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: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


not a reply to your post per se, i just wanted to add something to supplement what you mentioned.
here's a vid to show just what a missile with a high off-bore sight can do.



the good part happens at 4:00, so just click the link below if you don't want to waste time listening to music in that video.

4 minutes into the same video as above




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by toreishi
 
Good video.
Thanks for posting it.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Love
 


It has been considered once before but with the introduction of BVR missiles like the AIM-120 and advanced thrust vectoring AIM-9X(these things are coool, fires like a bottle rocket without the stick but its accurate) it just doesn`t seem logical. You would need an entire FCS facing to the rear just to get a lock, like the SU-37, making the aircraft heavier and larger which is the exact opposite approach. With all the super-manuvering aircraft coming out you probably wouldn`t want some guy hanging on your six o`clock long enough to get a lock. Now if larger heavy aircraft like the B-1 and B-2 become more vulnerable to air to air threats it might be a good idea to have a rear firing weapon of some sorts when they are down on the deck flying penetration missions.
Besides we are working on point defense lasers that will make dogfighting obsolete once and for all.

Now for space combat i can see somebody having some kind of explosive device dropped like a flare, probably with some kind of magnetic tracking capability.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by StratosFear
reply to post by Dr Love
 


It has been considered once before but with the introduction of BVR missiles like the AIM-120 and advanced thrust vectoring AIM-9X(these things are coool, fires like a bottle rocket without the stick but its accurate) it just doesn`t seem logical. You would need an entire FCS facing to the rear just to get a lock, like the SU-37, making the aircraft heavier and larger which is the exact opposite approach. With all the super-manuvering aircraft coming out you probably wouldn`t want some guy hanging on your six o`clock long enough to get a lock. Now if larger heavy aircraft like the B-1 and B-2 become more vulnerable to air to air threats it might be a good idea to have a rear firing weapon of some sorts when they are down on the deck flying penetration missions.
Besides we are working on point defense lasers that will make dogfighting obsolete once and for all.

Now for space combat i can see somebody having some kind of explosive device dropped like a flare, probably with some kind of magnetic tracking capability.


Could use a system similar to DAS, that is supposed to give the pilot spherical situational awareness.



All enemy aircraft detected by DAS could be tracked, and displayed on the pilots helmet mounted display all automatically via computers.The data could then just be sent to the missile via a datalink of some sort.
edit on 23/2/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Sweet. When the experts can minaturize laser powerful enough i bet thats how the point defence system will function.
I could never get sick of watching these kinds of videos. Why dont they just turn ariel dogfighting into some kind of sport? id much rather watch a two fighters from any era go at, way more exciting and louder.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
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.


This makes sense... but what about when bullets are fired from tail gunners in a bomber? This is a slower example, but the bullets would be going in the opposite direction of the craft.

In a dogfight, fighters are flying relatively slower than say, intercepting another plane (in which case they would be going as fast as possible. Wouldn't this give a rear-facing missile better opportunity to launch?



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
One other problem with backward firing missiles would be the Wake turbulence behind a aircraft going near or above the speed of sound.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
The aerodynamic issues are a big reason you see "over-the-shoulder" launches as opposed to "backward" launches. The Python 5, AIM-9X and ASRAAM all have this capability to some degree (limited mostly by the sensors of the launching aircraft).



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
In regard to bullets being fired from a supersonic aircraft, the bullets travel faster than the speed of sound in the case of a .50 caliber bullet. Even if the aircraft can travel faster than the bullets can, the bullets are traveling that same speed as the aircraft that they are inside of to begin with. Any bullets fired forward from a supersonic aircraft are travelling at the speed of the plane, plus the speed added when they are fired from the gun.

If the aircraft were capable of overtaking bullets that were fired from it, multistage rockets also would not function, as the first stage would fly right through the second stage when the second stage tried to launch!



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
If the aircraft were capable of overtaking bullets that were fired from it, multistage rockets also would not function, as the first stage would fly right through the second stage when the second stage tried to launch!


So I do not know much about multistage rocketry, but if the rocket attains a certain velocity in say the first stage, the entire rocket with all its stages have attained that velocity and the ignition of a second stage would 'add' to the obtained velocity and all components affect by the second stage would be propelled at that total added velocity.
Or if the first stage exhausted its fuel and disconnected from the rocket, the rocket would coast at the achieved velocity and begin to decelerate due to gravity. The ignition of the second stage would help maintain the achieved velocity given to the rocket by the first stage.

Applying to same to gunfire from a bullet, wouldn't the bullet travel with an added velocity?
Well maybe one must consider (in the case of the rocket) the potential energy of the fuel in the second stage, being converted to energy thus reducing the mass of the propelled rocket and making calculations more interesting. I suppose the stability in trajectory of rockets depends on accurate calculations of rocket mass reduction due to propellant burn etc etc..

Its all very confusing and I'm sure a guy in high school would know more than me right now!!

Back to Physics 101!!



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 
The first stage of a multi-stage rocket may still be accelerating when the second stage is ignited and the second stage will still accelerate away from the first. Seems like you have a pretty good grasp of the physics involved with it, though.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I will have to look it up but I am quite sure the Su-34 supported something similar.

"The Su-32FN is also expected to carry the rearward firing R-73 missile."






www.airforceworld.com...
edit on 24-3-2011 by Skellon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
What about a rear mounted machine gun ?




top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join