This maneuver is impressive at an air show, but still the best way to get shot during a dog fight especially since the plane keeps its trajectory and increases its target's size.
You'll see that this will not be a goal any-more in next fighter generations.
Sukhois are nice birds but still hold the record of crashes during presentations. Maybe russian pilots do they want to oversell the merits of the aircraft!?
Looks good doing this maneuver at an airshow but can it do this with a combat load? I've looked for footage and have yet to find it. Anyone got a link?
@Yakko77@Yakko77 It was performed at a Yugoslavian air show in 1994. The Su-30 was fitted with 7 tonnes of payload and it performed all the maneuvers with the same ease.
Guys even american pilot shoot down our plane, he won`t get away because of the s-400 which can obliterate 6 planes at the same time on the heights from 10j meters to 20 km, no1 can escape this thing rly
Cobra - the ace of trumps in the battle. Cobra allows you to instantly get away from the enemy. Sharp braking and you're at the tail of the enemy. The enemy for a while losing sight of the fighter and you have the perfect opportunity to strike fire. Besides russians, no one can't repeat such a maneuver.
we never see western aircraft perform this stint. Why? Are western aircraft really not capable of it? The Russians do it at every airshow just about every time. I even have a recording (old sony hi8) from the LeBourget show back in 1994 or so... with them doing it back then. I must find a hi8 player some time and upload that too. I wonder what would have really happened if Soviet aircraft flown by Soviet pilots had met wetern aircraft in conflict.
I am soo proud to be a Bangalorean ! I remember seeing this Pugachev Cobra maneuver 4 years back ! Next Air Show, the 5th Gen fighters will be ready :)
and the newest eurofighter or any us jet will say,or better the computer, "you are not allowed to do this,stop trying or i release the ejections seat" lol
@BlackPython222 ye it costs alot but it also have some serious technical errors and maintanance was retardedly complex and expensive, but like u said lets not start a flame war lol...anyway it would be better if we dont find out which country is better in head to head combat if u understand what i mean...
What MsGuano said: No American aircraft (or aircraft of another country) can not do this maneuver until now. Those who argue the opposite - Nuba have no clue about the maneuver "Cobra". Its essence lies in a sudden stop the aircraft in one place, then the plane starts to move on. A web fighters think that Americans "do" the cobra, but they only raise the nose of the plane sharply, and accordingly goes to climb, and on-site zavisayut.Prezhde what to write anything, teach materiel
Ни один американский самолёт (или самолёт другой страны) НЕ МОЖЕТ сделать этот манёвр до сих пор. Те кто утверждает обратное - нубы, не имеющие никакого представления о манёвре "Кобра". Его суть заключается в резкой остановке самолёта на одном месте, потом самолёт начинает двигаться дальше. А интернет бойцы думают что американцы "делают" кобру, но они всего лишь резко поднимают нос самолёта и соответственно идут в набор высоты, и на месте на зависают.Прежде чем писать хоть что-то, учите матчасть
@MsGuano I'm right : No American aircraft (or aircraft of another country) can not do this maneuver until now. Those who argue the opposite - Nuba have no clue about the maneuver "Cobra". Its essence lies in a sudden stop the aircraft in one place, then the plane starts to move on. A web fighters think that Americans "do" the cobra, but they only raise the nose of the plane sharply, and accordingly goes to climb, and on-site zavisayut.Prezhde what to write anything, teach materiel
@123hikid I think a proper cobra requires the back of the plane to be in front of the front of the plane. I don't know which aircraft can do it. But it's nothing more than a cool curiosity. In combat it is worthless.
@nexus1g is it? The Harrier would use reverse or almost vertical thrust to let non VSTOL aircraft pass them making them in turn the chased ones. Did it in the Falklands all the time. I see this manoeuvre as very similar, especially when we never see western aircraft do this, almost as if they can't. Also I would imagine it could be used for missile dodging. Apart from that it shows what the aircraft is capable I would say.
@trident3b I find your claim very hard to believe. If someone was close enough behind the Harrier for it to perform the move that you're claiming, then the Harrier should have been shot down.
Slowing down in a dogfight is never an option. Dogfights are turning fights and has to do with sustained turning radius at high speed.
Slowing down makes you susceptible to ground fire, an easy target for missiles and cannon fire and Pugachev's Cobra has to be done starting at a low speed.
@nexus1g a text relating to thrust vectoring goes as follows: "Subsequently, it was realized that using vectored thrust in combat situations enabled aircraft to perform various manoeuvres not available to conventional-engined planes". Re "Dogfights are turning fights and has to do with sustained turning radius at high speed". So it's a game by which some flying rules have to be adhered to? Surely a Harrier e.g. (or even the Su35) could place itself behind the follower by way of vectored thrust?
@trident3b It's not that there are "rules" per se, but it's what dogfights simply come down to: One plane trying to get behind the other which results in them chasing each other in circles. The one that can make the tighter, faster sustained turns is going to have a leg up on the aircraft that doesn't. Does thrust vectoring help in some situations? Yes. Is it the end-all and be-all of dogfighting? No. Is it a good idea to slow down in combat as much as a cobra would slow you down? Absolutely no.
@123hikid no, you are completely wrong, a plane that pulls the cobra doesnt"stop"in mid air, it would loose aerodynamic lift and plummet to the earth, instead it SLOWS DOWN the plane. and there ARE american aircraft that can do the cobra
watch?v=qmIQAOG789E
watch?v=1lVvfSQGqoc&feature=related
watch?v=xZ8WCzhDWXI
watch?v=RJO0KzTgcMI
so not only are american planes as maneuverable, but they are better in EVERY other way as well. so please, do research before you speak.
The Cobra is essentially a maneuver that slows the aircraft down using a 90 to 120 degree angle without stalling the aircraft ... Simple as that ... Good pilots can hold it longer and virtually in the same place (VIRTUALLY) The reason it is called the STOP - HALT - COBRA is kinda like a sequence He stops letting the target which was chasing him go past and then intercepts the target ...
The plane stalls mate, after going beyond the maximum AoA every aircraft's wing stalls as the airflow is no longer attached to the upper surface, while the lift drops to 1/3 of the total lift beyond that, and at 90 deg AoA it becomes translated to pure drag...! You are probably thinking about the stall as a fall, but it's not always that!
So the only thing holding the plane on it's path is the inertia gained just before stalling both wings until it turns to normal flight!
@Maverickf22flyer The word stall is used when the plane has lost controll because of the lack of airflow ... What I should have said is Slowing down the aircraft without putting it into a flat spin or an uncontrollable stall ... So essentially The cobra Maneuver is a controlled stall :) ... Thanks for correcting my typo ... :)
@STALKERBooka он не делает кобру, на всех видео с Ф-22 и его так называемой "коброй", он резко задирает нос вверх и идёт в набор высоты. Всё. Вот и вся кобра. У Ф-22 галимые движки с ОВТ. ОВТ работает только в вертикальной плоскости, а на наших самолётах во всех плоскостях....
@MsGuano Кобра по существу маневр, который замедляет самолет вниз, используя 90 до 120 градусов без сваливания самолета ... Вот как все просто ... Хорошие пилоты могут держать его дольше и практически в том же месте (виртуально) почему-то называется STOP - HALT - COBRA является своего рода как последовательность Он останавливается позволяя цель, которая была гонится за ним идут мимо, а затем перехватывает цель .. .
@AdverbAdjective LOLOLOOLL YE......anyway did u forgot that f22 got cancaled because it failed?! epic americans, even though they fail they still think they win...now go watch "top gun" and masturbate.
@100Urosh1 The F22 wasn't cancelled because "it failed". It's production was ceased since the dang thing costs so much.
That is all I'm going to say because I'm not going to take sides in a fanatic/extremest flame-war of posts. All I will a say is the only way we would be able to tell if one plane AS WELL as its pilot is better than another, is if they went head to head in real combat. Since that hasn't happened yet with best jets of both countries, none of us can say which is better.
@AdverbAdjective The figure has several combat uses including spoofing doppler radar, and is also an impressive trick to demonstrate aircraft's pitch control authority, high angle of attack (AOA) stability and engine-versus-inlet compatibility, as well as pilot's skill.
@arun199113 nahin hai dost :) donno agar neeche se dekho toh ek tarha se lagta hai asal mein toh ye experimental su-35 hai dusre mein su-37 (2 video's) shakh ho toh zara gor se dekho su-30MKI mein 2 seater hote hain ...this is simply a single seater experimental su-35/37.
Read the serviceability docs on the Tomcat, I can't tell you anymore than that. 50 to 1 isn't very good. To overcome that you'd have to build a whole new fighter. They already had that in the Hornet. Add the fact the future of the JSF in development, why develop an already too large fighter for Carrier use?
What your discussing has been discussed with every fighter the navy retires. (F8 for Navy and the F-106 for the AF come to mind.).
Seriously Grumman could not have upgrade the Tomcat and keep it serviceable. There was even talk about the SuperCat, being fully combat loaded, achieving only Subsonic speeds. Add to the newer digital architecture of the Hornet, it was clear the Bug was going to be the future.
Everyone wants to keep aircraft alive and flyable, but there are drawbacks to it. Benefits have to outweigh the faults. The Hornet will now take over the A6/F-14/and maybe(?) S3's duties. Large benefit.
@Edge0fPain the cobra maneuver is used in dogfights for sudden stalling in mid air and increase in altitude in slit sec. this makes the hunted become the hunter...imagine a su in front n f22 at its tail..a cobra can put f22 at its target in flat 1.1secs...amazing!!! carnards r excellent...i built su-30...any query is welcome...
@prasanth1983 not sure anyone would be alarmed by such maneuver. Seems like it would take some time to lock onto a aircraft with that pit, providing your radar can even see the target to begin with. Judging by the angle of the pitch not sure even guns would work. You'd have less than a second to put the pipper on the target. You do know that the Sukhoi would have to bled his energy way down to do it to begin with. Not a good thing to do when in combat. Looks great at an airshow though.
3D or unmanned STV rejection talk may cost some their program and job: E.g., the LAVI fighter. The 1st in aviation history flights of Stealth, Tailless 3D Vectoring [STV] with mini aero-control, stealth inlets/wing-body design took place in Israel in 1987 [May 18, 1987, Av. Week]. Facebook video ["Benjamin Gal-Or"] explains super agility/high-kill-ratio & TO/Land/Battle safety gained by STV. EF, F35/F22 are not STV while unmanned NGB or ? may. Cf. X-44MANTA, X-47b, RQ-170, T-50, B-2, FB-22.
and what shit they are proving with this??..ww2 dog fight?..then all is missing is a ball turret and two .5 machine guns..rest is shit red propaganda, maybe somebody will buy this ejection seat with engine...
Sure its an impressive maneuver, but just because a plane can do the cobra doesn't make it better then any other aircraft. I seem to remember that the prototype f-16 with the front canards could also preform the maneuver. As well as a large number of current aircraft. I myself am a huge fanboy of the the F-14 tomcat, But I can appreciate this plane as well.
@quiksilvermanblue Yeah, too bad the F-14 was retired and they no longer continued with its improved variants development, like the Super Tomcat. The current F-18 is not good for a naval interceptor. The F-14 was suited for that. It had long range, higher speed, higher maneuverability. On one of its variants they intended 2 install movable nozzles, but the project was canceled. Just like with a lot of other good projects. The US congress seems 2 have a habit of canceling the best projects.
@StiviGun1 The F-14 wasn't a cheap plane to maintain and deploy. The current obsession with multitasking aircraft and lowering of spending after the cold war pretty much shelved any Super Tomcats. The platform was aging in a field that was moving towards stealthier aircraft, and there was a proposed Naval ATF aircraft with much of the design elements of the F-22 including stealthy design and thrust vectoring, but with two man crew, variable geometry wings, and of course being navalized.
@mobius1aic Yeah, I know about the version that u r talking abt. It was an F-14 with F-22 features. That version would've been even more impressive. BTW, since you start talking abt the F-14's maintenance costs, do you know how much maintenance that plane needed? Was it so much more expensive to maintain than the F-18?
As 4 the multitasking thing, the F-14 was intended 2 be transformed into a strike/fighter, any plane can be modified 4 that role, that was never the problem with the F-14.
@StiviGun1 For that role, the F-14 was unnecessarily complicated. It's only real benefit was range. I think the F/A-18s of all versions can technically lift as much ordinance as the F-14, but of course it doesn't have as high a range and requires drop tanks and or refueling in flight. The three big things that F/A-18 needs fixing are it's fuel capacity, engine output, and perhaps it's radar range capacity. The APG-79 so far though I hear is the best for a multi-mission profile.
@mobius1aic I keep hear abt this complicated issue that the F-14 presumably had. What was so much complicated abt it?
As 4 its advantages, range was not the only one, it was also its speed. & all of the Super Tomcat variants would've had even bigger range with even higher speed & bigger weapons payload capacity. Its nose could've also accommodate a much more powerful radar.
As 4 F-18s shortcomings, I don't think they can be solved. Not in that design. The F-18, in any of its variants, simply
@mobius1aic doesn't have what it takes to be a naval fighter.
anft . net/ f - 14 / f14 - history - f14 x . htm: here's a shot link abt the history of the F-14 & abt its Super Tomcat variants. Don't forget to remove the spaces.
@mobius1aic The F-14 may have been a bit more complicated, but in no way it was unnecessary. The F-18 may be good enough 4 performing ground strike missions against countries with weak & obsolete air defense systems, but against a properly armed country like Russia & China, the USN's multi billion dollars carriers would simply be unprotected. A super-power must be prepared 2 fight against some1 of its own size, not against countries that don't even have a military in the real sense of the word.
The Super Hornet is actually alot better than you give it credit for in the strike role. Compared to the F-14, yes it does lack the range and long range engagement capability in the interception role (partially of which is the lack of a long range missile in the arsenal in the first place), however I would expect the Super Hornet to have better survivability into today's electronic environment in the strike role.
@mobius1aic Look, I'm not talking abt the F-14A/B variants. I'm talking abt its Super Tomcat variants, which would've had at least the same ground attack and electronic warfare systems as the Super Hornet. All this in a much faster design with a much bigger, the Super Tomcats were 2 incorporate more powerful & more fuel efficient engines. They also were 2 receive TVC. That's what I want 2 say: that the Super Tomcat should've been selected, not the F-18, which was not designed as a naval fighter
@mobius1aic I mean, all these in a design with a much bigger range and speed... And with the incorporation of the TVC, a much better maneuverability also.
@StiviGun1 It certainly would've been awesome to see the F-14 with real 3D TVC and perhaps the F119 engine in it. The lack of thrust hampered the F-14A in the energy dogfight and while the D certainly had alot more power available to it, the more the better! It was a heavy bird as we all know.
@mobius1aic Yes, it would've been awesome & it would've also spared America from a lot of headaches. As 4 the D model, yes that version had engines with more thrust, but its Super Tomcat derivatives, would've had even more thrust & with less fuel consumption.
As 4 sparing America from a lot of headaches, a lot of things should have been done 4 that purpose in the '90s. But the Clinton adm simply ruined the US military & the US military industry.
@StiviGun1 Well I would go as far to say that the US military industrial complex is a bit of a pain in America's side because they can lobby to congress and congress will make bad decisions based on the lobbies as opposed to listening to the military services proper. F/A-18E was one of those problems I guess (I still like it as a warplane) and the JSF I don't think should exist. It's causing cost overruns, making the services deal with an aircraft not completely fit for the job as well.
