Discussion
Just watched a fascinating display of a 57 in Dubai recently, and the thing is pulling all kinds of shapes.
One question, during all the insane moves it pulls the burners are ALWAYS on, I notice this with a few planes, especially Russian stuff, is this a prerequisite for doing these crazy flat spin type and Cobra moves? I presume it is to enable recovery?
One question, during all the insane moves it pulls the burners are ALWAYS on, I notice this with a few planes, especially Russian stuff, is this a prerequisite for doing these crazy flat spin type and Cobra moves? I presume it is to enable recovery?
bergclimber34 said:
Just watched a fascinating display of a 57 in Dubai recently, and the thing is pulling all kinds of shapes.
One question, during all the insane moves it pulls the burners are ALWAYS on, I notice this with a few planes, especially Russian stuff, is this a prerequisite for doing these crazy flat spin type and Cobra moves? I presume it is to enable recovery?
Needs the thrust to keep it in the air at such slow airspeeds, its the only thing keeping it from falling out the sky.One question, during all the insane moves it pulls the burners are ALWAYS on, I notice this with a few planes, especially Russian stuff, is this a prerequisite for doing these crazy flat spin type and Cobra moves? I presume it is to enable recovery?
bergclimber34 said:
So then, in reality to do this stuff in combat would be unlikely unless it carried huge amounts of fuel!!
Yes, and pointless. It's all for show, the reality is these kind of maneuvers are only fit for making crowds go "ooh" and "aah"
Modern radar and missile technology means beyond visual range kills with little or no warning and fancy thrust vectoring is not going to make any difference.
bergclimber34 said:
So then, in reality to do this stuff in combat would be unlikely unless it carried huge amounts of fuel!!
Just to address this part, the Su-57 is huge. Its way bigger than an F-35 and slightly bigger than the F-22, which means it has a lot of internal volume for storage of a lot of fuel.For example, both the F-35A and F-22, according to unclassified data, hold a genuinely massive amount of fuel for single seat fighters, at around 8200kg internally (give or take), and yet the Su-57 is currently estimated to hold at least 25% more fuel than those two.
So for air display purposes, they've plenty of spare fuel to leave it in AB all display long, but IRL it gives them a huge amount of un-refuelled range which, with Russia severely lacking the high number of tankers than NATO/US has (19 vs 600+), is a typically Russian design choice i.e. "bigger = better" etc.
Skii said:
bergclimber34 said:
So then, in reality to do this stuff in combat would be unlikely unless it carried huge amounts of fuel!!
Yes, and pointless. It's all for show, the reality is these kind of maneuvers are only fit for making crowds go "ooh" and "aah"
Modern radar and missile technology means beyond visual range kills with little or no warning and fancy thrust vectoring is not going to make any difference.
...so agility definitely still has its place.
BUT...the Cobra and all these other manoeuvres are definitely for display only, as they kill any energy the plane has got (i.e. speed and/or height - dogfighting 101 is 'preserve your energy'), which makes it a sitting duck until it can generate some more energy. Cobra is a last ditch move to try to get your nose (& weapons) on an opponent currently behind you, that's it.
I just find it fascinating how these things work, such a wonderful waste of fuel lol, it is a beautiful looking thing, probably not as trick as you think like most Russian stuff, but it's almost like the pilot sticks the stick forward and leaves it, as he just twist and turns on full reheat fir 10 minutes
havoc said:
In the era of stealth (if you believe the -57 is geniunely stealthy)
Given some of the close up images a while ago from a foreign airshow (far east somewhere?) I'd be astonished if its very stealthy at all, given the rough edges, panels gaps, and general 'farm yard' looking build quality in evidence.havoc said:
BUT...the Cobra and all these other manoeuvres are definitely for display only, as they kill any energy the plane has got (i.e. speed and/or height - dogfighting 101 is 'preserve your energy'), which makes it a sitting duck until it can generate some more energy. Cobra is a last ditch move to try to get your nose (& weapons) on an opponent currently behind you, that's it.
