4 ms·

Is there a reason why modern planes can't shoot backwards? A lot of the WW2 planes had turrets a separate gunner would control, but they all seem to have disap

Is there a reason why modern planes can't shoot backwards? A lot of the WW2 planes had turrets a separate gunner would control, but they all seem to have disappeared. My only guess is that dogfights don't actually happen much anymore.

chrisseaton 4y ago
To put a gun in a turret it's got to be pretty small. Turret guns were therefore only good for shooting at slow, close aircraft. You basically don't get that anymore.
googlryas 4y ago
This is correct. It's actually rare for pilots to even see the planes they're attacking, if they're attacking a plane at all.
amelius 4y ago
Perhaps the maneuver could be used against an incoming missile? I.e., it might be easier to out-maneuver it this way than to shoot it.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Like a CIWS? They get through far far too much ammunition to be mounted in a plane. Planes have just a few seconds of ammunition for a medium weight of fire, CIWS fire for tens of seconds at a much higher rate of fire at each missile.
- trevorishere 4y ago
  It's an airshow maneuver. Speed is life. USAF (and presumably other AF's) send out 2 to 4 ship (or if we look at Desert Storm, over 70 ships). If you "stall" or perform this maneuver, whomever is behind you might overshoot, but his or her buddy will nab you. Check out Stroke 3. This is an F-16 strike on an oil facility in Iraq. Stroke 3 avoided six Iraq (Russian-made) SAMs /without/ deploying any counter measures. Simply amazing to listen to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uh4yMAx2UA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uh4yMAx2UA And here's a visual illustration of the entire strike package that went out. 76 aircraft as part of Package Q. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg Fun (?) fact -- the first strike in Desert Storm was performed by eight Apache attack helicopters with two Pave Low helicopters leading them at NAP of the earth level at nighttime.
ozim 4y ago
Yes - I followed former fighter pilot on YT - you have bad guys in range if your sensors/missiles, fire missile or two and that is mostly end of the fight. Even if you don't hit the guy you just pull back and go for your station because without rockets you will be gone if the other guy somehow survives 2 and you don't have any. Dogfights like in the movies don't happen.
sidewndr46 4y ago
Those "turret fighters" were basically total failures. At least one of the British attempts wound up being used for anti-aircraft defense, parked on the side of the runway after having their engines removed. The Northrop P-61 had a turret, which wound up being used in the locked forward position due to it being unreliable.
Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago
Simple, it's a matter of range, weight and balance. All other things being equal, a point defense cannon would probably be useful. However, those weapons are heavy and decidedly impractical for even something as heavy as a buff.
- trevorishere 4y ago
  Last air-to-air cannon kill I'm aware of was an F-16 vs. OV-10 in Venezuela in 1992. You can watch the kill at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDASW6X0XoU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDASW6X0XoU. If you look closely at the moment of shoot down, you'll see the F-16 has its air breaks fully deployed (and I'd assume both leading and trailing edge flaps almost fully down) to slow down enough.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Not surprising given the significant speed difference between those two.
trevorishere 4y ago
AIM-9X (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#AIM-9X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#AIM-9X) has 90 degree off-boresight capabilities with helmet mounted displays, being able to pull 60Gs. So not quite "backwards", but dang close. With that being said, beyond visual range (BVR) engagements for gen 4 and higher fighters (gen 4 would be F-16 (the best plane ever produced, and everyone here knows it ;), F-18, MiG-29, Su-27; gen 5 would be F-22, F-35... and somewhat arguably Su-57) should be the norm. The USAF/US Navy is a bit behind on this with the AIM-120C/D being a medium-range missile where as some of the Russian-produced missiles have a longer reach. The USAF currently has a program to produce a long-range variant of the AIM-120C/D (our last long range missile was the AIM-54 Phoenix, exclusively carried by the retired F-14) with the designation of AIM-260 -- the AIM-260 is expected to replace the AIM-120. AIM-120C/D "maddog" call -- now that'd be an interesting air-to-air engagement -- "maddog" is the call for firing the AIM-120 without the aircraft having radar lock and whatever the missile picks up on it's terminal guidance radar is likely doomed. Ahhh I played way too much Falcon 4.0 and the DCS F-16 module.
jabl 4y ago
> A lot of the WW2 planes had turrets a separate gunner would control, In WWII unescorted bomber losses were quite catastrophic even with gun turrets pointing in every conceivable direction like the B-17. Ultimately it was long range escort fighters like the P-51 that brought down the loss rate to an acceptable rate so that long range raids could continue. Post-WWII bomber design evidently came to the conclusion that, except in some cases a tail turret, all these guns weren't worth the weight and drag, and got rid of them. And then missiles came on the scene, further reducing the usefulness of defensive guns. > My only guess is that dogfights don't actually happen much anymore. Modern short range AA missiles have 'off boresight' capability, meaning that the pilot has a HUD mounted in the helmet, he doesn't need to point the nose towards the target to shoot. And yes, longer range AA missiles are apparently nowadays expected to be amazingly effective to the point that actual short range dogfights would be very rare.

