No long range missiles for USN

LoBlo · 06-02-06, 10:06 PM

Hey what gives...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ons/aim-54.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlobalSecurity

After 30 years of highly accomplished service, the U.S. Navy retired its first long-range air-to-air missile, the AIM-54 Phoenix, 30 September 2004. 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.

Problem is... when the Phoenix missile was retired the USN lost its only long range Air-to-Air Missile. It was originally supposed to be succeed by a new long range missile here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...tions/aaam.htm
but that program was cancelled...

...So it seems like the USN has ended production of its only long range AA missile without a replacement...

... given this strange decision... makes you wonder if the USN was so readly to cancel the program then one might suspect that perhaps the missile was never that effective or reliable in the first place, and may have been grossly ineffective/inaccurate all along...

Sea Demon · 06-02-06, 10:23 PM

Who are they (USN) going to use these missiles against? Why maintain an expensive missile like this when AIM-120 is more than capable against current threats? I don't see any long ranged threats impending for US CSG's. Nor do I see any real challenges to US air supremacy in any real world battlespace, that would warrant the re-inception of this type of missile. Russia? No. They can't amass the long-ranged bomber and fighter formations to confront US naval forces anymore. China?? Nope. Not yet at any rate. India? They're becoming more of a friend than anything else.

Bottom line. USN currently doesn't need the Phoenix.

And remember, the new AIM-120D upgrade gives it a range reaching 130 Km (70 Nm). That's plenty in the world of modern BVR tactics and modern electronic warfare.

No the Phoenixes were very effective. But today's threat assessments don't require they remain in service.

LoBlo · 06-02-06, 10:32 PM

Because the Phoenix isn't that much more expensive than the AIM-120. About $390,000 per missile for an AIM-120. About $470,000 for the Phoenix.

Thing is, if the Phoenix has already achieved the best speed, and better range. While spend time upgrading the AIM-120 when one could instead upgrade the Phoenix?...

Quote:

Bottom line. USN currently doesn't need the Phoenix

One could argue that the USN currently doesn't need the AIM-120 since it has the Phoenix.:hmm:

Sea Demon · 06-02-06, 10:42 PM

I'm not sure where you come up with Phoenix's pricetag. But it's widely known in the industry that Phoenix was actually closer to $1.2 Million a piece. AMRAAM is closer to the figure you listed. And Phoenix is large and heavy. It's also not compatible on Hornets, Vipers, or Eagles. It's electronics package was only available on the "Cats". And they've been retired. Even if they gave these other aircraft the capability to carry Phoenix, they could carry a bigger AMRAAM load due to the weight considerations. And it probably wouldn't fit in the Raptor's weapons bay. AMRAAM has much better electronics and is easier to maintain and upgrade. The only thing Phoenix has over AMRAAM is an additional 30 Nm. And that's about it.

It was a good weapon, but AMRAAM is much more useful for today's threats.

LoBlo · 06-02-06, 11:24 PM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...m-54-specs.htm

Sea Demon · 06-02-06, 11:49 PM

hmm. I stand corrected on the costs. I just remember reading in a congressional budget office report, the prohibitive cost of Phoenix and Sparrow versus other newer systems. Not an online report so no link. And they listed $1.2 Million per unit. :hmm: It wouldn't be the first time someone in government screwed up the numbers.

At any rate, the other stuff I listed is the main reasons we saw the Phoenix go away. I'm sad it and the Tomcats have been retired. But like I said, AMRAAM is more than capable in today's battlespace. And without the Tomcats, Phoenix's aren't useful at all.

LoBlo · 06-03-06, 07:22 AM

I remember reading a $1million plus dollar price tag as well somewhere, but I can't remeber where. It may be that GlobalSecurity is the one that's mistaken.

Its just curious that a successor have less speed AND less range than its predessor. I can't think of a another weapon system evolution that has ever showed this trend...:hmm: Especially when "air superiority" is the ultimate goal. One would think that the less closing maneuvers neccessary the more "air superiority" would result.

Then again, I've heard stories of the USN and its systems acquistion policies... they can be somewhat confounded by political implications (favortism toward certain builders, congressional bias, etc) as well as archiac thinking. No doubt some of those factors probably come into play with funding/developing billion dollar acquistion programs.

Wim Libaers · 06-03-06, 09:59 AM

Less speed and range, OK. But a more modern radar (OK, so they could have upgraded that instead of making the AMRAAM), and more agile (more likely to hit those things that are in range). Phoenix was mostly for not very manueverable targets.

The smaller size and cost are advantages too, having more weapons and being able to carry more of them at the same time is useful.

