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

131–140 of 160 posts

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#131

Post by aivisol »

MasterYoda wrote: post #123

I did not Sweden was first to do the cobra maneuver with the Saab 35 Draken, fun. It is very impressive how little Sweden with SAAB have been able to develop stage of the art fighter planes. By exemple JAS 39 Gripen was the first 4th genereation fighter jet in the world, and many older fighterplanes set many records too. I really like Draken, it is a beautiful plan. And I love this picture :D The timing and compositi…

It is my speculation that they learned during WWII that to stay neutral they need to be well armed.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#132

Post by jabl »

trevorishere wrote: post #97
dmix wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep Russians will be dodging AMRAAM not dogfighting Vulcan guns, and Cobra doesn’t help much with that. Although the vector thrusting and braking that provide an aircraft the means to do Cobra might help against air-to-air and SAM/manpads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM Otherwise it’s just a pretty display at air shows.

Of course this is a hypothetical now that we've seen how "well kept" Russian equipment is, but the R-37M will technically reach out and touch American aircraft long before the AMRAAM is in range. Gotta wait for the AIM-260.

Well, the R-37M is an absolute monster missile at 600kg, even bigger than the AIM-54 Phoenix at around 450kg. For comparison the AMRAAM is about 150kg. So even if, hypothetically, Russia could sort out their issues with actually producing their ostensibly high tech designs, I find it hard to imagine this would be a mass produced missile comparable to AMRAAM. More like a special missile to take out high value targets like AWACS planes.

Continuing wikipedia spelunking, AIM-120D has a range of >160km (and has apparently already entered service), AIM-260 200km, and R-37M 300-400km. However, as everyone who has played flight sims (or seen youtube videos of them) knows, the actual usable range is much lower than the quoted max ranges. And given stealth technology, one wonders whether the actual capability of the missile is more related to the radars, both of the launching platform and the radar in the missile seeker, than to how long burning rocket motors it has.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#133

Post by jabl »

nine_k wrote: post #78
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…

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.

There is a maneuver called 'notching' which is turning perpendicular to an incoming radar guided missile to try to make a doppler radar lose lock. Often used in conjunction with diving to the deck in order to force the missile to spend energy moving through higher density air.

But that doesn't require any vectored thrust, 'supermanouverability' or such. In fact, you should make the turn smooth to conserve energy.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#134

Post by proxysna »

unity1001 wrote: post #113
ivalm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Russians are buying Iranian drones that are surprisingly capable. Also funny that Russians are so behind the times that they need to buy advanced military tech from Iran. Edit: apparently Russians have advanced but uneconomical drones, Iran strikes a better balance!

That's not the case. Russian suicide drones seem to be WAY too advanced - it is said that they are so silent that you can't even hear them until they dive for the hit. From there comes the advantage of the Iranian drones - they make a lot of noise and you can hear them from miles away. But they are WAY cheaper. So you can just swarm the air defences using them. And if the enemy actually uses missiles to hit them, it…

Russian "Куб-бла" drones are silent, yes, but also inaccurate and have a significantly smaller payload compared to Iranian Shahed's. Also, both can't be mass produced due to a multitude of reasons.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#135

Post by jabl »

aivisol wrote: post #131
MasterYoda wrote: post #123

I did not Sweden was first to do the cobra maneuver with the Saab 35 Draken, fun. It is very impressive how little Sweden with SAAB have been able to develop stage of the art fighter planes. By exemple JAS 39 Gripen was the first 4th genereation fighter jet in the world, and many older fighterplanes set many records too. I really like Draken, it is a beautiful plan. And I love this picture :D The timing and compositi…

It is my speculation that they learned during WWII that to stay neutral they need to be well armed.

I highly doubt that. WWII fighters didn't have the thrust/weight ratio or vectored thrust etc. to pull something like this off. Also due to the much lower thrust/weight ratio energy management was more important in WWII than in modern jets.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#136

Post by dingaling »

jleahy wrote: post #30
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?

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.

