Super-maneuverability of fighters and its advantages

There are a number of special requirements for modern fighter aircraft, including the latest fifth generation vehicles. One of them touches on the issue of maneuverability and controllability: a promising aircraft must be distinguished by super-maneuverability. Let us consider this question in more detail and determine what super-maneuverability is, why it is needed by a modern fighter and in what ways such opportunities are achieved.

History issue

The concept of super-maneuverability of the fighter began to take shape in the seventies of the last century. Existing fighters of the time had certain restrictions on maneuvering, which could interfere with effective air combat. A maneuver with access to critical angles of attack (20-25 ° depending on the type of aircraft) led to a dramatic change in the nature of the flow, stalling and stalling into a spin. At the same time, the increase in flight speeds and the improvement of armaments led to the need to further improve the maneuverability of fighters.

Modern Russian aircraft with super-maneuverability. Photo of PJSC "Sukhoi" / sukhoi.org

In our country and abroad, numerous studies were conducted on the topic of increasing maneuverability, and they gave an interesting result. It turned out that some promising designs of gliders make it possible to bring the angle of attack almost to 180 ° and the sliding angle to 90 °. However, such a flight made special demands on control systems. In particular, with increasing angles of attack, the effectiveness of aerodynamic control surfaces fell, and control over the machine became more complicated. Nevertheless, the principal possibility of piloting in supercritical regimes was determined and confirmed.

In the future, new knowledge and experience could be used in real projects, but opinions on the prospects of super-maneuverability were divided. Soviet scientists and military personnel considered that the increase in maneuverability made sense: with its help, it was possible to sharply increase the effectiveness of a fighter in close combat using rocket and cannon armament. American experts considered long-range missile combat more important, in which super-maneuverability did not provide any advantages. These opinions determined the course of development of fighter aircraft for some time. aviation.

Later the situation changed a bit. In determining the appearance of the promising fifth-generation fighter in the United States decided to introduce elements of super-maneuverability. Then similar developments appeared in other countries. As a result, all promising aircraft of recent years are created with the use of certain solutions aimed at improving maneuverability and providing controllability on supercritical flight modes.

Concept benefits

Super-maneuverability is useful, first of all, in close combat. The angular velocity of a passing target may be high, which places special demands on the maneuverability of an attacking aircraft. He must have time to turn on the target to perform a successful attack. Similarly, the situation is with the defense: a more maneuverable aircraft will be able to "twist" the enemy and get out of the blow, including the transition to a counterattack.

Maneuver "Cobra" - a variant of the use of super-maneuverability. Figure Wikimedia Commons

In long-range missile combat, super-maneuverability can be used to increase the effectiveness of an anti-missile maneuver. In addition, in various conditions, some typical aerobatic maneuvers can be used to counter enemy radar systems. In particular, the figures "cobra" and "bell", providing for a sharp drop in speed, can interfere with the operation of Doppler radar.

Thus, careful study and proper use of the capabilities of the aircraft should have a positive impact on its fighting qualities. In some situations, a fighter with super-maneuverability will have advantages over the machine without such capabilities, although the real effect of it depends on a number of factors.

Aerodynamic issues

Even at the early stages of research, it was found that to obtain super-maneuverability, special airframe structures and controls are required. In fact, the aircraft should be able to easily and quickly exit to supercritical flight modes and not show a tendency to its exclusion. There may also appear specific requirements for aerodynamic controls.

Su-30 maneuvers with the formation of vortices. Photo of PJSC "Sukhoi" / sukhoi.org

Soviet and Russian industry has created several super-maneuverable fighters belonging to the Su-27 and MiG-29 families. These machines have several features in common. So, they are built on an integrated circuit, and the glider is made statically unstable at subsonic speeds. Thanks to these solutions, aircraft are able to carry out vigorous maneuvering, and their aerodynamics do not interfere with reaching the supercritical attack angles necessary for obtaining super-maneuverability.

However, a special glider with characteristic capabilities demanded the creation of special controls. So, all the planes of the Su-27 family are equipped with an electric-wire control system that transmits commands from the pilot to the actuators. The EDSU receives signals from the controls, and also processes data from the mass of the sensors and, taking into account all the incoming information, forms commands for the steering actuators. It is EDSU on the main operating modes that ensures stable behavior of the unstable aircraft, radically simplifying the work of the pilot.

Vigorous maneuvering. You can consider the complex teamwork steering. Photo of PJSC "Sukhoi" / sukhoi.org

When the normal angles of attack are exceeded, the efficiency of the control planes of the aircraft is sharply reduced. This is due to the formation of vortices and rudders falling into the aerodynamic shadow of the wing. Such a problem has several basic solutions. The first is the use of a large area of ​​steering surfaces and special control algorithms that allow you to maintain sufficient efficiency in all modes. The second offers the use of “duck” or “longitudinal triplane” schemes. The forward horizontal tail is subject to reduced efficiency due to a drop in speed and the formation of vortexes, but by definition it cannot be obscured by a wing. It can be used alone or in combination with “traditional” stabilizers.

The approach with all-round stabilizers and a special control system is widely used in domestic aircraft construction and is used in a number of foreign projects. PGO is also used in different projects of several countries. In this context, we can recall the American experimental plane Rockwell-MBB X-31, in which the forward tail was used in combination with another promising method of ensuring super-maneuverability - thrust vector control. A number of Russian serial fighters have both PGO and UHT, which has a positive effect on maneuverability.

Engines and nozzles

Another way to compensate for the drop in efficiency of aerodynamic control surfaces is to use engine thrust vector control systems. In this case, it is not just the restoration of controllability at the same level, but also the acquisition of new opportunities. In the past, various countries carried out various experiments with thrust vector control, and now they are actively implementing such concepts in practice. UHT can also be used to improve the takeoff and landing characteristics of the aircraft.

Su-35С fighter engines with UHT. Photo of Wikimedia Commons

Currently used several basic principles of shock wave therapy. In our country, turbojets with so-called axisymmetric deviation of the vector. Due to the movable nozzle flaps, the thrust vector is deflected in the required direction. Domestic engines with UHT can move a vector in two planes. There are both engines with integrated UHT systems and modular nozzles that are compatible with existing RD-33 and AL-31F motors.

In foreign practice, other variants of UHT have been studied and used. Thus, the experimental X-31 aircraft received a General Electric F404-GE-400 turbojet engine, behind the nozzle of which three controllable flaps were placed. Their deflection changed the direction of the outflow of reactive gases and moved the thrust vector. On the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor fighters, another UHT system went into production. Its Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 engines are equipped with flat nozzles formed by a casing with two movable flaps. This nozzle design allows the thrust vector to be deflected only in the vertical plane.

Experimental aircraft Rockwell-MBB X-31. USMC Photos

Engines with UHT, depending on their design, provide control over all channels. Deviation in the vertical plane complements the elevators, in the horizontal - rudders. In the presence of two engines, due to the differential operation of the nozzles, it is possible to monitor roll. Such systems use redirection of thrust, but not aerodynamic forces, due to which they have advantages over the rudders. First of all, this is an increase in the angular velocity during maneuvering, which has a positive effect on the vigor of the latter.

In the context of super-maneuverability, it is necessary to consider not only thrust vector control, but also the main parameters of the engine. Exit to supercritical modes when performing some aerobatic maneuvers can lead to a sharp loss of speed. In order not to be at a disadvantage, the aircraft must be able to quickly pick up speed after exiting the figure. To do this, it requires a power plant of sufficient power. Research and practice show that this task requires thrust-to-weight ratio of at least 1. The growth of this parameter has a positive effect on all major flight performance, although obtaining such results is associated with known difficulties at the engine development stage.

Super-maneuverability in practice

The level of technology development, primarily in the field of control systems, made it possible to start mastering super-maneuverability only a few decades ago. To date, aviation science has come a long way and has created many of the necessary technologies and products that can significantly improve the maneuverability of fighters. All these developments are used in modern and future projects of different countries.

Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 engine with UHT slotted nozzle. Photo Wikimedia Commons

Now in service are the Russian aircraft of the Su-27 and MiG-29 families, as well as American F / A-18E / F and F-22. In addition, there were several experimental samples, and a number of machines had not yet reached service in the army. In the design of all these aircraft, various solutions are used to obtain super-maneuverability. Ways to achieve such results in different countries and firms are different, but the goal is the same - to provide increased maneuverability to gain advantage in air combat.

It is worth noting that, in addition to increased flight technical and combat characteristics, super-maneuverability gives another characteristic advantage. Demonstrative flights using special aerobatics, available only to super-maneuverable aircraft, look very impressive. It is quite possible that even such a demonstration of the capabilities of technology - long before it enters a real battle - can become a good deterrent affecting the decisions of a potential adversary.

Based on:
http://airwar.ru/
http://paralay.com/
https://nasa.gov/
http://uacrussia.ru/
https://sukhoi.org/
Zhelnin Yu. Flight “tail forward” and super-maneuverability // Science and Life, 2008 №11.

Comments

[Ross xnumx]

As recent events on the Indo-Pakistani border have shown: maneuverability is good! It is great when this maneuverability is in professional hands, and the fighter itself has a high class (characteristics) of air-to-air missiles and radar. After all, detecting the enemy in time is half the victory. And the other half is when there are missiles under the wings that are capable of destroying the detected "enemy" despite all of its anti-missile maneuvers. The maneuverability and speed of the missile exceed the overload capabilities of a living person in the seat of even a super-maneuverable fighter.

[Waddimm]

Whoever saw and attacked first won. No super-maneuverability can help defeat a blind boxer with short arms. Consequently, a larger lesion radius and less noticeability at the beginning of the bout give a significant advantage. Possessing the best speed characteristics allows you to dictate your conditions throughout the battle. Over-maneuverability can help in very rare cases, which are practically impossible in modern aerial combat.

[Old Skeptic]

As I understand it, you are an adept at stealth technology. I must disappoint you with stealth this is a very temporary technological advantage, only until the advent of new location systems.

[Waddimm]

I am not an adept. It's just that "super-maneuverability" can give an advantage only in very specific conditions, which will not arise in every battle. It is silly to rely on this characteristic as a panacea. There is no point in writing laudatory articles for her.

[Shahno]

But why. "Dry" media presents.

[Old Skeptic]

Let me quote the post below:

Operator (Andrey) Today, 11: 14
Super fighter maneuverability is needed in two cases:
- to gain an advantage in close combat using cannon weapons;
- to avoid air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles.

The latter case is achievable only when fuel is generated by a rocket and its flight by inertia, after which the overload placed by the rocket decreases from 40 to 20 and less than g. As a result, super-maneuverability up to 4 times reduces the distance of effective use of short, medium and long-range missiles, due to which the F-22, Su-35 and Su-57 have a multiple advantage over all other fighters.

In particular, the F-35 for the effective use of the long-range AIM-120D missile against the Su-35 or Su-57 requires approaching them at a distance of at least 45 km, i.e. to get out of the zone of their invisibility by Sushki's radars - it is natural that the Penguin will be guaranteed to be shot down by any Russian medium-range missile while still approaching this line.

It must also be understood that without external radar support the stealth fighter is blind. And if he is not blind, then he is no longer stealth.
Stealth is a useful option for bombers.

[EvilLion]

Almost all air-to-air missiles have only a booster engine with a running time of a few seconds, and then fly by inertia.

[_Ugene_]

Naturally, the Penguin will be guaranteed to be shot down by any Russian medium-range missile while still approaching this line.

F-35 adherents claim that the missile’s ghos very unstable captures the penguin due to the small EPR, and the probability of hitting a target with a rocket is reduced significantly

[Old Skeptic]

The question of the distance and position of the rocket in relation to the aircraft. Stealth is far from invisible from all angles. And no one canceled the radio command guidance (despite the GOS)

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Waddimm

It's just that "super-maneuverability" can give an advantage only in very specific conditions, which will not arise in every battle.

Strange, but this is precisely what was spinning in the language - only about the stealth. But over-maneuverability - a property that will be in demand for a very long time

[Waddimm]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

But over-maneuverability - a property that will be in demand for a very long time

Believers are strong in spirit, but they are blind.
There, just below, there is about the beginning of the Second World War, I-16 and Messers. Back then, our air chiefs also believed very strongly in the maneuverability of our fighters. The war corrected them. After massive losses and no less massive heroism of the pilots, after the entry into the troops of less maneuverable, but more high-speed and high-altitude fighters, the famous formula for Pokryshkin's victory was derived: "Height - speed - maneuver - fire".
The war will judge, DON'T GIVE GOD!

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Waddimm

There, a little lower, there is about the beginning of the Second World War, I-16 and Messers.

A completely erroneous analogy.

Quote: Waddimm

Then our air leaders also believed very strongly in the maneuverability of our fighters. The war corrected them.

Let's probably end this historical excursion with the fact that before the war the troops were, as it was believed, very modern MiG-3, Yak-1 and LaGG-3, which, well, have never been distinguished by the maneuverability of the I-16. And the fact that I-16 needed to be changed to a more modern model, which was distinguished by better altitude and speed, including Polikarpov himself, was also clear.

Quote: Waddimm

After massive losses

Caused not by the wooden structure of our aircraft, not by the poor preparation of the pilots, not by the fact that, apparently, most of our air forces at the beginning of the war could not take to the air at all, nor by the complexity of controlling our aircraft ... That's nothing, just reliance on maneuverability I-16. And other planes, the same MiG, LaGG and so on, obviously, fought with Messers on equal terms

[Waddimm]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

A completely erroneous analogy.

I would listen to what it is wrong, but apparently I have to believe in the word. Arguments you do not lead to your statements.
I personally think that the given example is quite acceptable, taking into account the differences in aircraft performance. Neither maneuverability (then) nor "super-maneuverability" (now) can be considered a panacea, because the winner is the one who has the initiative in battle, the one who has the ability to impose the nature of the battle on the enemy. Then - the height and speed (unexpectedly attack at high speed, or dodge in unfavorable conditions); now - the opportunity to detect and launch missiles earlier, then to escape from pursuit at high speed.
Super maneuverability for a fighter without the ability to engage in equal combat at long ranges is a dead end.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Waddimm

I would listen to what it is wrong, but apparently I have to believe in the word. Arguments you do not lead to your statements.

That is

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Caused not by the wooden structure of our aircraft, not by the poor preparation of the pilots, not by the fact that, apparently, most of our air forces at the beginning of the war could not take to the air at all, nor by the complexity of controlling our aircraft ... That's nothing, just reliance on maneuverability I-16.

Is this not an argument? We had 100500 reasons to lose in the air and incur heavy losses in addition to the I-16 "rate on maneuverability", but for some reason you decided to assign your losses to the rate on maneuverability. Which, in fact, did not exist, if you recall our new aircraft listed by me. You did not notice this either.

