I mean, I would think you could just mount a backwards facing machine gun (or missiles) so that when the enemy is behind you, it's possible to fight back.
2007-12-02 15:00:32 · 7 answers · asked by Kevin F 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I would think it would just be an automated system that you could engage when and enemy aircraft is on your tail. I have to think it is something about the physics.
2007-12-02 15:12:35 · update #1
The Russian infra-red dogfighting missiles are cued by a sight in the helmet and they can definately fire "over the shoulder". The pilot cues the missile with his helmet, presses fire and it comes off the wing and goes through 180 degrees and chases the target behind him/her. I imagine it would be a lot easier to track a target which has just flown past - the engine is a great heat source, but it the modern missiles can track heat from the fuselage and can easily lock onto a following aircraft from the front. As someone else said, there is a lot of inertia to overcome - if you are travelling at 600mph and fire over the shoulder, the missile has to overcome all that speed. I dont see an automatic system being feasible for fear of attacking a friendly who accidently paints your aircraft with his radar. Short version is that there are missiles out there now which come off the wong pointing forwards, but arc back and attack aircraft behind you.
2007-12-02 15:22:35 · answer #1 · answered by Micky G 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They use to have rear facing guns on the old bomber during ww2, but they also had a crew big enough to man the guns and the pilots didnt have to fire them.
It is just not feasable for a pilot to fire backwards while flying and doing all of the stuff they have to do, plus there is just too much room for error when doing this. He would not have clear veiw of what was in the background of his target like he would firing forward and a heat seaker could lock onto his own heat signature if fired backwards.
Plus a heat seeking weapon locks onto the heat signature of the aircraft targeted and that is at the rear of the aircraft (where the jets exaust is) so the weapon would have to go past the aircraft fired at and then turn to get a good heat signature
Just a guess as I am not a aircraft designer or a pilot
2007-12-02 15:09:42 · answer #2 · answered by Geoff C 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It would be impossible to aim a rear mounted gun.
Heat and infrared guided missiles would be fouled by the exhaust of your own aircraft.
The head on closure speed of missiles would make them easy to avoid and the missile would not be able to correct it's flight path fast enough to make a difference.
2007-12-02 15:08:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Because you would have to counteract the forward motion already on the missile. Shooting it backwards wouldn't do a whole lot on impact.
2007-12-02 15:04:08 · answer #4 · answered by DOOM 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Unless they were using guided missiles, the jet-wash (exhaust from the jet) would likely interfer with the missil, and thus the missil would be ineffective.
2007-12-02 15:13:22 · answer #5 · answered by vanmier 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
they did have rear facing guns back in ww2 when they were needed..today this scenario will likely never happen.we our superior to all therefore we should never wind up in a situation where we are being chased...also it would throw off the jets configuration ..
2007-12-02 15:06:23 · answer #6 · answered by Perro De Lava 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The pilots are facing onwards and it is the reason why it is very hard to fire backwards.
2007-12-02 15:04:02 · answer #7 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