Their rocket exhaust as they’re being fired would slow the planes down, rather than providing a boost
For the same reason, cars have exhaust on the rear so that they can go much faster forward than backward
Edit: /s since you apparently need it after every joke. I know that missiles aren’t really fired, they detach and then propel themselves. Also, anyone who’s ever idled their car on a flat surface knows that the exhaust thrust cannot even overcome rolling resistance.
Ackshually they do this, not with cars but, with WW2 era prop planes.
The Spitfire for example:
The Merlin consumed an enormous volume of air at full power (equivalent to the volume of a single-decker bus per minute), and with the exhaust gases exiting at 1,300 mph (2,100 km/h) it was realised that useful thrust could be gained simply by angling the gases backwards instead of venting sideways.
During tests, 70 pounds-force (310 N; 32 kgf) thrust at 300 mph (480 km/h), or roughly 70 hp (52 kW) was obtained, which increased the level maximum speed of the Spitfire by 10 mph (16 km/h) to 360 mph (580 km/h). The first versions of the ejector exhausts featured round outlets, while subsequent versions of the system used “fishtail” style outlets, which marginally increased thrust and reduced exhaust glare for night flying.
From Wikipedia
There was a Clint Eastwood movie where backwards firing missiles were the whole shtick.
The catch is the plane is controlled by thoughts. Russian thoughts. The final dogfight came down to Clint finding his inner Russian and thinking of the magic word “blyat” to get the plane to fire ze backwards missiles.
It was a wild ride.
That’s a fun movie
Given that summary I thought you were joking but holy shit that is an actual movie. crazy!
What the actual fuck.
OP reinvents tail gunners
embrace tradition
It’s obviously a great idea, but
(why has no one said this yet?)
Ackshually 🤓 - those things in the image of the A-4 that you flipped around are fuel tanks, not weapons.
Pretty sure those are Mark 14’s.
- Mark 14 torpedos are straight in the middle, not curved all the way.
- Mark 14 torpedos have 4, not 2 fins at the end, and 2 screws.
- These are 300 gallon drop tanks. EDIT: now I’m wondering if the schematic shows the smaller Aero 1C 150 gallon drop tanks. Similar profile but thinner
A-4 Skyhawks, like most fighter/attack jets since the 1960s, usually fly with at least one drop tank of fuel. The two tanks under the wings is the most used configuration during the 60s and early 70s. Later versions, such as the USMC’s A-4M, which was used until the early 90s (but not deployed in Desert Shield / Desert Storm), were often seen with a larger drop tank (400 gallon?), often preferring a single large drop tank on the centerline to have more room for weapons. These did have a significantly stronger engine so bringing a larger payload was useful.
…why does Lemmy’s noncredible insist on being lesscredible, or even credible?
But thanks for the write up and graphics to show me why WWII era naval torpedoes weren’t actually mounted on those hard points lol.
The original concept for a similar system was to have the pilot jettison multiple styrofoam mcdonalds containers out the rear of the aircraft, which would shred in the jet wash and gum up the enemy engine. A mockup of the system was performed along american highways in the 1970’s.
Unfortunately, future conditions made the system impractical, not due to a difficulty in finding styrofoam containers in america, but in getting the contract-required grimmace costume on the test pilots. The program was discontinued in 2018 due to budget reappropriating of funds for backup kuerig machines in all air force base quarters.
Fighter planes should just have a reverse gear. It would be much more simple.
Because you have to think in russian to fire them.
Hear me out… Upgraded flight surfaces to account for lower launch speeds due to being backwards
No, just put a ludicrously powerful engine on it.
Missiles require an inordinate amount of thrust for their weight to remain airborne, due to the lack of large(ish) wings. Because the aircraft is already moving forward at high speed, the missile would lose considerable altitude (if fired backwards) before it would acquire sufficient velocity on it’s own again.
IIRC there have been missiles that could be targeted against aircraft behind the one launching the missiles. They would lock the missile against the pursuing aircraft, fire it forward, and the missile would arc around to go after the other aircraft.
Now bullets on the other hand, can come in supersonic versions. Unless the aircraft is moving at Mach speeds (and you always slow down to dogfight in order to make turns survivable), a supersonic bullet fired backwards will have sufficient speed in that direction to reach the other aircraft without too much aiming difficulties.
Beyond bullets: AFAIK there have been experiments in launching chaff (metal filings) such that it gets ingested into the pursuing aircraft’s engines, causing damage that way. But from what I recall there was too much of a risk of other aircraft in the vicinity and below that engagement also getting caught in the falling chaff. Still good for enemy aircraft, not so much for your own teammates.
Submarines used to have torpedo tubes in the back.
Why would anything be “behind” them?
It’s called being chased at a dogfight.
If you’re in a dogfight then you’re too close to use missiles effectively anyway.
Regular forward facing missiles need to be “aimed” at enemy planes to be effective. How can you aim at something that is behind you?
Yo Ishmael! The boys at Mithridates University have come up with this sick new tech. The Romans won’t know what hit them!
Nerf please, our heavy infantry meta is no longer viable