Quote: Waddimm

Over-maneuverability for a fighter, without the ability to fight on equal footage over long distances is a dead end.

Tell me, have many planes been shot down in battle over long distances? :)))) I will reveal military secret. Even in the case of complete informational dominance, even when the enemy did not try to respond, even when enemy pilots often did not suspect that they were attacking (Storm in a glass, for example), cases of successful attack of targets are not that from distant - from medium distances can be almost counted on the fingers.

[Waddimm]

1. Wooden planes + the difficulty of controlling them + poor training of pilots at the beginning of the war + inability to climb (?) - your arguments for the phrase "Completely erroneous analogy".
Forgotten even weaker and less perfect aircraft engines.
However, our aircraft were really more maneuverable than German ones (or challenge?). And many really thought (at least they wrote about it in their memoirs) that this (then super-maneuverability) would help the Germans fight on equal terms, at least. But the war proved that better maneuverability does not allow to defeat a more armed, high-speed, high-altitude enemy.
So my example is that it is quite correct, and whoever does not want to learn from the lessons of history will enter it as a loser.
2. And how many air battles do you know between aircraft of generations 4 ++ and above, possessing modern long-range weapons of destruction?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Waddimm

However, our planes were indeed more maneuverable than the German ones (or would you dispute?). And many did believe (at least they wrote about it in the memoirs) that this (then supermaneuverability) would help the Germans fight on equal terms, at least.

Please remind me of the memoirs in which a Soviet pilot wrote that "yes, I knew that I would have to fight with a higher-altitude, faster, more powerful aircraft, but I thought that I didn't care because I had better maneuverability"?
EMNIP there was either an assessment of the enemy at the level of Messers in Spain, or it was such that "yes, the Germans are cooler, but we have a maneuver, and this gives us chances"

Quote: Waddimm

So my example is quite correct.

It is incorrect from the point of view of history, but, apparently, you are not ready to admit it, nor from the point of view of analogy, because super-maneuverability is not the best maneuverability, it is a little different.

Quote: Waddimm

And how much do you know of air battles between planes of 4 ++ generations and above, possessing modern long-range weapons?

That is, do you seriously believe that if an 4 generation aircraft cannot really use a long-range air-launched missile system on an 2 generation aircraft, then does the 4 ++ aircraft do this with its peers with ease?

[Waddimm]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

incorrect from the point of view of history, but, apparently, you are not ready to admit it, nor from the point of view of analogy

It is certainly correct from both of these points of view.
From the point of view of history, it is generally foolish to deny the vision of combat employment of fighters that prevailed in the pre-war years in the USSR. You yourself, if you are not too lazy to read the memories of pilots and designers about that time of aviation, you will find confirmation.
And from the point of view of analogy, it does not matter what fundamentally differs maneuverability from over maneuverability. This, in both cases, is primarily defense and lack of initiative for the pilot.
With all other things being equal, the presence of super-maneuverability is a plus (let it be, it may come in handy someday), but to say that it certainly provides superiority? Are you seriously? Let's take it easy already.
To take advantage of over-maneuverability, you need to somehow force the enemy to draw closer! And if he does not want? Launches missiles at you from afar, you dodge super-maneuverable from them, lose speed, the enemy keeps at a distance. Then just the fuel runs out, flew home! Both. Well, of course, if you are lucky and you dodged all missiles!
Say there are practically no examples of long-range hits in historical retrospective? Well, twenty years ago the population didn’t have cell phones, but now smartphones recognize fingerprints, do face control, synchronize speech. I mean that rockets are getting smarter, getting smarter. And it’s not at all a fact that today you can certainly accept your examples of twenty years ago.

[Alexey Vasilievich I]

"To take advantage of super-maneuverability, you need to somehow force the enemy to get closer! And if he doesn't want to?"
The operator explained using the example of the Su-35 versus the F-35 what super-maneuverability is and why it is needed in modern combat. You seem to have already thrown a link to his comment. Therefore, "Launches missiles at you from afar" will not work. will be ineffective against a super-maneuverable fighter.

[Old Skeptic]

Quote: Alexey Vasilievich I

"To take advantage of super-maneuverability, you need to somehow force the enemy to get closer! And if he doesn't want to?"

To use a long-range missile, you need to turn on the radar, that is, turn on the flashlight in the dark (on the fanarik, the enemy and the fire). Is the analogy clear?
Without external radar support, stealth is much less effective than they say.
And there is visibility against the background of the earth, folds of relief and much more, but electronic warfare finally.
And don't tell me about the AWACS, there is the MiG-31 for such purposes, they won't be able to close all attack vectors on the AWACS. If there is no external support, stealth will end.
There are not so many avaks and then "hello girls, let's dance."
And what will happen to stealth technologies with the advent of radio-phaton radar?
Airplanes do more than one day.

[Alexey Vasilievich I]

"Is the analogy clear?"
Why did they write this to me?
"To take advantage of super-maneuverability, you need to somehow force the enemy to get closer! And if he doesn't want to?" - this is not my comment.
You need this to Vaddimmu.