Finally, if the need for a long-range missile does arise in the next few years, the US has European allies working on such a missile (Meteor, with a ramjet engine that is supposed to give it high speed (Mach 4) and full manueverability during most of its flight), and it's planned to be mostly compatible with AMRAAM, with modifications to fit it in the F-35. Not ready yet, but they're making progress. http://www.janes.com/aerospace/milit...0515_1_n.shtml Raytheon had an AMRAAM variant proposal too (FMRAAM).

TLAM Strike · 06-03-06, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoBlo

Its just curious that a successor have less speed AND less range than its predessor. I can't think of a another weapon system evolution that has ever showed this trend...:hmm:

The AIM-120 is a replacment for the AIM-7 not the AIM-54. The long range AIM-120 isn't filling the shoes of the AIM-54 its making new shoes. The AIM-54 was to take out Backfires the AIM-120 is going to be for taking out smaller more agile ASM launching fighter bombers.

06-03-06, 10:40 AM

Let's face it...it's all overkill. Just look at all the conflicts in the last 2 decades...even going further back. Air conflicts have been the biggest pushover for Western airforces. And it looks like the trend is going to continue.
The US (and Western powers) are so far in front in terms of fighter technology, any country wanting to take them on is pure suicidal. Even the old F15 has never been shot down (by an enemy fighter), imagine the F22...

Not for nothing we have the SuperHornet...less emphasis on fighter more on attack.

goldorak · 06-03-06, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Let's face it...it's all overkill. Just look at all the conflicts in the last 2 decades...even going further back. Air conflicts have been the biggest pushover for Western airforces. And it looks like the trend is going to continue.
The US (and Western powers) are so far in front in terms of fighter technology, any country wanting to take them on is pure suicidal. Even the old F15 has never been shot down (by an enemy fighter), imagine the F22...

Not for nothing we have the SuperHornet...less emphasis on fighter more on attack.

Serbs downed an F117 Stealth Fighter.
U-2 spyplanes were downed by SA-2 missiles (one over the soviet union, and one over cuba).
During the Vietnam War, american fighter and bomber squadrons were shot down.

TLAM Strike · 06-03-06, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak

Serbs downed an F117 Stealth Fighter.
U-2 spyplanes were downed by SA-2 missiles (one over the soviet union, and one over cuba).
During the Vietnam War, american fighter and bomber squadrons were shot down.

What he ment was aside from Vietnam and 1 F/A-18 in the Gulf War (1991) no USAF/USN/USMC combat aircraft has been downed in Air to Air combat in the last 50 years.

06-03-06, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak

Serbs downed an F117 Stealth Fighter.
U-2 spyplanes were downed by SA-2 missiles (one over the soviet union, and one over cuba).
During the Vietnam War, american fighter and bomber squadrons were shot down.

As TLAM said, if you read properly, you would have noted I was referring to air-to-air combat. Isn't that what this topic is about? The Phoenix etc?

Though goldorak...you keep on harping on about that F117 that got shot down by Serbs. You do realise the F117 isn't invisible to radar, right? Fact remains that out of thousands of sorties, they have still lost only 1 of these planes. That's not bad any way you put it.

Now with the U2 you are talking about SOVIET forces...i.e. the only other superpower which could realistically threaten the US, now defunct. You missed the whole point of my post because I meant AFTER the Cold War, i.e. NOW.

The Vietnam war is the same, considering the Vietnamese were using Soviet technology.

Hope this clears some stuff up...

LuftWolf · 06-03-06, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Though goldorak...you keep on harping on about that F117 that got shot down by Serbs. You do realise the F117 isn't invisible to radar, right? Fact remains that out of thousands of sorties, they have still lost only 1 of these planes. That's not bad any way you put it.

Except that I believe this F117 was shot down with a stopwatch and small arms... it's not INVISIBLE to the eye, that's the biggest problem.

goldorak · 06-03-06, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Except that I believe this F117 was shot down with a stopwatch and small arms... it's not INVISIBLE to the eye, that's the biggest problem.

Well stated like that, its the problem of all stealth aircrafts isn't it ?

