Striking Behind Yourself
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
Could you elaborate? My knowledge in this area is lacking. Either that or point me in the right direction to read up?
Basically the launching aircraft uses targeting data from some other source. The missile flies to the projected target location and then locks on as soon as it is the right range and sensor view.
Australia's 'over the shoulder' ASRAAM has JSF significance
Australia's 'over the shoulder' ASRAAM has JSF significance
Nobody to my knowledge has done a self-guided 180 degree shot.
I think that the F-35 will be the first.
OLS does not face to the rear and the rear facing radars that are on some Russian fighters are for updating the missile guidance after being launched and the fighter turning around.
I think that the F-35 will be the first.
OLS does not face to the rear and the rear facing radars that are on some Russian fighters are for updating the missile guidance after being launched and the fighter turning around.
Theoretically, a missile with vector thrust nozzle like R-73 can practically be use to strike rearward. but it'll be a blind over the shoulder shot. The missile seeker will have to acquire and lock on to it's target mid-flight. it'll be more susceptible to false heat source and countermeasures.
Haavarla
Active Member
Are we talking about A2A or A2G fire solutions?
Next question is, what type of A2G missile will the Pak-Fa field, that have long enough range to make a turn and fly back to the designated target on the ground..?
Cause the A2G missile will lose a lot of energy by this tactic.
It depends on the altitude and speed i quess, but is this a tactic used to gain more distance and better escape energy from enemy SAM's?
Next question is, what type of A2G missile will the Pak-Fa field, that have long enough range to make a turn and fly back to the designated target on the ground..?
Cause the A2G missile will lose a lot of energy by this tactic.
It depends on the altitude and speed i quess, but is this a tactic used to gain more distance and better escape energy from enemy SAM's?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #10
I've found claims that the PAK-FA rear-ward facing radar allows it to fire a missile and then use the rear facing radar to provide the targeting data. I was wondering if similar capability existed elsewhere.
So the F-35 will be the first? And it will use the EO-DAS to do it, correct?
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
There have been talk of rear-ward facing missiles. However, for the simple physics that the engines will be facing front which is where the aircraft is flying into will mean a negative momentum at ignition not to mention the impact of the forward momentum on the missile engine flame. That's why missiles are still fired forward first and then travel backwards. It might work with missile ejection.
I'm not familiar with how existing rear-ward facing radar will be slaved to the HMS but theoretically, I don't see much challenges in enabling that.
EO-DAS is optical. It won't enable radar guidance for rear aspect. Nose mounted radars have rear aspect detection and guidance capability so most a/c don't need a rear radar to achieve "all aspect".
Rear facing radar is not new. Eg Leninets V005 rear-facing radar on Su-34/35. In theory, it should be able to provide guidance to missiles moving towards the rear.
There have been talk of rear-ward facing missiles. However, for the simple physics that the engines will be facing front which is where the aircraft is flying into will mean a negative momentum at ignition not to mention the impact of the forward momentum on the missile engine flame. That's why missiles are still fired forward first and then travel backwards. It might work with missile ejection.
I'm not familiar with how existing rear-ward facing radar will be slaved to the HMS but theoretically, I don't see much challenges in enabling that.
EO-DAS is optical. It won't enable radar guidance for rear aspect. Nose mounted radars have rear aspect detection and guidance capability so most a/c don't need a rear radar to achieve "all aspect".
The guidance that is provided to a missile for initial launch and mid-course corrections does not have to be radar based (for the AMRAAM and AIM-9x Blk2 ). This was needed when missiles were SARH (Semi-Active Radar Homing) mode, but not for active homing missiles like AMRAAM or IIR like AIM-9X.
The Russian rear-facing radars, IIRC, were only used after the fighter had launched it's missiles and then turned around to let the tail-radar continue to illuminate the target (SARH Mode). Active radar missiles do not require radar illumination to operate, so anything that can geolocate the target (be it radar, optical, RwR or off-board) can be used to provide mid-course updates.
The Russian rear-facing radars, IIRC, were only used after the fighter had launched it's missiles and then turned around to let the tail-radar continue to illuminate the target (SARH Mode). Active radar missiles do not require radar illumination to operate, so anything that can geolocate the target (be it radar, optical, RwR or off-board) can be used to provide mid-course updates.
I'm sure it would be possible from an engineering perspective, but I don't know how much value there'd be in it. Is it going to be more effective for a missile to be launched backwards and have to overcome the velocity imparted from the launch aircraft before it gets anywhere, or for it to be launched forwards and then to orient itself to the target post-launch? I'm not sure myself, but either way is going to cost you missile performance.
Personally I would have thought developing faster, more agile missiles with longer-burn motors would be a more practical way of attaining over-the-shoulder shots than dedicating a weapons bay to rear launches, but then that's just speculation.
If the missile has enough fuel then it can fire forward and turn to engage a rear target, like all other LOAL missiles.
The very few times that you would need a rear aspect shot would not justify always carrying around a rear-facing missile, even if it were physically practical.
The very few times that you would need a rear aspect shot would not justify always carrying around a rear-facing missile, even if it were physically practical.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
The very high G turn of current missiles reduce the time it takes to go 180 but its still reaction time. Forward velocity can still be a very high factor to overcome but there are other vectors eg side launch (like flares) rather than rear launch to reduce launch penalties.
Internal bays may allow missiles pylons to change launch direction but space is a very large constraint for fighters. It might work for large bombers and transports though.
All of the above are entirely hypothetical of course. Considering that internal missile bays are a very recent addition to inventory, it may be too early to rule out.
It might make sense as a defensive armament for a lumbering transport with a lot less forward velocity (ie slow) to overcome trying to escape a pursuit scenario or even as an hard-kill anti-missile measure.
The very high G turn of current missiles reduce the time it takes to go 180 but its still reaction time. Forward velocity can still be a very high factor to overcome but there are other vectors eg side launch (like flares) rather than rear launch to reduce launch penalties.
Internal bays may allow missiles pylons to change launch direction but space is a very large constraint for fighters. It might work for large bombers and transports though.
All of the above are entirely hypothetical of course. Considering that internal missile bays are a very recent addition to inventory, it may be too early to rule out.
If we are talking transports, then a Vertical Launch system for IIR class missiles is probably the best solution as it would allow the missile to engage in any direction and have the benefit of an arching profile and having 1/2 the turn already done. Advances in seeker technology could also enable an anti-AAM function for self defense.