Talk:AIM-54 Phoenix

message: Unit Cost: US$ 477,131  (in what year? What version) was asked by someone else. --/Mat 01:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall the most often quotes figure for price at $1,000,000 for the AIM-54C.  That's quite a difference in price.68.68.224.129 21:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: US Navy FactFile still lists $477,131. But is also calls the '54 a "weapons control system", rather than part of one. So it may not be definative.--J Clear 18:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Check this resource for comparative pricing on AIM-54A (approx $400K) and AIM-54C (approx $1M): http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/phoenix.htm--HJ 15:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost 

message: Stop posting controversial, unverified information as if it were fact.
:I think that instead the article should mention that "Supporters of these claims" (Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop) of IRIAF Phoenix kills have FOIA documents from comtemporary USN reports confirming Tomcat engagements at long range as well as extensive testimony from both Iranian and also Iraqi pilots. AFAIK this information is "controversial" only in certain circles close to US military.
::Their research is mostly based on stories of Iranian pilots. At best, a few kills may be confirmed by US intelligence reports and information from the very few Iraqi pilots interviewed.
:I think the article is biased currently by implying that the best evidence to support the Iranian Phoenix kills is based on the poor performance of the IrAF. There is much better evidence available. --85.156.143.248 14:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian kills 

message: Mentioning a similar missile was developed for the YF-12 fighter version of the Blackbird seems misleading.  From what I can read on the web, the YF-12 was tested with the AIM-47B.  While you could claim they are similar in that both were based on the original AIM-47, it seems like a stretch, just designed to mention the YF-12 in this article.  Is there a good reason to keep the YF-12 sentence in this article that I'm not aware of?--J Clear 17:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YF-12 

message: This is the first time I've seen a photo of the Phoenix without a set of longer triangular fins forward of those shown.  Was that common?  If not how about putting up one of the nuemorous DoD photos that show the typical configuration and put the present one further down with a discussion of the variant?  Could it be one of the captive training models?--J Clear 17:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, now I see the wings come off for ground handling.  I still think a photo with a fully assembled Phoenix, and with a cleaner nose, would be better for the lead picture.--J Clear 17:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dug past the NavyNews Photos, of which the wingless AIM-54 was the best of, and found the Defense Visual Information site.  Picked out what I thought was some informative photos, cropped to change the focus from the F-14 to the AIM-54, uploaded and edited in.  We'll see if anyone is outraged.  And if someone thinks the first caption should have "6 Pack" in it....  I also thought about grabbing the complete original image to show the loading process.--J Clear 19:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Aviation Ordinanceman 2 & 3 Page 3-14, has a bit on Phoenix, not much. All of those books are public domain, that's how tpub got them, so I'd say any images on the page are also free / PD-USGov. Lots of missile handling information there too, including missile color codes. ADU-399 used to handle the missile. LAU-93 used to attach the missile to aircraft. TS-3479/AWM-23 go/no go missile test set for AIM-54. I don't know if any of this is worth adding, but here it is. --Dual Freq 16:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missile handling

message: I was part of the Avionics and Fire control shop in VF-211 during the years '79 through '83. We had combined the rates of AT (Avionics Tech) and AQ (Fire Control Tech) into one shop called the IWT or Integrated Weapons Team. I'm fairly familiar with the capabilities and difficulties of maintaining Tomcats and I don't see where the Iranians could have kept the F-14 as anything but a gun bird past the early eighties.
Just so you nice folks know where I'm coming from.
Even with the full support of Grumman, NAESU, and the finest techs the Navy could churn out it was a constant battle to keep the the F-14 in top shape. Not because of any bad design flaws but because you have a sophisticated computer and radar system in a VERY dynamic aircraft. Go ahead, take your Pentium II, swing it over your head until you have it pulling anywhere from 3 to 6 G's and do it three or four times a day. See how long your system stays up. Then try it without any intermediate level tech support. (oh, hey! The ground techs found the fault in the radar....now what?)
Next consideration is the fact that due to strength and weight considerations the Tomcat was built using a lot of dissimular metals in contact with each other. Corrosion control was a constant and daily chore. An undermaintained F-14 or any high performance aircraft would become dangerous to fly in less than a year. And remember they are not getting anymore spare parts. They were constantly canniblizing more and more aircraft to keep fewer and fewer flying.
And as far the Iranians building exact duplicates of the Phoenix missile, Oh puh-leese, give me a break! This isn't an artillery shell or an oversized bottle rocket. This was the Phoenix goddamn Missile we're talking about. Nine different active rader modes, 20+ semi-active modes and 5 different IR modes, with the on-board capibility to decide which was best to use, just incase somebody got cute with the ECM. Good luck. Add to that the fact that the warhead was incredibly lethal and sophisticated. A 50 yard sure kill radius that tapered off from there, with the missile still capable of a greater than 50% kill chance even if it misses by a 150 yards. Thatsa whole big piece of sky that becomes un-inhabitable. BigDon 12:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ex missile tech 

message: Hi, I am not familiar with the subject matter in particular (I'm just a wandering admin).  However,  I see that a section of this article has been tagged as disputed for several months.  Since no one appears to be working on it,  I recommend either removing the tag, clarifying here at talk what exactly is still disputed, or simply deleting the section. --Elonka 10:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a lot of discussion in the past few years at Talk:F-14 Tomcat regarding the reliability of the Iranian combat history of the F-14 and the Phoenix as told by the Cooper book. That tag is part of that dispute, which I don't think has ever been resolved. The main source for the extraordinary claims made in the article is Iranian F-14 Tomcats in Combat authored by Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop. One of the more outlandish claims made in the book is that 4 Iraqi aircraft were downed with a single missile. That's something that is basically unprecedented for any missile and has no verifiability other than, the aircrew saying we saw 4 targets on the radar and fired a missile then the targets disappeared. A more likely reason for that disappearance is the aircraft dove to evade detection and the tracks were lost. The book also claims 159 kills for the Iranian F-14, while Western sources estimate 4 kills against 4-5 losses and even the official Iranian estimate is only 35-45. (From Combat history of the F-14). So basically I think the dispute is that the section relies too heavily on a single source, which is based on unconfirmed pilot interviews. Combat history of the F-14 and F-14 Tomcat have also been involved in this dispute. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the explanation.  :)  Since no one seems to be actively working on it, would you support simply deleting the section for now?  Or perhaps condense it to what is non-disputed, and then further details can be worked out later. --Elonka 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed tag

message: The former Soviet aircraft design bureau had a name that is abbreviated MiG,
as in MiG-27. Is that too darn much to ask for you to type it right?
The MiG-25 is doubtless too old and worn out to fly anymore. Valeri Belinco defected to one in Japan in 1974, and even then he told about how hard it was to maintain and how unworthy for combat it was. Read his book.Dale101usa (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The former Soviet aircraft design bureau 

message: One of the facts is the average speed. How the Phoeinx can cruise at over 24,000 m? It had perhaps a cruise engine? I know not, it has a rocket engine with a swift acceleration. Even if the missile it's fired at, let's say, 12,000 m, it takes, even while climbing at an average of mach 2+ (more than reasonable) about 18 seconds to reach 24,000 m, right? How much lastes it's engine? In a tipical AAM it lasts for 3-10 seconds, not more. So Phoenix reachs to the max altitude when its engine is already dead several kms below. So how hell it "cruise" at 24,000 m at Mach 4 - 5? It's impossibile. Its engine should be off after several seconds only, if not its engine it's not a fast one, as suggested. In other words, Phoenix it's not a cruise missile like Exocet (subsonic one). So this mechanics is not well known to me, not clear and apparently not accettable. Imagine if the F-14 is at 5,000 m, how its missile could reache 24,000 m and still have power to supercruise? How a AAM engine can burns for more than five to 10 seconds? Another thing: the average speed with a Sea Sparrow is 0,9 Mach, compared to +2 as maximum. So this tell us that even a bisonic missile is no faster than a subsonic Exocet. The Sea Sparrow ESSM is rated as Mach 4, with an average of Mach 2. This to say, that there is not a problem with max speed, but with average speed. This should works even with the mighty Phoenix. It's not a Star Trek weapon, after all.
What are the IR modes of Phoenix? It has no IR sensor. ECCM: You cannot think that with a 'ECCM' capability every ECM emitter is automatically targeted by the missile. If not, then every Sparrow - Aspide - AIM-54 etc. etc. could shot down every EA-6B or EF-111A. Do you think it's the case? Every missile has ECCM, but this is not enough to shot down a Prowler (that should be an 'easy prey'). Maybe using an HARM (with a broadband seeker) you have this capability, as happened in Gulf War II, when a B - 52 was damaged by an AGM - 88. But a SARH missile is not automatically an ARM missile (just look to the problems made by Shrike service).
As average speed: i read (M.Spick) that a Phoeinx launched against a supersonic target approaching at 1.5 Mach (as a Soviet bomber) was attacked by 204 km and destroyed at 134: impressive, but this gives an AVERAGE speed of Mach 2.8, not surely Mach 4.
Aircraft: It is true, there were no F - 14 in service with six Phoenix: all reports states that USN thoght them to be too heavy to operate on carriers. The standard was 2 or maybe 4 or them (with a considerable weight aboard, however) plus two AIM - 9 and two AIM - 7. If Tomcat had six AIM-54, atleast one or two should be fired before the landing and the fuel was compromised by the weight at take off.
Engagements: normally, the Phoenix FCS was activated at 166 km, not more. I read that launch (single) was possible at 116 km, multiple at 96. Not clear how in experimental tests were fired far longer shots, maybe a not operational fitting?
Iran: but even now there are F - 14 in flight with Phoenix! How so, in '00s yes, and '80s not in service? Hmm, maybe Cooper is not a crazy guy to state that they were fired (the stuff about four shot down with a missile seems to me a bit 'exaggerated' to be honest..). --Stefanomencarelli (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize, but I read neither a fact nor a quesiton. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are: range, functions, IR system (?), load, history. Maybe you should read more carefully. I'll remark 'em, so you'll have no excuses.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Ahhh, I understand.  Sorry, my bad. Perfectly clear now: .  I concede nothing, I'm just going to bow out of this one. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Some facts and questions

message: Skepticism of the claims made by Iranian pilots in Cooper and Bishop's book needs verification. The Iranian combat experiences section needs citations for the statements like "...is not without its critics" and "Some Western sources...". I've updated the page to request citations where they are needed. XXVII (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good call - we all know how famous Iran is for telling the absoulute truth! How dare we question them? - BilCat (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skepticism verification 

message: I suppose F-14 shown in the photo is actually a fighter belongs to Iranian Air Force which is in USA – not “Painted Like” one.
Please refer to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Air_Force_in_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.182.146.136 (talk) 
:I'm not quite sure what you're referring to on the Iranian Air Force in Iran–Iraq war page. If you simply mean the fact that the photo is used on the page, that's not proof of anything. Ith images file page states : "An F-14A TOMCAT fighter aircraft from the U.S. Navy "Top Gun" Fighter Weapons School, San Diego, painted like an Iranian fighter for adversary training, makes a visit to the U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School. Location: NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, NEVADA (NV) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA)". That's from the images file on a DOD site, and it'a much better source! - BilCat (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian Fighter's Pic 

message: This is an explanation to some of the edits made on Nov 28, 2010:
:1. The second paragraph in the Intro made more sense in the History Section and the first sentence of the History section made more sense in the Intro. Both are now where they seem to make the most sense.
:2. I don't think the F-111 was a "slow-cruise" aircraft. The F-111 does ~460mph subsonic cruise, so that's not exactly slow.
:3. Added two sentences to History section concerning the VFX program beginning after the F-111B was cancelled.
:4. Removed the AIM-120 comparison because it was irrelevant. Both the AIM-54A and C versions had computers that came up with a collision course, both could get updates from the AWG-9/APG-71 mid course, and the AIM-54C also used digital electronics.
:5. Included additional details on its active homing and the missile variants.Agsftw (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text rearrangement and deletions 

message: "A considerable counterpoint to the sabotage rumors is the 80th F-14, ordered by Iran but never delivered due to the revolution, indicating there was no impediment to simply seizing Tomcats and missiles." The point of this sentence is not at all clear to me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.252.92 (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence 

message: I read different claims about Persian Cat (in monthly magazine), it said they receive 284 missile, fired 70 during war and scored 40 kills (out of 130 in total). --SojerPL (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian combat experiences with the AIM-54 Phoenix 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on AIM-54 Phoenix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930084002/http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/10/288204/iran-testfires-latest-airtoair-missile/ to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/10/288204/iran-testfires-latest-airtoair-missile/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Any chance anyone has a photo that isn’t so obviously a photo of the Estes model rocket? Maybe a USG public domain image? Part2343 (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion this is a better image. It's the photo Commons uses. As you point out it's odd that the headline image is what appears to be a poorly-scaled drawing of a model, when there are photos of the actual thing. How do we know the drawing is accurate? I'll leave it for the time being because I'm not sure if it goes against house style for a missile / plane etc to be pointing to the left. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been changed a couple of times, both times by the person that made the image and apparently without comment or discussion. 2022 2017. I think the rendered 2017 version is preferrable to the 2022 one if I were to pick between them, but I think a real image is better still. I don't recall what the style guide says, if it says anything. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article photo 

message: the "Usage in comparison to other weapon systems" section mentions that a common load out would be 2 Phoenix 4 sparrow and 2 sidewinder missiles in the second paragraph. 
This is (to my knowledge) physically impossible, due to the sparrow pylons being behind each other, and the two phoenixes would block the front one.
is this true or am i missing something here? TNTorge (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out. The F-14 wikipedia article says 2/3/2 and agrees with a list of possible loadouts from a late 80s era book and this image: :File:F-14A VF-33 DSCAP.JPEG. It appears to have been IP anon added as 2/3/2 but changed by another ip anon to 2/4/2. The "most common" claim will need a citation. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong/Physically impossible Load out