Supermaneuverability

[SQ8]

Uhh..no, if the greater TVC ensured LIFT... then the flanker series should be able to fly vertically upwards and hover in flight at any altitude from standstill, I have yet to see a flanker stop in mid air at 180..hover there for a prolonged period at the exact altitude and fly straight up. There is a difference in control and the reality of gravity vs lift. The only thing shown in the fancy videos of the flanker is the aircraft hovering for an instant before pushing down for forward flight. And yes we all know the benefits of TVC other than a cobra.. the cobra isn't even part of the discussion since I still regard it as a silly impractical move for combat. Ive asked the usefulness of the cobra from not one but four pilots, two from the USAF, one from the PAF(god rest his soul) and one from the IAF.. each agree that in a real fight with proper trained pilots the cobra is a useless maneuver, the trained pilot will rarely ever get close enough without a guns kill ensured..and in case the cobra is performed at the 400knots bracket.. the pursuing fighter will have already initiated a break in th horizintal.. Here is a video of the cobra by the Su-37..which has TVC as well..observe that throughout the TVC movement the aircraft is losing altitude rapidly

Possibly the only useful maneuvers shown here are the last two and out of those only one is a fairly good usage of the ability..

The benefits of TVC are felt more in their application in the perpendicular plane since being able to turn on a dime is a lot more useful than any of the above.. being able to turn at 22.5..or 25 degrees a second is a lot more useful than the so called "ballet" moves.. which is why the F-22 sticks with 2-d vectoring.
Benefits of TVC are also applicable in being able to takeoff from shorter runways and lower landing speeds(taking off from taxiways in case your runways is cratered to ****). But none of this fancy roller coaster crap.

 

[ptldM3]

Uhh..no, if the greater TVC ensured LIFT... then the flanker series should be able to fly vertically upwards and hover in flight at any altitude from standstill,

TVC doesn't ensure lift, the T/W ratio does, and Flankers can hold a hover. If an aircraft has a trust lesser than its weight than it won't be able to hold a hover; however, in the case the the Flanker the T/W ratio is greater than the aircraft's weight.

I have yet to see a flanker stop in mid air at 180..hover there for a prolonged period at the exact altitude and fly straight up.

I have and not from a youtube video. But since there is no good videos of a Flanker hovering i will post one of an F-22:

There is a difference in control and the reality of gravity vs lift.

Then expalain the F-22, surly it can't be defying physics.

The only thing shown in the fancy videos of the flanker is the aircraft hovering for an instant before pushing down for forward flight. And yes we all know the benefits of TVC other than a cobra.. the cobra isn't even part of the discussion since I still regard it as a silly impractical move for combat. Ive asked the usefulness of the cobra from not one but four pilots, two from the USAF, one from the PAF(god rest his soul) and one from the IAF.. each agree that in a real fight with proper trained pilots the cobra is a useless maneuver, the trained pilot will rarely ever get close enough without a guns kill ensured..and in case the cobra is performed at the 400knots bracket..

And there are many pilots that would agree that the cobra is useful in certain situations. Here is a little know fact, the cobra has been around longer than the SU-27 and it has been used and perfected by an American pilot at Nellis AFB and it was a practical maneuver infact using that maneuver the pilot "never lost", mind you this was before it was called 'cobra', here's the link:


John Boyd - USAF, The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of Air Warfare

As an instructor at the Fighter Weapons School (FWS) at Nellis AFB, he fought students, cadre pilots, Marine and Navy pilots, and pilots from a dozen countries, who were attending the FWS as part of the Mutual Defense Assistance Pact.

He never lost.

Boyd was famous for a maneuver he called "flat-plating the bird." He would be in the defensive position with a challenger tight on his tail, both pulling heavy Gs, when he would suddenly pull the stick full aft, brace his elbows on either side of the cockpit, so the stick would not move laterally, and stomp the rudder. It was as if a manhole cover were sailing through the air and then suddenly flipped 90 degrees. The underside of the fuselage, wings, and horizontal stabilizer became a speed brake that slowed the Hun from 400 knots to 150 knots in seconds. The pursuing pilot was thrown forward and now Boyd was on his tail radioing "Guns. Guns. Guns."

the pursuing fighter will have already initiated a break in th horizintal..

