Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-18-2004, 11:37 PM
Incubus Incubus is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,891
Why don't fighter jets have missiles that fire backward?

This might seem silly, but I recently heard about a fighter jet which was capable of launching air-to-air missiles in different directions, so that it could fire one at a pursuing plane.

This made me wonder- why did it take so long to think of this? What is so hard about having air-to-air missiles that fire backwards? One of the biggest limitations of a fighter jet seems to be its ability to acquire a target before its opponent does. In maneuvering, each jet tries to set up a firing solution against the other. This is because each plane can only fire at a target in front of it...which is limiting.

Why spend so much effort on maneuverability? Wouldn't it be simpler to develop long-range air-to-air missiles which can be fired in different directions? No matter where a bogey is, you can plug him, no need for fancy high-G maneuvers because your firing arc is much larger than his.
  #2  
Old 05-18-2004, 11:46 PM
commasense's Avatar
commasense commasense is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,085
This is a WAG, but a forward-launched missile (or cannon shell or bullet) adds the velocity of the plane to the speed its propellant gives it. Rear-launched weapons would have to overcome the plane's forward speed to get up to speed in the opposite direction. This would be wasteful of missile fuel, thus reducing the weapon's effective range.
  #3  
Old 05-18-2004, 11:52 PM
David Simmons David Simmons is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 12,684
Well, for one thing firing backward complicates the control and stability problem. If you fire backwards there comes a time when the airframe has zero velocity relative to the air mass and this, for a guided missile, can be somewhat awkward. How do you maintain attitude and control through the region of very low airspeed and when the direction of airflow over the control surfaces reverses?

Ground launched missiles and rockets have this problem and for guided missibles some sort of rail is provided and the only thing that is done for a while is to prevent instability with no guidance provided. Or the missile can have control surfaces in the rocket exhaust like Polaris, or a controllable nozzle on the motor, or something. But these are all complications because they are in addition to aerodynamic control which is required unless the rocket motor burns all the way to the target.
  #4  
Old 05-19-2004, 01:16 AM
Brutus Brutus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Incubus
This might seem silly, but I recently heard about a fighter jet which was capable of launching air-to-air missiles in different directions, so that it could fire one at a pursuing plane.
Several airforces now use a helmet mounted sight to control the seekerhead of infrared-guided AAMs. The Israelis pioneered it, and it seems to great stuff for dogfighting, since you no longer have to 'point' your plane to get a lock. Still, the engagement envelope is limited. No launching 'up' or anything like that.

Short-range AAMs have very short 'burn times', and coast for most of their flight. That means they lose energy the further they go, and each manuever they perform drains still more energy. This limits what they can do. The most manueverabe (Python3, Aphid) have very short ranges (several kilometers), and the longest ranged 'short range' missles (Aim-9X) are not as manueverable.

Quote:
This made me wonder- why did it take so long to think of this? What is so hard about having air-to-air missiles that fire backwards? One of the biggest limitations of a fighter jet seems to be its ability to acquire a target before its opponent does. In maneuvering, each jet tries to set up a firing solution against the other. This is because each plane can only fire at a target in front of it...which is limiting.
Modern fighter develpment doesn't leave a lot (any) of room for rear-facing radar. How else could a rear-firing missle be targeted?

Quote:
Why spend so much effort on maneuverability? Wouldn't it be simpler to develop long-range air-to-air missiles which can be fired in different directions? No matter where a bogey is, you can plug him, no need for fancy high-G maneuvers because your firing arc is much larger than his.
The Russians played around with this concept, sort of. They developed 'Air to Air Cruise Missles' to go after our AWACS planes. These were to be launched from a EW variant of the Su-24 Fencer, which would use it's electronics suite to find the AWACS (not hard, since they would be almost constantly transmitting) and then launch off a modified cruise missle, which would home in on the AWACS transmissions. Useless against a fighter, but against a airliner with a massive disk on top, who knows? Like much Russian gear, it was probably a great idea, poorly executed.

