Never said you needed thrust vectoring. I said the Tomcat in the video doesn't have it. They were looking to build versions with thrust vectoring, but they were only going to be based on the F-14D and the end model would hardly have looked like a Tomcat upon completion.
The cobra is supposed to slow you down rapidly so an enemy at your 6 passes you putting you at their 6... but that's only good for 1v1. If you're engaging more then one enemy, using the cobra to allow one enemy at your tail to pass you will cause you to be missile bait for the other enemies.
Ok.. I'm no fighter pilot... but I'm a physics student. And from wat I know of physics, you would need a TWR of over 1 to do any of the moves demonstrated by the Su-27 bak in 80s. Now, the F-22's TWR is 1.09 whereas the Su-35's is 1.10, and the MKI shares this figure. The F22 has a better wing loading, and the three are about tied in speed. And the cobra would easily trick a radar guided missile like the AIM-120D as well as a AIM-9X due to scattering of light and heat.
@AwesomeBeyond Well yea but the cobra requires a decrease in speed which leaves you vulnerable to gun fire, Also the F-22 shoots out cold air to reduce the exhaust heat of the engines.
@AwesomeBeyond The cobra maneuver would only make it easier for an air to air missile (especially the AIM-120D which uses two tracking systems simultaneously) to hit the aircraft. The cobra maneuver exposes the entire cross section of the aircraft showing it at its LARGEST aperture. F-22 pilots are trained to use counter measures and turn greater than 110 degrees toward the missile in order to defeat it. No pilot in the world would cobra as a means of missile defense.
@AeroSharkTech i could not agree more.. I'm no fighter think tank, but the sheer amount of kinetic energy and airspeed lost doing this maneuver in combat would probably give your pursuer the chance to get the upper hand... if that pursuer is the raptor, I wouldn't doubt that it could be able to roll back into your six
@RezViper If only all those F-14A pilots knew that they had thrust vectoring nozzles the whole time. I could have swore they were just TF-30's. This was a flight for structure stress testing, but don't let that get in the way of some good e-expert blabbering.
@TheCoyW hmmm... i guess you overlooked the part where i said "that was the AST21, the ONLY f-14 variant with TVT". selective sight much? better get that checked buddy.
excuse me? ok since you're on a little know-it-all trip, i'll help you learn a little more to take you closer to knowing it all. next time do a little homework before trying to shoot someone down for sharing their knowledge! go to wikipedia and look up grumman f-14 scroll down and read projected variants until you find Super Tomcat 21 smart one.
The cobra could be good in a merge. If your opponent is above you, and so perform a cobra that goes beyond 90 degrees, with modern missiles you could snap a missile shot as your opponent flys by, completely surprising them.
@kyledaoust221 Yes.. it definitily could help doing that fast shot , specially combined with helmet mounted sights wich give an aditional angle (45-90º more).
Problem would be..if that missile fails.. you would had killed most of your airspeed and energy in the maneouver, while the other plane would presumibly continued at corner speed meaning its coming arround with energy while you can only acelerate
@kyledaoust221 You don't need to point the aircraft at the target anymore to get a lock, super maneuverability is pointless in the modern age dog fight.
@kneebush It depends on the situation.. if you are in front of your enemy in straight line at more than 200/300m yes.. you will make an even better target..
Now... if you are trying to out-turn your enemy wich is also pulling Gs behind you but still not managing to get the gunsights over you.. you can dissapear from the chase rather quick..
But then the problem would be that the enemy would be still on the turn , and you would be out of it with 150K less (=less energy) to do whatever you plan
@sparrowlt "you can dissapear from the chase rather quick.." Or the more likely scenario would be the chase planes wing man would be watching from a distance with weapons aimed and ready to take advantage of the now dead in the water cobra maneuvered plane
@sparrowlt - If you're looking for an even more realistic scenario (backed by real-world DACT scenarios,) the fighter that retains energy would simply extend from the fight, most likely into the vertical where the bandit could not follow. Fact of the matter is, even if you could use the "Cobra" to momentarily acquire a missile shot, denying or evading that missile shot would be child's play for the other fighter. (Missile fired from low Pk state.)
@BBEEAANN1 Man, do You know what is a Cobra Manouver, the F-16 MATV did the Hammer, not a Cobra. Cobra is a half of Hummer. Sorry guys, but from what I know about aircrafts and it's a lot of knowlegde, expect from Russian Fighters there are none of any other fighters that can do a full Cobra, with a few seconds stop on top.
Lol... The tomcat in the video DOES NOT have thrust vectoring nozzles. The F-14 in the video is an Alpha model going through stress tests on the airframe. Fuck, people. Look shit up. Don't just make it up.
@axewolfjack You don't really need thrust vectoring nozzles, you just need a talented pilot and a plane that can take the punishment. And Alpha model or not, the f-14 is a sick ass plane that can pull off a cobra without thrust vectoring ;)
Yeah, true, mate! Who the hell talked about thrust vectoring nozzles?? This was one of the first prototypes flowned and this is indeed a stress and test, and i believe they performed stall testing with the release of a shute in mid.flight at very slow speeds with a camera plane behind the F-14 test plane. This was made in the end of the 70s (i wasnt even borned!!!) and at that time, vectoring nozzles werent even on the scope yet.
that was the AST21, the only f-14 variant equipped with thrust-vectoring nozzles, unfortunately canceled to be replaced by the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which is still capable of performing the maneuver without thrust-vectoring.
@vbs221 The Tomcat was doing stress maneuvers to test its AoA capabilities with the wings unswept. The intent was not to perform a cobra. There is a book, "Fighter Combat, Tactics and Maneuvering" by R.L. Shaw, in which he stated that with the wings swept, the Tomcat can achieve AoA beyond 90 degrees.
@c4m3 Theorically it can .. but the FCS probably has no a function for it.. also i have seen interviews of Typhoon piltos where they said the Cobra is useless in actual combat so they dont use it. The Typhoon is a delta wing so it can turn really fast even at high speeds (tought bleeding a lot of energy)
Even if the Typhoon did have it built in, tranche 1 and 2 wouldnt do Cobra. It cant fly less than 100 knots. If it does try to do a Cobra it would be unstable and the computer would be trying to correct it. This is why the Rafale can beat the Typhoon at low speeds.
The Rafale could do a Cobra-ish manuever: watch?v=u-fJyN1MDrc
Just that the two are different designs. Typhoon is speed and Rafale is manueverability.
But the hell, the F14 can't do it in real life. Aircraft known to be able to make the Cobra manoevre are: Saab 35 Draken Sukhoi Su-27 and variants (Su-30/Su-30MKI to Su-37) Mikoyan MiG-35 F-22 Raptor F-16 MATV/VISTA F/A-18 HARV Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Mikoyan MiG-29 F-15 ACTIVE. This is list of known aircrafts that can do this, but only Russians do the full 120 degrees Cobra.
Sorry, but I amn't some stupid unknowing about aircrafts jerk, but on films here on Youtube there isn't any American or European fighter what I had seen that do the full Cobra. Maybe I just didn't see that clip, but I've seen a lot, and only Russian machines can do a full Cobra. Polish pilots that flew on Mig - 29 and 31 and 35 can't do it, so why the hell Americans can do it. Imn't saying that they can't do it, they can, but not a full Cobra because their engines are different construction.
Ok, so new F/A 18 SH E/F and Raptor can do the Cobra, but not a full 90°–120° angle of attack with a slight gain of altitude and a significant loss of speed. The difference is this that Russians fighters can do a full Cobra without losing thrust. The F 18 and F 22 if they do a full Cobra, their engines will shot down, because loss of thrust and they won't make out of it in one piece because they have stability control.
@radekroni No sorry.. neither the F/A-18 SuperHornet or the F-22 angines are that sensitive to compressor stalls .. they are designed to take that airflow..
They can take that maneover.. aerodynamics would be another history
@radekroni False. I don't know where you get your information from but you are very wrong. The F-22 has a much higher trust to weight ratio and can tail stand longer than any Russian aircraft and recovers with a much lesser loss of altitude. The Russians still have not figured out how to use trust vectoring effectively, which was proven in 2008 when the Su-30MKI lost every 1v1 engagement (guns only) against F-15Cs for three consecutive days. The Cobra is damn near useless in combat anyway.
@wittmann The F-22 won 126 consecutive air to air combat simulations before somebody finally got it. And the Growler like the man flying it is made in America so I'm not upset. If you research the pilot who flew the Growler in that particular exercise you wouldn't be surprised at all that he won. He had over 4,000 hours AS AN INSTRUCTOR teaching air combat hat NAS Lemoore. He had 4.5 as many hours teaching air combat than the F-22 pilot had time flying Raptors. Not surprised at all.
@NWA90s If that was the case why does India remove the Russian avionics and replace them with American ones? And no, the Su-30s DO NOT have superior BVR missiles because they can be jammed by half quick UFH frequencies. In fact, the InAF stated that their Russian made Medium and Long range missiles at best have a 1 in 6 chance of hitting the target beyond 14 miles and they would like to participate in a joint effort with the US and Israel to develop replacements. Sorry.
