jord
Member
+2,382|6984|The North, beyond the wall.

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Most aircraft and their missiles these days are capable of locking onto an aircraft anywhere above/below/behind them and firing away whilst the missile does all the hard work, you don't really need to be facing your target to take it out. Also the fact that you slow down so much to pull it off really diminishes the whole thing. You're better off just pulling up whilst maintaining at least some speed, if you need to do that.

I'm no expert on this, but it doesn't really seem that useful in modern combat. I suppose there are some 100 page topics somewhere on a dogfighting forum/sim forum about this that talks about it more properly.
If you did it low enough you could burn people with the jet engines...


Other than that, lulz.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6717|'Murka

SEREVENT wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

I think he does, he is in the AF. Not sure what his role is though, FEOS, what do you do in the USAF?

And he's right, it's pretty useless. All it is, is a plane going vertical yet staying vertical and not falling or rising (like hovering vertically) and then swaying back and forth like a cobra does. How is that useful in combat, all it does it show off the thrust vectoring in an unusual manner

Modern Military Aircraft wrote:

Combat Use: The Cobra is more than an air show trick; it enables the "Flanker" pilot to take a snap missile shot at an aircraft directly above or even behind the fighter
Thats not useless...
Yes, I do know what it is.

Look at how long it takes to develop that maneuver. It's MAYBE a maneuver of last resort...because they have no airspeed and very little control over the jet. In the scenario that's posted from MMA, the ONLY possible use is against an aircraft that is above it--the aircraft behind it would have killed it while it was slowing down to execute the maneuver. And even at that, the other aircraft is in a position of advantage to both kinematically defeat the missile and still kill the slow-flying Flanker.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6927|London, England
FEOS, what do you do (or did) in the USAF? Just curious
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6717|'Murka

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

FEOS, what do you do (or did) in the USAF? Just curious
My primary field is network warfare, but I interact with intel and the fighter/bomber/etc community regularly.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6649|tropical regions of london

FEOS wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

FEOS, what do you do (or did) in the USAF? Just curious
My primary field is network warfare, but I interact drink with intel and the fighter/bomber/etc community regularly.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6717|'Murka

God Save the Queen wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

FEOS, what do you do (or did) in the USAF? Just curious
My primary field is network warfare, but I interact drink with intel and the fighter/bomber/etc community regularly.
tbh
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7020|US

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Most aircraft and their missiles these days are capable of locking onto an aircraft anywhere above/below/behind them and firing away whilst the missile does all the hard work, you don't really need to be facing your target to take it out.
Most of that technology is still in development.  Most aircraft still need to aim the seeker head of the missile at the enemy, or get a radar lock.


Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Also the fact that you slow down so much to pull it off really diminishes the whole thing. You're better off just pulling up whilst maintaining at least some speed, if you need to do that.
VERY true.  Dogfights rely heavily on energy (speed and/or altitude to convert).  Since a slow fighter cannot usually win a dogfight, the cobra would be a very risky move.  It is an endgame maneuver or act of despiration, not a first (or second, or third...) choice.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6717|'Murka

From a friend close to the program:

F-35 Program Leaders Set The Record Straight On Performance (Posted: Monday, September 22, 2008)

Two executives—one from Lockheed Martin and one from the Department of Defense—joined forces Friday to set the record straight on the Joint Strike Fighter program, countering recent media reports that have contained numerous falsehoods about the aircraft and its performance.

Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin Executive Vice President of F-35 Program Integration, and Maj. Gen. C.R. Davis, F-35 Program Executive Officer, in a news release issued today cited, among other falsehoods, the claim that Russian fighters defeated F-35s in a simulated combat exercise.

That exercise—the Pacific Vision Wargame—was a table-top exercise designed to assess basing and force-structure vulnerabilities, and did not include air-to-air combat exercises or any comparisons of different aircraft platforms.

"The reports are completely false and misleading and have absolutely no basis in fact," Maj. Gen. Davis said. "The August 2008 Pacific Vision Wargame that has been referenced recently in the media did not even address air-to-air combat effectiveness. The F-35 is required to be able to effectively defeat current and projected air-to-air threats. All available information, at the highest classification, indicates that F-35 is effectively meeting these aggressive operational challenges."

The two executives characterized the F-35 as a "racehorse,” adding that in a stealth configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius.

Further, U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market.

Other erroneous allegations about the program were recently made in a letter distributed and written by industry-watchers Winston Wheeler and Pierre Sprey.

"It's not clear why they attacked the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president of F-35 program integration. "It is clear they don't understand the underlying requirements of the F-35 program, the capabilities needed to meet those requirements or the real programmatic performance of the JSF team."

The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation stealth fighter. Three F-35 variants derived from a common design, developed together and using the same sustainment infrastructure worldwide will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially, making the Lightning II the most cost-effective fighter program in history. Two F-35s have entered flight test, two are in ground test, and 17 are in various stages of assembly, including the first two production-model jets scheduled for delivery to the U.S. Air Force in 2010.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,061|7077|PNW

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Could anyone do that. I mean, I could kill an Animal if I wanted to. But I don't think I'd be able to club a baby seal to death. You'd have to be one sick son of a bitch to do it. I understand that maybe, it needs to be done. But you'd still have to be a sick son of a bitch to actually go and do it.
Welcome to Earth.
The#1Spot
Member
+105|6845|byah

Lotta_Drool wrote:

imortal wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Manned aircraft is so 1990ish.  Who would spend so much on a plane that is limited to 9Gs because there is a pilot in it?
...because radios can be jammed?  If the pilot is seperated from the vehicle, the method of communicaiton is a point source of failure.  If you take the pilot out of it and make them computer controlled, then they can only fight as well as your programmer is skilled and knowledgeable.  And, after all, we all know that the programs currently released are all bug-free.
well, if you are programming for a jet that can pull 8 more Gs than the enemy and is highly compact and stealthy due to the lack of a cockpit, I think there would be a bit of an advantage.  Just don't have it run on windows vista.
fixed
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6528|Brisneyland
Feos , from your post, I think you are saying that the result of the F35 v Su would be as follows:

https://kxcortez.com/portfolio/images/seal_pup's_revenge.jpg

Although the execs would be towing the party line to a certain extent, there is no doubt the F35 is an awesome bit of kit. Which is lucky as Australia is buying a bunch of them.
Feos , thanks for following up on this.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,818|6412|eXtreme to the maX
Further, U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market.
I'd like to see that explained.
Fuck Israel
Longbow
Member
+163|6952|Odessa, Ukraine

Dilbert_X wrote:

Further, U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market.
I'd like to see that explained.
Advertisement eh?
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6717|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Further, U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market.
I'd like to see that explained.
Explanation: Su-27s have an RCS like a barn door. The F35 detects, tracks, and launches before the Su even knows he's there...all without ever having to turn on his radar.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7020|US
F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius.
Unfortunately, there are gen. 4.5 aircraft on the market, and a few gen. 4.5+ ones comming on line in the next couple years.  The F-35 will still hold advantages, just not quite as many.
Still, the F-22 is the prime air superiority fighter for the US, and will remain so for some time.
seymorebutts443
Ready for combat
+211|6901|Belchertown Massachusetts, USA

RAIMIUS wrote:

F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius.
Unfortunately, there are gen. 4.5 aircraft on the market, and a few gen. 4.5+ ones comming on line in the next couple years.  The F-35 will still hold advantages, just not quite as many.
Still, the F-22 is the prime air superiority fighter for the US, and will remain so for some time.
great thing about the f-22 is that its capabilities are only limited by the pilot, if it went unmanned it would demolish anything in existence ( like it already does)
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6528|Brisneyland
Looks like the F35 has copped a bit of a hiding from the Rand corporation as well.

In bad news for the Air Force, the report says the F-35 has inferior acceleration, climb, turn capacity and a lower top speed than Russian and Chinese fighters.

So maybe this has all been said before, maybe theres a deficiency in close combat, can it make up for it in BVR stuff?
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6717|'Murka

I believe it's talking about the same wargame, so those findings are a bit suspect.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7020|US
...not surprising, if you look at the Sukhoi line.  They are incredible aircraft...but as has been mentioned, they have a huge RCS.  Once you get an AWACS feeding information to a stealthy F-35, it is game over for a Sukhoi.  It won't even know the F-35 is there until it has been fired upon.  Even then, it would be nearly impossible to get a long-range radar lock on an F-35 flying toward you.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard