Sea Phoenix

Brickmuppet

Brickmuppet

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
10 November 2006
Messages
233
Reaction score
108
Website
brickmuppet.mee.nu
The only mention I have seen of the surface launched version of AIM-54 was a brief mention in Gunston's Rockets and Missiles where he says that "In 1976 a virtually unmodified Phoenix was successfully fired at NWC China Lake traveling 13.5 miles downrange in 90 seconds..." He also mentions that the Tomcat radar could be mounted "almost bodily to a ship, 27 of the 29 boxes being compatible".

Can someone explain 'box compatibility'? I take it to mean the radar as mounted on the fighter consists of 29 modules 27 of which were compatible with a shipboard installation.

Would this have been a good replacement for SM1? Obviously Aegis and SM2 is a more capable system, but Sea Phoenix seems at first blush to give short to midrange multi-target capability for far less cost than Aegis. It might have been a good fit for frigates giving a large increase in capability over the Brooke and Perry classes. The cost per shot would have been high, but even that probably would have come down with an increased production run.

ISTR reading somewhere that Phoenix had a surprisingly short minimum range. Is this true? If so this weapon would seem to be a good point defence weapon too.

Any thoughts or information on this weapon?

UPDATE: This image, allegedly of the Sea Phoenix system, comes via the Shipbucket forum.
http://s11.invisionfree.com/shipbucket/ar/t802.htm
 

Attachments

  • sea_phoenix.jpg
    sea_phoenix.jpg
    20.6 KB · Views: 1,383
Brickmuppet said:
The only mention I have seen of the surface launched version of AIM-54 was a brief mention in Gunston's Rockets and Missiles where he says that "In 1976 a virtually unmodified Phoenix was successfully fired at NWC China Lake traveling 13.5 miles downrange in 90 seconds..." He also mentions that the Tomcat radar could be mounted "almost bodily to a ship, 27 of the 29 boxes being compatible".

Can someone explain 'box compatibility'? I take it to mean the radar as mounted on the fighter consists of 29 modules 27 of which were compatible with a shipboard installation.

Would this have been a good replacement for SM1? Obviously Aegis and SM2 is a more capable system, but Sea Phoenix seems at first blush to give short to midrange multi-target capability for far less cost than Aegis. It might have been a good fit for frigates giving a large increase in capability over the Brooke and Perry classes. The cost per shot would have been high, but even that probably would have come down with an increased production run.

ISTR reading somewhere that Phoenix had a surprisingly short minimum range. Is this true? If so this weapon would seem to be a good point defence weapon too.

Any thoughts or information on this weapon?

UPDATE: This image, allegedly of the Sea Phoenix system, comes via the Shipbucket forum.
http://s11.invisionfree.com/shipbucket/ar/t802.htm
Click to expand...


Sea Phoenix was proposed system to give medium range SAM capabilities to smaller and/or non-Aegis ships. There was a fairly detailed description of it in a Naval Institute Proceedings article in the '70s and both it and Aviation week had drawings of the launcher, which if I remember resembled the drawing you posted. The beauty of the concept was that, being essentially an aircraft system taken out of an aircraft and mounted on ship, it would be light, compact and self-contained, which would facilitate its deployment relatively quickly and inexpensively on a variety of platforms, both new-builds and retrofits. It would not just be on frigates/destroyers but also on aircraft carriers as well. In fact, the illustration is of a CV installation. Think of it as a system like Sea Sparrow, but much more powerful. Since it was self contained and compact, it was also proposed in a mobile landbased configuration for the Marines. One issue that would require work was that AIM-54A required liquid cooling, which was provided by the F-14. Had it come to fruition, this application would have had to do away with that. Possibly the stillborn AIM-54B variant would have been a candidate.

In any case, the concept never went that far. Part of this was due to all the sturm und drang going on in the F-14 program at the time, but also because at the time Aegis was under development and there was concern that this would be looked at as a competitor to Aegis. It was not meant to be, and was nowhere near as capable, but it also was nowhere near as expensive. The combination of these factors meant there was insufficient support to proceed.
 
NICE! It was also mentioned in the series of books called "The Encyclopedia of Weapons and Warfare". It was suppose to arm CVNs but was too expensive (least that's what the book said).
 
Interesting!!
Never heard of a SAM variant of the Phoenix before :eek:

F-14D There was a fairly detailed description of it in a Naval Institute Proceedings article in the '70s and both it and Aviation week had drawings of the launcher, which if I remember resembled the drawing you posted.

Since it was self contained and compact, it was also proposed in a mobile landbased configuration for the Marines.
Click to expand...

Now I would love to see these articles!!!! ;)




Regards
Pioneer
 
Oddly enough the idea of a SAM version of the AIM-54 has been brought up on Iranian military forums..

Does anyone have any information as to what kind of range a ground or naval launched AIM-54 would have?
 
Some info from Janes Weapon Systems 1977 edition:

Sea Phoenix is a proposed alternative or replacement system for Sea Sparrow, in which the sophisticated AIM-54A Phoenix air-to-air missile and AN/AWG-9 fire control radar system is adapted for shipboard air defence roles. According to the proponents of the scheme, Phoenix and AWG-9 manufacturers, Hughes Aircraft, all but two of the 29 main elements of the latter system could be used virtually unmodified in the naval application, and a standard Phoenix missile has been launched successfully from the ground in a test at the Naval Weapons Centre, China Lake.

The distance traveled in this test (which was principally concerned with the separation and launch safety aspects, rather than performance) was over 20km.

One application suggested for Sea Phoenix is the protection of USN aircraft carriers, and typically three Sea Phoenix systems would be fitted to give overlapping coverage throughout the full 360o. Each system would comprise one AWG-9 radar and associated controls and displays, and a fixed 12-cell launcher for the Phoenix missiles.

The multiple target capability of the Phoenix system is one of the major attractions of the Sea Phoenix proposal, others being high performance in range and speed. At a later stage, the system could be further enhanced by applying missile modifications to optimise it for the naval role.
Click to expand...

This seems to confirm a lot of the info provided elsewhere. No mention of Sea Phoenix was in the 1976 edition of Weapon Systems, nor was there any mention about a land version in the 1977 edition.
 
Hmm!
So the launch system for the Sea Phoenix seems like a modified box launcher of the Sea Sparrow?
 
Tzoli said:
Hmm!
So the launch system for the Sea Phoenix seems like a modified box launcher of the Sea Sparrow?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. See the drawing in the first post -- the Sea Phoenix launcher was fixed in both elevation and train, unlike Sea Sparrow.
 
Yes I've seen that. But it's closest to that. I'm not sure if a turntable would not had been introduced to the launcher. Still no elevation change before launch? Isn't that reduces the range of the missile and it's short range capabilty?
 
Tzoli said:
Yes I've seen that. But it's closest to that. I'm not sure if a turntable would not had been introduced to the launcher. Still no elevation change before launch? Isn't that reduces the range of the missile and it's short range capabilty?
Click to expand...
Not exactly.

The Early Sparrows were Straight flying all the way to target like the old T missiles.

The Pheonix worked more like the Standards where a bit before launch it calculated the best flight to intercpetion path for best performance, before flying said path on autopilot until it reach about 5 miles from the target and switching on its radar for attack tracking. The newer ESSMs when launch out of the trainable launch is fire with the launcher lock at about a 45 degree angle unless it shotting at extremely close range since they do similar.

As is the Pheonix had almost 30 miles of range when ground launched, similar range to the far larger Standards, Terrier and Tarters had at the time. With napkin plans to add a booster to the missile for more range, but that died when the Sea Pheonix idea was shut down.

They also had a VLS like launcher were the Pheonix sat in a canister on deck like a Harpoon but vertical for smaller ships like Frigates.. Apperantly you could fight 12 Pheonixs for the same space as 8 harpoons. Thru the navy plan on have the cans on the sides of the ship like the MK48 ESSM launcher, with the cans able to replace at sea for UNREP.
The MK48

Mk-48 Vertical Launching System VLS RIM-7 RIM-162 Sea Sparrow

mk. 48 vertical launching system vls rim-7 sea sparrow sam missile rim-162 essm
www.seaforces.org
And the Pheonix Vertical launch system that I pulled from Shipbucket sometime back.
 

Attachments

  • Sea_Phoenix_Figure3.gif
    Sea_Phoenix_Figure3.gif
    188.2 KB · Views: 435
  • Sea_Phoenix_Figure5.gif
    Sea_Phoenix_Figure5.gif
    126.1 KB · Views: 371
  • Sea_Phoenix_Figure6.gif
    Sea_Phoenix_Figure6.gif
    154.4 KB · Views: 365
Last edited:
Firefinder said:
Tzoli said:
Yes I've seen that. But it's closest to that. I'm not sure if a turntable would not had been introduced to the launcher. Still no elevation change before launch? Isn't that reduces the range of the missile and it's short range capabilty?
Click to expand...
Not exactly.