If two aircraft are in a merge the guy that breaks off is at the disadvantage because the aggressor will have his sights on target, the experienced pilots will try to maneuver his aircraft behind the aggressor not just make a break for the horizon.

Here is a video of the cobra by the Su-37..which has TVC as well..observe that throughout the TVC movement the aircraft is losing altitude rapidly

The video i gave you showed an SU-33 and it lost no altitude, infact aircraft usually gain altitude when performing the cobra.

The benefits of TVC are felt more in their application in the perpendicular plane since being able to turn on a dime is a lot more useful than any of the above.. being able to turn at 22.5..or 25 degrees a second is a lot more useful than the so called "ballet" moves.. which is why the F-22 sticks with 2-d vectoring.

A sustained turn rate is more important than a coba because it is the most commen maneuver, if we can call it that, but in certain situations the cobra can be a lethal maneuver as demonstrated by Boyd, an American pilot, that used it on a regular basis and never lost.

 

[SQ8]

Boyd's maneuver as you have described was useful since nobody at that time could even anticipate such a tactic, lets not forget this is the guy that wrote the bible on modern air combat.
Advantage in air-to-air combat engagements will most assuredly, and in most cases, go to the aircraft that maintains momentum and has the ability to 'see' and attack before detection and counter-measures is/are made, not to an aircraft that can do the Cobra maneuver or the like variations. Best be assured that in most cases, performing a Cobra maneuver or the like will get the pilot killed and the aircraft destroyed/'splashed', despite the ongoing and continuous debate over the theoretical combat advantages of doing such a 'last ditch attempt to live and survive' maneuver.

And to paraphrase a Tornado F3 pilot when once asked about the Cobra...

If he saw a Flanker suddenly stop dead in the sky during a dogfight, he'd think Christmas had come early!

The only possible usefulness of this maneuver will be if the guy pursuing you wont have a gun.. All the lovely charts show the cobra being done for an attacker closer than 200 feet!.. If I cant hit a fighter using a computer calculated gunsight in my lift line when I get to 200 feet I should be flying C-130's. If the maneuver is done even within 600 feet and I only have guns.. the Sukhoi just became a juicy dead target for a snapshot.

These maneuvers, while impressive, would never be used in modern air-to-air combat except in the more dire, extreme, and last-ditch circumstances, as every pilot knows that speed and altitude is what keeps you alive. If you perform these maneuvers, you lose speed, you lose altitude, and you bleed off precious energy with takes time and fuel to regain.

Air combat is never one-on-one; it hasn't been since the days of WWI. If you bleed off all your energy and slow to 200kts, your foe's wingman will eat you for lunch, while your target is speeding away from you at 3 times your current speed. USAF doctrine has shown through decades of actual air-to-air jet combat experience that close-in fights, with mostly evenly matched aircraft, usually boils down to the experience level and determination of the individual pilot, the support (wingman, AWACS, EW) from other friendly units, and even the physical conditioning of the pilots themselves. Fancy maneuvers don't win a dogfight. Excellent pilots in good planes win dogfights.

Still if you Dont believe me..
read on through this topic.. "http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12186-postdays-0-postorder-asc.html"
And if you don't believe them.. challenge the senior ones on who they are and what their experience is..

 

[Super Falcon]

well even Sukhoi very oen Su 30 is not as same as Su 37 is

 

[Super Falcon]

The new feature of the super-manoeuvrable Su-37 fighter is the two-dimensional thrust vector control engines, which allow the aircraft to recover from spins and stalls at almost any altitude, while it is also equipped with full digital fly-by-wire controls.

 

[ptldM3]

Please do more reasearch before you post, i don't mean to be disrespectful but all of your claims have been disproved, everything from the Cobra causes loss in altitude to aircraft can't hold a hover have been disproved. With that being said lets take a look at what you said.

Boyd's maneuver as you have described was useful since nobody at that time could even anticipate such a tactic, lets not forget this is the guy that wrote the bible on modern air combat.

You see, this is the problem, most pilots have never performed the cobra. Likewise, most pilots have never been in a dog fight where the cobra was used against them, so even if a pilot is in a dog fight with say an SU-30, Draken, or F-22 and he is aware that these aircraft can perform the cobra it would still be difficult for him to counter the cobra unless he has practised against it. Another thing people fail to understand is that the cobra has a narrow window of opportunity for it to work, in other words you can't just go around performing the cobra whenever you feel like being a hotshot. Also Boyd used the Cobra often and every time he drilled the oppenents to the point that their rear ends were soar.

Advantage in air-to-air combat engagements will most assuredly, and in most cases, go to the aircraft that maintains momentum and has the ability to 'see' and attack before detection and counter-measures is/are made, not to an aircraft that can do the Cobra maneuver or the like variations.

Now you're deviating from the subject, we are talking WVR combat and not BVR combat and although most kills have been and will be from BVR some will unevitable still turn into dog fights, even during Desort Storm a Mig-29 managed to get on the tail of an unarmed F-111 but since Iraqi pilots were pure garbage the Mig-29 lost control and crashed when the F-111 took evasive maneuvers.

There is a reason why dog fights are practiced all over the world including in the US of A.

Best be assured that in most cases, performing a Cobra maneuver or the like will get the pilot killed and the aircraft destroyed/'splashed', despite the ongoing and continuous debate over the theoretical combat advantages of doing such a 'last ditch attempt to live and survive' maneuver.

Again, the cobra has a narrow window of opportunity for it to work, and what is this 'last ditch attempt' you speak of? If the aggressor gets on your tail like the Mig-29 and F-111 that i mentioned then the cobra would be the perfect maneuver or if two aircraft merge the cobra again would be the perfect maneuver, there is nothing last ditch about it, when the aggressor overshoots he dies. What's last ditch is a pilot desperately braking either hard left or hard right when someone is on his tail about to blow him out of the sky, again a pilot that uses the cobra has nothing to risk because the aggressor overshoots, thus the aggressor becomes the prey, and with the advant of HMS the pilot has an even bigger advantage because now speed becomes less relevant.


The cobra maneuver is meant for one thing and one thing only, to reduce speed and hope the aggressor overshoots, and this is axactly what the Sea Harrier did during the Falkland war, and i think the results speak for themselves the slow Harrier which used its TVC managed to shoot down 21 'fast' Mirage fighters at a loss of zero Harriers.

That Magnificent Flying Machine - TIME

The Sea Harrier squadrons shot down 21 Argentine aircraft in air-to-air combat with no air-to-air losses, although two Sea Harriers were lost to ground fire and four to accidents.


A number of factors contributed to the failure of the Argentinian fighters to shoot down a Sea Harrier. Although the Mirage III and Dagger jets were considerably faster, the Sea Harrier was considerably more manoeuvrable; manoeuvers such as the 'Viff' (Vectored in Forward Flight) proving decisive in dogfights

And this is from one of the Sea Harrier pilots:

That Magnificent Flying Machine - TIME

In combat, a sudden viff usually causes a pursuing fighter to overshoot. Explains one veteran Harrier pilot: "From being the attacking aircraft, it becomes the attacked." .

As you have read the pilot used his TVC in a way that the aggressor overshot him (this is exactly what a cobra maneuver does, it causes the aggressor to overshoot). Notice what the harrier pilot said, and i quote: "From being the attacking aircraft, it becomes the attacked."

And to paraphrase a Tornado F3 pilot when once asked about the Cobra...

If he saw a Flanker suddenly stop dead in the sky during a dogfight, he'd think Christmas had come early!

Funny that a Tornado pilot that has never performed a cobra, nor has he had one performed against him is talking about Christmas coming early, the only thing that Tornado pilot has is a big ego. Many Russian pilots would disagree with that Tornado aka 'dump truck' flyer because they train in close quarter dog fights and they practice the cobra, they know when and how to use it, that tornado pilot and his dump truck aircraft would get his butt spanked by an experienced pilot performing the cobra just like Sea Harrier pilots spanked the Argentine airforce and their superior and faster Mirages with their fancy and slow TVC stunts that should only be reserved for airshows

Most pilots have big egos, if other aircraft such as the Sukhoi series or the Harrier can outperform their aircraft in certain areas then most pilots go on the defensive and argue that the SU-30 and Harrier are overrated and their maneuvers are worthless, what's even more interesting is that most Harrier and Sukhoi pilots think the opposite. Sukhoi and Harrier pilots practice post stall maneuvers on a regular basis and as so they perfect it to a fine art; pilots claiming the Cobra is worthless are in denial , Boyd and the British Harriers proved how important a post stall maneuver can be.

The funy thing is, the Harrier has much less trust than a Flanker and it didn't stop the Harrier pilots from using their TVC to reduce their airspeed, so why didn't the Harriers get "splashed" again?

The only possible usefulness of this maneuver will be if the guy pursuing you wont have a gun.. All the lovely charts show the cobra being done for an attacker closer than 200 feet!.. If I cant hit a fighter using a computer calculated gunsight in my lift line when I get to 200 feet I should be flying C-130's. If the maneuver is done even within 600 feet and I only have guns.. the Sukhoi just became a juicy dead target for a snapshot.

Sorry but those Sea Harriers pilots shot down 21 Mirages from further than 200 feet.

These maneuvers, while impressive, would never be used in modern air-to-air combat except in the more dire, extreme, and last-ditch circumstances, as every pilot knows that speed and altitude is what keeps you alive. If you perform these maneuvers, you lose speed, you lose altitude, and you bleed off precious energy with takes time and fuel to regain.

Again the British Sea Harrier pilots proved this to be utter nonesense.

Air combat is never one-on-one; it hasn't been since the days of WWI.

This is wrong, there has been one-on-one dog fights in just about every air war.

If you bleed off all your energy and slow to 200kts, your foe's wingman will eat you for lunch, while your target is speeding away from you at 3 times your current speed.

Again go tell that to the British Sea Harrier pilots that shot down 21 Mirage fighters by using their TVC to slow down their fighters and get a shot off.

 

[MZUBAIR]

No Comparisons please !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here we are to learn maneuverabilities............

 

[mughaljee]

and which is the most technically difficult one ?
and that difficult one depends on plan or pilot ?

 

[MZUBAIR]

and which is the most technically difficult one ?
and that difficult one depends on plan or pilot ?

I think Cobra

 

[SQ8]

Boyd also developed the concept of Energy maneuvering, he is known for that..which means "Energy" is life in A2A combat, before him people thought of fighting as an art..not a series of preset moves with counter moves.
His "flat plating" technique was used against novice hot shots, once a person had seen it... he would not fall for it..but that did not deter boyd to have other tricks up his sleeve.Again.. read the whole book "Boyd-The fighter pilot who changed the art of air warfare" before bringing his flat plating technique as a support for the cobra..
I also recommend "Aerial Attack Study: Fighter vs Bomber, Fighter vs Fighter" By John boyd.


You are stuck with the Sea harrier.. the sea harrier Viffs.. which lets it take the pot shot or the IR missile track. The result is different, massive loss of airspeed WITHOUT change in AoA.

And here is something from everyone's beloved source called wikipedia..
"Viffing - or Vectoring In Forward Flight, is a combat technique developed by the US Marine Corps who operated a developed version of the Harrier - the AV-8. Viffing also allowed a much tighter turn in combat maneuvers, although there is little evidence to suggest that it was regularly taught to pilots, as the loss of airspeed could make the aircraft vulnerable to attack."