06-02-06, 11:24 PM	#5
LoBlo Subsim Diehard Join Date: May 2006 Location: Texas! Posts: 971 Downloads: 78 Uploads: 3	http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...m-54-specs.htm __________________ "Seek not to offend or annoy... only to speak the truth"-a wise man

06-02-06, 11:49 PM	#6
Sea Demon Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: USA Posts: 2,552 Downloads: 33 Uploads: 0	hmm. I stand corrected on the costs. I just remember reading in a congressional budget office report, the prohibitive cost of Phoenix and Sparrow versus other newer systems. Not an online report so no link. And they listed $1.2 Million per unit. :hmm: It wouldn't be the first time someone in government screwed up the numbers. At any rate, the other stuff I listed is the main reasons we saw the Phoenix go away. I'm sad it and the Tomcats have been retired. But like I said, AMRAAM is more than capable in today's battlespace. And without the Tomcats, Phoenix's aren't useful at all. Last edited by Sea Demon; 06-03-06 at 12:09 AM.

06-03-06, 07:22 AM	#7
LoBlo Subsim Diehard Join Date: May 2006 Location: Texas! Posts: 971 Downloads: 78 Uploads: 3	I remember reading a $1million plus dollar price tag as well somewhere, but I can't remeber where. It may be that GlobalSecurity is the one that's mistaken. Its just curious that a successor have less speed AND less range than its predessor. I can't think of a another weapon system evolution that has ever showed this trend...:hmm: Especially when "air superiority" is the ultimate goal. One would think that the less closing maneuvers neccessary the more "air superiority" would result. Then again, I've heard stories of the USN and its systems acquistion policies... they can be somewhat confounded by political implications (favortism toward certain builders, congressional bias, etc) as well as archiac thinking. No doubt some of those factors probably come into play with funding/developing billion dollar acquistion programs. __________________ "Seek not to offend or annoy... only to speak the truth"-a wise man Last edited by LoBlo; 06-03-06 at 07:32 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-02-06, 10:23 PM	#2
Sea Demon Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: USA Posts: 2,552 Downloads: 33 Uploads: 0	Who are they (USN) going to use these missiles against? Why maintain an expensive missile like this when AIM-120 is more than capable against current threats? I don't see any long ranged threats impending for US CSG's. Nor do I see any real challenges to US air supremacy in any real world battlespace, that would warrant the re-inception of this type of missile. Russia? No. They can't amass the long-ranged bomber and fighter formations to confront US naval forces anymore. China?? Nope. Not yet at any rate. India? They're becoming more of a friend than anything else. Bottom line. USN currently doesn't need the Phoenix. And remember, the new AIM-120D upgrade gives it a range reaching 130 Km (70 Nm). That's plenty in the world of modern BVR tactics and modern electronic warfare. No the Phoenixes were very effective. But today's threat assessments don't require they remain in service.

06-02-06, 10:42 PM	#4
Sea Demon Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: USA Posts: 2,552 Downloads: 33 Uploads: 0	I'm not sure where you come up with Phoenix's pricetag. But it's widely known in the industry that Phoenix was actually closer to $1.2 Million a piece. AMRAAM is closer to the figure you listed. And Phoenix is large and heavy. It's also not compatible on Hornets, Vipers, or Eagles. It's electronics package was only available on the "Cats". And they've been retired. Even if they gave these other aircraft the capability to carry Phoenix, they could carry a bigger AMRAAM load due to the weight considerations. And it probably wouldn't fit in the Raptor's weapons bay. AMRAAM has much better electronics and is easier to maintain and upgrade. The only thing Phoenix has over AMRAAM is an additional 30 Nm. And that's about it. It was a good weapon, but AMRAAM is much more useful for today's threats.

06-03-06, 09:59 AM	#8
Wim Libaers Samurai Navy Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Flanders Posts: 569 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	Less speed and range, OK. But a more modern radar (OK, so they could have upgraded that instead of making the AMRAAM), and more agile (more likely to hit those things that are in range). Phoenix was mostly for not very manueverable targets. The smaller size and cost are advantages too, having more weapons and being able to carry more of them at the same time is useful. Finally, if the need for a long-range missile does arise in the next few years, the US has European allies working on such a missile (Meteor, with a ramjet engine that is supposed to give it high speed (Mach 4) and full manueverability during most of its flight), and it's planned to be mostly compatible with AMRAAM, with modifications to fit it in the F-35. Not ready yet, but they're making progress. http://www.janes.com/aerospace/milit...0515_1_n.shtml Raytheon had an AMRAAM variant proposal too (FMRAAM).

06-03-06, 10:40 AM	#10
Kurushio Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Let's face it...it's all overkill. Just look at all the conflicts in the last 2 decades...even going further back. Air conflicts have been the biggest pushover for Western airforces. And it looks like the trend is going to continue. The US (and Western powers) are so far in front in terms of fighter technology, any country wanting to take them on is pure suicidal. Even the old F15 has never been shot down (by an enemy fighter), imagine the F22... Not for nothing we have the SuperHornet...less emphasis on fighter more on attack.