A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

AIM-54 Phoenix missile



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old November 3rd 03, 09:47 PM
Harry Andreas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Paul F Austin"
wrote:

Kinda gives you an appreciation of the AIM-47. A long ranged missile
fired at Mach 3+ and 80,000ft+ I still think that the YF-12 was one
of the best "might have beens".


Interesting aircraft and great at it's design purpose, but too

operationally
limited as a fighter or interceptor.


I'm not sure I understand. At the time the USAF was procuring the
replacement for the F106 in the late seventies, I saw the results of cost
and effectiveness evaluations of several alternatives: F12/AIM-47,
BF-1/AIM-54(lots of them), F14, F15/Sparrow and....F16/Sparrow. Against the
cannonical Backfire threat in the North Atlantic basin, the F12 performed
hugely well. On a cost/benefits trade, the results for most threats was
pretty much in the order shown above.

Of course, the USAF selected the F16/Sparrow which showed up worst in every
scenario I saw. That spoke volumes on how seriously the USAF took the late
seventies bomber threat.

The BF-1A was interesting: huge aperature for the AWG-9 set and IRRC, 24
AIM-54s. The increased antenna gain raised the various RADAR ranges by about
50%.


First of all, I have no axe to grind, just so you know. My company had the
radar
and weapons system for all but the F-16/Sparrow, and the weapons for first 3
too.

I was focusing on some of the same issues that Pete pointed out, about basing,
launch, re-fueling, etc. all practical matters that (IIRC) were pretty much
ignored in the initial study. People sometimes think the Blackbird was a
super-aircraft because it flew so fast, but try to do a 3 minute scramble
in one.
And that was the mission they were being considered for.
Also, what about re-engagements, or alternate targeting?
What was it's turning radius again? It takes how long to get back on target?
Once you point this thing at a target, it's awfully tough to re-direct.

BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the F-16 in the ADF
role. It was nonsense of the first order. It's probably still nonsense today
even if the F-16 is carrying AMRAAM. Aircraft range too short, engagement
time too limited, weapons envelope (IIRC) non-existent. If your GCI is not
perfect, you miss.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poland: French Missile Report Was Wrong Michael Petukhov Military Aviation 8 October 7th 03 10:54 PM
How did the Iranians get the Phoenix to work? Ragnar Military Aviation 22 October 2nd 03 02:49 AM
IPC in a Simulator? Phoenix area.. Anonymous Instrument Flight Rules 5 August 28th 03 11:31 PM
Surface to Air Missile threat PlanetJ Instrument Flight Rules 1 August 14th 03 02:13 PM
Rafael's AIM-AIR IR Missile Countermeasure JT Military Aviation 8 July 13th 03 03:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.