Cobra Maneuver: The Truth.

Read the full interview ... vayu-sena.tripod.com...

Another excerept from an interview with Victor
Pugachev....

How did the idea to do the "cobra" arise?

It was in 89, when the task was placed before the Sukhoy firm to demonstrate Su airplanes for the first time at the international salon in Paris. Before this we, essentially, had not participated in salons.

Why?

On account of secrecy being closed up - the "iron curtain" then only was beginning to open slightly.

And previously only civilian firms represented our country at air salons?

That's right - Tupolev, Il'yushin, and Antonov. The Su-25 and Su-27 have flown at Le Bourget - we already had learned these airplanes well. I had tested them in a stall and a spin. We had research large angles of attack for control of a spin, for pulling out of it. The idea arose to slow the airplane quickly or quickly to turn it toward the enemy in a dog fight. Then it was decided to use an angle of attack of 25 - 30 degrees. We conceived of using the whole 90.

And then you increased the angle of attack to 120 degrees, when the fighter departs rearward and freezes and starts to slow down in the air?

Yes, a departure to such angles takes place in 2 - 3 seconds. This was already a new direction in the research of the airplane's stability - super-maneuverability. Mathematical modeling had preceded our work and work on the test stands. After which we began to test the "cobra" in flight. So when they gave us the task to get ready for the air salon in Paris, the experience was already there.

Who invented such an unusual name for this element of aerobatics?

Before the trip to Le Bourget, the Su General Designer, Mikhail Simonov, gathered the team which had been entrusted for the preparations. He said, "Guys, our airplane certainly isn't bad. We can show some find maneuvering characteristics - steep turns, half rolls, turns. But well, aren't we will be able to show something that no other airplane has shown?"

What was the most complicated?

To execute all this at a low altitude. Because right up to this I had been executing the figure at high altitudes. Over 2 months we actively at been doing the "cobra." And on 28 April 1989, I executed this regime over the airfield in Zhukovskiy for the first time. Before the general designer and our whole Sukhoy team...

In view of an amazed public?

This was a bit later. Before it reached the public, I had executed a thousand such regimes for certain. But you don't see it yourself from the side. And well, I had seen it on video tape but still the from the amazed eyes of my friends - it became clear: It looks unusual!

How did the first performances go?

We executed the first flight - everything came together well. Only there were many questions that arose with the international commission: what does this mean? And at the critique the asked us: "And what in general did this mean?" We explained for a long time: It is a departure of the airplane to 120 degrees. Everyone thought: How can it be to 120? It's dangerous, it may stall! Absolutely not, here are our materials - we have performed thousands of the regimes. But the commission requested a second flight so that nonetheless they could examine this regime in detail. Well, we can execute two, three - however many you want! After the second flight we could see already the amazed eyes of the French aviators and the members of the commission.

And the world press? How did it react to your "cobra"?

For 2 - 3 days the Western press had to be quiet. Simply because their airplanes couldn't repeat our regimes. The French journalists tried to argue with us: is this necessary? And how dangerous is it - isn't it dangerous? They talked about whatever they liked - only not about the concrete fact. Well, the French consider themselves the legislators of the fashion in aviation. But after a few of General Designer Mikhail Simonov's press conferences the started to call things by their own names: The Su firm is a favorite of aircraft construction!

Why do you need super-maneuverability? What does it give you in a dog fight?

WIth the help of super-maneuverability it is possible to frustrate the enemy's attack. In that our Su frustrates a cannon strike - it is 100 percent! Today the design of the Su-30MK airplane makes victory possible in the very first attack! Not one airplane in the world today can execute the regimes of the Su-30MK!

But perhaps the West just has another tactic - no dog fights, but bombing at high altitude and departing?

In my opinion, the interception of attacking and defending airplanes is inevitable. Yugoslavia provided such an experience, by the way, in which a stealth airplane was shot down. It was shot down only because of the fact that it turned up not far from a MiG-29. The newest airplane was lost in particular in close combat.

Read the full interview vayu-sena.tripod.com...

CHECK THIS OUT : aeroweb.lucia.it...

NICE !

develop a ferm strategic flightmaneuver but just give it for nope to know to everybody,including the enemy !

hell,what is wrong with the military the last decade ??

Originally posted by Seekerof
Soooooo, in short, the "cobra" and "super-cobra" are for show and act as a selling point?!

regards
seekerof

You hit it right on the head. Having seen a Cobra performed by and Su-27 live, it is an impressive display. However, killing off one momentum in a dog fight may not be the best way to preserve ones life. That being said I am not a pilot and have never been in dogfight.

But it is a real selling point and an impressive one at that. Beyond the airshow however, one has to question its value.

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Getting back to the topic .....