chrisseaton 4y ago

To put a gun in a turret it's got to be pretty small. Turret guns were therefore only good for shooting at slow, close aircraft. You basically don't get that anymore.

googlryas 4y ago

This is correct. It's actually rare for pilots to even see the planes they're attacking, if they're attacking a plane at all.

amelius 4y ago

Perhaps the maneuver could be used against an incoming missile? I.e., it might be easier to out-maneuver it this way than to shoot it.

chrisseaton 4y ago
Like a CIWS? They get through far far too much ammunition to be mounted in a plane. Planes have just a few seconds of ammunition for a medium weight of fire, CIWS fire for tens of seconds at a much higher rate of fire at each missile.
trevorishere 4y ago
It's an airshow maneuver. Speed is life. USAF (and presumably other AF's) send out 2 to 4 ship (or if we look at Desert Storm, over 70 ships). If you "stall" or perform this maneuver, whomever is behind you might overshoot, but his or her buddy will nab you. Check out Stroke 3. This is an F-16 strike on an oil facility in Iraq. Stroke 3 avoided six Iraq (Russian-made) SAMs /without/ deploying any counter measures. Simply amazing to listen to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uh4yMAx2UA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uh4yMAx2UA And here's a visual illustration of the entire strike package that went out. 76 aircraft as part of Package Q. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg Fun (?) fact -- the first strike in Desert Storm was performed by eight Apache attack helicopters with two Pave Low helicopters leading them at NAP of the earth level at nighttime.

ozim 4y ago

Yes - I followed former fighter pilot on YT - you have bad guys in range if your sensors/missiles, fire missile or two and that is mostly end of the fight. Even if you don't hit the guy you just pull back and go for your station because without rockets you will be gone if the other guy somehow survives 2 and you don't have any. Dogfights like in the movies don't happen.

sidewndr46 4y ago

Those "turret fighters" were basically total failures. At least one of the British attempts wound up being used for anti-aircraft defense, parked on the side of the runway after having their engines removed. The Northrop P-61 had a turret, which wound up being used in the locked forward position due to it being unreliable.

Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago

Simple, it's a matter of range, weight and balance. All other things being equal, a point defense cannon would probably be useful. However, those weapons are heavy and decidedly impractical for even something as heavy as a buff.

trevorishere 4y ago
Last air-to-air cannon kill I'm aware of was an F-16 vs. OV-10 in Venezuela in 1992. You can watch the kill at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDASW6X0XoU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDASW6X0XoU. If you look closely at the moment of shoot down, you'll see the F-16 has its air breaks fully deployed (and I'd assume both leading and trailing edge flaps almost fully down) to slow down enough.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Not surprising given the significant speed difference between those two.

trevorishere 4y ago

AIM-9X (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#AIM-9X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#AIM-9X) has 90 degree off-boresight capabilities with helmet mounted displays, being able to pull 60Gs. So not quite "backwards", but dang close. With that being said, beyond visual range (BVR) engagements for gen 4 and higher fighters (gen 4 would be F-16 (the best plane ever produced, and everyone here knows it ;), F-18, MiG-29, Su-27; gen 5 would be F-22, F-35... and somewhat arguably Su-57) should be the norm. The USAF/US Navy is a bit behind on this with the AIM-120C/D being a medium-range missile where as some of the Russian-produced missiles have a longer reach. The USAF currently has a program to produce a long-range variant of the AIM-120C/D (our last long range missile was the AIM-54 Phoenix, exclusively carried by the retired F-14) with the designation of AIM-260 -- the AIM-260 is expected to replace the AIM-120. AIM-120C/D "maddog" call -- now that'd be an interesting air-to-air engagement -- "maddog" is the call for firing the AIM-120 without the aircraft having radar lock and whatever the missile picks up on it's terminal guidance radar is likely doomed. Ahhh I played way too much Falcon 4.0 and the DCS F-16 module.

jabl 4y ago

> A lot of the WW2 planes had turrets a separate gunner would control, In WWII unescorted bomber losses were quite catastrophic even with gun turrets pointing in every conceivable direction like the B-17. Ultimately it was long range escort fighters like the P-51 that brought down the loss rate to an acceptable rate so that long range raids could continue. Post-WWII bomber design evidently came to the conclusion that, except in some cases a tail turret, all these guns weren't worth the weight and drag, and got rid of them. And then missiles came on the scene, further reducing the usefulness of defensive guns. > My only guess is that dogfights don't actually happen much anymore. Modern short range AA missiles have 'off boresight' capability, meaning that the pilot has a HUD mounted in the helmet, he doesn't need to point the nose towards the target to shoot. And yes, longer range AA missiles are apparently nowadays expected to be amazingly effective to the point that actual short range dogfights would be very rare.