|
PittTheElder posted:Doesn't the loss of airspeed hamstring the kinematic abilities of the missile you'd be firing too? Though I guess if you were ever desperate enough to attempt that, range might no longer be among your primary concerns. The ranges where extreme-AOA thrust vectoring maneuvers are useful will be within the turning circle of the opponent, typically 3000-6000 ft for a modern 4th generation fighter. At those rangers your heater won't even reach motor burnout by the time it hits the target. Disclaimer: I am not a fighter pilot, I just play one on the internet sometimes, but I propose a counter argument to the "thrust-vectoring is all for show" people. The following are the Laws of Air Combat that have held true since WW-I until a few years ago, bound by the laws of physics and the technology of the time. 1) Ever since the fixed forward-firing machine gun became the standard armament of fighter planes, it has become necessary to point your nose at your target in order to kill it. The introduction of current-generation high off-boresight missiles and helmet-mounted cuing systems have relaxed that requirement somewhat, but a pilot still needs to pull his target within 30-90 degrees of his nose to achieve firing parameters. 2) Conventional planes turn by generating lift with their wings. The amount of G's the wings can create increases with airspeed. That speed where the maximum aerodynamic G is equal to the maximum structural G-limit is known as the instantaneous corner velocity. Typically 350-450 knots at 9 G's for a 4th generation fighter. 3) Instantaneous corner velocity is so named because even if the pilot can sustain 9 G's, the induced drag from a max-G turn is greater than the thrust of the engines, and the fighter will slow down, and subsequently turn slower. 4) Thus, the pilot either needs to relax his pull and turn at a lower but sustainable turn rate, or dive to convert potential energy to kinetic to maintain airspeed and the higher turn rate. Obviously, the second plan may be tactically superior but shuts down once you're on the deck. Therefore, fighters are limited what they can accomplish based on their performance and starting energy levels. Squander your energy and you'll find yourself out of altitude, out of airspeed, and out of ideas. Thrust vectoring technology removes rules 2-4 from the equation by decoupling turn performance from aerodynamic lift at low speeds. The fighter can bleed off speed with a hard turn, i.e. making an overly aggressive entry into an opponents turn circle, and still maintain nose-pointing authority to aim and fire weapons. This is essentially dogfighting with a physics hack, and offers complete dominance of the opponent. INTJ Mastermind fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Jul 21, 2017 |
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
How shipwatchers in Istanbul are helping keep track of the Russian Navy's Syrian intervention.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:The ranges where extreme-AOA thrust vectoring maneuvers are useful will be within the turning circle of the opponent, typically 3000-6000 ft for a modern 4th generation fighter. At those rangers your heater won't even reach motor burnout by the time it hits the target. The idea that this isn't a worthless party trick seems to be based on the idea that this is a 1v1 fight, though, and that the aircraft coming to a dead stop in midair to point his nose at his opponent is doing so while the other aircraft is still maneuvering to get the stopped plane in his sights. Pretty much any other scenario just means that he's a sitting duck while he throttles up to get going again, doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:But in top gun it looked badass! It'd fit right in with Hot Shot part Tres.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
priznat posted:poo poo I wanted this so bad as a kid. Russia is getting real serious about Eurovision this year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
McNally posted:The idea that this isn't a worthless party trick seems to be based on the idea that this is a 1v1 fight, though, and that the aircraft coming to a dead stop in midair to point his nose at his opponent is doing so while the other aircraft is still maneuvering to get the stopped plane in his sights. Other people might know better (and I hope some of them are here; I like being wrong about things because it means I learn something), but I think PVO doctrine in the late 50s/early 60s was to force trade aircraft on the assumption that aircraft could be replaced but cities and airfields couldn't. If that thinking persisted, killing all your E, your aircraft and your pilot may be regarded as an acceptable price to pay if it means you get all your missiles away. e: For the avoidance of doubt, I don't think that their standard doctrine is or ever was to pull dumb maneuvers in combat where a sensible maneuver/engagement was available. IPCRESS fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Jul 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
I just finished the Jack Reacher where Davy Crockett nukes are misrepresented as SADMs with 15x the yield I cottoned on before the characters did, which is always my aim in Clancy & Co. novels, but I still feel duped
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
Thrust vectoring is useful in air combat, just not stuff as over the top as that neat airshow trick. That kind of maneuverability and engine power is more useful for stall recovery and buying yourself some time if poo poo gets weird on landing. Or if poo poo gets weird as you intercept a low speed drone or low speed aircraft like an off course Cessna. There's a reason that pilots of high performance jets specifically practice intercepting very slow targets. I'd be curious to know if that maneuver was done with full flight computer on or in "watch this" mode. It's a sim and all but in DCS you can basically turn off the aerial equivalent of traction control in the Su-27. It lets you do some really wild poo poo right before you fall out of the sky and die unless you have yourself a lot of skill or altitude to recover and turn it back to normal flight rules.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
^That. There's also a difference between using your thrust vectoring to do a goddamned backflip to launch a missile vs squeezing a few extra degrees/second of turn to get inside the adversary's turn radius. PittTheElder posted:Doesn't the loss of airspeed hamstring the kinematic abilities of the missile you'd be firing too? Though I guess if you were ever desperate enough to attempt that, range might no longer be among your primary concerns. Yep. A helmet-cued, high-off-boresight missile is better. Godholio fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Jul 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I'd be curious to know if that maneuver was done with full flight computer on or in "watch this" mode. It's a sim and all but in DCS you can basically turn off the aerial equivalent of traction control in the Su-27. It lets you do some really wild poo poo right before you fall out of the sky and die unless you have yourself a lot of skill or altitude to recover and turn it back to normal flight rules. Ah yes, the blackout button. Never touch that fucker if you want to get back on the ground in less than a billion tiny pieces.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
I am not a fighter pilot, but in all the sims I've played, the cobra type maneuvers are really only all that good when playing on artificially limited servers, like SAR missiles and heaters only, especially when high off-boresight missiles are banned. So legacy heaters and AIM-7s, the Su-27 suddenly can do some sick tricks to gently caress up F-15s. But with AWACS and AMRAAMs, the flankers are playing rather defensively, or suiciding on a key target, or playing submarine commander where you hang out in the weeds of the canyons and valleys and then scream straight up into the belly of an F-15 and pop off heaters at their bellies before going extremely defensive back toward friendly SAM cover. And hell, even then, if not just smashing planes together for fun and actually playing an objective like Flankers trying to knock out CAS aircraft while F-15s provide CAPs, the AIM-7s can still be a pain in the rear end for Flankers as the F-15s can maintain a lot of separation and speed and just take potshots, even if the pK is poor. Similarly, in real world exercises, the times that such instantaneous maneuvers are what decide life or death, it's ROE like manatory visual ID or "we're not at war, just doing air police" and then some rogue pilot or first strike guy goes from staring each other down to very suddenly snapping into firing position. Congrats, your fancy move got one or two kills in the 1 second of transition to war, and now it's time for BVR missile timeout games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:A neat trick. Intercepting errant private aviation prop planes is about to get a lot more exciting in Russia. This is badass. Wanna see Russian super plane in a guns only low speed turnfight with a Sopwith Camel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:Ah yes, the blackout button. Never touch that fucker if you want to get back on the ground in less than a billion tiny pieces. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ6D6juCN-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6nIdCdJTrY e: Because of magical SU-27, I still recovered this thing after saying "uh oh" and my buddy overshooting me. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Jul 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 15:01
|
|
bewbies posted:This is badass. Close enough for a repost https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3XNEWtJF0o
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I am not a fighter pilot, but in all the sims I've played, the cobra type maneuvers are really only all that good when playing on artificially limited servers, like SAR missiles and heaters only, especially when high off-boresight missiles are banned. So legacy heaters and AIM-7s, the Su-27 suddenly can do some sick tricks to gently caress up F-15s. But with AWACS and AMRAAMs, the flankers are playing rather defensively, or suiciding on a key target, or playing submarine commander where you hang out in the weeds of the canyons and valleys and then scream straight up into the belly of an F-15 and pop off heaters at their bellies before going extremely defensive back toward friendly SAM cover. this is an amusing thought: is pK really the -log of kills?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Something to add, regarding low speed intercepts, in the DC SFRA coast guard helicopters are used for that purpose now instead of jets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Depending on the speed of your target, helicopters can be vastly more desirable than fighters to run the intercept. Although I'm not sure I've done anything slower than controlling a helicopter to intercept a Cessna whateverthefuck whose pilot didn't read his loving NOTAMs and flew into a TFR when the President was in town. I can't remember whose helicopter it was though. Fortunately that was a one-time thing. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
State Department is banning travel to North Korea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
I can hear Dennis Rodman complaining from here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I can hear Dennis Rodman complaining from here. His life as a CIA agent has come to an end
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
McNally posted:I've never heard this. Details? If you watch the first instance of bleeding speed when Maverick's just about to get locked up by Jester in a high-enough definition (720p) or higher, there's a visible part that flies off the F-14. They mention it in the 20th Anniversary Edition's commentary track. Evidently it's the top piece that covered the rarely-used glove vanes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhYZc08Jk_Y&t=141s The piece comes off right around 2:23, and you have to look right around the top of the air intake to notice. Closest I could get to a proper screen capture with that Youtube video:  I also might have the vanes mixed up - it might've been the vane covering the refueling probe - those broke off so often a lot of times they just left them off. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Jul 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
That Works posted:Close enough for a repost Man, I still think F-14s are still one of the sexiest looking jets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Depending on the speed of your target, helicopters can be vastly more desirable than fighters to run the intercept. Although I'm not sure I've done anything slower than controlling a helicopter to intercept a Cessna whateverthefuck whose pilot didn't read his loving NOTAMs and flew into a TFR when the President was in town. I can't remember whose helicopter it was though. Fortunately that was a one-time thing. Ugh. OK but those TFRs are pretty bullshit, too. One time there was a TFR put up on real short notice because Bill Clinton(?) or somebody wanted to get a friggin haircut and some leisure pilots got owned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Maybe they should start taking flying seriously. Edit: Not saying it's not handled in a fairly bullshit manner, but that's not really an excuse when it's readily available at almost any airport or online. I bet they checked the weather.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Maybe they should start taking flying seriously. Online doesn't actually count. quote:Depicted TFR data may not be a complete listing. Pilots should not use the information on this website for flight planning purposes. For the latest information, call your local Flight Service Station at 1-800-WX-BRIEF? Weather.gov will give you the weather but the FAA will happily suspend your license for a TFR they didn't post.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Online doesn't actually count. The NOTAM system is ancient, decrepit, and a human factors nightmare made real. Instead of expending political capital on privatizing ATC, the FAA and Congress could make a real, immediate, improvement in not only safety, but also quality of life and compliance with law if they were to stand up a modern replacement for the entire NOTAM system. Fat chance of that ever happening, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The NOTAM system is ancient, decrepit, and a human factors nightmare made real. What's NOTAM?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:What's NOTAM? notice to airmen
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The NOTAM system is ancient, decrepit, and a human factors nightmare made real. Ain't that the loving truth?!
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The NOTAM system is ancient, decrepit, and a human factors nightmare made real. Discussion question: what does a modernized NOTAM system look like? Would it just be a better database so that you can plug your flight plan into an app and get all the relevant notices? (for a legal value of "all", not just "most of them, most of the time") Maybe get rid of or reorganize the hundreds of bullshit "Taxiway E has a single light OTS" items so the "25nm no fly area because of POTUS" notices are more visible. Or do we go for a more dramatic overhaul, with some kind of real-time alert system that constantly evaluates your location and route of flight to provide you with what you need at any given time? As a sidebar, do they still print out NOTAM books to be distributed in hard copy (on like a 6 month basis)? I know that at least a few years ago that was still a thing, and one of the most absurd parts of the whole system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:So legacy heaters and AIM-7s, the Su-27 suddenly can do some sick tricks to gently caress up F-15s. By tossing a heater over the shoulder when the F-15 is a mile in front of it before the missile clears the rail, if he hasn't already shredded the stationary Su-27 with guns on the way by? Correct me if I'm wrong, but "zoom and boom" is still a thing in heavy fighter tactics. Speed is life, altitude is speed (well, it's taught as "energy management", but that's the quick version of it). A Viper pilot might be enticed to play in a knife fight, but you try the Pugachev Cobra on an F-15, the Eagle driver's just gonna firewall the throttles, gently caress off to 60k feet before you get out of the stall, and attack your accelerating-back-up-to-normal-speed rear end as he comes out of the sun at his discretion, isn't he? The Top Gun brake check kinda makes sense to me in extremely limited circumstances (like if you're in a WWI-style dogfight too close for missiles, as in the movie, which no fighter pilot would ever allow to happen), but the Cobra is just silly. It serves the same purpose as an Immelmann turn, but completely kills your momentum, instead of conserving it by trading airspeed for altitude and back.  The point of vectored thrust is to tighten that loop just enough to out-turn the other guy, not do that turn without changing altitude as in the airshow trick. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Jul 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 03:21
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
hobbesmaster posted:
And that is absolute bullshit but is almost never the case, at least when it comes to the presidential travel TFRs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but "zoom and boom" is still a thing in heavy fighter tactics. It's been dead since the 1970s with the advent of guided missiles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:It's been dead since the 1970s with the advent of guided missiles. Missiles aren't magic and you can absolutely fire them where theres zero chance of hitting a target due to the energy required.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Also, there's less emphasis on maximum speed but far more emphasis on being able to go 'pretty fast' for longer periods than interceptors that were entirely dependent on afterburners ever could.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:It's been dead since the 1970s with the advent of guided missiles. But yeah, I meant it in the sense that it's still valid even with missiles, just the range is increased. You still want to attack from above (as high as possible, because kinetic energy = life), preferably with the sun at your back, make one high-speed firing pass with heaters and/or guns and GTFO/zoom climb if you're forced into a knife fight in a heavy interceptor that is, nowadays, designed for BVR. Pretty much the same as Corsairs vs Zeroes in WWII, just the speeds and range to shoot have gone up quite a bit. But they still teach BFM for a reason, that's the whole point of the Top Gun school -- teach fighter pilots carrying missiles with 100-mile range how to knife-fight, because ROE never lets you use the fancy missiles. I'm not terribly excited for the sequel to the Top Gun movie. Two turns and bingo fuel won't make for good onscreen furballs. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:I'm not terribly excited for the sequel to the Top Gun movie. Two turns and bingo fuel won't make for good onscreen furballs. They'll undoubtedly discover the F-35C can be fueled by wry, soulless chuckles and squinting your eyes too much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Then why'd they put guns back on the later models of the F-4? I meant to say Boom and Zoom tactics are rendered much less effective when your opponent has missiles. Zooming into the vertical in response to an impending flight path overshoot risks getting popped by a heater at the top of your zoom. Extending horizontally may work or get you run down by the bandit's radar missile. An energy advantage is still useful, but now the vertical is no longer the sole domain of the attacker. INTJ Mastermind fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Jul 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Then why'd they put guns back on the later models of the F-4? Because it's nice to have something other than an angry scowl to fire back at the enemy when you're out of missiles, and a fighter with a gun has the bare minimum needed to conduct basic CAS.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:By tossing a heater over the shoulder when the F-15 is a mile in front of it before the missile clears the rail, if he hasn't already shredded the stationary Su-27 with guns on the way by? Correct me if I'm wrong, but "zoom and boom" is still a thing in heavy fighter tactics. Speed is life, altitude is speed (well, it's taught as "energy management", but that's the quick version of it). A Viper pilot might be enticed to play in a knife fight, but you try the Pugachev Cobra on an F-15, the Eagle driver's just gonna firewall the throttles, gently caress off to 60k feet before you get out of the stall, and attack your accelerating-back-up-to-normal-speed rear end as he comes out of the sun at his discretion, isn't he? No, not by doing a cobra but by being able to get nose on target in a high speed turn or by being very deceptively capable of nosing up crazy fast as the F-15 zooms after the boom and putting a heater in its rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 14:51
|
|