Why was the AIM-54 retired when it was basically the perfect air-to-air missile? Couldn't they have upgraded it?
>Kills bombers in one hit
>Powerful enough to kill multiple fighters in one blast
>200 km range (could have gone further with upgrades)
>Mach 5.0+ (no escape)
Since they're trying to make a new longer-ranged missile, they should just bring back a new, improved version of the AIM-54 that is compatible with the F-35.
>>27952797
Didn't they have a terrible hit ratio?
>>27952820
That's what I remember about them. BVR hit probability was essentially zero and within sight was still terrible
Also they are fuck huge
>>27952820
>Didn't they have a terrible hit ratio?
You don't understand. The AIM-54 is powerful enough that it doesn't NEED to hit the target. The airburst is powerful enough to kill anything that gets close.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzPvaxTBkck
>>27952844
>U.S. combat experience
>On January 5, 1999, a pair of US F-14s fired two Phoenixes at Iraqi MiG-25s southeast of Baghdad. Both AIM-54s' rocket motors failed and neither missile hit its target.
>On September 9, 1999 another US F-14 launched an AIM-54 at an Iraqi MiG-23 that was heading south into the no-fly zone from Al Taqaddum air base west of Baghdad. The missile missed, eventually going into the ground after the Iraqi fighter reversed course and fled north.
Those were the only missiles fired in combat by the US, and none of them achieved a kill.
>>27952820
Of the 3 ever launched in combat, two suffered engine failure, probably from old age.
One failed to guide.
>>27952797
They were designed to kill cruise-missile-laden Soviet bombers before they could fire on the carrier.
The tech was barely within reach at the time, so they had drawbacks like poorer rocket fuel than we have today (they burned out at long range, and coasted towards the target--a fighter could dodge, a laden bomber couldn't), electronics several decades old, etc.
Could we build AAMs that size and weight today? Sure, but there's not a lot of reason to do so, as we can exceed the original AIM-54's performance in an AMRAAM body, and carry a lot more missiles and/or carry them internally.
>>27952859
>Judging from a sample of two
Okay buddy. The tests proved without a doubt that the AIM-54 was a devastating air-to-air missile. Arguing otherwise is just cancerous cherrypicking at best. Besides, the AIM-54 pretty much destroyed Saddam's entire air force during the Iran-Iraq war. It's a shame that the USN didn't have the same luck, but the missile itself was very powerful, and with modern upgrades, it would be even more so.
>>27952797
I saw a deactivated aim-54 at my local surplus store today, it has its cover open and you can see the gyro and a circuit board.
>>27952901
>Judging from a sample of two
That's 3 tho
>>27952896
>a fighter could dodge
Except the fighter wont know there is a AIM-54 in the air until its terminal guidance radar activates at around 20km from target.
Not much time to react to a missile that dives at you at close to Mach 5.
>>27952901
>modern upgrades
I dont know why you think its like the sidewinder missle. I also dont understand why you think it would be more beneficial to just make a new missile instead of rehashing 30 year old crap that was only used by the navy.
>>27952901
>Two
That's three bub. The only three fired in anger without depending on oh so reliable Iranian sources
>Bu... but muh tests
A drone F4 flying straight ahead does not equal a MIG piloted by a human wanting to stay alive.
>>27952896
>carry a lot more missiles and/or carry them internally.
But then you'll need more missiles because the missiles you'd be using would be less effective at killing planes. It's a bad trade-off.
>INB4 Russian Bombers aren't a threat anymore!
Tell that to Syria.
>>27952951
Enough time to react actually.
>>27952973
>Tell that to Syria.
I think the Syrian government is actually quite thankful for them.
>>27952951
>>27952987
Yeah, I think 20 seconds is plenty of time to react
>>27952901
>and with modern upgrades, it would be even more so.
It's too big and heavy to be worth keeping around, the only reason it is that big is because the technology back then could not be scaled down to any more and still be a effective weapon.
The warhead is fucking huge and is definitely overkill even for strategic bombers simply because they could not guarantee a close enough hit so they added a bigger warhead instead.
Besides there are no planes around that could carry them anyway.
>>27953003
Er, excuse me 12-ish seconds, plus or minus which way you're headed
>>27952987
>Enough time to react actually.
Not enough time to dodge the explosion, though.