R-73 and AGM-88 can also launch 'over the shoulder'

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#137

Post by hef19898 »

unity1001 wrote: post #101
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…

> Unfortunately the circumstances where this is useful is very limited. Even worse: Advancing missile technology has mostly invalidated the need for aircraft in a major war since a long while, and drones will literally sweep what's left of it. The Iranian drones' amazing performance in Ukraine shows that warfare has changed forever. The drones can travel 1700 km autonomously, very hard to jam, and they are cheaper th…

Yeah, aircraft are as obsolete as tanks, the Ukrainian War showed us as much. And all major powers are only developing new generation fighters, bombers and tanks to keep the military-industrial complex busy. Or not.

A Javelin can take out a tank, but not replace it. A drone, or cruise missile, can take a ground target, a missile can take out aircraft, but they cannot replace their roles.

The reason tanks get destroyed left and right in Ukraine is a combination of bad docteine / tactics and deployment, the use of quasi obsolete models and the large scale use of last gen anti-tank weapons. The reason nobody has airial superiority is somewhat similar, near equal tech, decent air defence and comparable numbers.

As far as dogfights are concerned, they were declared dead prior to Vietnam. To the point fighter jets didn't get cannons anymore. Vietnam caused the creation of Top Gun, when the Navy realized their pilots were not up to par in airial combat. Stealth, and I am not a real proponent of that and still have to see the advantage it gives you, means one of the following scenarios will happen (assuming near peer adversaries):

- Gen 5 vs. Gen 4 (stealth vs. non-stealth, or rather low detectability): Gen 5 sees Gen 4 first, shoots multiple missiles, Gen 4 takes losses before they can counter attack -> Gen 4 retreats / is out of the fight (no dogfight) or Gen 4 is cought, numerically superior, closes in with Gen 5 and you have a dogfight

- Gen 4 vs. Gen 4: Everyone detects everyone at a large distance, missiles are fired, some losses occure (everyone can react so becasue they are not surprised), parties close in, you have a dog fight (assuming no onr retreats first)

- Gen 5 vs. Gen 5: Parties detect each other very late and close, you almost have a dogfight from the get go

So no, fighters aren't going away nor are dogfights.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#138

Post by hef19898 »

actionfromafar wrote: post #116
unity1001 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the case. Russian suicide drones seem to be WAY too advanced - it is said that they are so silent that you can't even hear them until they dive for the hit. From there comes the advantage of the Iranian drones - they make a lot of noise and you can hear them from miles away. But they are WAY cheaper. So you can just swarm the air defences using them. And if the enemy actually uses missiles to hit them, it…

I feel this has not shaken out properly yet. Obviously (to me) there is another yet-to-be-invented drone counter battery which is not yet invented. Probably smaller drones dive bombing onto the Iranian drones.

Or it's time to break stuff like the Gepard out of mothballs:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/07/26/ukraines-ge... Or build new, similar systems. Should cover it pretty well. Or use down graded versions of the various ship-mounted anti-missile systems.

Drone vs. drone dog fights sound like fun. Thinking of it, didn't the Yakuza and Tokyo police have some of those?

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#139

Post by hef19898 »

jabl wrote: post #132
trevorishere wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course this is a hypothetical now that we've seen how "well kept" Russian equipment is, but the R-37M will technically reach out and touch American aircraft long before the AMRAAM is in range. Gotta wait for the AIM-260.

Well, the R-37M is an absolute monster missile at 600kg, even bigger than the AIM-54 Phoenix at around 450kg. For comparison the AMRAAM is about 150kg. So even if, hypothetically, Russia could sort out their issues with actually producing their ostensibly high tech designs, I find it hard to imagine this would be a mass produced missile comparable to AMRAAM. More like a special missile to take out high value targets…

Worth noting the Phoenix was discontinued with the Tomcat. And the Tomcat was the only fighterbto ever use it, with the explicit goal of killing beyond visual range and make dogfights obsolete. Didn't really work out back then neither.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#140

Post by hef19898 »

jasamer wrote: post #46
Maursault wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But the bullet will still hit the plane following you at roughly 1700mph (you could say, the plane will crash into the bullet at that speed, but it‘s the same result), because it‘s also moving at Mach 3.

Good luck trying a Cobra with a Blavkbird, a plane that needs a third of the US to make a 180 turn at full speed.
Post reply on HN