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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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. 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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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. 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:32:30 -0500, "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. 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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/t...hp/title=S6585 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
. .. "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/t...hp/title=S6585 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:44:49 GMT, "Tom Cooper" 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.) 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. 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. 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. 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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ed,
(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.) I don't think I said that paletts for AIM-54s made the cockpit "large". But, OK. Then, let us not forget that the AWG-9 is not only a radar: I'm sure you know better than me that it's actually a whole weapons system, _including_ the AWG-9 radar. So, while the cockpits of F-105s and F-15s are certainly not as cramped as that of the MiG-21 (quite on the contrary: that of the F-15 was definitely the largest in a one-seat fighter until the appearance of the Su-27), they are still neither as long nor as wide as that of the F-14. One of the reasons was the need to squeeze all the 30+ "black boxes" (and these also include no less but four large displays put into the cockpit) of the AWG-9A into the airframe: these were distributed ahead, around, and - of course - inside the cockpit. The AWG-9A simply had a much more volumen (and capabillities) than the APG-63, and it needed the second crew-member to operate it. Don't get me wrong, but if these are not the reasons for the huge size of the cockpit on the F-14, then I don't know what else should have been? 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. Nobody said anything else about the final F-15. I was talking about the size as devised by the original FX request. 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. The footprint was of course to fit that of the F-4. But from what I read about the history of F-15's the original idea was rather to get something about the size of the later F-18, and certainly not planned to fly Mach 2.5. These requirements were not the specifications that can be found in the original FX. They were added after the Demodedovo '67, when at some stage calls became known for the FX to become capable of Mach 3, in order to directly match the Foxbat. Only resistance from the group that was running the project kept the dogfighting capability as one of main requirements. Ed, hell, you've been the you know better than anybody here how much attention was the USAF paying to air-combat being a part of the syllabus for its pilots in the late 1960s - and also most of the early 1970s. The interest was actually 0. Even such immensely important projects like "dogfight Sparrow", Combat Tree and the AIM-9J were only half-heartedly done.... Also, if you don't mind, but if the long-range weapons were one of the matters considered "paramount", then the F-15 armed with AIM-7Es (F was still a distant future at the time) was definitely an underdog compared to both, the YF-12 and the F-14. Actually, until the APG-63 was improved the F-14 could fire even AIM-9s from a longer range than the F-15... 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. Well, theoretically not. But, in fact it was so. For example, the USAF FX DCP (Development Concept Paper) from 1969 concluded that the "VFX is not able to meet this requirement" (the requirement for the FX). Given that neither the FX or VFX flew at the time they not only couldn't possibly know, but then - if I we bring back the "paramount" aspect of long-range weapons - the FX could've been dropped straight away. Besides, while the final result of the F-14 became a plane "optimized for fleet air defense" - this was foremost so by purpose, i.e. how the USN intended to use it and how it trained its Tomcat crews, not by design. Originally, the F-14 was designed as a dogfighter, and - despite all the explanations around - even the F-14A with its nifty TF-30s was superior in maneuver to the F-15 at anything but high-subsonic speeds. (From discussions with pilots that flew both planes, however, it appears that the F-14 was not as easy to fly successfully in the dogfight as the F-15 (even if the weapons system of the original F-15A had quite some problems with the man-machine interface, when compared to the F-14), and this, as well as different subsequent upgrades in the Eagle cockpit is what then "made" the F-15 being "accepted as a better dogfighter".) 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. The CCIP was included in the original weapons system, no dispute. But that was not what I was talking about. As first, eiher the USAF never completed separation testing for the Mk.82/83/84s on F-16s, or it never revealed the results of this to quite a few of its foreign customers. Don't know what was the reason, but I've heard several Israelis and the Dutch complaining they had to complete the job (and this as late as the late-1980s). As second, what I meant with "complex avionics" was certainly not the CCIP-mode: that's something even the F-14A has got almost 20 years before any kind of "Bombcat" thinking became known within the USN. "Complex avionics", IMHO, is such stuff like APG-66-modes enabling the support of AIM-7s, and then especially the LANTRIN, HARM-compatibility etc... Bear in mind, Ed, that most of the youngsters today run around thinking the F-16 was originally designed as what such versions like Block 40/50/60 are today - which was definitely not something ever dreamed about in the early 1970s. 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/t...hp/title=S6585 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 13:13:11 -0400, "Paul F Austin"
wrote: "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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |