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

For those who argument that because the Phoenix is a big missile designed to take out bombers hence it should not turn well or be dangerous against fighters please look this at 7:30... I was quite impressed.

I was about to quote Jester "here we go again...." :lol: but then i saw the video.....good find! :thumbup:

I was about to quote Jester "here we go again...." but then i saw the video.....good find!

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Great finding :thumbup:

I would even say it’s scary to watch the missile make a U-turn :pilotfly:

I can swear, when Duke is talking about his 1st kill (and partially about his 5th) i can hear the music from 1984 Dune, when Paul is fighting the "Fighter" unit in training!

To play devil's advocate: the missile intercepted with it's rocket motor burning, which is pretty much the best possible situation for the missile. :D

But yah, the Phoenix was pretty clearly designed and tested to intercept maneuvering fighters.

Also, thanks for the video link. Went there to watch a few seconds of missile footage and ended up spending an hour watching the whole thing!

Oh man... Nostaliga overload!

Thanks for that link! I had the VHS tape back in the 80’s. Watched it so many times...

Great finding :thumbup:

 

I would even say it’s scary to watch the missile make a U-turn :pilotfly:

Any missile can perform a U-turn.

Question is its turn radius and turn rate.

You can't have a missile that has 100 meter turn radius while flying at Mach 4.5 and weights hundreds of kilograms....

Phoenix ain't AIM-9X or R-73 but with 160km range...

And in what time in that video the turn is?

As the one in the beging about 7min position ain't really maneuvering target.

 

And in what time in that video the turn is?

As the one in the beging about 7min position ain't really maneuvering target.

Don't you a see a missile making an almost 90 degree split turn to score a direct hit at 7.30?

We loose the perspective of the target so difficult to say if its maneuvering or not, but for sure the missile did a high g turn in the last moment to get that hit ...

Don't you a see a missile making an almost 90 degree split turn to score a direct hit at 7.30?

We loose the perspective of the target so difficult to say if its maneuvering or not, but for sure the missile did a high g turn in the last moment to get that hit ...

No, it doesn't go anywhere near 90° and not even in split second.

The whole missile flight is 17 seconds, so estimate from that the flight range to target by guessing that launch happened at 900km/h and 1300km/h.

The missile is constantly turning to left, it starts higher turn radius at 7 seconds before impact, and signal that target ain't maneuvering hard.

It does perform nice final correcting turn at final second. But nowhere near 90° degree. But target can be seen performing wide steady turn based final frames and missile behavior.

So, what’s the beef here?

That the Phoenix is just for bombers?

Iran got quite a few fighters with theirs, during the Iran-Iraq war.

But it is a stand-off weapon, so I guess it usually hits unsuspecting targets...

So, what’s the beef here?

Beef comes from here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=261388

(Among others, but this is the most recent example)

So, what’s the beef here?

That the Phoenix is just for bombers?

Iran got quite a few fighters with theirs, during the Iran-Iraq war.

But it is a stand-off weapon, so I guess it usually hits unsuspecting targets...

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Beef comes from here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=261388

 

(Among others, but this is the most recent example)

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

There are few issues.

The first is legitimate: There is an issue where the missile is able to guide to targets even if the missile loses support from the F-14 and is still at a range far in excess of what it's internal seeker can see. It'll just fly along in pure pursuit until the seeker picks up the intended target. This is apparently an ED bug, and part of the entire HB/ED Missile Rework

The second is people see the size of the missile and what it's initial intended role were: long range destruction of bombers and cruise missiles, and assume that means this is the only thing the missile can accomplish. The two failures of the missile in US service, while highly situational, seem to only confirm these assumptions. That the missile has a combat record in another country, that the bombers and missiles intended to be intercepted were themselves punishingly high performance, or that larger missiles that are theoretically less capable also score against fighters are all conveniently ignored. Chonk Missile Can't Score, or so the thinking goes.

Lastly, and this is just my SWAGtastic observation so feel free to ignore, is people don't want to adapt their air to air decision timeline to accommodate new threats. The air to air situation in DCS has been stagnant for so long that people have all created their own tactics and rules of thumb for how to handle threats like the Alamo, Sparrow and AMRAAM. The -530 was slightly different, but generally fit within the rubric of existing threats so as to not cause a stir. The Phoenix (and to a lesser extent the SD-10) upend these established patterns. Issue #1 can also frustrate this process of relearning when to go defensive, and when to try and return to the offensive.

The second is people see the size of the missile and what it's initial intended role were: long range destruction of bombers and cruise missiles, and assume that means this is the only thing the missile can accomplish.

Let me quote the message from YouTube in Grims Reapers video:

9 months ago

 

ENGINEERING APPROACH:

 

The AIM-54 Phoenix is not a fast missile. That is the biggest lie of the DCS F-14 release. The weapon was known as the 'Buffalo' for the simple reason that, like a bison herd, it takes forever to get into 'stampede mode' but when it finally happens, it's like a herd of buffalo being chased off a cliff (dive attack profile) by Native American hunters.

 

One of the key reasons for the AIM-155's design choice to be centered on a 5" diameter round with a detachable booster was the desire to have a sustained high energy, low carried mass, very low cross sectional drag weapon, with a throttleable solid for terminal reacceleration which the GD version of the missile represented and the Phoenix entirely lacked.

 

Functionally, AAAM was to employ the same solution that MICA uses to get as small a missile as possible with AMRAAM class maneuver performance in a Phoenix range envelope. And it was chosen because the AIM-54 was a very dated engineering approach to long range missile flight and the USN wanted a weapon that could kill fighter class targets, from outside of a SAM engagement ring.

 

The YAIM-54 technology base goes back to the F-111B and the GAR-9 on the YF-12 before that. The Rocketdyne Mk.47 motor's design origins are from that circa 1960 (MIssileer/Eagle)period, and the motor chemistry was deemed dated such that Aerojet was put under contract, in 1974, to design a form and fit replacement which became the Mk.60. Aerojet's development contract lapsed in 1978 and the contract was relet by DOD with Hercules picking up the winning bid.

 

Rocketdyne was brought onboard as a backup and developed their own product, the Mk.47 Mod-1.

 

Both the Mk.47 Mod-1 and the Mk.60 were HTPB based (Hydroxil Terminated Polybutadine) ASRMs (Advanced Solid Rocket Motors) and had low smoke qualities, though the Mk.47 was the better round in this area. Missiles with both motors still drew contrails between roughly 19K and 40K, until the weapon left the conbands.

 

They were simply shorter and less persistent than the MK.47 Mod-0.

 

At least during the initial trials, no AIM-54A ever struck a target beyond 72.5nm. The longest ranged missile FIRING during the OpEval program was 110nm, on a high closure rate, augmented, drone. The weapon took 173 seconds to fly the distance for an average midcourse Mach number of 2.7.

 

72.5nm / 173 sec = .419 miles per second. .419 X 3600 seconds in a minute = 1508knots / 560 = Mach 2.69.

 

Early Phoenix, facing a potential Backfire Bomber threat launching nuclear tipped, aeroballistic, weapons from extreme standoff, were designed around a Boost/Slide endgame intercept mechanic using a motor which had a high impulse (boost) phase to achieve a high average Mach number sufficient to reach altitude, after which the motor would slow it's burn to a lower impulse (sustain) phase, which was designed to hold the post-loft Mach number for as long as possible to keep the midcourse portion of the flight reasonably short while in the high altitude (low drag) cruise phase.

 

The result being that the weapon would effectively come back downhill (the 'Slide' part of the kinematic) at a much higher Mach number than a straight shot would have allowed. In reality, this trajectory mechanic was so self-limiting (the AIM-54 that was used in the long range test required Hughes engineers to be up all night at Pt. Mugu, 'tuning' the analogue ISA for the shot) in terms of available G that the loft, which was designed to separate the seeker from the AWG-9 SARH illumination in the command inertial phase, was actually harmful in snap-down attacks against agile targets.

 

A fighter, even if could be detected at max range, could do a dozen different mean ground track variation things (Tac Turns and Pumps) to take itself outside the AIM-54's ability to pursue it as energy waste in the loft was highly detrimental to absolute range, because of the thin air. And the weapon was slow enough, even at terminal, that pitching up into an orthagonal roll would cause the Phoenix to lack the available commanded G to precess it's lead rate as the target appeared to 'go backwards', relative to it's own velocity vector.

 

This was largely what allowed the USAF to run rampant over USN Tomcat FORCAPs, using Vietnam era penetration tactics of standoff jamming and chaff corridors, during Fleet Air Defense exercises, held off Rota, Spain, in the mid 1970s.

