[HN Gopher] Cobra Maneuver
___________________________________________________________________
Cobra Maneuver
Author : Hooke
Score : 164 points
Date : 2022-10-02 15:51 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org)
| WalterBright wrote:
| John Boyd wrote a paper about air combat, "Aerial Attack Study".
| Boyd was never defeated in air-air training combat.
|
| http://www.ausairpower.net/JRB/boydaerialattack.pdf
|
| There's also the classic Dicta Boelcke:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicta_Boelcke
| zoomablemind wrote:
| This maneuver requires high thrust while 'slowing down'. Not sure
| if that's a reasonable energy trade off. Would you go into a
| dogfight with external tanks still on?
|
| Sure the pursuitor jet won't (rather should't) be in such close
| proximity position, unless intending to shoot the enemy with his
| handgun. Thus with reasonable separation, this at best may force
| a break of the lock, but at the same time slowing down and with
| extra fuel loss.
|
| It is fun to watch at shows, though these days these wows are
| awarded to the vectored thrust tricks.
| Keyframe wrote:
| It was in 80's kids vocabulary when discussing fighter jets and
| which one is better - 'yeah, but can it do Cobra?!'
| nextstep wrote:
| It's incredible how deeply war culture propaganda permeates
| American society
| andrewflnr wrote:
| Young boys don't need propaganda to be fascinated by war.
| Show me a culture where boys don't have sword fights with
| sticks.
| juunpp wrote:
| Need to sell more bullets.
| trevorishere wrote:
| War itself is terrible.
|
| The machinery, ingenuity, and eventual incorporation of some
| of that technology into civilian life is important and
| possibly the only way to get funding for new technologies by
| the (US) government.
|
| The NRO offered two spy satellites (I believe rumored to be
| Keyhole family satellites) to NASA back in 2011/2012 --
| neither have launched yet, but they have the same sized
| mirror as the Hubble, but with a better focal length giving
| the satellites a 100 times wider field of view. The now-named
| Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope is scheduled to launch by
| Nov 2026 on a Falcon Heavy.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_O.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace_Roman_Space_Telesc.
| ..
|
| The NRO also donated Keyhole satellite mirrors to create the
| Multiple Mirror Telescope.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMT_Observatory#Multiple_Mirro.
| ..
|
| NASA was the last to fly the SR-71 as a research platform.
|
| Unfortunately, the military is often what pushes technology
| forward.
| chasd00 wrote:
| "I'm gonna hit the breaks and he'll fly right by!" - Top Gun
| js2 wrote:
| > Super stall plagued the early years of Saab 35 service, causing
| several deaths, which led the Swedish air staff to implement
| extra training on how to counteract and recover from them. The
| result was the cobra maneuver.
|
| Necessity, the mother of invention.
| canjobear wrote:
| Although in this case there's no evidence that it was a useful
| invention.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| It's not useful for combat. It is useful for training.
| zokier wrote:
| I guess it was useful for the purpose it was invented for;
| training, and for Russians showing off in airshows.
| vruiz wrote:
| Shoutout to all the Spaniards who thought "hacer la Cobra" [0]
| had gone international.
|
| [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sJYDSR3ijw
| stavros wrote:
| I was hoping it'd be Pagafantas.
| akkartik wrote:
| Is this the maneuver John Boyd used to use?
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p55LY30AIoc
| egillie wrote:
| Flat plating the bird! Who did it first?
| somerandomqaguy wrote:
| I don't think so. The way I'm reading it, both fighters should
| be in a turn fight with the opponent closely following Boyd's
| rear at high speed.
|
| In the case of a flat plane, you're dumping airspeed but you
| don't stall the aircraft. This guy explains it way better then
| I can, describing the maneuver as a Rudder Reversal:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ab6Ek1UCcM. Skip to 2:07 to
| see him demonstrate it with model airplanes.
|
| The Cobra you do enter into a stall (the airflow departs the
| top surface of the wings) and are instead relying on other some
| other aspect of the plane to control the aircraft and get the
| plane back into the fight.
|
| Note that this is just what I know from superficial memory, I
| never studied it in depth.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| I see it is time to get horny for war machines on "hacker" news
| again.
| wly_cdgr wrote:
| Terrific for movies, largely irrelevant for real life I'd expect
| SergeAx wrote:
| This article definitely lacks an "In Popular Culture" section.
| shapefrog wrote:
| I'm gonna hit the brakes, he'll fly right by
| gizmo385 wrote:
| "You're gonna do WHAT" - Merlin
| william-at-rain wrote:
| "Go up, blow up" is the common phrase in this kind of aerial
| combat. You highlight your heat signature against... space.
|
| Even without heaters, I can be extremely aggressive on a guns
| attempt because an overshoot in the vertical isn't nearly as
| risky - few aircraft can capitalize on an overshoot uphill.
| Almost all defenders in that situation (if they live through the
| attack) will be forced downhill anyway.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| Also a maneuver that takes so much energy and trades it for
| heat/turbulence better also be getting a kill out of that trade
| immediately, and that kill had better the be the last guy left
| trying to kill you. There are vanishingly few situations where
| a cobra won't leave you reeeally wishing you still had the
| energy you just spent.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| Somewhat related: during the Falklands war it was common
| technique for Harriers to use their thrust vectoring nozzles to
| slow down quickly with a similar outcome.
| zokier wrote:
| Apparently yet another aviation myth according to Wikipedia:
|
| > Braking could cause a chasing aircraft to overshoot and
| present itself as a target for the Harrier, a technique
| formally developed by the USMC for the Harrier in the early
| 1970s.[33][34] This technique was much discussed in the media
| before the Falklands War in 1982, but ultimately not used by
| British pilots in that conflict.[35]
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet#Operation
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| Ha, fair enough. It was written in a book I had as a child
| and I've just always accepted it as fact.
| gmiller123456 wrote:
| 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.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
|
| 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.
| trevorishere wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| trevorishere wrote:
| 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
|
| 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
|
| 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.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| 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.
| ozim wrote:
| 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.
| keithalewis wrote:
| polio wrote:
| There's nothing to be gained from racial slurs, but being
| proficient at war is very useful. One should just hope it's
| waged judiciously.
| keithalewis wrote:
| funstuff007 wrote:
| Didn't Maverick pull this off in Top Gun?
| capableweb wrote:
| Also a common maneuver in Ace Combat, speaking about fictional
| uses.
| bazillion wrote:
| In Top Gun 2, he uses it twice. Once, during the training
| dogfight where Rooster has a chance to shoot him down (he says,
| "Too late, you had your chance" and then pulls off the
| maneuver, targeting Rooster instead afterwards). After the
| training dogfight, he is told by Cyclone, "...and I don't ever
| want to see that Cobra shit again. That could have gotten you
| both killed".
|
| The second time was towards the end when they're fending off
| the SAM attacks -- Rooster is in trouble with no flares to
| launch, and Maverick simultaneously pulls off a Cobra Maneuver
| while launching his own set of flairs, resulting in his own
| aircraft being hit.
| trevorishere wrote:
| > flares
|
| Which do nothing for radar-guided SAMs... but pumping out
| chaff wouldn't be very visually impressive (if you could see
| it at all).
|
| And of course, the strike package would have been accompanied
| by the EA-18G Growler to jam SAM radar.
| bentcorner wrote:
| Top Gun 2 is really a fantastic movie but for anybody
| skipping the film here's the clips:
|
| First time: https://youtu.be/zlWmeo-4ulw?t=72
|
| Second time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nwBwJiyQ_g
|
| Tom Cruise is kind of a weirdo but his films are incredibly
| entertaining.
| breck wrote:
| I wasn't there, but IIRC it was a 5th gen fighter against
| Maverick and Rooster in an F-14 that pulled this off.
| Unfortunately for the 5th gen pilot it later came down to the
| pilot, not the plane, and he became splash 2.
| jmvoodoo wrote:
| I think that was actually something called the Kvochur bell,
| not the cobra.
| ozim wrote:
| Yeah so you know it is just as believable maneuver as crane
| kick from Karate Kid :)
| favflam wrote:
| He did a manual wing sweep on the Tomcat to pull up and force
| an overshoot of the Sukhoi. Growling Sidewinder on youtube says
| that is a Cobra.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| So. He does the "deceleration by using the F-14 variable wing
| sweep" twice - once in Top Gun and once in Top Gun: Maverick.
| He also does an actual "high angle of attack" cobra on an F-18
| in TG: M.
| acidburnNSA wrote:
| In Top Gun 1 he did something like it twice in an F-14 against
| the MiGs: "I'm gonna hit the brakes, he'll fly right by". Once
| in the first dogfight and then again in the last one.
| hatsunearu wrote:
| Unfortunately the circumstances where this is useful is very
| limited.
|
| You'd have to be in very close range and in a very bad
| disadvantage, which honestly doesn't last long (you'd blow up
| very fast) and when you start decelerating you become a very easy
| target to hit.
|
| And after your opponent overshoots--you just lost a ton of energy
| --and energy is everything in aerial combat. Energy is the
| currency you spend to maneuver, and you've just spent it on this
| hail mary.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "And after your opponent overshoots--you just lost a ton of
| energy--and energy is everything in aerial combat. "
|
| The idea is, to be able to make the kill, after you are now
| behind. Then it does not matter, if you are too slow.
|
| But wikipedia indeed says, this manoever has never been
| confirmed in real air combat, so yes, its usefullness is quite
| limited.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| > The idea is, to be able to make the kill, after you are now
| behind. Then it does not matter, if you are too slow.
|
| Air combat is rarely 1vs1 so being slow means you get killed
| by someone else.
| MikeBVaughn wrote:
| Based on what I've read from people vastly more informed
| than me, this absolutely 100% seems to be the case.
|
| Even beyond that, the general impression I get w.r.t stuff
| like supermaneuverability is that it's a much better use of
| money to ensure that most fights never even make it to the
| point where the stuff like the cobra seems like a good
| idea. Given the choice between 1) "marginally improving
| survivability in comparatively low-energy corner-case
| states" and 2) "increasing the odds that the fight never
| makes it to the merge," #2 seems like a much better choice
| in terms of money spent and pilots kept alive. (Though a
| counterpoint, I guess, based my my casual understanding,
| would be that making the judgment too heavily in favor of
| #2 was part of what hampered the USAF and Navy's air-to-air
| combat capabilities in Vietnam)
| twawaaay wrote:
| The problem is, you are now not only behind but also much
| slower than your opponent. And as parent poster mentioned,
| energy is everything.
|
| I would also point out both aircraft are in straight and
| level flight, basically in formation, with the pilot composed
| and prepared. This is not how a dogfight looks like.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Dumb question - why can't planes shoot in reverse? It seems
| like this would be useful for these situations.
|
| I get that it would be hard to aim - but can't computers do
| that?
| cm2187 wrote:
| I would imagine you need to install a second cannon. I
| think these days dogfights are fairly unlikely, jet
| fighters are more likely to shoot each others beyond the
| horizon with the advantage to the side with the missiles
| with the longest range. A second cannon is a lot of weight
| for a very remote use case.
| jleahy wrote:
| Energy. If you fire a missile to your rear then it needs to
| first accelerate to your original speed just to be staying
| still, only then can it accelerate towards the target.
|
| An AIM-9X can do this, but the kill probability drops
| rapidly as you move off boresight.
| leeoniya wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| In a vacuum. The aerodynamics aren't possibly the same.
| Karellen wrote:
| 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.
| bornfreddy wrote:
| What about guns? Relative speed against the enemy is the
| same no matter if you shoot forward or backward. Or am I
| missing something?
| avereveard wrote:
| You need a backward facing radar for modern fire control
| targeting calculating a solution. These are heavy and
| large and will interfere with engine placement.
| Maursault wrote:
| Bullets don't move at the speed of light.[1] Shoot a
| bullet backwards off a bullet train, that bullet's ground
| speed is less than if shot from the ground while
| stationary. Similarly, shoot a bullet forward off a
| bullet train, that bullet's ground speed is more than if
| shot from the ground from a stationary position. Shoot
| bullets backwards off a jet moving Mach 3 (just sayin')
| those 1700mph bullets will still be moving in the forward
| direction of the jet at 600mph relative to the ground.
|
| [1] They should use rear-facing _lasers!_
| jasamer wrote:
| But the bullet will still hit the plane following you at
| roughly 1700mph (you could say, the plane will crash into
| the bullet at that speed, but it's the same result),
| because it's also moving at Mach 3.
| leereeves wrote:
| That's true in the ground's frame of reference.
|
| But in the plane's frame, where both planes are roughly
| stationary and the wind is moving 100s of mph _backwards_
| , bullets fired backwards move faster.
|
| And for aerial combat I would argue the plane's frame is
| the important one.
| ozim wrote:
| But the guy that is pursuing you will still be going
| after you in around Mach 3 so he will go through your
| bullets like they would be traveling his direction at
| 600mph.
| jawarner wrote:
| Yeah but your enemy is also moving forward because
| they're trailing you.
| malloci wrote:
| This really only applies if shooting at a target behind
| you that is either stationary or moving much slower than
| you.
|
| If the target is moving at (or nearly at) the same speed
| as you then those velocities effectively cancel out
| tengwar2 wrote:
| This was addressed by the Pye Wacket missile
| (http://astronautix.com/p/pyewacket.html) which was to be
| developed for the B-70 bomber. It was to be a 500lb
| circular (lenticular) missile which could be launched
| with its thrust vector pointing in any direction relative
| to the direction of flight.
| rafale wrote:
| In theory it's possible to build such system. But dogfights
| are gonna be extremely rare in the future. The US Air Force
| believes more in stealth and beyond visual range (BVR)
| engagements. And so far, given the lead they have in those
| areas, they are unmatched in the skies.
| bolasanibk wrote:
| Some have: B-29 tail turret https://media.defense.gov/2010/
| Jun/14/2000352211/-1/-1/0/100...
|
| I am guessing mostly space and weight are at a premium in
| an airplane.
| trevorishere wrote:
| B-52 was the last USAF bomber to have a rear-ward facing
| guns. During the Gulf War, one of two theories that a
| rear-ward facing gunner turned on his defensive fire
| control system and was hit by friendly fire after an F4
| released anti-radiation (HARM) missile in the blind. The
| AGM-88 locked on to the DFCS and blew off the rear
| section of the BUFF -- which was then nicknamed "In
| HARM's Way".
|
| https://theaviationgeekclub.com/exclusive-former-buff-
| gunner...
| usrusr wrote:
| The correct tense is had. In the age of air to air
| missiles, a chasing plane would never bother getting into
| range. (but that does make me wonder if anti missile
| point defense might ever come to flying carriers. A part
| of me wants to joke that those would likely make the B-52
| reach its bicentennial)
| TylerE wrote:
| Fighter guns are fixed. You aim by pointing the whole
| airframe.
| ninkendo wrote:
| I think the operative question is, _why_ must the guns be
| fixed? Wouldn't it be useful for guns to be on turrets
| that can aim in other directions?
|
| We do it with helicopters (complete with automated
| aiming), and we used do it with bombers in WW2, after
| all.
|
| I'm sure the answer has to do with aerodynamics, and the
| general rarity of close-range dogfighting in the first
| place, that make such a design impractical.
| giantrobot wrote:
| > I'm sure the answer has to do with aerodynamics
|
| It's both aerodynamics and mass. The main guns on most
| western fighters is the M61 Vulcan which is a 20mm rotary
| gun. The F-35 mounts a 25mm GAU-12 rotary gun. These are
| both pretty big guns and are typically mounted internally
| on the jet. Trying to fit one in a turret would not be
| practical, it would have tons of drag. In order to be
| able to rotate and elevate the gun it would need a lot of
| heavy duty motors to be able to actuate at fighter jet
| speeds.
|
| Even if such a thing nominally worked, that space and
| mass could go to missiles. Missiles are far more likely
| to be used than some gun turret. A bore sight mounted
| canon is far more useful since the pilot is already going
| to be pointing the whole plane.
| lumost wrote:
| In dcs, when a player cobras successfully it typically just
| results in them missing the next turn and getting shot.
|
| The delta v between the attacker, and the cobra's aircraft is
| typically doesn't allow enough time to get a missile off or
| guns. bin mind that dog fights happen in a one or two circle
| high g turn as each fighter attempts to out turn the other,
| cobra maneuvers require that the (losing fighter) exit the
| circle.
| nine_k wrote:
| I always thought that the cobra is about making a radar lose
| the lock on you, because you suddenly stopped moving. Might be
| useful if you detect a radar pulse.
|
| Losing your speed _and_ showing your belly / back to the
| enemy, when you cannot shoot, never looked like a reasonable
| thing to do.
| greedo wrote:
| You can use the Cobra to break a radar lock since most modern
| radars look for Doppler shift. But eventually the radar would
| pick you up again.
| kortex wrote:
| Interesting. I don't work in defense / aero, but that seems
| plausible. Stealth aircraft are optimized to reduce cross
| section from certain perspectives. Front, bottom, and oblique
| are pretty good, iirc, while rear and side are harder to
| optimize. Not sure about top. I would think it would reflect
| most energy away from tracking radar unless an active seeker
| was coming in from higher altitude (in which case you are
| already toast).
|
| Combined with some sort of chaff/decoy release, I could see
| this causing the seeker's kalman filter or whatnot choosing
| to go after the return which stayed on the same trajectory
| with the same signature.
|
| Without a decoy, or with smart enough seekers (eg combined mm
| wave with IR), I think you are probably still going to be
| hit.
| giantrobot wrote:
| Not only do you lose speed but the attacker just needs to
| rake across your now giant profile with guns. They might also
| pop off a heat seeking missile which sees you as a giant hot
| spot against the cold sky.
| LWIRVoltage wrote:
| As others have pointed out, the idea is to possible get your
| opponent ot overshoot-
|
| But I don't understand why it's not deadlier today- given some
| things
|
| -Your Su 35, 37(there aren't many)- Felon, and Raptor have thrust
| vectoring - without doing post stall tricks, they can nose point
| extremely WELL
|
| -Next- The Flanker series does a trick- this applies to the old
| Su 27 without thrust vectoring that can Cobra- where to do any of
| this they disable a AOA limiter that lets them pull AOA up the
| wazoo- being able to instantly rotate your aircraft and nose
| point anywhere- means your opponent, near 100% of the time, can
| be looked at then shot at- with guns, or ....
|
| #3. high off boresight missiles. Your Aim 9X, or even better
| yet...if what i've heard is true, the IRIS T missile, to an
| extreme degree- i'm talking turning 60 degrees or more to chase
| and kill a target- which would start to look as nutty as the SAMS
| from Behind Enemy Lines, the missile will keep turning to chase
| you
|
| -One circle or two circle- if one circle, you just pull up, line
| up and shoot- and your HOBS missile can be cued and shot at the
| opponent regardless. Now yes, they might be starting to close
| hard on you- but that's just a matter of how good the missile is
| with high kinetic energy changes and leading and reacting.
|
| Two Circle- you're in a rate fight on the deck, just disable your
| AOA limiter, turn tighter until you're looking at him, and let
| your Fox 2's (IR missiles fly- they shoudl ,especially if HOBS
| missiles, just chase and get him. Or you could go for guns,
| but....you have to line up on them, and that's where the 3D
| thrust vectoring, or Maaaaybe rudder, help sometimes. And a gun
| system that can put a lead piper on a target who might not be
| that close-
|
| But, slow shouldn't matter as much when you can be shooting at
| the opponent 100% of the time. As for sinking or recovery- Thrust
| weight ratio high enough? You won't sink. Recovery? If it's
| thrust vectoring, you just cna keep twisting at will- so you can
| just keep shooting at your opponent, or if they fly past you,
| immediately rotate FAST- then shoot at them, and yoru missile
| being a HOBS missile can be off at them before you finish
| rotating your plane, even quicker.
|
| The counter some might think to this, would be- missiles aren't
| all that good yet, - But i think the Cobra was the first half of
| lopsided dogfighting. The 2nd half, is High off boresight
| missiles.
|
| -Admittedly, in a Raptor(I've heard they can change their flight
| control system ,not sure if they can flat out disable AOA though
| like the Flanker and Felon Family)you have enough nose pointing
| ability and a mean enough turn rate that you are almost always
| looking at your opponent anyway- But it still helps to have that
| ability no matter what
|
| I'll admit, i've also heard that in at least the early flankers-
| not sure on the rest- Disabling the AOA limiter would disable the
| G limiter , which would be risky if you were too fast- and could
| risk G -LOC. I have to think more modern planes with the ability
| to uncap AOA and let you rotate freely at will- might keep the G
| limiter perhaps- if it doesn't restrict you when you're pulling
| AOA and just rotating your plane backflipping while still heading
| in the original direction.
|
| Close range shouldn't be needed given every weapon should be able
| to be used from this state regardless of what you're doing,
| unless we're talking strictly guns, since guns aren't guided onto
| targets using targeting systems on planes.
| curiousgal wrote:
| This actually raises a question, have jets ever been in air
| combat? Like jet vs jet, not jet vs ground units.
| SonicScrub wrote:
| Yes. Quite a lot. A small number at the end of the second world
| war. Regular use of machine-gun armed jets during the Korean
| War. The Vietnam war saw jet fighters armed primarily with
| missiles engaging each other (195 kills claimed by the US).
| Various conflicts in the middle east including the The Six Day
| War, the Yom Kippur War, the Iran-Iraq war (around 100 kills
| claimed by Iran) and The Gulf War (44 claimed kills by the US).
| And many more conflicts as well. The most recent US air to air
| kill was in 2017. An F-18 shot down a Syrian SU-22. Russia also
| claims some air to air kills in Ukraine. Jets have gone toe to
| toe with each other since the moment they were first introduced
| continuously until the present day. The total number of air
| engagements is somewhere on the order of magnitude of 1,000,
| and a fair bit less if you are only considering fighter
| aircraft
| otikik wrote:
| In Spain, that's when someone tries to kiss someone in the mouth
| and the other person reacts by moving their head back real quick
| in order to avoid it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-02 23:00 UTC)