Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Rearward Air to air launched missiles. Impractical or starter for 10

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Rearward Air to air launched missiles. Impractical or starter for 10

Old 22nd Mar 2022, 00:46
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 42
Wink 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.
MJ89 is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2022, 01:52
  #2 (permalink)  
 
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.
NutLoose is online now  
Old 22nd Mar 2022, 07:44
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 2,138
I'm pretty certain Soviet era Migs had a rearward firing missile - an expert will be along in a moment
ETOPS is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2022, 09:02
  #4 (permalink)  
 
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.
safetypee is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2022, 10:04
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 11
I thought the whole idea behind the AIM-9X block II was that is could be fired at a target that was behind the launching aircraft, and guided using the datalink and helmet display.
Ohrly is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2022, 13:12
  #6 (permalink)  
 
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.
Old Bricks is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2022, 16:46
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 613
Originally Posted by safetypee View Post
The concept of rearward firing missiles was seriously considered for the V force circa 1970.

.
We always reckoned a bag of nuts and bolts in the brake chute bay would be better than nothing.
Timelord is online now  
Old 22nd Mar 2022, 17:11
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,253
Time… nuts and bolts, indeed. Or just the braking chute to deter / distract a guns attack.

I recall the GA mud movers laying down a 1000lb retard, ground debris, for the opposition to fly into.
safetypee is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2022, 18:05
  #9 (permalink)  
 
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/
ETOPS is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2022, 02:01
  #10 (permalink)  
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.
MJ89 is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2022, 09:29
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 324
MJ89, you're right that it would have to boost itself from a negative speed to a positive one. On the plus side for self defence purposes the target will be flying towards it...
Bing is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2022, 09:42
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Blighty
Posts: 413

Sounds familiar. Didn't the Old Dog have this sort of thing? Been a while since I read it.
HOVIS is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2022, 05:21
  #13 (permalink)  
 
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.
The Oberon is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2022, 12:25
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,562
Originally Posted by ETOPS View Post
I'm pretty certain Soviet era Migs had a rearward firing missile - an expert will be along in a moment
You rang, sir?

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.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2022, 22:31
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New Zealand
Age: 57
Posts: 20
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pye_Wacket
mike1964 is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2022, 16:37
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 2,138
Many thanks LowObservable I was sure I’d seen that in the past.
ETOPS is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2022, 16:43
  #17 (permalink)  
 
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.
1771 DELETE is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.