@mobius1aic The F-18E was promoted only by Dick Cheney, who is a politician. If it was after those companies that u talk about, the USN today would've had Super Tomcats, not these flying toys.
As 4 the F-18, that thing may look cool, but it's almost useless. U can only use it against countries that don't have a proper air defense.
As 4 US military industrial complex, it has been weakened a lot since the end of the Cold War & that's not a good thing 4 America, in specially with Russia's rearming
@StiviGun1 No even Delta Birds had as much trouble if not more. It wasn't Cheney, the Navy wanted to into another direction. Congress decided in 1994 not to go beyond the Deltas. Just too expensive to maintain.
@Madera1966 What "Deltas"? And you better go check your facts about what the USN wanted. They ALWAYS opted for the Tomcat. If it would've been their way, the USN navy would've now had Super Tomcats and the F-18 in all its variants would've been retired. But what "Deltas" are you talking about?
According to Waters, in the '90s, naval leadership made the decision to phase out the Tomcat and replace it with the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet. The F/A-18 E model of the Super Hornet is a single-seat aircraft, while the F/A-18 F’s two-person crew resembles the F-14’s crew more closely, with a pilot and a radar intercept officer. Walters was a Tomcat Pilot and XO for VF-145
@Madera1966 I was not referring to the F-14Ds, I was referring 2 the Super Tomcat variants, the Quick Strike, Super Tomcat 21 & Attack Super Tomcat 21.
As 4 what the navy wanted, the fact that Dick Cheney was the one that killed the Super Tomcat program in the late '80s is a known fact. So the navy didn't actually want the Super Hornet, they just didn't have any alternative. Go read the Wiki article about the F-14 & its Super Tomcat derivatives. U'll see.
@StiviGun1 Cheney didn't want to fund any more of the F-14 program. He was probably right. it's service History didn't fair very well. He didn't kill it though. Congress does that.
last entry in wiki's article:
In the end the Attack Super Tomcat was considered to be too costly. The Navy decided to pursue the F/A-18E/F to fill the fighter-attack role.[66]
Your talking modernizing an entire airframe, not just engines. Why? The new Airframe was there in the Hornet.
@Madera1966 "Its service history didn't fair very well"? R u kidding me? That was 1 of the most successful fighter the USN ever had. & Dick Cheney DID kill the Super Tomcat. He was the 1 decided 2 replace the F-14 with a fighter not made by Grumman. Why, I don't know. I don't he he didn't want an aircraft from Grumman. As 4 the Congress, this shows how incompetent & stupid those people r. Abt Quick Strike, they said it didn't feature too many improvements. When Grumman did make more improvements
@Madera1966 they said it was too expensive. Someone had an interest in phasing the F-14 and adopting the F-18, instead. BTW, just so u can see how stupid the people in Congress r, they said the Attack Super Tomcat 21 was too expensive, but the development of the Super Hornet cost more than any of the Super Tomcat variants...This also shows that the Congress doesn't give a shit abt how much money goes on a certain weapons system. They have different reasons 4 accepting or rejecting a certain
@Madera1966 weapons system. The Super Tomcat 21 & the Quick Strike variant should've been today in the USN active service, not the short legged F-18. The only thing the F-18 is good at is bombing countries that have no S-A defenses... The Attack Super Tomcat 21 would've had an incredible range. Its maneuverability was even more improved. It could carry much more weapons. & the Quick Strike had all the ground attack capabilities the F-18 has.
@mobius1aic and with China's very rapid military development. Trust me, the Clinton adm but also Bush's senior adm with Cheney as the secretary of defense, have weakened the US military industry a lot. And the military too. What u said abt these companies squeezing a lot of money from Congress without offering products 2 worth their money, this is a practice that they've learned during the Clinton adm. During the Cold War, these type of practices were far less common & tolerated.
@mobius1aic I'm not saying I don't like the F-14, as I really do. Budget cuts thanks to the end of the Cold War and "enthusiasm" towards the JSF by Congress basically killed off any advanced F-14 variants. The Super Tomcat 21 was an interesting proposal though.
@mobius1aic In my opinion, the Super Tomcat 21 or the Attack Super Tomcat 21 would've been a better choice than the F-35. They would've also been much cheaper to build. This is just another example of the waste in the US's weapons acquisition programs.
The days of the fur ball are over. We train to do dogfight, but engagements today last only a few seconds. The key is to get the jump on the enemy. The Raptor does it. BTW, I build them. Besides, air to air combat is overly romantcized. The real real deal is what you destroy in the way of targets. And the Raptor with its armament and stealth technology does that well too. It is an AWESOME airplane with awesome pilots. Pray for peace, but if the bad guys want to fight, I say bring it on.
Rely more on your computers and chips and you reduce your pilots skills and abilities. You have watch top gun? Miramar is built for that reason. SU 47 SU27 Mig 29 Mig 31 the Russians have pursed aerodynamics over technology, it seems to have paid off.
While the Sukhoi is doing his cobra manuever, the F-22 could be shooting him down (In fact the Raptor could drop a squadron of them (In fact the Raptor could drop a squadron of them.) from dozens of miles away and no one would know until they saw they fireball. Of course the Sukhoi pilot might never know. The Raptor pilot could also just decide to fly through the airshow, and know one would know that until he hit the airfield boundary.
@robflyer1970 Not to me, but OOIEatte seems to think that F22's have an edge in close one to one dog fight combat. I wouldn't like to think that, the Soviets have ALWAYS hung onto the dogfight they're old fashioned that way BUT remarkably they ARE right, strip a plane of its computer capabilities and what do you have? A pilot and some steel, which means you need skilled pilots AND a very manoeuvrable plane.
Well, the thing is that F-22's are way too valuable to risk being destroyed for this sort of nonsense. Cheap Russian planes are fine for airshows. Leave the fighting for American planes.
Don't you just think then that F 22 CAN'T do this sort of manoeuvrable nonsense then? And thus cheap Russian planes are more manoeuvrable than expensive F 22's?
@OOIEatte Oh wikipedia states, then it must be true! F22 only managed a cobra move after the USAF saw the Russians do it first in a MIG 29, the USAF had no idea that the Raptor COULD do that move. Typical you can take the donkey to the water...................
@OOIEatte This is a F22 Raptor. Wow! It is a good plane. How much is this? 270 000 000 dollars. Oh! ....... hm..... Don't you have anything cheaper? Su-30. 76 000 000 dollars a pair. OK! Let me have a dozen. ))))) With best regards from Russia.
@NordDMB87, that just means the su-30 is really chinese, but the russians stole the jet and took credit lol lol lol. (the F-22 is way better than the Su-30)
As far as i have seen the dogfight most of the us pilots have accepted that russian technology and planes especially migs are far more better as compared to f series of us...!!!!!So in short i want to say is that su 30 are far more better then f22 n all...!!!!
@webrocker9 Far better than the f-22? get your head out of your ass , it may be better in doing tricks but when it comes to dogfighting the su-30 would lose , the f-22 is far more better then the su-30 why do you think our f-22 is so spendy an won't sell to any crountry? because the f-22 is the best fightering in the world , you can compare a 4.5 gen plane to a 5 gen fighter thats like saying the ipod nano is better than an ipod touch.
@homboy107 I agree with you 100%. I am Indian too, but I dont think you can compare a 4.5 generation aircraft with a 5th generation stealth plane. Secondly, this isnt the age of a dogfight. Its the age of beyond visual range combat. So I guess when it comes down to it, you wont even see the F22 when it attacks you.
@vijayallenraj exactly.. and alot of people from diffrent countrys are to ignorint to believe it , simple fact that they are jealous of the f-22 and its avionics because the f-22 is unfair an thats how it will be, instead of putting the f-22 down why dont people just be happy that there country has some of these new 4.5 gen fighters unlike poor countrys that don't and be happy that there isn't a really bad war going on.