The Early Sparrows were Straight flying all the way to target like the old T missiles.

The Pheonix worked more like the Standards where a bit before launch it calculated the best flight to intercpetion path for best performance, before flying said path on autopilot until it reach about 5 miles from the target and switching on its radar for attack tracking. The newer ESSMs when launch out of the trainable launch is fire with the launcher lock at about a 45 degree angle unless it shotting at extremely close range since they do similar.

As is the Pheonix had almost 30 miles of range when ground launched, similar range to the far larger Standards, Terrier and Tarters had at the time. With napkin plans to add a booster to the missile for more range, but that died when the Sea Pheonix idea was shut down.

They also had a VLS like launcher were the Pheonix sat in a canister on deck like a Harpoon but vertical for smaller ships like Frigates.. Apperantly you could fight 12 Pheonixs for the same space as 8 harpoons. Thru the navy plan on have the cans on the sides of the ship like the MK48 ESSM launcher, with the cans able to replace at sea for UNREP.
The MK48

Mk-48 Vertical Launching System VLS RIM-7 RIM-162 Sea Sparrow

mk. 48 vertical launching system vls rim-7 sea sparrow sam missile rim-162 essm
www.seaforces.org
And the Pheonix Vertical launch system that I pulled from Shipbucket sometime back.
Click to expand...
Phoenix. Not Pheonix.
 
F-14D said:
Brickmuppet said:
The only mention I have seen of the surface launched version of AIM-54 was a brief mention in Gunston's Rockets and Missiles where he says that "In 1976 a virtually unmodified Phoenix was successfully fired at NWC China Lake traveling 13.5 miles downrange in 90 seconds..." He also mentions that the Tomcat radar could be mounted "almost bodily to a ship, 27 of the 29 boxes being compatible".

Can someone explain 'box compatibility'? I take it to mean the radar as mounted on the fighter consists of 29 modules 27 of which were compatible with a shipboard installation.

Would this have been a good replacement for SM1? Obviously Aegis and SM2 is a more capable system, but Sea Phoenix seems at first blush to give short to midrange multi-target capability for far less cost than Aegis. It might have been a good fit for frigates giving a large increase in capability over the Brooke and Perry classes. The cost per shot would have been high, but even that probably would have come down with an increased production run.

ISTR reading somewhere that Phoenix had a surprisingly short minimum range. Is this true? If so this weapon would seem to be a good point defence weapon too.

Any thoughts or information on this weapon?

UPDATE: This image, allegedly of the Sea Phoenix system, comes via the Shipbucket forum.
Click to expand...


Sea Phoenix was proposed system to give medium range SAM capabilities to smaller and/or non-Aegis ships. There was a fairly detailed description of it in a Naval Institute Proceedings article in the '70s and both it and Aviation week had drawings of the launcher, which if I remember resembled the drawing you posted. The beauty of the concept was that, being essentially an aircraft system taken out of an aircraft and mounted on ship, it would be light, compact and self-contained, which would facilitate its deployment relatively quickly and inexpensively on a variety of platforms, both new-builds and retrofits. It would not just be on frigates/destroyers but also on aircraft carriers as well. In fact, the illustration is of a CV installation. Think of it as a system like Sea Sparrow, but much more powerful. Since it was self contained and compact, it was also proposed in a mobile landbased configuration for the Marines. One issue that would require work was that AIM-54A required liquid cooling, which was provided by the F-14. Had it come to fruition, this application would have had to do away with that. Possibly the stillborn AIM-54B variant would have been a candidate.

In any case, the concept never went that far. Part of this was due to all the sturm und drang going on in the F-14 program at the time, but also because at the time Aegis was under development and there was concern that this would be looked at as a competitor to Aegis. It was not meant to be, and was nowhere near as capable, but it also was nowhere near as expensive. The combination of these factors meant there was insufficient support to proceed.
Click to expand...
I followed your directions and found the AW&ST Sea Phoenix article.
But didn't find the Proceedings article, do you remember in which issue or which year?
:）
 
CIC-TAO said:
F-14D said:
Brickmuppet said:
The only mention I have seen of the surface launched version of AIM-54 was a brief mention in Gunston's Rockets and Missiles where he says that "In 1976 a virtually unmodified Phoenix was successfully fired at NWC China Lake traveling 13.5 miles downrange in 90 seconds..." He also mentions that the Tomcat radar could be mounted "almost bodily to a ship, 27 of the 29 boxes being compatible".

Can someone explain 'box compatibility'? I take it to mean the radar as mounted on the fighter consists of 29 modules 27 of which were compatible with a shipboard installation.

Would this have been a good replacement for SM1? Obviously Aegis and SM2 is a more capable system, but Sea Phoenix seems at first blush to give short to midrange multi-target capability for far less cost than Aegis. It might have been a good fit for frigates giving a large increase in capability over the Brooke and Perry classes. The cost per shot would have been high, but even that probably would have come down with an increased production run.

ISTR reading somewhere that Phoenix had a surprisingly short minimum range. Is this true? If so this weapon would seem to be a good point defence weapon too.

Any thoughts or information on this weapon?

UPDATE: This image, allegedly of the Sea Phoenix system, comes via the Shipbucket forum.
Click to expand...


Sea Phoenix was proposed system to give medium range SAM capabilities to smaller and/or non-Aegis ships. There was a fairly detailed description of it in a Naval Institute Proceedings article in the '70s and both it and Aviation week had drawings of the launcher, which if I remember resembled the drawing you posted. The beauty of the concept was that, being essentially an aircraft system taken out of an aircraft and mounted on ship, it would be light, compact and self-contained, which would facilitate its deployment relatively quickly and inexpensively on a variety of platforms, both new-builds and retrofits. It would not just be on frigates/destroyers but also on aircraft carriers as well. In fact, the illustration is of a CV installation. Think of it as a system like Sea Sparrow, but much more powerful. Since it was self contained and compact, it was also proposed in a mobile landbased configuration for the Marines. One issue that would require work was that AIM-54A required liquid cooling, which was provided by the F-14. Had it come to fruition, this application would have had to do away with that. Possibly the stillborn AIM-54B variant would have been a candidate.

In any case, the concept never went that far. Part of this was due to all the sturm und drang going on in the F-14 program at the time, but also because at the time Aegis was under development and there was concern that this would be looked at as a competitor to Aegis. It was not meant to be, and was nowhere near as capable, but it also was nowhere near as expensive. The combination of these factors meant there was insufficient support to proceed.
Click to expand...
I followed your directions and found the AW&ST Sea Phoenix article.
But didn't find the Proceedings article, do you remember in which issue or which year?
:）
Click to expand...
Sorry, not 10 years after I posted that. I finally bit the bullet and got rid of a whole bunch o' files that were taking up space....
 
Would this have been a good replacement for SM1? Obviously Aegis and SM2 is a more capable system, but Sea Phoenix seems at first blush to give short to midrange multi-target capability for far less cost than Aegis. It might have been a good fit for frigates giving a large increase in capability over the Brooke and Perry classes. The cost per shot would have been high, but even that probably would have come down with an increased production run.
Click to expand...
The critics who basically sabotaged the Sea Phoenix don't seem to have understood that it would've complemented the Aegis missile system, sort like what the Tartar was to the Terrier also a land based version would've been awesome.
 
NMaude said:
The critics who basically sabotaged the Sea Phoenix don't seem to have understood that it would've complemented the Aegis missile system, sort like what the Tartar was to the Terrier also a land based version would've been awesome.
Click to expand...
Can't believe that they didn't get the memo about Sea Phoenix being a replacement for Sea Sparrow...
 
Scott Kenny said:
Can't believe that they didn't get the memo about Sea Phoenix being a replacement for Sea Sparrow...
Click to expand...

Good point! And the if the Sea Phoenix had entered service in large numbers it would've dropped the unit-price of the AIM-54 Phoenix leading to the USN to order more for their Tomcats.
 
Last edited:
At that point its an overly complicated backporting when a version of Sea Sparrow was cots, right?
 
Sea Phoenix would have been much more capable than Sea Sparrow, the two missile options involved either putting Phoenix hardware in a Standard missile airframe, or an "extended-range missile" using the existing Phoenix missile airframe with an extra booster. In the above study, the ship was also expected to carry Sea Sparrow, hence the fire-control system was also expected to be capable guiding it, unsurprising given it was an adapted version of the AWG-9, which of course was capable of guiding Sparrows when fitted to the F-14.
 
Last edited:
Until I checked out Sea Sparrow and looked back at the limits, it made more sense. When I typed the previous answer it dawned on me that I confused RIM-7 with RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow. An 8" missile versus a 10" missile. ESSM was obviously the larger. So it looks like at the time they were more interested in the ability to engage two dozen targets. The drawback is that you had a long minimum range, poor low level coverage, and high costs. But as a middle tier it looked good on paper.
 
MadRat said:
The drawback is that you had a long minimum range, poor low level coverage, and high costs. But as a middle tier it looked good on paper.
Click to expand...

Putting the Sea Phoenix into production would've lowered the unit-price of each missile AND if the US Army had adopted it as a supplement (Maybe replacement) for the MIM-23 Hawk it would've resulted in significantly cheaper Phoenix's.
 
NMaude said:
Putting the Sea Phoenix into production would've lowered the unit-price of each missile AND if the US Army had adopted it as a supplement (Maybe replacement) for the MIM-23 Hawk it would've resulted in significantly cheaper Phoenix's.
Click to expand...
That is a VERY big if.
 
It does seem to have been a missed opportunity, although I suspect with a sea level launch some range performance would be lost over the air-launched AIM-54.

The 9-box fixed launchers might have been a drawback for retrofitting ships (they were pretty bulky items) - although its possible a different launcher may have been developed.
 
With a booster the missile could reach a substantial range.

But without and say on a arm launcher, it could have very low minimum range restrictions.

In theory you could trigger the ARH for danger close engagement
 
NMaude said:
Putting the Sea Phoenix into production would've lowered the unit-price of each missile AND if the US Army had adopted it as a supplement (Maybe replacement) for the MIM-23 Hawk it would've resulted in significantly cheaper Phoenix's.
Click to expand...

Phoenix was never going to be competitive in cost to Sea Sparrow, though. In the 1970s, Phoenix was running over $420k per round, Sparrow closer to $125k. And that was with Phoenix production running at about 300 missiles per year, not exactly slow. Doubling that rate might knock 10% off the unit price (a pure SWAG) but not if you start adding refinements like an additional booster.
 
TomS said:
Phoenix was never going to be competitive in cost to Sea Sparrow, though. In the 1970s, Phoenix was running over $420k per round, Sparrow closer to $125k. And that was with Phoenix production running at about 300 missiles per year, not exactly slow. Doubling that rate might knock 10% off the unit price (a pure SWAG) but not if you start adding refinements like an additional booster.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking something like the ASROC booster that's already in production and mostly does the job already.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm thinking something like the ASROC booster that's already in production and mostly does the job already.
Click to expand...

The old ASROC booster is pretty specialized. It is designed to be fired at a fixed 45-degree angle (so far, so good) but it doesn't actually steer (some websites notwithstanding).* All it has is an intervalometer that blows the motor off at a preset time in its flight to achieve the desired velocity/range and then separates the airframe from the payload near the apex of the trajectory.

Also, remember that Phoenix weighs like twice as much as a lightweight torpedo, so the booster probably needs to be bigger too. Suddenly, the ship impact of the launcher is really scary.

* That's why it's a rocket (RUR-5) rather than a missile like VL ASROC (RUM-139)
 
TomS said:
The old ASROC booster is pretty specialized. It is designed to be fired at a fixed 45-degree angle (so far, so good) but it doesn't actually steer (some websites notwithstanding).* All it has is an intervalometer that blows the motor off at a preset time in its flight to achieve the desired velocity/range and then separates the airframe from the payload near the apex of the trajectory.

Also, remember that Phoenix weighs like twice as much as a lightweight torpedo, so the booster probably needs to be bigger too. Suddenly, the ship impact of the launcher is really scary.

* That's why it's a rocket (RUR-5) rather than a missile like VL ASROC (RUM-139)
Click to expand...
ASROC may have been a poor choice on my part, but I'd still grab something that was already in production. We're not talking about Sea Phoenix being a VLS missile, so having a stupid booster is acceptable. Launcher is already set at an angle, dumb booster fires and releases Phoenix missile at apex.

ASROC booster is probably not enough thrust, though.
SM2 VLS booster would be overkill, SM2 is 50% heavier than a Phoenix, unless the Sea Phoenix is Phoenix seeker inside a Standard.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom