PDA

View Full Version : Who said F/A-22 couldn't do cobra.



Praxus
30 Jul 04,, 02:31
http://www.f22-raptor.com/media/video_gallery/index.html

Click on "Marvel of Engineering". Little before Half Way it shows the F/A-22 doing the Cobra Manouver.

Bill
30 Jul 04,, 10:06
Who said it couldn't?

That's been a given.

I saw another video where it did a zero airspeed roll and dive on a hapless F-16C that was utterly amazing.

BTW, those separation tests in that vid you linked were at Mach 1.2-1.6, including the rolling separation. That was a 6G Roll. One of the posters at the other boards works for LM, and posted about it at the time of the tests.

Praxus
30 Jul 04,, 14:39
It was a rethorical question;)

Blademaster
30 Jul 04,, 16:36
If we ever go on a war footing, how many Raptors can we produce in a month? and what would be the cost?

Praxus
30 Jul 04,, 17:32
Well I know that if double the order we can decrease the price by about 40% per unit. So it would probley be around 90 million per aircraft if the total order was around 700. If we are going to war with a real country, then it might be even more then that and the price per unit would be even lower.

I have no idea how many we could produce per month.

Bill
30 Jul 04,, 18:13
Less than 30 a month, on full wartime footing(same for the F-16 and F-15)

Praxus
30 Jul 04,, 18:51
Less than 30 a month, on full wartime footing(same for the F-16 and F-15)

Let's just hope our loses wouldn't get that high.

Blademaster
30 Jul 04,, 20:17
Is there a reason why USA managed to produce so many planes during WWII such as producing 1000 to 2000 planes a month and yet in today's environment, with USA on a war footing, even with all the technological advanves in manufactoring and mass production, USA can only produce 90 planes a month?

Or am i reading this wrong?

If given 2 years to train more people and build more factories, can USA produce more than 30 better yet, ramp it up to over 100 Raptors a month?

MrSnow
30 Jul 04,, 20:26
http://www.f22-raptor.com/media/video_gallery/index.html

Click on "Marvel of Engineering". Little before Half Way it shows the F/A-22 doing the Cobra Manouver.


Thats not a cobra manuver.

Praxus
30 Jul 04,, 20:49
Thats not a cobra manuver.

LOL, that's not my point. My point is that the F/A-22 is capable of doing the Cobra Manouver if it can do that.


Is there a reason why USA managed to produce so many planes during WWII such as producing 1000 to 2000 planes a month and yet in today's environment, with USA on a war footing, even with all the technological advanves in manufactoring and mass production, USA can only produce 90 planes a month?

In WW2 we spent over 70% of our GDP on the Military. That is how we turned out 2000 planes a month.


Or am i reading this wrong?

If given 2 years to train more people and build more factories, can USA produce more than 30 better yet, ramp it up to over 100 Raptors a month?

If we had to we could get it way over 100 raptors a month. If we need to replace them that quickly the war aint going to well.

MrSnow
30 Jul 04,, 21:01
[QUOTE=Praxus]LOL, that's not my point. My point is that the F/A-22 is capable of doing the Cobra Manouver if it can do that.


You can perform a vertical stall in a cessna skyhawk. The manuver your talking about is in no way shape or form like a Pugachev's cobra. Im not saying the f22 cant do it, but it hasnt shown that it can thusfar match the SU27 series in supermanuvers like the Pugachev Cobra or the Kulbit.

Praxus
30 Jul 04,, 21:07
The F/A-22 has thrust vectoring and the Su-27 does not. The F/A-22 can do the Cobra, but it never would because it is a complete Bull Shit manouver.

MrSnow
30 Jul 04,, 21:21
Maybe it can, maybe it cant. Sofar it hasnt shown it can perform extreme aoa manuvers.

Praxus
30 Jul 04,, 21:59
Dude, it can!

MrSnow
31 Jul 04,, 00:32
WOW!!! The best evidence yet.

Bill
31 Jul 04,, 05:33
I saw it do a zero airspeed roll(try that in a cessna) and inverted dive onto a hard turning F-16C on a CNN video segment. Greta Van Susteren was riding shotgun in the Viper. Google it, it's all over the web.

The F-22 has almost no practical AoA limit.

Hk40
27 Aug 04,, 14:45
Several years back I had a discussion on the same topic (ironically enough) and luckily I had a subscription to 'Flight Line' the in-house magazine from Lockheed Martin. The answer is Yes and No. Yes the F-22 can do the Pugachev Cobra - and not only that it goes beyond that! Here's my reply to him then based on the facts in Flight Line:
I've responded to a guy on-line in a news group to a very similar question. I was able to find some 'insider' info from Flight Line the in-house Lockheed Martin publication that yes, the F-22 can out maneuver and over Edward's AFB while testing had pushed the limits of extreme maneuver's. The once touted Pugechov Cobra was out done by a F22 pilot who pulled the aircraft back past vertical and was able to waggle side to side. Further was able to slow the aircraft pitch the nose down and also waggle side to side. The maneuver's make it clear that in a close in dog fight (as aposed to stand-off)the F-22 could 'stand itself on the head of a pin' and fire missiles at a moving target. Remember the above examples are the un-classified examples that were allowed to be published.....No one yet knows of the classified maneuver's that really 'push the envelope'.

Franco Lolan
07 Oct 04,, 03:46
f22s training in Tyndall AFB, FL now. i live in SFL. its an honor

barrowaj
15 Oct 04,, 02:44
The F-22 has almost no practical AoA limit.I'll bet that the F-22 can perform the cobra maneuver due to its thrust vectoring. Without it, I don't think that it would be possible. Judging from the large chord of the wing, the airflow would become detatched and stall at a lower than expected angle of attack. I'm also very doubtful that the F-22 could outdogfight an F-16. The smaller size of the F-16 should give it a higher roll rate and more maneuverability. In other words, I think that in a dogfight, its only the thrust vectoring that would save the F-22. But in the real world, where BVR engagements are common, radar cross section, avionics, and electronic systems are probably the determining factors.

Horrido
15 Oct 04,, 21:59
Even the F-14 can perform the cobra.

Hk40
18 Oct 04,, 15:26
Even the F-14 can perform the cobra.

I seriously doubt that the Tomcat can perform anything close to a 'cobra' maneuver. I love the Tomcat in all that it is, however it was not intended to be that agile in the first place - nor as I believe the 14-D has no mds in that vien as well.

lemontree
19 Oct 04,, 11:05
The F/A-22 has thrust vectoring and the Su-27 does not. The F/A-22 can do the Cobra, but it never would because it is a complete Bull **** manouver.


Why is it a bull **** manuver?...

lemontree
19 Oct 04,, 11:10
Even the F-14 can perform the cobra.


You must be joking. The tomcat is a superb fighter but it cannot do the cobra. (Tom cruse tried it in the movie Top Gun, please don't belive it :) )
I've seen it being done live in an air show. I'm sure in a dogfight this stuff would be useful.

khruschev
22 Oct 04,, 19:55
Why is it a bull **** manuver?...

Because American planes can't perform it LOL :D
It seems to me that F-22 has only 2-D thrust vectoring, while the Russian aircraft under developpment, such as Su-37, Su-47, MiG 1.44, and probably Sukhoi PAK-FA, have 3-D thrust vectoring, which means it's nozzles can turn for all 360 degrees while those of an F/A-22 Raptor can't...
And by the way, if Raptor could really perform a Cobra maneuver, they would've shown it a billion times, since it would be the first Western-made aircraft which could really do it...
One more thing, even though Su-27 doesn't have thrust vectoring, it can easily perform a Cobra, so one more time, shame on F/A-22 :)

barrowaj
25 Oct 04,, 20:11
Because American planes can't perform it LOL :D
It seems to me that F-22 has only 2-D thrust vectoring, while the Russian aircraft under developpment, such as Su-37, Su-47, MiG 1.44, and probably Sukhoi PAK-FA, have 3-D thrust vectoring, which means it's nozzles can turn for all 360 degrees while those of an F/A-22 Raptor can't...
And by the way, if Raptor could really perform a Cobra maneuver, they would've shown it a billion times, since it would be the first Western-made aircraft which could really do it...
One more thing, even though Su-27 doesn't have thrust vectoring, it can easily perform a Cobra, so one more time, shame on F/A-22 :)The Sukhois and Mig you mention do not have 360 degree thrust vectoring. This would mean the exhaust could point in ANY direction. That is not possible. Those are all very impressive aircraft, and may be superior to the F-22 in terms of maneuverability, however, that was not what the F-22 was designed for. It was designed to blow those airplanes out of the sky before they could even detect it. Even the radar of the F-22 is designed so that old RWR systems will not easily pick up its pusles.

By the way, the main reason western aircraft can't do the cobra is that the flight control computers will not let them exceed the max. angle of attack far enough. That doesn't mean that they aren't maneuverable. In fact, the computer systems allow these aircraft (F-16, F-22) to be inherintly unstable and still fly, which makes them very maneuverable.

griftadan
25 Oct 04,, 22:15
lol i liked the video makers choice of music.

also-what exactly is the cobra maneuver?

lemontree
26 Oct 04,, 08:15
The Sukhois and Mig you mention do not have 360 degree thrust vectoring. This would mean the exhaust could point in ANY direction. That is not possible. Those are all very impressive aircraft, and may be superior to the F-22 in terms of maneuverability, however, that was not what the F-22 was designed for. It was designed to blow those airplanes out of the sky before they could even detect it. Even the radar of the F-22 is designed so that old RWR systems will not easily pick up its pusles.

By the way, the main reason western aircraft can't do the cobra is that the flight control computers will not let them exceed the max. angle of attack far enough. That doesn't mean that they aren't maneuverable. In fact, the computer systems allow these aircraft (F-16, F-22) to be inherintly unstable and still fly, which makes them very maneuverable.

Very valid point. It also could be that since the Americans do not depend too much of the concept of dogfights but on BVR kills, they may not consider the cobra as great shakes.

However, a good pilot in an older aircraft can out gun a top class fighter.

ASG
01 Nov 04,, 00:24
load of crap!!

First, the "cobra maneuver" and "super-cobra" can only be done without any armament and with less than 50% or half the fuel tanks.....

Second, the "cobra maneuver" and "super-cobra" performed in a wrong way can cause serious damages and in fact, has attributed to numerous deaths of pilots at 15g.

Thirdly, the "cobra maneuver" and "super cobra" is only effective if the interceptor is really close and does not pick it up ....

Fourth, the "cobra maneuver" and "super-cobra" slows the Sukhoi down so much that if the interceptor spots the maneuver early enough and adjusts there is absolutely no way that the Sukhoi can survive.

Fifth, the only air maneuvers that the Sukhoi's can truly claim as a "no one else can do" is the "Super Cobra" and "Kulbit".
The Swedish did the famed "cobra maneuver" back in the 60's and it has been claimed, yet still unconfirmed, that a number of US aircraft (ie: F-22, etc.) can perform the standard "cobra maneuver".

ajaybhutani
04 Nov 04,, 18:58
I guess the whole idea is to show that the fighter is very agile and can handle even 15G.Further there might be some su30 tactical moves that we donot know of as any special fighter move if useful in war shouldnot be made public as that helps competitors prepare anti tactics for it.

MIKEMUN
24 Feb 05,, 09:39
What is this obsession of people with the Cobra maneuver?? Is it really that useful in combat?? :biggrin:

Bill
24 Feb 05,, 23:36
"I'm also very doubtful that the F-22 could outdogfight an F-16."

You're also very wrong.

And yes, i have seen video's of the F-14D doing a Cobra. Horrido has obviously seen the same video.

TopHatter
25 Feb 05,, 01:15
What is this obsession of people with the Cobra maneuver?? Is it really that useful in combat?? :biggrin:

Sure, unless a BVR AAM blows you out of the sky first... :biggrin:

Dima
25 Feb 05,, 03:54
no, an F-14 cannot do the cobra, also, the reasons why the F-15 and F-16 cannot do the cobra is because it would cause too much structural damage, that's why Russian pilots cannot do it for extended periods of time, that's why they programmed it that way, probably to make sure that they never attempt that

maximus, you are incorrect, an Su-30 did the Cobra with its entire fuel and weapons load

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/flankers_pages/su-27_variants.html

it was the Su-30MK

Bill
25 Feb 05,, 06:11
Yes, an F-14D can do a cobra.

I welcome you to search the archive on my website, there are pix, and i believe, a video of an F-14D doing EXACTLY that.

www.a-10.org

Dima
26 Feb 05,, 04:36
all of the movies are of the A-10, oh, and have you guys seen the F-22 doing the cobra in that video, that's not even a cobra

can you also give me the exact link, because, i don't really have time to go throuhg all those pictures, thanks

Bill
26 Feb 05,, 14:38
I have even less time than you...but i'll help you out a little.

You're not even looking at the right spot on the forum.

Try the general aviation forum on the A-10.org discussion forums.

You can also find several real life USAF pilots there that will clean a lot of the disinformation out of your head while you're at it.

Dima
26 Feb 05,, 19:22
oh, why do you have less time than me?, what do you do, occupation?, married, children?

okay, thanks for the information, i'll check it out

Bill
27 Feb 05,, 00:44
Self employed.

Dima
27 Feb 05,, 00:56
what field?

MIKEMUN
27 Feb 05,, 16:04
F/A-22

A. Dimensions:
Length: 18.90m

Height: 5.08m

Wing span: 13.56m

Wing area: 78.03m2

Empty weight: 15,175 to 16,000 kg (Newest estimation)

MTOW: 35,000kg+

Internal Fuel: 10,400 to 11,400 kg (Estimation)

Weapon load: 2,270 kg (Internal)

Weapon load: 9,000 to 12,000 kg (Internal + External)

Materials: 42% Ti, 23% CFC, 15% Al, 20% others.
B. Basic Flight Capability:
Maximum speed, high-level: 2.0M+

Maximum speed, sea-level: 800kts

Supercruise (Standard air-combat configuration):
Between the range of 30,000 to 70,000 fts, speed of Mach 2.0+ with A/B.

Between the range of 30,000 to 57,500 fts, speed of Mach 1.40 to 1.72 with maximal military thrust.

At the height of 40,000 fts, speed of Mach 1.72 with maximal military thrust, or speed of Mach 1.50 with 80% military thrust.
Super sonic agility (Standard air-combat configuration):
The upper speed limit for 5G maneuver: Mach 1.3, Sea-level to Mach 2.0, 50,000 fts (with A/B thrust).

The upper limit of speed for 5G maneuver: Mach 0.85 to Mach 1.0 below 30,000 fts (with military thrust).
Climb rate, sea-level: 350+ meters per second (Estimation)

Upper limit of operational height: 65,000 to 70,000 fts

G-limit: -3.0 to 9.0 G (Normal operational limit), > 11.0 to 12.0 G (Structural limit).

Instaneous turn rate: > 30 degrees per second

Wing load: 285 to 290 kg / m2(50% internal fuel with 6 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9

Acceleration: less than 30 secs from 200 kts to Mach 1 (3% better than original requirement).

Normal range of AoA: -60 ~ +60 degrees, no limit for the maneuver of YAW/ROW/PITCH in this range of AoA.

Combat radius (http://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2005/0105raptor.asp):
With a supercruise of 1.5-mach class for 100 NM during the mission: 405 NM / 750 km.

With a supercruise of 1.5-mach class for 50 NM during the mission: 455 NM / 840 km.

Sub-sonic cruise during the whole mission: 595 NM / 1,100 km
Road length for take-off: 800 fts (Standard air-combat configuration):
C. Engine (Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan*2):
Maximal military thrust: 25,500Ib*2

A/B thrust: 35,000 Ib*2 (Official declaration)

A/B thrust: 38,000 to 39,000 Ib*2 (Experts' estimations)

T/W ratio: 10.0 to 12.0:1

Compressive ratio: 35:1

Bypass ratio: 0.16 to 0.25:1 (Estimation)

Maximal core temperature: 1,770 C
D. Radar (AN/APG-77 AESA radar):
GaAs T/R units: 1,500 to 2,200 units

Maximal output: > 15 KWs

Maximal detective range:
460 km for passive mode and 230 km for active mode, 5% better than original requirement.

AW&ST 2000/03/17, 120 mile (192 km) at "Stealthy mode".

AW&ST 2000/03/17, 140 to 145 mile (260 to 270 km) at "Non-stealthy mode".

AW&ST 2000/03/17, radar image of 30 cm-class resolution for the target 100 miles (160 km) away.

AW&ST 2000/03/17, TWS 100 targets at the same time.
E. Stealth capability:
Frontal minimal RCS: 0.0005 to 0.001 m2

The estimation from Austrilian MoD:
(The maximal detective range of NO11, the radar for Su-35, to the Western fighters)
F-15 C/D: 180 ~ 200 km

F/A-18 C: 140 ~ 165 km

Rafale C: 90 ~ 95 km

F/A-18 E: 75 ~ 85 km

F/A-22 A: 15 ~ 18 km
(The maximal detective range of AGAT9B-1103M / 9B134, the seeker for R-77, to the Western fighters)

F-15 C/D: 70 ~ 80 km

F/A-18 C: 45 ~ 55 km

Rafale C: 25 ~ 35 km

F/A-18 E: 20 ~ 25 km

F/A-22 A: 5 ~ 6 km
(The maximal tracking range of AGAT9B-1103M / 9B134, the seeker for R-77, to the Western fighters)

F-15 C/D: 15 ~ 20 km

F/A-18 C: 10 ~ 15 km

Rafale C: 8 ~ 10 km

F/A-18 E: 7 ~ 8 km

F/A-22 A: 1 ~ 2 km
The engineer of LM declared: "The Raptor can approach the air-defense unit of S-300 class to the range of 15 miles (24 km) safely without being discovered."


A guy from the f-16 site compiled this chart,using open sources,I should add...What do you guys think of it??

molf48
27 Feb 05,, 20:54
I do not see any cobra in this kind of video! Typical rolls only.. I do not believe that F-22 is able to do cobra or other russian kind manouvers.. if they can do it why they do not do it? I do not see a reason why they do not try crazy things in airshows like russians? I read and article that some US pilots with modified F-16 and F-18 try to do these kind of manouvers but the result was disappointed!

MIKEMUN
27 Feb 05,, 21:09
the result was disappointed!

;)

Bill
28 Feb 05,, 00:34
"The upper speed limit for 5G maneuver: Mach 1.3, Sea-level to Mach 2.0, 50,000 fts (with A/B thrust). "

G rating is a function of weight, not speed.

Bill
28 Feb 05,, 00:34
"if they can do it why they do not do it?"

Because the USAF realizes that airshow stunts are irrelevant to a combat aircraft...

I hear the test pilots enjoy pulling all kinds of impossible manuevers though. ;)

Dima
28 Feb 05,, 00:56
"I hear the test pilots enjoy pulling all kinds of impossible manuevers though."

such as?????????????????

ajaybhutani
28 Feb 05,, 04:45
"I hear the test pilots enjoy pulling all kinds of impossible manuevers though."

such as?????????????????
Well they gotta find the limits of the aircraft or see if it satisfies the limits,Other pilots just are tought the limits and they dont cross( in todays world its written in the s/w to force them not to cross it.).

Dima
01 Mar 05,, 03:43
i'm asking what maneuvers did they do, other than that, i could care less

Bill
01 Mar 05,, 23:09
"i'm asking what maneuvers did they do, other than that, i could care less."

The USAF test pilots that put the F-22 through it's paces explored it's entire flight envelope. That means that pretty much everything it can do has been done by the test pilots.

For instance, the F-22 is the only (soon to be) operational aircraft in the world that maintains full roll authority beyond 60 degrees AoA.

There is no name for a full 360 roll at 60 degrees AoA, but it would be a tremendously impressive airshow manuever to perform for a crowd...

Dima
02 Mar 05,, 03:59
oh, nice

but you said imposible maneuvers, so that contradicts your own statement, but i won't be a grammer fanatic, lol, hate english calsses

Bill
03 Mar 05,, 12:17
Regardless, someone needs to come up for a name for a 360 degree roll at 60 degrees AoA so we can start threads titled "The SU-30 can't do a xxxxx manuever", hehehehehe.

Can't wait till the first flight demo i see at a US airshow by the F-22. :)

Dima
04 Mar 05,, 02:46
wait, a 360 degree roll at a 360 degree AoA, can the F-22 even do that? the Su-35 can no doubt do a 360 degree roll, but at 360 degree AoA?

Bill
04 Mar 05,, 06:07
Actually, there is no such thing as 360 AoA, lol....180 is flying backwards. ;)

It was a typo, and is now corrected. Sorry bout that.

ajaybhutani
04 Mar 05,, 07:47
well technically we can have a 360 degree AoA . A rotation in air. Though i dont think its of any use for a fighter .180 degree is what can do all needed.

jgetti
04 Mar 05,, 14:11
well technically we can have a 360 degree AoA . A rotation in air. Though i dont think its of any use for a fighter .180 degree is what can do all needed.


AOA is the angular difference between the direction the aircraft's nose is pointing, and the direction the aircraft is actually moving. So no, it's not possible to have a 360 degree AOA.

ajaybhutani
04 Mar 05,, 14:48
AOA is the angular difference between the direction the aircraft's nose is pointing, and the direction the aircraft is actually moving. So no, it's not possible to have a 360 degree AOA.
well that depends upon wether we are taking difference as a measurement of displacement or distance.In one its not possible as Angles =>360 arent possible.
While for other theres clearly no limit

Dima
04 Mar 05,, 22:31
yea, thanks, i thought there was something peculiar about a 360 degree AoA, lol

Bill
04 Mar 05,, 23:15
Technically a 360 degree AoA is straight and level flight, as it's the same as a 0 degree AoA. ;)

ajaybhutani
06 Mar 05,, 12:33
Technically a 360 degree AoA is straight and level flight, as it's the same as a 0 degree AoA. ;)


http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/interview-simonov1.html



http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/images/kulbit.gif

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 03:37
Is there a reason why USA managed to produce so many planes during WWII such as producing 1000 to 2000 planes a month and yet in today's environment, with USA on a war footing, even with all the technological advanves in manufactoring and mass production, USA can only produce 90 planes a month?

Or am i reading this wrong?

If given 2 years to train more people and build more factories, can USA produce more than 30 better yet, ramp it up to over 100 Raptors a month?


The planes then were much easier to produce than now. Plus, no one would want to give up their cubicles to sweat in a factory making Raptor canopies.

-Tink

lemontree
07 Mar 05,, 13:10
Plus, no one would want to give up their cubicles to sweat in a factory making Raptor canopies.

-Tink
If the pay is right, I don't mind. ;)

Bill
07 Mar 05,, 13:47
Oh, i'm sure the pay is really good.

barrowaj
07 Mar 05,, 23:27
At the Rosebowl I think the flyover was of a flight of F-22s. Maybe it was another football game, but I thought it was the Rosebowl.

Which planes flew over the Superbowl? F-15s IIRC, right?

I remember a B-2 also from some college bowl game.

At least they are choosing cool fighters to fly over, regardless of what it costs. Nobody wants to see some wussy T-38s :tongue:

Anyway, the Su-27 series is a quite impressive aircraft. Especially the the Su-35 and 37. Airshow videos are awesome! However, it doesn't hold a candle to the F-22 in BVR or medium range air combat (not even the way over-hyped Su-30MKI Punjabi edition..). But if a full scale war broke out we wouldn't have too many F-22s to throw into the fray, and JSFs would have to bear the brunt.

Historically though, Russian aircraft have great on paper and airshow performance, but they are usually lacking in the avionics category (especially RWRs and radars). In my opinion, this is what matters more in the modern age of air combat, so unless there is a close in gunzo or heaters fight, ad. is to the Americans, even in situations of numerical inferiority.

Bill
08 Mar 05,, 00:35
2 F-22s and 2 F-15Cs overflew the superbowl.

Then my team lost by a fieldgoal in the closest Superbowl ever played. :(

Still was a great game though.

Blademaster
08 Mar 05,, 16:06
2 F-22s and 2 F-15Cs overflew the superbowl.

Then my team lost by a fieldgoal in the closest Superbowl ever played. :(

Still was a great game though.

The game wasn't even that close. The closest game was the Giants against the Buffaloes.

I was wondering like hell, why the ****, didn't McNabb hurry the **** up? Clock is running out.

Though it was a good game. I sat down to some New England Patriots fans at the game. We bantered back and forth and played good natured insults against each other. I'll say for one thing. New England fans are a classy act.

Oh yeah by the way, I saw those 2 raptors flying over my head.


As for the official NFL tailgate party, it sucked. It sucked big time. They should allow personal tailgate parties at the Super Bowl. They need to figure out a way to improve security without prohibiting personal tailgate parties. Tailgate parties are part of the great tradition of football.

Bill
08 Mar 05,, 23:51
"The game wasn't even that close. The closest game was the Giants against the Buffaloes."

Umm, it was the first Superbowl in history that was tie after 3 quarters...making it the closest SB in history.

"I was wondering like hell, why the ****, didn't McNabb hurry the **** up? Clock is running out."

He was sick, and throwing up in the huddle between plays.

Enzo Ferrari
15 Apr 05,, 11:52
Because American planes can't perform it LOL :D
It seems to me that F-22 has only 2-D thrust vectoring, while the Russian aircraft under developpment, such as Su-37, Su-47, MiG 1.44, and probably Sukhoi PAK-FA, have 3-D thrust vectoring, which means it's nozzles can turn for all 360 degrees while those of an F/A-22 Raptor can't...
And by the way, if Raptor could really perform a Cobra maneuver, they would've shown it a billion times, since it would be the first Western-made aircraft which could really do it...
One more thing, even though Su-27 doesn't have thrust vectoring, it can easily perform a Cobra, so one more time, shame on F/A-22 :)


What a retard!

Any Su-37, Su-47 amd MiG 1.44 "invisible" from radar, hitting the target without detected?

avon1944
28 Apr 05,, 07:21
> MrSnow
> Thats not a cobra manuver
The maneuver is called the "helicopter!" The ability to fly a circular pattern, around a center point. In this case it is being used to point the nose at an aircraft that is in a "flat spin." This ability to point the nose at an angle that is different than the course of the aircraft's flight allows a fighter to fly at approximately the same altitude as the helicopter fire its guns as the helo tries evasive maneuvers along the horizontal plane. This maneuver was first done by the F-16 AFTI.
As far as the F-22 doing the "cobra" it can do any of the "post stall loops," the class of maneuvers the cobra is part of.
The F-22 can perform many maneuvers no other aircraft can perform;
1) Fly at Mach 1.2 with the course and heading being different by 25! This will allow it to turn so the launch and ignition of a missile will be covered by the fuselage.

2) Fly at 50,000 feet, Mach 1.4, nose pitched up at 25..... this attitude covers up all the hot spots caused by air friction and exaust from below. The only way to detect the hotspot is from behind.
The leading edges are designed not to be hot spots, all leading edges are airfoils of one type or another. They are all designed so the hotspots are back from the leading edge and on one side of the airfoil.

3) To rotate at 60 per/sec, pull 6G's and fire a missile!!

4) Supercruising at Mach 1.7 and 50,000 feet.

5) Extensive test has produced an aircraft that will not depart from flight.

6) he F-22's Common Integrated Processor main mission computers operate at 10.5 GHtz and have 300 megabytes (not bits) of memory. Liquid flow-through cooling improves reliability, lending to an mean time between failures (MTBF).

7) The F-22 and its APG-77 radar will also be able to employ better Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR). This is accomplished by forming fine beams and by generating a high resolution image of the target by using Inverse Synthetic Aperture radar (ISAR) processing. ISAR uses Doppler shifts caused by rotational changes in the targets position to create a 3D map of the target. The target provides the Doppler shift and not the aircraft illuminating the target. SAR is when the aircraft provides the Doppler shift. The pilot can compare the target with an actual picture radar image stored in the F-22's data base.

8) The software that provides the avionics system's full functionality is composed of approximately 1.7 million lines of code. Ninety percent of the software is written in Ada.

9) The F-22's AN/APG-77 radar can scan in one second a volumn of space that would take the AN/APG-70 fourteen seconds to do the same.

10) The EW aperture locations provide all-aspect coverage, and the system includes a missile launch detection capability.

[Source -USNI Database;
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-avionics.htm]

All these features and maneuvers that only the F-22 can do plus, these these are legitimate combat maneuvers for high speed combat.

The F-22 can hit Mach 2.0 in supercruise but it can not sustain it. The wing skin is made of a material named "bismaleimide" (BMI). The heat of air friction exceeds what the BMI can handle and not be damaged. The USAF gave up Mach 0.2 in top speed and 0.1 in cruise speed because BMI is a better material than the material it replaced and it is far cheaper to make and manufacture.