Here is an interesting excerept from an interview with Mikhail Simonov, the designer-general of the AOOT "OKB Sukhoi"

How is that that supermaneuverability leads to the reduction of the aircraft's visibility on the radar screen?

Supermaneuverability should be looked at as a system of maneuvers for close aerial combat. Once the pilot receives a signal that his plane is being tracked by an enemy radar, the first thing he needs to do is to go vertical. While gaining altitude and losing speed the aircraft starts to disappear from the screens of radars that use the Doppler effect. 10 However, the opponent is no fool either and will counter by pitching his aircraft upward as well. By that time our plane is going vertical and its speed approaches zero. But all Doppler radars can recognize only a moving target. If the aircraft speed is zero or simply low enough to prevent the enemy radar from calculating the Doppler component, for the enemy our aircraft will disappear. He may still be able to track us visually, but he will not be able to launch a radar-guided missile (either active or semi-active), simply because the missile's seeker would not pick-up the target.

Are there any other methods to make a plane invisible to a radar?

The so-called "stealth" aircraft are just beginning to emerge. The greatest impact of this new technology is expected for the fifth-generation fighters.11 The first combat aircraft created using this stealth technology was the fighter-bomber F-117A. Although, the aircraft never became a fighter.12 The aircraft had very low radar visibility but poor flying characteristics - a sort of a edgy flying steam iron (comprised of many flat panels the aircraft would reflect the radar signal away from the receiver.)13

How does that help at all? what about heat seekers and Guns .. (ahem ahem good reason for future planes to carry em..!)

Hm, interesting.

Someone seems not to be telling the whole story - while a Doppler radar will indeed lose an aircraft in the notch when it's aproaching speed is equal to aproaching ground-speed, this is a look-down issue. You pay the price for look down capability withthe notch. However, this guy is 'pulling up and going vertical', thus generating a look-up condition. Indeed, this can cause some trouble for a doppler radar, but radars are actually not entirely dumb devices - especially the digital kind- and the lack of closure can be countered by altering the waveform perhaps, or other means. Helos can be engaged using radar-guided fighter-weapons so don't doubt their effectiveness against a slow, high-flying fighter.

No speed is also EXACTLY the place you do NOT want to be in while there is a missile coming at you. I doesn't need to do -anything- to hit you ... and it -will- track, wether people would like it to or not - again, it's most likely in a look-up or look-up-like condition. BVR is not the place to be playing this unless you're trying to get devensive and escape. You're not going to trash an AMRAAM like this, but at certain ranges this -may- have its merits. I'ts not a maneuver that you'd use alone.

Again, do this in close-in combat, and you're in trouble with even some of the oldest heat seekers since you're not generating LOS tracking-rate problems and they become all-aspect weapons against you. And again, since your speed sucks, the missile isn't going to have any problems outmaneuvering you.

It doesn't /matter/ that you can turn the plane end over end in the space on 200m. What matters is that this doesn't generate any significant tracking problems for the missile that's coming at you because you've got zippo speed, so the LOS angle is changing within pretty comfy parameters.

Also remember that the missile doesn't have to hit you - that's what proximity fuzes are for.

You wouldn't use this maneuver for evasion, rather, for getting behind the other aircraft for a better shot (in a dogfight head to heat is still less optimal then tail-on attacks), but you do -not- want to be at the speed needed to perform these maneuvers when you're ahving AIM-9X's shot at you. And anyone who thinks the AIM-9X is a toy compared to -any- other missile needs to get a few clues. It's probably more short-ranged than the Python or the 73, but have NO DOUBT about its lethality. It will strike from any angle it wants to, it will reject flares, and it will reject clutter, too. It's a REALLY SCARY MISSILE. No, it's no godsend and it's not infallible, but I think people like to do the 'AIM-9X is a toy compares to Blah' or vice versa, and fail to realise that these are actually pretty comparable systems.
In case of doubt, the same guys who made the Python helped with the AIM-9X

So what about guns only fights then?
Well, you use your supermaneuver, sure, but you better hit on the first snapshot you get because if you don't, you're slow AGAIN! And slow=dead in A2A. It doesn't matter that you can pointt he nose around, what matters is that as soon as you try this your opponent (Assuming equal skill and knowledge, since it's the maneuver you wish to compare) will bounce right up several thousand feet above you, then come down and nail you when you're forced to point the nose back down to gain speed and then, you'll be a slow, fat target that will be hard to miss. you can try guns defense while slow,a nd sure, the maneuverability will help but dude ... the other guy can kick his rudders and have rounds on you anyway, since you're not translating very far across his LOS.

The moral of the story is: You DO NOT SLOW DOWN in A2A combat if you can help it. There are exceptions, but THAT is the rule, and so Sue is an exception to it - nor is the F-22.