 

It remained a problem for the F-14/Phoenix weapons system, all the way through the 1990s, including the famous incident when the Iraqi Air Force was able to run a pair of MiG-23 and MiG-25, right up to the border of the No Fly Zone, and received half a dozen Phoenix, Sparrow and AMRAAM shots from F-14/15E/16C, none of which scored hits (though the Flogger was chased until it ran out of fuel).

 

VARIANT EVOLUTION:

In 1979, the Iranian coup led the U.S. to believe the Tomcat weapons system had been compromised to the Soviets, and several quick response capability technology inserts were added to both the AWG-9 and AIM-54 to mitigate these effects on the Alpha model until the properly redesigned AIM-54B could be introduced which also was a 'sealed' round, in that it did not need oil to keep the round's electronics thermally happy.

 

In the event, this variant was not built and so it was not until 1987 that the AIM-54C+ came online with a completely revamped SSTRU or Solid State Transmit/Receive Unit which used internal temperature controls via a system of thermoelectric heaters. This meant the complicated oil system in the LAU-93 pallet could be deactivated but also imposed a carriage speed limit on the weapon which greatly effected it's utlility in the long range FADF mission as Phoenix performs better when launched fast.

 

Around the same time, the ESCA or Electronic Servo Control Amplifier replaced the prior autopilot in the DSQ-26 guidance section, providing a wider allowable G range and enabling the missile to be capable of 21G excursions.

 

Eventually, as part of a low level, anti cruise missile, defense capability, a new high power TWT transmitter (taken from the AMRAAM program) and a directional entrainment blast warhead, WDU-29, was fitted. The latter replaced the Mk.82, continuous rod, blast fragmentation system of the prior DSU-28, removing the target detector (proximity fuse) as a potential vulnerability point to ECM inserts and/or clutter saturation when engaging targets near the surface.

 

The weapon guidance system pointed the missile at the target and as the seeker antenna slew began to indicate target angular rates indicative of a miss (i.e. the weapon was unable to maintain commanded lead, due to it's speed), the warhead fired, through the antenna line of sight, in a cone shaped fragment path, ahead of the missile. With such a large, 132lb, warhead, the lethal distance was a hundred plus feet.

 

A new RPM or Reprogrammable Memory added significantly to the ECCM capabilities of the missile by allowing a simple, in-situ, reprogramming of the AUR's waveform (scan rates, PRI, channel shift) as counter-counter measures techniques using a carrier based missile test stand rather than a year long depot tear down of the weapon to replace hardwired seeker cards. Continued digitization with high end VLSA chips also saw most of the seeker's 45 or so discrete chipsets reduced to just 6, greatly increasing weapon reliability.

 

Finally, a motor modification was made which changed the impulse schedule to 'All Boost' which effectively gave the Phoenix something like it's originally vaunted top end (albeit closer to Mach 3.9 than 5.6) at a range reduction penalty of around 50nm, which was about the limit for the APG-71 on the F-14D to resolve cruise missiles in lookdown. It also made the weapon, for the first time, a truly viable anti-fighter missile.

 

This 'AIM-54C++' was the final batch of ~200 or so rounds that were split between Hughes and Raytheon with the latter winning the full contract, around 1993. All subsequent production were rebuilds of existing inventory with the RPM board only as the USN pushed to neck down the number of missile types it had in-inventory and began to starve the F-14 of spares as part of a forced retirement plan to make the F/A-18E/F program seem 'urgent'.

TACTICS:

The reality of 1970s NATO tactics was centered around the fear that the Soviets would open the campaign with multiple, limited, nuclear strikes, using the size of it's GSFG (six divisions) forces to attract NATO tank/helicopter teams as combined arms units operating under JAAT and then blowing right through them, using the radiation shielding in their new T-72/T-80 tanks to ride hard on the tail of the blasts, driving right through the fallout zone.

 

It was believed that we would have to replace the entire force in Germany, within a couple weeks, if this happened. Desert Storm proved this assumption wrong, with actual durations of under 100hrs being likely before Soviet 'Channel Tanks' were in Brussels.

 

In for penny, it was also largely believed that the Russians would use their new Backfires with Kh-22 armed with nuclear warheads to destroy the initial REFORGER convoys. These would NOT be 1-10KT ER tactical yield battlefield systems on Luna or Spyder TBMs but would have full yield ~200-400KT warheads.

 

With the intercept difficulties of a spread of 20+, 10,000lb, AShM flying their own 300nm, high-loft, attack profile at Mach 3 before diving, fully powered, at Mach 6+, you simply could not afford to let a Backfire raid get close or nuclear roll back effect would mean your convoy would be dead. Aegis or no.

 

Several programs were therefore undertaken to provide global oceanic surveillance options, including buoys, trawlers and a new class of long-wave, HEO, Spacewacs, satellites under the Teal Ruby program, to grant constant tracking of both AVMF and submarine threats while the latter also saw the extensive deployment of SOSUS.

 

Recognizing the unsurvivability of the Tu-95D Big Bulge mission, the Soviets did much the same, with their GRAU-17 and TOPAZ US-A (EOR/ROR) radar ocean reconaissance satellites. Of course, it is much easier to track a 100 ship convoy of 500ft long RORO ships with known start/destination points than it is to catch a flight of 450 knot bombers in transit cruise.

 

OUR tactics to engage the Tu-22M were then to be interpositional, with USN carriers moving on a Great Circle northern route, into the Norwegian Sea, to launch long range, 'Yamamoto' style, counter intercepts with full E-3 (AAR capable) and KC-135 tanking support.

 

The aim being to hit the bombers when they were heavy-gassed and subsonic, in the target approach. This was also the reason why the F-14 was a fighter and not a Missileer (subsonic truck platform), as the F6D had originally had been foreseen to be. Because the F-14 needed the ability to maximize it's LRAAM poles when the threat picked up the AWG-9 emissions and accepted the mission kill, ditching their weapons to go full burner and retreat at Mach 2.

 

From the Soviet perspective, there was no close escort easy response to this threat, as even the Tu-128 or MiG-31 were functionally not capable of 5-6,000nm round trips without killing the crews and they did not have the Il-78 Midas fleet needed to drag them, even if they could withstand the rigours of the flight.

 

Again, the AIM-54 is at it's F-Pole (time to distance) best when launched fast, and the complex oil cooling/heating system was designed specifically to enable the F-14s, deployed in a skirmish line well ahead of the Sentry AWACS, to launch at high Mach numbers around 1.7, less than 50nm from the bombers predicted raid track. When the E-3 lit off, the Tomcats would take the vector, accelerate, get the kills and then limp back to a recovery tanker for the long flight home (1,000nm) under a kill the archers, not the arrows driven engagement metric.

 

I do not know, fully, whether the Tomcats would have been landbased out of Stornoway or Reykjavik as Clancy hints or would have remained carrier dependent. I suspect the latter, simply because it is more operationally flexible.

 

If the Soviets were serious about blue water nuclear release (What could we do? Their entire surface fleet wasn't worth a single U.S. carrier group and strategic release on Soviet soil would mean the end of the modern world) then strikes on isolated landbases in Iceland and Northern Scotland would mean little. For what it's worth, the same applies to the U.S. under any presumptive 'Soviet VDV seize Iceland' condition, we would SRAM Reykjavik rather than allow it's use by hostile forces.

 

Comparatively, single carrier groups are relatively hard to find, mid-ocean.

 

CONCLUSION:

The AWG-9 and AIM-54 were part of a purpose built, doomsday, weapons system, designed for a singular mission. The Phoenix was never intended to be a missile or a fighter killer but rather to attack large, heavy, bombers with significant ECM protection and a considerable speed advantage but no real evasive capabilities. It was produced in very limited numbers compared to either Sparrow or Sidewinder, simply because the AVMF Backfire bomber regiments were not that numerous themselves.

From another reply 3 weeks ago:

AIM-54 was a very reliable and accurate missile that used an analog signal processing system in its Electronic Unit part of the Guidance Section. 54A used doppler proportional navigation whereby seeker head to target consecutive lines of site remained constant. At launch the missile performs a main beam avoidance manuveur (MBAM) to get the missile out of the powerful beam of the F14 radar which would wash out it's processing. The missile never knew its distance to the target until real close where the missile's Target Detection Device (pulse radar with 4 patch antennas) would act like a proximity fuze detonater. The missile was usually launched in semi-active mode whereby the missile processed returns from the F14 radar with a digital rear radio link from the aircraft that provided updates to the missile's EU integrating info to help point the seeker head, tune IF filters to acquire and maintain target track. At a close range the missile would go active and process returns from the missiles radar. Missile could be launch in Air Combat Mode (ACM) for close range fire and forget. The missile was designed to shoot down high altitude Mach 2.5 MIG 25 Foxbats. The missile would rise to a high altiude and scream down on its target achieving approx Mach 6.

