Rare Footage Of The Aim-54 Phoenix Missile And F-111 Aardvark Development Program

Rare color footage of the Hughes Aim-54 Phoenix Missile development program, and the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark.
The AIM-54 Phoenix is an American radar-guided, long-range air-to-air missile (AAM), carried in clusters of up to six missiles on the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, its only operational launch platform.
The Phoenix was the United States' only long-range air-to-air missile. The combination of Phoenix missile and the Tomcat's AN/AWG-9 guidance radar meant that it was the first aerial weapons system that could simultaneously engage multiple targets. Due to its active radar tracking, the brevity code "Fox Three" was used when firing the AIM-54. The act of the missile achieving a radar lock with its own radar is known under brevity as 'Going Pitbull'.
Both the missile and the aircraft were used by Iran and the United States Navy. In US service both are now retired, the AIM-54 Phoenix in 2004 and the F-14 in 2006. They were replaced by the shorter-range AIM-120 AMRAAM, employed on the F/A-18 Hornet and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet-in its AIM-120D version, the latest version of the AMRAAM just matches the Phoenix's maximum range.
The AIM-54 has been used in 62 air-to-air strikes, all by Iran during the eight-year Iran-Iraq War.Following the retirement of the F-14 by the U.S. Navy, the weapon's only current operator is the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force.
Since 1951, the Navy faced the initial threat from the Tupolev Tu-4K 'Bull' carrying anti-ship missiles or nuclear bombs.
Eventually, during the height of the Cold War, the threat would have expanded into regimental-size raids of Tu-16 Badger and Tu-22M Backfire bombers equipped with low-flying, long-range, high-speed, nuclear-armed cruise missiles and considerable electronic countermeasures (ECM) of various types. This combination was considered capable of saturating fleet defenses and threatening carrier groups.
The Navy would require a long-range, long-endurance interceptor aircraft to defend carrier battle groups against this threat. The proposed Douglas F6D Missileer was intended to fulfill this mission and oppose the attack as far as possible from the fleet it was defending. The weapon needed for interceptor aircraft, the Bendix AAM-N-10 Eagle, was to be an air-to-air missile of unprecedented range when compared to contemporary AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. It would work together with Westinghouse AN/APQ-81 radar. The Missileer project was cancelled in December 1960.
In the early 1960s, the U.S. Navy made the next interceptor attempt with the F-111B, and they needed a new missile design. At the same time, the USAF canceled the projects for their land-based high-speed interceptor aircraft, the North American XF-108 Rapier and the Lockheed YF-12, and left the capable AIM-47 Falcon missile at a quite advanced stage of development, but with no effective launch platform.
The AIM-54 Phoenix, developed for the F-111B fleet air defense fighter, had an airframe with four cruciform fins that was a scaled-up version of the AIM-47. One characteristic of the Missileer ancestry was that the radar sent it mid-course corrections, which allowed the fire control system to "loft" the missile up over the target into thinner air where it had better range.
The F-111B was canceled in 1968. Its weapons system, the AIM-54 working with the AWG-9 radar, migrated to the new U.S. Navy fighter project, the VFX, which would later become the F-14 Tomcat.
Watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions ➤ / @dronescapes
To support/join the channel ➤ / @dronescapes
IG ➤ / dronescapesvideos
FB ➤ / dronescapesvideos
X/Twitter ➤ dronescapes.video/2p89vedj
THREADS ➤ www.threads.net/@dronescapesv...
#aviation #aircraft #missile

[@Dronescapes]

➤➤ Watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes ➤➤ Join the channel: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes/join ➤ IG ➤ instagram.com/dronescapesvideos ➤ FB ➤ facebook.com/Dronescapesvideos ➤ X/Twitter ➤ dronescapes.video/2p89vedj ➤ THREADS ➤ www.threads.net/@dronescapesvideos

[@kingtut3467]

My first engineering job out of college (1974) was Alameda Naval Air Rework Facility (NARF) support of AIM-54 Phoenix Missile. We could disassemble, test ,repair the of the Phoenix. I also worked on all the ground support equipment (GSE) used in field test of the Missile. The F-14 Tomcat used AWG-9 (Radar Fire Control)/AIM-54 weapon system. I did lots of travel to Grumman (Bethpage, NY), Hughes (Canoga Park,CA) and Litton (Woodland Hills, CA). I watched many operational tests at Point Mugu Missile Test (PMTC) base. Beautiful Memories. Thanks

[@Dronescapes]

Thank you for your service, and for sharing your memories!

[@chrisprovo3827]

That must have been a real sight to see.

[@davidclemens1578]

I was a weapon system loader/maintenance in the Air Force in the early eighties on the f-111a at mountain home Air Force Base. I spent my whole time in the Air Force on that aircraft. In the early eighties the older A models were converted into EFs then we ended up getting the combat squadron's. We were the training squadron and then by the time I left about half of them had been converted over and I am guessing the rest of them had been converted. Quite an aircraft but at the time did not realize it because like most I wanted to work on the f-15s and f-16s.

[@Dronescapes]

Thank you for your service David!

[@slartybarfastb3648]

I watched F-111s flying low altitude runs toward the bombing ranges in Florida. If you heard the sound before seeing them visually, it was already too late.

[@malcolmlewis5860]

Very complex, very expensive tech that was prone to breakdown and failure. This made it both expensive and then hyped to legendary status. Really,six shoot downs in a combat scenario. The carriers would have been sunk in a real fight. Lesson don't believe arms companies marketing.

[@slartybarfastb3648]

@@malcolmlewis5860 Fast forward to F-35. Same complaints. Razor edge of tech for it's time will always have teething issues. Everything you said could also apply to the F-14A.

[@philliplopez8745]

Slide rules and room sized processors . Amazing what they could do with sticks and stones in the mid sixtys .

[@MatthewDoye]

A hybrid of analog and digital (8K x 24 bit words!), tubes and solid state. The they ported half the avionics over to the F-14 and threw ICs into the mix.

[@RedFail1-1]

The first microprocessor was used in the F-14.

[@Mak10z]

and punch cards... man imagine having to debug that

[@BrianMorrison]

@@RedFail1-1 Bit slice technology, still secret decades later although of course there was no need for that long a security cloak.

[@charlespanasewicz9774]

This is truly RARE video. Out of McNamara’s office?

[@christopherneufelt8971]

Doubtful. KZbin policy does not allow perversions shown on Video. 😁 . Concerning the technologies shown, these are completely outdated, but I am fearing that there will be no engineers in the future to understand key technologies since there is no motivation for the people to think. Take care yourself and the ones you love.

[@rogerrinkavage]

​@@christopherneufelt8971nah, there are plenty of nerds like me studying engineering right now to keep the knowledge alive. This stuff is awesome!

[@SALTINBANK]

Great engineering : only thing i have to say my cousins ... Kisses from France

[@blunderbustxxx9346]

Once launched, the Phoenix was like a robot hunter, completely autonomous, didn't need radar beam from its parent interceptor, and flew at Mach 5, incredible technology!

[@gort8203]

Not completely autonomous from launch in its intended use. It got mid course corrections from the launch aircraft until it got close enough to go pitbull (about 11 miles) and complete the intercept with its own radar. Do that immediately from launch and the Pk would be pretty low unless the target is very close.

[@likwidchris]

Only the later phoenixes were capable of automatically switching to its own radar if the launch aircraft broke its radar lock.

[@Coyote27981]

What is really amazing, is the level of complexity it had, with such primitive electronics.

[@brianhirt5027]

@@gort8203 You fellas seem to know a lot about these systems. I'm very curious about the multiple bogey engagement avionics. I thought mutlilock wouldn't become a thing until the late 70's or early 80s. How'd they pull that off?

[@JETFOURLITRE]

Track while scan was the enabler.​@@brianhirt5027

[@confuseatronica]

I like that project logo a LOT

[@FlyingAceAV8B]

As much as I have grown to hate and despise the military industrial complex, I still respect how smart all of these men were based on what they accomplished. These are some very complex systems and my dumb brain could never even comprehend a fraction of the math and physics that went into these design of these systems.

[@Sclayto2]

A great video and an interesting glimpse into old time technology. Gets a bit "turbo encabulator" in places, but pretty timeless.

[@slartybarfastb3648]

I'd love to hear the story behind the USAF decision to never integrate the AIM-54 on any USAF aircraft despite it being designed with the F-111 in mind from the start.

[@sferrin2]

F-111B for the navy. Not the F-111A.

[@slartybarfastb3648]

@@sferrin2 I didn't differentiate. I said "any" meaning every USAF airplane from '66 to '2007. Not one carried the Pheonix, ever. Despite the USAF being responsible for the continental US and Europe interceptor role. It would seem at least one platform should have found a use for the additional range?

[@gort8203]

The Air Force did not want a fleet defense interceptor, they wanted a tactical bomber. The two planes had different missions. Different needs and operational doctrines.

[@slartybarfastb3648]

@@gort8203 I don't know why you all want to be specific to the F-111. Between 1966 and 2007, USAF had many interceptors with the role being to intercept Soviet bombers. Those anticipated to attack a fleet would typically be the same attacking a continent. My point was that the Pheonix was initially designed for F-111 which the USAF adopted. Surely they must have considered it for not only the F-111 but also other platforms. Why did they insist on the much less capable AIM-4 and AIM-7 right up until they finally found the AIM-120?

