It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

half kulbit

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
most people say that these new 'supermanuverability' manuvers (such as cobra)are not practical in combat, they are probably right exept for one thing i thought of.

if a flanker (for example) had another aircraft on its 6, it could do a kulbit (thats the somersault) and fire its gun or if it had time, let off a missle half way round back at the chasing plane. this would then have to evade this.

the other thing, im not sure if this is possible but. the flanker could stop halfway around, roll back up the right way, hit burners and . in the opposite direction. like an illemen turn but with no height gain. it would lose speed and probably height but would be .ing away from the other plane and could also fire at it like i said before.

does anyone know if this is feasible or even possible




posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Its possible. However there are a few factors to think about when a flanker pilot is considering doing this:

1. Most dogfights probably take place around 400 knots, and attempting a maneuver like that will probably make the pilot lose conciousness.

2. If the pilot decides to slow down for that maneuver, he's just BEGGING to be hit with a short range IR missile.

If you look at the videos of the Su-37 doing this, you will notice its almost at stall speed.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
BlackWidow23 makes an excellent point. The speeds at which such "air show' manuvers are performed at a slower speed. WHile you were chopping speed, you would be a sitting duck for a gun or IR missile shot.

It also completely ignores the realities of the BVR engagment as well.

The Cobra and other such manuvers are impressive to see and it requires a skileld pilot and a superbly agile aircraft to perform them. However, its combat utility seems very dubious. It may help sell planes to third world countries however.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Granted of course, the aircraft in question performing the maneuver is fighting single-ship and in the right situation to even begin to perform the maneuver.

It's very easy for the pilot to stall the aircraft if entering the maneuver at the wrong speed and if the enemy he is engaging has a wingman(which he probably will), then the wingman can always sweep up the kill with a gun-cannon.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Here's a good thread on the realms of BVR and WVR engagement and the transition therein..
I certainly picked up a lot from this thread.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Okay, more fun with the "theoretical vs. practical" debate. Joy.

During the Kulbit, my favorite personal maneuver, the aircraft does, in fact, face any bogies that were previously at 6 o'clock. However, when it is facing the enemy it is
Upside-Down
. Therefore, the aircraft can not safely fire the missile, and in some variants the system will fully refuse to fire the missile. Thus, the maneuver won't work.

Okay, with that hole poked in it, let's adapt and retest. Say, instead of a Kulbit, a Split-S-Immelman Sustained Turn (it's the kulbit, but inverted at the start basically. Sorry if it's got a shorter name, this is the only name I've heard it called). Since the aircraft is inverted at the start, it'll be righted when facing the enemy. Theoretically this will work assuming the tone is gotten fast enough. It would work far better with a Su-37 where you can operate without elevators, just with the TVCs. Therefore you'll be able to do the maneuver at any speed with less G's than usual, although the deceleration when you're pointing perpendicular to the direction of flight may be too much for the aircraft and/or pilot.

Moving on. The Su-27 (and above) have a two-fold system with their IR short-rangers (such as the R-73). The first is their all-directional fire missiles. Very effective. Although their kill ratios may be more dubious than that of the AIM-9 Sidewinders (I've yet to find a concrete one, some are better, most are slightly worse), they're fully functional with all-directional fire. Also, they have Helmet-Mounted systems. The MiG-29 and the Flanker/Super Flanker series have this capability, and any aircraft armed with both of these poses a fair short-range capability indeed. This is augmented when the Flanker can turn even perpendicular to the enemy and give the missile a better shot. So altogether the maneuver, although it has merit, is not usually the best option.

As for the Flanker turning halfway around, to put it simply, not quite. I've looked into this before, to no avail. Flying backwards is bad for engines. Quite bad. I believe they can suffer compressor stalls or other nasty side effects. During the Kulbit the rearward flight is so brief that no real damage is sustained, but with sustained rear flight you'd end up having problems. So, it's a good idea but not feasible without harming the aircraft for more than the maneuver was worth. But it is possible.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
A good opponent won't get so close if on the Flanker/Fulcrum's 6 o'clock, to allow this manuever to cause an over shoot. The technique known as lag pursuit, allowed F-4 pilots to combat nimbler MIG 17/19/21s, and similarly would be used in some form against these threat aircraft as well.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   


However, when it is facing the enemy it is Upside-Down. Therefore, the aircraft can not safely fire the missile, and in some variants the system will fully refuse to fire the missile. Thus, the maneuver won't work.


Why do you think this is so? I've never come across a missile that can't be fired when inverted. Bombs on the other hand...




The Su-27 (and above) have a two-fold system with their IR short-rangers (such as the R-73).


The R-73 doesn't have the off-boresight capability of a host of newer IR guided missiles. The ASRAAM, AIM-9X, Python 4 and 5 in particular have a much greater envelope, greater range, and are all cued by helmet mounted sights. The R-73 ruled in the 90s, but not anymore. And while there has been talk of the R-74, nothing has been seen operationally (or theoretically for that matter).

As has been described in countless other threads, and further here, air show manoeuvres such as these have the sole purpose of impressing those who don't understand that they are being performed by airshow only jets, which have specific fuel states, no operational weapons, no FCR, all so the CofG is far enough aft that the aircraft can do its spectacular couple of seconds of rotating wonder. It has absolutely zero combat utility, as soon as the nose starts coming round the aircraft on it's "six" will smoke it with whatever weapon of choice is available.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Why do you think this is so? I've never come across a missile that can't be fired when inverted.


I've seen a couple videos in which the pilot has had a clear tone but no missile launched until they were more or less right-side up, not inverted or even sideways. The blinking "X"'s across the lead circle was a bit of a clue as well. Also, a/c like the F-22 probably shouldn't launch while inverted due to the internal bays in which missiles are kept, particularly if the pilot is looking up at the enemy while inverted (which translates as the enemy having a lower altitude).


The R-73 doesn't have the off-boresight capability of a host of newer IR guided missiles.


In this situation it's irrelevant how other missiles stack up. The fact is that the missile is capable of these things and can pose a threat while in this position. Comparing it would be like comparing to how an F-22 would fare in such a situation compared to the Flanker. Yeah, we can do it, but it's got basically nothing to do with the issue at hand. I only compared the use of off-boresight capabilities rather than the half-kulbit maneuver described.

[edit on 1/28/2007 by Darkpr0]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   


I've seen a couple videos in which the pilot has had a clear tone but no missile launched until they were more or less right-side up, not inverted or even sideways. The blinking "X"'s across the lead circle was a bit of a clue as well. Also, a/c like the F-22 probably shouldn't launch while inverted due to the internal bays in which missiles are kept, particularly if the pilot is looking up at the enemy while inverted (which translates as the enemy having a lower altitude).


Can you give me some links? Generally an X in the HUD is the break X symbol for ground avoidance, or an X crossing out the selected weapon to indicate the master arm isn't armed. As I said, I haven't come across any aircraft that can't fire inverted (I have no experience with fighters that have internal bays, my experience is with external carriage only). That said, most missiles have a minimum distance they fly to clear the firing aircraft before the guidance kicks on, so even for an inverted internal bay only aircraft, this shouldn't be a problem. There is no technical limitation I know of that would restrict an aircraft to not firing an air to air missile inverted. And while I've had a very quick look on the web, the best I could come up with is from a Tornado video:




Tornado link that discusses inverted firing of Sky Flash
A years worth of training missions are compiled into this tape including action from: Cope Thunder, Alaska; Operation Nomad, RAF Waddington; Exercise Brilliant Foil, RAF Coningsby; Exercise Linked Seas, Spain and 5 Sqn's air-to-air and air-to-ground strafing mission. Plus missile firings including inverted Sky Flash launches.


So there is at least one aircraft/missile combo that can fire inverted. And I know from personal experience another aircraft plus three missile combos.





In this situation it's irrelevant how other missiles stack up. The fact is that the missile is capable of these things and can pose a threat while in this position. Comparing it would be like comparing to how an F-22 would fare in such a situation compared to the Flanker. Yeah, we can do it, but it's got basically nothing to do with the issue at hand. I only compared the use of off-boresight capabilities rather than the half-kulbit maneuver described.


Well, you brought up the OBS angle, so I replied. And the missile does not in any way represent a threat. Simple fact is, if I have a Flanker at my 12 o'clock (has to be as the scenario dictates I'm at his six, and there is no reason for me not to be pointing at him if this is the case), then I have a WEZ before he does. By simple reasoning ASRAAM/AIM-9X/Python 4 and 5 all have a superior Rmax to the R-73. So if he has a shot, I've had a shot for a lot longer. And considering the air speed he bleeds manoeuvring to get the shot (thus reducing the kinematic range of the Archer), he is dead no matter which way you cut it up. Plus he has to deal with a lower IR target signature because he is shooting straight at me (while I shot at his rear aspect profile as soon as I see the nose coming up to threaten me). All while I'm flaring. Oh, but he can flare too? Pointless when his manoeuvre isn't going to give him the seperation he needs to seduce my seeker away. Which, given my missile uses an imaging seeker as opposed to his seeker technology, I still have the advantage.

Plus, and I'll say it again, airshow jets do not make tactical jets. Period. So the above discussion, while interesting, will never make it to the real world. Unless the pilots involved in flying the Cobra/Kulbit want to die.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856

Plus, and I'll say it again, airshow jets do not make tactical jets. Period.


No, but tactical jets make the airshow jets.

MiG-35, Su-35, Su-47, they were all intended to become selling, tactical aircraft Whether or not they've actually been sold is irrelevant, because they've been offered. The fact that they can do these maneuvers is simply a selling point. And some of these maneuvers are actually useful. The Su-30 MK has a selling video in which it completes at least one very tight radius Split-S while at normal combat speed. The actual turn lasts about a second and the direction of flight changes right along with it. It did this with a standard weapons load as well, I'll see if I can find the link.

These guys have to take whatever opportunities to show off their aircraft because they're actually trying to sell the aircraft rather than just operate off of huge government grants. Also, considering the fact that the aircraft currently in production over in Russia aren't actually in combat, airshow capabilities aren't such a bad thing.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   


No, but tactical jets make the airshow jets.


No they don't. That is precisely my point. From my previous post:



(Aircraft) such as these have the sole purpose of impressing those who don't understand that they are being performed by airshow only jets, which have specific fuel states, no operational weapons, no FCR, all so the CofG is far enough aft that the aircraft can do its spectacular couple of seconds of rotating wonder.


Lack of FCR and weapons are the big ticket items here. And a split S is totally different in terms of aerodynamics compared to the particular manoeuvre which is being discussed. I can do a pretty tight split S in a Hornet as well. Can't do a Cobra though. Because I have a radar, I have weapons, and I ain't going into WVR with less than a quarter of a tank of gas.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 04:48 AM
link   
There will be a successor to the R-73.
Its design/development variant is the K-74M2.
I suppose it will be intended for the PAK-FA.

And as for BVRAAMs



The Russian AMRAAM equivalent is the R-77 (AA-12 Adder), although only small numbers of this missile were produced after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Vimpel is planning to develop a much improved version, the K-77M, by 2010. A more powerful motor should increase its range by a factor of 2 to 3.5 and the improved radar will reduce vulnerability to jamming. The most visible change is the use of normal control surfaces instead of lattice fins, which reduces resistance.

Russia is also active in the ultra-long-range area. Thus, the upgraded MiG-31BM will probably be armed with the K-37M (AA-13 Arrow), which during tests in the 1990s succeeded in shooting down targets at a distance of 240km. The K-100 under development at the Novator design bureau from Yekaterinenburg, which Sukhoi has selected as the preferred armament for the Su-35 and the future fifth generation of Russian fighters, should have a range as great as 300km. Several test firings have already been carried out.


The PAK-FA will most definitely have a completely new A2A weapons suite

[edit on 29-1-2007 by Daedalus3]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Until I see something firm, the 74, 37 and upgraded 77 count for not much. The 74 has been in "development" since the early nineties, and the 37 from earlier than that (though the memory is a little hazy). Considering the MICA, METEOR, ASRAAM and a few other missiles all started development at a similar time, and are operational, I think it gives a pretty good indication why Russian air to air missiles continue to languish behind western systems, especially when it comes to seeker technology. And as for the updated R-77, it needs updating considering how poorly it performs compared to the latest AMRAAM variants. There is continued talk of a ramjet powered ADDER, but once again, pretty much talk and basic tests, but nothing resembling an operational missile.

With Pakistan getting AMRAAM, India might want to start thinking long and hard about what missiles it wants to strap to the new fighter (and if anyone truly believes that it will be flying by 2009, I have a small piece of lunar real estate with a mine on it for sale, pictures available on ATS on request...).



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 01:45 AM
link   
The 2009 date is moot..
I'm looking at an FOC around 2020.

And the part about languishing well, that has not been the case (I agree with the seeker bit though). It is obvious that when developments are made to counter opposing advancements, they will rule the roost until the respective counters come up.
The development all started I presume in the late 80s/early 90s and there are obvious reasons for the retarded development of the Russian equivalents/successors as have been for other Russian projects post the Soviet break-up. On a separate relevant note, I was watching a documentary on the first flight of the new MiG29K destined for the INS VikramAditya, and the engineers/developmetn team were so visibly happy. They said that the test flight at Gromov was one of very few that had occured since the soviet break-up and only now(last 3-4 years) have they since a vigor reminiscent of the cold war days at Gromov.
Indeed even the economically sound western powers had funding bickerings over the ASRAAM/AIM-9X.
One can also argue semantics that the AIM-9X/ASRAAM programs were pursued with much more urgency because of the R-73's dominance in the 90s. The successors of the russian missiles have had comparatively slower programs due to the lack of any urgency.

While Pakistan may get its AMRAAMs(AIM-120 C-5s), it (the PAF) might want to seriously think about improving the servicability of the a/c which it can strap them onto. Yes I know they're getting MLUs and they're getting brand new jets as well but with the current state of affairs they'd better pull up their socks.
And for India, even with legacy fighters like the MiG-21 Bison getting R-77 capability, the BVR advantage still remains.
Add that to Phalcon AWACS and N011M radar capabilities, and you get a better solution environment.
Top it off with speculations that R-77 guidance after launch can be passed from a/c to a/c, and well that's a great solution environment.
Anyways there's no real proof that the R-77 electronics etc is inferior.
We can speculate the same, but its just that.
I think there have been 3 AIM-120A combat kills and no AIM-120C5 combat kills even though its been in service since 1995.Not taking anything away from the missile variant, but for various reasons(maybe non technical) the missile hasn't got many kills. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
The R-77 hasn't had any combat kills so far, but one confirmed lock-on that I know of and that to ironically on a PAF F-16A scrambled from Skardu to provide CAP for supplies to militants during Kargil. The R-77 a/c was a MiG-29A reconfigured(radar et all) to fire the R-77.
I know a lock-on doesn't count for much but hey then again, there haven't been any instances to help that either.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
This is all getting a little off topic, and I don't want to hijack the thread. Suffice to say, I disagree with your point of view, but that's ok. All in all, I'm pretty confident that the weapons on my jet will do the job if needed.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Touche!

I'm sure every pilot around the world has that opinion..
By 'your jet', I presume you're refering to the F/A-18 Hornet?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   


Yeah, you won't find too many pilots saying "My jet sucks, my Rmax is half yours, it turns like ocean liner, I can't see over the canopy bow, and my RWR is stuffed...).

The Hornet's a great little aircraft, but well and truly starting to show it's age, though with our upgrades it is more than capable for anything in the near region. Though again, that's my point of view!



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Also, a/c like the F-22 probably shouldn't launch while inverted due to the internal bays in which missiles are kept...


You've never seen an F-22 launch missiles while inverted?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Yeah, you won't find too many pilots saying "My jet sucks, my Rmax is half yours, it turns like ocean liner, I can't see over the canopy bow, and my RWR is stuffed...).


CF-18s anyone? Sorry, I can't resist whacking the RCAF at every opportunity. Our toys just aren't that much fun.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join