Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cobra Maneuver

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 160 posts

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#61

Post by lumost »

hatsunearu wrote: post #10

Unfortunately the circumstances where this is useful is very limited. You'd have to be in very close range and in a very bad disadvantage, which honestly doesn't last long (you'd blow up very fast) and when you start decelerating you become a very easy target to hit. And after your opponent overshoots--you just lost a ton of energy--and energy is everything in aerial combat. Energy is the currency you spend to maneuv…

In dcs, when a player cobras successfully it typically just results in them missing the next turn and getting shot.

The delta v between the attacker, and the cobra’s aircraft is typically doesn’t allow enough time to get a missile off or guns. bin mind that dog fights happen in a one or two circle high g turn as each fighter attempts to out turn the other, cobra maneuvers require that the (losing fighter) exit the circle.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#62

Post by trevorishere »

gmiller123456 wrote: post #35

Is there a reason why modern planes can't shoot backwards? A lot of the WW2 planes had turrets a separate gunner would control, but they all seem to have disappeared. My only guess is that dogfights don't actually happen much anymore.

AIM-9X (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#AIM-9X) has 90 degree off-boresight capabilities with helmet mounted displays, being able to pull 60Gs.

So not quite "backwards", but dang close. With that being said, beyond visual range (BVR) engagements for gen 4 and higher fighters (gen 4 would be F-16 (the best plane ever produced, and everyone here knows it ;), F-18, MiG-29, Su-27; gen 5 would be F-22, F-35... and somewhat arguably Su-57) should be the norm. The USAF/US Navy is a bit behind on this with the AIM-120C/D being a medium-range missile where as some of the Russian-produced missiles have a longer reach. The USAF currently has a program to produce a long-range variant of the AIM-120C/D (our last long range missile was the AIM-54 Phoenix, exclusively carried by the retired F-14) with the designation of AIM-260 -- the AIM-260 is expected to replace the AIM-120.

AIM-120C/D "maddog" call -- now that'd be an interesting air-to-air engagement -- "maddog" is the call for firing the AIM-120 without the aircraft having radar lock and whatever the missile picks up on it's terminal guidance radar is likely doomed.

Ahhh I played way too much Falcon 4.0 and the DCS F-16 module.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#63

Post by avereveard »

bornfreddy wrote: post #33
jleahy wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy. If you fire a missile to your rear then it needs to first accelerate to your original speed just to be staying still, only then can it accelerate towards the target. An AIM-9X can do this, but the kill probability drops rapidly as you move off boresight.

What about guns? Relative speed against the enemy is the same no matter if you shoot forward or backward. Or am I missing something?

You need a backward facing radar for modern fire control targeting calculating a solution. These are heavy and large and will interfere with engine placement.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#65

Post by malloci »

Maursault wrote: post #36
bornfreddy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about guns? Relative speed against the enemy is the same no matter if you shoot forward or backward. Or am I missing something?

Bullets don't move at the speed of light.[1] Shoot a bullet backwards off a bullet train, that bullet's ground speed is less than if shot from the ground while stationary. Similarly, shoot a bullet forward off a bullet train, that bullet's ground speed is more than if shot from the ground from a stationary position. Shoot bullets backwards off a jet moving Mach 3 (just sayin') those 1700mph bullets will still be movi…

This really only applies if shooting at a target behind you that is either stationary or moving much slower than you.

If the target is moving at (or nearly at) the same speed as you then those velocities effectively cancel out

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#66

Post by MikeBVaughn »

meheleventyone wrote: post #37
hutzlibu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And after your opponent overshoots--you just lost a ton of energy--and energy is everything in aerial combat. " The idea is, to be able to make the kill, after you are now behind. Then it does not matter, if you are too slow. But wikipedia indeed says, this manoever has never been confirmed in real air combat, so yes, its usefullness is quite limited.

> The idea is, to be able to make the kill, after you are now behind. Then it does not matter, if you are too slow. Air combat is rarely 1vs1 so being slow means you get killed by someone else.

Based on what I've read from people vastly more informed than me, this absolutely 100% seems to be the case.

Even beyond that, the general impression I get w.r.t stuff like supermaneuverability is that it's a much better use of money to ensure that most fights never even make it to the point where the stuff like the cobra seems like a good idea. Given the choice between 1) "marginally improving survivability in comparatively low-energy corner-case states" and 2) "increasing the odds that the fight never makes it to the merge," #2 seems like a much better choice in terms of money spent and pilots kept alive. (Though a counterpoint, I guess, based my my casual understanding, would be that making the judgment too heavily in favor of #2 was part of what hampered the USAF and Navy's air-to-air combat capabilities in Vietnam)

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#67

Post by usrusr »

bolasanibk wrote: post #31
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dumb question - why can't planes shoot in reverse? It seems like this would be useful for these situations. I get that it would be hard to aim - but can't computers do that?

Some have: B-29 tail turret https://media.defense.gov/2010/Jun/14/2000352211/-1/-1/0/100... I am guessing mostly space and weight are at a premium in an airplane.

The correct tense is had. In the age of air to air missiles, a chasing plane would never bother getting into range. (but that does make me wonder if anti missile point defense might ever come to flying carriers. A part of me wants to joke that those would likely make the B-52 reach its bicentennial)

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#69

Post by trevorishere »

amelius wrote: post #41
gmiller123456 wrote: post #35

Is there a reason why modern planes can't shoot backwards? A lot of the WW2 planes had turrets a separate gunner would control, but they all seem to have disappeared. My only guess is that dogfights don't actually happen much anymore.

Perhaps the maneuver could be used against an incoming missile? I.e., it might be easier to out-maneuver it this way than to shoot it.

It's an airshow maneuver. Speed is life. USAF (and presumably other AF's) send out 2 to 4 ship (or if we look at Desert Storm, over 70 ships). If you "stall" or perform this maneuver, whomever is behind you might overshoot, but his or her buddy will nab you.

Check out Stroke 3. This is an F-16 strike on an oil facility in Iraq. Stroke 3 avoided six Iraq (Russian-made) SAMs /without/ deploying any counter measures. Simply amazing to listen to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uh4yMAx2UA

And here's a visual illustration of the entire strike package that went out. 76 aircraft as part of Package Q.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg

Fun (?) fact -- the first strike in Desert Storm was performed by eight Apache attack helicopters with two Pave Low helicopters leading them at NAP of the earth level at nighttime.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#70

Post by TylerE »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #29
hutzlibu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And after your opponent overshoots--you just lost a ton of energy--and energy is everything in aerial combat. " The idea is, to be able to make the kill, after you are now behind. Then it does not matter, if you are too slow. But wikipedia indeed says, this manoever has never been confirmed in real air combat, so yes, its usefullness is quite limited.

Dumb question - why can't planes shoot in reverse? It seems like this would be useful for these situations. I get that it would be hard to aim - but can't computers do that?

Fighter guns are fixed. You aim by pointing the whole airframe.
Post reply on HN