@NWA90s Of the three RU aircraft you listed, not one is a mass production fighter. There are only fifteen Su-35s, of those fifteen, twelve are just upgraded Su-27s. Only two Su-37s were built, and the MiG-35 is still under development with only three prototypes built. The US was developing our 5th gen fighters while these aircraft were still on the drawing board. In fact, we were using stealth 4th gen aircraft in combat before these planes even flew. Russia, just like you, fails to impress me.
@AeroSharkTech im not trying to impress, this is not a catwalk. stealth and 4th gen doesnt go under the same category. They might be semi stealth but that's about it. There is a reason israel was bitching when syria and iran wwere trying get the newer su 35 models even the israel has f15.
russian jets are much cheaper and more maneuverable, better suited for dogfights
@NWA90s Yeah? Then what the fuck do you consider the F-117A then? That aircraft is considered by the DOD and DAF to be a 4th generation attack aircraft. The F-22A is the world's first 5th gen aircraft. Don't speak for Israel either. I was in the IAF for six years and I know the true reasons behind that, and they are NOT what you claim. Russian aircraft have lower service lives and higher crash rates. The MiG-29 holds the world record for highest modern military aircraft crashes.
@AeroSharkTech f117 is not a 4th gen aircraft. it is a stealth fighter. the russian sukhoi today can drop any 4th gen aircraft in the world with its advanced avionics and using the r 37 with a range of 300km. Besides russian usually counter american jets WITH their SAMs. there is a reason why the 60 years old s 75 has shot down modern fighters
and the mig29 has improved. the newest mig29 variants like the mig29k are superb
@NWA90s Look guy. The US Department of Defense, the United States Air Force, and Lockheed Martin all classify the F-117A as a 4th attack aircraft. I'll take their word over yours, fan boy. Also, what good is a 300km radar when it can't see anything? And if the MiG-29K is so great why did everybody cancel their orders and buy the F-16 Block 60 instead? Even India has stopped all orders on the MiG-29K. There is a reason why only 21 even were built. Now go find something else to do.
@NWA90s Okay, the F-15C actually handed the Su-30MKI its ass in WVR air to air combat in 2008. The Su-30s lost every 1v1 engagement (dogfight) for three days straight. On top of that, the Su-35 (all 15 of them) only has 2 degrees sustained turning ability over the F-16 and only with clean loading. The MiG-35 has better instantanious turn rate, but even with its TV cannot match the older F-16s sustained turn rate. I do this shit for a living dude. I'm aware of who does what and how.
@NWA90s And another thing. Russia is still developing 4th gen aircraft to compete with US aircraft that are nearly 40 years old. The F-15 and F-16 are the two OLDEST active fighters in the US fleet. On top of that, we've been developing 5th gen aircraft for 25 years now. Russia just made their first. I fail to see how they are superior with their poor missions success rate and high crash and accident rate. I also fail to see why you are still keeping at this. Get a life dude, seriously.
@NWA90s And dude, why the fuck would they cancel orders on a plane because of avionics? Seriously? Just because the avionics are ole (which they are not beings theSu-35, MiG-35, and PAK-FA have the same avionics suits) doesn't mean the rest of the plane is worthless. India, Poland, Pakistan, etc., all said no to the MiG-29K because the F-16E has a much better combat record, more upgrade capabilities, easier maintenance, and a much better safety record. Stop playing video games kid.
@AeroSharkTech your calling me a kid, when the debate only got childish when you became personal. mig 29 has bad combat record because it did not have as good avionics as the f15 it faced, and the f15 also had BVR capable missiles. the iraqi migs were like flies waiting to be hit. And of course f16 has easier maintenance because it is a single engine.
@NWA90s You love speaking on things you don't know. The MiG-29s in Iraq were shot down by Sidewinder missiles. The would make the fight WVR. The F-15s were restricted from using BVR for the first 3 weeks of the air war because there were too many friendly aircraft in the NFZ and NATO did not want to risk it. There were only two BVR Kills at this time on MiG-25s because the MiG-25 had BVR capabilities close to the F-15 and AWACS cleared them to shoot to guarantee the first shot.
@AeroSharkTech : If I had the time, I'd copy paste this reply as the BEST SLAP to all those overassuming Russian fighter plane fans who keep saying their SuCKHoi is better than the F22... that they have more effective blah blah dogfighting etc... They're planes are completely useless... If their planes are that good against the F22, then why make a similar copy with a Su PAK FA. Russian FanBoyTrash Talk...
They're already having a hard time with a 4th gen F15. HA HA HA
None of Americans or Europe fighters won't do a 100% Cobra, expect Russians fighters. Why? Because Western Fighters had a so called Controll Stability, that means they can't do a tight turns or extreme manouvers like Cobra. Russian fighters like Mig - 29, 31, 35 or Su - 37, 47 don't have that stability so they can do that kind of tricks in dogfight and thats why they are more accurate than any F type American or European fighter.
@radekroni ALL those planes you name have stabillity controls (more like Alpha limiter in this case) , russians ,americans and europeans.. difference is that all russian planes have a switch to turn off and the rest usually dont..
The new F/A-18E/F has a switch somewhere to be able to do cobras.. and the F-22 and F-35 have a function built in the software to allow cobras when the pilot ask for it ..
@radekroni You have no clue what you are talking about. AOA limiters have been found on damn near all fighter aircraft since the late 1960s. The Cobra is nothing new and neither is thrust vectoring. The Russians didn't use it until 1997. The US had already tested it on nine different aircraft by then, starting in 1971. FYI May 23, 1972, Mugs McKeown departed his F-4 into a complete back flip in the middle of a dogfight and then shot down a MiG-17. Its called aerodynamics buddy. Learn it.
Hmmn cool.I wonder,if the f-14 received a fly by wire control system,longer chines,and conards that blended into those chines maybe it could do a cobra.
this is the difference btween the yanks n the russians,the yanks dont show off there jets while the russians praise there jets,for example,the f14 in the video was a test plane,if you do the math,that was back in 1973,the russians say they invented the cobra in the 80's,but this proves they're wrong,another example of shit claim is the mulit-axis t-vectoring nozzle,russia claim they are the 1st to develop it in the late 90's,but yanks tested same thing in early 90's wit the f-16 matv.oh ruski.
@fmoa Actually it was first tested in 1972 on the HIMAT. Plus the X-31 had an even more advanced system in the 80's. But you are dead on. The Russian's claim they invented stealth technology too. F-117 designed in the late 70's tested int the 80's, combat proven in the 90's. PaKFA maiden flight 2010. What a bunch of jackasses.
Guys were pulling off the cobra in the f18 only a couple of weeks after they saw a russian pilot do it.
The stresses of repeated "cobras" caused cracking so top brass told the pilots too knock it off and limited the envelope....though the newer f18s aren't limited.
The reason you don't see it is because it's "old hat" like the moonwalk dance move.
The Cobra maneuver was actually invented by the Sweeds. They were the first to perform this maneuver withe their Saab 35 Draken, but they just didn't bragged with it like the Russians did with their Su-27. The Russians just took this maneuver from the Sweeds & claimed it to be their own. But the Sweeds were performing this maneuver on their Saab 35 Draken almost 30 years before the first Su-27 entered service.
@StiviGun1 While is true that the swedish did perform the cobra before the russians.. the russians never branded it as a creation of theirs.. its just that they popularized it by performing it with the MIG-29 and SU-27 in displays along the 80/90s. Its called Puchachiev's cobra because that was the test pilot that made it popular.. not the one who "invented" it
@sparrowlt On the contrary, the Russians brag with this, otherwise useless maneuver, a lot. The sweeds never showed off with this maneuver, even though they had airplanes that could perform this maneuver and that were 30 years older than the Su-27 & MiG-29. And the Russian guy's name that made this maneuver famous this maneuver is Viktor Pugachev, not "puchachiev"...
@aleksandarfriscic 1st of all, go look for vids with SAAB Draken. U will see that that aircraft, although much older than the Su-27, performed this maneuver long b4 u made it famous. & the reason 4 which is named after a Russian is because a Russian made it famous. The Sweeds did not brag with this maneuver. U did. U copied the Sweeds & then u claimed that maneuver was yrs, when in fact, the Sweeds were perfroming it long b4 u. They just didn't brag with it, like u do.
@StiviGun1 no its 20 years and that Draken cobra is low angle cobra and it sucks....still...russians are about 30 years inhead of usa....russiand showed cobra in 1977 and americans in 2005...and no american war plane can do a supercobra...sry to all americans,but with that discovery-explorer-nat geo propaganda you can convince only kids that you are the best....and dont brag about harv or active or matv because they cant move with armament...
@aleksandarfriscic 1st of all, the Draken was the 1st plane 2 execute the cobra maneuver. It can perform a 90 degrees AOA. That is Cobra. & Draken is over 20 years older than the Su-27. 2nd of all, u 1st showed the Cobra maneuver in 1989, at Paris Air Show, not in 1977. The Su-27 was still in developing faze at that time... Only in 1984 it entered service. & show me 1 of yr planes that is executing the Cobra, or other fancy maneuver, with their weapons on it. It's full weapons load, of course.
