Jump to content

AIM 120C getting upgrade


chief

Recommended Posts

Quoting national interest blog is about as credible as quoting National Enquirer (US tabloid). Not a particularly reliable source at all.

It's not that important, because we all know that phoenix is a big heavy missile, designed for bombers.

it's common sense :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Missiles that are larger and heavier than the AIM-54:

 

MIM-104 Patriot,

MIM-23 Hawk,

RIM-66 Standard,

SA-2 / S-75

S-200,

S-300,

Buk

 

Are all of these missile systems useless against maneuvering fighter sized targets? I think that may come as a surprise to their operators.

 

And since they're all SAM systems, they have a considerable speed and altitude disadvantage compared to the Phoenix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that important, because we all know that phoenix is a big heavy missile, designed for bombers.

 

it's common sense :)

I think you are falling into a very common phalacy, while A is true does not imply B is true:

"the phoenix was designed to kill bombers at very long ranges outside of the range where these bombers were supposed to launch their missiles" that is true.

But then, you are implying as a corollary that it should perform badly against fighters, which has no correlation. It might be totally true or totally false. If you want to prove it you need to discuss how the whitepaper in which the phoenix is based is wrong.

 

The common sense, at least for me is totally the opposite, you have a missile capable of insane speeds and with a huge warhead, i mean the common sense tells me that even being at 20 metres from a maneuvering target and exploding would cause serious damage to the plane...

It also has huge surface to maneouver, idk, the only thing that seems a bit wrong to me is his resistance to countermeasures and jamming, just that.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that important, because we all know that phoenix is a big heavy missile, designed for bombers.

it's common sense :)

 

:megalol:

 

I dunno man, maybe lookup the definition of the word "WE"

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:doh:

 

this is getting really stupid...

Yes, i can confirm

 

Question :

Would the AIM-54 Phoenix have been capable of engaging enemy fighters successfully if given the chance in combat?

 

Answer :

As usual, it depends.

 

Against first- or second-generation fighters with limited or no countermeasures, it would likely have been effective - the targets would have no idea they were being detected and tracked by the AWG-9 and no idea there were AIM-54s inbound until they started exploding, so the weapon would have been pretty lethal.

 

Against more capable targets… there’s a lot of detail about how you counter long-range missiles, and even things like “turn forty-five degree now… and turn ninety degrees the other way now…” can greatly reduce the effectiveness of a long-range shot if timed about right (for which you need a decent radar warning receiver), while chaff, jamming and evasion on “Phoenix seeker head!” would also be pretty effective: the missile was designed to intercept large bombers, not agile fighters, and didn’t have a lot of endgame manoeuvre capability.

 

The couple of US firings while policing the “no fly zones” over Iraq were not lethal (though they were very persuasive in asking the Iraqi aircraft to cease and desist at the highest possible speed). Iran claimed a lot of kills with its F-14/AIM-54 combo, but it’s very hard to confirm their version with any Iraqi records and it’s a subject ripe for exaggeration and propaganda.

 

Phoenix was designed for a specific role (fleet air defence against standoff missile carriers) and would probably have been very good at it; it was never intended to be an anti-fighter weapon and I’d be wary of assuming it would be effective in that job against reasonably capable opponents.

Paul Adam, Independent defence consultant

 

https://www.quora.com/Would-the-AIM-54-Phoenix-have-been-capable-of-engaging-enemy-fighters-successfully-if-given-the-chance-in-combat

 

You are right, stupidity is growing nowadays

 

Oh, and nobody is able to answer to my previous question:) strange...


Edited by sylkhan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked a simple question, but nobody seems to be able to answer it, perhaps you ?

 

- at what range the F-14 radar is able to burn-through a modern jamming fighter ?

 

Which jammer? What is the pod's power output? How large is the jamming antenna? What deceptive techniques does it use? Who made it? When was it last updated? Without this information your question is meaningless. With it your question is merely not likely to be answered because ECCM data specific enough to give a discrete range for a given transmitter/jammer combination is restricted as heck.


Edited by near_blind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which jammer? What is the pod's power output? How large is the jamming antenna? What deceptive techniques does it use? Who made it? When was it last updated? Without this information your question is meaningless. With it your question is merely not likely to be answered because ECCM data specific enough to give a discrete range for a given transmitter/jammer combination.

 

My question was for DCS not for RL :)

OK DCS F-14 vs a jamming DCS F-16 block 50, at what range the DCS F-14 radar will burn through, at angel 20.

Do you have enough informations ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most anyone who has ever had an interest in military aviation knows that F-14s carried AIM-54s, and that the Phoenix (affectionately known as a 1,000-pound wingman) was famous for its long range and large warhead, as well as active terminal guidance and the ability to have multiple Phoenixes in flight simultaneously. This gave us impressive capability, especially compared to other air-to-air missiles in the early 1980s. Yes, the AIM-54A had some employment limitations, but it repeatedly destroyed fighter-size targets in test shots. Let me digress to say how disappointed I am that the U.S. Navy has no real-world Phoenix kills.

 

When we started to get serious about the threat, especially when the AA-10 Alamo arrived, we realized we had to employ AIM-54s against enemy fighters. So of course we began to train with them. I think the capability was in TACTS all along, we just never used it. Fortunately the Navy introduced the AIM-54C in 1987, when we really needed it. The Charlie corrected many shortcomings of the Alpha, in both outer air battle and closer-in tactical environments. With its long motor burn time, large warhead, and radar improvements, the AIM-54C was a tenacious missile. Again, it is too bad it doesn’t have a combat record.

One of the coolest visuals I remember was from TACTS debriefs at Fallon, when a division of Tomcats launched AIM-54Cs against simulated Fulcrums at 30-plus miles. A few seconds after launch the debriefer rotated the view from overhead to horizontal, and there were four Phoenixes performing their trajectory-shaping climbs. AIM-54s were not 100% kills, but they sure started to reduce the threat as scenarios developed.

 

 

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-topgun-instructor-watched-the-f-14-go-from-tomcat-1725012279

 

At least quote somewhat reputable sources. By definition I'm an "independent defense consultant"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK DCS F-14 vs a jamming DCS F-16 block 50, at what range the DCS F-14 radar will burn through, at angel 20.

Do you have enough informations ?

 

Nope. I don't have the user's guide for the ALQ-131, 184, or either of the F-14's radars handy, and if I did I'd be going to prison, fun how classification works! Considering I've never heard of either pods being a significant deterrent for radars less powerful and equally sophisticated, I'd imagine odds for yeetification are good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. I don't have the user's guide for the ALQ-131, 184, or either of the F-14's radars handy, and if I did I'd be going to prison, fun how classification works! Considering I've never heard of either pods being a significant deterrent for radars less powerful and equally sophisticated, I'd imagine odds for yeetification are good.

Do you realize we are talking about DCS, or my english is so bad, i don't understand what you mean :)

Just do a test with your game , you will not be going in prison :megalol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you realize we are talking about DCS, or my english is so bad, i don't understand what you mean :)

Just do a test with your game , you will not be going in prison :megalol:

 

The dangers of mixing discussion of reality and a video game. Currently ECCM either isn't modeled or is rudimentarily modeled in the Tomcat. Such is Early Access.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you realize we are talking about DCS, or my english is so bad, i don't understand what you mean :)

Just do a test with your game , you will not be going in prison :megalol:

 

sylkhan... i think what some people are trying to convey to you is that IronMike has incredibly detailed information from numerous subject matter experts that directly contradict you. He has offered evidence, logic, and multiple reasons why the AIM-54 was an excellent choice for killing fighters, yet you still keep saying it was really only for bombers. That may be the "common sense" or common perception, but that doesn't make it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sylkhan... i think what some people are trying to convey to you is that IronMike has incredibly detailed information from numerous subject matter experts that directly contradict you. He has offered evidence, logic, and multiple reasons why the AIM-54 was an excellent choice for killing fighters, yet you still keep saying it was really only for bombers. That may be the "common sense" or common perception, but that doesn't make it right.

