Cobra Maneuver(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
Cobra Maneuver
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_maneuver
159 comments
> Unfortunately the circumstances where this is useful is very limited.
Even worse: Advancing missile technology has mostly invalidated the need for aircraft in a major war since a long while, and drones will literally sweep what's left of it.
The Iranian drones' amazing performance in Ukraine shows that warfare has changed forever. The drones can travel 1700 km autonomously, very hard to jam, and they are cheaper than the missiles that are used to shoot them. So that at this point you could bankrupt an enemy by just sending drones. If they can destroy them, they go bankrupt due to missile costs. If they cant or dont, you hit all the targets.
The only way to deal with this will be miniaturization of warfare, ie creation of mini drones and mini missiles to hunt drones. Which is still difficult to do and yet to be done because miniaturization is difficult.
Aircraft are old news. If you can destroy a target by sending an autonomous drone that travels 1700km, which costs less than a fraction of one sortie of an aircraft, leave aside the cost of aircraft, its armament and pilot training, it means that drones rule warfare now.
Even worse: Advancing missile technology has mostly invalidated the need for aircraft in a major war since a long while, and drones will literally sweep what's left of it.
The Iranian drones' amazing performance in Ukraine shows that warfare has changed forever. The drones can travel 1700 km autonomously, very hard to jam, and they are cheaper than the missiles that are used to shoot them. So that at this point you could bankrupt an enemy by just sending drones. If they can destroy them, they go bankrupt due to missile costs. If they cant or dont, you hit all the targets.
The only way to deal with this will be miniaturization of warfare, ie creation of mini drones and mini missiles to hunt drones. Which is still difficult to do and yet to be done because miniaturization is difficult.
Aircraft are old news. If you can destroy a target by sending an autonomous drone that travels 1700km, which costs less than a fraction of one sortie of an aircraft, leave aside the cost of aircraft, its armament and pilot training, it means that drones rule warfare now.
Yeah, aircraft are as obsolete as tanks, the Ukrainian War showed us as much. And all major powers are only developing new generation fighters, bombers and tanks to keep the military-industrial complex busy. Or not.
A Javelin can take out a tank, but not replace it. A drone, or cruise missile, can take a ground target, a missile can take out aircraft, but they cannot replace their roles.
The reason tanks get destroyed left and right in Ukraine is a combination of bad docteine / tactics and deployment, the use of quasi obsolete models and the large scale use of last gen anti-tank weapons. The reason nobody has airial superiority is somewhat similar, near equal tech, decent air defence and comparable numbers.
As far as dogfights are concerned, they were declared dead prior to Vietnam. To the point fighter jets didn't get cannons anymore. Vietnam caused the creation of Top Gun, when the Navy realized their pilots were not up to par in airial combat. Stealth, and I am not a real proponent of that and still have to see the advantage it gives you, means one of the following scenarios will happen (assuming near peer adversaries):
- Gen 5 vs. Gen 4 (stealth vs. non-stealth, or rather low detectability): Gen 5 sees Gen 4 first, shoots multiple missiles, Gen 4 takes losses before they can counter attack -> Gen 4 retreats / is out of the fight (no dogfight) or Gen 4 is cought, numerically superior, closes in with Gen 5 and you have a dogfight
- Gen 4 vs. Gen 4: Everyone detects everyone at a large distance, missiles are fired, some losses occure (everyone can react so becasue they are not surprised), parties close in, you have a dog fight (assuming no onr retreats first)
- Gen 5 vs. Gen 5: Parties detect each other very late and close, you almost have a dogfight from the get go
So no, fighters aren't going away nor are dogfights.
A Javelin can take out a tank, but not replace it. A drone, or cruise missile, can take a ground target, a missile can take out aircraft, but they cannot replace their roles.
The reason tanks get destroyed left and right in Ukraine is a combination of bad docteine / tactics and deployment, the use of quasi obsolete models and the large scale use of last gen anti-tank weapons. The reason nobody has airial superiority is somewhat similar, near equal tech, decent air defence and comparable numbers.
As far as dogfights are concerned, they were declared dead prior to Vietnam. To the point fighter jets didn't get cannons anymore. Vietnam caused the creation of Top Gun, when the Navy realized their pilots were not up to par in airial combat. Stealth, and I am not a real proponent of that and still have to see the advantage it gives you, means one of the following scenarios will happen (assuming near peer adversaries):
- Gen 5 vs. Gen 4 (stealth vs. non-stealth, or rather low detectability): Gen 5 sees Gen 4 first, shoots multiple missiles, Gen 4 takes losses before they can counter attack -> Gen 4 retreats / is out of the fight (no dogfight) or Gen 4 is cought, numerically superior, closes in with Gen 5 and you have a dogfight
- Gen 4 vs. Gen 4: Everyone detects everyone at a large distance, missiles are fired, some losses occure (everyone can react so becasue they are not surprised), parties close in, you have a dog fight (assuming no onr retreats first)
- Gen 5 vs. Gen 5: Parties detect each other very late and close, you almost have a dogfight from the get go
So no, fighters aren't going away nor are dogfights.
> Yeah, aircraft are as obsolete as tanks, the Ukrainian War showed us as much
I wouldnt go THAT far yet because there are still some uses for the aircraft. Especially very long range missions are economical by using aircraft. Ie, 2000 km and more ranges. Including interception and air defense. There are missiles that can travel such distances, but they are expensive still.
However true, very soon that kind of range will also be covered by drones, making aircraft totall obsolete.
> As far as dogfights are concerned, they were declared dead prior to Vietnam. To the point fighter jets didn't get cannons anymore. Vietnam caused the creation of Top Gun, when the Navy realized their pilots were not up to par in airial combat.
That was a time in which the missiles were still in their infancy. Hence the miss rate and the need to dogfight. Today its not like that.
> one of the following scenarios will happen
I propose that none of those scenarios will happen. Existing air defense systems now can reach distances up to 500 km and shoot down literally, actually anything. (S-500 and above). Suicide drones can travel 1700 km. Strike drones even more.
There is no need to have any aircraft take off and do mission at a long distance, in which they would get promptly shot down by advanced air defense systems. Just spam drones.
I wouldnt go THAT far yet because there are still some uses for the aircraft. Especially very long range missions are economical by using aircraft. Ie, 2000 km and more ranges. Including interception and air defense. There are missiles that can travel such distances, but they are expensive still.
However true, very soon that kind of range will also be covered by drones, making aircraft totall obsolete.
> As far as dogfights are concerned, they were declared dead prior to Vietnam. To the point fighter jets didn't get cannons anymore. Vietnam caused the creation of Top Gun, when the Navy realized their pilots were not up to par in airial combat.
That was a time in which the missiles were still in their infancy. Hence the miss rate and the need to dogfight. Today its not like that.
> one of the following scenarios will happen
I propose that none of those scenarios will happen. Existing air defense systems now can reach distances up to 500 km and shoot down literally, actually anything. (S-500 and above). Suicide drones can travel 1700 km. Strike drones even more.
There is no need to have any aircraft take off and do mission at a long distance, in which they would get promptly shot down by advanced air defense systems. Just spam drones.
I think there are very valid reason every Gen 5 fighter has a cannon. I also think neither manned fighters nor tanks are going anywhere soon. The war in Ukraine just painted a fastly wrong picture, for valid reasons for sure, but still wrong concerning modern weapon systems.
As long as someone needs something on the ground been blown up from up close, or protect infantry from being blown up frok up close, tanks are your weapon of choice. You want something on the ground blown up from a distance comparatively cheap? Artillery, idealy self propelled for mobility, is your friend. You want to blow up stuff on the ground far away, and fast, you go for fighter aircraft. Or if you don't want to your enemy to do just that, as those are fast, can cover a lot of groind and controlled locally, so no jaming of any kind. If you want to do the same thing from really far away, use a cruise missile. Or in contested airspace where your piloted aircraft are too valuable? Use a drone, same for long endurance surveillance of uncontested airspace.
As long as someone needs something on the ground been blown up from up close, or protect infantry from being blown up frok up close, tanks are your weapon of choice. You want something on the ground blown up from a distance comparatively cheap? Artillery, idealy self propelled for mobility, is your friend. You want to blow up stuff on the ground far away, and fast, you go for fighter aircraft. Or if you don't want to your enemy to do just that, as those are fast, can cover a lot of groind and controlled locally, so no jaming of any kind. If you want to do the same thing from really far away, use a cruise missile. Or in contested airspace where your piloted aircraft are too valuable? Use a drone, same for long endurance surveillance of uncontested airspace.
To some extent, the reason why tanks get destroyed left and right in Ukraine is because that's not actually unexpected in a peer-to-peer conflict. It's just that it's been so long since the Cold War, we kinda forgot what anticipated losses in a war like that look like.
Same goes for aircraft.
Same goes for aircraft.
> The Iranian drones' amazing performance in Ukraine shows that warfare has changed forever.
Do you have more information on that?
Do you have more information on that?
Not in easily accessible Western media, obviously. You have to follow Indian, Chinese or other unaligned sources. Indian outlets would be the easiest. However the best and most striking is to follow the Russian/Slavic channels in Telegram. The footage there is incredible (not gore). They post what Ukrainians post online - drones in flight just before hitting their target. Drones passing over. Multiple drones flying in and hitting their targets despite immense air defense fire. One drone even hit a weapons depot and the resulting fire from the explosion lasted for a day.
