It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The movie "Firefox"..........re: backward firing missiles from a jet fighter

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
So I was watching "Firefox" the other day, love that movie
, and I was wondering why backward firing missiles have not been developed yet. Now, not being an expert on the subject, the only reason I could come up with is that the missiles would not have enough time to lock on to their target based on the speeds jets would be flying. Is that the only factor, or are there more? It would pretty much make jet dogfighting obsolete I would think.

Any more input?

ETA: @6:15




Peace

edit on 22-2-2011 by Dr Love because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Love
 


Good question? Maybe back in the day it was a flight characteristics problem, but nowadays the missile drops and then fires, so it wouldn't affect the jet. Perhaps the closing speed is too great, but surely that could be overcome with the right kind of missile. Perhaps it was the targeting platform required the pilot to have a view, but that isn't necessary on modern targeting systems where the computer is tracking dozens of targets simultaneously.

Why not something similar to the flares but with explosive capability? Something similar to anti-aircraft shrapnel, but fired from the jet to deter or crash anything behind it.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Ya the same as 007 James Bond tire spick

or just eject a 1000 1/4" ball



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


How 'bout a missile that drops long enough for the trailing jet to pass, with a radar lock being kept on the trailing jet by the leading jet?

Did that make any sense?


Peace



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Love
 


Yes, and seems very plausible to me, as long as you don't accidentally shoot yourself. Couldn't be heatseeking (does U.S. even use that anymore), but laser guided could definitely work as you describe!

I'm thinking of something along the "hellfire" missiles that we use against ground troops. Let it drop, delay, and then fire 1000 explosive projectiles like a big curtain at the approaching craft.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I think that you may be on to something. You better hurry up and figure out a plan and hand it to Dod.

They might like your idea enough to steal it from you.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
When the missile is first dropped from the aircraft backwards you have aerodynamic problems.

Secondly, as the missile engines begin to provide thrust in the opposite direction it's initially going, the missile will actually begin to slow down and stop before it begins to move towards it's target. In other words, it would drop like a rock and missiles that aren't moving can't be controlled.

So for a period of time this backwards firing missile would be totally out of control - so regaining control of it as it's thrust picks up in the rear facing direction would be a very difficult task to handle.

It would probably be easier to fire the missile facing forward and have it turn around in flight towards your target.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr Love
 
I believe that the Soviet Air Force had tried a system using backward firing air to air missiles. They encountered problems with flight controls. They had to use a thrust vectoring system to control them because there wasn't enough air moving over the vanes of the missile to use them for control.

AA-11 Archer Missile
edit on 22-2-2011 by butcherguy because: added link



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
great movie. takes me back. this may be something someone with some time and engineering background might want to undertake. it is my understanding that when f-15's were purchased by the israeli forces, they realized that an attachment of a rear view mirror to the craft actually helped the pilot. as unusual as it might sound, ingenuity comes from all over.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I found the missile info and added a link for it in my previous post.

It was called the Archer.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
The reason they stated in the movie was simply that of the weapons not being able to separate and get away from the aircraft fast enough if fired forwards... so the missiles would end up shooting down the aircraft they were fired from when the aircraft ran it over.

Fun fact .. this is also why they gave up trying to mount a gun on the blackbird as they found that the plane would overtake the cannon rounds and be destroyed by it's own gun.

Even missiles could be hard to get away from the supersonic shockwave of the craft ... matter of fact releasing ordnance at supersonic speeds is STILL a problem!

The american military has spent LOTS and LOTS of money to develop the capability to use it's ordnance while supersonic.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 


Great points. We can control things in free fall though, with actuators and fins, so perhaps it could be engineered to just glide and maintain target lock and fire rockets at the last second to intercept?

Could also be engineered to be aerodynamically stable in either direction.

I still say the "curtain" of explosive material would be effective in a close dog fight. At the very least it would force the opponent to maneuver away from it and allow our pilot to take reverse the position of advantage.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
The SU-30+ can be fitted with a small radar or tv camera to provide guidance for Modified R-73 rearward firing missiles, however there doesn't seem to be a record of this being an operational capability. It has been mentioned in Russian, Indian and Chinese media with regards to the SU-27 derivatives purchased, but again doesn't seem to be an operational capability.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Its a redundant idea now.

The latest generation of missiles incorporate thrust vectoring and a very wide engagement envelope. Some also now have a datalink capability and an ability to lock on after launch.

"As of September 2008, Raytheon has delivered 3,000 AIM-9X missiles to the armed services and has begun testing the Block II version of the missile.[10] The Block II adds Lock-on After Launch capability with a datalink, so the missile can be launched first and then directed to its target afterwards by an aircraft with the proper equipment for 360 degree engagements, such as the F-35 and F-22.[11]"

No need to mount the missiles backwards. Although 360 degree sensor coverage is required, and is being implemented.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 


Excellent logical answer harry

I wonder though, aircraft can certainly "fire" chaff backwards or drop it off and fly forwards like this

So what would happen if that was made explosive somehow?

As you can tell I don't really know much about it



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Yeah, the thrust problem didn't occur to me 'til I started reading the replies, although it should've been the first.

The thrust required to fire a missile directly backwards, or almost directly backwards, would have to be exponentially greater than the thrust of the jet moving forward, and then there's the problem of the fuel and material to handle it.

Great replies guys!


Peace



edit on 22-2-2011 by Dr Love because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Call me lazy, but (for close ranges) did they ever try something as simple as release a "cloud" of dense metal balls to be sucked into the pursuer's engines?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by as4000
Call me lazy, but (for close ranges) did they ever try something as simple as release a "cloud" of dense metal balls to be sucked into the pursuer's engines?


For close ranges I wouldn't see why not, but the guy would have to be directly behind you going straight I would think. I'm pretty sure most of these pilots are constantly maneuvering before they get shot down. The odds of a direct hit wouldn't be too good unless it was a damn big cloud.

Peace



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr Love
 


The simple answer is that we already have "backward firing missiles" - or, at least, missiles that can acquire a target behind the firing aircraft.

This is accomplished through "datalinking" - networking, essentially. Coarse coordinates can be delivered from any networked source that can deliver a valid track. Theoretically, this can be almost anything - the RWR from the firing aircraft, the AWACS supporting the firing aircraft, the aircraft's wingman (an IR, radar, or optically derived track), satellites, even other missiles and ordnance with sufficient uplink capacity.

It's not necessary to guide the missile into the target - it has its own onboard seeker and guidance system for that. All it needs to do is know how to position itself so it can pick up the target with that seeker, and any information that will help it isolate that as the target (helps to avoid being spoofed by chaff/flares/etc).

In this respect, it doesn't matter where the target is in relation to the firing - or targeting - aircraft. An electronic support aircraft can be 'spiked' by a tracking radar, completely unarmed. An escort aircraft - even if it is currently engaged - can fire a missile on the aircraft (or ground target) illuminating the electronic support aircraft. The only real factor is the kinetic factors of the firing aircraft and how that will impact the kinetic performance of the missile being fired (firing a missile forward makes it go farther than making it have to turn around and fly backwards relative to the firing aircraft).

One of the things being done, now, with loiter aircraft like the B-52 is having them fly a high-orbit above a conflict area. At some hierarchical level, ground troops are assigned laser designators with uplinks to the same network the bomber is on. When they run into more difficult targets, they can place a request to have a "bomb on demand" delivered from that bomber.

Not exactly missiles being fired backwards - but to similar ends - something behind you that you need blown up being blown up.

The only other thing I can think of is some mention -in fictional novels (Dale Brown) - mentioning "air mines" deployed from the back of large aircraft (such as the fictional EB-52 "Megafortress" and the EB-1 "Vampire" ) - explosive canisters of shrapnel launched behind the aircraft and into the path of a close-trailing hostile. A sort of hybrid between a missile and the old .50 cal tail-guns.

I'm not sure if such a thing has been tested to the prototype phase, or has simply stayed on papers and laboratories. I'm not aware of anything actually employing such a system, however.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by roguetechie
Even missiles could be hard to get away from the supersonic shockwave of the craft ... matter of fact releasing ordnance at supersonic speeds is STILL a problem!

The american military has spent LOTS and LOTS of money to develop the capability to use it's ordnance while supersonic.


Even subsonic can be hard some times... An F-14 weapon test platform, litterally shot itself down once, as the missile tilted upwards after release.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join