Ask any fighter pilot taught Air combat doctrine used in 58 countries..
and he will tell you that he is keeping his kinetic energy and shoving the Russian's potential energy up his ***.

And btw.. RAF pilots did not use Viffing ever in air combat in the falklands, simply because they never needed to. All kills made by RAF pilots were using the all aspect 9L. Go read "Air war in the north Atlantic"..it has authentic accounts of RAF pilots.. NONE used the viff.Sea Harrier pilots who were involved are unanimous that VIFFing was NOT used in the Falklands. There simply wasn't any reason to use it, since the Argentine fighters never maneuvered aggressively enough to put the Harriers on the defensive.
21 "fast" mirage fighters?? have you ever seen a mirage turn??.. a train has better turning radius. The only actual Unconfirmed use of the viff technique has been in mock combat in 1vs1 engagements between harrier pilots and other aircraft. Any other time.. the other jets wingman would have the harrier for chow.
The only kill the harrier made by viffing if you will was a Puma which lost life due to the harrier's exhaust going through his blades.

Now when you read 200 feet.. did you also read the parts about me stating that if I need to get that close I am a pathetic shooter??..
So If I am already that crappy that I have to get that close to make a kill in this era of missiles and accurate gunsights..that too with the horizon above me.. I deserve to get shot down.
Anything greater than 500 feet.. and that plane stopped in mid air is a juicy target..even for a fat bomb truck like the tornado.


And btw the EF-111 kill was against a Mirage F-1. And even in WVR combat, its better if you know what you are getting into. IF a poor flanker pilot is unfortunate enough to get bounced unnoticed and by some miracle is not dead..then he can try the cobra and pray at the same time.

Only the most idiotic of pilots will ever be caught at a disadvantage with the cobra..And only the most stupid flanker,or mig, or F-22 pilot will get himself into such a situation that he has to use it.
The Cobra is a demo for the flankers noted impressive maneuverability, and NOTHING else to about 98% of the worlds combat pilots. Unless off course you can find me the 2% stating they used it effectively in a dogfight and won..

 

[ptldM3]

Boyd also developed the concept of Energy maneuvering, he is known for that..which means "Energy" is life in A2A combat, before him people thought of fighting as an art..not a series of preset moves with counter moves.
His "flat plating" technique was used against novice hot shots, once a person had seen it... he would not fall for it..but that did not deter boyd to have other tricks up his sleeve.Again.. read the whole book "Boyd-The fighter pilot who changed the art of air warfare" before bringing his flat plating technique as a support for the cobra..
I also recommend "Aerial Attack Study: Fighter vs Bomber, Fighter vs Fighter" By John boyd.

All the people he flew against were 'novice'...really? Lets suppose this to be true, most airial victories have been scored against novice pilots, point here is that he did use the cobra and it worked every time.

You are stuck with the Sea harrier.. the sea harrier Viffs.. which lets it take the pot shot or the IR missile track. The result is different, massive loss of airspeed WITHOUT change in AoA.

Both the viff maneuver and the cobra acheive the same result, the AoA has little relevance when the objective is to cause the aggressor to overshoot.

And here is something from everyone's beloved source called wikipedia..
"Viffing - or Vectoring In Forward Flight, is a combat technique developed by the US Marine Corps who operated a developed version of the Harrier - the AV-8. Viffing also allowed a much tighter turn in combat maneuvers, although there is little evidence to suggest that it was regularly taught to pilots, as the loss of airspeed could make the aircraft vulnerable to attack."

Ask any fighter pilot taught Air combat doctrine used in 58 countries..
and he will tell you that he is keeping his kinetic energy and shoving the Russian's potential energy up his ***.

Everyone talks about keeping airspeed up which is important and it is correct most of the time. However, in some cases it will get the pilot killed.

Lets take a look at Giora Epstein one of the greatest jet aces ever, one of his kills involved the vertical scissors, in that engagement both he and the aggressor tryed to go vertically as slow as possible in order to get the opponent to overshoot or break off, needless to say going slow earned him a kill.



