Tomcat Fanatic Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 (edited) Do US air to air missiles have a self destruct mechanism on them that goes off when the target is lost or when the fuel runs out? I could have sworn there was one to frag an escaping enemy which has broken lock and to prevent enemy forces from getting their grubby mitts on it, and to keep unexploded rounds from harming civilians. Edited September 21, 2007 by Tomcat Fanatic Link to post Share on other sites
chopperpilot71 Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 My brother in law is an F-15 pilot in the Mass Air Guard and I asked him a similar question, he said no, the missle just goes till it runs outa 'gas' then goes into the water for the fish to play with or wads itself up into the dirt. Link to post Share on other sites
Tomcat Fanatic Posted September 21, 2007 Author Share Posted September 21, 2007 Interesting. I would have thought it a prudent safety measure. However I would like to hear the opinion of Waco or one of our other fighter pilots. Link to post Share on other sites
Zmey Smirnoff Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I'd be surprised if A2A missiles dont have safety self-destruct. Even RPG-7 round has it. Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 That might be the kind of topic that they can't discuss in a forum like this one ... Gregg Link to post Share on other sites
Tomcat Fanatic Posted September 21, 2007 Author Share Posted September 21, 2007 Why might it be classified? Link to post Share on other sites
Waco Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Why might it be classified? :) Link to post Share on other sites
BAM'n'IVM Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Interesting. I would have thought it a prudent safety measure. However I would like to hear the opinion of Waco or one of our other fighter pilots. I'd look at it as something that could potentially malfunction, causing the self-destruct to detonate when that's not wanted...why make a complex weapon one step more complex? One more potential point of failure. Just my layman's two cents. Link to post Share on other sites
Zmey Smirnoff Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I'd look at it as something that could potentially malfunction, causing the self-destruct to detonate when that's not wanted...why make a complex weapon one step more complex? One more potential point of failure.Just my layman's two cents. Sure - but imagine the possibility for collateral damage? Esp if the missile is used over friendly territory. Or the undesirable technology "transfer" when your "best of the best bestest best with honors" just flaps in the bad guys' lap. But I guess we'll never know for sure. Not here anyways. Z. Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Sure - but imagine the possibility for collateral damage? Esp if the missile is used over friendly territory. Or the undesirable technology "transfer" when your "best of the best bestest best with honors" just flaps in the bad guys' lap.But I guess we'll never know for sure. Not here anyways. Z. :lol: Good one Zmey ! :) Gregg Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 "I'm sorry, but I cant do that Dave". Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 As for falling into enemy hands, a missile that has fallen to earth may not be much good. First, it'll break up and be be crushed upon impact if it doesn't bury itself in the dirt, rendering most of the technology into scrap. Secondly, it has to be found: unless it falls onto a rooftop, a farmer's field or a street, it'll most likely be lost for a few years until someone stumbles across some rusty debris. And unlike bombs or A2G missiles, A2A missiles have small warheads (all they have to do is destroy the engine, cause significant structural damage or ignite the target aircraft's fuel), so the risk of collateral damage upon impact is less than that of a wayward Paveway. Given that most engagements would be unlikely to occur over heavily populated areas (since the whole point of an air defense fleet is to keep enemy aircraft away from such areas)-while not impossible-the odds of an A2A missile coming down in a heavily populated area are pretty low. As for the technology falling into "enemy" hands - we've seen on both sides where aircraft and missiles have been captured that didn't require them to crash first, so there are better ways for a nation-state to obtain information about foreign technology. Link to post Share on other sites
Rodney Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Also, some of your basic premises for the question are not usable. A rocket motor burns out fairly quickly in comparision to the total flight time. Then, a RF missile can have drop outs on its way to the target but re-aquire. So, you don't want to use either criteria for determining self destruct. Also, Trigger points out some good points. I think that is about as far into this as we can go. HTH, Rodney Link to post Share on other sites