@vijayallenraj Yes, You're mostly right! Coz F22 has a bigger range target recognition and radar systems. But rockets still can fire from the shorter distances, which are available for Russian Combat Airplanes radar and rocket systems.
So everything on the war field will depend on the exact situation and the skill level of both opponent pilots.
@gazakind and you know all of this from your in depth analysis of the f22?? the effectiveness of a fighter is merely one element of aerial warfare as ably demonstrated by the israelis and allied forces in the middle east. in other words this isnt WW1..
@gazakind ummmm..do you know anything about air warfare at all??? In ww1 and ww2 it was all about maneuverability. ever heard of the term 'beyond visual range'? the f22 is a 5th gen figther designed to be integrated with a mordern command and control system while the su 35 is a 4th gen aircraft setup for export. having never flown either jet ill let the pros argue but you can be sure the f22 is a killer. besides most pilots say the raptor is extremely maneuverable.
@gazakind blah blah blah...operation desert storm ring a bell?? those highly maneuverable russian planes were blown out of the sky ...air warfare isnt about one airplane turning around another like it was in ww2..its all about avionics, stealth and being horizontally integrated with your support...the US has practice in this area - gulf war I&II ring a bell.Im gonna say they knew what they were doing when they built the raptor
You mean those downgraded export models with non-working radars due to lack of spare parts because of embargo, deprived of any ECM and defensive suites, with outdated armament, hunted by wolf-packs of numerically superior western fighters guided by AWACS? Great example! LOL! I would love to see them try the same trick on a contemporary air force.
@iphugger exactly my point. Im trying to convey the fact that aerial warfare isnt two machines going up against each other with the outcome being solely dependent on the jets maneuverability as some viewers of this video believe.the allies went in and reduced Iraqs command and control system to basically nothing.it wasnt like the iraqis just sat by and let them do it.
это ещё что.... су 37 вообще хвостом вперёд летает
жаль что он только в 10ом экземпляре:(
gduYLLlypok 1 day ago
Yeah I did this Battlefield 3 !!!
webnesia 1 day ago
the pugachev cobra love it
carnage2112029 2 weeks ago
This maneuver is impressive at an air show, but still the best way to get shot during a dog fight especially since the plane keeps its trajectory and increases its target's size.
You'll see that this will not be a goal any-more in next fighter generations.
Sukhois are nice birds but still hold the record of crashes during presentations. Maybe russian pilots do they want to oversell the merits of the aircraft!?
stupidonduty 3 weeks ago
Oops i mean F/A-18
TheMaximumfail 2 months ago
@TheMaximumfail
The Super Hornet (F/A-18E/F) can. The older, smaller Hornet cannot.
EvilxMerlin 2 months ago
Looks good doing this maneuver at an airshow but can it do this with a combat load? I've looked for footage and have yet to find it. Anyone got a link?
Yakko77 3 months ago
@Yakko77 @Yakko77 It was performed at a Yugoslavian air show in 1994. The Su-30 was fitted with 7 tonnes of payload and it performed all the maneuvers with the same ease.
kishanbailey 2 months ago
Guys even american pilot shoot down our plane, he won`t get away because of the s-400 which can obliterate 6 planes at the same time on the heights from 10j meters to 20 km, no1 can escape this thing rly
bfg415 3 months ago
Cobra - the ace of trumps in the battle. Cobra allows you to instantly get away from the enemy. Sharp braking and you're at the tail of the enemy. The enemy for a while losing sight of the fighter and you have the perfect opportunity to strike fire. Besides russians, no one can't repeat such a maneuver.
MrSrgj 4 months ago
F-22 is Zaporojets!
Palovxontora 4 months ago
sukhoi cobra? it's called Pugachev's Cobra.
solidacid1337 4 months ago
@solidacid1337
Sukhoi is the name of a series aircraft.
hunikova 4 months ago
the F-22 would still destroy this thing
jumpinthefire999 4 months ago
@jumpinthefire999 F-22 is a scrap of metal compared to this masterpiece!
Dread3577 4 months ago 6
@Dread3577 i see you have strong arguments...yyy... nope
pawel901229 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pawel901229 Look who's talking.
Dread3577 4 months ago
@jumpinthefire999 hahahahaha how old are you? 12? grow up kids. You know nothing about real aircraft.
popmerde 3 months ago
@popmerde you're retarded. The F-22 can go undetected on radar and before the ruskies get near us, we would have smoked them with the deadly AIM 120
jumpinthefire999 3 months ago
we never see western aircraft perform this stint. Why? Are western aircraft really not capable of it? The Russians do it at every airshow just about every time. I even have a recording (old sony hi8) from the LeBourget show back in 1994 or so... with them doing it back then. I must find a hi8 player some time and upload that too. I wonder what would have really happened if Soviet aircraft flown by Soviet pilots had met wetern aircraft in conflict.
trident3b 4 months ago
I am soo proud to be a Bangalorean ! I remember seeing this Pugachev Cobra maneuver 4 years back ! Next Air Show, the 5th Gen fighters will be ready :)
samanthms123 4 months ago
Jay hind.
sahinxperia 4 months ago
ты лудший!!! мы гордимся вами!!!
ramazeka80 4 months ago
Cobra is rocks, It seems that sukhai ll kill enemy with enjoying dance. Jai Hind, Jai Mother Russia.
babaaj 5 months ago
Born to fly !
kondomco 6 months ago
and the newest eurofighter or any us jet will say,or better the computer, "you are not allowed to do this,stop trying or i release the ejections seat" lol
Wilson84KS 6 months ago
Meanwhile, In Russia....
Mobius0487 7 months ago
@BlackPython222 ye it costs alot but it also have some serious technical errors and maintanance was retardedly complex and expensive, but like u said lets not start a flame war lol...anyway it would be better if we dont find out which country is better in head to head combat if u understand what i mean...
100Urosh1 8 months ago
?????????????????????????????????
hormiga0003 8 months ago
What MsGuano said: No American aircraft (or aircraft of another country) can not do this maneuver until now. Those who argue the opposite - Nuba have no clue about the maneuver "Cobra". Its essence lies in a sudden stop the aircraft in one place, then the plane starts to move on. A web fighters think that Americans "do" the cobra, but they only raise the nose of the plane sharply, and accordingly goes to climb, and on-site zavisayut.Prezhde what to write anything, teach materiel
123hikid 9 months ago
Ни один американский самолёт (или самолёт другой страны) НЕ МОЖЕТ сделать этот манёвр до сих пор. Те кто утверждает обратное - нубы, не имеющие никакого представления о манёвре "Кобра". Его суть заключается в резкой остановке самолёта на одном месте, потом самолёт начинает двигаться дальше. А интернет бойцы думают что американцы "делают" кобру, но они всего лишь резко поднимают нос самолёта и соответственно идут в набор высоты, и на месте на зависают.Прежде чем писать хоть что-то, учите матчасть
MsGuano 9 months ago 28
@MsGuano I'm right : No American aircraft (or aircraft of another country) can not do this maneuver until now. Those who argue the opposite - Nuba have no clue about the maneuver "Cobra". Its essence lies in a sudden stop the aircraft in one place, then the plane starts to move on. A web fighters think that Americans "do" the cobra, but they only raise the nose of the plane sharply, and accordingly goes to climb, and on-site zavisayut.Prezhde what to write anything, teach materiel
123hikid 9 months ago 40
@123hikid I think a proper cobra requires the back of the plane to be in front of the front of the plane. I don't know which aircraft can do it. But it's nothing more than a cool curiosity. In combat it is worthless.
ahz123 6 months ago
@123hikid
Stop? The plane just slows down significantly, but it does not stop at all.
claudev8tube 6 months ago
@123hikid there is a modified F-16 that did it, and a F-22 is known to do it. there is a video of a F-14 doing a maneuver similar too.
f14fan1243 5 months ago
@123hikid It's a completely useless maneuver though.
nexus1g 4 months ago
@nexus1g is it? The Harrier would use reverse or almost vertical thrust to let non VSTOL aircraft pass them making them in turn the chased ones. Did it in the Falklands all the time. I see this manoeuvre as very similar, especially when we never see western aircraft do this, almost as if they can't. Also I would imagine it could be used for missile dodging. Apart from that it shows what the aircraft is capable I would say.
trident3b 4 months ago
@trident3b I find your claim very hard to believe. If someone was close enough behind the Harrier for it to perform the move that you're claiming, then the Harrier should have been shot down.