No one is arguing that kenetic engergy is not important, what i'm trying to convey is that at times (very rarely) a pilot has the opportunity to get into a slow dogfight even a post stall, this has been proven by the likes of John Boyd and Giora Epstein. Every incounter presents a different opportunity.

And btw.. RAF pilots did not use Viffing ever in air combat in the falklands, simply because they never needed to. All kills made by RAF pilots were using the all aspect 9L. Go read "Air war in the north Atlantic"..it has authentic accounts of RAF pilots.. NONE used the viff.Sea Harrier pilots who were involved are unanimous that VIFFing was NOT used in the Falklands. There simply wasn't any reason to use it, since the Argentine fighters never maneuvered aggressively enough to put the Harriers on the defensive.

First off you copied and pasted the bold part from a forum which is plagiarism, further it makes me wonder if you actually read "Air war in the north Atlantic" because if you did i'm certain you wouldn't need to go to forums and copy someone's text to prove your point.

Here is were i found the same text word for word:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...1bnnAw&usg=AFQjCNHJ4Hpgp-PB6jrVHIIrSJ9r-yjCEQ

There simply wasn't any reason to use it, since the
Argentine fighters never maneuvered aggressively enough to put the Harriers on the defensive.

All kills made by RAF pilots were using the all aspect 9L

I found otherwise:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...x_igDg&usg=AFQjCNGoeEyNOwFQR2bFZWrsBEMcb2s-Qw

Another six enemy planes fell to the Sea Harrier's 30mm cannons.

"fast" mirage fighters?? have you ever seen a mirage turn??.. a train has better turning radius.

What's a turning radius? You mean sustained turn rate? Mirages have been proven by the Israelis to be very effective and although they may not be the most maneuverable fighters because of their original purpose, they have alot of good qualities such as roll rate, and speed.

In any case are you saying the harrier is more maneuverable?

Only the most idiotic of pilots will ever be caught at a disadvantage with the cobra..And only the most stupid flanker,or mig, or F-22 pilot will get himself into such a situation that he has to use it.
The Cobra is a demo for the flankers noted impressive maneuverability, and NOTHING else to about 98% of the worlds combat pilots. Unless off course you can find me the 2% stating they used it effectively in a dogfight and won..

Goodness, every maneuver in a dog fight is meant to cause the aggressor to overshoot..period. It doesn't matter if it is a barrel roll or some other maneuver the goal is to cause the pilot to overshoot, and in most cases the pilot attempts to keep the aircraft's momentum. However, in certain cases, rare cases, a cobra and other slow speed maneuvers have worked.

For example, an Israeli ace pilot by the name of Ran Ronen attempted a maneuver very similar to the cobra; however, he had to break off because his Mirage almost stalled while trying to get a Mig to overshoot and it did but it was too close, if the Mirage would have had a higher T/W ratio and TVC he would have go the kill but the Mirage could not maintain such a low airspeed.

Lastly you seem to think that the cobra bleeds off almost all of the aircraft's energy, it doesn't. The pilot controls how much energy he 'bleeds' by manipulates the throttle and stick controls. earlier you mentioned that if the cobra was used the aircraft on the receiving end would take evasive maneuver, this has little relevance because now the aggressor overshoots, in other words, the hunter becomes the hunted.

 

[gubbi]

we are talking WVR combat and not BVR combat and although most kills have been and will be from BVR some will unevitable still turn into dog fights, even during Desort Storm a Mig-29 managed to get on the tail of an unarmed F-111 but since Iraqi pilots were pure garbage the Mig-29 lost control and crashed when the F-111 took evasive maneuvers.

Excellent analysis ptldM3! Very nice reading.

However, one point I would like to clarify, there have been only 4 confirmed BVR kills till date. All other kills have been WVR and most of them in dogfights.

 

[ptldM3]

Excellent analysis ptldM3! Very nice reading.

