Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/7/2004 12:32:47 PM EST
Navy Retires AIM-54 Phoenix Missile

Story Number: NNS041007-08
Release Date: 10/7/2004 4:24:00 PM

From Naval Air Systems Command Program Executive Office for Tactical Aircraft Public Affairs

PATUXENT RIVER, Md. (NNS) -- After 30 years of highly accomplished service, the U.S. Navy retired its first long-range air-to-air missile, the AIM-54 Phoenix, Sept. 30.

One of the world's most technologically advanced tactical missiles, the AIM-54 Phoenix was the first operational radar-guided air-to-air missile that could be launched in multiple numbers against different targets from an aircraft, making the Phoenix the Navy's main fleet air defense long-range weapon.


020924-N-1955P-001 At sea with USS George Washington (CVN 73) Sep. 24, 2002 -- Lt. West McCall, an F-14 “Tomcat” pilot from Deland, Fla., and Lt. Kimberly Arrington, a Radar Intercept Officer from King, N.C., both assigned to the “Jolly Rogers” of Fighter Squadron One Zero Three (VF-103), test fire a Phoenix air to air missile as part of the annual proficiency test during Exercise Mediterranean Shark. The Phoenix missile is the Navy's only long-range air-to-air missile. It is an airborne weapons control system with multiple-target handling capabilities.
Navy photo by Capt. Dana Potts. (RELEASED)

“The heart of the F-14 Tomcat (soon also to retire) weapons system is the Hughes AWG-9 fire control system, capable of tracking 24 targets and firing six AIM-54 Phoenix air-to-air missiles engaging six different targets,” said Capt. Scott Stewart, the Navy's program manager for Air-to-Air Missile Systems. “With a range of over 100 miles, the AIM-54 gave the F-14 the greatest stand-off engagement capability of any fighter in the world. For years, Soviet air crews flying Badger, Bear and Backfire bombers feared the unprecedented capabilities of the Phoenix Missile."

"As we retire the AIM-54 Phoenix missile, we pay tribute to the men and women of Naval Aviation, Grumman and Hughes who designed, tested and operationally employed the Phoenix for over 30 years," added Stewart. "Since the earliest days of carrier aviation, air superiority fighters have been called upon to provide air cover for the fleet. None have been more formidable in performing this mission than F-14 Tomcats armed with AIM-54 Phoenix Missiles.

"I know I'm just one of many that will miss the Phoenix, but I'm also fortunate to be involved with the development of transformational missile technologies," he added. "I am confident that our warfighters have the best warfighting capabilities in the world, even with the Phoenix retired."

A product of two U.S. missile programs – the Navy’s Bendix AAM-N-10 Eagle and the Air Force’s Hughes GAR-9, Phoenix long-range intercept concept development began in 1960. The Hughes Aircraft Company was first selected to develop the Phoenix in 1962, with the Raytheon Company joining later in 1988.

After five years of research and development, the first prototype flight tests were conducted in 1965. Sept. 8, 1966, an A-3A Skywarrior performed the first successful full-scale test using all missile control system functions over the Navy Pacific Missile Range near San Nicholas Island, Calif.


Nov. 21, 1973, marked a milestone for Phoenix with the first full arsenal testing on an F-14 operating over the Pacific Missile Sea Test Range. Within 38 seconds, the Tomcat launched and simultaneously guided six Phoenix missiles, at six separate targets 50 miles away, scoring four direct hits.

The AIM-54A entered service with the U.S. Navy in 1973 and became operational in 1974. The first F-14A Tomcat squadrons to use the Phoenix were Strike Fighter Squadron (VF) 1 "Wolfpack" and VF-2 "Bounty Hunters."

After several variants, the long-range concept ultimately evolved, providing Phoenix the capability to initially guide itself using the semi-active radar mode and the Tomcat’s AWG-9 weapon control system, and when close enough to its target, assume guidance control using the active radar system. The C variant incorporated a new active radar fuse and higher-thrust motor. Combining these upgrades improved its overall effectiveness and intercept capabilities. The AIM-54C was introduced to the fleet in 1981, and entered full-rate production in January 1984.