And about that F-117 being shot down. It had nothing to do with a MiG, it had everything to do with the planners being forced to assign it the same route repeatedly - it was hit with a SAM that waiting for it to pass over that spot again.

The only things that MiG-29's have accomplished so far against the USAF is to get shot down - and yes, these are old models, and not really comparable in avionics, but the fact is - they had no success. Period.

Also to address the 'what does the F-22 do if the AWACS go down?' ... it'll simply function using its own radar, partially sacrificing its stealth (it'll be visible on RWR and possibly have a larger cross section as the antenna is ground to more reflective angles), but it still shoots first, puts the enemy on the defensive FIRST, and gets aggressive FIRST, and that WINS A2A fights. This is a fact of A2A combat.
Nonwithstanding this, the F-22 and several upgraded F-15's (if not all) have a feature which allows them to tune the missile datalink so that their missiles can receive MCU's from other aicraft. This means that an F-15 or F-22 could go radar silent and aproach the enemy within launch range while directed by another fighter which is farther away. Using a TWS mode, the 'awacs' fighter cna then designate the desired targets, and the 'shooter' will jsut fire his missiles on command, never turning his radar on and never producing a warning for the enemy. The enemy only gets warned of their impending doom when that missile goes active - and they've got not much more than 10-15 seconds to respond to this. No Cobra or Super Cobra or Kulbit is going to save an aircraft here.


Modern A2A combat is -extremely- complicated and no one-trick pony will win the fight.
Just my 2c.

[edit on 1-2-2005 by Tharos]

Originally posted by Seekerof

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.

T

well stated in more than one place is this...

" Normal humans tend to pass out at about 5Gs (5 times the normal gravitational force). Highly trained and fit personnel can withstand short bursts about 9Gs, but that is about the limit. Injured or unconscious people do not make good command decisions."

so how are those pilot pulling past 10 gs?

I saw maneuvers made by (I believe) the F-15 ACTIVE that looked much more useful.
One was a maneuver in which it went into a stall and stopped moving completely. After that, it used its axisymmetric thrust-vectoring engines to spin in place. That would allow it to keep its nose pointed at an enemy that's circling it.
Another was called the post-stall loop. It again went into a stall, and used its thrust-vectoring engines to turn all the way over. That could be used to make the enemy follow you into a stall, and then while you're facing back towards the target, get a lock on them while they're still in their stall.

Who cares, cobra, super-cobra, kulbit are cool-looking maneuvres and as far as we know no current american jet can do them.

Originally posted by dtmfreak

Who cares, cobra, super-cobra, kulbit are cool-looking maneuvres and as far as we know no current american jet can do them.

F-15 ACTIVE probably could have.

Originally posted by dtmfreak

Who cares, cobra, super-cobra, kulbit are cool-looking maneuvres and as far as we know no current american jet can do them.

Might want to re-read the thread. There are American aircraft, as well as Western aircraft, that can do them, except maybe the Kulbit, but then again, the F-22 can do a maneover that no Russian can do.



seekerof

as post by Stealth Spy
Why do you need super-maneuverability? What does it give you in a dog fight?

WIth the help of super-maneuverability it is possible to frustrate the enemy's attack. In that our Su frustrates a cannon strike - it is 100 percent! Today the design of the Su-30MK airplane makes victory possible in the very first attack! Not one airplane in the world today can execute the regimes of the Su-30MK!

Stealth Spy, the only ones that claim the Cobra maneuver (any and all types) is designed to be used in air-to-air combat are Westerners, NATO, and outside general observers from all over the world, like India, US, Mexico, etc. Re-read your linked interview again and you will see that even Mr. Pugachev only mentions the possiblity of it being of any type use in air-to-air combat. Here's the link to an interview with a Russian test pilot, Eugeny Frolov, Sukhoi Chief Test Pilot, that says that Sukhoi has only started to think of it as a possible air-to-air maneuver. The point being is that the Russian's have never claimed that the Cobra maneuver, in any form, is a Russian standard air-to-air combat maneuver, it has also been those outsiders looking at the maneuver who have been asserting thus.

Cobra is simply a/an maneuver that is used in some Russian pilot training in order to allow pilots to learn how to control their aircraft. It is not being taught nor trained as a combat maneuver.

But perhaps the West just has another tactic - no dog fights, but bombing at high altitude and departing?

In my opinion, the interception of attacking and defending airplanes is inevitable. Yugoslavia provided such an experience, by the way, in which a stealth airplane was shot down. It was shot down only because of the fact that it turned up not far from a MiG-29. The newest airplane was lost in particular in close combat.

