Forum: Air Power

TC wrote:

The F-14 was the only plane that was ever equipped to carry the Phoenix. No Tomcats, no need for the AIM-54. I would imagine that the remaining AIM-54s would be chopped up so the wrong people couldn't get near them.

The Phoenix is also going to be used by NASA for hypersonic research.

F-16.net Sponsor

Glad to hear we're putting them to good use Very Happy

!

Take that ugly Navy $hit off of that Eagle! Laughing

That's about as bad as painting a Ferrari with Krylon. Laughing

TC,

A bit jealous of the extended range Wink

???

Just a minor error here, but the F-14 is not the only plane to be equipped to carry the Phoenix. The F-111B had the full AWG-9 radar /fire control system and did carry the Phoenix. Only seven were built before cancellation in favor of the F-14. Along with 111B's real shortcomings, the Navy never wanted an Air Force derived airplane anyway and found enough reasons to cancel it.

parrothead wrote:

TC,

A bit jealous of the extended range Wink

???

Hell no! I just don't want that ugly Navy $hit on my beautiful AIR FORCE plane! Laughing

Yes, the Edsel Bravo was equipped to carry the Phoenix, as was a predecesor variant built for the YF-12 Blackbird. Neither plane went into service, and the Edsel never really served in the AA role.

TC wrote:

Hell no! I just don't want that ugly Navy $hit on my beautiful AIR FORCE plane! Laughing

Hahaha!

Service pride, gotta have it.

Quote:

I searched but could not find anything.

I've heard everything from old motors to START treaty reqs...

Anyone?

The Aim-54 was designed to be a long range bomber destroyer and was designed for multiple target engagements. The awg-9 radar that it was coupled with was able to engage multiple targets through a spot lighting technique. The radar would shift its beam from one target to another (from 1-6) and would cycle through the targets. These would then be fed into an analog computer and the corrections for the AIM-54 were periodically updated ; however, if one of the bogeys changed it’s path and was not in the ‘spot light volume’ when the AWG-9 cycled back to shine the target, both missile and radar would go stupid. In a BVR engagement a bogey could perform a 30 degree check turn and go down to a lower altitude to counter a Phoenix shot. Also, the missile was expensive and hard to maintain. The AIM-54 was a pioneer in that it was the first step towards a long range BVR missile. The AIM-120 made much more sense to equip the future force and was meant to be a cheaper and more effective alternative which could be fired from single seater aircraft(which lacked a RIO). Initially, the AIM-120 ran into a lot of software problems but once the code was worked out became the premier BVR missile for US ac.

Murph wrote:

They did, but they missed. Big shock there.

Regards,
Murph

I assume you’re referring to the incident over Iraq during northern watch in '99 or so. There are some ordies on the tomcat sunset boards who state that those missiles weren’t armed properly, they had FNG ordies from a hornet squadron and didn’t perform a PLC. Thus the motors didn’t arm and they turned into million dollar bombs. They found that the pallets didn’t have the arming cup upon their recovery so they knew why they droped but didn't fire.

BDF

a1rao wrote:

The Aim-54 was designed to be a long range bomber destroyer and was designed for multiple target engagements. The awg-9 radar that it was coupled with was able to engage multiple targets through a spot lighting technique. The radar would shift its beam from one target to another (from 1-6) and would cycle through the targets. These would then be fed into an analog computer and the corrections for the AIM-54 were periodically updated ; however, if one of the bogeys changed it’s path and was not in the ‘spot light volume’ when the AWG-9 cycled back to shine the target, both missile and radar would go stupid. In a BVR engagement a bogey could perform a 30 degree check turn and go down to a lower altitude to counter a Phoenix shot. Also, the missile was expensive and hard to maintain. The AIM-54 was a pioneer in that it was the first step towards a long range BVR missile. The AIM-120 made much more sense to equip the future force and was meant to be a cheaper and more effective alternative which could be fired from single seater aircraft(which lacked a RIO). Initially, the AIM-120 ran into a lot of software problems but once the code was worked out became the premier BVR missile for US ac.

F-15 Eagle Engaged, Davies, Dildy. pp 87-88

Fixed it for you. Seriously if you're going to quote something you should at least give a simple citation such as "got this from Eagles Enagaged...". The worst part is you made it to sound like it's your own writing. The bit about the slammer wasn't in the original text.

That being said, I find his account to be laced with a bit of bravado and a bit "fighter pilot slander" (My jet is the best because...). Certainly the "A" model tomcats were dogs in the phone booth, but his account of how the AWG-9/AIM-54 works is factually incorrect and I'd be very surprised if it where that easy to thwart a buffalo shot.

BDF

BDF,

No need to take such an accusatory tone. I had a Barnes and Nobles gift card and picked up the book because I thought that it would be interesting reading material for a plane flight. Reading over the thread, I thought that this point had not been really made. I was not submitting a formal paper hence my lack of citations. In the future all posts shall be accompanied with appropriate references so as not to upset your sensitivities. For example, the second part was derived from Tom Clancy’s Fighter Wing (pp 130-136). I have countless such books on my shelf as spare reading material and I would think that the vast majority of them could be constituted as ‘general knowledge’. I was more interested in the value of discussion than the formalities of citing sources. Instead of attacking me so vehemently, would you care to enlighten us on the Phoenix and why it was retired?