Phoenix Will Rise No More
By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Capt. Dana Potts, U.S. Navy
An AIM-54 Phoenix missile is launched from an F-14 Tomcat.
The Phoenix missile, once one of the U.S. Navy’s most famous weapons, is no more. As of Sept. 30, the AIM-54 air-to-air missile has left the Navy’s operational inventory.

The Phoenix, used primarily by the F-14 Tomcat carrier-based fighter, was conceived in the 1960s as a long-range weapon to counteract waves of Soviet bombers attacking U.S. carrier battle groups. The missile’s range of more than 100 miles “gave the F-14 the greatest stand-off engagement capability of any fighter in the world,” Capt. Scott “Stewie” Stewart, the Navy’s program manager for air-to-air missile systems, said in a Naval Air Systems Command press release.

“For years, Soviet aircrews flying Badger, Bear and Backfire bombers feared the unprecedented capabilities of the Phoenix missile.”

Originally intended to be used by the F-111B fighter, the Phoenix became the Tomcat’s prime weapon when the F-14 was developed to replace the troubled F-111B program. Six missiles could be carried by a single F-14, which had the ability to guide each Phoenix onto a separate target. The missile could operate in autopilot, semi-active radar homing, or fully active radar homing modes.

Beginning in 1962, Hughes Aircraft developed the Phoenix, with Raytheon taking over when that company acquired Hughes Missile Systems in 1988.

The AIM-54A entered service in 1973 and became operational the next year. The missile and its associated AWG-9 fire control system aboard the Tomcat were closely guarded U.S. secrets, and extensive efforts were made to recover intact F-14s and AIM-54s that were lost in deep water to prevent recovery by the Soviet Union.

With the end of the Cold War and its mission of stopping mass bomber attacks on the U.S. Fleet, the Phoenix had little further use. Its electronics became increasingly difficult to maintain, and the decision to phase out the missile was made in early 2002.

The Phoenix was produced in three models, the AIM-54A, -54B and -54C. The last Phoenix, an AIM-54C, was delivered in 1993.

The last Phoenix shot came from an F-14 of Fighter Squadron 213 on July 15.

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=15422
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=391431&C=america
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 12:35:17 PM EST
Well, here it comes.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 12:35:52 PM EST
Great, I cant wait to watch the bitching posts start....
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 12:41:34 PM EST
I grew up idolizing that aircraft and its weapons systems. I feel sad, like a friend is dying, fading out.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 12:44:20 PM EST
Has this missile ever been used in combat?
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 12:47:32 PM EST
Not by the USA.

Supposedly Iran used a few of theirs in the Iraq-Iran war.


Originally Posted By 95thFoot:
Has this missile ever been used in combat?

Link Posted: 10/7/2004 12:54:39 PM EST


End of a legend......
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 12:58:09 PM EST
Don't worry, although the US has no missiles with a comparable performance and range envelope in sight, I am sure the Europeans will sell you the METEOR ABVRAAM … Mach 4+, 100nm range., and any plane that can carry AMRAAM can launch Meteor.



Andy

Link Posted: 10/7/2004 1:01:11 PM EST
God, this makes me feel OLD.

I grew up a HUGE fan of Grumman and even learned to fly in one of their products (AA-1B). Watching the retirement of the Tomcat and now the AIM-54 is
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 2:21:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:
Don't worry, although the US has no missiles with a comparable performance and range envelope in sight, I am sure the Europeans will sell you the METEOR ABVRAAM … Mach 4+, 100nm range., and any plane that can carry AMRAAM can launch Meteor.

img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/meteorcutout.jpg

Andy




Looks like a HARM with a bunch of A/C ductwork hanging off of it.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 2:26:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By bmick325:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Don't worry, although the US has no missiles with a comparable performance and range envelope in sight, I am sure the Europeans will sell you the METEOR ABVRAAM … Mach 4+, 100nm range., and any plane that can carry AMRAAM can launch Meteor.

img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/meteorcutout.jpg

Andy




Looks like a HARM with a bunch of A/C ductwork hanging off of it.