Within this segment is indication as to 'why' the Cobra maneuver will not be used as a standard air-to-air combat maneuver. Emphasis: the fact that it turned up. This is a dream for any combat pilot: the thought
of a huge flat-plate radar return with no angular velocity sitting
in the midst of that spewed heat signature brings certain destruction. If such applied to the above quoted mention, then it will likewise apply to those individual pilots who perform the Cobra maneuver (any and all types) in actual air-to-air combat. If the manever is spotted, and with most trained pilots, it will be spotted, then the purpose of the Cobra is nullified in that the maneuver is performed in hopes the hostile enemy aircraft will overshoot. When the maneuver is spotted, correction is made and the aircraft performing said maneuver will either be missile fodder or close-in aircraft gun fodder.

Basically, the Cobra maneuver is a demonstration, on many levels, but was not and is not being utilized, intended, nor appled as a/an air-to-air maneuver for any pilot. What it "can do" in a/an air-to-air combat situation and what its actual intended purpose is are two different matters. Its a show piece maneuver, simple. Applying it to a "what if" and "what it can or may do" (allow hig degree of AOA, etc.) in a combat situation is hypothetical, at best. As mentioned, the maneuver is not being taught as a standard maneuver in any air force for applied military air-to-air doctrines or engagements.




seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof


Might want to re-read the thread. There are American aircraft, as well as Western aircraft, that can do them, except maybe the Kulbit, but then again, the F-22 can do a maneover that no Russian can do.

seekerof

And what manuever is that? supercruise?
As for the cobra being taught in flight schools.. I really don't know...but it IS a trump in a dogfight, and if it IS an advantage then no competent training authority will leave it out of the syllabus..THAT I can guarantee..

Originally posted by XB70
I saw maneuvers made by (I believe) the F-15 ACTIVE that looked much more useful.
One was a maneuver in which it went into a stall and stopped moving completely. After that, it used its axisymmetric thrust-vectoring engines to spin in place. That would allow it to keep its nose pointed at an enemy that's circling it.
Another was called the post-stall loop. It again went into a stall, and used its thrust-vectoring engines to turn all the way over. That could be used to make the enemy follow you into a stall, and then while you're facing back towards the target, get a lock on them while they're still in their stall.

Intriguing...any sources on that??...

Yeah, as impressive as the cabras "tricks" are, its all show. Those pilots could spin the plane on its nose like a top if they wanted too and it wouldnt make any difference as traditional dog fights are a thing of the past.

Im not saying its impossible for a modern dogfight to happen, but its just not the way it is done anymore.

What the heck is that carnival trick going to do when its fired on from 200 miles out? Nothing at all. It will just make the firey crash more spectacular.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
And what manuever is that?

supercruise?

Re-read the beginning of this topic. You know, oh about, three pages or so back, maybe?!
Hell, I guess I'll do it for you since you won't, k?

On the other hand.......the F-22 can perform a constant 60 +/- degree AOA, not seconds, and can do this while rocking the wings at higher speeds than the Sukhoi's. This is a feat that NO other aircraft can do.

You then mention:

As for the cobra being taught in flight schools.. I really don't know...but it IS a trump in a dogfight, and if it IS an advantage then no competent training authority will leave it out of the syllabus..THAT I can guarantee..

First off, it is not taught in flight schools. Secondly, it is easy to counter when recognized, and it is recognizable (when the aircraft begins to start said maneuver). As such, it is not a "trump" in any dog-fight. It is only performed 99.9% of the time by test pilots. It is not a standard maneuver for a dog-fight, period. If you continue to think so, then produce the source and evidence to prove thus, cause the sources that have been presented thus far, counter and contradict what you are implying. One member did post a decent article on the possiblility of such a maneuver being used in an air-to-air combat situation back a couple pages, but again, it is not being mass taught or trained to or within any Air Force.




seekerof

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Seekerof]

The Cobra is just for show and has no practical application in A2A combat. The pilot would have to have adequate time to slow the aircraft down to extremely slow speed so the gs wouldn't become lethal and hope that the other aircraft doesn't shoot it down in the meantime. By the time the aircraft would even be able to do the maneuver, the other aircraft will have shot it down, or will maneuver to do so, while the Cobra aircraft is recovering from the maneuver. This would all be done without the use of off-boresite missles such as the AIM-9X, which by the way, being fitted on ALL new U.S. aircraft.

It always amuses me how much faith Americans put in all those "magic gizmos" of theirs. There's a simple law of the probability theory saying that the more complex system is, the more it is prone to failures. The ultimate weapon should be effective, versatile, reliable, simple and cheap. Just like Kalashnikov's rifle. Will your BVR wonderfigters perform as well if some high brass comes up with the ROE that demand positive visual ID of the target as it was in Vietnam?

Right on Russky, United States depedence on technology will be its un-doing. As I have said in many other forums, its the pilot, not the plane that matters most.