4 ms·

> only then can it accelerate towards the target but in a dogfight (where this move is presumably useful) the target is not stationary, it's moving towards the

> only then can it accelerate towards the target but in a dogfight (where this move is presumably useful) the target is not stationary, it's moving towards the missile. if all the missile does is accelerate to stay still, it will still hit the target at 700mph

pishpash 4y ago
In a vacuum. The aerodynamics aren't possibly the same.
- Karellen 4y ago
  Surely the aerodynamics are better for firing a missile backwards. If you fire it forwards, the missile has to accelerate through whatever air resistance you're both already experiencing through even more air resistance to get to the target. That's hard. If you fire backwards, the missile uses air resistance to accelerate towards (i.e. slow down) towards the target. Even when it goes through 0mph relative to the air and continues to accelerate, the resistance will be much less as it approaches an even higher closing velocity in a shorter period of time.
  - mumblemumble 4y ago
    I would guess that the speed at which air moves over the missile's control surfaces has a large effect on its ability to steer to meet the target.
  - fakethenews2022 4y ago
    Modern fighters are all about sensing and targeting the enemy first since missiles are so deadly. The missiles are much faster than the planes so which way the missile is pointed at matters less and most of the time it is better to be pointed forward. So the optimizations and tradeoffs are in sensing and targeting further away or being able to rotate a sensor to target an enemy off bore.
  - mizzao 4y ago
    But, missiles can't maneuver at 0mph airspeed even if traveling at 600mph in the frame of reference of a plane.
  - usefulcat 4y ago
    If you fire it backwards, when it first launches it will be traveling backwards relative to the airflow. So you would have to make a missile that can fly forwards or backwards. Probably not impossible but it must add some difficulty.
    - leeoniya 4y ago
      hmm, yeah that sounds challenging, but spacex does it when landing the first stage :)

pishpash 4y ago

In a vacuum. The aerodynamics aren't possibly the same.

Karellen 4y ago
Surely the aerodynamics are better for firing a missile backwards. If you fire it forwards, the missile has to accelerate through whatever air resistance you're both already experiencing through even more air resistance to get to the target. That's hard. If you fire backwards, the missile uses air resistance to accelerate towards (i.e. slow down) towards the target. Even when it goes through 0mph relative to the air and continues to accelerate, the resistance will be much less as it approaches an even higher closing velocity in a shorter period of time.
- mumblemumble 4y ago
  I would guess that the speed at which air moves over the missile's control surfaces has a large effect on its ability to steer to meet the target.
- fakethenews2022 4y ago
  Modern fighters are all about sensing and targeting the enemy first since missiles are so deadly. The missiles are much faster than the planes so which way the missile is pointed at matters less and most of the time it is better to be pointed forward. So the optimizations and tradeoffs are in sensing and targeting further away or being able to rotate a sensor to target an enemy off bore.
- mizzao 4y ago
  But, missiles can't maneuver at 0mph airspeed even if traveling at 600mph in the frame of reference of a plane.
- usefulcat 4y ago
  If you fire it backwards, when it first launches it will be traveling backwards relative to the airflow. So you would have to make a missile that can fly forwards or backwards. Probably not impossible but it must add some difficulty.
  - leeoniya 4y ago
    hmm, yeah that sounds challenging, but spacex does it when landing the first stage :)