[@sferrin2]

@@slartybarfastb3648 They kicked around several ideas but could never justify them. One of them was an SR-71 with four Phoenix. Think Son Of YF-12. There was also the N-349. Vigilante with a 3rd J79 and six Phoenix missiles.

[@ssaraccoii]

The Tomcat was outfitted with them also.

[@gort8203]

Most people are unaware that the Navy insisted on the side-by-side seating over the objections of the Air Force. Ironic considering that this seating arrangement was the first feature eliminated by Grumman when they took over building the F-14 after the Navy cancelled the F-111B.

[@reneegudjon3204]

F111 was bigger and more suited for side by side

[@gort8203]

@@reneegudjon3204 That puts the cart before the horse. They didn't make the seating side-by-side because the plane was bigger, they made the plane bigger (wider) to accommodate the desired side-by-side seating. The Navy wanted this seating so the pilot and radar intercept officer could share the same radar display without having to duplicate it. The Air Force wanted the fastest possible bomber and didn't need the pilot to have full control of the bomb/nav systems because he was going to focus on not running into the ground rather than finding the target. The tandem seating of the B-58 and other multi-place fast jets set USAF preferences. The side-by-side seating of airplanes like the F6D and A-6 seems to have set Navy preferences. McNamara's DOD overruled the Air Force objection and forced them to accept the side-by-side seating. The irony is that this seating requirement contributed to the F-111’s unsuitability as a fighter. Not only was pilot visibility from such a cockpit unsuited to the fighter role, but the structure necessary for this wide cockpit and escape capsule made the airplane heavier than it need to be. If the Navy had originally wanted the F-111B to perform the superiority fighter role they would never have insisted on this type of seating. But combat experience in Vietnam caused the Navy to revise its needs to include air superiority, which made the F-111B unsuitable. The F-14 design, which was to combine both fleet defense and air superiority roles, had tandem seating at first draft because it was necessary both for pilot visibility and a more efficient structure.

[@gort8203]

@@reneegudjon3204 You have it backwards; the fuselage had to be bigger (wider) to accommodate side-by-side seating. Beyond the aerodynamic effects of the width, the larger cockpit opening required more supporting structure that made the fuselage heavier. Grumman's initial design studies abandoned the side-by-side seating the Navy originally wanted in order to avoid its weight penalty.

[@reneegudjon3204]

@@gort8203 It wasn't a fighter . Mostly attack and high speed low level. Hence ca25 % bigger , heavier. And having a bomb bay.and two radar. ( One for low flying in IFC..) O wander it could accommodate side by side for better coordination/cooperation between weapons officer and pilot.Especially during demanding low level flying raids

[@gort8203]

@@reneegudjon3204 I know it was not a fighter--that's my point about the Navy version as well. Nevertheless, and despite your personal ideas on its desirability, it is a fact that the USAF wanted tandem seating. Just like they had for the B-58 and the B-57. USAF even went so far as to dump the original side-by-side seating of the Canberra for the B-57B bomber, which had tandem seating under a fighter-type canopy, just like the B-47. So don't imagine for an instant that USAF favored side-by-side seating for any of its tactical aircraft. It was the Navy that wanted the side-by-side seating to facilitate coordination between pilot and radar intercept officer, as well as allowing them to share a single radar display.

[@robertl6196]

One can only wonder what might have been.

[@paladin0654]

Thanks.

[@scottnj2503]

The important take away from films like this is less the specific subject matter and more that the film exists in the first place. This is not a public facing propaganda production. Films like this were produced as presentation materials and collaterally as archival footage, for classified briefings to policy makers ad procurement bureaucrats, i.e. the folks that controlled the monies. .Personally I find the test at less than 30 miles were touted as achievements. Yet early in the film, ranges of 80-100 miles were discussed.

[@BrianMorrison]

Later in the AIM-54's life the C model was capable of engagements at 120+ miles. It had a bigger rocket motor and improved electronics than the earlier missiles. There are few engagement scenarios where you know what a target is at those ranges, so relatively few Phoenix intercepts were made in the end. The best reason for having it is when it deters the other side from attacking you, and F-14 plus AIM-54 was a fearsome combination provided that the systems were reliable.

[@Koozomec]

Salesman : *slaps on the F111's wing.* "And that bad boy for only..."

[@donchaput8278]

Would be great to see a video on how the missile knows where it is

[@JamesGMunn]

What was the "special equipment" shown at 1:29? Was it a klystron for the radar?

[@BrianMorrison]

It's a travelling-wave tube, TWT. Klystrons use velocity modulation of an electron beam but are not much use at higher frequencies whereas a TWT allows both higher frequency operation and operates over greater bandwidth. Both are thermionic devices with heaters, electrodes and internal vacuum, not solid state.

