AIM-54 Phoenix missile

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
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

That is pretty much as I remember it. The YF-16 (General Dynamics 401) and
YF-17 (Northrop P 530) were originally part of the LWF (Light Weight
Fighter) program. This was to demonstrate what could be built and at what
cost. The goal was a smaller and cheaper fighter to augment the large and
expensive F-15. The LWF program was only to see what could be built and was
not a search for a new aircraft. Early in 1974 the ACF (Air Combat Fighter)
program came into being. with the YF-16 being announced the winner in Dec
1974. There was also a lot of interest from NATO countries looking for a
replacement for the F104. At this point it was not known how successful the
F-16 could be modified for the ground attack role.

The Navy liked this idea so much that they started the VFX program in 1974,
but so the Air Force couldn't say the Navy copied them, the Navy chose the
F-18 (larger development of the YF-17) in early 1975. Sometime in late 1976
Northrop started a program to find a buyer for its land based F-17 Cobra.

And that's the truth as I know it.

Red

"R" wrote in message
om

The Navy liked this idea so much that they started the VFX program in
1974, but so the Air Force couldn't say the Navy copied them, the
Navy chose the F-18 (larger development of the YF-17) in early 1975.
Sometime in late 1976 Northrop started a program to find a buyer for
its land based F-17 Cobra.

The Navy program was VFAX, not VFX, because attack was always part of the
plan. They were replacing A-7s as well as F-4s, after all, and could not
afford a second pure fighter on carrier decks. But Congress directed them
to use one of the Air Force LWF candidates, reasoning that these were
already tested and would not require as much development effort. The Navy
didn't much care for either design, but opted for the YF-17 as making the
best of a bad situation. In effect, they were hiring McDDonnell Douglas
(now teamed with Northrop) to turn the YF-17 into a carrier-compatible
aircraft. It seems that McAir essentially designed a new plane with a
striking resemblance to the YF-17 (that may be an exageration, but only
just). This became the F/A-18.

Northrop then tried to market a land-based version of this new aircraft as
the F-18L. Though lighter than the carrier-based F/A-18, this was still
heavier than the old YF-17 Cobra. They did use a YF-17 as a marketing tool
for the F-18L, but the production aricraft would have been rather different.

Joe Baugher's history of the F/A-18 is very valuable on these issues:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f18.html

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

The Navy liked this idea so much that they started the VFX program in 1974,
but so the Air Force couldn't say the Navy copied them, the Navy chose the
F-18 (larger development of the YF-17) in early 1975. Sometime in late 1976
Northrop started a program to find a buyer for its land based F-17 Cobra.

And that's the truth as I know it.

Red

The navy prefers multi-engined aircraft.

Al Minyard

I don't think I could categorize the Falcon AAM series as anything other
than worthless. Seem to recall they were used very briefly in Nam and were
found to be incapable of shooting anything down. Think about it- if the
Sparrow (mediocre at best) was seen as a big improvement, how lousy must
Falcon have been.

--
Jim Atkins
Twentynine Palms CA USA

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
- Groucho Marx

I don't think I could categorize the Falcon AAM series as anything other
than worthless. Seem to recall they were used very briefly in Nam and were
found to be incapable of shooting anything down. Think about it- if the
Sparrow (mediocre at best) was seen as a big improvement, how lousy must
Falcon have been.

Although the Falcon had both radar and infrared variants, the usage on the
Phantom was the infrared one, and the replacement was the Sidewinder. The
Falcon had at least one kill in Vietnam, but was hell to use. The seeker
head had to be cooled, IIRC, at least one minute before launch, and then had
a small window of employment... either shoot it then, or carry it around as
lugage. It had some advantages over the Sidewinder in its intended role -
interceptor missile, bomber-shooter. It was carried for many years
afterwards in the belly of the F-106. But has a tactical fighter missile, it
was better to forget it.
_____________
José Herculano

"José Herculano" wrote in message
...
I don't think I could categorize the Falcon AAM series as anything other
than worthless. Seem to recall they were used very briefly in Nam and
were
found to be incapable of shooting anything down. Think about it- if the
Sparrow (mediocre at best) was seen as a big improvement, how lousy must
Falcon have been.

Although the Falcon had both radar and infrared variants, the usage on the
Phantom was the infrared one, and the replacement was the Sidewinder. The
Falcon had at least one kill in Vietnam, but was hell to use. The seeker
head had to be cooled, IIRC, at least one minute before launch, and then
had
a small window of employment... either shoot it then, or carry it around
as
lugage. It had some advantages over the Sidewinder in its intended role -
interceptor missile, bomber-shooter. It was carried for many years
afterwards in the belly of the F-106. But has a tactical fighter missile,
it
was better to forget it.
_____________
José Herculano

The Falcon had a higher speed and longer range. Almost double that of the
AIM 9 during the Vietanm years.

Yeah and the AIM 26A had a slightly more powerful warhead. ;-)

So did the 26B.

Red Rider

"Sujay Vijayendra" wrote:

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.

/------------------------------------------------------------\
| George Ruch |
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?" |
\------------------------------------------------------------/

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" wrote in message
...
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.