Slowing down in a dogfight is never an option. Dogfights are turning fights and has to do with sustained turning radius at high speed.
Slowing down makes you susceptible to ground fire, an easy target for missiles and cannon fire and Pugachev's Cobra has to be done starting at a low speed.
nexus1g 4 months ago
@nexus1g a text relating to thrust vectoring goes as follows: "Subsequently, it was realized that using vectored thrust in combat situations enabled aircraft to perform various manoeuvres not available to conventional-engined planes". Re "Dogfights are turning fights and has to do with sustained turning radius at high speed". So it's a game by which some flying rules have to be adhered to? Surely a Harrier e.g. (or even the Su35) could place itself behind the follower by way of vectored thrust?
trident3b 4 months ago
@trident3b It's not that there are "rules" per se, but it's what dogfights simply come down to: One plane trying to get behind the other which results in them chasing each other in circles. The one that can make the tighter, faster sustained turns is going to have a leg up on the aircraft that doesn't. Does thrust vectoring help in some situations? Yes. Is it the end-all and be-all of dogfighting? No. Is it a good idea to slow down in combat as much as a cobra would slow you down? Absolutely no.
nexus1g 4 months ago
@123hikid no, you are completely wrong, a plane that pulls the cobra doesnt"stop"in mid air, it would loose aerodynamic lift and plummet to the earth, instead it SLOWS DOWN the plane. and there ARE american aircraft that can do the cobra
watch?v=qmIQAOG789E
watch?v=1lVvfSQGqoc&feature=related
watch?v=xZ8WCzhDWXI
watch?v=RJO0KzTgcMI
so not only are american planes as maneuverable, but they are better in EVERY other way as well. so please, do research before you speak.
hotpocketpoison 4 months ago
@123hikid Plz watch some F22 Raptor video footage .
lekoucha 4 months ago
@lekoucha hahahaha please....
popmerde 3 months ago
@123hikid How about an F16 with Thrust Vectoring .. Here a Vid of an AMERICAN aircraft with a mod doing the cobra /watch?v=x3KxvpecKFU
john4short 3 months ago
The Cobra is essentially a maneuver that slows the aircraft down using a 90 to 120 degree angle without stalling the aircraft ... Simple as that ... Good pilots can hold it longer and virtually in the same place (VIRTUALLY) The reason it is called the STOP - HALT - COBRA is kinda like a sequence He stops letting the target which was chasing him go past and then intercepts the target ...
john4short 3 months ago
@john4short
The plane stalls mate, after going beyond the maximum AoA every aircraft's wing stalls as the airflow is no longer attached to the upper surface, while the lift drops to 1/3 of the total lift beyond that, and at 90 deg AoA it becomes translated to pure drag...! You are probably thinking about the stall as a fall, but it's not always that!
So the only thing holding the plane on it's path is the inertia gained just before stalling both wings until it turns to normal flight!
Cheers!
Maverickf22flyer 3 months ago
@Maverickf22flyer The word stall is used when the plane has lost controll because of the lack of airflow ... What I should have said is Slowing down the aircraft without putting it into a flat spin or an uncontrollable stall ... So essentially The cobra Maneuver is a controlled stall :) ... Thanks for correcting my typo ... :)
john4short 3 months ago
@123hikid
Newsflash, the F-22 and F/A-18 have been doing it for years.
EvilxMerlin 3 months ago
@EvilxMerlin I dont think the F/A-17 can do a cobra, but I know the F-22 can.
TheMaximumfail 2 months ago
@MsGuano F-22 Raptor делает кобру, но не за счёт аэродинамики, а ОВТ.
STALKERBooka 5 months ago
@STALKERBooka он не делает кобру, на всех видео с Ф-22 и его так называемой "коброй", он резко задирает нос вверх и идёт в набор высоты. Всё. Вот и вся кобра. У Ф-22 галимые движки с ОВТ. ОВТ работает только в вертикальной плоскости, а на наших самолётах во всех плоскостях....
MsGuano 5 months ago
@MsGuano а ты не знал. По-2 может сбить F-22!!! правда!
STALKERBooka 5 months ago
@STALKERBooka а я испанский лётчик., сезёлый - это когда красное, а синий - это направо...
MsGuano 5 months ago
@MsGuano watch?v=RJO0KzTgcMI
Nadirion1 3 months ago
@Nadirion1 это не кобра. Это F-22 идёт в набор высоты, потом обратно ложится на курс...
MsGuano 3 months ago
@Nadirion1 Not as brutally done as the SU, else the F22 would break.
r4f4st4n1 3 months ago
@MsGuano Кобра по существу маневр, который замедляет самолет вниз, используя 90 до 120 градусов без сваливания самолета ... Вот как все просто ... Хорошие пилоты могут держать его дольше и практически в том же месте (виртуально) почему-то называется STOP - HALT - COBRA является своего рода как последовательность Он останавливается позволяя цель, которая была гонится за ним идут мимо, а затем перехватывает цель .. .
john4short 3 months ago
@MsGuano Как насчет F16 с отклоняемым вектором тяги .. Здесь Vid из американских самолетов с мод делает кобры / смотреть? V = x3KxvpecKFU
john4short 3 months ago
@AdverbAdjective LOLOLOOLL YE......anyway did u forgot that f22 got cancaled because it failed?! epic americans, even though they fail they still think they win...now go watch "top gun" and masturbate.
100Urosh1 9 months ago
@100Urosh1 The F22 wasn't cancelled because "it failed". It's production was ceased since the dang thing costs so much.
That is all I'm going to say because I'm not going to take sides in a fanatic/extremest flame-war of posts. All I will a say is the only way we would be able to tell if one plane AS WELL as its pilot is better than another, is if they went head to head in real combat. Since that hasn't happened yet with best jets of both countries, none of us can say which is better.
BlackPython222 8 months ago
useless maneuver
AdverbAdjective 10 months ago
@AdverbAdjective
yet F-22 have been seen doing it ;)
Suyamu 9 months ago
@AdverbAdjective The figure has several combat uses including spoofing doppler radar, and is also an impressive trick to demonstrate aircraft's pitch control authority, high angle of attack (AOA) stability and engine-versus-inlet compatibility, as well as pilot's skill.
now shut the fuck up and go fap to your f 22
Dreadnought942 9 months ago
@Dreadnought942 spoof radar? haha yeah until it starts moving again - useless
demonstrations aren't useful in combat - useless
the f-22 is better than anything russia has or ever will have for a very long time.
AdverbAdjective 9 months ago
@AdverbAdjective How cute.
if it were useless they wouldnt risk 20 tonns and millions of $ on it....hmm even your shitty raptors do it.
the only "special" thing about the raptor is its inner loudout (i wouldnt want to sit below my missles...)
and its 2d trust vectoring nozzles.
The SU 37 35 and the pak fa are superior to your raptor in many ways.
ever heared of Plasmatic Aerodynamics?
we don't need stealth design when we have charged particles around our plane
loud mouth american.
