paul@hpldola.hp.com (Paul Bame) (01/20/89)
After the good reasoning for not having rear-firing missiles, how about thinking of something more mundane like: Guns Small fragmentation bombs with proximity fuses and some kind of aerodynamic braking The idea is that the known speed and direction of the rear aircraft, the ability to place something reliabily close to that aircraft's path from the lead aircraft, the decreased reaction time of that pilot, and the possibility that smaller weapons may be useful (and much harder to see) may allow some pretty stupid things to be effective. (Probably not or we'd have them already) What about things designed to cause jet-engine failure by entering the intake (like fragmentation bombs perhaps). Would sand/gravel be enough? Steel cubes? How many?
shaig%humus.Huji.AC.IL%CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Shai Guday) (01/24/89)
In article <3211@cbnews.ATT.COM> you write:
%In article <3166@cbnews.ATT.COM> schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) wri
%>>From article <3076@cbnews.ATT.COM>,
%>by bnr-public!schow%bnr-fos.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET (Stanley Chow):
%>
%>> If the F-14's
%>> have acquired the ability to fire missles at a plane on its tail, just let
%>> me know and we can start another discussion)
%>
%>Why don't they have this ability now? It seems to me that it would be
%>quite handy.
%
%Ah, but so would many things not easily done.
%
%1) Radar Missiles. The radome in the Tomcat points forward and has a
%relatively small pattern. You could not illuminate the target with your
%radar for your missiles to see.
True, this would seem to rule out radar guided missiles.
%2) IR Missiles. The nose of an IR missile has to be pointed at the target
%so that it can see the heat to lock on. Unfortunately, with the missile
%pointed forward, it can not see hot things behind the air craft (like the
%Tomcat's own jet exhaust).
Wouldn't it be possible to have an IR missile with a delayed
lock-on mechanism so that it would not engage until x time after
leaving its pylon? That would be sufficient to prevent scrambling
by the jets own exhaust. For closely following pursuers,
the missile might be coded to loop around and come behind such
planes, enabling a retreating tail to have a nasty sting.
%3) Aerodynamics: Missiles like to fly forward. Dropping one pointed
%backwards would likley make it tumble. Mounting one backwards would create
%a great deal of drag. If you did mount one backwards, and it was the only
%one left, you couldn't use it without giving the other guy the shot he's
%been waiting for - at your retreating tail.
The aerodynamics can be treated by covering the missile tail
with an aerodynamic lightweight foil. This would be burned at
the time of missile release.
The argument that it might be the only missile left is not convincing
especially to a pilot that has one missile pointing forward and a
pursuer hot on his tail.
%4) Control: Teaching a forward pointing missile to make a hard 180
%wouldn't be easy. The telemetry and radar/aqcuisition problem gets in the
%way fast, and you'd have to be careful that you didn't splash your own
%wingman.
True, but what about a rearward pointing missile?