# Can a surface to air/air to air missile really turn 180 degrees in flight? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 6, 2021, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-surface-to-air-air-to-air-missile-really-turn-180-degrees-in-flight/929821 "2021-01-06T18:35:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bonum\_Legatum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bonum_legatum/32/6183_2.png) [@Bonum\_Legatum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bonum_Legatum)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2021, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-surface-to-air-air-to-air-missile-really-turn-180-degrees-in-flight/929821/21 "2021-01-07T12:30:10Z")
Not exactly what the OP is looking for, but according to the book puzzles “The Chicken from Minsk”: “In aerial combat, fighters generally attack bombers (and other fighters) from the rear. To protect military aircraft from attack from the rear, missiles were installed in the tail, pointing backward, to be launched toward any aircraft following behind. But when this arrangement was tested, in every case the missile made an immediate U-turn and hit the aircraft that launched it. … (This is a true story. It occurred in the Soviet Union soon after World War II, early in the development of jet aircraft.)” The book further states that the missile did NOT have electronic guidance, but was a simple rocket. As a puzzle, the point was frames of reference - the motion of the missile versus the motion of the aircraft. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2021, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-surface-to-air-air-to-air-missile-really-turn-180-degrees-in-flight/929821/22 "2021-01-07T14:43:22Z")
> [@DPRK](#): > > 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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation) 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. Before the very latest version, a Sidewinder (AIM-9) needed to “see” the target before launch. And maintain sight throughout the flight to the target. That was/is very typical of all IR- or TV-guided missiles. The advent of stealthy airplanes means the missile needs to be carried in an internal missile bay which upon firing, quickly opens, dumps the missile outside, then closes again, only harming the stealthy shaping of the airplane very briefly. Obviously an IR or TV seeker inside an enclosed bay can’t “see” anything. So these latest versions (AIM-9X, and similar by other nations) incorporates a feature where the airplane says “When you get outside, look 27 degrees left and 35 degrees up. Whatever you find there, go kill it.” So those missiles leave the airplane with no actual “lock” on the target, but acquire the lock within the first couple of second of flight. Once lock is acquired, it must be held until the missile successfully fuzes near the target or misses by flying past the target at too great a distance. If the post-launch lock doesn’t occur, odds are the missile just “goes stupid” as we say, disarms, and after motor burnout falls uselessly to the ground. You don’t really want the missile just gazing out into space in an every widening circle looking for something, anything, to hit. These latest stealth-compatible IR missiles post-date my personal involvement in this stuff. So I don’t know how many seconds and feet of post-launch help the airplane provides to the missile’s acquisition. The exact numbers are probably classified anyhow. But for sure it’s fairly limited. Not miles and miles as you find with the various radar guided missiles. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2021, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-surface-to-air-air-to-air-missile-really-turn-180-degrees-in-flight/929821/23 "2021-01-07T14:53:30Z")
> [@Bonum\_Legatum](#): > > Not exactly what the OP is looking for, but according to the book puzzles “The Chicken from Minsk”: “In aerial combat, fighters generally attack bombers (and other fighters) from the rear. To protect military aircraft from attack from the rear, missiles were installed in the tail, pointing backward, to be launched toward any aircraft following behind. But when this arrangement was tested, in every case the missile made an immediate U-turn and hit the aircraft that launched it. … (This is a true story. It occurred in the Soviet Union soon after World War II, early in the development of jet aircraft.)” The book further states that the missile did NOT have electronic guidance, but was a simple rocket. As a puzzle, the point was frames of reference - the motion of the missile versus the motion of the aircraft. Your story mixes the term “missile”, which means something with guidance, with “rocket”, which means something that does not. A rearward firing _rocket_ is problematic in that as it leaves the airplane, it is traveling tail first versus the airflow. If the rocket could be held in a constant attitude, as the motor accelerates the rocket that rearward airspeed in the rocket’s frame of reference quickly drops to zero then converts to forward airspeed in the rocket’s frame of reference. The problem is that with an unguided rocket, there’s nothing to hold the attitude constant. And so, just like throwing a dart or shooting an arrow fins-first, it almost instantly swaps ends to face into the “wind”. So now the defending aircraft has a rocket a short distance behind it, facing generally towards the airplane it just left, and with the motor still firing. Soon the rocket will accelerate fast enough to catch up to the airplane. I personally am skeptical of this whole story. Because among other things, the rocket will also be falling the whole time it has left the airplane. Which falling will tend to rotate the nose downwards due to the vertical component of the relative wind. Will such a rocket end up flying _past_ the launch aircraft and end up out in front of it? Sure. But it’ll probably have a large and diverging miss distance below the aircraft such that the warhead doesn’t fuze. Lots of wacky ideas have been tried in the annals of warfare. But the issues I mention here are obvious to anyone who works in the biz. And would have been even to Soviets in e.g. 1947. I smell a logic puzzle disguised as a tall tale here. Not disputing your claim it’s in that book. Just disputing that the book is fully factual. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2021, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-surface-to-air-air-to-air-missile-really-turn-180-degrees-in-flight/929821/24 "2021-01-07T14:58:32Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > 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. See also > **[Continuous-rod warhead](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous-rod_warhead)** > > A continuous-rod warhead is a specialized munition exhibiting an annular blast fragmentation pattern, thus when exploding it spreads into a large circle cutting through the target. It is used in anti-aircraft and anti-missile missiles. > Rifle and machine-gun bullets were used against early military aircraft during World War I. Artillery was used when aircraft flew above the range of rifle and machine-gun cartridges. Since the probability of actually striking the aircraft was small, artillery sh... Your wiki cite to proximity fuzes was valid, but was mostly talking WWII era not modern anti-air practice. Your overall point is 100% valid though; some technology of proximity fuze sets off the warhead as the missile is approaching the aircraft so the warhead has time to spread its pattern before that pattern is carried past the aircraft by the relative motion of the two vehicles. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2021, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-surface-to-air-air-to-air-missile-really-turn-180-degrees-in-flight/929821/25 "2021-01-07T15:13:45Z")
Yes, it was evident in the news reports about the airliner shot down in the Ukraine, and also the one recently shot down near Tehran - the evidence of SAM attack was sections of the fuselage shown, peppered with indented holes from the warhead shrapnel. Presumably this also did enough damage to fuel tanks, engines, and controls to cause the crashes. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2021, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-surface-to-air-air-to-air-missile-really-turn-180-degrees-in-flight/929821/26 "2021-01-07T15:35:58Z")
This is interesting- looks like it’s AIM-9X development footage. [AIM-9x SIDEWINDER Trial - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g4_jzqBJnA) ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2021, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-surface-to-air-air-to-air-missile-really-turn-180-degrees-in-flight/929821/27 "2021-01-07T15:48:07Z")
Those are really great. Excellent find! The AIM-9X is vastly more capable of maneuvering off the rail than the previous versions I used 30+ (gaah!!) years ago. In the first shootdown the missile had a very high crossing angle and we can see the fuzing occurring before the point of closest approach. Again to provide time for the warhead kinematics to work. The effect is less obvious in the later shots. ---
**Author:** ![Tripler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripler/32/21807_2.png) [@Tripler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tripler)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2021, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-surface-to-air-air-to-air-missile-really-turn-180-degrees-in-flight/929821/28 "2021-01-07T17:58:46Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > [Proximity Fuze](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze) > [@LSLGuy](#): > > See also > [Continuous Rod Warhead](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous-rod_warhead) @LSLGuy beat me to it. It’s also worth noting that proximity fuzes are often used with artillery projectiles; both for anti-air projectiles, which burst in the proximity of aircraft to puncture or shred wings/fuselages. “Flak” from WWII is a prime example of this. You can also use prox fuzing on munitions against ground targets too. Infantry, out in the open, is a very soft target, and bursting HE shells overtop of their positions, you can shower them with similar fragmentation for casualties. Bunkers and ‘hardened’ targets? Then you switch to point-detonation fuzing. Tripler But weaponeering and fuzing characteristics is for another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2021, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-surface-to-air-air-to-air-missile-really-turn-180-degrees-in-flight/929821/29 "2021-01-07T19:11:28Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > You don’t really want the missile just gazing out into space in an every widening circle looking for something, anything, to hit. Which suggests a corollary to this question: In movies we often see torpedoes coming back to kill the launching submarine. Torpedoes are slower than missiles so can certainly turn around 180 and they can chase things. The question is can they be an actual threat to the launching sub/ship? (If this is too much of a hijack skip it.) ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2021, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-surface-to-air-air-to-air-missile-really-turn-180-degrees-in-flight/929821/30 "2021-01-07T19:30:17Z")
You’d have to ask @robby for details, but there is a fundamental difference between missiles and torpedoes. A dogfight missile (or surface-based SHORAD) like a AIM-9 or foreign similar will coast the last 1/2 or more of the way to the target. Or will at least do so when deployed near max range. The same is true, albeit for a smaller percentage, with longer range radar guided missiles (e.g. AMRAMM, S-400 , etc.) whether air or ground launched. Water being so much thicker, torpedoes won’t coast at all; the engine runs at cruise speed to impact. The critical significance is that a missile that “wanted” for whatever reason to return to the firing aircraft would be hard pressed to do so except right after launch. Later, in coasting flight, it’s got the kinetic energy to fly out its range, or turn, but not both. Conversely the torp has full steering capacity until it runs out of fuel at max range. The Mk 48 has a range supposedly up in the 30-mile bracket. So could at least theoretically, drive out nearly 15 miles (which takes 20+ minutes), “decide” to become fratricidal, turn around and drive back to the launching sub. A LOT can happen in a battle in 40 minutes. Even at the comparatively leisurely pace of naval warfare. Very different dynamics. This > **[USS Scorpion (SSN-589)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589))** > > Pages for logged out editors learn more > > > > USS Scorpion (SSN-589) was a Skipjack-class nuclear-powered submarine that served in the United States Navy, and the sixth vessel, and second submarine, of the U.S. Navy to carry that name. > Scorpion was lost with all hands on 22 May 1968. She is one of two nuclear submarines the U.S. Navy has lost, the other being USS Thresher. She was one of the four mysterious submarine disappearances in 1968, the others being the Israeli submarine INS Dakar... is a famous story where a defective torpedo may well have played a large role. Relevant to this discussion is a built-in safing system that disarms the torp if it makes too great a turn (like nearly 180) from the firing azimuth. That the designers built features like that into WWII & post WWII torpedoes suggests that torps turning around and chasing the launching vessel was a genuine concern. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2021, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-surface-to-air-air-to-air-missile-really-turn-180-degrees-in-flight/929821/31 "2021-01-07T19:47:31Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The question is can they be an actual threat to the launching sub/ship? Oh yeah. Big time. I know of two subs in WWII that were sunk by their own torpedoes, the USS Tullibee and the USS Tang. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-surface-to-air-air-to-air-missile-really-turn-180-degrees-in-flight/929821.md?page=1)