Dreadnought942 9 months ago
great
MiGFlug 11 months ago
well. this an't banglore for sure I'm an indian and su-35 or 37 never came to India's airshow...i'm waiting myself xD
GrenMartin 11 months ago
@GrenMartin im pretty sure thats the Su-30MKI, which came in 2007 b'lore Aero show.
arun199113 10 months ago
@arun199113 nahin hai dost :) donno agar neeche se dekho toh ek tarha se lagta hai asal mein toh ye experimental su-35 hai dusre mein su-37 (2 video's) shakh ho toh zara gor se dekho su-30MKI mein 2 seater hote hain ...this is simply a single seater experimental su-35/37.
GrenMartin 10 months ago
Comment removed
GrenMartin 11 months ago
wow amazing
davidlucasfer 11 months ago
a nice cobra done
Ankit930 11 months ago
RUSSIA !!!! F................K USA !!
v1doko 11 months ago
omg bravo russia
Anaconda111111 11 months ago
Read the serviceability docs on the Tomcat, I can't tell you anymore than that. 50 to 1 isn't very good. To overcome that you'd have to build a whole new fighter. They already had that in the Hornet. Add the fact the future of the JSF in development, why develop an already too large fighter for Carrier use?
What your discussing has been discussed with every fighter the navy retires. (F8 for Navy and the F-106 for the AF come to mind.).
Madera1966 1 year ago
Seriously Grumman could not have upgrade the Tomcat and keep it serviceable. There was even talk about the SuperCat, being fully combat loaded, achieving only Subsonic speeds. Add to the newer digital architecture of the Hornet, it was clear the Bug was going to be the future.
Everyone wants to keep aircraft alive and flyable, but there are drawbacks to it. Benefits have to outweigh the faults. The Hornet will now take over the A6/F-14/and maybe(?) S3's duties. Large benefit.
Madera1966 1 year ago
What is the cobra maneuver actually used for?
Edge0fPain 1 year ago
@Edge0fPain
out-awesomeing your enemies
sleepylafiel 1 year ago
@Edge0fPain the cobra maneuver is used in dogfights for sudden stalling in mid air and increase in altitude in slit sec. this makes the hunted become the hunter...imagine a su in front n f22 at its tail..a cobra can put f22 at its target in flat 1.1secs...amazing!!! carnards r excellent...i built su-30...any query is welcome...
prasanth1983 1 year ago
@prasanth1983 not sure anyone would be alarmed by such maneuver. Seems like it would take some time to lock onto a aircraft with that pit, providing your radar can even see the target to begin with. Judging by the angle of the pitch not sure even guns would work. You'd have less than a second to put the pipper on the target. You do know that the Sukhoi would have to bled his energy way down to do it to begin with. Not a good thing to do when in combat. Looks great at an airshow though.
Madera1966 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3D or unmanned STV rejection talk may cost some their program and job: E.g., the LAVI fighter. The 1st in aviation history flights of Stealth, Tailless 3D Vectoring [STV] with mini aero-control, stealth inlets/wing-body design took place in Israel in 1987 [May 18, 1987, Av. Week]. Facebook video ["Benjamin Gal-Or"] explains super agility/high-kill-ratio & TO/Land/Battle safety gained by STV. EF, F35/F22 are not STV while unmanned NGB or ? may. Cf. X-44MANTA, X-47b, RQ-170, T-50, B-2, FB-22.
1Bengalor 1 year ago
only Su can do a cobra... thats all i need to say...
tzar4o 1 year ago
@tzar4o
And Mig 29 OVT and F-16 MATV.....
WertzOne 1 year ago
this su jet can fuck off the pakistan jets
MrJohnyquest10 1 year ago
Comparing this with "on a dime" F-22's turn rate, the Sukhoi is a dead turkey.
RomaniaTricolor 1 year ago
Ahhahah The F-22 remain in that position mutch longer ;)))
IanasAnd 1 year ago
@IanasAnd That would mean that it has better stability... But no, it can't stay in that position longer than the Su-35.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
and what shit they are proving with this??..ww2 dog fight?..then all is missing is a ball turret and two .5 machine guns..rest is shit red propaganda, maybe somebody will buy this ejection seat with engine...
GRATZIANI2002 1 year ago
wait Guys LET THE SUKHOI/HAL FGFA come out.......
silverthunderable 1 year ago
@nedeljko031 i think you quoted the wrong person, even if you quoted the right person i have no idea what i said before
AznDuD333 1 year ago
i saw its weiner
zythepsarian 1 year ago
have to admit it..............indian kafirs have MUCH better aircraft than their neighbours
preserverofislam 1 year ago
What is the name of the song?
Sauwaldbewohner 1 year ago
see russian pilots have skill but us technology is way more advanced ... but russian pilots are more skilled
Jimmy4manutd7ronaldo 1 year ago
Sure its an impressive maneuver, but just because a plane can do the cobra doesn't make it better then any other aircraft. I seem to remember that the prototype f-16 with the front canards could also preform the maneuver. As well as a large number of current aircraft. I myself am a huge fanboy of the the F-14 tomcat, But I can appreciate this plane as well.
quiksilvermanblue 1 year ago
@quiksilvermanblue Yeah, too bad the F-14 was retired and they no longer continued with its improved variants development, like the Super Tomcat. The current F-18 is not good for a naval interceptor. The F-14 was suited for that. It had long range, higher speed, higher maneuverability. On one of its variants they intended 2 install movable nozzles, but the project was canceled. Just like with a lot of other good projects. The US congress seems 2 have a habit of canceling the best projects.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 The F-14 wasn't a cheap plane to maintain and deploy. The current obsession with multitasking aircraft and lowering of spending after the cold war pretty much shelved any Super Tomcats. The platform was aging in a field that was moving towards stealthier aircraft, and there was a proposed Naval ATF aircraft with much of the design elements of the F-22 including stealthy design and thrust vectoring, but with two man crew, variable geometry wings, and of course being navalized.
mobius1aic 1 year ago
@mobius1aic Google the Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NAFT).
mobius1aic 1 year ago
@mobius1aic Yeah, I know about the version that u r talking abt. It was an F-14 with F-22 features. That version would've been even more impressive. BTW, since you start talking abt the F-14's maintenance costs, do you know how much maintenance that plane needed? Was it so much more expensive to maintain than the F-18?
As 4 the multitasking thing, the F-14 was intended 2 be transformed into a strike/fighter, any plane can be modified 4 that role, that was never the problem with the F-14.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 For that role, the F-14 was unnecessarily complicated. It's only real benefit was range. I think the F/A-18s of all versions can technically lift as much ordinance as the F-14, but of course it doesn't have as high a range and requires drop tanks and or refueling in flight. The three big things that F/A-18 needs fixing are it's fuel capacity, engine output, and perhaps it's radar range capacity. The APG-79 so far though I hear is the best for a multi-mission profile.
mobius1aic 1 year ago
@mobius1aic I keep hear abt this complicated issue that the F-14 presumably had. What was so much complicated abt it?
As 4 its advantages, range was not the only one, it was also its speed. & all of the Super Tomcat variants would've had even bigger range with even higher speed & bigger weapons payload capacity. Its nose could've also accommodate a much more powerful radar.
