Pilot workload....

[Army of One]

Would the workload of firing AIM54 Phoenix misdiles from a single seater be to juch for just the pilot....I don't think so unless someone can tell me otherwise. ....

[Weaver]

You mean would it be too much? Matter of opinion with no definitive real-world answer. It's probably technically possible, but the pilot would have to do a lot of head-down work in the cockpit, unless the latter was significantly more automated than the F-14. I've heard of F-15 pilots demonstrating poor situational awareness or poor use of the radar because they can't be looking inside and outside at the same time, so my bias is towards two-seaters for this kind of stuff, unless the cockpit technology is really cutting edge stuff.

[scooter]

JHMCS, when it finally works, would go a long way to reducing it.  But, I agree that a two seater with Phoenixes would be better.

[Army of One]

So a modern singleseater with all detail needed displayed on the HUD or via helmet mounted sight....? Basically I don't have a decent two seater......

[Weaver]

If modern = Eurofighter or later, then yes.

[Logan Hartke]

It also depends on how difficult his other duties were: i.e. - flying the plane.

For example, when the Navy began transitioning fleet squadrons to the Super Hornet, they planned to have legacy Hornet squadrons transition to the F/A-18E (the single-seater) and the Tomcat squadrons transition to the F/A-18F (the two-seater). This made sense because the Hornet was a single-seat aircraft and the Tomcat was two-seat, so the transition should go smoothly. They found, though, that it almost would have been better if they'd done it the other way around.

You see, the Super Hornet was SO much easier to fly than the Tomcat that the pilots now found they didn't have to devote 100% of their mental and physical effort into just flying the plane anymore. On top of that, the Super Hornet had great multi-function displays (MFDs) in the front cockpit, so he could use that time to find his own targets, play with the radar, and work his weapon systems. In the opinion of the Tomcat pilots, the Super Hornet made everything so easy, they didn't even NEED the back-seater anymore.

In contrast, Hornet pilots had been doing so much all on their own in the past decade or two that they were grateful for the help. They finally got to spend their time being a pilot instead of a glorified WSO with occasional stick time.

In short, if you just try to cut out the RIO in the Tomcat and have the pilot do it all, you're going to be overworking him, especially on the TF30 models. He's already got to manage wing sweep, nurse the throttles, manage fuel consumption, etc. Even on something like the F-15, you're pushing it, but it's a lot better than the F-14. If you are looking at something more like an updated "fire and forget" Phoenix on an F/A-18E or maybe even an F-22, then I don't see why it wouldn't work.

Cheers,

Logan

[Army of One]

Logan........many many thanks for that......its not a singlecseat F14.......I'm pretty sure that the a/c  I want to use is Gen4.....

[eatthis]

is workload a big issue when youre talking about silly ranges with the pheonix missile?

[Army of One]

is workload a big issue when youre talking about silly ranges with the pheonix missile?

Given the quoted ranges of the missile I thought it may be feasible.....especially with an 'upgraded' missile.....

[Captain Canada]

In a whif world of course !

Still nice to read the diferences in the old gen a/c vs. the new. Makes sense.

[scooter]

In a whif world of course !

Still nice to read the diferences in the old gen a/c vs. the new. Makes sense.

When I whif'd up my version of Dale Brown's Cheetah, at least on paper, I gave it the capability to launch 7 Phoenixes (1 centerline, 4 on the CFTs, two on the inboard pylons), and allowed the radar system to be integrated with missiles through Plug n Play modules to the radar and computer systems.  And added the outboard missile pylons that were optional for more Sidewinders or AMRAAMs

[rickshaw]

is workload a big issue when youre talking about silly ranges with the pheonix missile?

Given the quoted ranges of the missile I thought it may be feasible.....especially with an 'upgraded' missile.....

Most of the "quoted ranges" are on the basis of easy intercepts against non-manoeuvring drones, rather than in realistic intercepts where the target is manoeuvring as hard as it can, once it's detected the missile lock-on.  I'd suggest halving the claimed range for all air-to-air missiles, except in a straight stern chase intercept.  Phoenix in particular was AIUI it pretty much poor once the sustainer burnt out and it started to bleed energy.

[PR19_Kit]

is workload a big issue when youre talking about silly ranges with the pheonix missile?

Given the quoted ranges of the missile I thought it may be feasible.....especially with an 'upgraded' missile.....

Phoenix in particular was AIUI it pretty much poor once the sustainer burnt out and it started to bleed energy.

Even going downhill? I always understood that the Phoenix climbed to a very high altitude after launch at long ranges and thereafter dived on the target once it was a lot closer. Depending on the target's altitude wouldn't that recover some kinetic energy as the missile dived?

[Weaver]

is workload a big issue when youre talking about silly ranges with the pheonix missile?

Given the quoted ranges of the missile I thought it may be feasible.....especially with an 'upgraded' missile.....

Most of the "quoted ranges" are on the basis of easy intercepts against non-manoeuvring drones, rather than in realistic intercepts where the target is manoeuvring as hard as it can, once it's detected the missile lock-on.  I'd suggest halving the claimed range for all air-to-air missiles, except in a straight stern chase intercept.  Phoenix in particular was AIUI it pretty much poor once the sustainer burnt out and it started to bleed energy.

You also have to bear in mind the difference between the distance at which the missile is fired and the distance it actually flies, caused by the relative movement of the two aircraft. IIRC, in the famous test shot in which the Phoenix was launched "at 100 miles range" it actually covered around 70 miles due to the closing speed of the F-14 and the target. It also never exceeded Mach = 3 in that test, rather than the oft-quoted Mach= 5, because it used it's motor energy to climb steeply at first and then traded height for speed, as Kit has pointed out.

[Howard of Effingham]

hopefully not sliding OT, but i do recall a seeing a picture of a version of the F-14 where the forward two AIM-54
launchers were replaced by a conformal drop down launcher for a new missile intended to replace the AIM-54.

crew workload would be a big issue as others have said for a single seat a/c.

having said that the full capability of the phoenix [launching all 6 missiles] was i think only tested a very few times
over the F-14's service career, so just how good it would have been and just how intense the workload would have been is open to discussion.