AIM-54 Phoenix vs R-33

[turkeydriver]

The missile is programmed to receive a specific channel before launch. The radar then generates the data-link info on that channel. That simple, and used regardless of STT/TWS.

 

 

 

 

Your ECM already has those reflexes, and without MCUs it'll be more effective. Not to mention that missile isn't likely to hit much anyway. This is basically an INS-to-active flight, it's been tried and didn't do so hot.

 

 

 

Nope. The launcher programs the missile and generates the data-link. It will very specifically use different channels than other aircraft to prevent EMI.

 

Link-16 already shares everything ... beyond what an inter-flight data-link would.

 

Thanks for the answers. GGTharos

[Alfa]

Also, I hinted that if it actually used SARH mid-course guidance, there might be some change in the signal unless the missile seeker head was really sensitive enough to just guide on the TWS reflections (since it's much smaller than the main dish, I'd doubt this is possible during the launch at max TWS range unless the missile is initially simply lofted towards a calculated intercept point and then when it starts coming down it is close enough to pick up the reflections). It's quite possible that some other mid-course guidance method was used, of course, but I never found anything solid, just rumors.

 

The AIM-54 mid-course guidance method is the same as with the AMRAAM - i.e. INS with radio correction.

 

However, the seekerhead can operate in both SARH and ARH mode.

 

The advantage of the ARH mode being that you can engage multiple targets simultaneously via TWS, while with the SARH mode you are restricted to a single target via STT(since the AWG9 is an MSA), but can take advantage of the high power output of the aircraft radar to increase seeker acquisition range, which I can imagine could increase PK for a long range engagement.

 

The R-37 missile(slated for the MiG-31M) had a similar SARH/ARH combo seekerhead.

 

The reason why the MiG-31 can engage multiple targets(up to four) with SARH missiles(R-33) is because it has a PESA radar.

 

P.S. whats up with the name change? :D

Edited May 21, 2015 by Alfa

[Dudikoff]

The advantage of the ARH mode being that you can engage multiple targets simultaneously via TWS, while with the SARH mode you are restricted to a single target via STT(since the AWG9 is an MSA), but can take advantage of the high power output of the aircraft radar to increase seeker acquisition range, which I can imagine could increase PK for a long range engagement.

 

While I don't know what the SARH seeker range vs the active one is, does it really matter much if the missile is getting mid course updates as the active radar range is not that small (IIRC, around 20 km?)?

 

I'd assume the PD search followed by an STT lock would increase the radar target lock on range and thus engagement range (given the same target parameters as in TWS). Perhaps it would also provide a more stable lock on than TWS, offset by a higher chance of letting the target know it might get engaged. But, what happens if the SARH seeker lock is established, but then the host radar loses the lock? Given the missile is expensive, I'd hope it would engage the ARH seeker ;)

 

The reason why the MiG-31 can engage multiple targets(up to four) with SARH missiles(R-33) is because it has a PESA radar.

 

Do you think that e.g. engaging 4 targets in parallel (so the radar has to switch between painting them one by one) in combination with SARH seekers is a potential weakness in engaging maneuvering targets or the radar is fast enough so there's no perceivable difference in frequency? I know its not the system's purpose, but I was always curious about this.

 

P.S. whats up with the name change? :D

 

Identity crisis? Besides, it's a well known fact that a better sounding name might open the doors to becoming a celebrity (or at least it won't block it). You need to keep all your options open in this economy. ;)

Edited May 22, 2015 by Dudikoff

[Alfa]

While I don't know what the SARH seeker range vs the active one is, does it really matter much if the missile is getting mid course updates as the active radar range is not that small (IIRC, around 20 km?)?

 

It might - remember that we are talking about missiles optimised for long range and speed rather than agility, so even with midcourse guidance it might be beneficial to get a seeker lock at as long range as possible - i.e. to give the missile more time to manouver "in for the kill" at terminal stage.

 

But, what happens if the SARH seeker lock is established, but then the host radar loses the lock? Given the missile is expensive, I'd hope it would engage the ARH seeker ;)

 

Yes I would think so - well ARH mode rather(same seeker).

 

Do you think that e.g. engaging 4 targets in parallel (so the radar has to switch between painting them one by one) in combination with SARH seekers is a potential weakness in engaging maneuvering targets or the radar is fast enough so there's no perceivable difference in frequency? I know its not the system's purpose, but I was always curious about this.

 

Well with an electronically scanned array, moving the beam from one target to the next is virtually instantanous, so I don't think that is a problem.

 

Identity crisis? Besides, it's a well known fact that a better sounding name might open the doors to becoming a celebrity (or at least it won't block it). You need to keep all your options open in this economy. ;)

 

I see :D

[Quent]

NONONONONONONONONOSTEVECARRELLNONONO!

 

You have zero actual facts on the IRL launches of the AIM-54 based on your assumptions. This is a valid rant that is supported by all logic and reason in the universe. Please delete the stupid and do a small amount of research other than reading internet posts. Please.

 

Of the misses that you speak of( US launches-3 of which we know of), one tracked fine perfectly a high-speed target which beamed at high Mach and then ran at high Mach-translate, not even an SA-10 will complete that intercept, it missed AFTER F-15s missed with an undisclosed amount of AIM-7s and AIM-120s. I use this not to clown the F-15, but to demonstrate how hard the intercept was. The only thing an Iraqi fighter pilot could do after GW1 was learn to run, period. The AIM-54 tracked and dropped after it lost energy. The MiG crashed on final after fuel exhaustion-which is why the crew were congratulated when they landed, they weren't awarded a kill, but it resulted in a kill(sort of).

