The Phoenix should not be able to turn that well...

50000 or 3500000,Financial is ever the best favored execuse to give rationalization for BC/PC.

 

 

Tomcat of Phoenix,behind those of official statistics,it'll never tells you those of usually be balmed "coastly" and be saved in peacetime,will ever be payback on the battlefield in this shape :

 

 

 

As of Mad Major told us :"Your excellent safety record means you're not trained hard enough,you've to kill somebody".Since it was never a armed forces was ever establish for only satisfy smooth daily run and let alone the future challenge of war even just a potential one.

 

And, above all, compare with those of "effectiveness" depicted above, it worth this number to spent!

Could somebody translate this for me please, im struggling to work it iut

Could somebody translate this for me please, im struggling to work it iut

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

I know XD. It was just a bit of a sacarstic title. I thought i should share this.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Oh man, i was too quick on the keyboard.....this DID turn out to be........ wait for it......

"HERE WE GO AGAIN" :music_whistling:

Jester, somewhere over Dubai, 9th of February, 2020 :P

This could have been a nice thread about a nice video, but noooo, we just cant enjoy nice things in quiet, now can we ... Also OP, you owe me a beer for shocking me with a thread title like that. Actually, make that two, at least, haha!

Too bad it got derailed again, by this reoccurring phenomenon of speculating about what it was initially designed for and what it wasn't designed for. Who cares?? That does not allow any conclusion about what else you might or might not be able to use it against. Let me assure you - Tomcat crews did not mention any issues against fighters, for the brazillionst gazillionst of times, in fact they loved it for that role, no matter what it was designed for.

The phoenix was just as capable against fighters as it was against bombers. Period. Let us rather just not mention that lengthy comment, but yeah, here is my advice: read the whitepaper instead of youtube comments. I mean it nicely.

It is getting really old, folks. :music_whistling:

On a sidenote: sharing holocaust pictures like this is not much appreciated here. Please don't do that.

This could have been a nice thread about a nice video, but noooo, we just cant enjoy nice things in quiet, now can we ... Also OP, you owe me a beer for shocking me with a thread title like that. Actually, make that two, at least, haha!

 

Too bad it got derailed again, by this reoccurring phenomenon of speculating about what it was initially designed for and what it wasn't designed for. Who cares?? That does not allow any conclusion about what else you might or might not be able to use it against. Let me assure you - Tomcat crews did not mention any issues against fighters, for the brazillionst gazillionst of times, in fact they loved it for that role, no matter what it was designed for.

The phoenix was just as capable against fighters as it was against bombers. Period. Let us rather just not mention that lengthy comment, but yeah, here is my advice: read the whitepaper instead of youtube comments. I mean it nicely.

 

It is getting really old, folks. :music_whistling:

 

 

On a sidenote: sharing holocaust pictures like this is not much appreciated here. Please don't do that.

I can appreciate your frustration as I also share it... understand though, that the reason these conversations keep coming up is because people believe the F-14 is less capable than it was... That sounds like bragging or egoism about a specific airframe, but the reality is the F-14 was so far ahead of its time that it continues to STILL be relevant. The threat from outdated and barely functional F-14A's exported to Iran STILL dominates what information can be released about an aircraft designed and built in the 1970's. Grumman was green lit to build a super aircraft and they delivered the F-14A under circumstances that would have had most aero companies begging for more funding. And they did it under adversity too by being saddled with limited computer technology and those god forsaken TF30 engines.

I legitimately believe that this argument keeps occuring because people struggle to believe such an aircraft is still viable. Usually, the give away is the statement "if it was so awesome, why'd they cancel it?" while ignoring the politics surrounding it's cancellation. Had Grumman been given the go ahead on the ASF-14 program, the whole Super Hornet program would never occurred and the F-35's advanced avionics wouldn't appear so revolutionary...

Oh these arguments break out because people believe what ever it is they chose or like to believe, facts be damned.

Fortunately this is a flight sim and not high school debate club, so it's either documentation or bust

here's another fun one :) sadly impact not visible https://streamable.com/qc4cb

There is the airframe, and there is the missile.

To handle such a weapon system with long legs and such big missile you need a big airframe.

This is a complex airframe, with variable wing, lots of control surfaces and with the burden of aircraft carrier operations...inevitably, it was costly to sustain. It wasn't just about politics.

And the great Tomcat pilot interview posted here tells that. They always had to plan spare aircraft because of regular no go. Even after youth problems solved.

So yes, it was a capable airframe, but there is a reason for nobody designing variable wings airframe anymore.

Then there is the wrong point about the missile:

"If the missile was really capable, why did they withdraw it at the same time as the Tomcat in 2006 ?"

Because it's a 1000lbs AA missile. It's the weight of 3 AIM-120 AMRAAM or one Mk-83.

And the Tomcat could carry 4 Phoenix + 2 AIM-9 + 2 AIM-7 and land on the carrier with it.

Bring back capacity is a serious issue for Navy fighters. You don't want to jettison such costly weapons each time you have to land on the carrier.

No other plane could really perform as well as the Tomcat with AIM-54. The Tomcat was designed to carry it efficiently, especially with the "tunnel" between the engines.

There was no point to keep the AIM-54 without the Tomcat, it wouldn't fit correctly on other airframe.

Here on F-15 to be used as target.

But the missile being big doesn't mean it can't perform well against fighters. To start with, this is a massive war head.

We can see in the OP video that the missile can turn.

Speed itself is great advantage.

There is the airframe, and there is the missile.

 

To handle such a weapon system with long legs and such big missile you need a big airframe.

 

This is a complex airframe, with variable wing, lots of control surfaces and with the burden of aircraft carrier operations...inevitably, it was costly to sustain. It wasn't just about politics.

And the great Tomcat pilot interview posted here tells that. They always had to plan spare aircraft because of regular no go. Even after youth problems solved.

 

So yes, it was a capable airframe, but there is a reason for nobody designing variable wings airframe anymore.

 

Then there is the wrong point about the missile:

"If the missile was really capable, why did they withdraw it at the same time as the Tomcat in 2006 ?"

 

Because it's a 1000lbs AA missile. It's the weight of 3 AIM-120 AMRAAM or one Mk-83.

And the Tomcat could carry 4 Phoenix + 2 AIM-9 + 2 AIM-7 and land on the carrier with it.

Bring back capacity is a serious issue for Navy fighters. You don't want to jettison such costly weapons each time you have to land on the carrier.

No other plane could really perform as well as the Tomcat with AIM-54. The Tomcat was designed to carry it efficiently, especially with the "tunnel" between the engines.

 

There was no point to keep the AIM-54 without the Tomcat, it wouldn't fit correctly on other airframe.

 

Here on F-15 to be used as target.

 

But the missile being big doesn't mean it can't perform well against fighters. To start with, this is a massive war head.

 

We can see in the OP video that the missile can turn.

Speed itself is great advantage.

Very true. AIM54 being retired the same time as the Tomcat makes sense. You wouldn't say the GAU8 is not a good gun because they retire it the same time as the A10. A10 was built around that gun, and the F14 was built around the AIM54 and AWG9.

I can appreciate your frustration as I also share it... understand though, that the reason these conversations keep coming up is because people believe the F-14 is less capable than it was... That sounds like bragging or egoism about a specific airframe, but the reality is the F-14 was so far ahead of its time that it continues to STILL be relevant. The threat from outdated and barely functional F-14A's exported to Iran STILL dominates what information can be released about an aircraft designed and built in the 1970's. Grumman was green lit to build a super aircraft and they delivered the F-14A under circumstances that would have had most aero companies begging for more funding. And they did it under adversity too by being saddled with limited computer technology and those god forsaken TF30 engines.

 

I legitimately believe that this argument keeps occuring because people struggle to believe such an aircraft is still viable. Usually, the give away is the statement "if it was so awesome, why'd they cancel it?" while ignoring the politics surrounding it's cancellation. Had Grumman been given the go ahead on the ASF-14 program, the whole Super Hornet program would never occurred and the F-35's advanced avionics wouldn't appear so revolutionary...

Just to clarify, me being frustrated was more me joking around a bit. Yes, the discussion is tiresome and sometimes I think it is good to be reminded of that. But I will also tell you this: what would be a community that would not be hellbent on discussing and knowing it or wanting to know more and staying engaged like ours does. While indeed some minor reoccuring things can be a little bit frustrating if you have to go through them again and again, I just want you all to know: I still prefer you all just like you are, clever, outspoken, engaged, interested and teasing the living hell out of us, as you should. In that sense, never mind me, always continue. :)

On a sidenote: sharing holocaust pictures like this is not much appreciated here. Please don't do that.

As a sidenote, people should seeing Holocaust everywhere and as one and only event....

That photo is from Vietnam POW.... At least that what again many sources tells.. again take it with big amount of salt...

Because you see something in a photo/video, doesn't mean that it is what you are told it to show.

War propaganda is not something that is done rarely, it is done all the time, mainly from West media etc.

You are shown something and then told that it presents something else and people believe it.

In war the truth is first victim....

Just like the video from OP.

People want to believe that Phoenix is fast and agile. Yet that whole 17 seconds flight time the another Mach 2 fighter follow the missile through its whole fight time. If someone doesn't get what that means... The missile is so slow that a fighter keeps up with it through whole 17 seconds Angelo l acceleration.

And as it is recorded from the rear, even slight turn look to be very big and fast, as perspective causes such distorting idea.

And because missile hits to a fighter size target drone, it doesn't mean that target drone was agile, it was pulling any high G, nor anything that information missile beign capable hit maneuvering targets.

People want to believe it so because they have learn that fighters are fast and very agile. So if they see or hear a fighter then it must be very very agile and difficult target.

Because the missile hits a target drone that turns toward the missile, it is again wanted to believe that it is extremely agile missile without any problems hitting a fighter size target.

A Su-27S can perform a 360 turn at 12.7 seconds, faster than F-14 (that is again better than any other Western teen fighter) and even in tighter turn radius same time.

That Phoenix is so easily spotted as it has huge smoke trail coming after it, you can dance around it. In the final 7 seconds, Su-27S would turn and burn 180 degree to opposite direction that Phoenix was traveling. And there is no way that Phoenix would intercepted it in its blast radius.

Because something is on the "white paper" doesn't mean that is true. The weapons manufacturer who are in business to sell weapons are not truthful when it comes to politics and business to make money.

It is all shady business when it becomes larger, more influential and more competitive business.

If you want to get real performance, you go to real scenarios and real situations. You take the empiric data and analyze that carefully.

With missiles it would require to get hands on the flight data, radar data, planned scenario, weather information etc.

If someone wants to get specific results, it is very easy to organize conditions for presentation that those results are received. That is what consulting companies and problem solvers are paid to do.

Again, analyze that... Read the book... A heat seeking missile against ground targets? Sheep's specs?

Hopefully you get the point.

When it comes to pilots opinions etc... It doesn't really matter much as same thing as in criminology, eye witness testimonies are untrustworthy. Juries are won by emotions and impressions in court. People are killed by egoistic reasons to do something that is stupid.

There is the airframe, and there is the missile.

 

To handle such a weapon system with long legs and such big missile you need a big airframe.

 

This is a complex airframe, with variable wing, lots of control surfaces and with the burden of aircraft carrier operations...inevitably, it was costly to sustain. It wasn't just about politics.

And the great Tomcat pilot interview posted here tells that. They always had to plan spare aircraft because of regular no go. Even after youth problems solved.

 

So yes, it was a capable airframe, but there is a reason for nobody designing variable wings airframe anymore.

 

Then there is the wrong point about the missile:

"If the missile was really capable, why did they withdraw it at the same time as the Tomcat in 2006 ?"

 

Because it's a 1000lbs AA missile. It's the weight of 3 AIM-120 AMRAAM or one Mk-83.

And the Tomcat could carry 4 Phoenix + 2 AIM-9 + 2 AIM-7 and land on the carrier with it.

Bring back capacity is a serious issue for Navy fighters. You don't want to jettison such costly weapons each time you have to land on the carrier.

No other plane could really perform as well as the Tomcat with AIM-54. The Tomcat was designed to carry it efficiently, especially with the "tunnel" between the engines.

 

There was no point to keep the AIM-54 without the Tomcat, it wouldn't fit correctly on other airframe.

 

Here on F-15 to be used as target.