However, one point I would like to clarify, there have been only 4 confirmed BVR kills till date. All other kills have been WVR and most of them in dogfights.

Good observation if it's true. I know in previous conflicts such as the Vietnam war and the Arab Israeli wars pilots made kills in both the BVR arena with their A2A weapons and in WVR combat with their canons. However,the golf war is when BvR combat came to age, or atleast according to the Americans.

Still the point is A2A weapons have been around for decades, yet pilots still relied on canons.

 

[nightcrawler]

I have question regarding maneuverability:
Given that you have got equal thrust which of the plane will be more maneuverable??

1. A pure straight wing (like WWII propeller driven planes)
2. A sweep wing ( like modern jet planes )
   
   

I am asking this because in Animal Planet they said that falcon wings are somewhat tangent & are sweeped so it can approach very high speeds. On the other hand Menay ( in urdu ) has somewhat straight wings so though can't provide great speeds but great maneuverability & tight turns~~

 

[Chogy]

Excellent analysis ptldM3! Very nice reading.

However, one point I would like to clarify, there have been only 4 confirmed BVR kills till date. All other kills have been WVR and most of them in dogfights.

Gubbi, with respect, I don't think this is quite true. I think we can classify an air to air engagement into three basic types:

1) The long-ranged detect, sort, and shoot, with aircraft blowing up before any sort of merge occurs. This is where aircraft like the F-22, F-15, Su-27 family, F/A-18F shine. The AIM-120 equipped F-16 is very good but not quite in their class.

2) The initial merge, up to 270 degrees of turn. This is where a great toll is taken, possibly more than the BVR. In this phase, off-boresight "point & shoot" heaters do deadly work, with Pk's approaching 1.00, as well as AMRAAM and similar. The SA derived from pre-merge radar work, RWR inputs, and warnings from AWACS help bring eyes onto inbound threats. Energy is swapped for instantaneous turn rates that cannot be sustained in the need to get the shot off first. An aircraft like the F-16 is ideal for this sort of work.

3) The sustained, turning fight. Very rare and becoming extinct. In this sort of fight, the pilot works the EM bubble, sustaining the turn where needed, depleting energy only as necessary to kill, or avoid being killed. Once your energy chips are cashed, you become a fluttering strafe rag - you are extremely vulnerable to lurking bandits.


One of the issues so often ignored in these discussions is mutual support. Fighters never fly without wingmen, usually many, and they work exceptionally hard on clean, concise, clear communications to that they support each other. When/if an enemy attempted some sort of energy-depleting maneuver, you'd have 3 or 4 guys competing to see who would be the first to put an AIM-9 seeker on him. He is totally helpless (and generating a huge heat plume) for many seconds.

Boyd's "Cobra" was simply called a flat-plate maneuver, and is used in two circumstances... to spit an overly-aggressive attacker outside the turn circle, usually resulting in a rolling scissors; or, as a gun jink. In either case, it is a true desperation move, and there is an almost guaranteed chance one will die, and a very good chance both will die.

Back to the original objection - all of the fights in GW 1, with perhaps one excption, fell into categories 1 or 2. Those aircraft that were not killed BVR were killed with energy-depleting turns to bring weapons to bear as quickly as posible (more AIM-7M than AIM-9M); then, the attackers bugged out at high speed.

The sole exception might have been "Rico" Rodriguez' encounter with a MiG-29. I have heard it said that Rico passed up an AIM-9 shot because he wanted to be the only F-15 gun kill, but that is not confirmed. Anyway, after a brief (relative to training) fight, the MiG impacted the desert, and Rico got his MiG-29.

Sustained turning fights are an art form that must be learned and practiced, but the reality is that the bulk of future encounters are going to be high-speed hit and run, preferably flank, with almost no sustained turning. When a fight matures and fireballs begin to light up the sky, it will draw the eyes of every bandit for 50 miles, and they will all beat-feet there (possibly en masse) to get a piece of the action.

Hypermaneuverability = way overblown, IMO. And sorry for the wordy post!