Funny you should mention that… Boeing did a study on using this missile as a HARM replacement for the US Navy. Ductwork is for ramjet motor…

Andy
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 2:28:25 PM EST
Gee, that's wonderful...

But...not to, you know, throw a hissy fit, but...what did they replace it with?

Oh...nothing.

NOTHING.

That is like phasing out submarines. Stupid, stupid, stupid..especially without a viable and BETTER replacement. Hell, they still fly B-52's because we don't have a better platform; what's wrong with the Phoenix, other than it's exhorbant price tag?
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 2:29:57 PM EST
Is there a replacement missile that the US armed forces are going to utilize?

CMOS
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 2:50:03 PM EST
The new generation of AMRAAM missiles have a range around ~80 miles or so (I'm pretty sure about that but not certain) and are more maneuverable. The Phoenix had a range of over 100 miles and a big warhead - not as maneuverable toward the end of its range but then again a plane turning and winding around to outfly a missile is mostly a fantasy of the movies.

It's unfortunate that with the end of the cold war America's seemingly bottomless pockets no longer exist, which means the money needed to R&D and then produce and maintain new weapons [systems] obviously isn't there. It's funny how from around 1955 to 1975 this country developed some of the most awe inspiring technology, especially when it came to aviation (and all with slide rules, blackboards, and brains) but these days it takes a decade and billions upon billions of dollars to make even one mediocre new plane or ship or what have you. One would think that with the advent of computers and proven systems to draw data and knowledge from things would be built faster and cheaper these days but it's the opposite. I guess the country needs to fund illegal aliens and "humanitarian" missions and failed socialist programs first, instead of funding the defense and advancement (the two seem to go hand in hand as military technology trickles down to all parts of society).

Rant over.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:03:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:
Don't worry, although the US has no missiles with a comparable performance and range envelope in sight, I am sure the Europeans will sell you the METEOR ABVRAAM … Mach 4+, 100nm range., and any plane that can carry AMRAAM can launch Meteor.

img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/meteorcutout.jpg

Andy




Thanks, but no thanks. I'm sure our new versions of the AMRAAM will serve us fine.

Besides, the last time I remember trying to develop an AAM with Euros it was the ASRAAM. The AIM-9X kicked its ass at every turn.

Just wanna add, I don't consider the UK to be part of Europe anymore. I consider it to be the North Eastern Island chain of North America.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:31:27 PM EST
The newer AMRAAM may have the range, but what about the limiting factor of the host plane? No radar before or since can TOUCH the capabilties in the A2A mode of the APG-70/71.

This is a sad day, but remember what Tomcat aircrews used to say.

Someday we'll look back and say, "It was fun!"
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:33:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2004 3:33:47 PM EST by vito113]

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Don't worry, although the US has no missiles with a comparable performance and range envelope in sight, I am sure the Europeans will sell you the METEOR ABVRAAM … Mach 4+, 100nm range., and any plane that can carry AMRAAM can launch Meteor.

img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/meteorcutout.jpg

Andy




Thanks, but no thanks. I'm sure our new versions of the AMRAAM will serve us fine.

Besides, the last time I remember trying to develop an AAM with Euros it was the ASRAAM. The AIM-9X kicked its ass at every turn.

Just wanna add, I don't consider the UK to be part of Europe anymore. I consider it to be the North Eastern Island chain of North America.



We're the 51st State!

Andy
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:46:44 PM EST
Good riddance to expensive rubbish.

Much was made of the Phoenix and its associated radar, with the aircraft able to track, lock, and fire all 6 near-simultaneously. That's all great, and for the envisioned waves of Tu bombers. IIRC, one issue that never got much discussion was that an F-14 could NOT cat-launch carrying 6 of them. Too heavy.

AMRAAM and near-term mods will do the job. coupled with super-cruising launch aircraft, deployment of raptor, and the fact that the rocket motors in the existing stocks of Phoenix missiles must be degraded by now, it is a system we should not be pumping any more money in to.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 4:10:34 PM EST
Wonder if the DoD will use the discarded missiles as targets? It has been done many time before with decommissioned missiles.It is possible...and I have no confirmation yet, but just possible, that DoD may turn them into targets.

Phoenix was the fastest AA missile ever fielded with a nominal speed of M5+ or just about 3,000mph. THAT my friends is making bacon. There is a need for high speed, high altitude targets and this missile might fill the bill.

Take out the warhead, modify the guidance and control system to fly profiles such as very high altitude up and over and let the surface ships shoot at the new theater ballistic missile target.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 4:15:36 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2004 4:16:50 PM EST by tomcatphixer]
Cat launch carrying 6? Certainly could! It was called the doomsday load. If it launched that way, had to shoot something cause it exceeded the MLG shock struts weight limits to trap back aboard.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 4:33:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By rayra:
Good riddance to expensive rubbish.

Much was made of the Phoenix and its associated radar, with the aircraft able to track, lock, and fire all 6 near-simultaneously. That's all great, and for the envisioned waves of Tu bombers. IIRC, one issue that never got much discussion was that an F-14 could NOT cat-launch carrying 6 of them. Too heavy.

AMRAAM and near-term mods will do the job. coupled with super-cruising launch aircraft, deployment of raptor, and the fact that the rocket motors in the existing stocks of Phoenix missiles must be degraded by now, it is a system we should not be pumping any more money in to.



Actually, the could launch with six. They just couldn't recover with all six.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 4:37:28 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2004 4:42:06 PM EST by vito113]

Originally Posted By rayra:


AMRAAM and near-term mods will do the job. coupled with super-cruising launch aircraft, deployment of raptor,



How many super-cruising Raptors has the US Navy bought to replace the F-14/AIM-54?…

ANdy
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 4:41:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Not by the USA.

Supposedly Iran used a few of theirs in the Iraq-Iran war.


Originally Posted By 95thFoot:
Has this missile ever been used in combat?




Some were shot at an Iraqi MIG-25 in a no fly zone about 2 years ago and missed.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 4:50:43 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:06:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2004 5:06:38 PM EST by Orion_Shall_Rise]

Originally Posted By azexarms:
Ahem...OK.

I love military hardware, aircraft, weapons systems etc...When I was a young lad I was the "go to guy" in politics and history classes because even the teachers knew that I knew my shit when it came to all military hardware, it's performance characteristics, faults, price, etc...

But I want to remind you all of one thing. The Soviet Union is no more.

I'll repeat that again since it apparently is lost on some here.

The COLD WAR IS OVER.

We'll NEVER be in a "no see shoot" situation again, because of rogue nations. We no longer face a monolithic enemy who we can be assured of in combat. We deal with bit players and shithead groups.



China has a ton of planes, and thier building domestic production facilites..



The stupid F22, B2, etc... are useless pieces of shit. Huge boondoggles (hey it's just Taxpayer money right?) which are obsolete to modern warfighting, designed to confront an enemy which no longer exists.



B2 is perfect for strikes on Iran reactors...



Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:18:05 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:33:10 PM EST
yeah... not all that many people realize Putin was Head of the KGB.....


Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:35:09 PM EST
That's bullshit.
Even the F-14A could launch with 6 AIM-54's from a carrier.

The F-14 guys call that a "Doomsday Loadout".


Originally Posted By rayra:
IIRC, one issue that never got much discussion was that an F-14 could NOT cat-launch carrying 6 of them. Too heavy.

Link Posted: 10/7/2004 5:41:34 PM EST
During the first days of 1999, 2 USAF F-15s and 4 US Navy F-14D (VF-213) were engaged by about 13 Iraqi MiGs and Mirage F.1s above the No Fly Zone in southern Iraq.

In accordance with the UN resolutions, both the F-15s and F-14s fired missiles at long distance at the Iraqi.

No Iraqi aircraft were hit, but one Iraqi fighter is said to have crashed on approach to its airbase because of a lack of fuel.

After this incident the UN continue to control the No Fly Zones, undisturbed by Saddam's forces ... eventually firing at Iraqi installations if provoked.



Originally Posted By CAAAwarfighter:
Some were shot at an Iraqi MIG-25 in a no fly zone about 2 years ago and missed.

Link Posted: 10/7/2004 6:39:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
During the first days of 1999, 2 USAF F-15s and 4 US Navy F-14D (VF-213) were engaged by about 13 Iraqi MiGs and Mirage F.1s above the No Fly Zone in southern Iraq.

In accordance with the UN resolutions, both the F-15s and F-14s fired missiles at long distance at the Iraqi.

No Iraqi aircraft were hit, but one Iraqi fighter is said to have crashed on approach to its airbase because of a lack of fuel.

After this incident the UN continue to control the No Fly Zones, undisturbed by Saddam's forces ... eventually firing at Iraqi installations if provoked.



Originally Posted By CAAAwarfighter:
Some were shot at an Iraqi MIG-25 in a no fly zone about 2 years ago and missed.





Any specifics as to what range the Iraqis were engaged? Did the F15s also fire, if so what missile did they use? Why were no Iraqis planes hit?

I'm curious about this and frankly a little concerned that six US warplanes fired their weapons at enemy planes and didn't hit one.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 6:42:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2004 6:42:43 PM EST by 2A373]

Originally Posted By KA3B:
During the first days of 1999, 2 USAF F-15s and 4 US Navy F-14D (VF-213) were engaged by about 13 Iraqi MiGs and Mirage F.1s above the No Fly Zone in southern Iraq.

In accordance with the UN resolutions, both the F-15s and F-14s fired missiles at long distance at the Iraqi.

No Iraqi aircraft were hit, but one Iraqi fighter is said to have crashed on approach to its airbase because of a lack of fuel.

After this incident the UN continue to control the No Fly Zones, undisturbed by Saddam's forces ... eventually firing at Iraqi installations if provoked.



Originally Posted By CAAAwarfighter:
Some were shot at an Iraqi MIG-25 in a no fly zone about 2 years ago and missed.




This is why we need F/A-22's. Two 22's would of cleaned house.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 6:43:36 PM EST
I build the Estes model rocket of these WAY back when, pretty awsome rocket
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 6:56:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By azexarms:
We'll NEVER be in a "no see shoot" situation again, because of rogue nations. We no longer face a monolithic enemy who we can be assured of in combat. We deal with bit players and shithead groups.

D.AZEX



China... just a question of time.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 7:07:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By Blackjack272:
The newer AMRAAM may have the range, but what about the limiting factor of the host plane? No radar before or since can TOUCH the capabilties in the A2A mode of the APG-70/71.

This is a sad day, but remember what Tomcat aircrews used to say.

Someday we'll look back and say, "It was fun!"



The E-3 and E-2 AWACS can datalink their radar info to newer planes...

Presumablly, new AAMs will be able to take advantage of this as well (the current AMRAAM is datalink guided out to terminal range, after which it switches to active-radar)....
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 7:09:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By Evil_Ed:
Gee, that's wonderful...

But...not to, you know, throw a hissy fit, but...what did they replace it with?

Oh...nothing.

NOTHING.

That is like phasing out submarines. Stupid, stupid, stupid..especially without a viable and BETTER replacement. Hell, they still fly B-52's because we don't have a better platform; what's wrong with the Phoenix, other than it's exhorbant price tag?



