Rear firing missiles

R

rock45

Active member
I was reading about the French MICA missile in the below article and was wondering can US made AIM-120 and 9X do the same? I think they can but wanted to confirm it, thanks.
icon7.gif



http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2842077&C=europe
 
I have a rear firing missile but it works best only when my "rear" is pointed down and optimal firing conditions are when hovering over porcelain. The official nomenclature is the AGM-Charm1n. It uses an inert propellant and has uses for naval surface warfare as well. Best of all it is biodegradable so even Greenpeace has no issues with the weapon.


































:)
 
It's always boggled my mind whenever I'm watching a dogfight in a movie or documentary. Why don't they use rear-facing missiles? If someone got on your tail you could just fire one missile and avoid the whole intense dogfight/chase scene.
 
Drag

I think its a drag issue and you would have to know there on your tail. I think its a blind spot on most aircraft. I think Flankers have a short range rear facing radar.
 
Id think that the jet wash would most likely make a missle go wildly off course on any jet aircraft. From a drag perspective it isnt an issue, a rear firing missle shouldnt be an issue.

Edit: I also think that in this day in age rear firing missles are not terribly useful. Most air to air combat is over long distances, and the real art of dogfighting has largely died out in my opinion.
 
Drag and/or air flow

Jet wash would only affect the launching of the missile and not the guidance of the missile. The missile guidance system in the missile plus computer would correct itself. I think drag and air flow are the reasons. First its important because the more drag you have the more fuel you'll burn and because the air flow passing over and under the wing plus around the body of the aircraft. The fins on a missile facing the wrong way would cause drag thus a bad air flow. Somebody here must be able to explain better then I can.
icon7.gif
 
Last edited:
The drag is not the issue involved. The drag of having missile fins turned backwards would be negligable. And honestly, changing the fins just a tiny bit would negate the issue of drag. Direction-neutral fins are very easy to make. Im quite sure the actual issue is the jet wash, and the heat given off thereof. Heat seaking missle would be thrown off by their own engines, and you are incorrect in saying that the guidance of this missile would correct itself, at least not in all cases. In many cases I would suspect that the missile either would A. Get tossed about so much the guidance package may be damaged, or B. Get tossed about so much that the forward velocity is mitigated, thus making the missile fall rapidly.
 
Drag

Hi WNxRogue
I'm not an engineer but know changing the fin a little bit is more complex then you think. There is a reason the fin was shape that way in the first place because an engineer designed it that way. Wind tunnels are used and all kinds of tests are done and then put into a design. I was hoping somebody could explain it in better terms then I can but it's an engineering thing. And the picking up the first heat source like the aircraft own engines doesn't sound right either. Somebody will explain better then I.
 
Psssssst, don't try to bring reality into this, you're arguing with a legend in his own mind.
:)

Now can we get Missileer in here on this one? He IS an engineer and might know a thing or two about this issue... whether or not he can comment without bringing down the thunder from the farm is another story.

Unless of course this was just another exercise in mental masturbation like discussing the best airsoft kit.
 
bulldogg said:
Psssssst, don't try to bring reality into this, you're arguing with a legend in his own mind.
:)

Now can we get Missileer in here on this one? He IS an engineer and might know a thing or two about this issue... whether or not he can comment without bringing down the thunder from the farm is another story.

Unless of course this was just another exercise in mental masturbation like discussing the best airsoft kit.
Click to expand...

Meh, im going into school as an Aerospace Engineer, and my older brother works for Lockheed as one, engineering of this sort has been a part of my life since I was born. I learned CAD at the age of 10, and have taken 4 college engineering courses through Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, including the design aspect of air and space craft. I wouldnt say I know everything, just that I have something to say on the subject.

I'm not an engineer but know changing the fin a little bit is more complex then you think. There is a reason the fin was shape that way in the first place because an engineer designed it that way. Wind tunnels are used and all kinds of tests are done and then put into a design. I was hoping somebody could explain it in better terms then I can but it's an engineering thing. And the picking up the first heat source like the aircraft own engines doesn't sound right either. Somebody will explain better then I.
Click to expand...

You are correct that fins are designed specifically for aerodynamics, but there are many diffrent designs for fins. Its like looking at all the planes out there - there are many diffrent types of wings, and each one is useful for a certain type of plane. What you need is a fin that is equally aerodynamic facing forwards as it is backwards. My guess is that each fin would look something like a wing off an F-22, because it appears as though the wings are very symetrical (note: im looking at pictures of it, so I may be incorrect of the symetry of the F-22 wing). Im sure with a program like CAD you could probably design one simply enough. As for homing issues, that is not really my speciality. I do know that the jostling from the jet wash can cause a missile to basically lose the ability to fly. Again, id suspect that the heat from the engine could cause such a mix up of targets, but I dont know that for a fact.
 
So with all this "experience" the only objection is one, dogfighting is dead (I'll be sure to let the USAF and Navy know, I'm sure they'll be relieved, Top Gun being unnecessary and all that) and two, the fins are wrong... ok so the aerodynamic drag produced by turning the bloody phallus around and pointing it rearward is no issue?? WTF, over.

As for the heat signature it would be easy enough to programme in a delay in acquisition such as is done with torpedoes. Go figure, that was real hard.

Jet wash can be dealt with by forcibly dejecting the missile far enough below the jet that it is not affected, the Russians did it with great success during the cold war.
 
bulldogg said:
So with all this "experience" the only objection is one, dogfighting is dead (I'll be sure to let the USAF and Navy know, I'm sure they'll be relieved, Top Gun being unnecessary and all that) and two, the fins are wrong... ok so the aerodynamic drag produced by turning the bloody phallus around and pointing it rearward is no issue?? WTF, over.

As for the heat signature it would be easy enough to programme in a delay in acquisition such as is done with torpedoes. Go figure, that was real hard.

Jet wash can be dealt with by forcibly dejecting the missile far enough below the jet that it is not affected, the Russians did it with great success during the cold war.
Click to expand...

Ill go from bottom point up. Yes, you could forcibly eject the missile. Of course, to do it you would have to retrofit every single aircraft in service today, or at least all the ones equiped with this system. Not exactly economical. It would be much easier to simply tweak the fins on the missiles.

With the correct redesign, no you could easily produce a missile to turn around the other way, As iv said, redesign the fins so that they are symetrical, and if absolutly need-be redesign the missile body itself, though I dont believe that will be neccessary.

The top think about dogfighting is my personal opinion. The art of dogfighting as it was in WWII is entirely dead. When was the last time you heard of an engagement at close range like that? Most of the time the targets will be aquired and the missiles fired well before the other plane is even in visual range. Thats why I said that the art of dogfighting, at this point, is basically dead.
 
Due to OPSEC and PERSEC you WONT hear about it unless someone ****s up and runs their cockholster to someone they shouldn't. There is a reason Top Gun was established and STILL in operation.
 
Well, I guess the practice of a wing man taking care of someone on your tail is still SOP. As far as aerodynamics are concerned, a missile can have retractible wings and canards and I've seen all shape of pylons. Since the AA missile is designed for "dogfighting", a lot of maneuvering with a HUD is necessary for a pilot. Whether it's eyeball contact or radar, you still have to get the target in a "box" to assure a hit. When you notice a bogey on your tail, start hookin' and jabbin' because he's already locked on and fired. The pilot gets a tone in his headset when he's targeted but there is just not time to turn on your rear looking HUD and start trying to find him, remember, he could be above you, below you and headed straight for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top