[@user-pf3cu4lo7u]

Were these the same guys who made rhe turbo encabulator?

[@mahoneytechnologies657]

The Phoenix was a Very Expensive program that never saw combat! The AIM 9 Sidewinder Family, was and is, the best System going! Bill McLean and his team at China Lake showed the world how to develop a successful missile system!

[@Coyote27981]

What do you mean Phoenix never saw combat?

[@jarink1]

The USN shot a couple during no-fly operations after the Gulf War, but their only successful intercepts were by Iran.

[@jaybee9269]

“Gentlemen, all the thrust in Christendom couldn’t make a Navy fighter out of that airplane.”-Adm. Tom Connolly

[@gort8203]

That's because it was never designed to be a fighter. It was designed to be a fleet defense missile interceptor. The Navy then changed it's mind and decided they needed an airplane that could also be a fighter. So they blamed it on the F-111B to get Congress to let them cancel it and get funding to start the F-14.

[@gort8203]

And it was not originally intended to be a fighter.

[@jaybee9269]

@@gort8203 >> Indeed. It’s a medium bomber.

[@gort8203]

@@jaybee9269 The F-11!A is what it was intended to be, a bomber. The F-111B was intended to be a fleet defense interceptor, basically a supersonic evolution of the F6D Missileer concept. The F-111B was not intended to be an air superiority fighter, which is why DOD determined the variable geometry airframe desired by the USAF would also work for the Navy's high speed Missileer. Combat experience in Vietnam made the Navy to realize it needed a new air superiority fighter as well as a fleet defense fighter. But they wouldn't couldn't get Congress to allow development of two new jets at the same time, so they had to kill the F-111B to get appropriations for a new fighter program that could perform both roles. As a fighter advocate Admiral Connolly was a big contributor to that change. It was the right thing to do, but the political expedient was to publicly portray the change in Navy procurement priorities as failure of the F-111B design, which was unfair to that program.

[@kristensorensen2219]

All this for efficiency and reduced costs? Funny how it never worked out and two different aircraft were built and only the Navy used the Phoenix system! Brilliant!

[@nicholasmaude6906]

If the F-111B had gone into production and service no doubt it would've been known as the "Turkey".

[@daveblevins3322]

Those were some brilliant minds. What a shame they were so let down by politics 😞 I remember a couple of "tech reps" from General Dynamics Corp. when i was in the 474th TFW (F-111), at Nellis AFB in 72/73/. They were great guys and willing to teach you anything if you just asked them. 👍👍🇺🇸

[@nonayerbidnet6974]

I thought the tomcat was built specifically for the Phoenix

[@BorisZech]

The F-14 took over from the F-111 which never came to light in its B variant which was meant to carry the Phoenix.

[@therocinante3443]

18:42 you're welcome

[@kellyharbeson1948]

Information is "punched" on a magnetic tape lol

[@user-nv4qq4ly7p]

지금은 돈 되는 것만 하다보니...뒤쳐짐....돈이 다가 아니다...돈이 않되 도 나라를 위해 해야 하는데...묵살해...지들이 머리야...

[@songjunejohnlee2113]

31:31 yup a nuke sure is a "special weapon"

[@Jury292]

The plane they show half the time is not an F-111.

[@BrianMorrison]

Douglas A-3 Skywarrior, I think it did some of the trials work for various aspects of the F-111B/AIM-54 development.

[@RedFail1-1]

Someone show this video to Gaijin.

[@kristensorensen2219]

The fact this system no longer exists is rediculous!! A perfect example of our feckless system of weapons purchased for our military being swiss cheese. This unit should still be part of our military both Navy and Air Force. We spend billions on equipment that gets sold overseas for profit and like this example becomes a throw away by our military. The waste of resources is rediculous!!

[@christopherneufelt8971]

The budget of hundreds of billions for war equipment can either say that is over the cost or that there are other weapons systems that are much more reliable in place. Saying that, you should understand that the flying technology is intentionally left by corporations and legislators in the hands of the few, simple to avoid any political action from the public. This goes also for the production of aircraft. Take care yourself and the ones you love.

[@forcea1454]

It's obsolete 1960s technology. Pretty much all modern long-range AAMs have terminal active-homing like Phoenix, and modern AESAs are vastly in advance of the AWG-9.

[@SimonWallwork]

It exists in Iran- where it achieved 100% of its real world kills.

[@forcea1454]

@@SimonWallwork The AWG-9 still does, but I believe the Iranians have replaced their Phoenixes with a domestic developed air-to-air variant of the Hawk.

[@BrianMorrison]

The equipment is procured knowing that it has a service life limitation, either because eventually parts are no longer made or because the aircraft exceed their structural life due to all the flying and particularly arrested carrier landings. Nothing lasts for ever.