 

AIM-54C. When the Shah's regime fell into the hands of the Ayatollah, the DOD claimed the missile was "Iranian Compromised" because many missiles were examined in KGB labs and determined the missiles transmitter frequencies and first and second intermediate frequencies used for processing. Thus, there was a rush to implement a "digital version" which was named the AIM-54C. 54C employed modern high speed bit slice microprocessor with reprogrammable memory and digital filters and digital signal processing. This design allowed the missile to operate over a wider range of frequencies, sniff the RF environment, and pick frequencies not jammed and well as implementing more advance electronic countermeasures algorithms. The missile used linear frequency modulation which would allow the missile to know its range and range rate to target. Later version AIM-54C (ECCM/Sealed) missiles did not required the aircraft thermal coolant and could operate over a wider temp range. Because the 54C was more complex and new it did not achieve quite the success that the 54A did in term of probability of kill but was still an effective weapon.

 

I'll look up my notes on the propulsion sections to see what the ifference in the Rocketdyne solid propellant rocket motors were and their thrust ratings.

 

Hope this helps a little from an AIM-54C Test And Evaluation Engineer

And what can we find from the Navy site:

https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=700&ct=2

1973:

June - Hughes completed their testing program with a world record-setting performance; launched from an F-14A over Pt. Mugu, a Phoenix missile was launched against a BQM-34E Firebee drone at a distance of 110 nautical miles. This shattered the previous record of 76 nautical miles, which was achieved during the RDT&E phase. At the time the missile had achieved a 77% success rate, with 43 scored hits out of a total of 56 missiles launched from various aircraft.

November - AIM-54A Technical Evaluation completed. The first AIM-54A production units delivered for deployment on the new F-14A Tomcat.

November 21 - First Phoenix proves effectiveness in full-arsenal testing on an F-14 operating over the Pacific Missile Sea Test Range. The F-14 fired six Phoenix missiles over a 38-second period and guided them simultaneously at six separate targets 50 miles away, obtaining four direct hits. Flown by CDR John R. "Smoke" Wilson and LCDR Jack Hauver, the Tomcat was flying at speed of M0.78 and an altitude of 24,800 ft - while the target drones were flying at speeds of M0.6 to M1.1. This was the only time six Phoenix were launched by a single aircraft.

Phoenix testing was completed in 1973 after a program of 60 launches.

The AIM-54A entered service with the US Navy in 1973 and became operational in 1974. The Phoenix missile is only carried by the F-14 Tomcat.

So what can be seen, is that video is from that only time when six Phoenix missiles has been launched by single aircraft.

There is this believe that AIM-54 was perfect missile with 90% kill rate, against high maneuvering fighters as well against high speed and high altitude bombers, as well low level high speed cruise missiles etc.

So thinking that AIM-54C costed $500'000 each, why would anyone buy AIM-120C-5 that cost $300-400'000 so just little less, when you would have a perfect missile from AIM-54C?

Of course one can explain that always that F-14 was so expensive, that it must go... And so on missile as well...

You got me lost there Bunny. What does that thread got to do with the video i linked and this thread?

Because it's about Tomcat and Phoenix against fighters. If you have not read you did not lose much but it looks like your OP specifically addresses the discussion from the other thread.

But, the fact of the matter is that the Phoenix has killed a number of fighters...

So, evidently it can be done.

This made my day :lol:

The AIM-54 Phoenix is not a fast missile. That is the biggest lie of the DCS F-14 release. The weapon was known as the 'Buffalo' for the simple reason that, like a bison herd, it takes forever to get into 'stampede mode' but when it finally happens, it's like a herd of buffalo being chased off a cliff (dive attack profile) by Native American hunters.

(…)

At least during the initial trials, no AIM-54A ever struck a target beyond 72.5nm. The longest ranged missile FIRING during the OpEval program was 110nm, on a high closure rate, augmented, drone. The weapon took 173 seconds to fly the distance for an average midcourse Mach number of 2.7.

 

72.5nm / 173 sec = .419 miles per second. .419 X 3600 seconds in a minute = 1508knots / 560 = Mach 2.69.

So the missile is shot at a target 110Nm away and travels 72.5Nm.

First, many people would already be thrilled to be able to shoot at a target 72.5Nm.

The flight time is almost 3mm.

After 1’30” it’s still doing “only” M2.7.:music_whistling:

The engine burns for about 30”...so yeah, really not that bad.

In the first video here we have a missile doing U turn while in boost phase, and I didn’t expect to see that from such a missile.:thumbup:

So thinking that AIM-54C costed $500'000 each, why would anyone buy AIM-120C-5 that cost $300-400'000 so just little less, when you would have a perfect missile from AIM-54C?

Because the AIM-54 is a 1000lbs missile. The launching pylons alone are heavier than AIM-120 missiles.

So you won’t be able to fit 6 AIM-54 on F-15C/ F-16/ F/A-18.

You need the big Tomcat to carry a significant load of AIM-54 in good conditions.

Is it a perfect missile ? No.

But it was certainly capable to do its job, long range fleet defence while still a significant threat Vs any fighter.

And you can evade AIM-54 shot in DCS, it isn’t like it’s the perfect unbeatable missile which never looses track.

Missile guidance logic isn’t what it should be. We know that, it’s acknowledged, they are working on it.

Because it's about Tomcat and Phoenix against fighters. If you have not read you did not lose much but it looks like your OP specifically addresses the discussion from the other thread.

Just to be clear, my only intention with this thread was to share a rare footage of a direct impact of the phoenix while doing a high g maneuver, that shows that the missile is indeed dangerous and able to get a direct hit to a moving target. But just that.

I mean it was some anecdotical find that i wanted to share. Dont read further from that. This is not intended as a pro or con thread against the other different points discussed in the multiple threads (guidance, excesive range, etc....).

If anything, this is a partial counterargument against the argument that says something like a big/huge missile cannot/shouldn't turn well, particularly when the engine is still burning.

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Let me quote the message from YouTube in Grims Reapers video:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From another reply 3 weeks ago:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what can we find from the Navy site:

 

 

 

https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=700&ct=2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So thinking that AIM-54C costed $500'000 each, why would anyone buy AIM-120C-5 that cost $300-400'000 so just little less, when you would have a perfect missile from AIM-54C?

 

Of course one can explain that always that F-14 was so expensive, that it must go... And so on missile as well...

Sorry just a clarification to this specific comment. Are you comparing prices at different times?

A 500,000$ AIM54C of the 70s/80s is rather like a 3,500,000$ of 2020. The inflation from 1970 averages 580% which means a dollar in 1970 is like 6.82 dollars in 2020. So basically you would have a missile 7 times more expensive over a 120 C5 nowadays.

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

:pilotfly:

Sorry just a clarification to this specific comment. Are you comparing prices at different times?

A 500,000$ AIM54C of the 70s/80s is rather like a 3,500,000$ of 2020. The inflation from 1970 averages 580% which means a dollar in 1970 is like 6.82 dollars in 2020. So basically you would have a missile 7 times more expensive over a 120 C5 nowadays.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

The price is 1997 for last batches. Inflation from 1997 to 2020 is 60% ($100 in 1997 is $160$ in 2020).

Let me quote the message from YouTube in Grims Reapers video:

 

 

 

 

 

From another reply 3 weeks ago:

 

 

 

And what can we find from the Navy site:

 

https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=700&ct=2

 

 

 

 

So what can be seen, is that video is from that only time when six Phoenix missiles has been launched by single aircraft.

 

There is this believe that AIM-54 was perfect missile with 90% kill rate, against high maneuvering fighters as well against high speed and high altitude bombers, as well low level high speed cruise missiles etc.

 

So thinking that AIM-54C costed $500'000 each, why would anyone buy AIM-120C-5 that cost $300-400'000 so just little less, when you would have a perfect missile from AIM-54C?

Of course one can explain that always that F-14 was so expensive, that it must go... And so on missile as well...

This is among the best posts I've seen on ED's forums. I mean you should get an award or something good. Please accept this :thumbup: icon instead ;)

Sorry just a clarification to this specific comment. Are you comparing prices at different times?

A 500,000$ AIM54C of the 70s/80s is rather like a 3,500,000$ of 2020. The inflation from 1970 averages 580% which means a dollar in 1970 is like 6.82 dollars in 2020. So basically you would have a missile 7 times more expensive over a 120 C5 nowadays.

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!