What went wrong with the Phoenix?

>>32517564
heavy

>>32517569
Doesn't that mean more splodey power?

File: Done!%20Day%207.jpg (396KB, 1283x855px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1283x855px

>>32517564

The Phoenix was too big for the Hornet to carry so it was retired when the Tomcat was retired. That's the real reason. Some people will try to tell you that the missiles were inaccurate or some shit like that. Those people are wrong. The Phoenix was a very effective long-range missile.

>>32517707
>missile is an angry shark thing and not a Phoenix

Fail

>>32517564
It got out paced by other missiles which were similar in range and had a high probability of kill. Not to mention maintenance was becoming an issue.

>>32517564
When it came out, computers were the size of rooms. That it was fire and forget was a marvel in it self. However, it became outdated quickly due to Moore's law. The Iranians claims to get good use out of it though.

>>32517564
It was very expensive and heavy for something that never hit it's target and failed to launch far too often

>>32517564
Nothing.

>>32517748
are you...complaining about nose art?

On /k/?

.....are you retarded?

>>32517707
>The Phoenix was too big for the Hornet to carry so it was retired when the Tomcat was retired.
It wasn't just the weight. The Phoenix was designed specifically to work with the Tomcat's radar, and vice versa.

>>32517707
>fired 3 times in actual combat and did not hit any of its targets
I wouldn't call that effective, though supposedly the Iranians had better luck with it. No clear records that we can get though

Everything first generation is horrible but works, barely, and gets a pass. First gen night vision is another example. First generation LRAAM.

>>32520923
>sample size of 3

I wouldn't call it anything

>>32520923
Two of that launches failed due to engine failure, and it is unknown what caused them. One real launch in unknown conditions is not enough to make conclusions. Though missile scored many hits in test firings against difficult targets.

>>32517564
I don't think you can really understand how ineffective they are at combating fighter sized aircraft until you see it in real life. It's a VERY thick missile. It's not going to turn very well at all. So much drag. It became too inefficient at what it was supposed to do, and what it was supposed to do was no longer relevant, with the end of the Cold War.

>>32521033
>what it was supposed to do was no longer relevant
That, too. It was originally designed to kill nuclear bombers.

>>32521033
>fighter sized aircraft
Size doesn't matter when missile has proximity fuse. Aircraft ability to pull more Gs is other thing, it can cause missile to overshot or lose all energy before impact. Phoenix was able to hit drones maneuvering with 6G.

>>32521133
>Size doesn't matter when missile has proximity fuse.
Fighter size aircraft have more manevuerability. For missiles of the era, maneuverability was able to defeat missiles in many situations. The Phoenix is the shining example of that. It's like a foot thick. It's not a missile that maneuvers very well.

>>32521253
Maybe comparing to Sidewinder it has bad agility. Though as I said it was able to hit maneuvering targets.
>Crews of Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Four (VX-4) and the Pacific Missile Test Centre at Pt Mugu killed ten difficult targets with their first 11 firings, beginning with a QF-86 last December. The drone pulled a 6g, 174° turn 4sec after a Phoenix had been launched at it, in an attempt to break the radar lock of the missile and AWG-9 fire-control system. The AIM-54 responded with a 16g manoeuvre and scored a lethal hit.
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1975/1975%20-%202286.PDF

File: UloJHOAm.jpg (12KB, 320x237px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 320x237px

IT'S JUST A GOOD, SOLID TANK

>>32521347
Sorry, bad link.
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1975/1975%20-%202264.PDF
Also, another case
>The Phoenix, itself, is able to maneuver to counter evasive action by targets. This has been demonstrated by the interception of a QF-86 drone which dove vertically for 6200 feet, maneuvering at up to 6 g's after the Phoenix was launched in an attempt to evade the missile.
http://dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a084869.pdf

>>32521347
6g is not what you need.

>>32517564

We no longer needed a long range missile specifically made to be launched from the F-14 to engage long range nuclear bombers.

>>32517564
By the time it was retired the AMRAAM had almost the same range at less than half the weight.

>>32521406
>AIM-54 responded with a 16g manoeuvre
that's nothing one simply evades even today.

>>32521033
>I don't think you can really understand how ineffective they are at combating fighter sized aircraft
>designed specifically to fuck up Tu-22 Backfire bomber raids trying to cruise missile the carrier fleet

what is the problem here

>>32521406
>6g is not what you need.

6G is about all anyone's ever gonna get, pal. 8 or 9 Gs knocks a pilot out after only a few seconds. it's incredibly rare for a pilot to pull more than that.

>>32521823
It doesn't knock pilot so fast, but fighters (especially from that era) can't pull maximum G's all the time. Also it depends on gross weight and altitude.
>>32521723
Phoenix intercepted drone from 110 NM in 1974. I highly doubt that AMRAAM can do that even today.

>>32521818
Making me want to read Red Storm Rising again. anon...

>>32521818
It's designed for a role and it's good at it, at the cost of performance against other targets. Unfortunately(?), said role is no longer needed.

>>32521823
>6gs max
>8 or 9gs knocks out a pilot after only a few seconds
First of all, a maximum of a 6 g maneuver is really not great. Sure, if you're going to sustain a turn, 6g is good, but the way it is worded is that they're counting instantaneous gs, for which 6g is not great.

Exactly how many gs a pilot can take/sustain depends heavily on the pilot himself. A sustained 9 g turn is going to be out of the reach of many for more than a couple seconds for many pilots, as you say, but instantaneous turns of that much or only taking those 9gs for two or three seconds, and pilots are TRAINED to do that.

>>32521847
The AIM-120D is claimed to have a range of at least 97 NM, which is good enough for most purposes.

>>32522056
We need better missiles though; jets like the F-22 and F-35 shouldn't have to get within ~60NM to get a good pK or fire on enemies that aren't approaching. Meteor is a step in the right direction, but we need some decent rocket-boosted scramjet missiles or something.

Hell, build something like a supercruising cruise missile that uses a high-G rated mini turbofan to get 300km+ ranges.

>>32521253
You know that the missile doesnt actually have to hit the other plane, right? It merely explodes in its proximity, which sometimes of course means a full hit. The pheonix was a brilliant missile.

>>32522502
The MDBA Meteor has a range of 320km, so a ramjet is probably the way to go.

File: 11-fighter-aircraft-avionics-part-iv-20-638[1].jpg (42KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 638x479px

>>32522555
Scramjet > ramjet when it comes to specific impulse

Also, the sources for the 320km figure on Wikipedia is almost certainly wrong; people assumed it based on MDBA promo material which states that it has an NEZ 3x larger (in radius) than that of the AMRAAM it replaces, the AIM-120C-5.

NEZ =/= range though, and a Meteor's NEZ will be a much larger fraction of its max range than it would be for an AMRAAM - if the AMRAAM turns, it permanently loses airspeed, if the Meteor turns, it can accelerate back up to speed. I'd expect the Meteor's range to be comparable to the AIM-120D.