 

But the missile being big doesn't mean it can't perform well against fighters. To start with, this is a massive war head.

 

We can see in the OP video that the missile can turn.

Speed itself is great advantage.

What we see in the photos is missile in optimal case, chase scenario where it just needs to fly behind the target.

Because you have a photo of the aircraft and phoenix in same frame, and then explosion, it doesn't mean anything that how did the missile actually fly to the target or what was purpose of the test.

I can walk to airbase, take a hand grenade and tape it to engine inlet and blow it up. Take photos of it in action. Nowhere would it prove that hands grenades are great for destroying fighters.... It would be more obvious for everyone as all can see it is a parked fighter. Maybe it was a in air museum. But it would still be a "hand grenade is capable destroy fighters" proof... Yeah, maybe for army that wants to sabotage fighters parked on ground etc...

In those photos F-15 is clearly getting shot from the rear. There is no flight data or any presentation of the maneuvering patterns or what a real pilot would do.

If you want to got something hit by purpose... It is far more easier to do when you control both target and the launcher, than when the other doesn't want to be hit.

If there would be videos of Phoenix hitting a acrobatic airplanes, flight data of enemy fighters that really puts all in the game, pilot skills, countermeasures, electronic countermeasures etc... And that done at least 20-50 times with great succession rate....

Turkey shooting is called such for a reason....

Yawn

Can't tell Eagle from QF-4... talks about AA missiles specs :thumbup:

Very little meaningful conversation and mostly opinions and desires flying around. A lot of couch defense analysis going on as well. Just ask the Iranians guys. That could save us all some time.

Just ask the Iranians guys. That could save us all some time.

:thumbup:

I’ve tried to make this point a couple of times now... Just look at the Phoenix kills during the Iran-Iraq war.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

Can't tell Eagle from QF-4... talks about AA missiles specs :thumbup:

But guys! My late father (God rest his soul) was so strong, he once punched my uncle so hard, he now only returns to our house once every few years! Kepler's laws indicate he must be in a highly elliptical orbit around our planet and/or sun!!! Honest! :music_whistling:

What we see in the photos is missile in optimal case, chase scenario where it just needs to fly behind the target.

 

Because you have a photo of the aircraft and phoenix in same frame, and then explosion, it doesn't mean anything that how did the missile actually fly to the target or what was purpose of the test.

 

I can walk to airbase, take a hand grenade and tape it to engine inlet and blow it up. Take photos of it in action. Nowhere would it prove that hands grenades are great for destroying fighters.... It would be more obvious for everyone as all can see it is a parked fighter. Maybe it was a in air museum. But it would still be a "hand grenade is capable destroy fighters" proof... Yeah, maybe for army that wants to sabotage fighters parked on ground etc...

 

In those photos F-15 is clearly getting shot from the rear. There is no flight data or any presentation of the maneuvering patterns or what a real pilot would do.

 

If you want to got something hit by purpose... It is far more easier to do when you control both target and the launcher, than when the other doesn't want to be hit.

 

If there would be videos of Phoenix hitting a acrobatic airplanes, flight data of enemy fighters that really puts all in the game, pilot skills, countermeasures, electronic countermeasures etc... And that done at least 20-50 times with great succession rate....

 

Turkey shooting is called such for a reason....

Just try to understand what I write before answering. :lol:

The F-15 picture is there to prove the Phoenix doesn’t fit well on others fighters.

The QF-4 blast picture (not F-15 for anyone with a minimum of understanding) is there to illustrate the powerful warhead of AIM-54, not the turning capacity of the missile.

War propaganda is not something that is done rarely, it is done all the time, mainly from West media etc.

Ever hear of Sputnik News or RT ?

Keep the politic out this discussion, this is a technical matter.

But guys! My late father (God rest his soul) was so strong, he once punched my uncle so hard, he now only returns to our house once every few years! Kepler's laws indicate he must be in a highly elliptical orbit around our planet and/or sun!!! Honest! :music_whistling:

If this were true how come he doesn't hit the earth at hyper sonic speed and burn up in the atmosphere? Kepler's law wouldn't indicate your conclusion at all.