>Yeah, I think 20 seconds is plenty of time to react
Not when the threat is closing in at hypersonic speeds.
>>27952973
You obviously know shit. Just stop.
Phoenix could not follow a 6G dodge.
Yes, it had a powerful warhead but that would not guarantee a kill when enemy dodges.
>Iranian AIM-54 armed F-14s will never shoot down an American Hornet
>>27953003
>>27953017
You guys do know that mach 5 is not the speed for the entire flight right?
>>27953017
20km at 1700ish m/s. My math was off at first, but still.
Also, by that point the rocket motor has already burned out and it's coasting to the target. It may hit a maximum of mach 5, but it won;t be going that fast when it hits.
>>27953020
It doesen't need to "follow" a 6G dodge, just be able to calculate a course correction for intercept fast enough.
Real missiles are not like in the movies where they chase a plane around the sky trying to catch up.
>>27953007
>Besides there are no planes around that could carry them anyway.
Aren't you forgetting something? Something rather......important?
>>27953052
Yes, real missiles are not like in the movies.
You can count BRV kills on one hand. Look how R-27 did in Ethiopia.
>>27952951
Except the fighter will be expecting a missile since in has F-14 on the radar.
And at long range AIM-54 won't be flying at mach5. It'll be mach2. With 5G turn limit.
It was retired for a reason. It had combat accuracy of 0%.
Go find me how well they did in Iranian service since I never hears Iranians praising AIM-54. Every Iranian F-14 I saw was flying with Russian missiles.
>>27953055
I doubt they would fit the F-35 weapons bay very well, being more than twice the diameter and almost twice as big in wingspan as a AIM-120.
>>27953067
>Blaming the missiles for human error
The pilots fired their weapons too early.
>>27953067
>You can count BRV kills on one hand.
Mainly due to ROE.
>>27953099
The F-35 is a big girl, she can take it.
>>27952859
And a bunch of F-16 pilots fired 27 sidewinders into the ground during the gulf war. That doesn't mean the sidewinder isn't GOAT.
>>27953097
>It was retired for a reason. It had combat accuracy of 0%.
Because the missiles used were already nearing their end of life when they got used the first time in combat..
If they had been used in combat earlier they probably would have worked as intended.
I do not mean that as a reason to keep them from retirement, i am just saying that some people give the missile a unwarranted bad reputation for being a huge failure to begin with.
>>27953012
is the missile moving at mach 5 in relation to the enemy plane or the ground? Because that could significantly reduce the time that the enemy pilot can react
>>27953100
There was one well recorder engagement where both sides fired 8 R-27's at each other well within range. All were evaded.
>>27952896
>they burned out at long range, and coasted towards the target
Not true, the missiles would suddenly climb once it got within a few miles of the target and then come straight down on the target.
Air to air combat is won by the AIM-9/12 series missiles. A bird can carry four AIM-9/12 missiles for ever 54 the would have. The 9 and 12 are much smaller, but it really takes very little to take down a plane. You disrupt the air flow around the wings of a jet for just a fraction of a second and it will drop like a stone. That's not even considering the fragmentation from the warhead.
Also, >>27953055 are all guided bombs, not missiles.
>>27953159
As in all 3 dimensional situations, it depends.
But in a head to head situation the closure rate would be very high.
>>27953179
Except for the Sidewinders on the ends of the wings, which are AIM-9s I think.
>>27953164
>There was one well recorder engagement where both sides fired 8 R-27's at each other well within range. All were evaded.
Because both sides were poorly trained and fired their weapons too soon.
>>27952965
The vast majority of shots fired from the M4 carbine under combat conditions miss their target. Does that mean that the M4 itself is inaccurate, or does human error come into play? The answer is obviously the latter.
>>27952797
>Mach 5.0+ (no escape)
KILLER QUEEN (no weakness)
>>27952844
You fucking idiot, most missiles do the same thing. They don't hit the guy, they explode near them. Further, hit ratio is based on whether or not the effects hit the target. Ergo, the AIM-54s terrible hit ratio means that it just fucking won't kill the target. I'm sorry, anon, but you're retarded.
>>27953216
They did fine with Archers.
>>27953247
That's only because the pilots using the archer were better trained. They knew to close the distance before firing.