Yes, but.Harrier.
5 In a Row said:
Yes, but.
Harrier.
The Harrier was small and agile, so (thrust-to-weight aside) it was a natural dogfighter. VIFFing was IMHO, like the Cobra, a last-ditch 'get the enemy off your tail' manoeuvre - 1-on-1 it could make sense, but in a many-on-many engagement, or where the chasing plane has a wingman, you'd be asking for trouble (and a lot of new holes in your plane).Harrier.
The issue with the Harrier in any intercept role was surely it could only carry short range AIM9's, or certainly in the Falklands, it did amazingly well to be a feared interceptor in that environment, but maybe because the Argies were not that keen on fighting, and the Navy guys are hard as nails!!
Surely later versions could use AIM7 or Sparrow, AmRaam etc?
Surely later versions could use AIM7 or Sparrow, AmRaam etc?
bergclimber34 said:
The issue with the Harrier in any intercept role was surely it could only carry short range AIM9's, or certainly in the Falklands, it did amazingly well to be a feared interceptor in that environment, but maybe because the Argies were not that keen on fighting, and the Navy guys are hard as nails!!
1) Training. One thing ALL of our armed forces* have always excelled at is training. And Navy Shar pilots were among the best. The Argentines weren't bad pilots, but they weren't in the same class, and worse, because of budget constraints they didn't train anywhere near as much as they needed to.2) The Argentine AF didn't have many Mirage III's (which would have been at extreme end of range anyway over the Falklands), wanted to keep them to cover the mainland, and didn't dare move any out there after the Black Buck missions. The Daggers and Scooters they and the Navy did have were arguably less capable air-to-air than the FRS.1, lacking any air-to-air radar. So low-down, relying on visual cues half the time (because the Argie radars ON the Falklands couldn't separate out planes from sea clutter reliably at low level), and in typical South Atlantic weather, it became a knife fight most often.
* OK, maybe not the Rock Apes
havoc said:
In the era of stealth (if you believe the -57 is geniunely stealthy) BVR kills will be harder to achieve, add to which Western RoE tend towards positive ID of targets before weapons release.
Doesn't the f35 or 22 have a system where only 1 needs to lock on to a target and another with the same system, miles away can fire a missile at said target? I guess its still positive id but possibly indirectly? Or was this something they was working on as now they are using drones with the plane as a mother ship?
Trash_panda said:
Doesn't the f35 or 22 have a system where only 1 needs to lock on to a target and another with the same system, miles away can fire a missile at said target?
I guess its still positive id but possibly indirectly? Or was this something they was working on as now they are using drones with the plane as a mother ship?
F35 is designed as a "battlespace management" fighter - it can network with other fighters (e.g. F15EX carrying a dozen or more AMRAAM?) and data-link its telemetry to them, so it goes in close for the visual ID as it's stealthy and therefore allegedly safer, while the missile-boats can stand-off at BVR and just lob missiles out. Great concept.I guess its still positive id but possibly indirectly? Or was this something they was working on as now they are using drones with the plane as a mother ship?
...which will probably work well for the US with a mixed-capability fleet, but I'm not sure how that helps the RN who've got a very expensive plane that:-
- can't really dogfight that well
- can't carry that much ordnance
- can't land back on ship carrying any weapons at the moment
- has no-one else to data-link to.
I'm not even sure the RN has any AEW&C capability right now, so in reality they're not going to operate in any high-threat environment outside the umbrella of a US carrier battle group or forward deployed RAF.
havoc said:
I'm not even sure the RN has any AEW&C capability right now, so in reality they're not going to operate in any high-threat environment outside the umbrella of a US carrier battle group or forward deployed RAF.
Correct.And even then, a USN CBG is true blue water, the RN carriers are not, because the RN has no long range COD, no AEW, no AAR and the RFA is in such a state, that it would struggle to support the carrier in terms of fuel, ordnance and provisions supply if having to operate for extended periods at distance from shore.
Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 27th November 08:46
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff