Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!ncar!unmvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!gudeman@arizona.edu From: gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Rearward-firing missiles (Re: Another 2 Libyan jets) Message-ID: <3461@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 25 Jan 89 03:52:29 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 33 Approved: military@att.att.com Here's a thought from someone with a stronger background in imagination than in engineering. How about a forward-pointing heat-seeking missle with a drag chute? When you have someone on your tail, you release the missile, the missile pops its chute and the parachute holds the missile (approximately) in place until the enemy plane has passed. After a delay the missile looks for a heat source. When it finds one, it fires up, releases the chute, and homes in on the enemy tailpipe. This has the advantage that it uses a heat-seeking missile. That is an advantage isn't it? Aren't heat-seeking missiles cheaper and more reliable than radar guided ones? Another advantage is that the missile doesn't have to use fuel to get behind the pursuing plane, though it will have to accelate from a near standstill. The chute would presumably be attached to the missile's center of gravity in such a way as to hold the missile horizontal. The missile may need need to actively keep itself pointing forward or aerodynamics may be enough, I don't know. Rather than a time delay, a better strategy might be for the missile to immediately lock onto the plane it was fired from, and to not take off until it senses a stronger heat source than the one it is locked on to. That is, after the firing plane has gotten far enough away, and the following plane has passed near the missile, the missile picks up the following plane. What sort of response time would the following plane typically have? I can't estimate that without knowing typical speeds and following distances in airfights. If response time is long enough, the following plane could avoid the missile or destroy it.