 

Then why US desperately try to make an effective long-range missile (meteor like) against moderrn fighters, they already have it,... the old Phoenix from 60/70,

They have the technology since 50 years, perhaps they forgot how to do it :)

Someone need to tell them, but he has to think twice, before doing that :)


Edited by sylkhan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because, even assuming you can overhaul all the electrons in the missile and not have that cost more than developing something from scratch, the Phoenix is a) too expensive and b) too large and heavy to be carried by a relatively lightweight jet like a Viper, Hornet, Super Hornet, or carried internally by the F22/35.

 

 

Performance is not the only metric that determines whether a weapon system is purchased or kept in service, otherwise every NATO airforce would be flying the F-22 exclusively.


Edited by TLTeo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguing about the capabilities of the Phoenix is essentially identical to arguing with people about the ACM prowess of the Tomcat.

 

There are people out there that simply refuse to believe what they're being told despite all the hard evidence to the contrary.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Can't pretend fly as well as you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s especially fun even after the results of the Fight for Honor tournament :P

 

Arguing about the capabilities of the Phoenix is essentially identical to arguing with people about the ACM prowess of the Tomcat.

 

There are people out there that simply refuse to believe what they're being told despite all the hard evidence to the contrary.

2080Ti FTW3 Ultra - G.Skill RJ 32GB (16x2) DDR4 3200 - Ryzen 2700X 4.2Ghz OC - Corsair H100i Pro - Samsung 970 EVO M.2 2TB - TMW HOTAS w Delta Sim - F/A-18C grip - 10cm Sahaj - TrackIR 5 Pro - Rift CV1 - MFG CWind - BuddyFox UFC - DSD RK II - Cougar MFDs w/ LCDs - Foxx Mounts - VPC MongoosT-50CM base

 

- Maps: NTTR, Persian Gulf, Normandy

- Modules: FC3, F-14A/B, F/A-18C, AV-8B, A-10C, F-16C, F-86, KA-50, P-51D, WWII assets, and [insert campaign name]

Dreaming of the F-15E / F-14D / Rhino

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why US desperately try to make an effective long-range missile (meteor like) against moderrn fighters, they already have it,... the old Phoenix from 60/70,

They have the technology since 50 years, perhaps they forgot how to do it :)

Someone need to tell them, but he has to think twice, before doing that :)

 

Because you need fighters as big as F-14 or MiG-31 (R-33) to carry this class of missiles !!! :doh:

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why US desperately try to make an effective long-range missile (meteor like) against moderrn fighters, they already have it,... the old Phoenix from 60/70,

They have the technology since 50 years, perhaps they forgot how to do it :)

Someone need to tell them, but he has to think twice, before doing that :)

 

They could probably make a pretty lethal missile if they upgraded the 54's radar and guidance to 2020 standards, even if they left the other parts as is.

 

That missile is big and heavy, so it can't hit a fighter is a stupid argument. Effective range will much less, sure. ECM? Big surprise: 50 years more advanced technology would make life difficult for old planes and missiles... but that is not modeled in this game, so what?

 

Btw if an F14 with Aim-54As goes head to head against a Hornet with 120s 1v1, the F-18 has very good chance to win, as the 54s are easy to notch. So what is the problem? You want to defeat an incoming high energy missile by pulling lots of G and doing aerobatics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why US desperately try to make an effective long-range missile (meteor like) against moderrn fighters, they already have it,... the old Phoenix from 60/70,

They have the technology since 50 years, perhaps they forgot how to do it :)

Someone need to tell them, but he has to think twice, before doing that :)

 

The AIM-120 is already integrated with current fighters and parts can be had. The AIM-54 line would have to be restarted after it was redesigned with available parts and it would have to be integrated with current fighters. This is way more expensive than you think in addition to the size issue and remember that the F-22 and F-35 carry missiles internally.