This is interesting news about the iranian drones I haven't read anywhere. Indian and Chinese media is widely available on the web, surprising this hasn't come up. Can you provide a link to some stories? My own web search found this in Politico. So I don't think it's a secret kept from western media. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/26/iranian-drones-ukra...
You can google 'Intel Slava Z' telegram channel and join it to access such stuff. Its one of the larger slavic intelligence channels. There are others too.
Such stuff wouldnt be in mass media ever because first, it reduces the competition chances of US armament makers, and second, its something that Iran did, who is obviously evil according to such corporate Angloamerican media like the Politico.
I have to add, following anything from such mainstream corporate Anglosaxon sources is as foolish as it was back in 2003. Back in 2003, there was more effort on the part of the establishment and the corporate media to keep a degree of reliability and trustworthiness. Today, its just emotional manipulation.
Such stuff wouldnt be in mass media ever because first, it reduces the competition chances of US armament makers, and second, its something that Iran did, who is obviously evil according to such corporate Angloamerican media like the Politico.
I have to add, following anything from such mainstream corporate Anglosaxon sources is as foolish as it was back in 2003. Back in 2003, there was more effort on the part of the establishment and the corporate media to keep a degree of reliability and trustworthiness. Today, its just emotional manipulation.
> Such stuff wouldnt be in mass media ever because first, it reduces the competition chances of US armament makers
Mass media with global reach exists that is headquartered in, and has as much relationship to local arms makers as exists in the US media in countries whose armament makers are the competition to US armament makers, so that explanation seems inadequate and parochial.
> Anglosaxon
Pro tip: you’ll look less like a propaganda shill if you don’t start using contextually unusual and inaccurate labels that contribute nothing to the substance of your message right after the same regime whose propaganda substance you are echoing does so prominently with the exact same terms the same way in its propaganda.
Mass media with global reach exists that is headquartered in, and has as much relationship to local arms makers as exists in the US media in countries whose armament makers are the competition to US armament makers, so that explanation seems inadequate and parochial.
> Anglosaxon
Pro tip: you’ll look less like a propaganda shill if you don’t start using contextually unusual and inaccurate labels that contribute nothing to the substance of your message right after the same regime whose propaganda substance you are echoing does so prominently with the exact same terms the same way in its propaganda.
> Mass media with global reach exists that is headquartered in, and has as much relationship to local arms makers as exists in the US media in countries whose armament makers are the competition to US armament makers, so that explanation seems inadequate and parochial.
The basic tenet of the US military-industry has been destroying local arms makers in any way they can to replace them. What was done to German and British air defense industries during the Cold War are examples of them. Moreover, the majority of mass media have networked shareholders which include US entities. The immense pushing of US foreign policy in all mass media even in Europe is an indicator of how extensive the control is.
> Pro tip: you’ll look less like a propaganda shill if you don’t start using contextually unusual and inaccurate labels
Pro tip: Anglosaxon is a long-standing history and political science term. And those who are students of either won't stop using it because a certain segment of the Angloamerican public now has an aversion to the term because a certain enemy of their establishment used them. It describes a certain social, political and economic construct, and the term still remains valid today.
If you are offended by such a widely used term in history and political science, heaven knows how much you would be offended by some other terms that are used in those sciences. Here is a 300-year old example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion
The basic tenet of the US military-industry has been destroying local arms makers in any way they can to replace them. What was done to German and British air defense industries during the Cold War are examples of them. Moreover, the majority of mass media have networked shareholders which include US entities. The immense pushing of US foreign policy in all mass media even in Europe is an indicator of how extensive the control is.
> Pro tip: you’ll look less like a propaganda shill if you don’t start using contextually unusual and inaccurate labels
Pro tip: Anglosaxon is a long-standing history and political science term. And those who are students of either won't stop using it because a certain segment of the Angloamerican public now has an aversion to the term because a certain enemy of their establishment used them. It describes a certain social, political and economic construct, and the term still remains valid today.
If you are offended by such a widely used term in history and political science, heaven knows how much you would be offended by some other terms that are used in those sciences. Here is a 300-year old example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion
Note that in general media only covers stories that they want to see covered. Especially in a war, there will definitely be explicit pressure on how the war is covered, and most journalists are anyway aligned with their home countries even when there is no government pressure.
So just like you wouldn't expect RT to cover Russian losses except perhaps in the most general terms, you shouldn't expect our own countries' losses to be covered by our own media other than in passing (even if it's obviously not as directly controlled as RT is).
So just like you wouldn't expect RT to cover Russian losses except perhaps in the most general terms, you shouldn't expect our own countries' losses to be covered by our own media other than in passing (even if it's obviously not as directly controlled as RT is).
> However the best and most striking is to follow the Russian/Slavic channels in Telegram. The footage there is incredible
Social media video footage is a very good way to receive whatever emotional message the person who shot, edited, and published the video wants to convey.
Its much less useful as a basis for strategic analysis of the value of weapon systems.
Social media video footage is a very good way to receive whatever emotional message the person who shot, edited, and published the video wants to convey.
Its much less useful as a basis for strategic analysis of the value of weapon systems.
you can search on youtube too. For instance, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9fXYvjxtYg&ab_channel=First...
That video looks more like a commercial than a report on the actual performance of those "suicide drones".
They are not that amazing. At least those that are being most commonly used now, Shahed-136 "rebranded" as Geran-2 in Russia. They are rather slow and very noisy . Ukraine claims that 29 of them were shot down while 12 hit their targets. They had a benefit of surprise when they started being used, but not any longer.
BTW, people in Ukraine call those Shaheds "mopeds" because of their engine sound.
BTW, people in Ukraine call those Shaheds "mopeds" because of their engine sound.
> Ukraine claims
If we go by Ukraine's claims, they should have been at the gates of Moscow at this point. So, just forget that.
> 12 hit their targets
You don't seem to be aware that even if we trusted that number from Ukraine itself, it would still qualify as a majestic performance since the drones are dirt cheap.
> They had a benefit of surprise when they started being used, but not any longer.
The actual videos from the front tell a different story.
If we go by Ukraine's claims, they should have been at the gates of Moscow at this point. So, just forget that.
> 12 hit their targets
You don't seem to be aware that even if we trusted that number from Ukraine itself, it would still qualify as a majestic performance since the drones are dirt cheap.
> They had a benefit of surprise when they started being used, but not any longer.
The actual videos from the front tell a different story.
> If we go by Ukraine’s claims, they should have been at the gates of Moscow at this point.
Ukraine has never claimed an intent to enter Russian territory, so that is clearly false.
> You don’t seem to be aware that even if we trusted that number from Ukraine itself, it would still qualify as a majestic performance since the drones are dirt cheap.
It is a demonstration that Ukraine’s air defenses have focused on what Russia had and was using previously, and not this particular threat. Israel’s performance against this and more advanced Iranian drones (and the fact that Israel keeps jets even though it is the world leader in this class of munitions) are pretty good signals that while these kind of munitions have a role in modern combat, they aren’t magic trump cards that replace manned jets in general, or even just for ground strike roles.
This thread is a pretty good breakdown: https://twitter.com/Justin_Br0nk/status/1574414714469335046
Ukraine has never claimed an intent to enter Russian territory, so that is clearly false.
> You don’t seem to be aware that even if we trusted that number from Ukraine itself, it would still qualify as a majestic performance since the drones are dirt cheap.
It is a demonstration that Ukraine’s air defenses have focused on what Russia had and was using previously, and not this particular threat. Israel’s performance against this and more advanced Iranian drones (and the fact that Israel keeps jets even though it is the world leader in this class of munitions) are pretty good signals that while these kind of munitions have a role in modern combat, they aren’t magic trump cards that replace manned jets in general, or even just for ground strike roles.
This thread is a pretty good breakdown: https://twitter.com/Justin_Br0nk/status/1574414714469335046
> So that at this point you could bankrupt an enemy by just sending drones
Are you referring to the Turkish Bayraktars or a different drone?
No, Russians are buying Iranian drones that are surprisingly capable. Also funny that Russians are so behind the times that they need to buy advanced military tech from Iran.
Edit: apparently Russians have advanced but uneconomical drones, Iran strikes a better balance!
Edit: apparently Russians have advanced but uneconomical drones, Iran strikes a better balance!
That's not the case. Russian suicide drones seem to be WAY too advanced - it is said that they are so silent that you can't even hear them until they dive for the hit.
From there comes the advantage of the Iranian drones - they make a lot of noise and you can hear them from miles away. But they are WAY cheaper. So you can just swarm the air defences using them. And if the enemy actually uses missiles to hit them, it evaluates to a result like the Iranian drone having shot down the more expensive defense missile because the drone is way cheaper.
...
Iran defense industry just proved that in the current environment there is no need for drones to be that advanced like Russians' drones: The existing defense setups are SO unprepared and so behind in countering drone technology that you can just use simple, cheap drones to hit targets. And even more when you use swarms.
Then again, that's good engineering. It means that Iranians well-engineered their drones according to the existing circumstances.
From there comes the advantage of the Iranian drones - they make a lot of noise and you can hear them from miles away. But they are WAY cheaper. So you can just swarm the air defences using them. And if the enemy actually uses missiles to hit them, it evaluates to a result like the Iranian drone having shot down the more expensive defense missile because the drone is way cheaper.
...