Actually the the first jets doing the cobra didnt have TVC. Those would be the Su-27 and MiG-29. Neither of them have TVC but they are tail heavy built and thus have superb maneuverability, however that has some drawbacks as well.
Either way, I heard that the Cobra has no real combat value.
If a fighter pilot being persued performed a Cobra thinking he can slow down fast enough to let his persuer fly past him, then the persuer can simply launch a missile or fire his guns at the dorsal section.
The Cobra was invented by the Russians to counter the F-15 threat with heat seekers, like the Archer. A trailing SU-27 would not be able to stay on target if an F-15 was in a turn. To counter this, the Russian plane would perform a Cobra get a lock with his heat seeker, fire, and would be able to continue flying without stalling out. Contrary to popular belief, the Cobra is an offensive maneuver, not a defensive tactic.
F-14 cant do a cobra and neither can a F-16 nor F-15 (apart from the TVC experimental ones)
A cobra is considered if you rise the nose to at LEAST a 90 degree angle (as far as 120 and beyond is now doable, so they basically fly backwards with the momentum) and get it down again without losing altitude.
MiG-29 can do that, so can the entire Su-27 family due to some unique features in the design.
There is a difference between going high angle and doing a cobra (first done by a Russian in a Su-27)
@Buuub08 The F-16 is aerodinamically capable of doing a Cobra, but its not possible fue to the FCS limitations to avoid going out of control, even with the override it will not allow.
Russian jets (Fulcrum and Flanker) pilots must push a button to disengage the angle of attack limiter to perform the cobra
MiG-29/Su-27 family are able to do it because they are tail-heavy and the front if the jet acts like sail on turns literary trowing the jet into a sharp turn.
Find me a vid of F-16 doing a cobra, apart from the experimental F-16 with TVC.
@Buuub08 There is no video of a standard F-16 doing a cobra. I said it was technically capable but it cant do it due to FCS limitations, the FCS should be reprogramed to allow a cobra, and as i said in the comments, the F/A-18A-D is also aerodynamically capable of doing a cobra but , apart from the FCS limit, enginers say it can take it structurally. The newer F/A-18E/F superhornet its cobra capable , as is the F-22 and F-35. The SAAB Draken also is, and theorically the Typhoon (not much known)
@Buuub08 Sorry.. acording to the F/A-18A-D i mean "it CANT take it structurally".. i missed a "T" , that means that the plane should be able to do it, but the rudders would break-off because they are not capable ot taking the sudden change in airflow.. that problem was "fixed" in the newer F/A-18E/F and its capable of cobras, also aparently the FCS on the superhornets have been setup so it can perform it...tought i think its for displays and shows only
Since im not a pilot i cant speak about if its of any use, all i know that there is a thing as high-alpha maneuver and the cobra is basically that just going beyond 90 degrees.
@Vyppaaa11 Sorry but no they are not. F-16 block 50/52 are the mid 90s F-16 standard.. the F-16 is equiped with a fly by wire FCS computer wich has an AoA limiter wich doesnt allow to exceed certain AoA, so no cobra posible.. even when you switch the "pitch override" switch it wont allow a cobra without modification. The F-16 MAVT could do cobras but that was a research NASA aircradt with a modified FCS software
@sparrowlt The way you are descriping the AOA limiter is makng it sound like it is impossible to stall an F-16 and I know that is not true. I have frends in the USAF that fly F-16 and they say they can do Cobras. And your talkng about the F-16 VIST. MATV only reffers to the Multi Axis Thrust Vectoring nozzle and there were several other modifications made tio the F-16n including a center control stick as opposed to the normal F-16 side stick.
@Vyppaaa11 Of course you can stall the plane, simply run out of airspeed and it will flat stall , and actually due to the AoA limiter you have to use the override to recover from the flat stall , the AoA limiter prevents the pilot of exceding the max AoA and stalling the plane in normal flight envelope , MIG-29 and SU-27s do the same, actually they have a switch to turn off the limiter and be able to perform the cobra but without that switch they couldnt because the FCS would prevent it
@sparrowlt I'm sorry, you apparently don't understand basic aircraft and flying knowledge. Here is an education. Any aircraft can stal at any altitude, any orientaion and any airspeed. You can have an aircraft in a stall while the nose is pointed directly at the ground. You can stall at sea level or at 20,00ft. You can stall while traveling at mach 1. Please research this before you try to argue with some one that knows better.(cont)
@sparrowlt i have also learned that the pilots go to idle when performing the cobra its so that if an engine goes outthe plane doesnt get biserk. i dont think it affects the plane or what
@ZeeFrenchie jet turbines are monitored by % rpm of the max rpm. Where cars are monitored by total rpm (example: 2500 rpm , idle at 900rpm, max 7000rpm , etc) planes vary greatly from turbine to turbine so they are used by % , being 100% the max rated rpm when throttle is at max..
Idle in jets is usually between 60 and 70% rpm.. so in flight you work between idle and 100%
@Vyppaaa11 You can set up the FCS to prevent exeeding the CAOA but in combat mode, the FCS in most aircraft will let you stall. But please learn what a stall is before you talk about it next time. Okay?
@Buuub08 The cobra was first performed in the Saab J-35. The Russians jsut don't shut up about it. And the F-16 can do a cobra as well as the F-22. But the Mig-29 can't do a cobra. And, the reason that the SUs can do a cobra is because they have a dangerously low CAOA. Meaning that they are far more likely to be thrown into a unpredictable, uncontrolable and sometimes unrecoverable spin. And you may ver well spin right to the ground, That is, if the emeny doesnt nail you first!
@aeroshark1 Hahah, no! I'm a pilot sith the USAF Auxillary so I get my information from F-16 pilots. Ya, I know you are a pilot and some of the planes you fly lookreally7 cool but the fact is that Sparrow is wrong and I am right.
@Vyppaaa11 Dude, you said that the Block 50/52 was the newest F-16. I seriously doubt any F-16 pilot gave you that info. I seriously doubt you fly anything, especially in the Air Force.
@aeroshark1 When I said that I was saying that we no longer use older models, meaning that all of the F-16s the US still usess are atleast F-16 block 50/52. I know about the newer models and looking back I can now see hoe that could have been confuseing. But yes I''m a pilot and yes I fly with the USAF Auxillary.
@Buuub08 Cobra was not first done in a Su-27. There were several American aircraft that were capable of exceeding 90 degrees before the Su-27 was even built. The best one was the HIMAT built by NASA in 1972. The F-14 was capable of achieving 93 degrees while gaining less than 75 feet at airspeeds around than 200 kts. Especially while at a 60 degree bank. The Su-27s wing and strake aspect were copied from the F-14 because the F-14 was best AOA DF at its half aspect, same angle as Su-27s.
@aeroshark1 Many aircraft were/are technically capable of doing it, BUT if you would actually bother to read up the history of the maneuver youd know why Su-27 gets all the credit, and why its called the Pugachevs cobra.
Su-27 has actually nothing to do with the F-14, they even are in entirely different classes and are built for entirely different purposes.
@Buuub08 Check this out fanboy. I've been working for the Naval Department of Intelligence for nine years now. I've been flying fixed wing aircraft since I was 16, got my private at 18 (dad flew F-16s) and specialize in soviet ACM. Don't friggin talk to me about reading any history books. I have time in half of the aircraft you've left posts about, so don't talk to me about maneuvering either. I'm up there burning holes int he sky while you probably couldn't set the trim tabs on a cessna.
@aeroshark1 I find that hard to believe, not that i care though.
MiG-29 has nothing to do with the F-15 either.
F-15 itself was built as a response to the MiG-25, of which you probably have never heard of, wouldnt surprise me. However they didnt end up as counterparts.
Mig-29 technically ended up as a response to the F-15 and F-16.
However, if you conclude that they were "copied" just from the shape of the wings, well then you certainly know shit about aircraft.
@Buuub08 Okay loser. Take a break from your video games and watch this video. Last Generation: MiG-29. In fact, in this video not only do they quote that one of the original designs was a copy of the F-15, they also mention how the MiG-25's capabilities were so over rated that fear of those non existent capabilities are ultimately the reason why the F-15 was built to be so bad ass. And when you're done watching that shut the fuck up and go back to playing video games loser.
@aeroshark1 1) i dont play games, i prefer to work instead.
2) I watched the vid and would like you to point out at which point does that tv show support your claims.
Now if the F-14 was so bad ass because of the separated engines, why didnt the US build other jets with separated engines? More over even the SAME company building the super-bad-ass F-14 didnt choose to install separated engines on their next fighter.
PAK-FA is a F-22 counterpart, no info on it is publicly available afaik.
I said that the F-15 was built as a response to the MiG-25, which it was. I also said that they did NOT end up as counterparts, even though looking alike. The MiG-31 and F-15 are nearly 100% identical, however were built for different purposes. This means that they were NOT copied. If you had decent logic then you should be able to realize that just copying doesnt do much good. You gotta analyze, improve and counter. Luckily people responsible for that are smart enough, unlike you.
@Buuub08 Because the F-14 was the last air superiority fighter ever built for the navy. The F-14 not only had separated engines, but it was fucking huge! The next fighter built for the Navy was the F/A-18, designed as a light attack aircraft. Air to air engagements are almost never seen. Air to ground is how modern war is fought. Hope this answers your question. And if you watched the video and didn't understand what the narrator said in plain english you may have a learning disability.
@aeroshark1 It doesnt matter for what it was built. Your claim is that F-14 was bad ass because of the spaced engines giving it great negative push over capability. Now thats a great thing. Then why wouldnt the US build any fighters with this feature if it was so great? Even the same company who built the F-14 didnt consider the "great negative push over capability" to be worth shit.
I understood every word he said, but i dont understand where you got your claims from, defo not from that vid.
I certainly dont have a learning disability, if i would then i wouldnt be able to fluently speak 5 languages (on a daily basis, work related) and study 2 more at the same time.
@Buuub08 Good for you, because you're the only person on earth who's multilingual. How bout this, you tell me what languages you speak and I bet I'm better at them than you are. Naval Intel dude.
@Buuub08 First off, learn to read. I said the F-15 was bad ass. Look at its kill record and tell me it's not. The F-14 also had variable geometry wings. And the F-16 has an obstruction free canopy. While the F-15 could easily hit Mach 2.5. Each one of these aircraft were built with unique capabilities that have not been repeated. Its up to the manufacture to meet the requirements of the military. The purpose of the aircraft decides how it is built. Get it?
@aeroshark1 Look at against what its kill record is in the first place.
Neither MiG-29 nor Su-27 has variable geometry wings, so why the need for "copying the spaced engines". And im still waiting for you to indicate at which point does the video say this.
@Buuub08 Dense. I never said they fucking copied them to the t did I you dense nutsack. I said they applied several of the aircraft's features. This is common. I'm not gonna ignore my enemies technologies, especially if they work. And I said one of the original proposals for the MiG-29 was a copy of the F-15 and the fucking narrator says it in plain god damn english. Stop misconstruing what the fuck I said to try to make a point because its getting on my fucking nerves.
@aeroshark1 Aha.. and what makes you think they were taken from the F-14?
Yeah i heard him say that one of the proposals was a F-15 "copy", although i find that hard to believe since the USSR already had a F-15 "copy" called MiG-31. Obviously you have never heard of that one either.
You know, they say a lot of things on TV shows, you shouldnt believe everything they say. I though naval intel dudes should be smart enough to know that.
@Buuub08 The MiG-31 was an upgrade of the MiG-25, and it didn't enter service until 1982 so eat a dick. And where do I get my info from? Victor Mikhailovich. Plus the US and UK also bought several documents from Rostislav Belyakov himself after the soviet union collapsed. Those documents are now in filing cabinets at the National Maritime Intelligence Center in Suitland, Maryland...where I work. So eat another dick.
@aeroshark1 MiG-31 wasnt really an 'upgrade' it was a different aircraft meant to replace the unnecessary MiG-25.
Oh yeah, sure, so you have some documents which say that one of the MiG-29 proposals was a F-15 lookalike and that the Russians took the spaced engine idea from the F-14, right? Eventhough Russia already had a jet that looks similar to the F-15 and were working on one that already is a nearly 100% copy.
@aeroshark1 neh, ich will ja nur wissen ob deutsch kannst, hat ja lange genug gedauert. Ah ja, und was soll "Fick dien mutter" bedeuten?
Nihongo de wanai, sore wa chugoku go.
Obviously youre one of those who are unable to tell the difference between Japanese and Chinese. Thank you, that was all that was needed on your behalf.
@Buuub08 You stupid fuck I know the difference between nihon-go and fucking chinese. Took you long enough to respond. You obviously know how to use online translaters.
I said that because someone had said that they were doing "thrust vectoring tests on early models of the Tomcat", or something along those lines.
axewolfjack 1 day ago
Never said you needed thrust vectoring. I said the Tomcat in the video doesn't have it. They were looking to build versions with thrust vectoring, but they were only going to be based on the F-14D and the end model would hardly have looked like a Tomcat upon completion.
axewolfjack 1 day ago
it is not a cobra maneuver. it must be a maneuver whith an angle of turn MORE than 90 degrees
watch?v=-DRIx_-usew - cobra by sukhoi =)
ytppa 1 month ago
The cobra is supposed to slow you down rapidly so an enemy at your 6 passes you putting you at their 6... but that's only good for 1v1. If you're engaging more then one enemy, using the cobra to allow one enemy at your tail to pass you will cause you to be missile bait for the other enemies.
caseygtr 1 month ago 3
You're wrong, it's called Maverick Turn
rzober89biologia 2 months ago
@rzober89biologia I'm bringing Him in closer Merlin.... I'm gonna hit the brakes and He'll fly right by.
apv92 4 days ago
what the fuck ???
MegaCristante 2 months ago
At what time would the enemy be that close?
BlueRaptorTiger 2 months ago
@BlueRaptorTiger acording to Hollywood allways... in real life never
sparrowlt 2 months ago
Ok.. I'm no fighter pilot... but I'm a physics student. And from wat I know of physics, you would need a TWR of over 1 to do any of the moves demonstrated by the Su-27 bak in 80s. Now, the F-22's TWR is 1.09 whereas the Su-35's is 1.10, and the MKI shares this figure. The F22 has a better wing loading, and the three are about tied in speed. And the cobra would easily trick a radar guided missile like the AIM-120D as well as a AIM-9X due to scattering of light and heat.
AwesomeBeyond 2 months ago
@AwesomeBeyond Well yea but the cobra requires a decrease in speed which leaves you vulnerable to gun fire, Also the F-22 shoots out cold air to reduce the exhaust heat of the engines.
TH7596 2 months ago
@AwesomeBeyond The cobra maneuver would only make it easier for an air to air missile (especially the AIM-120D which uses two tracking systems simultaneously) to hit the aircraft. The cobra maneuver exposes the entire cross section of the aircraft showing it at its LARGEST aperture. F-22 pilots are trained to use counter measures and turn greater than 110 degrees toward the missile in order to defeat it. No pilot in the world would cobra as a means of missile defense.
AeroSharkTech 1 month ago
@AeroSharkTech i could not agree more.. I'm no fighter think tank, but the sheer amount of kinetic energy and airspeed lost doing this maneuver in combat would probably give your pursuer the chance to get the upper hand... if that pursuer is the raptor, I wouldn't doubt that it could be able to roll back into your six
iamidiotic 1 month ago
I had no idea so many fighter pilots were on youtube. Amazing!
cfi2927087 3 months ago 2
@cfi2927087 Fucking hilarious mate!!!
drenajunkie 3 months ago
In case anyone was too stupid to notice, those aren't cobras.
kozmon0t 3 months ago 2
Oooh Oooh! Can I play combat fighter pilot ace too! Idiot's.
Burnz2much 3 months ago
@Burnz2much lol
sparrowlt 3 months ago
@BBEEAANN1 dude are you SERIOUSLY still going on about that? it was DROPPED a long time ago.
RezViper 4 months ago
@BBEEAANN1 What a shame man, damn stuck with the SH18 now instead of the Tomcat being modified :(
onblock7 4 months ago
LOL!!! super slow motion cobra manuever.
pogpog28 4 months ago
nop
hlarrache 5 months ago
Sukhoi can do a kulbit, which is a 360 degree cobra :)
BusinessKi11ER 5 months ago
I don't think it qualifies as a cobra maneuver unless it is over 90 degrees.
monkeyfishninja 6 months ago
@BBEEAANN1 well since you know everything i need not continue arguing with you :)
RezViper 7 months ago
@RezViper If only all those F-14A pilots knew that they had thrust vectoring nozzles the whole time. I could have swore they were just TF-30's. This was a flight for structure stress testing, but don't let that get in the way of some good e-expert blabbering.
TheCoyW 5 months ago
@TheCoyW hmmm... i guess you overlooked the part where i said "that was the AST21, the ONLY f-14 variant with TVT". selective sight much? better get that checked buddy.
RezViper 5 months ago
excuse me? ok since you're on a little know-it-all trip, i'll help you learn a little more to take you closer to knowing it all. next time do a little homework before trying to shoot someone down for sharing their knowledge! go to wikipedia and look up grumman f-14 scroll down and read projected variants until you find Super Tomcat 21 smart one.
RezViper 7 months ago
Comment removed
RezViper 7 months ago
The cobra could be good in a merge. If your opponent is above you, and so perform a cobra that goes beyond 90 degrees, with modern missiles you could snap a missile shot as your opponent flys by, completely surprising them.
kyledaoust221 7 months ago
@kyledaoust221 Yes.. it definitily could help doing that fast shot , specially combined with helmet mounted sights wich give an aditional angle (45-90º more).
Problem would be..if that missile fails.. you would had killed most of your airspeed and energy in the maneouver, while the other plane would presumibly continued at corner speed meaning its coming arround with energy while you can only acelerate
sparrowlt 7 months ago
@kyledaoust221 You don't need to point the aircraft at the target anymore to get a lock, super maneuverability is pointless in the modern age dog fight.
gypsykingg 6 months ago
@kyledaoust221 one german test pilot claimed that is what it was designed for.
f14fan1243 4 months ago
I have always thought that a cobra just makes a ridiculously easy target in front of you to nail with your guns anyway.
kneebush 7 months ago
@kneebush It depends on the situation.. if you are in front of your enemy in straight line at more than 200/300m yes.. you will make an even better target..
Now... if you are trying to out-turn your enemy wich is also pulling Gs behind you but still not managing to get the gunsights over you.. you can dissapear from the chase rather quick..
But then the problem would be that the enemy would be still on the turn , and you would be out of it with 150K less (=less energy) to do whatever you plan
sparrowlt 7 months ago
@sparrowlt "you can dissapear from the chase rather quick.." Or the more likely scenario would be the chase planes wing man would be watching from a distance with weapons aimed and ready to take advantage of the now dead in the water cobra maneuvered plane
thebluemaggot 4 months ago
@thebluemaggot More likely
sparrowlt 4 months ago
@sparrowlt - If you're looking for an even more realistic scenario (backed by real-world DACT scenarios,) the fighter that retains energy would simply extend from the fight, most likely into the vertical where the bandit could not follow. Fact of the matter is, even if you could use the "Cobra" to momentarily acquire a missile shot, denying or evading that missile shot would be child's play for the other fighter. (Missile fired from low Pk state.)
aaron8862006 3 months ago
@aaron8862006 Thanks.. at least somebody who understands that air combat is about energy and not about instantaneous turn rate
sparrowlt 3 months ago
@BBEEAANN1 Man, do You know what is a Cobra Manouver, the F-16 MATV did the Hammer, not a Cobra. Cobra is a half of Hummer. Sorry guys, but from what I know about aircrafts and it's a lot of knowlegde, expect from Russian Fighters there are none of any other fighters that can do a full Cobra, with a few seconds stop on top.
radekroni 8 months ago
Lol... The tomcat in the video DOES NOT have thrust vectoring nozzles. The F-14 in the video is an Alpha model going through stress tests on the airframe. Fuck, people. Look shit up. Don't just make it up.
axewolfjack 9 months ago 10
@axewolfjack You don't really need thrust vectoring nozzles, you just need a talented pilot and a plane that can take the punishment. And Alpha model or not, the f-14 is a sick ass plane that can pull off a cobra without thrust vectoring ;)
XLR8RV 9 months ago
@axewolfjack You dont need TVC to perform the Pugachev's cobra.The SU-27 and MiG-29 can do it and they dont even have TVC or canard's.
1bearcatf8f 1 month ago 2
@axewolfjack
???
LOOOOL
Yeah, true, mate! Who the hell talked about thrust vectoring nozzles?? This was one of the first prototypes flowned and this is indeed a stress and test, and i believe they performed stall testing with the release of a shute in mid.flight at very slow speeds with a camera plane behind the F-14 test plane. This was made in the end of the 70s (i wasnt even borned!!!) and at that time, vectoring nozzles werent even on the scope yet.
This is from WINGS, right?
BallisticEVA01 2 weeks ago
@axewolfjack You don't need thrust vectoring to do a cobra, but other than that, you're right.
FalconKPD 2 days ago
that was the AST21, the only f-14 variant equipped with thrust-vectoring nozzles, unfortunately canceled to be replaced by the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which is still capable of performing the maneuver without thrust-vectoring.
RezViper 10 months ago
Don't try, You aren't a Sukhoi!
this is the most stupid cobra i have ever saw! a handicapped Cobra :\
vbs221 1 year ago
@vbs221 The Tomcat was doing stress maneuvers to test its AoA capabilities with the wings unswept. The intent was not to perform a cobra. There is a book, "Fighter Combat, Tactics and Maneuvering" by R.L. Shaw, in which he stated that with the wings swept, the Tomcat can achieve AoA beyond 90 degrees.
tony3461 6 months ago
maybe the typhoon can do a full cobra ??
c4m3 1 year ago
@c4m3 Theorically it can .. but the FCS probably has no a function for it.. also i have seen interviews of Typhoon piltos where they said the Cobra is useless in actual combat so they dont use it. The Typhoon is a delta wing so it can turn really fast even at high speeds (tought bleeding a lot of energy)
sparrowlt 1 year ago
@sparrowlt
Even if the Typhoon did have it built in, tranche 1 and 2 wouldnt do Cobra. It cant fly less than 100 knots. If it does try to do a Cobra it would be unstable and the computer would be trying to correct it. This is why the Rafale can beat the Typhoon at low speeds.
The Rafale could do a Cobra-ish manuever: watch?v=u-fJyN1MDrc
Just that the two are different designs. Typhoon is speed and Rafale is manueverability.
The Tranche 3 will be completely different.
G777GUN 8 months ago
@sparrowlt ofcourse cobra maneuver isnt used in real combat, real combat goes at high speed, cobra is for low speed.
reindenaab 6 months ago
radekroni 1 year ago
Sorry, but I amn't some stupid unknowing about aircrafts jerk, but on films here on Youtube there isn't any American or European fighter what I had seen that do the full Cobra. Maybe I just didn't see that clip, but I've seen a lot, and only Russian machines can do a full Cobra. Polish pilots that flew on Mig - 29 and 31 and 35 can't do it, so why the hell Americans can do it. Imn't saying that they can't do it, they can, but not a full Cobra because their engines are different construction.
radekroni 1 year ago
Ok, so new F/A 18 SH E/F and Raptor can do the Cobra, but not a full 90°–120° angle of attack with a slight gain of altitude and a significant loss of speed. The difference is this that Russians fighters can do a full Cobra without losing thrust. The F 18 and F 22 if they do a full Cobra, their engines will shot down, because loss of thrust and they won't make out of it in one piece because they have stability control.
radekroni 1 year ago
@radekroni No sorry.. neither the F/A-18 SuperHornet or the F-22 angines are that sensitive to compressor stalls .. they are designed to take that airflow..
They can take that maneover.. aerodynamics would be another history
sparrowlt 1 year ago 2
@sparrowlt he was also incorrect about altitude loss as they found out at the red flag where india brought thier russian jets.
123456789mischief 1 year ago
@radekroni False. I don't know where you get your information from but you are very wrong. The F-22 has a much higher trust to weight ratio and can tail stand longer than any Russian aircraft and recovers with a much lesser loss of altitude. The Russians still have not figured out how to use trust vectoring effectively, which was proven in 2008 when the Su-30MKI lost every 1v1 engagement (guns only) against F-15Cs for three consecutive days. The Cobra is damn near useless in combat anyway.
AeroSharkTech 1 year ago 12
@AeroSharkTech Too bad the F-22 was gun killed by a Growler!
wittmann 4 months ago
@wittmann The F-22 won 126 consecutive air to air combat simulations before somebody finally got it. And the Growler like the man flying it is made in America so I'm not upset. If you research the pilot who flew the Growler in that particular exercise you wouldn't be surprised at all that he won. He had over 4,000 hours AS AN INSTRUCTOR teaching air combat hat NAS Lemoore. He had 4.5 as many hours teaching air combat than the F-22 pilot had time flying Raptors. Not surprised at all.
AeroSharkTech 4 months ago
@AeroSharkTech su 30 has superior avionics tho and longer BVR missiles
NWA90s 4 months ago
@NWA90s If that was the case why does India remove the Russian avionics and replace them with American ones? And no, the Su-30s DO NOT have superior BVR missiles because they can be jammed by half quick UFH frequencies. In fact, the InAF stated that their Russian made Medium and Long range missiles at best have a 1 in 6 chance of hitting the target beyond 14 miles and they would like to participate in a joint effort with the US and Israel to develop replacements. Sorry.
AeroSharkTech 4 months ago
@AeroSharkTech nevertheless. the most advanced 4th gen fighter is not American. you have more advanced russian fighters. su 35, su 37, mig 35
NWA90s 4 months ago
Comment removed
AeroSharkTech 4 months ago
@NWA90s Of the three RU aircraft you listed, not one is a mass production fighter. There are only fifteen Su-35s, of those fifteen, twelve are just upgraded Su-27s. Only two Su-37s were built, and the MiG-35 is still under development with only three prototypes built. The US was developing our 5th gen fighters while these aircraft were still on the drawing board. In fact, we were using stealth 4th gen aircraft in combat before these planes even flew. Russia, just like you, fails to impress me.
AeroSharkTech 4 months ago
@AeroSharkTech im not trying to impress, this is not a catwalk. stealth and 4th gen doesnt go under the same category. They might be semi stealth but that's about it. There is a reason israel was bitching when syria and iran wwere trying get the newer su 35 models even the israel has f15.
russian jets are much cheaper and more maneuverable, better suited for dogfights
NWA90s 4 months ago
@NWA90s Yeah? Then what the fuck do you consider the F-117A then? That aircraft is considered by the DOD and DAF to be a 4th generation attack aircraft. The F-22A is the world's first 5th gen aircraft. Don't speak for Israel either. I was in the IAF for six years and I know the true reasons behind that, and they are NOT what you claim. Russian aircraft have lower service lives and higher crash rates. The MiG-29 holds the world record for highest modern military aircraft crashes.
AeroSharkTech 4 months ago
@AeroSharkTech f117 is not a 4th gen aircraft. it is a stealth fighter. the russian sukhoi today can drop any 4th gen aircraft in the world with its advanced avionics and using the r 37 with a range of 300km. Besides russian usually counter american jets WITH their SAMs. there is a reason why the 60 years old s 75 has shot down modern fighters
and the mig29 has improved. the newest mig29 variants like the mig29k are superb
NWA90s 4 months ago
@NWA90s Look guy. The US Department of Defense, the United States Air Force, and Lockheed Martin all classify the F-117A as a 4th attack aircraft. I'll take their word over yours, fan boy. Also, what good is a 300km radar when it can't see anything? And if the MiG-29K is so great why did everybody cancel their orders and buy the F-16 Block 60 instead? Even India has stopped all orders on the MiG-29K. There is a reason why only 21 even were built. Now go find something else to do.
AeroSharkTech 4 months ago
@AeroSharkTech what do you mean it cant see anything? what other 4th aircraft is as fast, maneuverable?
The orders of mig 29k stopped because its avionics are a bit old.
i agree the US has the best overall combat aircraft, but russia dominates in 4th gen with its su 35 with its outstanding dogfight and bvr capability
NWA90s 3 months ago
@NWA90s Okay, the F-15C actually handed the Su-30MKI its ass in WVR air to air combat in 2008. The Su-30s lost every 1v1 engagement (dogfight) for three days straight. On top of that, the Su-35 (all 15 of them) only has 2 degrees sustained turning ability over the F-16 and only with clean loading. The MiG-35 has better instantanious turn rate, but even with its TV cannot match the older F-16s sustained turn rate. I do this shit for a living dude. I'm aware of who does what and how.
AeroSharkTech 3 months ago
Comment removed
AeroSharkTech 3 months ago
Comment removed
AeroSharkTech 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NWA90s And another thing. Russia is still developing 4th gen aircraft to compete with US aircraft that are nearly 40 years old. The F-15 and F-16 are the two OLDEST active fighters in the US fleet. On top of that, we've been developing 5th gen aircraft for 25 years now. Russia just made their first. I fail to see how they are superior with their poor missions success rate and high crash and accident rate. I also fail to see why you are still keeping at this. Get a life dude, seriously.
AeroSharkTech 3 months ago
@NWA90s And dude, why the fuck would they cancel orders on a plane because of avionics? Seriously? Just because the avionics are ole (which they are not beings theSu-35, MiG-35, and PAK-FA have the same avionics suits) doesn't mean the rest of the plane is worthless. India, Poland, Pakistan, etc., all said no to the MiG-29K because the F-16E has a much better combat record, more upgrade capabilities, easier maintenance, and a much better safety record. Stop playing video games kid.
AeroSharkTech 3 months ago
@AeroSharkTech your calling me a kid, when the debate only got childish when you became personal. mig 29 has bad combat record because it did not have as good avionics as the f15 it faced, and the f15 also had BVR capable missiles. the iraqi migs were like flies waiting to be hit. And of course f16 has easier maintenance because it is a single engine.
NWA90s 3 months ago
Comment removed
AeroSharkTech 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NWA90s You love speaking on things you don't know. The MiG-29s in Iraq were shot down by Sidewinder missiles. The would make the fight WVR. The F-15s were restricted from using BVR for the first 3 weeks of the air war because there were too many friendly aircraft in the NFZ and NATO did not want to risk it. There were only two BVR Kills at this time on MiG-25s because the MiG-25 had BVR capabilities close to the F-15 and AWACS cleared them to shoot to guarantee the first shot.
AeroSharkTech 3 months ago
@AeroSharkTech : If I had the time, I'd copy paste this reply as the BEST SLAP to all those overassuming Russian fighter plane fans who keep saying their SuCKHoi is better than the F22... that they have more effective blah blah dogfighting etc... They're planes are completely useless... If their planes are that good against the F22, then why make a similar copy with a Su PAK FA. Russian FanBoyTrash Talk...
They're already having a hard time with a 4th gen F15. HA HA HA
riflebore 3 months ago
@riflebore :D Anytime Baby!!
AeroSharkTech 3 months ago
@AeroSharkTech If the SU-30MKI couldn't beat the F-15C... then they would be really fucked if the F-15 STOL/MTD was a production fighter.
caseygtr 1 month ago
@radekroni but f-22 has super manuverability? people who say no plane cant do a cobra is a myth
1123359 7 months ago
None of Americans or Europe fighters won't do a 100% Cobra, expect Russians fighters. Why? Because Western Fighters had a so called Controll Stability, that means they can't do a tight turns or extreme manouvers like Cobra. Russian fighters like Mig - 29, 31, 35 or Su - 37, 47 don't have that stability so they can do that kind of tricks in dogfight and thats why they are more accurate than any F type American or European fighter.
radekroni 1 year ago
@radekroni ALL those planes you name have stabillity controls (more like Alpha limiter in this case) , russians ,americans and europeans.. difference is that all russian planes have a switch to turn off and the rest usually dont..
The new F/A-18E/F has a switch somewhere to be able to do cobras.. and the F-22 and F-35 have a function built in the software to allow cobras when the pilot ask for it ..
sparrowlt 1 year ago 5
@sparrowlt Finally, a youtuber who actually knows something about airplanes. : D Cheers, Sparrow.
4thImpulse 1 year ago
@radekroni You have no clue what you are talking about. AOA limiters have been found on damn near all fighter aircraft since the late 1960s. The Cobra is nothing new and neither is thrust vectoring. The Russians didn't use it until 1997. The US had already tested it on nine different aircraft by then, starting in 1971. FYI May 23, 1972, Mugs McKeown departed his F-4 into a complete back flip in the middle of a dogfight and then shot down a MiG-17. Its called aerodynamics buddy. Learn it.
AeroSharkTech 1 year ago
Haha- Cobra? This is hamster, dont cobra, not much angle of attack, 70-80, Su (27) have 110
ChernomirdinReturn 1 year ago
Well, that's not a full Cobra, but it still illustrates the capabilities of this awesome fighter. Far superior to the Super Hornet.
StiviGun1 1 year ago 3
Hmmn cool.I wonder,if the f-14 received a fly by wire control system,longer chines,and conards that blended into those chines maybe it could do a cobra.
Conservativeteen101 1 year ago
this is the difference btween the yanks n the russians,the yanks dont show off there jets while the russians praise there jets,for example,the f14 in the video was a test plane,if you do the math,that was back in 1973,the russians say they invented the cobra in the 80's,but this proves they're wrong,another example of shit claim is the mulit-axis t-vectoring nozzle,russia claim they are the 1st to develop it in the late 90's,but yanks tested same thing in early 90's wit the f-16 matv.oh ruski.
fmoa 1 year ago
@fmoa Actually it was first tested in 1972 on the HIMAT. Plus the X-31 had an even more advanced system in the 80's. But you are dead on. The Russian's claim they invented stealth technology too. F-117 designed in the late 70's tested int the 80's, combat proven in the 90's. PaKFA maiden flight 2010. What a bunch of jackasses.
aeroshark1 1 year ago
just 20% manuever.this is not cobra..
partleykbb 1 year ago
Guys were pulling off the cobra in the f18 only a couple of weeks after they saw a russian pilot do it.
The stresses of repeated "cobras" caused cracking so top brass told the pilots too knock it off and limited the envelope....though the newer f18s aren't limited.
The reason you don't see it is because it's "old hat" like the moonwalk dance move.
Icepacalapse 1 year ago
this is cobra you optimistic americans... watch?v=xgHoBDW56CI&feature=related
aleksandarfriscic 1 year ago
This is not a Cobra
watch?v=rK0_G2ZY264
stalingradComando 1 year ago
The Cobra maneuver was actually invented by the Sweeds. They were the first to perform this maneuver withe their Saab 35 Draken, but they just didn't bragged with it like the Russians did with their Su-27. The Russians just took this maneuver from the Sweeds & claimed it to be their own. But the Sweeds were performing this maneuver on their Saab 35 Draken almost 30 years before the first Su-27 entered service.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 While is true that the swedish did perform the cobra before the russians.. the russians never branded it as a creation of theirs.. its just that they popularized it by performing it with the MIG-29 and SU-27 in displays along the 80/90s. Its called Puchachiev's cobra because that was the test pilot that made it popular.. not the one who "invented" it
sparrowlt 1 year ago
@sparrowlt On the contrary, the Russians brag with this, otherwise useless maneuver, a lot. The sweeds never showed off with this maneuver, even though they had airplanes that could perform this maneuver and that were 30 years older than the Su-27 & MiG-29. And the Russian guy's name that made this maneuver famous this maneuver is Viktor Pugachev, not "puchachiev"...
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 Wow, my friend Stivigun1, you do have a good side to you huh.....I'm impressed!
amorrison1 1 year ago
@amorrison1 Yeah, u should've seen yr sister how impressed she was last night after a "love" session with me... Why don't u go ask her? Moron!