>>27953039
>wanting American servicemen to die to prove your point in a stupid argument on a shit Mongolian basket weaving forum
frankly disgusting ma familia
>>27953285
Anon, they were the same pilots. Both sides used Russian/Ukrainian mercs.
>>27953232
A combat load for a soldier with an M-4 is 210 rounds. Those 210 rounds are not guided.
The pylon load for a fighter jet (taking an average between the several different types still in service) is anywhere between 8-20 missiles. Those missiles are guided.
Saying that a soldier firing in the "talking gun" fashion during an engagement is in any way parallel to a jet firing guided missiles is ludicrous. Nice logical fallacy.
>>27953067
>>27953108
To be fair, if both sides are firing semi active radar missiles at each other, everyone breaks lock to do their own evasive maneuvers.
>>27953318
Very true, also one of the reasons the Soviets fired missiles in salvos of two with one being IR guided.
Doubt old soviet IR seekers would do much good in a head on launch but you never know, some of their long range IR versions had surprisingly effective automation for finding a lock on its own after being fired.
>>27953236
Used properly in testing they functioned well, but are technically obsolete now and their launch platform became untenable for political reasons.
They were never really used as designed in the field.
>>27953362
The AIM-54 could hit a fucking Backfire, but it couldn't hit a maneuvering fighter. It just won't happen. When the threat of Backfire raids went away, there was no point in continuing the platform, nor the launcher.
>>27953421
They could hit a QF-4 drone.
>>27953494
A straight flying target drone, what a task. Color me super impressed. Truly the AIM-54 was a maneuverable missile capable of hitting defensive fighters.
>>27953317
This
>>27953232
But the most important thing is that the missile aims itself. If it cannot perform that function better than a human in a firefight than it is less useful than guns would be.
>>27952797
Because it's large and heavy as fuck. If the CUDA missile works as advertised then it's a giant leap forward in miniaturization for the type of range it's supposed to fulfill.
>>27952820
Only in US service where they were fired almost 3 decades after first production run. The Iranians had a very good track record with them.
>>27952797
No need for air to air in the past like 30 years.
/thread
>>27953513
>QF-4s
>straight flying
Wat?
You know that it wasn't uncommon for QF-4s to be destroyed in maneuvering by the pilots snapping the wings off by pulling so many Gs that would kill a pilot, right?
Hell, nigga, the first 6 on 6 firing test was against maneuvering fighter targets.
>>27952797
they retired it because they can't make money on something that they already have fuck loads of, they need the government to buy more new stuff
AIM-120D > AIM-54
>>27953513
A-anon chan are you implying that maneuvrability really matters?
B-buut muh F-35 stealth invisincibility.....
>>27954429
F-35 is capable of 50 degrees AOA. That's about as good as F-18 and better than F-16 and F-15.
>>27953039
>every Tomcat thread
>>27952797
Is like F-35 comrade
Of many shills of sayings it is of good!
But when it is of usings it, it is of stink ass of pig hohol shit.
>>27953097
Iran used them against Iraq
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/persian-cats-9242012/?no-ist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war
>>27953144
>That doesn't mean the sidewinder isn't GOAT.
Well, except it wasn't. Until the X the Sidewinder was pretty shitty actually.
>>27955446
Someone better tell that to the Argentinians that faced the AIM-9L fired by RN Harriers
>>27954429
There comes a threshold where going defensive isn't going to save you. Missiles have gotten maneuverable enough to where it doesn't matter. However, the AIM-54 is not one such missile.
Are AIM-54 shitposters the new Battleships w/ rail guns shitposters?
>>27957092
Bretty much.
They look at superficial wiki stats, see bigger numbers, and think that means their pet projects are better. They don't understand the actual mechanisms of that field of combat.
>>27953158
The big question I have is how were they not used during the First Gulf War? The only time the US used them was when we were running the no-fly zone.
>>27952797
Because USSR collapsed and everything was cut.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-152.html
Also advanced long range AA missiles are threat to F-35 procurement.
>>27952987
If your RWR works.
>>27957218
looks so much like a tunguska missile.
>>27952797
>>Powerful enough to kill multiple fighters in one blast
Is this a bait? No, really. Unless you have a nuclear warhead, or enemy aircraft LITERALLY stick to each others, there's no damn way you can hit more than 1 target with 1 missile. Even SAMs couldn't.