Iran defense industry just proved that in the current environment there is no need for drones to be that advanced like Russians' drones: The existing defense setups are SO unprepared and so behind in countering drone technology that you can just use simple, cheap drones to hit targets. And even more when you use swarms.
Then again, that's good engineering. It means that Iranians well-engineered their drones according to the existing circumstances.
Ok, this is an interesting and nuanced post, thank you for the explanation, I edited my post!
I feel this has not shaken out properly yet. Obviously (to me) there is another yet-to-be-invented drone counter battery which is not yet invented. Probably smaller drones dive bombing onto the Iranian drones.
Or it's time to break stuff like the Gepard out of mothballs:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/07/26/ukraines-ge... Or build new, similar systems. Should cover it pretty well. Or use down graded versions of the various ship-mounted anti-missile systems.
Drone vs. drone dog fights sound like fun. Thinking of it, didn't the Yakuza and Tokyo police have some of those?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/07/26/ukraines-ge... Or build new, similar systems. Should cover it pretty well. Or use down graded versions of the various ship-mounted anti-missile systems.
Drone vs. drone dog fights sound like fun. Thinking of it, didn't the Yakuza and Tokyo police have some of those?
Russian "Куб-бла" drones are silent, yes, but also inaccurate and have a significantly smaller payload compared to Iranian Shahed's. Also, both can't be mass produced due to a multitude of reasons.
The design is also limited by sanctions on Iran to source advanced parts.
> No, Russians are buying Iranian drones that are surprisingly capable
“Loitering munitions”, which sensationalist media refers to as “suicide drones”. Basically, slow, long-range, very-small-warhead prop-driven GPS-guided missiles.
Not “drones” in the “reusable unmanned aerial vehicle” sense.
> Also funny that Russians are so behind the times that they need to buy advanced military tech from Iran.
These aren’t particularly advanced. They are pretty old tech with commercial GPS added for guidance. They have a pretty narrow niche, but its one that is particularly relevant to Russia’s current situation, especially given political constraints relating to Ukraine’s operations and the equipment they are being supplied with.
“Loitering munitions”, which sensationalist media refers to as “suicide drones”. Basically, slow, long-range, very-small-warhead prop-driven GPS-guided missiles.
Not “drones” in the “reusable unmanned aerial vehicle” sense.
> Also funny that Russians are so behind the times that they need to buy advanced military tech from Iran.
These aren’t particularly advanced. They are pretty old tech with commercial GPS added for guidance. They have a pretty narrow niche, but its one that is particularly relevant to Russia’s current situation, especially given political constraints relating to Ukraine’s operations and the equipment they are being supplied with.
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.
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.
>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.
That's what the HMD and R-73 are made for: (ignore the shit music) https://youtu.be/-D9ZhmFxz3M?t=194
That's what the HMD and R-73 are made for: (ignore the shit music) https://youtu.be/-D9ZhmFxz3M?t=194
Based on the canyon, they were trying to simulate the top gun movie. While entertaining, this is not how real fighter aircraft fight. The tail fighter in this scenario would have been 30k feet higher, 10+ miles away, and traveling at at least Mach 1.5.
The only time fighters are in direct contact in this situation is a dog fight. Which the above video is not. Checkout the YouTube category for “DCS BVR” as well as “DCS dogfight”. There are a few videos analyzing cobra in both as well as the use of terrain. TL;DR there are some interesting uses of terrain at the end of both engagements, however in a realistic setting the pilots would head home rather than risk dying to a “maneuver kill” where they accidentally crash into the ground while trying to “out rate” or “out turn” the other fighter.
The only time fighters are in direct contact in this situation is a dog fight. Which the above video is not. Checkout the YouTube category for “DCS BVR” as well as “DCS dogfight”. There are a few videos analyzing cobra in both as well as the use of terrain. TL;DR there are some interesting uses of terrain at the end of both engagements, however in a realistic setting the pilots would head home rather than risk dying to a “maneuver kill” where they accidentally crash into the ground while trying to “out rate” or “out turn” the other fighter.
In a real dogfight, you're not constrained to just pitch. Your nose doesn't need to point straight up. Depending on your exact relative position, you could very well be able to input roll and yaw as well, and end up pointing your nose (and gun) in a rather more useful direction.
We can't really call the resulting maneuver a clean airshow version of the "Cobra" anymore; but that's OK: it's a bit more deadly!
The airshow version merely demonstrates the aircraft's abilities. An actual pilot practicing combat maneuvers creatively applies those abilities to an actual situation at hand.
We can't really call the resulting maneuver a clean airshow version of the "Cobra" anymore; but that's OK: it's a bit more deadly!
The airshow version merely demonstrates the aircraft's abilities. An actual pilot practicing combat maneuvers creatively applies those abilities to an actual situation at hand.
Dogfights are an extinct scenario.
Yep Russians will be dodging AMRAAM not dogfighting Vulcan guns, and Cobra doesn’t help much with that. Although the vector thrusting and braking that provide an aircraft the means to do Cobra might help against air-to-air and SAM/manpads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM
Otherwise it’s just a pretty display at air shows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM
Otherwise it’s just a pretty display at air shows.
Of course this is a hypothetical now that we've seen how "well kept" Russian equipment is, but the R-37M will technically reach out and touch American aircraft long before the AMRAAM is in range.
Gotta wait for the AIM-260.
Gotta wait for the AIM-260.
Well, the R-37M is an absolute monster missile at 600kg, even bigger than the AIM-54 Phoenix at around 450kg. For comparison the AMRAAM is about 150kg. So even if, hypothetically, Russia could sort out their issues with actually producing their ostensibly high tech designs, I find it hard to imagine this would be a mass produced missile comparable to AMRAAM. More like a special missile to take out high value targets like AWACS planes.
Continuing wikipedia spelunking, AIM-120D has a range of >160km (and has apparently already entered service), AIM-260 200km, and R-37M 300-400km. However, as everyone who has played flight sims (or seen youtube videos of them) knows, the actual usable range is much lower than the quoted max ranges. And given stealth technology, one wonders whether the actual capability of the missile is more related to the radars, both of the launching platform and the radar in the missile seeker, than to how long burning rocket motors it has.
Continuing wikipedia spelunking, AIM-120D has a range of >160km (and has apparently already entered service), AIM-260 200km, and R-37M 300-400km. However, as everyone who has played flight sims (or seen youtube videos of them) knows, the actual usable range is much lower than the quoted max ranges. And given stealth technology, one wonders whether the actual capability of the missile is more related to the radars, both of the launching platform and the radar in the missile seeker, than to how long burning rocket motors it has.
100% agreed on all points. Evading the Phoenix on its terminal guidance near max range should be a viable strategy for avoiding it due to the bleed of kinetic energy. Though like the HARM (which an F-16 Wild Weasel pilot _hated_ due to the huge plume of smoke it creates; listen to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EI2rYxMPHM), it should be launched at high altitude for the best probability of a kill at long range.
Worth noting the Phoenix was discontinued with the Tomcat. And the Tomcat was the only fighterbto ever use it, with the explicit goal of killing beyond visual range and make dogfights obsolete. Didn't really work out back then neither.
The AIM-54 Phoenix, and indeed the F-14 Tomcat, come from a background of needing a carrier-based aircraft that would be able to intercept the expected threat - massed Soviet bombers with cruise missiles - at maximum possible range.
Since that threat never occurred, it is difficult to say whether it worked out. The discontinuation of the platform has more to say about the change in the threat than it does in the merit of BVR missiles.
Since that threat never occurred, it is difficult to say whether it worked out. The discontinuation of the platform has more to say about the change in the threat than it does in the merit of BVR missiles.
Or directed energy weapons.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"you are now not only behind but also much slower than your opponent."
That's what HMD's are for: (ignore the shit music) https://youtu.be/-D9ZhmFxz3M?t=194
That's what HMD's are for: (ignore the shit music) https://youtu.be/-D9ZhmFxz3M?t=194
> 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.
Air combat is rarely 1vs1 so being slow means you get killed by someone else.
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)
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)
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?
I get that it would be hard to aim - but can't computers do that?
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.
An AIM-9X can do this, but the kill probability drops rapidly as you move off boresight.
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.
> 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
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
In a vacuum. The aerodynamics aren't possibly the same.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
hmm, yeah that sounds challenging, but spacex does it when landing the first stage :)
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.
But, missiles can't maneuver at 0mph airspeed even if traveling at 600mph in the frame of reference of a plane.
What about guns? Relative speed against the enemy is the same no matter if you shoot forward or backward. Or am I missing something?
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.
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!
[1] They should use rear-facing lasers!
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.
Good luck trying a Cobra with a Blavkbird, a plane that needs a third of the US to make a 180 turn at full speed.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah but your enemy is also moving forward because they’re trailing you.
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
If the target is moving at (or nearly at) the same speed as you then those velocities effectively cancel out
R-73 and AGM-88 can also launch 'over the shoulder'
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.
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.
But when you're in a disadvantage with conventional guns... if you had guns that could shoot from any direction - wouldn't you not be in a disadvantage anymore?
Fighter guns are fixed. You aim by pointing
the whole airframe.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> I’m sure the answer has to do with aerodynamics
The need for the fighters to have a good aerodynamic. Non-fighters and multi-role fighters have the gun pods.
https://www.weaponsystems.net/system/1049-HH13%20-%20SPPU-22
https://www.weaponsystems.net/system/567-SPPU-6
The need for the fighters to have a good aerodynamic. Non-fighters and multi-role fighters have the gun pods.
https://www.weaponsystems.net/system/1049-HH13%20-%20SPPU-22
https://www.weaponsystems.net/system/567-SPPU-6
https://www.flickr.com/photos/13476480@N07/38271566385
The 20mm cannon on an F-16 is the entire assembly labeled as items 63, 72, 73 and the ammunition is 78.
How do you envisage this as other than a fixed installation?
The 20mm cannon on an F-16 is the entire assembly labeled as items 63, 72, 73 and the ammunition is 78.
How do you envisage this as other than a fixed installation?
Yeah. The guns in a typical WW2 bomber were M2 brownings...which are less than 100lbs.
It's the square-cube law in action (twice over). Going from a 12.7mm to a 20-25mm bullet... twice the diameter, four times the crosssection, eight times the mass.
It's the square-cube law in action (twice over). Going from a 12.7mm to a 20-25mm bullet... twice the diameter, four times the crosssection, eight times the mass.
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.
I am guessing mostly space and weight are at a premium in an airplane.
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...
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/exclusive-former-buff-gunner...
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)
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.
Losing your speed and showing your belly / back to the enemy, when you cannot shoot, never looked like a reasonable thing to do.
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.
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.
There is a maneuver called 'notching' which is turning perpendicular to an incoming radar guided missile to try to make a doppler radar lose lock. Often used in conjunction with diving to the deck in order to force the missile to spend energy moving through higher density air.
But that doesn't require any vectored thrust, 'supermanouverability' or such. In fact, you should make the turn smooth to conserve energy.
But that doesn't require any vectored thrust, 'supermanouverability' or such. In fact, you should make the turn smooth to conserve energy.
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.
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.
And that's assuming that the fight hasn't already been decided from BVR with radar-guided missiles in the first place.
It is exceptionally useful in an aerobatic display
“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.
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.
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.
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.
My only guess is that dogfights don't actually happen much anymore.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Northrop P-61 had a turret, which wound up being used in the locked forward position due to it being unreliable.
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.
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.
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.
Not surprising given the significant speed difference between those two.
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.
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.
I.e., it might be easier to out-maneuver it this way than to shoot it.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Necessity, the mother of invention.
Although in this case there's no evidence that it was a useful invention.
I guess it was useful for the purpose it was invented for; training, and for Russians showing off in airshows.
It's not useful for combat. It is useful for training.
I'm gonna hit the brakes, he'll fly right by
Plot hole: the F14 wasn’t listed as a cobra capable aircraft, only the F16
"You're gonna do WHAT" - Merlin
It was in 80's kids vocabulary when discussing fighter jets and which one is better - 'yeah, but can it do Cobra?!'
“I’m gonna hit the breaks and he’ll fly right by!” - Top Gun
It’s incredible how deeply war culture propaganda permeates American society
Young boys don't need propaganda to be fascinated by war. Show me a culture where boys don't have sword fights with sticks.
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.
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.
Maybe; In my case it was in middle of Europe.
Need to sell more bullets.
Shoutout to all the Spaniards who thought "hacer la Cobra" [0] had gone international.
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sJYDSR3ijw
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sJYDSR3ijw
I was hoping it'd be Pagafantas.
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.
Didn't Maverick pull this off in Top Gun?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The film is ... filmed in/with real aircraft too. Obviously there are stand in effects when they're exploding missiles, but the in-cockpit shots are all practical "effects" of the actors sitting in second seat. Real canopies, real g-forces, etc. Pretty cool!
> 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.
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.
> And of course, the strike package would have been accompanied by the EA-18G Growler to jam SAM radar.
Well it should have been preceded by a Wild Weasel mission to take out the SAM radars and launchers. The Growler mission would just be extra SAM defense. There also should have been a counter-air element to deal with the enemy fighters flying CAP.
There was enough intelligence available for the mission every fixed SAM site should have eaten a couple Tomahawks in addition to the airfield. It's also a mystery why the whole facility wasn't just leveled by some B-2s loaded with GBU-37s.
There would have been fewer dog fights but that probably would have been ok.
Well it should have been preceded by a Wild Weasel mission to take out the SAM radars and launchers. The Growler mission would just be extra SAM defense. There also should have been a counter-air element to deal with the enemy fighters flying CAP.
There was enough intelligence available for the mission every fixed SAM site should have eaten a couple Tomahawks in addition to the airfield. It's also a mystery why the whole facility wasn't just leveled by some B-2s loaded with GBU-37s.
There would have been fewer dog fights but that probably would have been ok.
Good point about the B-2. Does the Navy even perform Wild Weasel? That's usually the F-16's job and we can only "assume" that it was out of range of any USAF or collation airbase.
Of course, the country in question would have to be Iran due to the F-14... though the Felon hasn't been shipped outside (or inside of...heh) Russia.
And of course we come back to 'it's a movie' :-)
Of course, the country in question would have to be Iran due to the F-14... though the Felon hasn't been shipped outside (or inside of...heh) Russia.
And of course we come back to 'it's a movie' :-)
I don't think the Navy calls their SEAD Wild Weasel. Their SEAD missions are similar to the Air Force's Wild Weasel missions but without the naming. They're both SEAD and use similar tactics and weapons.
But the movie's mission not including any SEAD was 100% suspenders of disbelief. The whole mission seemed to be planned by people that were the pilots' life insurance beneficiaries.
But the movie's mission not including any SEAD was 100% suspenders of disbelief. The whole mission seemed to be planned by people that were the pilots' life insurance beneficiaries.
Spoilers?
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.
Yeah so you know it is just as believable maneuver as crane kick from Karate Kid :)
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.
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.
I think that was actually something called the Kvochur bell, not the cobra.
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.
Also a common maneuver in Ace Combat, speaking about fictional uses.
I see lots of talk about lack of usefulness in combat. I agree with most, but the cobra maneuver illustrates something important about the post-stall behavior of an airplane. It is incredibly difficult to keep the vortices symmetrical during such a maneuver. Most Western fighters couldn't do it because they would sway left or right.
The ability to perform the cobra illustrates how the design handles at and beyond stall, which can have implications on its ability to turn sharply.
The same goes for the tailslide. It illustrates properties of the air intake and engines.
The same goes for the tailslide. It illustrates properties of the air intake and engines.
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.
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.
Is this the maneuver John Boyd used to use? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p55LY30AIoc
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.
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.
Flat plating the bird! Who did it first?
I did not Sweden was first to do the cobra maneuver with the Saab 35 Draken, fun. It is very impressive how little Sweden with SAAB have been able to develop stage of the art fighter planes. By exemple JAS 39 Gripen was the first 4th genereation fighter jet in the world, and many older fighterplanes set many records too.
I really like Draken, it is a beautiful plan. And I love this picture :D The timing and composition is perfect and I wounder what the person in the canoe thought haha.
https://i.imgur.com/EBxuaAa.jpg
I really like Draken, it is a beautiful plan. And I love this picture :D The timing and composition is perfect and I wounder what the person in the canoe thought haha.
https://i.imgur.com/EBxuaAa.jpg
It is my speculation that they learned during WWII that to stay neutral they need to be well armed.
I highly doubt that. WWII fighters didn't have the thrust/weight ratio or vectored thrust etc. to pull something like this off. Also due to the much lower thrust/weight ratio energy management was more important in WWII than in modern jets.
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
http://www.ausairpower.net/JRB/boydaerialattack.pdf
There's also the classic Dicta Boelcke:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicta_Boelcke
Didn't know it was invented by a Syrian pilot in a MiG-21 of all things!
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-unknown-story-of-the-syr...
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-unknown-story-of-the-syr...
This article definitely lacks an "In Popular Culture" section.
Terrific for movies, largely irrelevant for real life I'd expect
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.
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
> 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
Ha, fair enough. It was written in a book I had as a child and I've just always accepted it as fact.
Is this useful and relevant in the age of 5th generation airplanes and current weapon (e.g. missile) technology ? My intuition tells me not
This actually raises a question, have jets ever been in air combat? Like jet vs jet, not jet vs ground units.
Increasingly rarely it seems. The US has all the best toys and no-one else wants to play any more.
The F14 scored 130 kills… for the Iranians. The F15 has an impressive 100-0 kill ratio (mostly by Israel); zero air to air losses, but 175 losses to accidents.
F16’s have about 60 kills (almost all by Israel again, they really love American jets).
F18 two kills, I think.
Soviet airframes are pretty much the same. Almost all their kills are in the hands of Middle Eastern third parties (Syria, Egypt, Iraq).
These are wars from decades ago, and we don’t have any modern examples of large scale air combat, or of combat that wasn’t highly one-sided. F22’s have hardly ever been used, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the same happens with the F35. Too damned expensive to take out of the box.
The F14 scored 130 kills… for the Iranians. The F15 has an impressive 100-0 kill ratio (mostly by Israel); zero air to air losses, but 175 losses to accidents.
F16’s have about 60 kills (almost all by Israel again, they really love American jets).
F18 two kills, I think.
Soviet airframes are pretty much the same. Almost all their kills are in the hands of Middle Eastern third parties (Syria, Egypt, Iraq).
These are wars from decades ago, and we don’t have any modern examples of large scale air combat, or of combat that wasn’t highly one-sided. F22’s have hardly ever been used, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the same happens with the F35. Too damned expensive to take out of the box.
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
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.
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.
keithalewis(1)
I see it is time to get horny for war machines on "hacker" news again.
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.