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

Snappy comeback. Wink

Ah, so where were we before the exceptional detective work by Mr.Turnitin.com? I am still a bit puzzled at the direction of BDF’s attack. One could argue that sources should be cited as respect for an author’s IPR and to give that person recognition for his/her work. However, BDF’s post is counter productive in that it slams me for not citing the author but then goes on to slander Mr. Dildy’s name and work. What would you say is the ultimate justification for citing a source? I would think that Mr. Dildy would not mind my lack of citations as much as BDF’s character opinions and judgment. If one would look at my other posts (in this forum or various others) he/she would realize that I usually give proper credit to the authors. My posts are not going to be published and I will never see a penny for the time spent. I blog because of the enjoyment and information that I can get out of it. Either way I am sure Mr. Dildy does not mind the free publicity on a military forum. In the end I am glad because his remarks forced me to look further into the AWG-9/Aim-54:

First of I would like to say that I am by no means slighting the Phoenix. I understand that the Slammer and compatible APG radars benefited greatly from the pioneer work on the awg-9/Aim-54. Could BDF please explain how the author’s account on the Phoenix was not factual? His stated scenario considered a situation where the Tomcat was engaging 6 agile targets (not the plodding high RCS targets such as the Bear).

The phoenix only had active terminal homing in the final stages of flight and would need constant mid course updates from the host radar. In this aspect, the phoenix was just like any other semi-active radar AAM and had the same associated limitations imposed on it. The missile/radar combo had to make do with vacuum tubes, early analog computers, and bulky logic circuit boards. The technology for an efficient BVR missile was just not available at the time. By combining these two features, the Phoenix was able to be a powerful standoff weapon but at a high cost. The missile was very heavy (any one know what the max number of Aim-54s a tomcat can land with?) and expensive/complex. There were also suspicions that the missile’s test firings had been conducted under optimum conditions. These tests were conducted against large RCS targets that were almost on the F-14’s nose (despite the stated mission parameters of needing to engage low rcs targets such as cruise missiles). The Aim-54C also had a number of problems with their fuses (aside from not meeting production schedules, running over budget, and problems with maintaining quality control). Under the FY 1982 and the FY 1983 contracts, almost 318 AIM-54Cs were delivered but almost 240 of these had to be placed in storage due to the fuse. The redesigned FSU-10/A failed to explode in a subsequent test and created further delays. Finally in the summer of 1988, the re re-designed fuze was accepted into service but by now there were almost 500 stockpiled and useless buffalos. It made much more sense to move towards an active radar missile that did not require constant updates and which could be used from smaller airframes. Since the slammer’s electronics are controlled by microprocessors, they are easily upgraded via uploaded aircraft data bus or programmable read only memory chips. The Slammer also had a lot more growth potential (such as replacing the mechanical gyros with laser rings and adding in a GPS receiver for enhanced navigation). Imho the Phoenix was phased out because of a cost/benefit analysis and because of emerging technological trends.

(work cited list): Forgive me if it is not MLA format

1.Tom Clancy: Fighter Wing pp.128

2. www.ukdf.org.uk/millibrief/M45.doc

3. http://www.novia.net/~tomcat/AIM-54.html

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

Quote:

(work cited list): Forgive me if it is not MLA format

LOL....

TC wrote:

IIRC, at least one Tomcat did launch an AIM-7 on the second engagment (1989), but missed, and then fired an AIM-9, which hit the Libyan jet.

Actually three AIM-7M's were launched. The lead F-14's (#207) RIO launched two AIM-7M's. They both failed to guide. The F-14 wingman (#204) did a 'defensive split' and, after many seconds reversed his course. This surprised the MiG-23MF's and the F-14A wingman fired a AIM-7M which killed the MiG wingman in trail position. The F-14 wingman passed the MiG leader (going in opposite directions). By this time the lead F-14 had caught up with the fight and was on the MiG leaders tail. The lead F-14 shot down the lead MiG with a AIM-9L Missile.
Why the MiG-23's acted so hostile, I have never heard. There were nineteen flights of Libyan aircraft the approached the fleet that day. Some were before the incident and others afterwards.

BDF wrote:

I assume you’re referring to the incident over Iraq during northern watch in '99 or so. There are some ordies on the tomcat sunset boards who state that those missiles weren’t armed properly, they had FNG ordies from a hornet squadron and didn’t perform a PLC.

Thank you for that information BDF. I had heard that and wondered why the F-14D/Phoenix Missile had a problem in that engagement. The targets were Iraqi MiG-25PD's!

BDF wrote:

his account of how the AWG-9/AIM-54 works is factually incorrect and I'd be very surprised if it where that easy to thwart a buffalo shot.

One incident that placed priority on the AIM-54C occurred during the Iraq/Iran War. An Iraqi MiG-21 that went into a dive and as he pulled out of the dive he pulled "9½G's" to evade the Phoenix Missile.

Adrian

Forum: Air Power

AIM-54 Phoenix....why was it retired?