[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)