A common trope in movies is a missile being fired at an aircraft, the missile narrowly misses the aircraft but then does a sudden 180 degree turn to get right back on the aircrafts tail.
I was under impression both the stresses of such a tight turn then would destroy the missile but also missiles lack the fuel to be able to turn and pursue an aircraft after an initial miss.
Do new era missiles have better technology to overcome this or is it still basically impossible?
I’m going to say “no,” based on the fact that aircraft and missiles are flying at each other at incredible speeds, and the missile would need a wide turning radius to pull a complete 180-d turn. By the time it did that, either the aircraft is out of physical attack range, or out of sensor range.
Even if the aircraft is slowed down to a couple of dozen knots airspeed, missiles are a hell of a lot faster, and just don’t simply turn on a dime.
Same for surface-attack missiles; if a TOW missile misses its target on the initial attack, it just can’t easily circle back.
Tripler
The short answer, without a specific model to discuss, is “Hollywood bologna.”
According to C.W. Lemoine, an author with a youtube channel, missiles do not chase you like that and they don’t do 180 degree turns. After the initial miss, it’s over. He used to fly F-16s and F-18s, so he would know. He mentions this fairly frequently in his “Mover ruins movies” series on youtube.
So when they advertise the Python 5 (e.g.) with “lock-on after launch” and “full-sphere/all-direction (including rearward) attack ability”, what am I getting, exactly?
That is what you are getting. Not a guaranteed hit. It’s marketing speak for “it’s got a good chance of working but don’t count on it working the way you may think 100% of the time”. YMMV.
From what I gathered from Wikipedia, it looks fairly advanced. The LOAL and full sphere attack relies on the ‘mothership’ launching aircraft’s sensors to direct it to a proximity where the onboard missile’s sensors can lock on for terminal attack.
One of the things movies often get wrong is that an air-to-air missile needs to be a direct hit–it does not. Upon detonation, anti-air weapons simply need to shred a wing, or perforate enough of the airframe (or engines) to make the attacked aircraft unstable enough to continue controlled flight.
So, the trope of a “near miss” to me is implausible. A properly working missile should be detonating near its target if it’s not a direct hit. Countermeasures can be avoided by networking the missile’s guidance to the mothership’s sensors.
Tripler
That thing looks pointy, with sharp edges–caution on handling!
Yeah I was specifically thinking of the scene in Behind Enemy Lines where the missile narrowly misses the F/A-18, then does a 180 turn and chases them for literally 4 minutes of screen time.
Also inspired by this scene I found (50 seconds in) where a ship launched surface to air missile is able to initially miss an aircraft then turn 180 in flight and hit it still.
Scott O’Grady’s mission, on which that movie was based, was brought down by a 2K12 Kub missile.. With a missile speed of Mach 1.75 (say, loosely around 1330 MPH or 1953 feet per second), four minutes of screen-chase time means the missile was running for 88 miles. Listed engagement range is up to ~22km (13.6 miles). I’m saying “nope.”
Missiles attacking F4U Corsairs in WWII? “Double nope.” Mismatch of technologies.
Tripler
Oooh, I love the direct-fire cannon to the nose of the aircraft.
Here’s anogther example of Hollywood Hokum.
a missile “locks on” when the sensor (heat seekling, radar, optical) has been able toi identify the plane from the background. The missile adjusts its trajectory to keep the target centered.
If the target drifts out of the missile’s sensors, it’s gone. The missle can’t search the sky 360 degrees looking for the original target. In that case, most likely the missile would “reacquire” the aircraft that launched it. Not a good day!
Missile sensors aren’t robots. they can’t tell a plane from a reflection of the sun off a building. Or a flare dropped by the target.
C.W. Lemoine discusses that movie here:
Fighter Pilot Reacts to BEHIND ENEMY LINES (Mover Ruins Movies)
He discusses the missile scene you refer to starting at about the 6 minute mark.
I don’t think it’s obvious that is what the missile should do. Following the launch phase, there will be an optimally controlled mid-course flight to get the missile to the vicinity of the target for the terminal guidance phase, possibly subject to certain constraints like the angle it should come in on. But even if we consider a toy problem like the Apollonius pursuit problem it seems clear you might need to lead the target.
I saw this video not too long ago about the Iron Dome anti missile system in Israel. It’s hard to tell exactly what’s going on in the air but it does look like the defending missiles turn 180 degrees to hit the incoming missiles head on.
I think that’s a trick of perspective. They’re making fairly sharp turns, but they’re not going back along their own tracks. They’re also not chasing the incoming missiles.
Seconded on the likely trick of perspective. What I imagine is actually happening, and being viewed at some distance from the ground, is the defensive missiles are gaining altitude, then turning towards the horizontal (or even angling down from above) to engage the incoming threat, rather than having to both climb and maneuver to intercept at the same time. A sort of “tip over” maneuver, not a turn around.
If I understood it correctly, those missiles can do a 180. They launch at high speed to gain altitude quickly and will then turn as necessary to acquire a target. But that is just the end of the launch phase, I don’t recall anything about turning around after missing a target. As mentioned above they should detonate when in proximity.
Python 5 is a BVR (beyond visual range) missile, so it’s probably fairly easy for the launching aircraft to fire the missile which would turn toward the target. Since we’re talking tens of km, doing a large sweeping turn that takes a while isn’t out of the question.
But something like a Sidewinder missile isn’t going to launch outside of a specific forward-facing arc.
Not a lot to add.
Missiles just being fielded now are vastly more capable than those of the 1980s or 1960s. What can be done from ground or sea launch is vastly more than can be done from a fighter. The capabilities of short range “dogfight” missiles are very different from missiles intended for long range intercepts. Some very long range anti-air missiles are optimized for big lumbering high value targets like AWACS and tankers & bombers and are relatively ineffective against fighters.
As a general matter, pulling a 180 or even a 90 after flying past the target outside the fuzing distance is pure Hollywood. There’s a tremendous difference between making a 90 or 120 turn just after leaving the launch aircraft versus doing the same thing miles later out near the target.
Any more specific answers would depend on asking more specific questions.
You may be on to something: once it is within close range and can see the target, the missile can (and, as far as I can tell from Wikipedia, the Sidewinder does) intercept it by adopting a proportional pursuit course which steers to keep the line of sight to the target at a constant bearing. This will obviously cease to work if the missile loses sight of the target, and even if the pilot could remotely redirect the missile to a new point, and the control surfaces allowed it, it might be too late considering that the rocket only burns for 30 seconds or so.
This. The missile (fins, fuel, engine) is not the thing that destroys the target. The missile is a vehicle that carries a bomb close enough to the target to wreck it. If actual physical contact with an aircraft were required before an AA missile detonated, then they’d rarely detonate.