|
Any idea how it went when the F-14 got F110s?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Carrier
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2003 12:15 pm Post subject: Re: AIM-54 Phoenix missile |
|
|
| Quote: | Sorry, but no. The F-16 (actually the lightweight fighter competition)
was to build a replacement for the F-4 fleet. The F-15 air superiority
fighter did the air/air mission and from its inception the F-16/F-17
programs were designed for ground attack. The "complex avionics" of
the CCIP conventional weapons release system were incorporated in the
first production A models.
|
I'll disagree on this point. The F-16/17 were designed to provide a cheaper
alternative and augment the expensive F-14/15 (Remember this buzz phrase:
"hi lo mix?"). They were originally designed as less complex air
superiority aircraft ... simple dogfighters ... with lesser radar and
(any?) BVR capability. The mud missions were designed in later.
R / John
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Ferrin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2003 12:31 pm Post subject: Re: AIM-54 Phoenix missile |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 06:15:34 -0600, "John Carrier" <jxc2 (AT) comcast (DOT) net>
wrote:
| Quote: | Sorry, but no. The F-16 (actually the lightweight fighter competition)
was to build a replacement for the F-4 fleet. The F-15 air superiority
fighter did the air/air mission and from its inception the F-16/F-17
programs were designed for ground attack. The "complex avionics" of
the CCIP conventional weapons release system were incorporated in the
first production A models.
I'll disagree on this point. The F-16/17 were designed to provide a cheaper
alternative and augment the expensive F-14/15 (Remember this buzz phrase:
"hi lo mix?"). They were originally designed as less complex air
superiority aircraft ... simple dogfighters ... with lesser radar and
(any?) BVR capability. The mud missions were designed in later.
|
Was suppose to have Sidewinders and gun only. I remember somebody
wanted a BVR missile on it so they tested one of the early ones with
two Sparrows mounted between the main gear IIRC (It was SOMEWHERE on
the belly and there aren't that many places they'd fit  )
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