The next two misses were due solely to the missiles being loaded incorrectly by a new Sailor so when the missiles were launched, the rocket arming pins remained with the missiles. After seeing both missiles drop after good avionics checks, the crews knew there was a loading problem and didn't bother shooting their other AIM-54s. It has nothing to due the missile not meeting its advertised capability. I'll warrant that Iran's claims are exaggerated, and I don't give Iraq's claims credibility either, but Iran did deploy and use the weapon successfully many times. This is directly why Iraq fled every F-14 that escorted flights in country(not often). So much so that A-6 drivers wanted to develop a pod containing an AWG-9 transmitter to drive MiGs away.

 

Your link shows good info for the rocket motor, and I'll forgive your mistakes here. Don't pontificate over 3 shots and dub it a failure. That's just armchair commando lunacy.

 

 

Please stop with the passive agressiveness. What are you even saying :). I never spoke of "three misses", I just spoke about the missile never being effectively used by the US against bandits ;). Even though the AIM-54 might have tracked perfectly its target, it still missed so in the end it never was used effectively ;). I never said that the missile couldn't meet its advertised capabilites, I said it indeed did not perform well when the US used the missile, because of shit happening.

 

The Iranian F-14s did take down aircrafts with the AIM-54A.

 

So calm your tits cowboy.

 

As for 'reliable sources' I've provided you with data links, so far that makes my message and facts way more reliable than yours. Please stop trying to show off and engage in arguing when your messages refer to and attack facts that are not even featured in other people's messages ;).

Edited May 24, 2015 by Quent

[Beamscanner]

Do you think that e.g. engaging 4 targets in parallel (so the radar has to switch between painting them one by one) in combination with SARH seekers is a potential weakness in engaging maneuvering targets or the radar is fast enough so there's no perceivable difference in frequency? I know its not the system's purpose, but I was always curious about this.

 

Yes, there is some loss in tracking/illuminating 4 targets at once (vice single target engagement).

 

The problem isn't beam position(as stated by someone earlier), it's a duty cycle problem.

 

The seekers on the SARH missiles require 'sufficient' illumination dwell periods in order to track on to the target. Assuming, by available unclassified information on the internet, that the FLASHDANCE radar only has 1 transmitter(its a PESA). This will surely limit it's effectiveness against maneuvering targets that would otherwise need to be 'stared' at(as to improve tracking rate and accuracy).

 

Though I am exceedingly confident that this was thought through by it's designers and would guess that 4 is the highest it could go without significantly hindering the performance of the engagement.

 

Not sure what your asking about as far as the radio frequency is concerned.. Are you referring to the seekers getting confused by the illumination of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th target? If so, that could be handled by periodic 'look' times that match the 'dwell' time on the specified target. Alternatively, separate illumination frequencies could be used for each. (IDK what this radar in question uses)

[Skysued]

In an exercise somewhere in the 90's, rookie Dutch pilots flew mock-up engagements against majors and colonels from the US navy in their F-14's. We only had the non upgraded F16-A at the time. And nine times out of ten, The F-16's evaded the Phoenix missiles and got close enough to shoot the F-14's with sidewinders and cannon. The only simulated air-kill that the US Navy was able to get was after one F-14 fired ALL six of their simulated AIM-54's.

 

" a galaxy far, far away.." do you have a valid source? A link or dokument? Or you heard from a freind from a freind...?

[Svandamme76]

" a galaxy far, far away.." do you have a valid source? A link or dokument? Or you heard from a freind from a freind...?

 

Holy Old thread reply bump Batman.

 

but here goes

 

The story is BS.. because No US plane has ever launched actual Aim 54's at Allied F16's .. EVER.

The missiles cost a shit ton

the planes cost shit tonnes more

And the pilots lives are worth even more

all mock fights are simulated.. and there's no evading a simulated missile.

They call their shot.. and then simulate an evasion , which is then evaluated in debrief, eg check if the shooting was done from good parameters..

And put that against the defense break.. all that usually requires an ACM range with all the tracking of all planes.

 

But none of that happened with Aim 54.. because that's a BVR missile and nobody does simulated BVR fighting.. since you can't simulate any of that with real planes anyway.. you might as well simulate it in a SIM on the ground, which is cheaper.

you cannot simulate BVR, since that's pure radar/missile PK discussion.. the closest anybody got , is shooting drones.

 

Any kind of dogfights simulated with allies.. involves visual rules because that's where the real tactics and maneuvering takes place.

 

 

So the story about dutch rookie F16's evading Phoenixes clearly is BS. Nobody evades missiles in friendly dogfighting.

Edited September 13, 2020 by Svandamme76

[captain_dalan]

Holy Old thread reply bump Batman.

 

but here goes

 

The story is BS.. because No US plane has ever launched actual Aim 54's at Allied F16's .. EVER.

The missiles cost a shit ton

the planes cost shit tonnes more

And the pilots lives are worth even more

all mock fights are simulated.. and there's no evading a simulated missile.

They call their shot.. and then simulate an evasion , which is then evaluated in debrief, eg check if the shooting was done from good parameters..

And put that against the defense break.. all that usually requires an ACM range with all the tracking of all planes.

 

But none of that happened with Aim 54.. because that's a BVR missile and nobody does simulated BVR fighting.. since you can't simulate any of that with real planes anyway.. you might as well simulate it in a SIM on the ground, which is cheaper.

you cannot simulate BVR, since that's pure radar/missile PK discussion.. the closest anybody got , is shooting drones.

 

Any kind of dogfights simulated with allies.. involves visual rules because that's where the real tactics and maneuvering takes place.

 

 

So the story about dutch rookie F16's evading Phoenixes clearly is BS. Nobody evades missiles in friendly dogfighting.

Well..... the validity of his statement was clearly backed by the proper nomenclature used to depict high ranking NAVY aviators! :huh::disgust:

[IronMike]

Woah, this one gets a serious necro thread revival award! :-D