Posted on 10/06/2004 4:56:12 PM PDT by csvset
For media backgrounder and chronology of events visit http://pao.navair.navy.mil/Press_Releases/
Program Executive Office for Tactical Aircraft, NAVAIR, Patuxent River, MD
After 30 years of highly accomplished service, the U.S. Navy is retiring its first long-range air-to-air missile, the AIM-54 Phoenix. The U.S. Navy’s F-14 Tomcat is the only operational aircraft that carried 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. 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,” said Captain Scott "Stewie" Stewart, the Navy's Program Manager for Air-to-Air Missile Systems. "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. I am confident that our warfighters have the best warfighting capabilities in the world, even with the Phoenix retired."
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.
“The heart of the F-14 Tomcat (soon also to retire) weapons system is the Hughes AWG-9 fire control system, capable of tracking twenty-four targets and firing six AIM-54 Phoenix air-to-air missiles engaging six different targets,” Stewart continued. “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 aircrews flying Badger, Bear and Backfire bombers feared the unprecedented capabilities of the Phoenix Missile.
A product of two US 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. On September 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.
November 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 US Navy in 1973 and became operational in 1974. The first F-14A Tomcat squadrons to use the Phoenix were VF-1 Wolfpack and the 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.
For more information about the Air-to-Air Missile program please contact Denise Deon Wilson, Public Affairs Officer for PEO(T) at 301-481-6263 or denise.deon@navy.mil.
# # #
cutline for photo #1:
Navy file photo Sep. 24, 2002 -- At sea with USS George Washington (CVN 73) the “Jolly Rogers” of Fighter Squadron One Zero Three (VF-103), test fire a Phoenix AIM-54 air to air missile as part of the annual proficiency test. The Phoenix missile was the Navy's only long-range air-to-air missile; it is an airborne weapons control system with multiple-target handling capabilities. The Phoenix missile was in service from 1974 until its retirement in September 2004.
U.S. Navy photo by Capt. Dana Potts.
Cutline for photo #2
Navy File photo 1988 - VF-2 Bounty Hunters carry a Phoenix Missile aboard an F-14 Tomcat from the USS Ranger (CV 61).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keep an eye on eBay. I'll sell some there.
Is this capability being replaced with something?
I guess if Kerry is elected the F-14s will carry some form of the long range spitball missle..
pong
Hmmmm... I think Iran still has some F-14s laying around....
Not for long...See Israeli bunkerbuster purchase...HEHEHEHHE!
They'll end up at a munitions depot site somewhere for safekeeping.
My question exactly. I'm sure there is some type of replacement. It may be a new technology that obsoleted the Phoenix. This was a true milestone missle. Tracking and firing on multiple targets in the air requires a great deal of calculation.
Yes, it is coded named 'HUMOR'.
The new plan is to defeat the enemy by making them laugh hysterically as Super Hornets run out of fuel on their way to long range intercepts. The hope is that raucous laughter will cause the enemy to neglect their targeting until the Aegis cruisers to lock them up.
I believe the radar-guided AIM-120 Sparrow has much of the functionality of the AIM-54 Phoenix, except maybe the range. I remember working on a second source proposal for the Phoenix in the 80s and it was dubbed the flying telephone pole. The thing was huge!
A few months before the first F-14 is to be flown, the Navy goes to Grumman with some concerns. It seems that they worry about spending $20 million a copy if all it can do is shoot down cruise missles. So, in typical Navy fashion, they decided that this $20 million, 20 ton aircraft must be capable of being a dogfighter.
Grumman didn't even blink. They installed a big red button on the pilot's instrument panel marked ACM JETT. When pushed, it makes the Tomcat light enough to dog fight...
... by blowing six $1 million dollar Phoenix missles into the sea.
Yes, a "more sensitive" missile to go along with the safer "Joycyln Elders" 20mm cannon shells.
They really screwed up, didn't they? The Tomcat had many years of service left in her with upgrades.
these are real old but have a long range - @ 90 miles +.....Different mission these days, these were built to shot down Soviet bombers approaching carrier groups during the cold war.....
Yes, both use an active guidance system.
Pilots like to dogfight up close. Its not fair to have a missile with such a range that the pilot can destroy targets over the horizon. We want those Korean war style up close and personal furballs where we give the enemy a chance.
Six Mil is a small price to pay for one live pilot and several downed MIGs.
Not quite true.
The Tomcat has four different jettison modes. Their is a pilot controlled emergency mode, but the specific ACM JETT that you describe can only be enabled by the RIO for the pilot's use.
The reason for that, is that it would be a very rare(never happened) occurrence where some aircraft would sneak up on a Tomcat with that big-ass radar, and I guarantee you that any Tomcat driver that let it happen deserved to get his ass blown up anyway.
