Live data from Hacker News

Cobra Maneuver

en.wikipedia.org

71–80 of 160 posts

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#71

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.

Simple, it's a matter of range, weight and balance. All other things being equal, a point defense cannon would probably be useful. However, those weapons are heavy and decidedly impractical for even something as heavy as a buff.

Last air-to-air cannon kill I'm aware of was an F-16 vs. OV-10 in Venezuela in 1992. You can watch the kill at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDASW6X0XoU.

If you look closely at the moment of shoot down, you'll see the F-16 has its air breaks fully deployed (and I'd assume both leading and trailing edge flaps almost fully down) to slow down enough.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#72

This actually raises a question, have jets ever been in air combat? Like jet vs jet, not jet vs ground units.

Yes. Quite a lot. A small number at the end of the second world war. Regular use of machine-gun armed jets during the Korean War. The Vietnam war saw jet fighters armed primarily with missiles engaging each other (195 kills claimed by the US). Various conflicts in the middle east including the The Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, the Iran-Iraq war (around 100 kills claimed by Iran) and The Gulf War (44 claimed kills by the US). And many more conflicts as well. The most recent US air to air kill was in 2017. An F-18 shot down a Syrian SU-22. Russia also claims some air to air kills in Ukraine. Jets have gone toe to toe with each other since the moment they were first introduced continuously until the present day. The total number of air engagements is somewhere on the order of magnitude of 1,000, and a fair bit less if you are only considering fighter aircraft

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#73
As others have pointed out, the idea is to possible get your opponent ot overshoot-

But I don't understand why it's not deadlier today- given some things

-Your Su 35, 37(there aren't many)- Felon, and Raptor have thrust vectoring - without doing post stall tricks, they can nose point extremely WELL

-Next- The Flanker series does a trick- this applies to the old Su 27 without thrust vectoring that can Cobra- where to do any of this they disable a AOA limiter that lets them pull AOA up the wazoo- being able to instantly rotate your aircraft and nose point anywhere- means your opponent, near 100% of the time, can be looked at then shot at- with guns, or ....

#3. high off boresight missiles. Your Aim 9X, or even better yet...if what i've heard is true, the IRIS T missile, to an extreme degree- i'm talking turning 60 degrees or more to chase and kill a target- which would start to look as nutty as the SAMS from Behind Enemy Lines, the missile will keep turning to chase you

-One circle or two circle- if one circle, you just pull up, line up and shoot- and your HOBS missile can be cued and shot at the opponent regardless. Now yes, they might be starting to close hard on you- but that's just a matter of how good the missile is with high kinetic energy changes and leading and reacting.

Two Circle- you're in a rate fight on the deck, just disable your AOA limiter, turn tighter until you're looking at him, and let your Fox 2's (IR missiles fly- they shoudl ,especially if HOBS missiles, just chase and get him. Or you could go for guns, but....you have to line up on them, and that's where the 3D thrust vectoring, or Maaaaybe rudder, help sometimes. And a gun system that can put a lead piper on a target who might not be that close-

But, slow shouldn't matter as much when you can be shooting at the opponent 100% of the time. As for sinking or recovery- Thrust weight ratio high enough? You won't sink. Recovery? If it's thrust vectoring, you just cna keep twisting at will- so you can just keep shooting at your opponent, or if they fly past you, immediately rotate FAST- then shoot at them, and yoru missile being a HOBS missile can be off at them before you finish rotating your plane, even quicker.

The counter some might think to this, would be- missiles aren't all that good yet, - But i think the Cobra was the first half of lopsided dogfighting. The 2nd half, is High off boresight missiles.

-Admittedly, in a Raptor(I've heard they can change their flight control system ,not sure if they can flat out disable AOA though like the Flanker and Felon Family)you have enough nose pointing ability and a mean enough turn rate that you are almost always looking at your opponent anyway- But it still helps to have that ability no matter what

I'll admit, i've also heard that in at least the early flankers- not sure on the rest- Disabling the AOA limiter would disable the G limiter , which would be risky if you were too fast- and could risk G -LOC. I have to think more modern planes with the ability to uncap AOA and let you rotate freely at will- might keep the G limiter perhaps- if it doesn't restrict you when you're pulling AOA and just rotating your plane backflipping while still heading in the original direction.

Close range shouldn't be needed given every weapon should be able to be used from this state regardless of what you're doing, unless we're talking strictly guns, since guns aren't guided onto targets using targeting systems on planes.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#74

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?

In theory it's possible to build such system. But dogfights are gonna be extremely rare in the future. The US Air Force believes more in stealth and beyond visual range (BVR) engagements. And so far, given the lead they have in those areas, they are unmatched in the skies.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#75

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.

B-52 was the last USAF bomber to have a rear-ward facing guns. During the Gulf War, one of two theories that a rear-ward facing gunner turned on his defensive fire control system and was hit by friendly fire after an F4 released anti-radiation (HARM) missile in the blind. The AGM-88 locked on to the DFCS and blew off the rear section of the BUFF -- which was then nicknamed "In HARM's Way".

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/exclusive-former-buff-gunner...

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#76

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.

> A lot of the WW2 planes had turrets a separate gunner would control,

In WWII unescorted bomber losses were quite catastrophic even with gun turrets pointing in every conceivable direction like the B-17. Ultimately it was long range escort fighters like the P-51 that brought down the loss rate to an acceptable rate so that long range raids could continue.

Post-WWII bomber design evidently came to the conclusion that, except in some cases a tail turret, all these guns weren't worth the weight and drag, and got rid of them. And then missiles came on the scene, further reducing the usefulness of defensive guns.

> My only guess is that dogfights don't actually happen much anymore.

Modern short range AA missiles have 'off boresight' capability, meaning that the pilot has a HUD mounted in the helmet, he doesn't need to point the nose towards the target to shoot. And yes, longer range AA missiles are apparently nowadays expected to be amazingly effective to the point that actual short range dogfights would be very rare.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#77
post #70

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?

Fighter guns are fixed. You aim by pointing the whole airframe.

I think the operative question is, why must the guns be fixed? Wouldn’t it be useful for guns to be on turrets that can aim in other directions?

We do it with helicopters (complete with automated aiming), and we used do it with bombers in WW2, after all.

I’m sure the answer has to do with aerodynamics, and the general rarity of close-range dogfighting in the first place, that make such a design impractical.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#78

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…

I always thought that the cobra is about making a radar lose the lock on you, because you suddenly stopped moving. Might be useful if you detect a radar pulse.

Losing your speed and showing your belly / back to the enemy, when you cannot shoot, never looked like a reasonable thing to do.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#79
post #30

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?

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.

This was addressed by the Pye Wacket missile (http://astronautix.com/p/pyewacket.html) which was to be developed for the B-70 bomber. It was to be a 500lb circular (lenticular) missile which could be launched with its thrust vector pointing in any direction relative to the direction of flight.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#80

It was in 80's kids vocabulary when discussing fighter jets and which one is better - 'yeah, but can it do Cobra?!'

It’s incredible how deeply war culture propaganda permeates American society

War itself is terrible.

The machinery, ingenuity, and eventual incorporation of some of that technology into civilian life is important and possibly the only way to get funding for new technologies by the (US) government.

The NRO offered two spy satellites (I believe rumored to be Keyhole family satellites) to NASA back in 2011/2012 -- neither have launched yet, but they have the same sized mirror as the Hubble, but with a better focal length giving the satellites a 100 times wider field of view. The now-named Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope is scheduled to launch by Nov 2026 on a Falcon Heavy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_O...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace_Roman_Space_Telesc...

The NRO also donated Keyhole satellite mirrors to create the Multiple Mirror Telescope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMT_Observatory#Multiple_Mirro...

NASA was the last to fly the SR-71 as a research platform.

Unfortunately, the military is often what pushes technology forward.

Post reply on HN