Rearward Air to air launched missiles. Impractical or starter for 10
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2022
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 42
Rearward Air to air launched missiles. Impractical or starter for 10
https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/02...les-backwards/
And there's some that thought the Lightning and Jag were against the grain with its over wing missiles.
And there's some that thought the Lightning and Jag were against the grain with its over wing missiles.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 23,399
Early jags carried sidewinders under wing 
On a side note, Germany during WW2 trialled a rearward firing flamethrower to discourage rearward attacks on their bombers, unfortunately it had the opposite effect as attacking fighters believed the flames were the result of them attacking, so pressed home the attack, hence the system was ditched.
On a side note, Germany during WW2 trialled a rearward firing flamethrower to discourage rearward attacks on their bombers, unfortunately it had the opposite effect as attacking fighters believed the flames were the result of them attacking, so pressed home the attack, hence the system was ditched.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,253
The concept of rearward firing missiles was seriously considered for the V force circa 1970.
The very astute chief designer at Hatfield (guided weapons) - Polish origin, identified the need to throw a relatively small device out of the back of an aircraft, with lateral - vertical manoeuvre capability, and let the opposition run into it.
The counter argument was that ground based defences and planned air to air weapons would have an all aspect capability and much greater range; thus the task was to design a very agile, all aspect self defence missile.
The technical complexities and projected cost, precluded full development because more conventional defences, jamming and IR decoys were more practical and cheaper - forward firing chaff.
Aspects of that programme were know as ‘Taildog’, but this title was used - misused in other contexts.
The very astute chief designer at Hatfield (guided weapons) - Polish origin, identified the need to throw a relatively small device out of the back of an aircraft, with lateral - vertical manoeuvre capability, and let the opposition run into it.
The counter argument was that ground based defences and planned air to air weapons would have an all aspect capability and much greater range; thus the task was to design a very agile, all aspect self defence missile.
The technical complexities and projected cost, precluded full development because more conventional defences, jamming and IR decoys were more practical and cheaper - forward firing chaff.
Aspects of that programme were know as ‘Taildog’, but this title was used - misused in other contexts.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Oxford
Posts: 93
Trying to get back (almost) to the thread, I have no knowledge of rearward-firing missiles, but the Soviets certainly had rearwards-firing gun pods on ground-attack Fitters and Floggers, and possibly Frogfoot in the 80s - and maybe even now. I think that they were supposed to offer a "spray" of 23mm(?) to the rear as the aircraft pulled away from its primary front-facing attack. Pretty inaccurate, but I suppose it would hope to keep troops on the ground heads down.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 613
Originally Posted by safetypee
The concept of rearward firing missiles was seriously considered for the V force circa 1970.
.
.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 2,138
Found this article about a development of the Archer R-73R
https://combatace.com/forums/topic/7...iring-missile/
https://combatace.com/forums/topic/7...iring-missile/
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2022
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 42
The concept is abit of a headcratcher, for me atleast if it is to be thought of a missile literally launched rearward, either from a pylon or dropped into air stream. once it has left the aircraft it would be going in the forward (Rearward to the missile :'D ) direction by 250-800 knots, i'm imagining a scenario of a bomber intercept. or even an incoming missile, would the missile have less range or waste energy boosting to 0 before acceleration towards its target from that point it was fired.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dead Dog Land
Age: 76
Posts: 498
MJ89, the SLAMRAAM, surface launched AIM-120, loses half it's range compared to the AMRAAM, due to it having no forward speed and having to climb when launched. Going back even further, when the V-force went low level, Blue Steel lost half it's range having to climb to it's operating height before going horizontal.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,562
Originally Posted by ETOPS
I'm pretty certain Soviet era Migs had a rearward firing missile - an expert will be along in a moment 
Looks like some kind of retro-thrust device to get it clear of the launch aircraft in the shortest possible time, then motor ignites at V=0 and the thrust-vectoring spins it around to acquire and engage the target.
At the time this was heard about, there was speculation that the targeting system was to be installed in the big tail sting of the Su-34.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New Zealand
Age: 57
Posts: 20
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 171
The Nimrod MR1 used to have a 57 mm rearward firing gun, which when the aircraft speed was correctly dialed in, selected the number of firing cartridges thus dropping the shell vertically in theory. It was a PITA due to misfires and jams.