The big problem with BVR (beyond visual range) missle engagements is identifying the target. This is a bigger problem for America than for most, since it is fair to assume that most aircraft in a given theater will be ours. Figure the same problems when shooting backwards.

Still, an offshoot of the late Cold-war Tacit Rainbow program was a air-air cruise missle, a Phoenix replacement, of sorts. Dunno if that is still going on, given that the AMRAAM/Sidewinder-X combo is top of the herd for the forseeable future.
  #5  
Old 05-19-2004, 01:17 AM
Thaumaturge Thaumaturge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 766
I don't see why a missile launched forwards can't be arced around to hit a target behind the jet. Missiles can make turns that would incompacitate a human. All it would take is for there to be a target lock computer on the jet with a camera facing backwards. Surely someone has to have thought of this....
  #6  
Old 05-19-2004, 02:35 AM
pilot141 pilot141 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mostly Texas
Posts: 1,540
First off, a big congrats to Brutus for the line of the week:

Like much Russian gear, it was probably a great idea, poorly executed.

Awesome!

Now, to the OP. David Simmons, Brutus and Thaumaturge have all provided excellent posts.

But to the OP: remember, if you are shooting missiles out the back of a fighter, you have LOST the fight!

Seriously, the US doctrine is to identify and kill the enemy BVR whenever possible. Using a combination of AWACS, EA-6Bs (and soon-to-be EA/F-18s), the fighters get a look, get a lock and then shoot. If you miss with a radar shot, throw out a heater (Sidewinder) that is better at close range. When you get inside missile range, use the gun. If (and ONLY if) the enemy gets behind you, throw out chaff (for radar-guided missiles) and flares (for IR guided missiles) and call on the radio for your buddies to target the bastard on your ass.

The aft-facing missile would be a last-ditch effort to save yourself. By flying with it, you would essentially be assuming that every line of defense provided to you was going to fail, and you would need to shoot a missile backwards.

I don't think anyone in the USN or USAF would actually take off with one of those installed. (The USMC is excepted because they don't normally know which end is forward, so they'd take off with anything installed). (Standard Marine dig, sorry)



Note: this post did not address the technical issues of aft-facing radar or IR sensors (difficult), as well as fire-and-forget missiles that can pull 15 Gs in a turn to intercept a target behind you (easy).
  #7  
Old 05-19-2004, 02:50 AM
Roland Deschain Roland Deschain is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: A "Red" Midwest state.
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilot141
First off, a big congrats to Brutus for the line of the week:

Like much Russian gear, it was probably a great idea, poorly executed.

Awesome!

Now, to the OP. David Simmons, Brutus and Thaumaturge have all provided excellent posts.

But to the OP: remember, if you are shooting missiles out the back of a fighter, you have LOST the fight!

Seriously, the US doctrine is to identify and kill the enemy BVR whenever possible. Using a combination of AWACS, EA-6Bs (and soon-to-be EA/F-18s), the fighters get a look, get a lock and then shoot. If you miss with a radar shot, throw out a heater (Sidewinder) that is better at close range. When you get inside missile range, use the gun. If (and ONLY if) the enemy gets behind you, throw out chaff (for radar-guided missiles) and flares (for IR guided missiles) and call on the radio for your buddies to target the bastard on your ass.

The aft-facing missile would be a last-ditch effort to save yourself. By flying with it, you would essentially be assuming that every line of defense provided to you was going to fail, and you would need to shoot a missile backwards.

I don't think anyone in the USN or USAF would actually take off with one of those installed. (The USMC is excepted because they don't normally know which end is forward, so they'd take off with anything installed). (Standard Marine dig, sorry)



Note: this post did not address the technical issues of aft-facing radar or IR sensors (difficult), as well as fire-and-forget missiles that can pull 15 Gs in a turn to intercept a target behind you (easy).
This seems like a perfect application for externally mounted, rear facing lasers. These could "blind" the pusueing pilot or the optics on his plane (they wouldn't have to be of sufficient strength to actually damage the plane itself). I've always thought that "explosive chaff" would also be a good last minute counter measure to throw of pursuing planes.
  #8  
Old 05-19-2004, 03:07 AM
pilot141 pilot141 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mostly Texas
Posts: 1,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland Deschain
This seems like a perfect application for externally mounted, rear facing lasers. These could "blind" the pusueing pilot or the optics on his plane (they wouldn't have to be of sufficient strength to actually damage the plane itself). I've always thought that "explosive chaff" would also be a good last minute counter measure to throw of pursuing planes.
Chaff is extremely effective and is used by almost all aircraft that go into combat. Its purpose is to confuse radar-seeking missiles by providing a very large, reflective radar target.

As for aft-facing lasers: how are they targeted? The effectiveness of chaff and flares is that they spoof the missile from every angle; a flare is really bright and hot from any way you look at it. A batch of chaff is likewise really reflective from any way a radar looks at it.

A laser, being an extremely narrow focused beam, would only be useful in the precise area that it was aimed. What is used to aim this laser? And once aimed, how does it maintain its target? If a fighter (or any airplane) gets targeted from behind, expect violent maneuvering in order to disrupt any missile solution. An aft-facing laser system would have to be able to compensate for rapid 9g onsets from the target aircraft as well as maintaining the track of the pilot's eyes of the pursuing aircraft (which is also maneuvering).

Someday this maybe feasible, but the technology does not exist today to make this possible, much less deployable in combat.
  #9  
Old 05-19-2004, 06:35 AM
DougC DougC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 5,209
- - - I would also note that most aircraft missile engagements -usually- take place when the opposing aircraft are dozens of miles from each other. Strategists prefer to have planes lay back some distance and fire missiles, and let the missiles do the dogfighting--it works better.
~
  #10  
Old 05-19-2004, 07:35 AM
CalMeacham's Avatar
CalMeacham CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 42,945
Just for the heck of it, I'd like to mention that in both the book and the movie Firefox the titular MiG-31 (no relation to the real plane) has backward-firing missiles as well as forward-facing ones.
  #11  
Old 05-19-2004, 08:31 AM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor's Avatar
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 30,901
The old Russian Stormavik class ground attack aircraft from WW2 had a rear defensive gun position.

The Stormavik would make a low level attack with machinguns, autocannon, rockets & bombs, but would be vulnerable to fighter attacks during the run. The rear gunner was intended to defend against this, often very effectively.

Now, the Stormavik carried several tons of battleship steel armor, as a load-bearing part of its structural frame. This granted it immense strength. I have read accounts of Stormaviks taking multiple, direct-contact hits from German 88mm antiaircraft cannon, and not only surviving, but able to fly again with mere hours.

The explosive charge in an 88 mm shell is roughly equal to the one in a Sidewinder missile, except the Sidewinder is a proximity device--it goes off near the target, instead of hitting it.

Picture a WW2-type Stormavik, carrying tons of armor, but with the rear machine gun replced by a Stinger missile launcher.

If the craft can withstand contact hits from an 88, it can withstand proximity hits from a missile.

And the rear-firing Stinger missile could defend the craft admirably.

Does this mean that an upgraded Stormavik is now a viable combat aircraft?
  #12  
Old 05-19-2004, 09:56 AM
chrisk chrisk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Southern ontario
Posts: 6,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by commasense
This is a WAG, but a forward-launched missile (or cannon shell or bullet) adds the velocity of the plane to the speed its propellant gives it. Rear-launched weapons would have to overcome the plane's forward speed to get up to speed in the opposite direction. This would be wasteful of missile fuel, thus reducing the weapon's effective range.
At first I was thinking 'why does it have to overcome forward speed and go in the opposite direction'? If the objective is to hit a pursuing aircraft, all you'd need is to reduce speed and the other aircraft would catch up to your missile. But the response is presumably that all missile guidance systems are designed around having positive forward airspeed... with the fins and what have you. They'd work backwards or not at all while the missile is still having air blowing past its base towards its nose, and that way there isn't much chance that the second jet would actually hit it straight on - it would pass the missile to one side.

Any chance you could design a missile with its fins on backwards?? :]
  #13  
Old 05-19-2004, 10:08 AM
Otara Otara is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,028
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/R-73.html

Found this.

Otara
  #14  
Old 04-20-2018, 12:55 PM
gren gren is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: The beaches of SW Florida
Posts: 8
Aerodynamics are the problem...

You’ll notice that on fighter planes, the nose cone of the plane and missiles are all some form of Ogive tangent or Von Kármán variant pointing in the direction of travel. The shape of nose cones is massively important as you’re balancing drag and stability (and more) in sub- and super-sonic flight. The aerodynamic characteristics of a missile are important in both it's effect on the plane when mounted and it’s ability to detach, accelerate and maneuver when fired.

To have a rear-facing missile mounted to a fighter’s wing, it would need some sort of “butt-cone” attached to the rear end of the missile, facing in the plane’s direction of travel. With the extreme acceleration rocket motors achieve overcoming the delta-V of the plane is not an impossible task, but you would need to scale up the rocket motor to overcome this negative velocity (call it f(orward)-V) start and some truly amazing flight control system to keep the missile steady as it’s flying backwards (r(ear)-V).

The missile is launched with a f-V equal to the speed of the plane. It’s accelerating at r-V, determined by the (rather large) rocket motors installed... I don’t know the exact speed these missiles accelerate, but considering their size and lack of pilot, I imagine they pull some HARD acceleration...

So again, missile is launched, f-V equal to plane speed, r-V equal to rocket motor impulse, accelerating towards the point where f-V and r-V cancel each other out and the missile, momentarily, would have zero speed relative to the earth and then would continue to accelerate towards the target.

Considering the speeds involved in a dogfight, the time the rear-fired missile would take to a) not fall out of the sky while whizzing backwards and b) start accelerating from zero towards the target, it best be a couple few many kilometers away for this missile to get it’s act together.

The mode of failure would definitely be in the “whizzing backwards” part of its flight... the entire missile would have to be designed so the fins work in both directions of flight and be capable to keep it aloft as it has a speed graph that looks like an AC sine wave.

MinutePhysics on YouTube did an excellent video that (partially) applies here... why it’s so hard to get to the sun from earth !!! All about rearwards velocity and overcoming it, do scope it out... https://youtu.be/LHvR1fRTW8g

I hope this helps some... this is my first post here so be gentle
  #15  
Old 04-20-2018, 04:35 PM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland Deschain View Post
This seems like a perfect application for externally mounted, rear facing lasers. These could "blind" the pusueing pilot or the optics on his plane (they wouldn't have to be of sufficient strength to actually damage the plane itself). I've always thought that "explosive chaff" would also be a good last minute counter measure to throw of pursuing planes.
There's a treaty specifically banning blinding lasers so it would probably be politically unfeasible to make one of these. The strength to burn a human eye is low enough that it wouldn't do anything noticeable to the plane.
  #16  
Old 04-20-2018, 04:42 PM
ZonexandScout's Avatar
ZonexandScout ZonexandScout is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Southeast US
Posts: 1,212
It is clear that some posters need to check out the documentary, Firefox, narrated by Clint Eastwood. The re-enactment of Soviet dogfighting tactics and the use of rear-firing missiles is the most interesting part.
  #17  
Old 04-20-2018, 04:55 PM
Tim@T-Bonham.net Tim@T-Bonham.net is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 14,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland Deschain View Post
This seems like a perfect application for externally mounted, rear facing lasers. These could "blind" the pusueing pilot or the optics on his plane (they wouldn't have to be of sufficient strength to actually damage the plane itself). I've always thought that "explosive chaff" would also be a good last minute counter measure to throw of pursuing planes.
During the Iraq war, the USA accomplished a lot with combined forces & laser guidance: a soldier/resistance fighter on the ground aimed a laser at an enemy installation, and a plane dropped a bomb that homed in on that laser targeted spot.

Here, you're having our own planes have their own laser on their rear. No need for combined forces; we have painted a giant target on our own planes for an enemy to aim at. The pursuing plane can just launch a missile and tell it to follow that laser.

Much of the technology today seems to be for 'stealth'; making your planes invisible or indistinguishable from background clutter. Putting a blazing laser on the rear of your plane would seem to be the opposite of that.
  #18  
Old 04-20-2018, 05:27 PM
Reply's Avatar
Reply Reply is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilot141 View Post
Chaff is extremely effective and is used by almost all aircraft that go into combat. Its purpose is to confuse radar-seeking missiles by providing a very large, reflective radar target.

As for aft-facing lasers: how are they targeted? The effectiveness of chaff and flares is that they spoof the missile from every angle; a flare is really bright and hot from any way you look at it. A batch of chaff is likewise really reflective from any way a radar looks at it.

A laser, being an extremely narrow focused beam, would only be useful in the precise area that it was aimed. What is used to aim this laser? And once aimed, how does it maintain its target? If a fighter (or any airplane) gets targeted from behind, expect violent maneuvering in order to disrupt any missile solution. An aft-facing laser system would have to be able to compensate for rapid 9g onsets from the target aircraft as well as maintaining the track of the pilot's eyes of the pursuing aircraft (which is also maneuvering).

Someday this maybe feasible, but the technology does not exist today to make this possible, much less deployable in combat.
You really think so? Seems like:
* a standard laser pointer from the ground can easily blind pilots, thanks to the divergence
* consumer drone gimbals already work pretty well, or gimballess laser trackers
* the military already has optical target tracking capabilities, or radar-based trackers like the CIWS used on ships
* they're already working on more powerful lasers for tracking even faster objects (missiles), this would just be a much smaller version

There's the whole blinding thing by treaty, but that only applies to permanent blinding, not temporary disruptions of vision, right?
  #19  
Old 04-20-2018, 05:55 PM
naita naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 5,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reply View Post
You really think so? Seems like:
* a standard laser pointer from the ground can easily blind pilots, thanks to the divergence
* consumer drone gimbals already work pretty well, or gimballess laser trackers
* the military already has optical target tracking capabilities, or radar-based trackers like the CIWS used on ships
* they're already working on more powerful lasers for tracking even faster objects (missiles), this would just be a much smaller version

There's the whole blinding thing by treaty, but that only applies to permanent blinding, not temporary disruptions of vision, right?
pilot141 last posted in 2015. Just in case you were expecting a response.
  #20  
Old 04-20-2018, 06:57 PM
Reply's Avatar
Reply Reply is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
pilot141 last posted in 2015. Just in case you were expecting a response.
Guess you can't go very fast when you keep looking backwards Thanks.
  #21  
Old 04-21-2018, 05:29 AM
Asuka Asuka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor View Post
The old Russian Stormavik class ground attack aircraft from WW2 had a rear defensive gun position.

The Stormavik would make a low level attack with machinguns, autocannon, rockets & bombs, but would be vulnerable to fighter attacks during the run. The rear gunner was intended to defend against this, often very effectively.

Now, the Stormavik carried several tons of battleship steel armor, as a load-bearing part of its structural frame. This granted it immense strength. I have read accounts of Stormaviks taking multiple, direct-contact hits from German 88mm antiaircraft cannon, and not only surviving, but able to fly again with mere hours.

The explosive charge in an 88 mm shell is roughly equal to the one in a Sidewinder missile, except the Sidewinder is a proximity device--it goes off near the target, instead of hitting it.

Picture a WW2-type Stormavik, carrying tons of armor, but with the rear machine gun replced by a Stinger missile launcher.

If the craft can withstand contact hits from an 88, it can withstand proximity hits from a missile.

And the rear-firing Stinger missile could defend the craft admirably.

Does this mean that an upgraded Stormavik is now a viable combat aircraft?
I've not read anything about the Il-2 taking repeated direct 88mm hits and still flying. In fact reading up on this right now apparently dual 20mm and 37mm AA guns were the most feared by Il-2 pilots as anything below couldn't penetrate their armor, anything above was far too slow too accurately track the aircraft, but dual or quad guns 20mm's and single 37mms were enough to destroy an Il-2 with just a few hits.

There's also the fact while the cabin was heavily armored the glass windshield is still the most vulnerable part and I suspect a missile near-hit could penetrate it.
  #22  
Old 04-30-2018, 07:22 AM
abel29a abel29a is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 310
Seconded the above - German fighters started the war with two wing mounted cannons (20 mm) and two nose mounted machine guns- this was later often changed to one nose mounted cannon and two nose mounted machine guns. This proved ineffective against the IL2-Sturmoviks due to their heavy armor but it was still possible to shoot them down with this armament. You just had to hit the right spots to get enough effect with the limited ammo-supply (usually 100-120 rounds).

However, gun pods for the wings which added back two wing mounted 20 mm cannons were often added in the field for missions where the Il-2 was likely to be encountered, and this usually made short work of the IL-2s.

Machine guns alone was virtually useless.

It is from this that the Sturmovik rightly got a name for durability - however, no aircraft was resistant to direct hits from a 88mm HE shell.
__________________
It's a trick - get an axe!
  #23  
Old 12-01-2018, 07:01 AM
Brayne Ded Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor View Post
The old Russian Stormavik class ground attack aircraft from WW2 had a rear defensive gun position.

The Stormavik would make a low level attack with machinguns, autocannon, rockets & bombs, but would be vulnerable to fighter attacks during the run. The rear gunner was intended to defend against this, often very effectively.

Now, the Stormavik carried several tons of battleship steel armor, as a load-bearing part of its structural frame. This granted it immense strength. I have read accounts of Stormaviks taking multiple, direct-contact hits from German 88mm antiaircraft cannon, and not only surviving, but able to fly again with mere hours.

The explosive charge in an 88 mm shell is roughly equal to the one in a Sidewinder missile, except the Sidewinder is a proximity device--it goes off near the target, instead of hitting it.

Picture a WW2-type Stormavik, carrying tons of armor, but with the rear machine gun replaced by a Stinger missile launcher.

If the craft can withstand contact hits from an 88, it can withstand proximity hits from a missile.

And the rear-firing Stinger missile could defend the craft admirably.

Does this mean that an upgraded Stormavik is now a viable combat aircraft?
The Stormovik did not carry several tons of armor. If it had, it could not have taken off. It did have some thin armor plate around the engine and cockpit that kept out machine gun bullets, and could stand some hits from a 20 mm cannon. But even a tank would suffer if it by an 88 mm round, depending on how thick the armor was at the point of impact. A plane would just be blown up. Ditto for proximity hits from a missile. It would most likely rip off the rear fuselage, which was no armored at all.

As for putting a Stinger in the back of an old prop plane, no, you don't have an instant fighter killer.
  #24  
Old 12-01-2018, 06:04 PM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor's Avatar
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 30,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brayne Ded View Post
The Stormovik did not carry several tons of armor. If it had, it could not have taken off. It did have some thin armor plate around the engine and cockpit that kept out machine gun bullets, and could stand some hits from a 20 mm cannon. But even a tank would suffer if it by an 88 mm round, depending on how thick the armor was at the point of impact. A plane would just be blown up. Ditto for proximity hits from a missile. It would most likely rip off the rear fuselage, which was no armored at all.

As for putting a Stinger in the back of an old prop plane, no, you don't have an instant fighter killer.
You are wrong.
Go look up the plane.
  #25  
Old 12-01-2018, 06:47 PM
lingyi lingyi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 878
I suspect there's a bit of wartime chivalry attached to a dogfight. There used to be a show that analyzed famous dogfights and the winner was usually the one who outmanuvered the loser. In WWI, pilots would give a signal if their guns jammed and their opponent was supposed to stop until the jam was cleared or just fly away if it took too long.
  #26  
Old 12-01-2018, 07:28 PM
DPRK DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,268
Nobody in all these years has further information on specific full-sphere/all-aspect missiles, such as the Python 5, that are supposed to be able to attack targets behind you?
  #27  
Old 12-01-2018, 09:01 PM
TSBG TSBG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,290
Can anyone tell me why CARS don't have missiles that fire backward? Forward would help too.

Asking for a friend.
  #28  
Old 12-01-2018, 09:01 PM
Capn Carl Capn Carl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor View Post
You are wrong.
Go look up the plane.
Braine Ded is correct. Your post was full of errors. The Il-2 had a “bathtub” of 12mm armor to protect the pilot and engine. That’s good armor for an airplane, but even if it was ten times that thick, it still wouldn’t stop a direct hit from an 88mm shell. It might stop shrapnel from multiple 88mm bursts nearby, but it wouldn’t stop a direct hit. Nor did it have “several tons of battleship steel armor”. It had less than one ton of armor.

You really need to go look up the plane.
  #29  
Old 12-03-2018, 10:57 AM
Patch Patch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capn Carl View Post
Braine Ded is correct. Your post was full of errors. The Il-2 had a “bathtub” of 12mm armor to protect the pilot and engine. That’s good armor for an airplane, but even if it was ten times that thick, it still wouldn’t stop a direct hit from an 88mm shell. It might stop shrapnel from multiple 88mm bursts nearby, but it wouldn’t stop a direct hit. Nor did it have “several tons of battleship steel armor”. It had less than one ton of armor.

You really need to go look up the plane.
This video goes into a little detail and explanation of plane armor in WWII. It includes the IL-2. Worth a look and supports your points.
  #30  
Old 12-03-2018, 11:21 AM
CalMeacham's Avatar
CalMeacham CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 42,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZonexandScout View Post
It is clear that some posters need to check out the documentary, Firefox, narrated by Clint Eastwood. The re-enactment of Soviet dogfighting tactics and the use of rear-firing missiles is the most interesting part.
See my post #10, made YEARS before you posted.


(And I realize that I'm commenting on a post that's several months old, but I just saw it.)
__________________
"Blue, Navy Blue, he's as blue as he can be;
'Cause my steady boy said "Avatar!" and joined the Na'avi."

Last edited by CalMeacham; 12-03-2018 at 11:22 AM.
  #31  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:04 PM
Sailboat's Avatar
Sailboat Sailboat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSBG View Post
Can anyone tell me why CARS don't have missiles that fire backward? Forward would help too.

Asking for a friend.
You need Dave Barry's Atomic Land Torpedoes:

Quote:
I think it's getting worse. I'm talking about this habit people have of driving on interstate highways in the left, or "passing" lane, despite the fact that they aren't passing anybody. You used to see this mainly in a few abnormal areas, particularly Miami, where it is customary for everyone to drive according to the laws of his or her own country of origin. But now you see it everywhere: drivers who are not passing, who have clearly never passed anybody in their entire lives, squatting in the left lane, little globules of fat clogging up the transportation arteries of our very nation. For some reason, a high percentage of them wear hats.

What I do, when I come up behind these people, is the same thing you do, namely pass them on the right and glare at them. Unfortunately, this tactic doesn't appear to be working. So I'm proposing that we go to the next logical step: nuclear weapons. Specifically I'm thinking of atomic land torpedoes, which would be mounted on the front bumpers of cars operated by drivers who have demonstrated that they have the maturity and judgment necessary to handle tactical nuclear weapons in a traffic environment. I would be one of these drivers.
  #32  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:38 PM
CalMeacham's Avatar
CalMeacham CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 42,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSBG View Post
Can anyone tell me why CARS don't have missiles that fire backward? Forward would help too.

Asking for a friend.
You mean like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzxX2Sfgsdk
__________________
"Blue, Navy Blue, he's as blue as he can be;
'Cause my steady boy said "Avatar!" and joined the Na'avi."
  #33  
Old 12-03-2018, 08:38 PM
Capn Carl Capn Carl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patch View Post
This video goes into a little detail and explanation of plane armor in WWII. It includes the IL-2. Worth a look and supports your points.
Excellent video; thanks!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017