ChernayaAkula Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I'd be surprised if A2A missiles dont have safety self-destruct. Even RPG-7 round has it. All kinds of RPG-7 rounds? I believe the early rounds didn't. Link to post Share on other sites
Zmey Smirnoff Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 (edited) Well, without diving deep into ancient history - normal garden variety PG-7V like this one self-destructs after (iirc) 200-250 meters of flight. Newer rounds have that feature too, though the distance may depend on the type of warhead. Granted, if for some reason the round doesn't stay in the air for that long - the system may not work. Edited September 21, 2007 by Zmey Smirnoff Link to post Share on other sites
Sunliner Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I'm not an expert in the field, but don't A2A missles have some sort of proximity deal (big technical term) that causes them to detonate near the target even if the missle doesn't contact it directly? Seems like the AIM-9 does anyway. If so, seems like the proximity sensor or whatever would detonate the missle when it comes near the ground/water whatever. Just speculation of course.. -Mike Link to post Share on other sites
Tomcat Fanatic Posted September 21, 2007 Author Share Posted September 21, 2007 Waco, any contribution you can legally make towards answering my original question would be appreciated. Don't get yourself in trouble, of course, but I was sort of hoping for more than just a smiley post. Link to post Share on other sites
Waco Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 (edited) Waco, any contribution you can legally make towards answering my original question would be appreciated. Okay: Edited September 22, 2007 by Waco Link to post Share on other sites
Rodney Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 I'm not an expert in the field, but don't A2A missles have some sort of proximity deal (big technical term) that causes them to detonate near the target even if the missle doesn't contact it directly? Seems like the AIM-9 does anyway.If so, seems like the proximity sensor or whatever would detonate the missle when it comes near the ground/water whatever. Just speculation of course.. -Mike Yes, most have a proximity fuze/sensor. In fact, some A2A are designed to NOT hit the target but detonate the warhead near the target. Link to post Share on other sites
Fishwelding Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 The guy to ask, frequently here on the forums, is google.com bot. Google.com bot joined the Air Force to get the job as a NORAD computer operating system, but due to low ASVAB scores ended up as an early generation AIM-7 guidance system. After four years (and thankfully no "deployment") google.com bot got out of the Air Force. Google.com bot's AF buddies said "going civilian" was a bad idea, and for a while, the best jobs it landed was a bad guy driver in the Nintendo Entertainment System's Spy Hunter, and an ATM machine in Toledo, Ohio. But arguably google.com bot got the last laugh, getting into the new startup "Google.com" in the 1990s, at the very beginning. Now google.com bot is worth a fortune, and really only keeps the job because it gets paid to hang around on ARC. Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 The guy to ask, frequently here on the forums, is google.com bot. Google.com bot joined the Air Force to get the job as a NORAD computer operating system, but due to low ASVAB scores ended up as an early generation AIM-7 guidance system. After four years (and thankfully no "deployment") google.com bot got out of the Air Force. Google.com bot's AF buddies said "going civilian" was a bad idea, and for a while, the best jobs it landed was a bad guy driver in the Nintendo Entertainment System's Spy Hunter, and an ATM machine in Toledo, Ohio. But arguably google.com bot got the last laugh, getting into the new startup "Google.com" in the 1990s, at the very beginning. Now google.com bot is worth a fortune, and really only keeps the job because it gets paid to hang around on ARC. Oh. My. God. Do you moonlight for the Daily Show? As a writer for Robot Chicken? Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 "Fox One" And that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes this Prowler bubba's personal experience in the world of air to air missiles. Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 Fish also use to write for SNL ... ya know, back when it was good ... Gregg Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 Fish also use to write for SNL ... ya know, back when it was good ... Gregg In that case, Fish, can I have Tina Fey's number? Grrrrrrrrr. Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 In that case, Fish, can I have Tina Fey's number? Grrrrrrrrr. Yes, Smart and Funny Ladies are Sexy ! Gregg Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts