# Why don't fighter jets have missiles that fire backward? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 19, 2004, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-fighter-jets-have-missiles-that-fire-backward/245909 "2004-05-19T03:37:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Asuka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@Asuka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asuka)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-fighter-jets-have-missiles-that-fire-backward/245909/21 "2018-04-21T09:29:23Z")
> [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#): > > 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. :eek: > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![abel29a](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ebca7d/32.png) [@abel29a](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/abel29a)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-fighter-jets-have-missiles-that-fire-backward/245909/22 "2018-04-30T11:22:38Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Brayne\_Ded](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Brayne\_Ded](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brayne_Ded)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2018, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-fighter-jets-have-missiles-that-fire-backward/245909/23 "2018-12-01T12:01:23Z")
> [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#): > > 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. :eek: > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2018, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-fighter-jets-have-missiles-that-fire-backward/245909/24 "2018-12-01T23:04:30Z")
> [@Brayne\_Ded](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![lingyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d2c977/32.png) [@lingyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lingyi)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2018, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-fighter-jets-have-missiles-that-fire-backward/245909/25 "2018-12-01T23:47:41Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2018, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-fighter-jets-have-missiles-that-fire-backward/245909/26 "2018-12-02T00:28:18Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![TSBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@TSBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TSBG)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2018, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-fighter-jets-have-missiles-that-fire-backward/245909/27 "2018-12-02T02:01:02Z")
Can anyone tell me why CARS don’t have missiles that fire backward? Forward would help too. Asking for a friend. ---
**Author:** ![Capn\_Carl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/838e76/32.png) [@Capn\_Carl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capn_Carl)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2018, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-fighter-jets-have-missiles-that-fire-backward/245909/28 "2018-12-02T02:01:48Z")
> [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Patch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a183cd/32.png) [@Patch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patch)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2018, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-fighter-jets-have-missiles-that-fire-backward/245909/29 "2018-12-03T15:57:10Z")
> [@Capn\_Carl](#): > > 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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v5aMayFrRE) goes into a little detail and explanation of plane armor in WWII. It includes the IL-2. Worth a look and supports your points. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2018, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-fighter-jets-have-missiles-that-fire-backward/245909/30 "2018-12-03T16:21:04Z")
> [@ZonexandScout](#): > > 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.) ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2018, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-fighter-jets-have-missiles-that-fire-backward/245909/31 "2018-12-03T19:04:06Z")
> [@TSBG](#): > > 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](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1986/09/14/fast-lane-slow-burn/b024614c-cf7d-4e6d-acad-3c44f9994aae/?utm_term=.232cf1246922): > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2018, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-fighter-jets-have-missiles-that-fire-backward/245909/32 "2018-12-03T19:38:09Z")
> [@TSBG](#): > > 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://img.youtube.com/vi/tzxX2Sfgsdk/maxresdefault.jpg "Thunderball - The Execution of Count Lippe (original music added; OST)") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzxX2Sfgsdk) ---
**Author:** ![Capn\_Carl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/838e76/32.png) [@Capn\_Carl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capn_Carl)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2018, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-fighter-jets-have-missiles-that-fire-backward/245909/33 "2018-12-04T01:38:40Z")
> [@Patch](#): > > [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v5aMayFrRE) 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! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-fighter-jets-have-missiles-that-fire-backward/245909.md?page=1)