Sea Phoenix

[BlackBat242]

Has it been infected with malware?

It takes you to a porno site (naked humans, not ships or aircraft. )

 

[Blackbuck]

It's worth noting that was also the old forum from over 10 years back that hadn't been used for years so it's no surprise what's happened.

 

[NMaude]

The Sea Phoenix IMO was a wasted and missed opportunity.

 

[Deleted member 29851]

Has it been infected with malware?

It is now a sketchy porn site.

 

[NMaude]

It is now a sketchy porn site.

I've ended up accidentally visiting some of those websites over the years and some of them are infested with malware.

 

[spikedpsycho]

I recall this in I believe was a History channel vid.
Basic emphasis was supposed advantage was large scale compatibility exception of utilizing seawater based intercooler to keep a high power radar functional 24/7. 2nd was conversion take prioritizing over horizon engagement in situations before tomcat could be launched.

Adding Simultaneous tracking without main ship radar. But issue with big missiles fired from stationary is time to accelerate and fuel consumption, but Phoenix range was sufficient range regardless. They also supported initiatives to equip AWG radar on B-1 Lancers to have Transatlantic patrol interception. With 24 Phoenix on board to protect convoys.

 

[NMaude]

But issue with big missiles fired from stationary is time to accelerate and fuel consumption, but Phoenix range was sufficient range regardless.

It would've been quite easy to equip the Sea Phoenix with a launch-booster to ensure it had the same range as the Phoenix AAM.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It would've been quite easy to equip the Sea Phoenix with a launch-booster to ensure it had the same range as the Phoenix AAM.

I mean, Sea Phoenix was looking at roughly double the range of Sea Sparrow for the fighter-launched rocket and no booster, plus AWG-9s making it possible to deal with 12 and then later on 24 incoming targets per AWG-9. Good luck saturating that!

And there was a discussion for either sticking Phoenix radar onto Standard Missiles, or sticking a booster under a Phoenix. Boosted Phoenix is not compatible with existing missile launchers, but the angled boxes are for upgrading ships that don't have an antiaircraft missile system installed.

 

[TinWing]

WEll this just popped up in my Twitter feed.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1423845044784705536

View: https://twitter.com/clemente3000/status/1423845044784705536/photo/1


A cut away version of the first imagine.

Ignoring the missile installation, the concept of a fighter derived radar arrays being positioned along the deck edge of carriers has come to pass, albeit in the modern AESA era.

 

[wm_yd]

OTOH, the box-launch Sea Phoenix was intended for ships that would not have Mk 11/13 launchers for Standard.

IMO, the surprising omission was "SAMRAAM" (if you will). It took an awfully long time to get around to an active seeker on Sea Sparrow/ESSM, and converting to an AMRAAM-based missile earlier seems like an obvious road not taken.

To circle back here, this reminded me of SLAMRAAM. Which the Army cancelled in 2011, though only started in 2001. I'd imagine a lack of use was probably because they had enough RIM-7Ms, and the post-cold war threat profiles that AMRAAM came into actual service with were also where budgets were being slashed at every possible chance. That, and in the 90s we didn't have as proliferated of anti-ship missiles or small threats that you need point defense for being behind every blade of grass. Maybe also the fact AMRAAM was being prioritized for the aircraft didn't hurt, either.

Obviously nowadays we probably should've gone down that road, what with however many large monkey-tier cruise missiles we call UAS are kicking around, but that threat hadn't been seriously considered until about four years ago.

 

[MadRat]

The AWG-9 would have been fine for targets approaching straight in. But it wasn't the best option for acting on its radar periphery. Make it steerable then it acts more akin to a director.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The AWG-9 would have been fine for targets approaching straight in. But it wasn't the best option for acting on its radar periphery. Make it steerable then it acts more akin to a director.

Not necessary for a bigger version of Sea Sparrow. You know, the Basic Point Defense Missile System?

The only thing you want the Sea Phoenix installed on your ship shooting at is antiship missiles coming directly at your ship

 

[spikedpsycho]

Long range missile, for Point defense is kinda pointless. Modified Phoenix rapid ignition and higher speed. Some might see as overkill, but
With its 133 pound warhead it's destructive potential is better. Phoenix was designed to destroy bombers and high speed aerial attack. Not modded for high maneuverability. Easily addressed fin upgrade or thrust vector nozzle

 

[Scott Kenny]

Long range missile, for Point defense is kinda pointless. Modified Phoenix rapid ignition and higher speed. Some might see as overkill, but
With its 133 pound warhead it's destructive potential is better. Phoenix was designed to destroy bombers and high speed aerial attack. Not modded for high maneuverability. Easily addressed fin upgrade or thrust vector nozzle

The point was that it was the only active radar homing missile available in the time. Wasn't about the range.