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 Wow your into necrophylia....tell her I said we miss her.
amorrison1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 then whats the name of that maneuver? ""Pugachev's Cobra"" - an Russian!!!!
aleksandarfriscic 1 year ago
@aleksandarfriscic 1st of all, go look for vids with SAAB Draken. U will see that that aircraft, although much older than the Su-27, performed this maneuver long b4 u made it famous. & the reason 4 which is named after a Russian is because a Russian made it famous. The Sweeds did not brag with this maneuver. U did. U copied the Sweeds & then u claimed that maneuver was yrs, when in fact, the Sweeds were perfroming it long b4 u. They just didn't brag with it, like u do.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 no its 20 years and that Draken cobra is low angle cobra and it sucks....still...russians are about 30 years inhead of usa....russiand showed cobra in 1977 and americans in 2005...and no american war plane can do a supercobra...sry to all americans,but with that discovery-explorer-nat geo propaganda you can convince only kids that you are the best....and dont brag about harv or active or matv because they cant move with armament...
aleksandarfriscic 1 year ago
@aleksandarfriscic 1st of all, the Draken was the 1st plane 2 execute the cobra maneuver. It can perform a 90 degrees AOA. That is Cobra. & Draken is over 20 years older than the Su-27. 2nd of all, u 1st showed the Cobra maneuver in 1989, at Paris Air Show, not in 1977. The Su-27 was still in developing faze at that time... Only in 1984 it entered service. & show me 1 of yr planes that is executing the Cobra, or other fancy maneuver, with their weapons on it. It's full weapons load, of course.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
to @StiviGun1 :
See in Wikipedia: " Pugachev's Cobra"
pavelpopov 1 year ago
Actually the the first jets doing the cobra didnt have TVC. Those would be the Su-27 and MiG-29. Neither of them have TVC but they are tail heavy built and thus have superb maneuverability, however that has some drawbacks as well.
Buuub08 1 year ago
Comment removed
wslx0195 1 year ago
Comment removed
shaunhill13 2 years ago
Either way, I heard that the Cobra has no real combat value.
If a fighter pilot being persued performed a Cobra thinking he can slow down fast enough to let his persuer fly past him, then the persuer can simply launch a missile or fire his guns at the dorsal section.
Amar7605 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Cobra was invented by the Russians to counter the F-15 threat with heat seekers, like the Archer. A trailing SU-27 would not be able to stay on target if an F-15 was in a turn. To counter this, the Russian plane would perform a Cobra get a lock with his heat seeker, fire, and would be able to continue flying without stalling out. Contrary to popular belief, the Cobra is an offensive maneuver, not a defensive tactic.
shaunhill13 2 years ago
@shaunhill13 Now that I can see making sense, especially now when the Russians have all-aspect firing missiles and helmet-mounted targeting systems.
But now so do the Americans and I think the Europeans as well.
Amar7605 1 year ago
@Amar7605
You're right. Actually the best thing a pursuit plane can do when their target executes a cobra is hit the damn air-brakes
wslx0195 1 year ago
I'm so glad the Swedish invented the Cobra=)
Chopin742 2 years ago
F-14 cant do a cobra and neither can a F-16 nor F-15 (apart from the TVC experimental ones)
A cobra is considered if you rise the nose to at LEAST a 90 degree angle (as far as 120 and beyond is now doable, so they basically fly backwards with the momentum) and get it down again without losing altitude.
MiG-29 can do that, so can the entire Su-27 family due to some unique features in the design.
There is a difference between going high angle and doing a cobra (first done by a Russian in a Su-27)
Buuub08 2 years ago
@Buuub08 The F-16 is aerodinamically capable of doing a Cobra, but its not possible fue to the FCS limitations to avoid going out of control, even with the override it will not allow.
Russian jets (Fulcrum and Flanker) pilots must push a button to disengage the angle of attack limiter to perform the cobra
sparrowlt 2 years ago
Never heard of the F-16 being able to do that.
MiG-29/Su-27 family are able to do it because they are tail-heavy and the front if the jet acts like sail on turns literary trowing the jet into a sharp turn.
Find me a vid of F-16 doing a cobra, apart from the experimental F-16 with TVC.
Buuub08 2 years ago
@Buuub08 There is no video of a standard F-16 doing a cobra. I said it was technically capable but it cant do it due to FCS limitations, the FCS should be reprogramed to allow a cobra, and as i said in the comments, the F/A-18A-D is also aerodynamically capable of doing a cobra but , apart from the FCS limit, enginers say it can take it structurally. The newer F/A-18E/F superhornet its cobra capable , as is the F-22 and F-35. The SAAB Draken also is, and theorically the Typhoon (not much known)
sparrowlt 2 years ago
Maybe, maybe..
Buuub08 2 years ago
@Buuub08 Sorry.. acording to the F/A-18A-D i mean "it CANT take it structurally".. i missed a "T" , that means that the plane should be able to do it, but the rudders would break-off because they are not capable ot taking the sudden change in airflow.. that problem was "fixed" in the newer F/A-18E/F and its capable of cobras, also aparently the FCS on the superhornets have been setup so it can perform it...tought i think its for displays and shows only
sparrowlt 2 years ago
Well ive heard the superhornets can do it.
Since im not a pilot i cant speak about if its of any use, all i know that there is a thing as high-alpha maneuver and the cobra is basically that just going beyond 90 degrees.
Buuub08 2 years ago
@sparrowlt Th Fi16 block 50 (which is what all the new Fi-16s are) are capable of doing a cobr very easily.
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
@Vyppaaa11 Sorry but no they are not. F-16 block 50/52 are the mid 90s F-16 standard.. the F-16 is equiped with a fly by wire FCS computer wich has an AoA limiter wich doesnt allow to exceed certain AoA, so no cobra posible.. even when you switch the "pitch override" switch it wont allow a cobra without modification. The F-16 MAVT could do cobras but that was a research NASA aircradt with a modified FCS software
sparrowlt 1 year ago
@sparrowlt The way you are descriping the AOA limiter is makng it sound like it is impossible to stall an F-16 and I know that is not true. I have frends in the USAF that fly F-16 and they say they can do Cobras. And your talkng about the F-16 VIST. MATV only reffers to the Multi Axis Thrust Vectoring nozzle and there were several other modifications made tio the F-16n including a center control stick as opposed to the normal F-16 side stick.
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
@Vyppaaa11 Of course you can stall the plane, simply run out of airspeed and it will flat stall , and actually due to the AoA limiter you have to use the override to recover from the flat stall , the AoA limiter prevents the pilot of exceding the max AoA and stalling the plane in normal flight envelope , MIG-29 and SU-27s do the same, actually they have a switch to turn off the limiter and be able to perform the cobra but without that switch they couldnt because the FCS would prevent it
sparrowlt 1 year ago
@sparrowlt I'm sorry, you apparently don't understand basic aircraft and flying knowledge. Here is an education. Any aircraft can stal at any altitude, any orientaion and any airspeed. You can have an aircraft in a stall while the nose is pointed directly at the ground. You can stall at sea level or at 20,00ft. You can stall while traveling at mach 1. Please research this before you try to argue with some one that knows better.(cont)
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
@Vyppaaa11 You are delibery missunderstanding my comments.. i will not follow
sparrowlt 1 year ago
@sparrowlt Fine, then please explain what I'm misunderstanding
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
@sparrowlt i have also learned that the pilots go to idle when performing the cobra its so that if an engine goes outthe plane doesnt get biserk. i dont think it affects the plane or what
BRIANROX1 1 year ago
@BRIANROX1 If im not mistaken.. engines in a SU-27 are arround 80% rpm during the cobra..
Even they have to add a bit of power at some point during the maneouver
sparrowlt 1 year ago
@sparrowlt well i can see how adding power exiting the maneuver would help
BRIANROX1 1 year ago
@sparrowlt What does 80% RPM mean?! Engine RPMs vary greatly between idle, cruise or MTO for example!
ZeeFrenchie 1 year ago
@ZeeFrenchie jet turbines are monitored by % rpm of the max rpm. Where cars are monitored by total rpm (example: 2500 rpm , idle at 900rpm, max 7000rpm , etc) planes vary greatly from turbine to turbine so they are used by % , being 100% the max rated rpm when throttle is at max..
Idle in jets is usually between 60 and 70% rpm.. so in flight you work between idle and 100%
sparrowlt 1 year ago
@Vyppaaa11 You can set up the FCS to prevent exeeding the CAOA but in combat mode, the FCS in most aircraft will let you stall. But please learn what a stall is before you talk about it next time. Okay?
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
Comment removed
wslx0195 1 year ago
@Buuub08 The cobra was first performed in the Saab J-35. The Russians jsut don't shut up about it. And the F-16 can do a cobra as well as the F-22. But the Mig-29 can't do a cobra. And, the reason that the SUs can do a cobra is because they have a dangerously low CAOA. Meaning that they are far more likely to be thrown into a unpredictable, uncontrolable and sometimes unrecoverable spin. And you may ver well spin right to the ground, That is, if the emeny doesnt nail you first!
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
@Vyppaaa11 Hahaha!!! Ohhh that's silly. Who told you all this rubbish? And what the hell is "combat mode"? Did you get that from a video game?
aeroshark1 1 year ago
@aeroshark1 Hahah, no! I'm a pilot sith the USAF Auxillary so I get my information from F-16 pilots. Ya, I know you are a pilot and some of the planes you fly lookreally7 cool but the fact is that Sparrow is wrong and I am right.
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
@Vyppaaa11 Dude, you said that the Block 50/52 was the newest F-16. I seriously doubt any F-16 pilot gave you that info. I seriously doubt you fly anything, especially in the Air Force.
aeroshark1 1 year ago
@aeroshark1 When I said that I was saying that we no longer use older models, meaning that all of the F-16s the US still usess are atleast F-16 block 50/52. I know about the newer models and looking back I can now see hoe that could have been confuseing. But yes I''m a pilot and yes I fly with the USAF Auxillary.
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
@Buuub08 Cobra was not first done in a Su-27. There were several American aircraft that were capable of exceeding 90 degrees before the Su-27 was even built. The best one was the HIMAT built by NASA in 1972. The F-14 was capable of achieving 93 degrees while gaining less than 75 feet at airspeeds around than 200 kts. Especially while at a 60 degree bank. The Su-27s wing and strake aspect were copied from the F-14 because the F-14 was best AOA DF at its half aspect, same angle as Su-27s.
aeroshark1 1 year ago
@aeroshark1 Many aircraft were/are technically capable of doing it, BUT if you would actually bother to read up the history of the maneuver youd know why Su-27 gets all the credit, and why its called the Pugachevs cobra.
Su-27 has actually nothing to do with the F-14, they even are in entirely different classes and are built for entirely different purposes.
Buuub08 1 year ago
@Buuub08 Check this out fanboy. I've been working for the Naval Department of Intelligence for nine years now. I've been flying fixed wing aircraft since I was 16, got my private at 18 (dad flew F-16s) and specialize in soviet ACM. Don't friggin talk to me about reading any history books. I have time in half of the aircraft you've left posts about, so don't talk to me about maneuvering either. I'm up there burning holes int he sky while you probably couldn't set the trim tabs on a cessna.
aeroshark1 1 year ago
@aeroshark1 I find that hard to believe, not that i care though.
MiG-29 has nothing to do with the F-15 either.
F-15 itself was built as a response to the MiG-25, of which you probably have never heard of, wouldnt surprise me. However they didnt end up as counterparts.
Mig-29 technically ended up as a response to the F-15 and F-16.
However, if you conclude that they were "copied" just from the shape of the wings, well then you certainly know shit about aircraft.
Buuub08 1 year ago
@Buuub08 Okay loser. Take a break from your video games and watch this video. Last Generation: MiG-29. In fact, in this video not only do they quote that one of the original designs was a copy of the F-15, they also mention how the MiG-25's capabilities were so over rated that fear of those non existent capabilities are ultimately the reason why the F-15 was built to be so bad ass. And when you're done watching that shut the fuck up and go back to playing video games loser.
aeroshark1 1 year ago
@aeroshark1 1) i dont play games, i prefer to work instead.
2) I watched the vid and would like you to point out at which point does that tv show support your claims.
Now if the F-14 was so bad ass because of the separated engines, why didnt the US build other jets with separated engines? More over even the SAME company building the super-bad-ass F-14 didnt choose to install separated engines on their next fighter.
PAK-FA is a F-22 counterpart, no info on it is publicly available afaik.
Buuub08 1 year ago
I said that the F-15 was built as a response to the MiG-25, which it was. I also said that they did NOT end up as counterparts, even though looking alike. The MiG-31 and F-15 are nearly 100% identical, however were built for different purposes. This means that they were NOT copied. If you had decent logic then you should be able to realize that just copying doesnt do much good. You gotta analyze, improve and counter. Luckily people responsible for that are smart enough, unlike you.
Buuub08 1 year ago
Po hodu ti i sebal s Rossii po tomu 4to tam ti bil tuporezij debil. A v SWA byt' debilom dostato4no 4toby stat prezidentom. Pozdravjaju.
Buuub08 1 year ago
@Buuub08 Because the F-14 was the last air superiority fighter ever built for the navy. The F-14 not only had separated engines, but it was fucking huge! The next fighter built for the Navy was the F/A-18, designed as a light attack aircraft. Air to air engagements are almost never seen. Air to ground is how modern war is fought. Hope this answers your question. And if you watched the video and didn't understand what the narrator said in plain english you may have a learning disability.
aeroshark1 1 year ago
@aeroshark1 It doesnt matter for what it was built. Your claim is that F-14 was bad ass because of the spaced engines giving it great negative push over capability. Now thats a great thing. Then why wouldnt the US build any fighters with this feature if it was so great? Even the same company who built the F-14 didnt consider the "great negative push over capability" to be worth shit.
I understood every word he said, but i dont understand where you got your claims from, defo not from that vid.
Buuub08 1 year ago
I certainly dont have a learning disability, if i would then i wouldnt be able to fluently speak 5 languages (on a daily basis, work related) and study 2 more at the same time.
Buuub08 1 year ago
@Buuub08 Good for you, because you're the only person on earth who's multilingual. How bout this, you tell me what languages you speak and I bet I'm better at them than you are. Naval Intel dude.
aeroshark1 1 year ago
@Buuub08 First off, learn to read. I said the F-15 was bad ass. Look at its kill record and tell me it's not. The F-14 also had variable geometry wings. And the F-16 has an obstruction free canopy. While the F-15 could easily hit Mach 2.5. Each one of these aircraft were built with unique capabilities that have not been repeated. Its up to the manufacture to meet the requirements of the military. The purpose of the aircraft decides how it is built. Get it?
aeroshark1 1 year ago
@aeroshark1 Look at against what its kill record is in the first place.
Neither MiG-29 nor Su-27 has variable geometry wings, so why the need for "copying the spaced engines". And im still waiting for you to indicate at which point does the video say this.
Buuub08 1 year ago
@Buuub08 Dense. I never said they fucking copied them to the t did I you dense nutsack. I said they applied several of the aircraft's features. This is common. I'm not gonna ignore my enemies technologies, especially if they work. And I said one of the original proposals for the MiG-29 was a copy of the F-15 and the fucking narrator says it in plain god damn english. Stop misconstruing what the fuck I said to try to make a point because its getting on my fucking nerves.
aeroshark1 1 year ago
@aeroshark1 Aha.. and what makes you think they were taken from the F-14?
Yeah i heard him say that one of the proposals was a F-15 "copy", although i find that hard to believe since the USSR already had a F-15 "copy" called MiG-31. Obviously you have never heard of that one either.
You know, they say a lot of things on TV shows, you shouldnt believe everything they say. I though naval intel dudes should be smart enough to know that.
Buuub08 1 year ago
@Buuub08 The MiG-31 was an upgrade of the MiG-25, and it didn't enter service until 1982 so eat a dick. And where do I get my info from? Victor Mikhailovich. Plus the US and UK also bought several documents from Rostislav Belyakov himself after the soviet union collapsed. Those documents are now in filing cabinets at the National Maritime Intelligence Center in Suitland, Maryland...where I work. So eat another dick.
aeroshark1 1 year ago
@aeroshark1 MiG-31 wasnt really an 'upgrade' it was a different aircraft meant to replace the unnecessary MiG-25.
Oh yeah, sure, so you have some documents which say that one of the MiG-29 proposals was a F-15 lookalike and that the Russians took the spaced engine idea from the F-14, right? Eventhough Russia already had a jet that looks similar to the F-15 and were working on one that already is a nearly 100% copy.
And why dont i see you say anything in Russian?
Buuub08 1 year ago
@Buuub08 Why don't you? You're a brick wall. I'm done letting you waste my time. Yob tvoiu mat'...there's some Russian for you.
aeroshark1 1 year ago
@aeroshark1 Ja uzhe davno tebe jasno po russki skazal 4to ja o tebe dumaju.
Weiter gehtz mit Deutsch. Las mal sehn was du kanst.
Zhi hou wo men shuo pu tong hua, hao bu hao?
Buuub08 1 year ago
@Buuub08 Okay, anfanger deutsch. Und das ist soll beeindrucken mich? Fick dien Mutter.
Baka desu ka?
aeroshark1 1 year ago
@aeroshark1 neh, ich will ja nur wissen ob deutsch kannst, hat ja lange genug gedauert. Ah ja, und was soll "Fick dien mutter" bedeuten?
Nihongo de wanai, sore wa chugoku go.
Obviously youre one of those who are unable to tell the difference between Japanese and Chinese. Thank you, that was all that was needed on your behalf.
Buuub08 1 year ago
@Buuub08 You stupid fuck I know the difference between nihon-go and fucking chinese. Took you long enough to respond. You obviously know how to use online translaters.
aeroshark1 1 year ago
@aeroshark1 i doubt you do. Why would you write something so retarded as
"baka desu ka?" in response to "zhi hou wo men shuo pu tong hua"?
Translators dont cut it as they dont translate phrases correctly, aside from "baka desu ka?" i guess.
Buuub08 1 year ago