> M21Sniper
> The upper speed limit for 5G maneuver: Mach 1.3, Sea-level to
> Mach 2.0, 50,000 fts (with A/B thrust)
Max Q is Mach 1.1 at 17,000 at 7G's
SOURCE -Aviation Week & Space Technology Magazine September 6, 1999

Adrian

Dima
29 Apr 05,, 02:46
does anyone know the RCS of the F-22 btw, i heard it was something like 0.001 square metres, or 0.01 square metres?

which one

uss
29 Apr 05,, 05:16
does anyone know the RCS of the F-22 btw, i heard it was something like 0.001 square metres, or 0.01 square metres?

which one

Hi Dima,

Got these from a Bharat Rakshak posting:
Some numbers of frontal RCS of different planes:

B-52 100m2
F-4: 25m2
F-15E, B1B: 10m2
Nonstealth Fighters (MiG-21,23,29, F-16A, Mirage 2000) : 3-5m2
F-16C 1.2m2
Gripen: 1m2?
Typhoon: 0.1m2
Rafale: 0.05m2
F-35: 0.005 and 0.01 m2 (US/UK and export variants, respectively)
F-22, F-117, B-2: 0.001-0.005 m2

I'm not sure how exactly accurate they are. I have a similar question regarding the LCA. It is by far the smallest of all the above mentioned a/c and has a huge amount of composite materials. Unfortuantely external weapons will ruin it. But then, this is also the case with rafale and typhoon and they are much bigger than the LCA. Any educated guesses any one??

Kind Regards,
USS.

Bill
29 Apr 05,, 05:18
"> M21Sniper
> The upper speed limit for 5G maneuver: Mach 1.3, Sea-level to
> Mach 2.0, 50,000 fts (with A/B thrust)
Max Q is Mach 1.1 at 17,000 at 7G's
SOURCE -Aviation Week & Space Technology Magazine September 6, 1999
"

Those are just the specifications. The F-22 exceeds those figures handily.

Dima
30 Apr 05,, 05:54
Hi Dima,

Got these from a Bharat Rakshak posting:
Some numbers of frontal RCS of different planes:

B-52 100m2
F-4: 25m2
F-15E, B1B: 10m2
Nonstealth Fighters (MiG-21,23,29, F-16A, Mirage 2000) : 3-5m2
F-16C 1.2m2
Gripen: 1m2?
Typhoon: 0.1m2
Rafale: 0.05m2
F-35: 0.005 and 0.01 m2 (US/UK and export variants, respectively)
F-22, F-117, B-2: 0.001-0.005 m2

I'm not sure how exactly accurate they are. I have a similar question regarding the LCA. It is by far the smallest of all the above mentioned a/c and has a huge amount of composite materials. Unfortuantely external weapons will ruin it. But then, this is also the case with rafale and typhoon and they are much bigger than the LCA. Any educated guesses any one??

Kind Regards,
USS.


wow, GREATLY APPRECIATED, i'm going to use this as a reference

so the F-117 ahs roughly the same RCS as the F-22, that means that if a nation gets lucky like the Yugoslavians, they may actually be able to shoot down a single F-22, lol

so, the B-2 ahs the lowest RCS, then F-22, then F-117

Bill
30 Apr 05,, 06:21
The B-1Bs RCS is always quoted as 1% that of the B-52.

10m2 is not 1% of 100m2.

1m2 is.

Dima
30 Apr 05,, 06:34
yea, i know, why did you post that?

thanks for that, though, don't understand why? :confused:

Bill
30 Apr 05,, 06:48
Because your list puts the B-1Bs RCS at 10m2, which is 10x larger than is publically stated.

avon1944
01 May 05,, 04:51
> khruschev
> Because American planes can't perform it LOL :D
> It seems to me that F-22 has only 2-D thrust vectoring, while
> the Russian aircraft under developpment, such as Su-37, Su-47,
> MiG 1.44, and probably Sukhoi PAK-FA, have 3-D thrust vectoring
The MiG.-29 does not have TVC but, it can do the cobra, hook, hammerhead, etc. These maneuvers do not depend on TVC, they depend on the flight control systems.
The reality is the F-22 can do a whole lot of maneuvers that are valuable in high speed combat than the hook or cobra. The hook and cobra are good in a "guns" envirement ONLY! The Israeli AF and USAF both consider those maneuvers as B.S.!! Which two air forces have more modern jet aerial combat than these two air forces. Great for shows but that is all. I search on ACIG and here are the last ten gun kills are;
10/??/82 __ IRAF __ MiG-21MF __ 23mm __Victim => IRAF __ AH-1J

02/27/84 __ IRAF __ MiG-21 __ 23mm __ Victim => IRAF __ CH-47C

02/14/86 __ IRAF __ AH-1J __ 20mm __ Victim => IRAF __ MiG.-21

04/03/86 __ IRAF __ MiG.-21 __ 23mm __ Victim => IRAF __ Hercules L-100

07/25/88 __ IRAF __ F-4E __ 20mm __ Victim => IRAF __ Bell 214ST Helo

08/02/90 __ IRAF __ F.1EQ __ 30mm __ Victim => KuAF __ Helo

08/02/90 __ KuAF __ A-4KU __ 20mm __ Victim => IRAF __ Helo

08/02/90 __ KuAF __ A-4KU __ 20mm __ Victim => IRAF __ Helo

08/02/90 __ KuAF __ A-4KU __ 20mm __ Victim => IRAF __ Helo

02/15/91 __ USAF __ A-10 __ 30mm __ Victim => IRAF __ Mi-8 Helo

If you check the records of aerial combat since the Viet Nam War, you will the distances at which kills have been made have slowly but steadily increased. It has been 14 years since a gun kill has been made. Nine out of the last ten kills were against helicopters and one against a C-130 (L-100)! Missiles are getting better, what is the likelyhood of guns being used anytime soon?
Russia is hoping for a dogfight where there are at least three dozen aircraft from each side fighting. Seven dozen or more aircraft in one dogfight means the unseen shorter will make most of the kills. Unfortunately, for Russia..... they are not producing aircraft in quantity to fight an attrition war.


> Enzo Ferrari
> Any Su-37, Su-47 amd MiG 1.44 "invisible" from radar, hitting the
> target without detected?
I don't understand how the fans of the Russian Air Force keep wishing each new test aircraft will be their savior, one that will lead them to air superiority. Their Air Force "generalS" including the Russian Federation Air Force Commander-in-Chief, Colonel-general Vladimir Mikhailov have stated as late as 2002 that the Russian AF will not produce a stealth aircraft until after the F-35 becomes operational in the 2013 or later time frame.


> Dima
> i'm going to use this as a reference so the F-117 ahs roughly
> the same RCS as the F-22
NO..... the F-22 is the stealthiest aircraft ever, followed by the B-2 Spirit.
This was a reference given for the B-2 and F-22 [F-22A/B-2A___-40.0db =0.0001m]. Since then changes have been made and the F-22 is more stealthy than the B-2! This was the statistic that was previously quoted as the degree of stealth. Here are figures for other aircraft;
F-15C/Su-27__+06.0db =6.0m
Typhoon______+00.5db =1.5m
Rafale_______+00.0db =1.0m
B-1B/F-18E___+00.0db =1.0m
LFI__________-20.0db =0.01m
F-35A/B/C____-30.0db =0.001m
F-117A_______-35.0db =0.0005m
F-22A/B-2A___-40.0db =0.0001m


>> M21Sniper
>> The upper speed limit for 5G maneuver: Mach 1.3, Sea-level to
>> Mach 2.0, 50,000 fts (with A/B thrust)
> Max Q is Mach 1.1 at 17,000 at 7G's
> SOURCE -Aviation Week & Space Technology Magazine September
> 6, 1999
This was a milestone that was passed, not a spec. Since then greater milestoneS have been passed.
REMEMBER:
10m/100m = 0.1m

0.1m X 0.1m = 0.01m = 1%
The original statement of the B-1 having 1% the RCS of the B-52 is correct.

When sighting statistics one must remember the time frame in which the statistic is taken from.
EXAMPLES:
1) When the F-14A and F-15A first met in ACM the kill ratio was roughly 1:1. Months later after the F-15A learned to use its thrust advantage to its fullest, the F-15A was a better fighter in the "guns" envirement.
Now the competition had ROE's where both aircraft approached each other at the same speed, altitude and, only 1,000 feet separation laterally.

2) When the F-15A fought the F-5E during AIMVAL/ACEVAL, the F-15A had a kill ratio of 64:0. A year or two later, F-5E aggressor pilots got tired of dying day after day. They started coming using "team tactics" thus getting kills against the F-15A's. They erased the 64:0 ratio but, I never heard exactly how well the aggressor pilots did.
Team tactics are not just maneuvers against the F-15's but, maneuvers that as the two groups of aircraft approached each other the F-5E's were able to confuse the radar picture, sometimes get an unseen shoot into the fight or, take advantage of the F-15 pilots in one way or another.

Adrian

Dima
01 May 05,, 07:09
Because your list puts the B-1Bs RCS at 10m2, which is 10x larger than is publically stated.

oh, that wasn't my list though, i didn't post it

but avon you don't mention that with aircraft going towards stealth technolgoy, engagement ranges among the aircraft will steadily decrease, and soon, the guns will be blazing once again, hopefully

"I don't understand how the fans of the Russian Air Force keep wishing each new test aircraft will be their savior, one that will lead them to air superiority. Their Air Force "generalS" including the Russian Federation Air Force Commander-in-Chief, Colonel-general Vladimir Mikhailov have stated as late as 2002 that the Russian AF will not produce a stealth aircraft until after the F-35 becomes operational in the 2013 or later time frame."

and..........that doesn't mean that it won't be their saving aircraft

wow, stealthier than the B-2, incredible, it's the B-2's size that gives it awway compared to the F-22, right?


thanks for the list

avon1944
01 May 05,, 11:46
> Dima
Sorry for mis-quoting you
> avon you don't mention that with aircraft going towards stealth
> technolgoy, engagement ranges among the aircraft will steadily
> decrease, and soon, the guns will be blazing once again, hopefully
We are in the mist of a race.... steath versus stealth detection. As aircraft become more steathy the means to detect them will increase. Currently LPI radars will aid steath aircraft but, after a while there will means of detecting these also.

> engagement ranges among the aircraft will steadily decrease,
> and soon, the guns will be blazing once again, hopefully
As one whos country is along the leading edge, I hope not! Going back to guns will bring back the "furball" and the exchange rates will be fairly close (1:1). Having the technology edge, I want American aircraft to stand off and kill through technical ambush.
Currently, the F-22 has a greater technical advantage over its contemporaries than the F-15A did when it became operational! So, a kill ratio of 100:0 is not unreasonable to expect!!!

> that doesn't mean that it won't be their saving aircraft
Saving their aircraft for what? War is a come as you are party. You fight with what you have now. I do not foresee a conflict where either side will have time to build up its forces. Although the PRC is building its Navy and Air Force to project power and deny the waters east of Taiwan to any power that might want to come to the aid of Taiwan -ROC.
It takes over four years from the time a jet engine is ordered until the time it is delievered! As you can see, even if you are able to cut the time by 75%, that still means from the time you order the engine until delievery is one year.

> wow, stealthier than the B-2, incredible, it's the B-2's
> size that gives it awway compared to the F-22, right?
Yeah, that is what I felt also. This simply indicates how technology is moving on.
The B-2 Spirit is stealthier than the F-117 which "eventually" be phased out by the F-35. While the F-35 is not as stealthy, it can carry a far larger ordnance load plus the ability to defend itself.

Adrian

sniperdude411
01 May 05,, 14:58
For RCS, are you talking about x meters squared? Or is it x square meters? The two are different-- 10 meters squared is 10x10 or 100. 10 square meters is 3.16x3.16 or 10 square meters.

And most stealth aircraft, even though they do have an RCS, are often filtered out from the radar screen; the RCS of the f-117 is less than that of a gull.

Dima
02 May 05,, 03:44
"steath versus stealth detection. As aircraft become more steathy the means to detect them will increase. Currently LPI radars will aid steath aircraft but, after a while there will means of detecting these also."

eventually, stealth will become so advanced, that it will take an increasinglly longer time for us to target them, also, with the increase in speed among fighters, BVR time will continue to become smaller also, the protection systems of an aircraft will become extremely advanced to fend off against missiles, who knows what the future holds, i just hope that there will be some nice dogfights, rather than shooting from 50-60km away and shooting him down like a *****, i hate how they get so full of **** after that

regarding your 1:1 ratio, remember in WW2, German pilots had a significantly better ratio than Russian pilots

"Saving their aircraft for what?"

no, not that they're saving their aircraft, their next generation of aircraft(ie T-50) will be their saving aircraft, not that they're going to save it, no, it will be their saviour

plus the F-35 doesn't handle like a rock

Bill
02 May 05,, 08:49
The F-117 is actually pretty manueverable.

The key to a good manuevering aircraft is in it's being inherently unstable, and the F-117 is BIG TIME inherently unstable.

The F-117 does have an A2A self defense capability(AIM-9), but it's rarely embarked, and then usually for the role of HVAA(High Value Anti-Aircraft, ie, AWACS killing), but it's not something that's practiced very often.

There's an F-117 driver that posts at my board.

Franco Lolan
03 May 05,, 04:45
The F-117 does have an A2A self defense capability(AIM-9), but it's rarely embarked, and then usually for the role of HVAA(High Value Anti-Aircraft, ie, AWACS killing), but it's not something that's practiced very often.

There's an F-117 driver that posts at my board.

I never knew that. So an F-117 would try to sneak up on an AWACS and fire a sidewinder? Sounds risky, almost implausible given radar power and cover AWACS are given. Ellaborate, please. Its very interesting.

Bill
03 May 05,, 09:43
I don't have the clearance to know how they'd be employed, nor would i post that information on the internet even if i did. There's an interesting possible scenario in the book 'Red Storm Rising' though.

Repeat after me: "I can neither confirm nor deny...." ;)

Oh, before someone asks, the F-117 can embark two AIM-9Ps in lieu of bombs. It's an either or thing.

Franco Lolan
03 May 05,, 13:11
Cool.

sniperdude411
04 May 05,, 03:17
The F-117 is already outdated; slow, short range, low payload amount, the F-22 has got everything on it expect price.

Bill
04 May 05,, 19:03
The F-117 has been constantly updated since it's introduction.

There were three OCIP phases, and now a Block II phase. The F-117 is still a very effective strike platform, and with inflight refueling, has virtually limitless range.

PS: The F-117 can go supersonic in a shallow dive, it's not what i'd call slow.

avon1944
06 May 05,, 02:34
> M21Sniper
> The F-117 is actually pretty manueverable.
You are correct, the F-117 got the unstable reputation because the world found out about the F-117 by the crash of two aircraft that were on night exercises. People "assumed" the problem was the aircraft when it was the pilots. It was found that at night, without lights on the horizon it is easy to get dis-oriented and think you are climbing when in reality you are diving. The solution was what the Soviets used, a "panic button."
When the button is pushed the flight computer controls the aircraft to fly straight and level.

> The F-117 does have an A2A self defense capability(AIM-9)
The F-117 does not have air to air capability. It could be engineered in but, what for? We now have the F-22 that is stealthier and designed for air combat.

> The F-117 has been constantly updated since it's introduction.
True, Phase Three of Offensive Capabilities Improvement Program (OCIP) has improved the capabilities of the F-117 as much as the "C" model of the F-15 has been improved over the "A" model.


> sniperdude411
> The F-117 is already outdated; slow, short range, low payload
> amount, the F-22 has got everything on it expect price.
No it is not out dated! Can any radar effective track it? NO!
People talk about the price of the F-22 but, until Jan 1991 the F-117 was an example of wasteful military spending. Remember how congress cried about the price of the F-14A and F-15A. There were direct threats to the F-14A program due to its expense. To a lesser degree a threat was made against the F-15A also. Then congress said, we can only afford to build one of the two aircraft. Fortunately the aircraft were so different and the cost of terminating the terminating of either aircraft was not a viable option. The lightweight fighter mafia suggested, small less capable aircraft to fill the volumn of aircraft. Nobody calculated how much this competition and start up manufacturing cost would versus the continuence of the F-14 & F-15. Another couple of options that were not looked at were speeding up or, second sourcing production.

Adrian

raptor1992
21 Jun 05,, 20:34
The F-22 can hit Mach 2.0 in supercruise but it can not sustain it. The wing skin is made of a material named "bismaleimide" (BMI). The heat of air friction exceeds what the BMI can handle and not be damaged. The USAF gave up Mach 0.2 in top speed and 0.1 in cruise speed because BMI is a better material than the material it replaced and it is far cheaper to make and manufacture.


i heard that the engineers of F/A-22 predicted that it can go up to Mach 2.5 @ +65000 ft max. with afterburner. i think thats because F/A-22 is made largely of titanium and composite. in supercruise i doute F/A-22 can make Mach 2.0 for a long time....oh yeah, i think F/A-22 can do a cobra.

F-117 is not agile because it's airframe is not built for that.

Bill
21 Jun 05,, 23:19
"The F-117 does not have air to air capability."

That would be incorrect. The F-117 is cleared for the AIM-9P missile.

That is a fact, it's been personally verified to me by an F-117 pilot and an F-117 crewman. The AIM-9 is embarked for the HVAA mission.

HVAA means "High Value Airborne Asset".

A maximum of two AIM-9Ps can be embarked.

raptor1992
22 Jun 05,, 01:14
even though F-117 can carry sidewinders it isn't a major air to air fighter and i think F-117 would be very vulnerable to a Flanker or Fulcrum in within visual range dogfight.

Bill
22 Jun 05,, 01:47
That's not why it carries AAMs...on the rare occasion it would, it would be to kill enemy aerial targets of extremely high value.

It is being completely replaced in that role by the F-22, but the capability to embark AIM-9 still eixsts.

raptor1992
22 Jun 05,, 01:54
i don't think F-117 would be effective with it because it doesn't have good air to air avionics. F-117 is a strike aircraft anyway so why making it do air to air duty?

Bill
22 Jun 05,, 03:12
I'll leave that up to your imagination.

raptor1992
22 Jun 05,, 03:16
yeah,yeah LOL LOL i get it :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

raptor1992
22 Jun 05,, 18:32
even though F-117 is pretty maneuverable i doubt it can do something close to a cobra or kulbit

avon1944
24 Jul 05,, 03:42
> Dima
> does anyone know the RCS of the F-22 btw, i heard it was something like 0.001 square
> metres, or 0.01 square metres?
Yes I hear the same figures and I believe they were targets or specs to be met. Now the testing is about over, the USAF/Lockeed have found the RCS is less than that figure, in fact it has a lower RCS than the B-2 Spirit Bomber!!

Adrian

Bill
24 Jul 05,, 05:29
Supposedly the F-22A is the most stealthy aircraft ever to enter service.

I know during testing a few years back they were easily able to close to the no escape zone of AMRAAM against emmiting USAF E-3B Sentry AWACS without being detected.

That's pretty friggin' stealthy.

Unipidity
24 Jul 05,, 06:33
Visual range dogfight? At night? How would they know its there? No visuals, small heat signature, radar stealthy. It could be in behind a couple of flankers and have its sidewinders off (though WHY, I wouldnt know) with ease. Assuming its heat signiture is as small as I think it is; cant really remember well.

hello
24 Jul 05,, 07:14
Supposedly the F-22A is the most stealthy aircraft ever to enter service.

I know during testing a few years back they were easily able to close to the no escape zone of AMRAAM against emmiting USAF E-3B Sentry AWACS without being detected.

That's pretty friggin' stealthy.

Wow. That's stealth. :cool:

HistoricalDavid
31 Jul 05,, 22:06
More importantly, does it really matter whether or not it can do an acrobatic stunt?

hello
02 Aug 05,, 15:10
No.

raptor1992
17 Aug 05,, 19:23
actually most of the acrobatic stunts are only to entertain people. looks good but won't help much in combat :biggrin:

avon1944
19 Aug 05,, 04:09
> barrowaj
> I'm also very doubtful that the F-22 could outdogfight an F-16
Boy are you wrong there, every parameter to measure the performance of an aircraft the F-22 exceeds the F-16 in every way. While the F-16A was designed to fight between 15,000 feet and 30,000 feet and speeds of 250mph to 450mph. The F-22 can out maneuver every current aircraft.
The F-15 has compiled a combat record of 104:0 losses remember this..... the technical advantage the F-22 has over every aircraft entering production is greater than what the F-15A had over its contemporaries!
Read this at URL;
F-16 Versus the F-22 By Vprwzl
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=771&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120&sid=30fde129986697c0648213bc383fa95f
"Vprwzl" is an F-16C pilot and he tells of an encounter with an F-22! About a third of the way down the page.


> Unipidity
> It could be in behind a couple of flankers and have its sidewinders off
People write about the LPI radar but, little mention is made of its IRST system! The F-22 has three IR arrays, one just below the radar and near the wing root along the leading edge.


> raptor1992
> The F-22 can hit Mach 2.0 in supercruise but it can not sustain it. The wing skin is
> made of a material named "bismaleimide" (BMI).
Boy that sounds familiar but, BMI is a material that is under the gun to improve its heat tolerance. In one of the earlier upgrades the some of the original specs of the F-22 will be met. First the ceiling will be increased to 60,000 feet, supercruise speed and endurance will be increased also.

> in supercruise i doute F/A-22 can make Mach 2.0 for a long time
Currently you are correct but, top speed and supercruise speeds will be improved. Specific fuel consumption will be reduced!

> most of the acrobatic stunts are only to entertain people. looks good but won't help much
> in combat
Actually, it is good in the "guns envirement." When you are in a furball and for some reason you won't or can't fire your missiles (like pulling to many "G's," your cannon is the best weapon. You may not always be in a position in which you could un-load the "G" forces then use a missile.

Adrian

hello
28 Aug 05,, 06:24
Can a cobra or kulbit dodge an incoming BVR missile?

Bill
28 Aug 05,, 07:33
I'm pretty sure the F-22s missile are ejected by rams(in fact im almost positive), and have test fired missiles inverted at as much as 5 or 7g's. The missile firing sequence is only 1/10th of a sec total i believe, the doors open and snap shut really fast to restore the RCS.

Should be on Google, i know i read it from an open source somewhere.

MiGuel
15 Feb 07,, 03:28
Greetings, I have just joined this group.
I have not read all of the messages in this thread but perhaps it still concerns which aircraft can and cannot perform the Cobra maneuver. John "40-Second" Boyd, at the time a FWS instructor at Nellis, apparently did this manueuver, or something quite similar, a number of times in the 1950s with the extremely unforgiving F-100 aka "the lieutenant-killer". I am only part way through his biography ... seems like he did things with every aircraft he flew that the aircraft was supposedly incapable of. Following is a quote with source at end of quote.
"A student with an obstruction would be put on Boyd's six and then, after one or two maneuvers (during which the student was lulled into a sense of overconfidence), Boyd would demonstrate with one abrupt move why he was considered the best Hun [F-100] driver in the Air Force. He would seize the stick with both hands, jerk it full aft, and hold it there. This maneuver he called 'flat-plating the bird.' The maneuver turned the bottom of the aircraft, the wings, and the bottom of the tail surfaces into one enormous speed brake and slowed the Hun from 400 knots to 150 knots in seconds. It was as if a manhole cover were sailing through the air and suddenly flipped ninety degrees to the airstream. Then Boyd, still holding the stick full aft and not moving it a quarter inch in either direction, would stomp hard on the rudder and corkscrew the aircraft violently around in a tight roll. The maneuver spit the student out in front and left Boyd on the student's six. He had set the hook and there was no escape.
It happened so fast that students never knew what happened. One minute they were in a perfect kill position, tight on Boyd's tail, pipper locked on his cockpit, and about to shout, 'Guns! Guns! Guns!' into the radio. All they needed was sixteen frames of gun-camera film, the equivalent of a half-second burst, to have a kill. But, as one student remembered, 'All at once he did a double outside rat's ass and a two-tone trick **** and I was a movie star. He had me in his gun camera.'
Now it was Boyd behind the student barking, 'Guns! Guns! Guns!' Then there was raucous laughter and, 'You just got hosed.'
If the student thought this was a fluke and wanted to do it again, Boyd obliged. The outcome was always the same.
... The elegantly violent slow-speed maneuver does not square with Boyd's admonition to keep up the airspeed for follow-on maneuvers. He used it to prove to students that no matter how good they thought they were, they could always learn. And he taught it as the 'desperation maneuver' every fighter pilot should know when he is about to get hosed and there is no other option. He did the maneuver both with wings level and in a turn. He did it over the top and out of the bottom. The maneuver taught Boyd that when the F-100 was at a high angle of attack and slow airspeed, the only way to control it was with rudders. Keeping the stick locked in the middle and controlling both rolls and turns with the rudder kept the Hun out of adverse yaw. Nevertheless, most students, even most experienced cadre instructors, were afraid to try it. It was another of the Hun's 'JC maneuvers' -- one that caused the pilot involuntarily to explode over the radio with a 'Jesus Christ'. If it was not done exactly right, it could pop rivets and even warp the wing. It also could cause the Hun to depart flight and go into a nonrecoverable spin. Boyd taught that the secret was bracing the elbows on the sides of the cockpit to avoid moving the ailerons and then pumping the rudders."
(from pp. 86, 87 Boyd, The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War by Robert Coram, Back Bay Books softcover edition)
Thanks,
Ron

GGTharos
15 Feb 07,, 04:35
Can a cobra or kulbit dodge an incoming BVR missile?

No, you'll just die desperate. In some cases it might take you into the notch, but then you have to start flying again since you can't just stand there ... and then you're low on speed. With an incoming missile. Boom.

Jimmy
16 Feb 07,, 01:35
I'm pretty sure the F-22s missile are ejected by rams(in fact im almost positive), and have test fired missiles inverted at as much as 5 or 7g's. The missile firing sequence is only 1/10th of a sec total i believe, the doors open and snap shut really fast to restore the RCS.

Should be on Google, i know i read it from an open source somewhere.


Not sure about the timing, but you're right about the idea itself. The missiles are thrown out of the jet prior to ignition. I've got a video on my hard drive somewhere of AMRAAMs being launched while the F-22 is inverted in an aileron roll.

Bluesman
16 Feb 07,, 04:19
Greetings, I have just joined this group.
I have not read all of the messages in this thread but perhaps it still concerns which aircraft can and cannot perform the Cobra maneuver. John "40-Second" Boyd, at the time a FWS instructor at Nellis, apparently did this manueuver, or something quite similar, a number of times in the 1950s with the extremely unforgiving F-100 aka "the lieutenant-killer". I am only part way through his biography ... seems like he did things with every aircraft he flew that the aircraft was supposedly incapable of. Following is a quote with source at end of quote.
"A student with an obstruction would be put on Boyd's six and then, after one or two maneuvers (during which the student was lulled into a sense of overconfidence), Boyd would demonstrate with one abrupt move why he was considered the best Hun [F-100] driver in the Air Force. He would seize the stick with both hands, jerk it full aft, and hold it there. This maneuver he called 'flat-plating the bird.' The maneuver turned the bottom of the aircraft, the wings, and the bottom of the tail surfaces into one enormous speed brake and slowed the Hun from 400 knots to 150 knots in seconds. It was as if a manhole cover were sailing through the air and suddenly flipped ninety degrees to the airstream. Then Boyd, still holding the stick full aft and not moving it a quarter inch in either direction, would stomp hard on the rudder and corkscrew the aircraft violently around in a tight roll. The maneuver spit the student out in front and left Boyd on the student's six. He had set the hook and there was no escape.
It happened so fast that students never knew what happened. One minute they were in a perfect kill position, tight on Boyd's tail, pipper locked on his cockpit, and about to shout, 'Guns! Guns! Guns!' into the radio. All they needed was sixteen frames of gun-camera film, the equivalent of a half-second burst, to have a kill. But, as one student remembered, 'All at once he did a double outside rat's ass and a two-tone trick **** and I was a movie star. He had me in his gun camera.'
Now it was Boyd behind the student barking, 'Guns! Guns! Guns!' Then there was raucous laughter and, 'You just got hosed.'
If the student thought this was a fluke and wanted to do it again, Boyd obliged. The outcome was always the same.
... The elegantly violent slow-speed maneuver does not square with Boyd's admonition to keep up the airspeed for follow-on maneuvers. He used it to prove to students that no matter how good they thought they were, they could always learn. And he taught it as the 'desperation maneuver' every fighter pilot should know when he is about to get hosed and there is no other option. He did the maneuver both with wings level and in a turn. He did it over the top and out of the bottom. The maneuver taught Boyd that when the F-100 was at a high angle of attack and slow airspeed, the only way to control it was with rudders. Keeping the stick locked in the middle and controlling both rolls and turns with the rudder kept the Hun out of adverse yaw. Nevertheless, most students, even most experienced cadre instructors, were afraid to try it. It was another of the Hun's 'JC maneuvers' -- one that caused the pilot involuntarily to explode over the radio with a 'Jesus Christ'. If it was not done exactly right, it could pop rivets and even warp the wing. It also could cause the Hun to depart flight and go into a nonrecoverable spin. Boyd taught that the secret was bracing the elbows on the sides of the cockpit to avoid moving the ailerons and then pumping the rudders."
(from pp. 86, 87 Boyd, The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War by Robert Coram, Back Bay Books softcover edition)
Thanks,
Ron

You and I are the only two posters on this board to have ever written about the greatest fighter pilot that ever lived. (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/140368-post141.html)

Gun Grape
21 Feb 07,, 03:01
You and I are the only two posters on this board to have ever written about the greatest fighter pilot that ever lived. (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/140368-post141.html)

Oh no make that 3 of us. How could a jarhead not mention him?
I have him as 1 of the best military minds of the last 100 years.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/land-forces/22464-5-best-military-minds-last-100-years.html#post287511

MiGuel
21 Feb 07,, 05:45
Gun Grape,
A jarhead complimenting an air force fighter pilot? Nobody would know why except a jarhead. His picture is probably still on the wall at Quantico and your willingness to follow his strategies accounted for your phenomenal success in Iraq. Your people honored him more at his funeral than the USAF that does not tell their pilots who designed their planes and tactics. And you just honored him again with your reply. I am nobody but I am glad you said something because the Marines have shown willingness to give respect where it is due.
MiGuel

Ruskiy
21 Feb 07,, 19:15
Go to youtube and type in SU-37 or SU-30, it will show some interesting manuevers. About SU-37, it do not have 3D thrust vector, it's vector is 2D - up and down only (much like F/A-22), but can performe manuevers that are not seen from any other aircraft (performs maneuvers at speeds close to 0, also makes a 180 degrees and 360 degrees turns in the air wothout losing altitude).
SU-30 MKK - the best SU-30 made yet, has 3D thrust vectoring which gives him even better manueverability than Terminator (SU-37 Terminator) have. Those planes can fly at speeds of 70 kilometers per hour (I'd like to see how it lands at this speed, maybe I'd even be able to land it into the parking lot when flying by the Wall Mart lol).
Watch the videos on SU-30MKK and SU-37 and you'll see it's manueverability.

AxlRose86
21 Feb 07,, 20:14
The Cobra was designed so that in a dog fight with multiple birds around, an aircraft with a plane above him can pull up and blow him outta the sky and also so that they can rapidly fire and knock the second above him outta the air.

highsea
21 Feb 07,, 20:47
^^^ I can't stand it. :frown:

Did you know it also gets rid of unsightly blemishes? It's true!

It delivers a pizza and removes stains. It slices and dices, and makes billions of julienne fries in micro-seconds. It walks your dog, never needs winding, and it's only a dollar! It's rod, reel, hook, line, sinker- the whole works!

It's new and improved/it wins the election/it gives an erection. It's the only one you'll ever need. It's a friend, it's a companion. Everyone's a winner!

gunnut
21 Feb 07,, 22:15
^^^ I can't stand it. :frown:

Did you know it also gets rid of unsightly blemishes? It's true!

It delivers a pizza and removes stains. It slices and dices, and makes billions of julienne fries in micro-seconds. It walks your dog, never needs winding, and it's only a dollar! It's rod, reel, hook, line, sinker- the whole works!

It's new and improved/it wins the election/it gives an erection. It's the only one you'll ever need. It's a friend, it's a companion. Everyone's a winner!

But does it do dishes? :confused:

GGTharos
21 Feb 07,, 22:54
The Cobra was designed so that in a dog fight with multiple birds around, an aircraft with a plane above him can pull up and blow him outta the sky and also so that they can rapidly fire and knock the second above him outta the air.


Or, to answer more realistically ...

Do the Cobra in a multi-plane fight and you DIE, because your opponent's wingman just killed you - you just made yourself a super-easy target for a heater or guns because you just made yourself hang in the air like a baloon. You couldn't get out of the way of his guns IF YOUR LIFE DEPENDED ON IT, which it does.

That's all she wrote for anyone attempting this. In a 1v1, or as a last ditch desperate move, it could work, it sure could - it's not like that kind of thing hasn't been done before.

In your scenario? You die. Furthermore, you don't have enough control to point the nose at another aircraft to shoot it.

AxlRose86
22 Feb 07,, 01:06
Not what the Russians say

Jimmy
22 Feb 07,, 01:34
Not what the Russians say

And we all know that world govts always tell the truth.

The Cobra is a cool-looking maneuver that holds practically no combat virtue in any situation.

Edit: To clarify, in order to do a cobra in a situation where it might be useful, you have to know well ahead of time who you're trying to shoot, and where they are. The only way to do that against another fighter is by using a radar or maybe an IRSTS. If you're gonna do that, then you're already tracking him for long enough to get a missile off, or if you happen to be out of missiles and feeling particularly stupid that day, you could go for guns. Lining yourself up slightly below and in front of an adversary is a recipe for death. If you dont get a missile off (and maybe if you do), he WILL. But anyway...you're gonna do a cobra. So you wait until he's almost to you...2 miles...1 mile...oh snap, he flew right past you because your closure speed is probably MACH 2 OR HIGHER. Modern fighters like speed, it gives them an energy advantage that can save their ass if you have to maneuver. That 2 mile countdown I gave you goes by in SECONDS. Single digit seconds. You really think you're gonna time it right? Not likely. And that's if you even survive that long.

GGTharos
22 Feb 07,, 03:08
Not what the Russians say

... when did the Russians say anything about the Cobra being an effective maneuver in a multi-aircraft furball?

I'm pretty certain that they know better.

Ruskiy
22 Feb 07,, 03:33
When Pugachev's Cobra was forst performed it made the missiles to lose their lock and the radars were stopping to see the plane. At that time (when it were forst performed), Cobra were very affective and useful, not it is not unlocking the modern missiles and do not really disturb modern radars, but now it still only good looking maneuver and might have some good impact in the dogfight. It might help the pilot to dodge from the missile, but it is not proven and unbelievable for many people and experts, but it still might help...

GGTharos
22 Feb 07,, 04:07
When Pugachev's Cobra was forst performed it made the missiles to lose their lock and the radars were stopping to see the plane.


... No, it didn't, or at best, only for a very short time. And then you had to go forward and fly ... with very little speed - making it practiclaly impossible to dodge the missile that could have reacquired quite easily.



At that time (when it were forst performed), Cobra were very affective and useful,

No, it wasn't. It was 'oooooh' ... in fact, when it was first performed, it was surprising to Pugachev. It was a fluke - and if you've read some of the posts here ... the maneuver has been done by earlier aircraft.



not it is not unlocking the modern missiles and do not really disturb modern radars, but now it still only good looking maneuver and might have some good impact in the dogfight. It might help the pilot to dodge from the missile, but it is not proven and unbelievable for many people and experts, but it still might help...

No, it won't - it will get you killed. Doing a Cobra means you stop flying - you slow to 90kph! At that point your opponent has but to loop (you can't shoot him, your nose needs to come back down) and kill you at the bottom because You're still SLOW and you can't get out of the way!

Missiles really like slow targets too.

Jimmy
22 Feb 07,, 04:18
Its not a sufficiently high-G maneuver to outturn most modern missiles (by modern I mean non-first generation IR/SAR). So the missile will just follow you. On top of that, the energy bleed from the aircraft maneuver will absolutely kill airspeed, which is half of what makes outmaneuvering a missile even possible. Oh yeah, and even if it went dumb for a moment and didnt stay in the turn while following you and it starts to overshoot, you lost so much airspeed that you probably didnt escape the blast radius of the warhead. D'oh.

GGTharos
22 Feb 07,, 04:39
You're only pulling maybe some 3G's - linearly. Ie. in the opposite direction you're aerobraking ... linear=piece of cake for a missile :D

And you're right ... fuze might still nail ya if you do it close enough. If you don't it'll reacquire once you start flying again, probably.

Ruskiy
22 Feb 07,, 20:09
Decades ago, when MiG 29 and SU-27 were first made, missiles were not flying at you back again, if they were missing then they were flying away and were not returning. I don't really know how, but I know that Pugachev's Cobra were dodging from missiles. Also the Bell manuever (flying up high, turning engines down and falling down without heat signature) were helpfull. Plus get real thoughts - 40 years ago missiles were not so perfect and smart as they are now.

highsea
22 Feb 07,, 20:35
...40 years ago missiles were not so perfect and smart as they are now.Flankers and Fulcrums were introduced in the mid-80's.

No combat pilot is going to dump all his energy in a Hail Mary maneuver if he has a choice, because he knows his next move will be to grab for the yellow handles.

One might argue it's still useful in combat, since a 135kt airstream in the face is a lot less violent to the person than a 350kt one.

GGTharos
22 Feb 07,, 23:05
Decades ago, when MiG 29 and SU-27 were first made, missiles were not flying at you back again, if they were missing then they were flying away and were not returning. I don't really know how, but I know that Pugachev's Cobra were dodging from missiles.

I really, really doubt that. I guess you still don't understand.
If you are in a position where a Cobra will break lock, you are in a position where a notching maneuver will break a lock - the difference is, the notching maneuver conserves your speed.
So, what happens once you start accelerating out of the Cobra? ... a second missile is fired, and it kills you, 'cause you're not dodging anything with NO SPEED.

By the way, missiles today don't 'return' ... they either hit you or miss you on the first pass. There's not enough energy to 'return' even if they wanted to or somehow could do so.



Also the Bell manuever (flying up high, turning engines down and falling down without heat signature) were helpfull. Plus get real thoughts - 40 years ago missiles were not so perfect and smart as they are now.

There's no such thing as 'no heat signature' to an all-aspect heat-seeker which was quite proliferated at that time.

Jimmy
23 Feb 07,, 01:43
Decades ago, when MiG 29 and SU-27 were first made, missiles were not flying at you back again, if they were missing then they were flying away and were not returning. I don't really know how, but I know that Pugachev's Cobra were dodging from missiles. Also the Bell manuever (flying up high, turning engines down and falling down without heat signature) were helpfull. Plus get real thoughts - 40 years ago missiles were not so perfect and smart as they are now.