 

[NMaude]

The point was that it was the only active radar homing missile available in the time. Wasn't about the range.

I do believe that at the time of the Sea Phoenix proposal the AMRAAM programme had only just been started.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I do believe that at the time of the Sea Phoenix proposal the AMRAAM programme had only just been started.

Exactly. Phoenix was available RIGHT THEN. AMRAAM needed a decade or more to get missiles.

 

[spikedpsycho]

The real reason for Sea Phoenix, because at time F-14 was NEW, and Navy frought issues and concerns of it's readiness rates. F-14 was notorious hangar queen. Compressor stall due TF40 engine led loss 40 planes. For the sake of airframe longevity, the Tomcat was in practical terms limited to 6.5 Gs, while an F-15 could pull 9 Gs. (So could a Tomcat, at high enough speeds, but the airplane then had to undergo a complex over-G inspection.)

The Navy, wanting to Hedge it's bets against likelihood fighter being withdrawn, or furloughed due glitch/design flaw risked catastrophically ruining the entire purpose of the Phoenix. Developed by Hughes missile/aircraft designed before first tomcat ever flew, if the plane failed, who would buy such a honking missile? So Hughes preyed on this anxiety and with naval backing conceived Phoenix as interceptor with No need for the plane.

 

[NMaude]

Developed by Hughes missile/aircraft designed before first tomcat ever flew, if the plane failed, who would buy such a honking missile? So Hughes preyed on this anxiety and with naval backing conceived Phoenix as interceptor with No need for the plane.

Well a big opportunity was missed here, putting the Sea Phoenix into production would've lowered its unit cost enabling more to be purchased.

 

[DWG]

Developed by Hughes missile/aircraft designed before first tomcat ever flew, if the plane failed, who would buy such a honking missile?

The AIM-54 may have been closely linked to the F-14, but it was not developed in isolation, being the culmination of the design effort begun with the AAM-N-10 Eagle and F6D Missileer, then the AIM-47 Falcon, whose platforms included the YF-12, YF-108 and XB-70, with the subsequent AIM-54 linked to the F-111B before it was linked to the F-14. Even if the F-14 failed, the AIM-54 was clearly meeting a Navy requirement to cover the outer air battle, which needed both fighter and missile to meet. The F-14 was the third attempt to meet this requirement (F6D Missileer, F-111B, F-14), so the assumption that an F-14 failure would doom the AIM-54 doesn't seem a sound one.

 

[Firefinder]

Ive often wondered the type of shenanigans that you could get if you could replace the Aegis SPG62 directors with the Sea Phoenix's AWG9 base ones.

Or at least the anteana it self.

Allowing Aegis to direct multiple missiles per director at the same time on top of the time share fun plus the shear computer power is something that be scary even without the AIM54 active guidence.

Add in the 54's missile radar?

 

[TomS]

Allowing Aegis to direct multiple missiles per director at the same time on top of the time share fun plus the shear computer power is something that be scary even without the AIM54 active guidence.

AEGIS already controls more missiles in flight than it has illuminators. For most of their flight, the missiles are getting mid-course updates sent from the AEGIS Weapon System through the SPY arrays. (In a real sense, the SPY array serves the same basic role as the AWG-9).

The SPG-62s only illuminate targets at the very end game of an engagement, no more than a few seconds, for more precision than the SPY provides.

Worth noting that SPG-62s are illuminators, not radars. They have no receive function, and are pointed at the target by the AWS rather than tracking targets separately like older directors. All they have to do is get the target in their beamwidth to the missile can home on the reflected signal.

 

[whatismoo]

Ive often wondered the type of shenanigans that you could get if you could replace the Aegis SPG62 directors with the Sea Phoenix's AWG9 base ones.

Or at least the anteana it self.

Allowing Aegis to direct multiple missiles per director at the same time on top of the time share fun plus the shear computer power is something that be scary even without the AIM54 active guidence.

Add in the 54's missile radar?

This is essentially what GD-W was proposing for AAAM if you read between the lines.