AIM-54 Phoenix

**JRT** · 09 Mar 11,, 23:39

My understanding si that the AIM-54 Phoenix was retired in 2004. Did they go into storage, get destroyed, or get used for something else?

Dumb question: If those missiles are still available, but are never going to be used in air to air role, why would it not be worthwhile to convert them to another application, maybe put a couple of racks of rails on the roof of an LCS and use modified Phoenix missiles for surface to surface against go-fasts?

**gunnut** · 09 Mar 11,, 23:58

They might be converted as target drones used for testing anti-missile systems. They are about the right size of a small anti-ship missile and can reach supersonic speed. This is just a guess on my part. The navy convereted Talos missiles to serve this purpose.

**JRT** · 10 Mar 11,, 17:18

Originally Posted by gunnut

They might be converted as target drones used for testing anti-missile systems. They are about the right size of a small anti-ship missile and can reach supersonic speed. This is just a guess on my part. The navy convereted Talos missiles to serve this purpose.

Those targets are necessary, and that would be better than scrapping them, but it still seems like a waste as compared to continued use as a weapon. With a new guidance and sensor package, it might be useful for attacking small surface targets in the littorals and defending against fast movers in a surface to air role. ...if that modification is significantly cheaper than buying new missiles, and if enough of them remain in inventory to make it worthwhile.

**gunnut** · 10 Mar 11,, 18:43

Originally Posted by JRT

Those targets are necessary, and that would be better than scrapping them, but it still seems like a waste as compared to continued use as a weapon. With a new guidance and sensor package, it might be useful for attacking small surface targets in the littorals and defending against fast movers in a surface to air role. ...if that modification is significantly cheaper than buying new missiles, and if enough of them remain in inventory to make it worthwhile.

That will actually cost more, to continue to use them as weapons.

You will need to come up with a new guidance kit, used to attack surface targets. I suspect whatever algorithms loaded in the Phoenix would have problems being that close to surface.

There needs to be a launcher developed and fitted onto ships. You could use box launchers, but would still need to find the deck space and place a blast defector behind it. All these things add weight to a ship. Rusty can tell you it can be done, but not as easy as you think.

The ship needs to be modified to talk to the missile in order to at least feed targeting information to the missile.

In order to be qualified as a weapon, these will need to be tested, against all sorts of scenarios and counter measures. That takes time and money.

It's cheaper to use SM-2 in surface mode. It's a proven system and already in service.

**JRT** · 10 Mar 11,, 19:06

Originally Posted by gunnut

That will actually cost more, to continue to use them as weapons.

You will need to come up with a new guidance kit, used to attack surface targets. I suspect whatever algorithms loaded in the Phoenix would have problems being that close to surface.

There needs to be a launcher developed and fitted onto ships. You could use box launchers, but would still need to find the deck space and place a blast defector behind it. All these things add weight to a ship. Rusty can tell you it can be done, but not as easy as you think.

The ship needs to be modified to talk to the missile in order to at least feed targeting information to the missile.

In order to be qualified as a weapon, these will need to be tested, against all sorts of scenarios and counter measures. That takes time and money.

It's cheaper to use SM-2 in surface mode. It's a proven system and already in service.

Thanks for a good logical answer.

**Stitch** · 10 Mar 11,, 19:17

That makes sense; remove the warhead, put a ballistic nosecone on it, and change the flight profile in the guidance system. It probably wouldn't have much of a range, though; the original flight profile called for a parabolic trajectory after launch with the apogee somewhere in the lower mesosphere for long-range targets. At lower altitudes, I'm guessing it's range would be cut in half (though it would still be substantial).

**gunnut** · 10 Mar 11,, 19:23

Originally Posted by Stitch

That makes sense; remove the warhead, put a ballistic nosecone on it, and change the flight profile in the guidance system. It probably wouldn't have much of a range, though; the original flight profile called for a parabolic trajectory after launch with the apogee somewhere in the lower mesosphere for long-range targets. At lower altitudes, I'm guessing it's range would be cut in half (though it would still be substantial).

But the launch platform would be at 30 knots max as opposed to mach 1...

**Stitch** · 10 Mar 11,, 20:13

Originally Posted by gunnut

But the launch platform would be at 30 knots max as opposed to mach 1...

So it's range would probably be even less, maybe 20-30 miles, at most.

**leib10** · 12 Mar 11,, 20:24

They probably dismantled/destroyed them, like the military does with a lot of unused ordnance. I know they destroyed the F-14's that carried them. Kinda made me sad.

**kato** · 13 Mar 11,, 01:03

Originally Posted by gunnut

There needs to be a launcher developed and fitted onto ships. You could use box launchers, but would still need to find the deck space and place a blast defector behind it.

Also consider that it's pretty much the size of a Harpoon (could actually probably use the same launchers, with a spacer), but only carries 25% the payload.