the other issue here is that a rear-facing missile is (from it’s own reference frame) approaching the target head-on at a much greater velocity than it would be from behind, this might make course corrections difficult and reduce the chances of a good hit.
-
-
- IIRC, in Kuwait, the first US aircraft to down an Iraqi combat aircraft positively identified it at 86 miles and fired (a missile) at it from 26 miles. - MC
-
Possibly, if you’ve got someone on your tail you’d be happy if he just turned away from you for a second. It would also make foes think twice about coming up behind you, no matter how hard it is for your rear firing missile to hit.
On the big screen:
“This is Tiger four two, I have a MIG on my three. Over”
“T Four Two, do you have visual?”
“Ahh, roger that.”
“You’re permitted to fire…”
Fighter pilot pushes a button.
Educated audience members laugh.
This makes me think of the Clint Eastwood movie “Firefox”, where Clint steals a russian fighter that has proximity mines that launch out of the tail. They are supposed to be for missile defense, but the end of the movie, Clint uses one on the plane that is trying to shoot him down.
that dumb thing in top gun we’ll hit the brakes and he’ll fly right by is kinda dumb but then the SUKOI flanker series
as well as a few upgraded Mig29s (heh top gun had black painted ancient american fighters as migs) can pull this awesome maneuver called a cobra , where it can slow and do a
360 degree loop while still traveling on the same axis
you should see it at airshows Western airshows its limited
but at MAKs its unlimited class flying but with fighters
Not sure about that, but the older model B-52’s had a 20mm gatling gun mounted in a remote-controlled (gunner in the cockpit with everyone else) turret. The North Vietnamese lost a couple of MiGs to them while lining up for an “easy tail shot”.
Wouldn’t this be, essentially, chafe? I think the key here is that most (of the US’s) aircraft won’t be in a position where an enemy fighter is behind them at any range close enough for countermeasures such as that to be effective. Our E-3 AWACS and ground/ship based sensing systems should prevent anyone sneaking up on our fighting craft.
dunno AWACs is not perfect and can’t see things really scraping their bellies on the ground , heh and with the
sukoi 47 berkut being a stealth based airplane the F-22 is not the only stealth plane out there ,
heh if you ever played that game
F-18 Korea , Migs could sneak up on you due to fwd radar systems and them turning off their radars and looking for you on the IRST
ditto Falcon 4
Just an additional comment.
Keep in mind that when designing aircraft, and especially military combat aircraft weight is of paramount concern. Adding any of these rear facing weapon schemes would alther the CG and GTOW of these aircraft to a point that would raise costs and possibly effect performance. Considering the fact that aircarft are designed to avoid this situation at all costs (and are quite successful at it) and that it is very unlikely that this weapon system would be effective, the cost-benefit of the design is prohibitive.
Its probably less likely that they can’t make it work, but more likely that its not worth developing and implementing.
This is one of the main reasons fighters don’t have 360-degree radar (there are technical issues as well). The radar unit in the nose already takes up a large amount of weight, space, and (especially) electrical power. It’s also very expensive (the avionics in a modern jet fighter typically cost more than the airframe itself). Adding a dish in the back would be difficult and expensive, and doesn’t add very much to the aircraft’s combat effectiveness.
Nothing new to add, just another thanks for dispelling my ignorance. Now I can watch Iron Eagle and sneer in superiority.
The other thing you can sneer at is the number of missiles fired. Count 'em. You’ll be amazed!!!
Li
Actually it sounds like one of the armaments on the MegaFortress from Dale Browns (I think it was him) novels. What is it called? The Ugly Dog or something or other.
I think I will leave my vagueness here and go to bed. I am really not with it. Lol
Li
Well, it’s not performed as displayed in the movie, but as for the theory…to make this stunt work, it needs a situation where:
1) The opponent is already very close, so they have less time to recognize and respond to what you’re doing
2) The opponent is and will be unable to shoot at you while you’re flaring (this in itself is many factors)
3) The opponent has some closure rate, the higher the better
4a) Your aircraft accelerates very well so you can quickly regain the energy you’re pissing away for this position advantage OR:
4b) You’re damn sure you can immediately kill them with the position advantage because as Johnny LA said:
5) It’s only likely to work once
It was not uncommon in WW2 to attempt to “force an overshoot”, especially by those aircraft that lacked an overall speed advantage, but it’s pretty insane for modern combat.
The ever-increasing reliability, range and lethality of short range air to air missiles means point 1 and 2 will be very unlikely. In a guns fight, it can be an issue, but (also unlike the movies) guns are backup systems these days, for when missiles malfunction or are all fired. The minimum effective range for missiles is so short that being “too close for missiles” is ridiculously unlikely – by the time you’re that close, a good shot will have already presented itself many times over. You would never really have a reason to use the gun when you have working missiles available, unless perhaps that the chance presented itself and you needed to conserve your missiles. What the gun does is let you stay in the fight even with no better weapons, rather than being forced to disengage (which is suicide in modern combat)
However, I have to disagree with Omniscient:
I entirely disagree. Missiles for beyond visual range combat are still far from 100% reliable. The main missile carried by most USAF aircraft is still the AIM-7 Sparrow, which has an extremely dismal success rate. I’ve heard some sources cite it as less than 10% In addition, BVR combat is only an option when you can detect the enemy and, most importantly, positively classify them as enemy. If you can’t, that requires closing to visually identify them, and voila…dogfight. Detection at range may become more and more of a problem itself, as all modern fighter aircraft incorporate at least -some- design tricks to lessen their radar signature while future aircraft are going even more “stealthy” and electronic countermeasures are continually getting better and better. Also, proper piloting can largely negate the usefulness of medium and long range missiles, as (for many reasons) they’re easier to defeat than short-range missiles.
Remember, the AAM with the most kills to its name remains the AIM-9 Sidewinder (a short range “dogfighting” missile) If you compare kills of -all- short range AAMs to -all- medium and long range AAMs, then the figure is extremely lopsided. Dogfighting has never been obsolete and won’t be for the forseeable future.
“…the AIM-7 Sparrow, which has an extremely dismal success rate. I’ve heard some sources cite it as less than 10%…”
The newer post-Vietnam versions are much more reliable. The low number is based only on old Vietnam era data. In addition to reliability problems, more than a few missiles in that war were fired “out of envelope”, meaning that they wouldn’t lock or hit even if they otherwise were in working order.
I am not sure, but if you go to the link (whish I can’t find now) that has a compendium of all the air-to-air kills in Desert Storm, you’ll see that many were AIM-7 kills.
I still have to agree with the eariler post that says we (US-UK) need a helmet mounted sight.
The link is:
http://www.webcom.com/~amraam/aakill.html
In desert storm, 24 kills were by AIM-7 Sparrow, 13 by AIM-9 Sidewinder, 2 by GAU-8 30mm cannon, 1 by a GBU-10 (which apparently hit an aircraft just after it became airborne), and 3 cases of causing the oponent to crash into the ground.