As 4 F-18s shortcomings, I don't think they can be solved. Not in that design. The F-18, in any of its variants, simply
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@mobius1aic doesn't have what it takes to be a naval fighter.
anft . net/ f - 14 / f14 - history - f14 x . htm: here's a shot link abt the history of the F-14 & abt its Super Tomcat variants. Don't forget to remove the spaces.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@mobius1aic The F-14 may have been a bit more complicated, but in no way it was unnecessary. The F-18 may be good enough 4 performing ground strike missions against countries with weak & obsolete air defense systems, but against a properly armed country like Russia & China, the USN's multi billion dollars carriers would simply be unprotected. A super-power must be prepared 2 fight against some1 of its own size, not against countries that don't even have a military in the real sense of the word.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
The Super Hornet is actually alot better than you give it credit for in the strike role. Compared to the F-14, yes it does lack the range and long range engagement capability in the interception role (partially of which is the lack of a long range missile in the arsenal in the first place), however I would expect the Super Hornet to have better survivability into today's electronic environment in the strike role.
mobius1aic 1 year ago
@mobius1aic Look, I'm not talking abt the F-14A/B variants. I'm talking abt its Super Tomcat variants, which would've had at least the same ground attack and electronic warfare systems as the Super Hornet. All this in a much faster design with a much bigger, the Super Tomcats were 2 incorporate more powerful & more fuel efficient engines. They also were 2 receive TVC. That's what I want 2 say: that the Super Tomcat should've been selected, not the F-18, which was not designed as a naval fighter
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@mobius1aic in the first place.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@mobius1aic I mean, all these in a design with a much bigger range and speed... And with the incorporation of the TVC, a much better maneuverability also.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 It certainly would've been awesome to see the F-14 with real 3D TVC and perhaps the F119 engine in it. The lack of thrust hampered the F-14A in the energy dogfight and while the D certainly had alot more power available to it, the more the better! It was a heavy bird as we all know.
mobius1aic 1 year ago
@mobius1aic Yes, it would've been awesome & it would've also spared America from a lot of headaches. As 4 the D model, yes that version had engines with more thrust, but its Super Tomcat derivatives, would've had even more thrust & with less fuel consumption.
As 4 sparing America from a lot of headaches, a lot of things should have been done 4 that purpose in the '90s. But the Clinton adm simply ruined the US military & the US military industry.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 Well I would go as far to say that the US military industrial complex is a bit of a pain in America's side because they can lobby to congress and congress will make bad decisions based on the lobbies as opposed to listening to the military services proper. F/A-18E was one of those problems I guess (I still like it as a warplane) and the JSF I don't think should exist. It's causing cost overruns, making the services deal with an aircraft not completely fit for the job as well.
mobius1aic 1 year ago
@mobius1aic The F-18E was promoted only by Dick Cheney, who is a politician. If it was after those companies that u talk about, the USN today would've had Super Tomcats, not these flying toys.
As 4 the F-18, that thing may look cool, but it's almost useless. U can only use it against countries that don't have a proper air defense.
As 4 US military industrial complex, it has been weakened a lot since the end of the Cold War & that's not a good thing 4 America, in specially with Russia's rearming
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 The Tomcat had very serious issues. 50 maintenance hours per every flight hour. The Superbug/Rino is about 5-1.
Madera1966 1 year ago
@Madera1966 Those issues would've been taken care of in the Super Tomcat series that the Dick Cheney canceled.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 No even Delta Birds had as much trouble if not more. It wasn't Cheney, the Navy wanted to into another direction. Congress decided in 1994 not to go beyond the Deltas. Just too expensive to maintain.
Madera1966 1 year ago
@Madera1966 What "Deltas"? And you better go check your facts about what the USN wanted. They ALWAYS opted for the Tomcat. If it would've been their way, the USN navy would've now had Super Tomcats and the F-18 in all its variants would've been retired. But what "Deltas" are you talking about?
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 can't paste a link but:
According to Waters, in the '90s, naval leadership made the decision to phase out the Tomcat and replace it with the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet. The F/A-18 E model of the Super Hornet is a single-seat aircraft, while the F/A-18 F’s two-person crew resembles the F-14’s crew more closely, with a pilot and a radar intercept officer. Walters was a Tomcat Pilot and XO for VF-145
Deltas= F14Ds.
Madera1966 1 year ago
@Madera1966 I was not referring to the F-14Ds, I was referring 2 the Super Tomcat variants, the Quick Strike, Super Tomcat 21 & Attack Super Tomcat 21.
As 4 what the navy wanted, the fact that Dick Cheney was the one that killed the Super Tomcat program in the late '80s is a known fact. So the navy didn't actually want the Super Hornet, they just didn't have any alternative. Go read the Wiki article about the F-14 & its Super Tomcat derivatives. U'll see.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 Cheney didn't want to fund any more of the F-14 program. He was probably right. it's service History didn't fair very well. He didn't kill it though. Congress does that.
last entry in wiki's article:
In the end the Attack Super Tomcat was considered to be too costly. The Navy decided to pursue the F/A-18E/F to fill the fighter-attack role.[66]
Your talking modernizing an entire airframe, not just engines. Why? The new Airframe was there in the Hornet.
Madera1966 1 year ago
@Madera1966 "Its service history didn't fair very well"? R u kidding me? That was 1 of the most successful fighter the USN ever had. & Dick Cheney DID kill the Super Tomcat. He was the 1 decided 2 replace the F-14 with a fighter not made by Grumman. Why, I don't know. I don't he he didn't want an aircraft from Grumman. As 4 the Congress, this shows how incompetent & stupid those people r. Abt Quick Strike, they said it didn't feature too many improvements. When Grumman did make more improvements
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@Madera1966 they said it was too expensive. Someone had an interest in phasing the F-14 and adopting the F-18, instead. BTW, just so u can see how stupid the people in Congress r, they said the Attack Super Tomcat 21 was too expensive, but the development of the Super Hornet cost more than any of the Super Tomcat variants...This also shows that the Congress doesn't give a shit abt how much money goes on a certain weapons system. They have different reasons 4 accepting or rejecting a certain
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@Madera1966 weapons system. The Super Tomcat 21 & the Quick Strike variant should've been today in the USN active service, not the short legged F-18. The only thing the F-18 is good at is bombing countries that have no S-A defenses... The Attack Super Tomcat 21 would've had an incredible range. Its maneuverability was even more improved. It could carry much more weapons. & the Quick Strike had all the ground attack capabilities the F-18 has.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@mobius1aic and with China's very rapid military development. Trust me, the Clinton adm but also Bush's senior adm with Cheney as the secretary of defense, have weakened the US military industry a lot. And the military too. What u said abt these companies squeezing a lot of money from Congress without offering products 2 worth their money, this is a practice that they've learned during the Clinton adm. During the Cold War, these type of practices were far less common & tolerated.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@mobius1aic I'm not saying I don't like the F-14, as I really do. Budget cuts thanks to the end of the Cold War and "enthusiasm" towards the JSF by Congress basically killed off any advanced F-14 variants. The Super Tomcat 21 was an interesting proposal though.
mobius1aic 1 year ago
@mobius1aic In my opinion, the Super Tomcat 21 or the Attack Super Tomcat 21 would've been a better choice than the F-35. They would've also been much cheaper to build. This is just another example of the waste in the US's weapons acquisition programs.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
Boy, it's nice to see an SU plane video where it doesn't crash, they're great planes though!!!! LOL
crotalusjbc 1 year ago
americans are 100 years after!!! :D hahahahahah!! the red Bear has woke up!!!! :E
theHackerOfMayhem 1 year ago
The days of the fur ball are over. We train to do dogfight, but engagements today last only a few seconds. The key is to get the jump on the enemy. The Raptor does it. BTW, I build them. Besides, air to air combat is overly romantcized. The real real deal is what you destroy in the way of targets. And the Raptor with its armament and stealth technology does that well too. It is an AWESOME airplane with awesome pilots. Pray for peace, but if the bad guys want to fight, I say bring it on.
robflyer1970 1 year ago 2
cobra is not spectacularly! instinct departure!!!!
Tandernes 1 year ago
@robflyer1970 True but I think you are going to say that aren't you? Who do you work for?
ednuttah 1 year ago
Rely more on your computers and chips and you reduce your pilots skills and abilities. You have watch top gun? Miramar is built for that reason. SU 47 SU27 Mig 29 Mig 31 the Russians have pursed aerodynamics over technology, it seems to have paid off.