I wasnt talking about the missile flying past and re-engaging. Honestly I dont even think that happens with current weapons...but you've given me something to research if I ever get some free time at work.

The best (meaning SAFEST) way to defeat a missile is to defeat the radar that is guiding it. Usually that's the fighter's radar. Until the AWG-9 and APG-63, that wasnt a real difficult thing to do. These radars and the ones that have come since (not only western, but also eastern technology) has advanced to the point that it takes a little more work. First of all, a cobra is not going to break a fighter's radar lock. Its not even going to toy with it...or an IR seeker. A shorter range, more specialized radar like an active missile isnt going to be fooled, either.

So since you cant defeat the guidance, you need to outmaneuver it. Sadly, a 3-G maneuver isnt going to outturn anything except a bullet.

Edit: Your anti-IR tactic has merit, however. Its no secret that a lot of older IR missiles would occasionally bite off and fly at the sun, and also that reducing engine RPMs and turning could certainly fool a tail-aspect missile especially if you used the sun in the background or dropped flares.

ASG
23 Feb 07,, 16:13
I wasnt talking about the missile flying past and re-engaging. Honestly I dont even think that happens with current weapons...

Dude, It happens..

Next generation High off-boresight IR missile systems do make it happen. :cool:

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4acm.gif

highsea
23 Feb 07,, 18:20
Dude, It happens..Nice cartoon, but I don't know why the Flanker would continue his turn after the Python misses the first opportunity. He can just break off at 180 degrees to the attacker or go vertical. What about his missiles? Is he out? No Archers? Did all his Alamos miss?

In the picture the Flanker actually has to overtake the Python and fly back into it. That's some kickass acceleration! Do Pythons only turn left? It must be a Nascar Python! Those crazy Israelis! :biggrin:

Reminds me of that stupid movie whare the Serbian missile chases the unarmed F-18 on a recon mission for 5 minutes and misses and reacquires about 15 times...

Unfortunately the brochures don't always reflect reality, lol. ;)

ASG
23 Feb 07,, 18:44
Nice cartoon, but why would the Flanker continue his turn after the Python misses the first opportunity? He can just break off at 180 degrees to the attacker or go vertical. What about his missiles? Is he out? No Archers? Did all his Alamos miss?

Dude I know, it has been exaggerated in the cart.. ahem, picture below, but just an example.




Lol. In the picture the Flanker actually has to overtake the Python and fly back into it! That's some kickass acceleration!

Missile flies pure pursuit instead of lead pursuit after the first miss.



Reminds me of that stupid movie whare the Serbian missile chases the unarmed F-18 on a recon mission for 5 minutes and misses and reacquires about 15 times...:rolleyes:

Yeah. Behind Enemy Lines. Lol!

I am not aware about whether the AIM9x has been designed with this in mind, but while developing the Python 4, it was kept in mind that it would track & hit a target with a tail chase pursuit in case the first oppurtunity to hit failed.

Here are some links:

PYTHON-4 AAM - Military - Defense News | Defence Forum | Military Pictures Photos | Weapons (http://www.defencetalk.com/world_missile_systems/air-to-air_missiles/python-4_aam_20050123.php)
Rafael Python 4 (http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Gen-4-AAM-97.html)

highsea
23 Feb 07,, 18:54
...Missile flies pure pursuit instead of lead pursuit after the first miss.The bandit still has to stay in his turn. If he just turns to the right a little or goes straight away as the missile passes, he's instantly outside the seeker's area of regard.
Yeah. Behind Enemy Lines. Lol!Yeah, that's the one. Dumbest F*king movie ever made. :tongue:

Ruskiy
23 Feb 07,, 20:04
Some are saing that missile can pull up to 22Gs. How much Gload can Flanker pull up? 9? 10? Even if he pulls up 9Gs at 1 mach, then missile at the speed of 3 - 3.5 mach will have to get a lot higher G load then Flanker to pull up the same maneuver...
Am I not correct?

Jimmy
24 Feb 07,, 01:14
You're correct. But G-loads for missiles arent usually released to the public, as far as I can find (and I've looked).

As far as why the red air stayed in the turn instead of turning to avoid the missile after the first miss...they Python has an IR seeker, so the pilot's probably not getting any indications that he's even GOT a missile on his ass. Visual acquisition is going to be difficult because of the aspect, and the missile's motor is probably long dead by now and its just cruising...no smoke trail to clue him in. And turning right will probably just put him right in front of the adversary, not a good place to be especially when he's got a missile as capable as a Python 4.

Shadowsided
24 Feb 07,, 02:24
Some are saing that missile can pull up to 22Gs. How much Gload can Flanker pull up? 9? 10? Even if he pulls up 9Gs at 1 mach, then missile at the speed of 3 - 3.5 mach will have to get a lot higher G load then Flanker to pull up the same maneuver...
Am I not correct?
That misile you're speaking of is most likely an aSCM but i think the limit for them is 20g for current technology. The ESSM has strakes and thrust vectoring to achieve a 50g maneuvering capability and it has a speed of mach 4. i suspect the AIM9X has similar or better performance


The RIM-162 is based on the RIM-7P, but is a new missile in almost all respects. It is a tail-controlled missile with strakes instead of wings and fins, using thrust vectoring to achieve a 50G manoeuvering capability. ESSM also features a completely new (boost-only) solid rocket motor of larger (25.4 cm, 10 in) diameter, a new autopilot, and a new insensitive-munition blast-fragmentation warhead. Effective range is significantly bigger than that of the RIM-7P, making ESSM a short/medium-range surface-to-air missile. Tests of various ESSM flight test vehicles started in September 1998, and these tests included interceptions of target drones and simulated missile threats. The OpEval (Operation Evaluation) of the ESSM system was successfully completed in September 2003. Go-ahead for full-scale production was given in January 2004, and in February that year the U.S. Navy began to equip the first ships with tactical ESSM rounds.
Raytheon RIM-162 ESSM (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-162.html)

couldn't find anything on the AIM 9X though I'll have to keep looking although I think I heard snipe say it can do between 45-80 g's or something like that.

Jimmy
24 Feb 07,, 03:17
I guarantee the 9X's g-capability is at least "SECRET." I'd be skeptical of any numbers you find (if you can even find anything).

GGTharos
24 Feb 07,, 03:45
The funny thing is that Python isn't demonstrating a 'reattack' capability as most people think of it ... that missile has a pretty wide gimbal, and the OVERSHOOT is a flight-path overshoot, it's not getting /ahead/ of the plane *nor* it is losing lock.

The missile is tracking in PN all the way, not pure (WTF?). It simply gets back into the turn circle and boomski. It's a demonstration of a wide gimbal and very small minimum range for the maneuver.

Jimmy
24 Feb 07,, 05:38
I'm actually very skeptical about the credibility of that image anyway. I have a hard time believing it comes from a credible source at all. Python 4...an Israeli weapon. Being launched by a Hornet? A Hornet that happens to be equipped with a HMS system? Uhh...yeah. A Python 4 should've been launched from an F-15I, F-16, KFIR or something, equipped with a DASH. The OBS angle is clearly greater than 90* and I think the 9G sustained turn flattens where it should curve sharper (due to airspeed bleedoff).

Minor details? Perhaps. But that's one way to differentiate professional/reliable work from...other work.

GGTharos
24 Feb 07,, 05:47
60deg OBA can be radar-cued (this is the OBA presented in the image)

Lastly there is no time delineation or range metric which is probably confusing to a lot of people. This isn't a particularely unlikely scenario - the aircraft launching the missile isn't important, just the OBA and the fact that the missile can turn on its tail, which TVC equipped missiles can do. There's an example or real life high OBA firing of this weapon caught on tape.

Mind you, I don't think Python 4 is TVC-equipped, but I don't really recall well... in any case, I suppose a bit of aerodynamical trickery might give you that much maneuverability too, though its not the same thing - the particular circumstances of this shot are probably pretty tight ... a little closer and you're in R-min and you'll gimbal the seeker out.

hello
24 Feb 07,, 11:19
Not sure about the timing, but you're right about the idea itself. The missiles are thrown out of the jet prior to ignition. I've got a video on my hard drive somewhere of AMRAAMs being launched while the F-22 is inverted in an aileron roll.

I don't think the AMRAAM can be launched while the F-22 is inverted. It has to fall away before its motor fires. However, the Sidewinder can be launched inverted on it's rail-launcher. The F-22 would have to dive and throw the missile out the bay in order to pull off an inverted AMRAAM launch.


Dude, It happens..

Next generation High off-boresight IR missile systems do make it happen.

The only reason I see for the Flanker to keep turning left is if the launch plane has kept flying forward or made a left turn and is now running away(and the Flanker pilot wants to pursue it). Otherwise, it could've just reversed it's turn and dived for the launch plane after the first miss. I doubt that the missile will have enough energy left over after that climb to stay in pursuit. By the way, what happened to that Pythons proximity fuse?

Jimmy
24 Feb 07,, 16:27
I don't think the AMRAAM can be launched while the F-22 is inverted. It has to fall away before its motor fires. However, the Sidewinder can be launched inverted on it's rail-launcher. The F-22 would have to dive and throw the missile out the bay in order to pull off an inverted AMRAAM launch.


I hadnt actually watched the video in quite a while, but you may be right. The invert-fired missiles were obviously Sidewinders.



The only reason I see for the Flanker to keep turning left is if the launch plane has kept flying forward or made a left turn and is now running away(and the Flanker pilot wants to pursue it). Otherwise, it could've just reversed it's turn and dived for the launch plane after the first miss. I doubt that the missile will have enough energy left over after that climb to stay in pursuit. By the way, what happened to that Pythons proximity fuse?
My analysis of why the Flanker stayed in the left turn assumed the Hornet followed his missile. The lack of follow-up on what the shooter actually did is just another example of the half-assedness demonstrated by that diagram.