We DO have a better plane than the B-52... It's called the B-1.

The B-1 outcarries, outruns, and outmaneuvers the '52...

Like the M-14 in Iraq, the only reason we are still fielding them is that they are paid for and we have alot of them...
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 7:27:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By azexarms:
Ahem...OK.

I love military hardware, aircraft, weapons systems etc...When I was a young lad I was the "go to guy" in politics and history classes because even the teachers knew that I knew my shit when it came to all military hardware, it's performance characteristics, faults, price, etc...

But I want to remind you all of one thing. The Soviet Union is no more.

I'll repeat that again since it apparently is lost on some here.

The COLD WAR IS OVER.

We'll NEVER be in a "no see shoot" situation again, because of rogue nations. We no longer face a monolithic enemy who we can be assured of in combat. We deal with bit players and shithead groups.

The stupid F22, B2, etc... are useless pieces of shit. Huge boondoggles (hey it's just Taxpayer money right?) which are obsolete to modern warfighting, designed to confront an enemy which no longer exists.

I love this hardware. When I see it at airshows, my heart swells with pride at our military and technological might. I am a true Patriot and Freedom-Lover.

However, I cant help but think how many Humvee armor jobs, and new sets of Body Armor could be bought for our guys ON THE GROUND GETTING SHOT AT, instead of providing "just another whizbang zoomer toy for the fucking Air Farce (or Navy, take your pick)"

Imagine how many A10s we could build for one F22, or one B2.

(Asbestos suit on, fire away)

D.
AZEX



That's the most shortsighted drivel I have ever seen...

1) The A-10 is an obselete design, which we are fortunately no longer producing...

It is an absolute deathtrap if sent against any modern military... If you think we're going to spend the rest of our national existance beating up on Arabs, you're sadly mistken...

Armor on aircraft is only good for so much, and the A-10 is a pilot-killer in a missile threat environment. It's too slow, flies too low, and the electronics are too primative... Designed in an era where mobile SAMs did not exist, it stands no chance on a modern battlefield, except in a mopping-up role... OIF doesn't count, as we can't expect every enemy to have as little functional mobile air defense as Saddam had...

2) We most certainly WILL end up fighting an enemy with advanced weapons, including BVR shoot-to-kill air combat scenarios...

Forget about CHINA? They may not have the best equipment, but they have ALOT of it, and their basic air tactics will be to swarm a USN CVBG in hopes of presenting more targets than we can kill... BVR intercept will be key in that scenario... Similar things can be said for the F-22's steath & super-cruise. It's hardly a boondoggle...

3) As for the B-2, once again, against China or North Korea - heck, even against Saddam, it was neccicary to have a high-capacity stealth bomber... The B-2 and B-1 both out-carry and out-range the old, obselete B-52...

Basically, we shouldn't base our defense priorities on the loosers we're fighting in Iraq today... We should base them on the ability to fight an 'Anti-America', a technologically equal super-enemy. The equipment developed in that quest will handle lesser forces just fine...
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 7:29:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By A_G:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
During the first days of 1999, 2 USAF F-15s and 4 US Navy F-14D (VF-213) were engaged by about 13 Iraqi MiGs and Mirage F.1s above the No Fly Zone in southern Iraq.

In accordance with the UN resolutions, both the F-15s and F-14s fired missiles at long distance at the Iraqi.

No Iraqi aircraft were hit, but one Iraqi fighter is said to have crashed on approach to its airbase because of a lack of fuel.

After this incident the UN continue to control the No Fly Zones, undisturbed by Saddam's forces ... eventually firing at Iraqi installations if provoked.



Originally Posted By CAAAwarfighter:
Some were shot at an Iraqi MIG-25 in a no fly zone about 2 years ago and missed.





Any specifics as to what range the Iraqis were engaged? Did the F15s also fire, if so what missile did they use? Why were no Iraqis planes hit?

I'm curious about this and frankly a little concerned that six US warplanes fired their weapons at enemy planes and didn't hit one.



The Eagles & Toms were both carrying AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles...
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 7:42:24 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 7:44:50 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 7:45:13 PM EST
This just shattered my heart I knew it was just a matter of time, with the F-14 leaving

Damn I feel old
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 7:49:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By A_G:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
During the first days of 1999, 2 USAF F-15s and 4 US Navy F-14D (VF-213) were engaged by about 13 Iraqi MiGs and Mirage F.1s above the No Fly Zone in southern Iraq.

In accordance with the UN resolutions, both the F-15s and F-14s fired missiles at long distance at the Iraqi.

No Iraqi aircraft were hit, but one Iraqi fighter is said to have crashed on approach to its airbase because of a lack of fuel.

After this incident the UN continue to control the No Fly Zones, undisturbed by Saddam's forces ... eventually firing at Iraqi installations if provoked.



Originally Posted By CAAAwarfighter:
Some were shot at an Iraqi MIG-25 in a no fly zone about 2 years ago and missed.





Any specifics as to what range the Iraqis were engaged? Did the F15s also fire, if so what missile did they use? Why were no Iraqis planes hit?

I'm curious about this and frankly a little concerned that six US warplanes fired their weapons at enemy planes and didn't hit one.



The Eagles & Toms were both carrying AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles...




I thought the Tomcat was still limited to carrying the POS Sparrow and not the AMRAAM. Of course, I could be quite wrong. Any information on why all the US planes missed the Iraqis?
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 7:55:23 PM EST
The local school we have here at Whidbey Island stopped training ordnancemen how to load/unload Phoenix missles 2 years ago. We took 36 of them with us on the deployment we did this year, and shot 16 of them on the way over to the Gulf. We were supposed to shoot the remaining 16 on the way back, but that got nixed.

While I am sad to see them go (hey, I ride on the bird farms Tomcats were protecting!), but the threat just isn't there to keep the missle around. We won't be facing any massed Backfire raids anytime soon, and killing bombers was what the Phoenix was designed for. Against fighter sized targets, performance isn't up to par.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 8:06:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2004 8:34:13 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By azexarms:
You military "experts" out there can jerk yourselves off all you want thinking that some super-expensive air asset can kill all and solve everything.

But the fact is this, it takes MEN ON THE GROUND to TAKE territory and HOLD it.

D.
AZEX



AZEX, if the enemy never gets any men on the ground, it doesn't take any of ours to do anything...

Chna vs US over Taiwan will be won or lost in the straits of Formosa...

And we will need those super-expensive air assets...

Ground troops without air, armor, or arty are basically sitting ducks... See Mogadishu...

1 or 2 super-expensive air assets (AC-130s, AH-64s or F-16s) would have made a big difference....

Further, in any campaign against North Korea, 'men on the ground' aren't going to make it deep into the North to destroy nuclear weapons facilities, or in the event of a full-on-war, no amount of 'men on the ground' will be able to counter the 30,000+ North Korean artillery pieces dialed in on Saigon....

If there's ever a 2nd Korean war, the Air Force & Navy will have some VERY tired pilots, as they'll be the only thing keeping Seoul on the map...
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 8:07:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By azexarms:
Bunch of wannabe Gen Jack D. Rippers around here.

"Ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water, Mandrake?"

Weren't many of you predicting the "they'll find a way" new AWB law not too long ago?

Forgive my cynicism, but the Arfcom "crystal ball" doesn't really hold much sway in what some of us call "the real world".

Keep wishing for that Chinese boogeyman, and while you're wishing, ask yourself this question? The Chinese have propelled themselves (barely) into the 20th Century, by stealing and selling, copying and mass production. They've come closer in a short time towards Capitalism (under a Police State) than we've departed from it (under a fucking Socialist Nanny-State) in the same time period.

Why O Why would they want to kill off their Golden Goose?

D.
AZEX



Don't kid yourself...

It's not about communisim vs democracy...

It's about (a) Taiwan, and (b) resources (see Japan, WWII)... China will have to attempt expansion at some time in order to keep their 'boom' going...
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 8:15:52 PM EST
Wasn't the Pheonix designed to engage bombers out to 200 miles???? I though lacked the maneuverability to engage fighters???? Plus we only have a few planes with radar ( Pulse Doppler ) that far reaching so they can fire this weapon???? I guess they cannot fit it to the Superhornet, Raptor, or JSF so they retired it??????
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 8:33:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Don't worry, although the US has no missiles with a comparable performance and range envelope in sight, I am sure the Europeans will sell you the METEOR ABVRAAM … Mach 4+, 100nm range., and any plane that can carry AMRAAM can launch Meteor.

img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/meteorcutout.jpg

Andy




Thanks, but no thanks. I'm sure our new versions of the AMRAAM will serve us fine.

Besides, the last time I remember trying to develop an AAM with Euros it was the ASRAAM. The AIM-9X kicked its ass at every turn.

Just wanna add, I don't consider the UK to be part of Europe anymore. I consider it to be the North Eastern Island chain of North America.



We're the 51st State!

Andy



and oddly enough ya'll rank in my top five.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 8:36:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By rayra:


AMRAAM and near-term mods will do the job. coupled with super-cruising launch aircraft, deployment of raptor,



How many super-cruising Raptors has the US Navy bought to replace the F-14/AIM-54?…

ANdy

smartass - what part of supercruising F/A-18s don't you get? Take your attempt at a cheap shot and shove it up your afterburner.


And thanks to for the clarifications on the 6-Phoenix issue.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 8:38:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
That's bullshit.
Even the F-14A could launch with 6 AIM-54's from a carrier.

The F-14 guys call that a "Doomsday Loadout".


Originally Posted By rayra:
IIRC, one issue that never got much discussion was that an F-14 could NOT cat-launch carrying 6 of them. Too heavy.


Thus the IIRC. Obviously I was mistaken, and I PREFACED my remark to indicate I was not certain.
Your "bullshit" was wasted.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 8:40:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By RED_5:
I build the Estes model rocket of these WAY back when, pretty awsome rocket

Same here. Thing was damned near 3' long. Got several good launches until one where it nosed over, imitated a cruise missile for a bit, then augered in. The plastic nose was jammed so far back into the cardboard body that I gave up trying to pull it out.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 8:40:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By rayra:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By rayra:


AMRAAM and near-term mods will do the job. coupled with super-cruising launch aircraft, deployment of raptor,



How many super-cruising Raptors has the US Navy bought to replace the F-14/AIM-54?…

ANdy

smartass - what part of supercruising F/A-18s don't you get? Take your attempt at a cheap shot and shove it up your afterburner.


And thanks to for the clarifications on the 6-Phoenix issue.



The Super Hornet can't super-cruise (super-cruise = do mach without afterburners..)...

The original Bugs are slow planes to begin with... Mach 1.2, last I checked... The 'Super' version improves this, but it still needs burners to breach Mach...

It's an F-22 exclusive feature for now...
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 8:45:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2004 8:49:01 PM EST by Sierra_Hombre]
this was a long time coming given the scaling back and eventual retirement of the tomcat, though it's a sweet weapon. this missle was designed to fire in a barrage role, taking out as many soviet bombers/fighters at distance, as possible, at one time. the large formations that this system was designed for are unlikely to be encountered in future conflicts but i too agree that we should never assume anything when mothballing what at the time seemed to be obsolete weapons. i can still envision some scenarios where it would be useful, most notably in a naval/air engagement with china. looks like it will be castrated by a lack of an in-service platform. or am i incorrect? anyway, it was something to be concerned about if you were the enemy, that's for sure.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top