What I'm getting at is I believe your "uncle" is propaganda. He's really an evil doppleganger. It is the only logical explanation. Beware, your family is in grave danger. :megalol:

Just look at the Phoenix kills during the Iran-Iraq war

Just look at the claimed Phoenix kills during the Iran-Iraq war

People want to believe that Phoenix is fast and agile. Yet that whole 17 seconds flight time the another Mach 2 fighter follow the missile through its whole fight time. If someone doesn't get what that means... The missile is so slow that a fighter keeps up with it through whole 17 seconds Angelo l acceleration.

Since you are being excessively pedantic, allow me to retort in the most pedantic way possible. What information is available on the chase aircraft? You claim it's going Mach 2, but is it? Where is the flight data recording for it? How do you know the camera isn't auto zooming while it tracks the missile? There are no references until it hits the drone, it could be zooming in (indicating that it isn't able to keep up at all).

I'm also not sure I'd call a tail chase an optimal scenario... The missile bleeds energy in a tail chase much faster due to the lower aspect ratio of the aircraft and has to cover more distance to get there. It's a forced pursuit intercept profile.

The AIM54 doesn't have a huge smoke plume by the time it reaches targets at 25 nmi... the motor only burns for 30s, and anything else is going to be condensation based contrailing. Launching at 40nmi, I doubt you'd visibly see the contrail and the only way you'd know the missile was inbound was in the last 10nmi or so of flight when the active.

Just look at the claimed Phoenix kills during the Iran-Iraq war

There are enough confirmed kills, that means Iranian and Iraqi or US reports match the claim. That's something of 100+ kills, I forgot the exact number. They are not disputed in majority. Most of these have not been done with the phoenix, because the Iranians did not want to spend them unless necessary, as they had no means of replacing them.

Then there is another 150 or so claimed kills that are not confirmed, but no one is talking about those.

Now to the general, simple fact:

Fact remains that Tomcat crews deemed the missile extremely capable against fighters, and that is all you need to know.

Everything else here is blatant speculation, based on facts pulled from here or there to support some crude conclusions, blocking out those who actually pulled the trigger on it and what they had to say and quite honestly: a bit of a chuzpe. Especially if you say stuff like "Because something is on the "white paper" doesn't mean that is true": that counts then double and triple for quoting a youtube comment. Because you and youtube must know it better than folks who actually work in rocket science, I mean literally. Or folks who worked with the missile as their profession. If a Tomcat pilot says "it was good against fighters" and you say "no it wasn't", it does not make you look good, to say it carefully. If you then continue to call it "war propaganda" and "truth is the first victim of war" and so forth only to continue to support your not very qualified opinion, well it doesn't make you look any better. And I hate to break it to you: it won't change anything anyway, because we do not simulate our modules based on opinions, but available facts and data, which, you guessed it: you can look up in the whitepaper. And the data does not distinguish between bomber and fighter, it's just data. Data that quite clearly indicates just how effective it can be against fighters.

While I appreciate how "into the subject" most of you are, I suggest there are far better topics to spend time on, this one turned into somewhat of a meme a long time ago. And you'll forgive me if I counter with a bit of humor, but the meme looks a lot like this:

:D

People want to believe that Phoenix is fast and agile. Yet that whole 17 seconds flight time the another Mach 2 fighter follow the missile through its whole fight time. If someone doesn't get what that means... The missile is so slow that a fighter keeps up with it through whole 17 seconds Angelo l acceleration.

As we've mentioned before : Phoenix was big/heavy and not designed for againist fighters as of Hawk/Herc/C300/Ky6/6yK............. gets one by one even big and heavy and each one makes media so-call "heavy" Phoenix looks dwarf.And WHY,there were never some kind of military "ELITES' ever jump up to claim all the latters are all "useless" when they pay their full concentration on the size of Phoenix!?

In contrast,24th Mar.1999,Col.Cesar Rodriguez fired 4 AIM-120 on a single MiG and only the last one scores the kill.

Useless,ah!?

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Just look at the claimed Phoenix kills during the Iran-Iraq war

There will be errors in that list, naturally. Just like in any other war. But that war has been scrutinized by external intelligence agencies as well. You can be sure that the US had a huge interest in collecting data about the performance of the Tomcat and its weapons.

So, unless you claim to have a better reference... :)