Also, you could not land a Tomcat on a carrier holding 6 Phoenix missiles anyway, so one way or another, they were coming off that aircraft should one ever be loaded with 6. BARCAP cats, never carried more than one, if any -54s to begin with, and they would be responsible for ACM against that type of threat.
Intercepting missions would be handled by a Ready-aircraft outfitted for that role, after long range detection by AWACS or CAPs. At the time of the Tomcat's inception, the Russians had aircraft that could not go feet wet without detection, including their supersonic stuff.
Son, I was ready to pound you, until I finished your post and picked up the sarcasm. Stop teasing the Dog, huh?
Rather they waited until nearly the last minute and got a compromise. Kudos to the Grumman Iron Works that they were able to build an aircraft that could perform ACM at such a hight weight. Regardless, it was poor planning on the Navy's part.
And let's not forget that the original aircraft with the AWG-9 radar was indeed a bomber, the F-111 Ardvark. I've seen the film of the one time they landed the Ardvark on a carrier. It was just too friggin' huge for carrier ops, thus the contract to Grumman.
Huh? Even with 6 -54s hanging, a Tomcat could turn inside any F-4. The Phantom could only run.
An engineering professor at my old school went over to Grumman to work on the Tomcat project. I remember him paying a visit back and talking to us about the 'cat. His attitude was "what does it matter how agile the other guy is, if you can blow him away from a hundred miles away?"
He also told us a story about one of the early test pilots for the 'cat. The test pilot put her into a dive, going really fast with the wings folded back in high-speed mode, then decided to pull out. So he pulls back on the joystick. Hard. The computer decides he REALLY REALLY wants to pull out of this dive ASAP. The wings snap out into full extended mode and puts him thru close to a hairpin turn. He pulls somewhere around ten G's. The plane held together. He didn't do that again
That's not to say that it didn't do it rather well, but that's more due to luck and the bright guys that flew them than to the Navy's ability to plan ahead.
The original requirement for the Tomcat was driven not so much by Soviet bombers which did indeed have quite large detection envelopes, but by cruise-missle carrying subs. Charlies and Oscars, if memory serves. Later the intel determined that the subs weren't really all that much of a threat (the missles were junk, the subs noisy and our subs could make them go away long before they got within range of a carrier), thus the requirement for the Tomcat to do more.
I'm glad the sarcasm is visible because I'm pretty bitter about this one. I believe we will come to regret it.
Maybe a Scooter?
Tomcat #3 over Eastern L.I. (just had to post it).
I remember that the overstress inspection on the F-14 was no fun at all.
And it's great to blow the other guy away at 100 miles, but the Sovs outnumbered us 9-to-one in aircraft.
After you shoot the first six guys, what then?
Gee, wouldn't it be easier to stick those six missles up the tailpipes of six enemy planes????
Gee, wouldn't it be easier to stick those six missles up the tailpipes of six enemy planes????
See my #29
The AIM-120 appears to be the replacement. It has a range of 30 miles. It weights 1/3 as much as the 54 and has much more modern electronics.
NO. Its like retiring a 1982 VCR. Do you really want the parts. The rocket motors have got to be a bit scary too.
Do you think we could shoot them off at someone before we retire them?
I'm thinking North Korea.
"Is this capability being replaced with something?"
Already has been. First AMRAAM an second the much greater ranged SM2 from the Aegis system.
"Hmmmm... I think Iran still has some F-14s laying around...."
Not just laying, they're flying. As for the Phoenix missiles, they are probably all used (Iran-Iraq war) or well past their shelf life (without appropriate upkeep.
"They'll end up at a munitions depot site somewhere for safekeeping."
Actually, the Phoenix hasn't been of much use since the end of the cold war and the point of getting rid of it is to cut the cost of babysitting the missile. They'll be torn apart and pitched. Remember, only the F-14 can fire it, the Tomcats are being retired, and the AMRAAM is a suitable replacement.
This is an argument promoted by Tomcat detractors everywhere, but it just aint true.
The Tomcat was designed to carry the Phoenix true, but look at the airframe for a moment, and you can recognize the designers goals quite easily.
Start at the tail, and look at the HUGE control surfaces. The twin tail design and beaver-tail are meant to give stability at high-alpha situations, and the all-moving elevons were meant to provide strong roll authority and pitch rate regardless of wing-position. Compare those with the tail of the F-15, which has a much smaller elevon surface area, but much larger wing area with aileron. The DLC allowed for carrier ops without a lot of alpha at the ramp.
People often forget that dogfighting is not a speed game, but a control game. Speed does not matter when you have bled energy down below 250kts in a two-circle. No Eagle or Falcon can get enough air on the wings to stay with a Tomcat in that fight. Up high in thin air, the Eagle rules. Down low, fast or slow, the Air Force gets their ass kicked. If an F-16 comes down below 18K, his single engine can keep him circling at 200kts, but if he reverses once, he is cat food. A tomcat can stay inside that circle in a bat-turn pulling lead at 180, completely under control.
In the early 70’s I worked for Hughes Aircraft Company. We instrumented a Phoenix missile with accelerometers, strain gages and acoustic microphones to measure the captive flight environment. We put a 14 track instrumentation recorder where the warhead went. We hung that missile on flight number 3 of F-14 #3. Over the next year and a half, we got lots of data from that missile. I loved working with the aircrew ( Don Evans and Denny Romano) and the lead engineer, John Kispert.
Later, we took that missile to Pax River to hang it on an F-14 for cats and traps. One day, we were standing by the runway watching the F-14 try to do high sink rate arrestments. He missed the cable twice and on the third try, the right main tire blew. He took off and I thought he was going to jettison my one-of-a-kind missile into the Chesapeake bay. He didn’t though and brought the aircraft and missile back.
Missiles were junk? The estimate was that we would lose 2-3 carriers in the first 4 weeks. I think that was about right. The Soviets has some good stuff. Don't underestimate the opposition. The push for the Toms to do more came out of the retirement of the A-6 and the winning of the cold war. After 10 years, the fighter jocks were told they couldn't just look cool and draw a pay check anymore. They had to start earning their keep. When the F-14 was designed, the fighter pilot mentality was, "not a pound for air to ground" unfortunately, that left them unemployed and unimportant when air supremacy became a defacto American position. Fighters only exist to achieve air supremacy after that pure fighters that can't attack ground targets are just taking up valuable deck space.
During the Cold War we just thought that we'd be damned lucky to achieve air supremacy, so not much thought was given to stage two.
If all that is important in a fighter is instantaneous turn rate, and turn diameter, then the Sopwith Snipe is still the king.
That's a new one, but highly unlikely.
The 'computer' controlling wing sweep is called the ADC, and it pays no attention to stick inputs by the pilot. None. It it measures only speed, G and alpha to determine the proper wing setting. If the wing was in maximum sweep at 68deg, at high speed, the computer would NOT cycle the wing forward under any condition. The Tomcat has a pitch authority better than any aircraft flying except the F-18. Under what you described, the pilot would have had to override the ADC to bring the wings forward, and even then, the wings take 3s to come forward; they don't snap forward under any conditions.
There is simply no computer in the Tomcat that acts on the flight surfaces according to control stick deflections. The computers pay no attention to what the pilot does, and act only on their own knowledge of the aircraft's status. The Tomcat is not a FBW aircraft.
The Top Gun and Adversary squadron pilots regularly whoop butt on the the F-14 in their little A-4Ms.
And for the record, I'm not a detractor of the F-14. It's a great airplane now. The F-14A had all manner of departure problems and had a huge, heavy avionics package up in the nose. The TF-30 had a really bad habit of stalling during rapid throttle movements or high AOA (like during ACM) The glove vanes were a mistake and were deleted from later models. The mechanical wing sweep/oversweep/flaperon system jammed. The analog flight control system had poor failure modes.
Those problems have since been fixed. A new engine, digital flight controls and new radar. The F-14A+ was great, the D model is a match for anything in the air.
But it started out life as a compromise because of the Navy bean counters.
If JK is elected, spitballs.
I'm sorry to bust your bubbles, but we are in an erra of proliferation of cruise missles. From silkworms to moskits and Taiwan threatened, the role of the Phoenix has never been more needed than today.
Sometimes, it does not pay to be on a thread. I hate to be so negative tonight, but I cant let that one go.
The fact is that the Soviets stuff SUCKED. Big time suckage, my friend. Had we known how much their stuff sucked at the time, we would have built the XB-70 and called it a day. No Eagle needed against the MiG-25, or much else.
The Soviets built a lot of aircraft because they could only get 10-20% of them off the ground at any one time. They had VACUME TUBES in their fighters until the 80s.
Also the Tomcat has A-G capability in the AWG-9 from the beginning, enabled by a quick software change. It was already there, and had little impact on the A-6, which was impacted by the F-18, not the Tomcat. Fighters exist for more reasons than Air supremacy, buddy. A-G capabilities are included more to get funding past Congress than for use. America slept safer because Tomcats were taking up valuable deck space for many years.
Designs for warfare are not about filling needs, behind the curve. it's not social science. Designs for warfare are about independent fighting capability. The Phoenix filled that need with its own active radar system and huge range. Now we do not have that. The widerspread use of the Phoenix would have avoided the WTC fate during 911.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.