 

The component capability mix for making the AiM-120 fly farther is going to be different from the AIM-54 and the AIM-54 designers are long gone. So yes, some knowledge is probably lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s especially fun even after the results of the Fight for Honor tournament :P
I've talked with a few F-14 naysayers since then, and their "counter argument" usually begins with, "Well, no, see, that was different because...". Eventually, I gave up on wasting my breath.

 

People are just going to believe whatever they want.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Can't pretend fly as well as you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've talked with a few F-14 naysayers since then, and their "counter argument" usually begins with, "Well, no, see, that was different because...". Eventually, I gave up on wasting my breath.

 

People are just going to believe whatever they want.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

Well no see that was different because its Guns only...I’d love to see the Cat beat bugs like that in a realistic situation. :) The problem with Cat people is they’re living in the 90s. Sure you’d be an idiot to think your not at a disadvantage against it...guns only. But it’s a different story with heaters, and it’s a very different story with wingmen, and an extremely different story with ECM.

 

Then it turns into this discussion, well what if we gave it upgraded AIM-54s?? What if we gave it 9x?? Or they were going too, but they couldn’t or they wanted to but..blah blah blah the F-14 is the most insane case of should’ve, could’ve, would’ve, but didn’t, on theses forums it’s worse then the KA50 theorists IMO. So it’s a waste of breath for both sides.


Edited by Wizard_03

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is partially right though. The faster missile will have to pull less angles to match for the target's displacement, that is true, however because of the non linear increase in g/VS/ground speed, will most likely need to pull more g in order to do it.

 

That is largely irrelevant though, as such defensive breaks would only work when one can visually acquire the missile. And the faster the missile is, the less time you have to respond accordingly from the moment you see it. I.E. if a missile is doing 1500 knots of ground speed it pushing 2500+ft per second (760m/s). If you spot that missile at this range, you only have 1s to react. If the missile is twice as fast, it will cross that distance for an even shorter amount of time. So except for WVR engagements, i don't see how any defensive breaks would reliable tactic to dodge missiles. At least missiles that came into service from the 70's onward.

 

Now, if one had a perfect SA, then yes. If you know exactly where the missile is coming from, how fast it is, and how much time you have until splash, then yes, you could execute such a turn. But without using external views or other "cheat" i just don't see it happening.

 

Don't really see how he is even partially right tbh, as the faster speed should also allow the missile to change direction quicker (more lift), and the amount of G's it will have to pull to do so are quite unlikely to exceed what the missile is capable of, which in the case of the AIM54 is ~20 G's IIRC.


Edited by Hummingbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you need fighters as big as F-14 or MiG-31 (R-33) to carry this class of missiles !!! :doh:

 

Ridiculous.

 

Fisrt, it was a joke, but perhaps a little too subbtle for Jojo......

 

Second, a phoenix is 4.01 m for 447 kg, a r27er is 4.80m(ouch) for 350kg, not bad :).

A fighter, as little as mig29 can carry 2X r27er + 2X r77+2X r73 + fuel tank 1400 kg.

Then no, you don't need a fighter as big as f-14 to carry 2X phoenix.

I am sure su-27 could carry X4 phoenix easyly

But since the phoenix is the deadliest missile of the world :), 2 is more than enough.

 

AMERICAN COMBAT EXPERIENCE with phoenix vs fighters

 

- On January 5, 1999, a pair of US F-14s fired two Phoenixes at Iraqi MiG-25s southeast of Baghdad. Both AIM-54s' rocket motors failed and neither missile hit its target...Ooops :)

 

- On September 9, 1999 another US F-14 launched an AIM-54 at an Iraqi MiG-23 that was heading south into the No-Fly Zone from Al Taqaddum air base west of Baghdad. The missile missed, eventually going into the ground after the Iraqi fighter reversed course and fled north.

A little turn and....Oooops :lol:

 

And that's not against modern agile fighters with great jamming systems.

 

To sum up :

A DCS f-14 with a radar immune against jamming fighter + the deadliest missile, and you have a winner :)

 

Ok guys, i am done with the meteor, euuuhh the phoenix.

DCS is a game after all

Happy gaming :)


Edited by sylkhan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...