4 ms·
I was curious how much the Phoenix missile itself cost. Some sources state a development cost of $167M, and a unit cost of ~$500k (with ~5000 built), adding up
by Tronno 4y ago
I was curious how much the Phoenix missile itself cost. Some sources state a development cost of $167M, and a unit cost of ~$500k (with ~5000 built), adding up to about $2.5B, some of which was recouped by sales to Iran.
It's impossible to say how much money was spent on aircraft capable of firing the missile, since they were also designed to do other things, and raw production/maintenance costs are hard to track down anyway. The Tomcat alone seems to have cost tens of billions to build and operate.
Ultimately, "the AIM-54 has been used in 62 air-to-air strikes, all by Iran during the eight-year Iran–Iraq War" (Wikipedia).
Whether or not this outcome was "expensive" is up to the American taxpayer, I guess.
- oxfeed65261 4y agoThe quote from Wikipedia appears to be wrong. The US has also used the missile in combat. FTA: “In January of 1999, two F-14s each fired one Phoenix missile at two Iraqi MiG-25s, only to have both miss. Later that same year, another F-14 fired a Phoenix at a MiG-23, only to miss once again. No F-14 ever shot down an enemy aircraft with the missile it was designed to carry.” The Wikipedia quote above is from the initial introductory section. Later, Wikipedia[0] says: > 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. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix#U.S._combat_experience https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix#U.S._combat_e...
- bombcar 4y agoPart of the problem with "super expensive" weapons is they rarely get used in actual situations and so not much is known about their performance in theater.
- ethbr0 4y agoAlso, the AIM-54 was designed to down bombers, which even in TU-22M form have very different maneuverability than fighters.
- oxfeed65261 4y agoTrue, and the article discussed this. However, two of the three AIM-54 missiles launched by the US in combat failed to even ignite; the characteristics of the target aircraft were irrelevant.
- doodlebugging 4y agoFrom the article I got the idea that the AIM was probably short for "And... I Missed."
- chipsa 4y agohttps://designation-systems.net/usmilav/missiles.html https://designation-systems.net/usmilav/missiles.html Theres’s an entire system for how the designations work.
- ethbr0 4y agoI've never understood why the AIM-54 wasn't replatformed after the decision was made to retire the F-14. I guess procurement politics? But maybe also because the terminal active radar guidance was no longer capable of burning through expected Russian ECM? And in a balancing of "substantially update and redesign" vs "invest elsewhere", long-range fleet missiles weren't a priority in the wake of the USSR's collapse and Russia's economic struggles.
- dragonwriter 4y agoAs I understand it, the AIM-54 being too expensive for its utility and its function being less prioritized was part of the calculus of retiring the F-14, which happened after the AIM-54 was retired.
- giantrobot 4y ago> I've never understood why the AIM-54 wasn't replatformed after the decision was made to retire the F-14. It was a huge fucking missile. Only the F-14 was able to physically carry it and it's unique pylon. If adapted to other airframes they might have only been able to carry a single missile. Even the F-14 could only practically carry four of them. If it launched with the max of six and didn't fire any it would have to jettison two before attempting a landing. The AIM-120 in contrast could be carried by a number of US and allied fighters, had active radar homing (fire and forget), and BVR capability. The latest versions can even match the range of the AIM-54. The AIM-54 was designed to hit incoming high altitude bombers coming for a carrier battle group outside of the range they could launch nuclear ALCMs. With that job largely obviated by the collapse of the USSR and end of the Cold War there was never much need to keep the system in service. The danger to carrier battle groups today are lower altitude cruise missiles, opposing fighter/attack aircraft, and UAVs. A missile that really only works well against high altitude targets isn't all that useful.
- jabl 4y agoYeah, wikipedia says the Phoenix weighed about 450kg, three times as much as an AMRAAM. And given that the latest versions, like you mention, have a range very close to the Phoenix, and the AMRAAM has been continually developed (presumably including advances in sensors, electronics and software), whereas Phoenix apparently wasn't developed since the 1986 AIM-54C. So except for a very slight advantage in nominal range, arguably the modern AMRAAM is vastly superior in every respect.