Cobra Manuever and Aircraft that perform it

Oh, and I might was well say I believe the capabilities demonstrated in the cobra are extremely beneficial for A2A combat.


Your in a turning fight with the other guy, you can haul back on the nose, go post stall and put your nose on him, then light off a missile which has real good kinematics to make the kill. You only have him on your nose for a second or so, but its enough to get the missile away without a big energy bleeding manouvre off the pylon, it also allows the seeker to lock-on and launch as opposed to lock on after launch [which I'd imagine raises the chances of a miss, more complications = more to go wrong].


I expect people will come on with replies about helmet cueing and all this about 360 degree engagement envelopes... I'll save the bother of them posting by replying now. I am extremely doubtful any missile has a 360 deg real world engagement envelope - and the manufacturers can claim what they like - I'll chose not to believe them.

[edit on 7-11-2006 by kilcoo316]

Originally posted by kilcoo316
it also allows the seeker to lock-on and launch as opposed to lock on after launch [which I'd imagine raises the chances of a miss, more complications = more to go wrong].
[edit on 7-11-2006 by kilcoo316]

You right about that! Trying to Lock-on after launch is MUCH riskier. The main reason is because the sensors in the aircraft are larger and more sensitive then those in the missile. Second, the Pilot can confirm or reject the lock in the aircraft. It's muceh easier to jam or docoy a missile that doesn't have a lock on it's target. Also, while the chance is low, if you fire a missile that isn't locked onto a target, it is possible for it to lock onto and engadge a friendly.

I'm not sure about newer A2A missiles, but I know the older ones didn't have IFF capibility!

Tim

I'll just say that future fighters will not try to engage in ACM, it will be avoided at all costs. IMO it's nice to have maneuverability but I wouldn't put much value in it, with respect to A2A combat. Electronics, sensors, weapons, and SA are much more important in determining who wins

Wasn't that similiar to the kind of thinking they had back in vietnam with the F-4 Phantom?

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 7-11-2006 by ShatteredSkies]

The concept was a great one but it was ahead of it's time, this is not Vietnam or even ODS, and we aren't flying the F-4 anymore.

What's changed to be exact? How exactly has combat evolved to this point? I doubt we're at that point and I don't take very quickly to that kind of thinking, it's a dangerous game to play.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
What's changed to be exact?

Technology, tactics and knowledge. BVR is by no means perfected at this time but we are at that point where it can be applied and used successfully in a war.

Why are people so fascinated with this manuever? Its something for airshows, not for combat. I have seen posters act like it can be used to evade missles. Its not a combat manuever at all. Its just exchanging airspeed (while already slow) to get a high angle of attack. Slow and out of energy is not where you want to be in a knifefight.

Especially when up against an F-16, which can regain energy and airspeed very quickly.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
What's changed to be exact? How exactly has combat evolved to this point? I doubt we're at that point and I don't take very quickly to that kind of thinking, it's a dangerous game to play.

Shattered OUT...

The USAF hasn't abandoned WVR combat in the least bit. However, they do believe that the technology today can provide a much, much better chance of a kill BVR than a dogfight. Combat hasn't really changed but the technology has. The F-15/AMRAAM combo has no problems shooting things down BVR and the F-22 improves that capability exponentially.

With the new radars, IFF and NCTR have pretty much rewritten the ROE. I wouldn't expect the Raptor or Lightning pilot to have to visually acquire a target before shooting.

The thinking in Vietnam is not the same style of thinking that happens today. Back then WVR warfare wasn't taught well and pilots did not have the training necessary to combat the MiGs. Now pilots are taught to fight a balanced attack.

So then why spend money on development of manueverability? I say just create a large ship that is clumsy, but heavily armored and is armed to the teeth with all missiles, possibly 20 per ship and it will also have the world's most advanced tracking systems/FCS/ECM.

That seems like a more logical approach if we're going towards BVR, instead of 8 missiles per ship, where 4 of those are long range. WVR is here to stay whether some people want it to or not. I don't think we'll ever look down on manueverability and the ever shunned gun-cannon. Lessons learned in the past.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
What's changed to be exact? How exactly has combat evolved to this point?

What has changed and how has combat evolved?
Three words: Air combat doctrine.

Think about it, especially when applied to the current air tactics, strategies, and recent aircraft developments of the US Air Force, along with the UK and a few other Western air forces. Hence, another reason to state why the Cobra will never become an all-inclusive practiced, trained, and used air combat manuever in any Air Force. The Cobra will remain simply an airshow manuever.

[edit on 7-11-2006 by Seekerof]

I'm beginning to think everyone thinks I think that the Cobra Manuever was for combat where nowhere did I state that or support that.

I never said that the Cobra would be a combat manuever as I am aware that it cannot be for it would put the aircraft in a very bad position making it a sitting duck for quite a while.

I was just saying that WVR and manueverability will for some time forward be a vital part of the Air Combat Doctrine and that it is because of the lessons learned in Vietnam.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
That seems like a more logical approach if we're going towards BVR, instead of 8 missiles per ship, where 4 of those are long range.

No, because then we would fall into the same old trap, we are much wiser. No one here has claimed that WVR air combat is dead, simply that it is to be avoided, if possible, and only to be engaged in as a last resort. The USAF knows full well that the future is BVR (especially with DEW's) and our tactics and doctrine reflect that. However you always want to be prepared for any eventuality. This is why ACM is still taught and practiced in training, why the F-22 is the most maneuverable US fighter in service, why we developed the AIM-9X, why we are purchasing the JHMCS, and why every single US A2A fighter has a fully loaded gun on every mission.

[edit on 7-11-2006 by WestPoint23]

Westpoint that was the point I was trying to get at, I just understood your argument as WVR is completely dead the way your posts were coming at me.

I know that BVR is top priority, but we cannot ignore that WVR is still an integral part of combat. There's always that one .1 percent.

Shattered OUT...

I think the F-22 is the only plane that could pull it off in a combat situation effectivly

The Su-27 is unstable only in pitch, and has something that is called the "stick stop" if you pull it the flight control system becomes overridden and the aircraft pulls it's nose rapidly upwards that doesnt mean it is more capable then a other aircraft that can not do it. It is difficult to integrate such a function on a totally unstable design. Aircraft such as the Typhoon with pull harder then a flanker because it is totally reliant on the FCS.....meaning the better then FBW the better the aircraft's agility is.

Originally posted by ShadowKeeper
The Su-27 is unstable only in pitch, and has something that is called the "stick stop" if you pull it the flight control system becomes overridden and the aircraft pulls it's nose rapidly

Wait! You're saying the Russians built an unstable aircraft where the pilot can manually override the fly-by-wire Flight control system?

That sounds kind of risky to me! How do they make sure the computer can regain control after being over ridden by the pilot? Hell, if this is true, I'm staying OUT of the SU-27, that thing's Dangerous to fly!

Tim

Yes the Su-27 is unstable only in pitch, the override is for only pitch, when the the stick is pushed forward the aircraft regains control through sensors that default the controls to straight fight

What sources do you have to back up that the Su-27 is unstable only on the Longitudinal axis?

It doesn't make sense to me, aerodynamically speaking of course, that an airframe would be unstable on one axis, but not the other two. What parts of the airframe cause this?

Shattered OUT...

The aircraft is statically unstable only in pitch, since this is all that is necessary to achieve the benefits of high manoeuvrability, low drag and high lift. The electronic and remote control system controls the aircraft in pitch.

My source is a real pilot




Go do your homework first since you know nothing