AIM-54 - super weapon?

The simple question: if AIM-54 was so effective, why did US get rid of it?

In DCS Phoenix missile looks like AIM-120 on steroids. Due to the bug that makes DCS crush while flying in F-14, I tried dueling in Su-27 vs F-14 with AIM-54... I must admit, I didn't make it once. AIM-54 looks like unavoidable super weapon that can hit targets from 50 miles!

Could it be so in real life? And why they made this missile so powerful, despite the poor performance in Iraq war. As manuals states: "The US Navy fired only three AIM-54 missiles in combat, all three over Iraq. The missiles never hit their intended

targets though as two of the missiles’ rocket motors failed with the third also missing its target as it turned tail and ran."

Oh boy, get the popcorn ready guys!

Well, due to DCS limitations the AIM-54 is active off the rail and a true fox 3. In real life the Phoenix is a fox 1 SARH missile until it becomes active approximately 15 seconds to impact, requiring the crew to maintain lock. In DCS right now you can simpy shoot it and turn cold. However, I have been using it quite a bit and found that even a maneuverable AI can dodge it with no problem. Same deal in MP. 20-15nm becomes a sweet spot where a kill is pretty likely, however it is big and less maneuverable than say the AMRAAM. In real life its size, weight and of all things cost made it "inferiour" to the AIM-120, which in the D variant closely matches the range and performance.

The simple question: if AIM-54 was so effective, why did US get rid of it?

 

They got rid of it because they retired the only platform capable of carying it. The F14. The AIM54 we have in the game is indeed very capable, but it still falls SHORT of what the real missile is capable of. Both in guidance logic and range. This is however a shortcoming of most missiles in DCS.

It's still not a super weapon, far from it, but it is a formidable stand-off weapon.

Well, due to DCS limitations the AIM-54 is active off the rail and a true fox 3. In real life the Phoenix is a fox 1 SARH missile until it becomes active approximately 15 seconds to impact, requiring the crew to maintain lock. In DCS right now you can simpy shoot it and turn cold. However, I have been using it quite a bit and found that even a maneuverable AI can dodge it with no problem. Same deal in MP. 20-15nm becomes a sweet spot where a kill is pretty likely, however it is big and less maneuverable than say the AMRAAM. In real life its size, weight and of all things cost made it "inferiour" to the AIM-120, which in the D variant closely matches the range and performance.

Er, I don't think that's true. Our AIM-54 goes pitbull (more or less) when it should. There is a MP desync bug that makes it seem like that isn't the case though. :)

Well, due to DCS limitations the AIM-54 is active off the rail and a true fox 3. In real life the Phoenix is a fox 1 SARH missile until it becomes active approximately 15 seconds to impact, requiring the crew to maintain lock. In DCS right now you can simpy shoot it and turn cold.

What? :huh:

Er, I don't think that's true. Our AIM-54 goes pitbull (more or less) when it should. There is a MP desync bug that makes it seem like that isn't the case though. :)

Weird. Most of the tests I did made it seem like it was tracking at pretty long ranges (well before the 15s TTI) when going cold or breaking lock. Other times I fire it at pretty close range and there is no hit whatsoever. Might just eb some DCS shenanigans.

I'll be honest it's probably my own inexperience, but I have missed with the Phoenix FAR more often then I have hit with it. Against small and medium fighter-sized targets, shooting all my AiM-54s at the oncoming enemy is basically just dumping weight for the WVR fight soon to follow. Against heavy fighters and attack jets my hit rate goes up. On the other hand, I have not yet been able to shake a Phoenix regardless of what I am flying. Almost like the SA-6 in Behind Enemy Lines.

I'm still learning, though.

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-US-stop-using-the-AIM-54-Phoenix

This. Those reasons are also why it wasn't fire much in US service - it was incredibly expensive and the situation rarely called for it. The reason why the US ones never hit much is that 3 launches are too small a sample size to judge anything - by those standards, the AIM 9X is worse then the 9M because the 9M's Pk is around 60-70% if I recall correctly, while the 9X's currently stands at 0%.

Meanwhile the Phoenix was reportedly very effective in Iranian service, who used it far more than the US because, well, they were far more desperate to shoot down aircraft. Kill counts very a lot between sources, but I'm fairly sure that all agree the missile was very effective.

I'll be honest it's probably my own inexperience, but I have missed with the Phoenix FAR more often then I have hit with it. Against small and medium fighter-sized targets, shooting all my AiM-54s at the oncoming enemy is basically just dumping weight for the WVR fight soon to follow. Against heavy fighters and attack jets my hit rate goes up. On the other hand, I have not yet been able to shake a Phoenix regardless of what I am flying. Almost like the SA-6 in Behind Enemy Lines.

 

I'm still learning, though.

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

Its certainly not a given that you will score a hit, when you let one of the rails.

I have been shooting at various size, speed, aspect, none maneuvering targets, and while a headon fast 70nm shot has a good Pk, hitting a very fast (Mach 1.5+) target in a diagonal aspect (me heading 280 or so, target doing 140 for example) at any range it seems, results in a miss - the Phoenix really doesnt like those shots.

Also shooting at fighter size maneuvering target at range, often results in a miss.

All the above being AI.

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-US-stop-using-the-AIM-54-Phoenix

:book:

35 miles may be pushing it, but I thought 30 would be doable. I tried it against two AI Mig 29s at 37-35 miles, angels 30, and got two kills out of two shots. That said, both were fairly optimistic shots and against competent pilots they would likely have been dodged. Tacview attached.

Tacview-20190324-122635-DCS-Tomcat Practice.zip.rar

Oh boy, get the popcorn ready guys!

I'm honoured that you devoted one of your total 65 posts since 2011 to this;)

I can understand that the missile is outdated (but what about aim 9 and 7?) and it needed to be replaced.

I can't accept the price argument: cost was never the consideration for US army, quite the oppisite - the more expensive the better:)

What puzzles me is why if they made such effective long range missile, most of the modern missiles are mid range? Its quite obvious that the range plays crucial role in air combat. Even if they planned to replace Phoenix due to cost/technology reasons they must have replaced t with long range rocket.

My theory is that long range rockets were never that effective, so they have been scrapped.

I dunno. I spent some time in the TACTS and without saying anything I shouldn't say, they didn't seem very effective to me *at all* vs maneuvering adversary.

I'm honoured that you devoted one of your total 65 posts since 2011 to this;)

 

I can understand that the missile is outdated (but what about aim 9 and 7?) and it needed to be replaced.

 

I can't accept the price argument: cost was never the consideration for US army, quite the oppisite - the more expensive the better:)

 

What puzzles me is why if they made such effective long range missile, most of the modern missiles are mid range? Its quite obvious that the range plays crucial role in air combat. Even if they planned to replace Phoenix due to cost/technology reasons they must have replaced t with long range rocket.

 

My theory is that long range rockets were never that effective, so they have been scrapped.

The Aim 7 has been entirely replaced by the AMRAAM, which in turn in some NATO air forces is being replaced by the Meteor. The Aim 9 has been redesigned multiple times (or replaced by the IRIS-T and AIM 132 in some air forces) and at this point doesn't share anything with the first iterations.

Cost is very much an issue with the Phoenix, not just the platform itself, but the aircraft needed to operate it - a large missile requires a large jet, which in turn means an expensive jet. At that point you either compromise on the jet's performance and come up with an awful WVR fighter like the F-111B, or you come up with an incredibly expensive aircraft like the Tomcat.

Long range missiles used to not be cost effective because they required large rocket motors, which in turns requires a large missile, aircraft, complex electronics, etc. Modern long range missiles like the Meteor (or AIM-120D? I'm not sure if it still uses a rocket motor), which uses ramjet propulsion, bring back the long range but without the immense weight requirements of the Phoenix.

I think technology is moving into laser based AA weapons and at least the short range AA missiles will become obsolete. Also an all out war between two countries is unlikely, and add to that the requirements for positive IFF prior to launch negates the long range engagements development.

The simple question: if AIM-54 was so effective, why did US get rid of it?

 

In DCS Phoenix missile looks like AIM-120 on steroids. Due to the bug that makes DCS crush while flying in F-14, I tried dueling in Su-27 vs F-14 with AIM-54... I must admit, I didn't make it once. AIM-54 looks like unavoidable super weapon that can hit targets from 50 miles!

 

Could it be so in real life? And why they made this missile so powerful, despite the poor performance in Iraq war. As manuals states: "The US Navy fired only three AIM-54 missiles in combat, all three over Iraq. The missiles never hit their intended

targets though as two of the missiles’ rocket motors failed with the third also missing its target as it turned tail and ran."

an aim 120 cost arount 200 000 dolars. the aim 54 costs over a million dollars. it was simply to expencive for the taxpayers. yes it was a süper wepon, thay built a whole plane around that missile '' F-14'' there was a reason why the enemy always ran away when thay knew a f-14 was in the air. and it wasnt only for big targets like everyone claims, it could engage cruse missiles aswell. people saying the aim 54 should be easy to Dodge ? why ? has anyone tested dodeing one in real life ?

why is a 1996 ferrarri F350 faster than my 2019 wolkswagen polo ? how much does your polo cost, is the big question here :)

P.S : the AİM 54 is easy to Dodge in game if you know how to Dodge it. does it give a f-14 an advantege of a first shot ? yes it does and it should. The F-14 is a Purpesly built interceptor thats role is to protect a multi billion dolar fleet. if you go up there head on to try and intercept it 1v1 you gonna end up in a World of hurt.

Based on my experience, the only super weapon in DCS is Mistral :)

The simple question: if AIM-54 was so effective, why did US get rid of it?

 

In DCS Phoenix missile looks like AIM-120 on steroids. Due to the bug that makes DCS crush while flying in F-14, I tried dueling in Su-27 vs F-14 with AIM-54... I must admit, I didn't make it once. AIM-54 looks like an unavoidable super weapon that can hit targets from 50 miles!

 

Could it be so in real life? And why they made this missile so powerful, despite the poor performance in Iraq war. As manuals state: "The US Navy fired only three AIM-54 missiles in combat, all three over Iraq. The missiles never hit their intended

targets though as two of the missiles’ rocket motors failed with the third also missing its target as it turned tail and ran."

The 54 was designed for the F111 and then modified to be carried by F14's. The F14 was the only operational platform for the missile. It costs less than a 120C for instance, but with the F14 out of service there really is no need to continue to make Aim54's. The missile is also pretty heavy and can not be held within internal bays on airframes like the F22 or the F35. The Aim120D has a similar range and can be carried on 5th gen aircraft.

Phoenix is a 1000 lbs AA missile, you need a fighter as huge as the Tomcat to use it.

It was designed to protect US Navy fleet from Soviet bombers shooting supersonic missiles from long range.

The best way to do this is by destroying the bomber.

The faster the target, the narrower is the firing envelope (attached to the target).

So yes, with target at M1.5+ you should rather be in front of it.

You can avoid it, especially at BVR ranges by beaming. But once you’re into the beam, the problem is how to re-commit ?

PS: F-35C can carry 2000 lbs GBU-31 internally, so something like AIM-54 May fit.

PS2: longest range fighter AA missile in service = Meteor.

Based on what I've heard, the Phoenix suffered from a host of reliability issues, such as coming off the rail and the rocket motor never firing, falling harmlessly down to earth. Couple that with the Tomcat fleet aging and increasingly expensive to maintain, and the fact that the cold war was over and thus the need to reach out and touch a hoard of bombers from a peer or near-peer threat was waning, senior leadership decided that the cost of the missile (and Tomcat for that matter) was not justified.

Though the Tomcat was not retired until 2006, I believe that the writing was on the wall for both missile and plane when there were giant military spending cutbacks during the 1990s.

It also blew up a shit load of targets under launch conditions that were far more challenging than anything you'll ever know about...

Lol I knew this kind of thread would pop up. Same with 120C and 530D in the past. Its like deja vu all over again.

Well I don't think Phoenix is a super weapon at all. I have seen AI notching it and the Phoenix hit nothing but empty air and that missile was shot inside 30 miles by me. We should sometimes learn from the AI lol. In MP I could see most players become good at dealing with the Phoenix with their own tactics. My score quite low with the Phoenix lately. I blame the Jester lol