MrLuvlyJubly 1 year ago 2
While the Sukhoi is doing his cobra manuever, the F-22 could be shooting him down (In fact the Raptor could drop a squadron of them (In fact the Raptor could drop a squadron of them.) from dozens of miles away and no one would know until they saw they fireball. Of course the Sukhoi pilot might never know. The Raptor pilot could also just decide to fly through the airshow, and know one would know that until he hit the airfield boundary.
robflyer1970 1 year ago
@robflyer1970 Not to me, but OOIEatte seems to think that F22's have an edge in close one to one dog fight combat. I wouldn't like to think that, the Soviets have ALWAYS hung onto the dogfight they're old fashioned that way BUT remarkably they ARE right, strip a plane of its computer capabilities and what do you have? A pilot and some steel, which means you need skilled pilots AND a very manoeuvrable plane.
MrLuvlyJubly 1 year ago
@robflyer1970 LOL. No comments
DeathHammer1994 1 year ago
Well, the thing is that F-22's are way too valuable to risk being destroyed for this sort of nonsense. Cheap Russian planes are fine for airshows. Leave the fighting for American planes.
OOIEatte 1 year ago
Don't you just think then that F 22 CAN'T do this sort of manoeuvrable nonsense then? And thus cheap Russian planes are more manoeuvrable than expensive F 22's?
ednuttah 1 year ago
wikipedia states that the F-22 can make this. Air supeority isnt all about manoeuvrability, it is about technology and that is where the F-22 excels.
OOIEatte 1 year ago
@OOIEatte Oh wikipedia states, then it must be true! F22 only managed a cobra move after the USAF saw the Russians do it first in a MIG 29, the USAF had no idea that the Raptor COULD do that move. Typical you can take the donkey to the water...................
MrLuvlyJubly 1 year ago
does it really matter if the mig's did it first?
OOIEatte 1 year ago
@OOIEatte This is a F22 Raptor. Wow! It is a good plane. How much is this? 270 000 000 dollars. Oh! ....... hm..... Don't you have anything cheaper? Su-30. 76 000 000 dollars a pair. OK! Let me have a dozen. ))))) With best regards from Russia.
NordDMB87 1 year ago
@NordDMB87
some people prefer QUALITY over QUANTITY
OOIEatte 1 year ago
Comment removed
NordDMB87 1 year ago
@NordDMB87 are you on pot? speak english
OOIEatte 1 year ago
Comment removed
NordDMB87 1 year ago
@NordDMB87, that just means the su-30 is really chinese, but the russians stole the jet and took credit lol lol lol. (the F-22 is way better than the Su-30)
105Raptor 1 year ago
Comment removed
NordDMB87 1 year ago
Comment removed
NordDMB87 1 year ago
Comment removed
NordDMB87 1 year ago
@NordDMB87, i never knew lol, i was just trying to make a joke, but now i know =)
105Raptor 1 year ago
Comment removed
NordDMB87 1 year ago
@NordDMB87, how do you know all of this stuff?
105Raptor 1 year ago
I've always thought the Cobra was interesting, but never understood how it represented combat capability...
iowa61 2 years ago
Porkis are fucked!
chakde26 2 years ago
Eeeesooo sie es un avion carajo...!
morangd 2 years ago
As far as i have seen the dogfight most of the us pilots have accepted that russian technology and planes especially migs are far more better as compared to f series of us...!!!!!So in short i want to say is that su 30 are far more better then f22 n all...!!!!
webrocker9 2 years ago 26
@webrocker9 Far better than the f-22? get your head out of your ass , it may be better in doing tricks but when it comes to dogfighting the su-30 would lose , the f-22 is far more better then the su-30 why do you think our f-22 is so spendy an won't sell to any crountry? because the f-22 is the best fightering in the world , you can compare a 4.5 gen plane to a 5 gen fighter thats like saying the ipod nano is better than an ipod touch.
homboy107 1 year ago
@homboy107 I agree with you 100%. I am Indian too, but I dont think you can compare a 4.5 generation aircraft with a 5th generation stealth plane. Secondly, this isnt the age of a dogfight. Its the age of beyond visual range combat. So I guess when it comes down to it, you wont even see the F22 when it attacks you.
vijayallenraj 1 year ago
@vijayallenraj exactly.. and alot of people from diffrent countrys are to ignorint to believe it , simple fact that they are jealous of the f-22 and its avionics because the f-22 is unfair an thats how it will be, instead of putting the f-22 down why dont people just be happy that there country has some of these new 4.5 gen fighters unlike poor countrys that don't and be happy that there isn't a really bad war going on.
homboy107 1 year ago
@vijayallenraj Yes, You're mostly right! Coz F22 has a bigger range target recognition and radar systems. But rockets still can fire from the shorter distances, which are available for Russian Combat Airplanes radar and rocket systems.
So everything on the war field will depend on the exact situation and the skill level of both opponent pilots.
vitalymedvedev 1 year ago
@webrocker9 aahm... f22 are not ade for dogfight..
they are better for long range attacks
they see you at radar, shoot some rockets and move the hell out of there..
you cant compare the agility of a su 35BM or even the su30 what you were talking about
thats why you made it "invisible" for radar
just look at su35BM, su30 and on your f22
f22 has the aerodynamic of a schoolbus
i'm quite sure..
if you would try a "cobra" (if engines could handle it) with a f22, the wings would breakaway
gazakind 1 year ago
@gazakind and you know all of this from your in depth analysis of the f22?? the effectiveness of a fighter is merely one element of aerial warfare as ably demonstrated by the israelis and allied forces in the middle east. in other words this isnt WW1..
Andre8869 1 year ago
@Andre8869
where is the difference between ww1 and mordern warfare in the air?
your planes still have engines, wings, a body and a pilot which all costs money
a 240 million USD jet (source of 2009) is not realy efficient if you look on its agility
dont you think so?
many other jets are much better in thair statistics than the f22
does that "stealth" stuff, which can allready be seen by modern aa-systems like s300 or s400, realy worth that much money?
SU35BM costs just 65 millions
gazakind 1 year ago
@gazakind ummmm..do you know anything about air warfare at all??? In ww1 and ww2 it was all about maneuverability. ever heard of the term 'beyond visual range'? the f22 is a 5th gen figther designed to be integrated with a mordern command and control system while the su 35 is a 4th gen aircraft setup for export. having never flown either jet ill let the pros argue but you can be sure the f22 is a killer. besides most pilots say the raptor is extremely maneuverable.
Andre8869 1 year ago
@Andre8869 i dont care what most of your american pilots say
they would even say "its the best jet of the world" if you would give them a schoolbus with wings
(what you did in case of the aerodynamic at the f22)
your airforce say since the end of the first world war "dogfight is over" .. bullshit
by the way, i am not talking about the SU35 but about the SU35BM -> 5th gen
its a big difference
like you talk about the m1 tank and about the m1a2
understand what i mean?
gazakind 1 year ago
@gazakind blah blah blah...operation desert storm ring a bell?? those highly maneuverable russian planes were blown out of the sky ...air warfare isnt about one airplane turning around another like it was in ww2..its all about avionics, stealth and being horizontally integrated with your support...the US has practice in this area - gulf war I&II ring a bell.Im gonna say they knew what they were doing when they built the raptor
Andre8869 1 year ago
@Andre8869
You mean those downgraded export models with non-working radars due to lack of spare parts because of embargo, deprived of any ECM and defensive suites, with outdated armament, hunted by wolf-packs of numerically superior western fighters guided by AWACS? Great example! LOL! I would love to see them try the same trick on a contemporary air force.
iphugger 1 year ago
@iphugger exactly my point. Im trying to convey the fact that aerial warfare isnt two machines going up against each other with the outcome being solely dependent on the jets maneuverability as some viewers of this video believe.the allies went in and reduced Iraqs command and control system to basically nothing.it wasnt like the iraqis just sat by and let them do it.
Andre8869 1 year ago