[Old Skeptic]

Sorry mua. I didn’t want to offend. Hurt myself. I propose a drink at the world brudershaft.

And what does he mean he does not want? We have a combat mission, but he doesn’t want to .. It is necessary. The party said it should.

[EvilLion]

Svermaneuvre is useful at all stages of the battle, because the maneuver begins before the dogfight. And it is also useful in peacetime by reducing accidents.

[Dooplet11]

"That's nothing, just a stake on the maneuverability of the I-16." -

Is this not an argument?

Not an argument. Here's an argument:

Yak-1 maneuverable And-16. It does not seem paradoxical.
I think both you and the author of the article (+ for the article, but nevertheless!) Replace the concept of "maneuverability" with the concept of "understeer". The second is just a subset of the first, which is broader and more comprehensive. ...

[EvilLion]

Nothing strange, the maneuverability of the aircraft is determined, if simplified by two parameters:
1) The area of ​​the aerodynamic planes with the help of which it turns. (The I-16 has a large wing, like modern "counterparts" like the F / A-18 and Rafale)
2) The ability of the aircraft to restore speed, because the action of aerodynamic forces depends on the speed. (A newer car, especially with an air-cooled engine, should accelerate much faster, and the X-NUMX's forehead is generally hard, it didn’t accelerate properly in a dive, and it’s better to maintain speed in the maneuver).

[Dooplet11]

If simplified, then maneuverability is determined by the magnitude of the available overload vector at each current point in time. The wing load, thrust, drag, and aerodynamic quality are just some of the many other parameters that affect this value.

[EvilLion]

A vector is already the ultimate expression of power.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Dooplet11

Yak-1 maneuverable I-16.

Who told you such nonsense?

[Dooplet11]

Who said? Lecturer at the Air Force Academy. Gagarin, KTN, associate professor, Colonel-engineer V.N. Mednikov in the textbook "Flight dynamics and aircraft piloting", approved for the students of the above-named Academy by the Air Force Commander-in-Chief in 1976.

[Cowbra]

A couple of examples: the battle on the verticals - the invention of OUR pilots in Spain, and it was flying on the I-16, EXCEEDING in speed all that Condor flew on, including the first Messers
Example two: even the strategy of "bombardment over fighters", also Soviet, and SB, which were called SPEED bombers, says that fighters need speed, so no one was "proud" of "maneuverability" !!! That is why Yaki-Migi appeared !!!
Example three - now not ours and about maneuverability: Galland-Goering. In short, in order to defend bombers, you need a Spitfire-type fighter. let the speed be less, but the maneuverability is higher - so he can repel an attack, Messer - only CAM can attack. Just that famous phrase "give me the Spitfire link." He said that he was wrong. I described the meaning.
Is that enough?

[EvilLion]

Bullshit. Faster fighters appeared in front of WWII, and they appeared to catch up with the also accelerating bombers. It is almost impossible to shoot down a plane in a maneuvering battle during WWII, if the dogfight has already begun, then the moment of the attack is missed. The I-16 of the latest versions is a fully combat-ready vehicle for 1941, unlikely as an interceptor, but it will do to accompany strike vehicles. Tellingly, the Spitfire, similar to the I-16, went through the entire war.

Do not write nonsense if you have no idea about the issue.

[tchoni]

Quote: Waddimm

There, just below, there is about the beginning of the Second World War, I-16 and Messers. Back then, our air chiefs also believed very strongly in the maneuverability of our fighters. The war corrected them. After massive losses and no less massive heroism of the pilots, after the entry into the troops of less maneuverable, but more high-speed and high-altitude fighters, the famous formula for Pokryshkin's victory was derived: "Height - speed - maneuver - fire".
The war will judge, DON'T GIVE GOD!

Vadim, don’t waste your nerves) This site is full of people who, if they get into the eyes of a yellowish brine of known biological origin, will find you a lot of natural phenomena causing it to appear. They will explain salinity, color, and even temperature. True devil of numbers. and this comment just confirms it.

Is this not an argument? We had 100500 reasons to lose in the air and incur heavy losses in addition to the I-16 "rate on maneuverability", but for some reason you decided to assign your losses to the rate on maneuverability. Which, in fact, did not exist, if you recall our new aircraft listed by me. You did not notice this either.

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: tchoni

True devil of numbers. and this comment just confirms it.

This comment was given by the person whose article you are reading on this site.
But since you and Vadim yourself did not give a single figure, but are actively trying (as you said there):

Quote: tchoni

when they get into the eyes of a yellowish brine of known biological origin, they will find you a lot of natural phenomena causing it to appear.

At the same time, the facts (TTT, cat. Presented, among other things, to the 5th generation cars and the results of the battles in Vietnam) both remained and remained: over-maneuverability gives a significant advantage over the machine, which does not have such a property. As well as the fact that superiority in firing range over a maneuverable machine does not provide 100% superiority.

[tchoni]

Quote: Blackgrifon

This comment was given by the person whose article you are reading on this site.

Yes I know. Moreover, I respect Andrew, as one of the few authors whose articles did not smell like copy-paste, and which can still be read. But this does not mean that I must agree with him in everything.
And Vadim gave you 2 excellent numbers, and even with alphabetic indices (appreciate this). I-16 and Bf-109. You should already know the rest from history textbooks and Wikipedia (if the latter is not enough).
As for the Vietnam showdown, I strongly advise you to look at the tactics of the MiG-21 pilots, who used the comparatively low radar signature of their vehicles to engage in close combat (according to various estimates, from 1 to 3 m in the front hemisphere). The imperfection of the radar of the "phantoms" themselves. Low visual visibility and very good dynamic characteristics of their cars. And only when all this rolled, and close combat became a reality - the "phantoms" had a bad time.

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: tchoni

But this does not mean that I must agree with him in everything.

And no one asks for this.

I-15 and I-16 had excellent horizontal maneuverability, but lost 109m in vertical, which, incidentally, German pilots wrote more than once in their memoirs. And in the case of Vietnam, the 21st in general sometimes set up real ambushes, using hidden aerodromes in addition to the hark described above.

But in terms of super-maneuverability below Vadim has already made an argument, cat. I myself would like to quote and with whom it is very difficult to argue: "All other things being equal, the presence of extra maneuverability is only a plus!
But the flight performance of any aircraft is always a compromise! Choice: more maneuverability - less speed; more payload - less radius; more specific load - less maneuverability, etc. ".

Simply, the LTX compromise is usually not recognized in holivars and it all comes down to abstract comparisons of one thing.

[tchoni]

Quote: Blackgrifon

Simply, the LTX compromise is usually not recognized in holivars and it all comes down to abstract comparisons of one thing.

Here we are about the same)

[Waddimm]

Quote: tchoni

Vadim, do not waste your nerves)

Oh my god! Only an exchange of views! I understand perfectly well that I can’t convince adherents of faith in super-maneuverability, and I don’t see any point in this. Moreover, he himself is convinced that the presence of super-maneuverability is better than its absence. However, I believe that it is impossible to bet on it in modern aerial combat, but it is much more important to develop dynamic, high-speed characteristics, the ability to detect and defeat the enemy at long distances, even before he saw you.
As an adequate example - the concept of maneuverable air combat, for which our pilots were preparing on the eve of the Second World War, which did not justify itself. I was not too lazy to type in the search engine: "memoirs of pilots maneuverable air combat", in the first lines popped up: "Interview of N.G. Golodnikov, fighter pilot of the 2nd GIAP of the Air Force of the Northern Fleet named after B.F.Safonov" (http: // armedman .ru / vospominaniya / intervyu-ng-golodnikova-letchika-istrebitelya-2-go-giap-vvs-sf-im-bf-safonova.html, by the way, I highly recommend to everyone who is fond of aviation during the Second World War, I refreshed a lot in my memory, learned some Interesting Facts). Here's how, in particular, the veteran said about maneuverable air battles: “The strength of our tactics was that our pilot knew how to conduct a maneuvering battle, that is, he was taught to instantly assess the situation and not be afraid of the enemy's numerical superiority. It was very difficult to cope with a maneuvering battle. The Germans immediately understood this, so they preferred not to engage in a maneuvering battle if they did not have a numerical superiority "and further" Quite right. If the Germans did not want to accept the battle, then nothing could be done in this case, they left and that's it. "
That is, a better maneuverability training (well, better maneuverability characteristics, respectively) could be useful only if the enemy himself wants to engage in such a battle.

[Setrac]

Quote: Waddimm

Moreover, he himself is convinced that the presence of super-maneuverability is better than its absence. However, I believe that you can’t bet on it in modern aerial combat

There is a dispute about something else, people believe that stealth is more important than over-maneuverability - that in essence is stupidity, both components are important. But the Americans abandoned the superiority of TTX in favor of stealth, while ours do not refuse stealth and try to have both advantages.

[Shahno]

I believe that maneuverability is as important as stealth. And both advantages. Che then laugh about spraying. We need to move new technologies, and we all laugh.

[Setrac]

Quote: Shahno

Che then laugh about the spraying.

The heat resistance spraying should not be inferior to the skin of the aircraft, otherwise what for it is necessary.

[Setrac]

Quote: Waddimm

To rely on this characteristic as a panacea is stupid.

Sukhoi, for example, does not refuse to reduce its visibility, but does not sacrifice other, more important characteristics for the sake of this parameter.

[Corn]

Quote: Setrac

Sukhoi, for example, does not refuse to reduce its visibility, but does not sacrifice other, more important characteristics for the sake of this parameter.

There is no choice for the dry one, as there are no required technologies. The Americans have been moving towards their stealth on the F35 for more than 20 years, in practice they have worked out a bunch of options for the hull layout, composite materials .... and the Su57 does not even have an elementary stealth coating ...

[Setrac]

Quote: Corn

There is no dry choice, just as there are no required technologies. The Americans went to their f35 stealth for more than 20 years, in practice, worked out a bunch of body layout options, composite materials .... and on the su57 there is not even an elementary stealth coating ...

This is frank stupidity, considering that the Americans stepped the idea of ​​stealth-idea from us. There are technologies, but some stealth technologies are at the expense of the main performance characteristics - which is unacceptable.

[malyvalv]

The best fighter in the world is MIG 31.

[Chertt]

Quote: Waddimm

Whoever saw and attacked first won.

This issue has not yet been resolved unambiguously. Starting from the Vietnam War, then Israel- Arab warrior.
What is clear is that seeing the enemy is vital. But absolute or not a victory factor, it is very doubtful

[Waddimm]

Well, it all depends on the training of a particular pilot and the capabilities of the equipment.
But.
If we take the theoretical case when the pilots have exactly the same skills (such clone brothers) and at the same time one of them has the ability to detect and shoot at the enemy, while the second will be forced to dodge missiles and wait for the first to come closer, at a disadvantage for yourself a distance. Which side will be the initiative and the advantage? For whom is the probability of victory in battle will be higher?

[Lieutenant Colonel of the USSR Air Force in stock]

Why do you think either ... or ... Why not super-maneuverability with little noticeability?

[Waddimm]

I haven’t spoken about low visibility anywhere, nor about either or. Other things being equal, the presence of over-maneuverability is only a plus!
But the performance characteristics of any aircraft are always a compromise! Choice: more maneuverability - less speed; more payload - less radius; greater specific load - less maneuverability, etc.
Customers and designers can never get everything at once. You have to choose. And if the choice is made in favor of "super-maneuverability" and to the detriment of "long-range" (let this be the name of the ability to hit air targets at long distances), then this is not correct, because it deprives the pilot of the main thing - the ability to control the initiative in battle.

[Lieutenant Colonel of the USSR Air Force in stock]

I believe that this will continue to be done with regard to Russian fighters: without abandoning the intention to go to stealth. But, of course, the future lies with unmanned combat aircraft.
Again, the US Air Force is not going to give up the F-15...So there are some reasons here too.
I'm not sure that it's worth paying attention to the longer arms of the F-22 versus the Su-35, since many myths about both types of aircraft cannot serve as a basis for a dispute between amateurs... even for disputes between specialists and designers, since neither side has complete information about the other.

[Waddimm]

I absolutely agree with you, it makes no sense to talk about specific aircraft models.
It's only about "super-maneuverability", which has already been imposed in the teeth, but itself (super-maneuverability alone, without comparable other characteristics) gives nothing but a false sense of pseudo superiority. Unfortunately.

[Corn]

The US Air Force is not going to abandon the F-15 ... So, there are also some reasons for this.

ho ho! Still what, the price !!! F35 is much more expensive in itself and more expensive to maintain, while at the same time, it can reveal all its advantages only in a high-intensity conflict. And with the bombing of the bearded Papuans, the interception of violators and patrolling their airspace in peacetime, f15 and 16 will do just as well, and at the same time they will do this work much more easily.

for neither side has complete information regarding the other side.

the laws of physics are equal for everyone. Already by aerodynamics alone it is possible to assess the probable speed and maneuverability characteristics, the same with the EPR and rocket characteristics.

[vadim dok]

Absolutely! A man cannot withstand the overload arising from the "super-maneuverable" evolution of the aircraft!

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: vadim dok

A man will not be able to withstand the overload arising from "super-maneuverable" aircraft evolutions!

Do you even learn first what super-maneuverability is?

[Nehist]

Dear Andrey! Supermaneuverability is an instant loss of speed, which is fatal in modern and not only modern air combat. And if we consider that air battles are rare and aviation is mainly used to strike at ground or sea targets, then detection range and stealth come first, which you yourself have mentioned more than once. Supermaneuverability will help in duels, but unfortunately this is becoming less and less common. Moreover, the maneuverability of a flight in this mode is difficult (not all pilots are part of aerobatic teams like the Knights or Swifts). Our Aerospace Forces' passion for supermaneuverability is a mistake, otherwise we need to be many times superior to the enemy in aviation to implement this in practice.
PS IMHO. Not only mine, but also some of the pilots in the ranks of the major

[Tarikxnumx]

Supermaneuverability is the ability to perform a maneuver without a significant loss of speed, or to quickly gain it (speed) immediately after performing the maneuver. It is not for nothing that these very supermaneuverable aircraft have a thrust-to-weight ratio significantly higher than one. Where a regular aircraft with a thrust >=1 would have to go into horizontal flight or, moreover, into a descent after completing the maneuver, a supermaneuverable aircraft will be able to go into a climb simultaneously with a gain in speed...

[Dooplet11]

What is "super maneuverability"? Is there a clear definition of this concept? Where it just ends "maneuverability"and begins"above"?

[DimerVladimer]

Quote: ROSS 42

As recent events on the Indo-Pakistani border have shown: maneuverability is good!

They themselves have not yet figured out the situation - no one knows anything about this aerial combat, and the parties to the conflict report completely opposite information.

As for launches out of sight, here it is unambiguous - just "add missiles."
As for close combat, there are all-angle missiles, including for firing into the rear hemisphere with overloading over maneuvers that exceed the capabilities of manned aircraft.

The concept of super-maneuverability implies appropriate tactics of application.
For aircraft designed for long-range combat - this is an excessive appreciation of the structure.
That is, the concept of super-maneuverability is needed by a certain type of aircraft.
But in drones - which do not have restrictions on overload for the crew, over-maneuverability for vehicles with specialization in close combat is an absolute necessity.

[Ka-52]

ROSS 42 (42 region)
rocket speed

It is not the speed that decides, but the energy. As always, you are shooting in the dark, I hear a ringing sound, but I don’t know where it is. The rocket is brought down from the pylon by the engine, which runs for about 8-11 seconds. It also gives the rocket its starting acceleration, as well as energy. Which the rocket then spends on flying by inertia after the engine is turned off. The higher the initial impulse, the higher the energy and the further the rocket flies or the longer the trajectory section it maintains the ability to intercept a target, including a maneuvering one. The more vigorously the target maneuvers against the missile, the more intense the energy drop occurs in the rocket. The sooner it will run out of steam and go to hell.

[malyvalv]

Over-maneuverability is great. But something I recall the concept of air battles before the war when the faster I-16 were supposed to bind the enemy in battle while the slower but super-maneuverable I-15 will fly up and get rid of the enemy. Not justified. I-15s against faster Messers had even less chances than I-16s. That is, there was no chance at all.
Not to miss again.

[wooja]

a rake reminder is absolutely correct ...

[Setrac]

Quote: malyvalv

I-15s against faster Messers had even less chances than I-16s

Between these machines EMNIP fifteen years of difference.

[malyvalv]

In Spain in 1936, the difference between the I-16 and the Me-109 was not yet so catastrophic. Quite a fight almost on an equal footing. This to 41g Messer became very fast.

[Herman 4223]

Why didn’t it justify, in Spain everything worked perfectly according to this scheme, I16 just managed to become outdated by the beginning of the war, and did not reach the new Messers in terms of speed characteristics.

[malyvalv]

It's about the "super-maneuverable" I-15. He also had problems in Spain.

[Nehist]

I-16 was not much inferior in speed to Emily, maneuverability was higher .... But the set of speed was lower, which was fatal for them

[wooja]

Not a panacea, but the right direction.

[Errr]

There is a solid article on OBT:
http://www.telenir.net/transport_i_aviacija/vzlyot_2005_08_09/p7.php
And for this article, respect to the author.

[Hole puncher]

The author forgot to mention that over-maneuverability in the 70s was really a good tool for BVB which occurred at a range of up to 3-5 km. due to the short range of the melee missiles and their low ability to accompany the target due to the narrow narrow viewing angle of the GOS, after the use of BVB missiles, the battle went over the range of the air guns and there’s someone quicker in turns.
BUT! Times have changed dramatically, instead of Doppler radars, almost all modern cars have acquired radars with AFAR for which changing the speed of the target does not lead to disruption of tracking. BVB moved from distances of 3-5 km. 20-30 km., which was then considered an average range. Melee missiles received all-angle GOS with a wide field of view and with the ability to maneuver at such overloads that a person can not stand them. Therefore, at present, over-maneuverability is not relevant in practice, its destiny is to amuse the public at fairs, as when fencing was necessary, but with the improvement of firearms it turned into fair fun.

[Lozovik]

Quote: Puncher

Times have changed dramatically, instead of Doppler radars, almost all modern cars have acquired radars with AFAR for which changing the speed of the target does not lead to disruption of tracking.

Capture failure occurs due to an increase in the angle of the target or a decrease in the speed of the target below ≈200-250 km / h, as well as at long ranges at near-zero approach speeds.

Quote: Puncher

BVB moved from distances of 3-5 km. 20-30 km., which was then considered an average range.

P-73, AIM-9X or Python are capable of hitting targets at such a range? Wonders.

Quote: Puncher

Melee missiles received all-angle gos

40 years ago, however, little has changed, the pilot always seeks to launch with a minimal aiming error, otherwise nothing.

Quote: Puncher

with the ability to maneuver at such overloads that a person can not stand them.

Why would a person withstand rocket overloads?

Quote: Puncher

Therefore, at present, over-maneuverability is not relevant in practice, its destiny is to amuse the public at fairs, as when fencing was necessary, but with the improvement of firearms it turned into fair fun.

Call Lockheed Martin, say their F-22 shit outdated.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Lozovik

Capture failure occurs

You want to say that radars with AFAR are not capable of tracking targets on the ground including hovering helicopters? Type manufacturers lie in their presentations?

Quote: Lozovik

P-73, AIM-9X or Python are capable of hitting targets at such a range? Wonders.

And don’t talk. I can’t believe it myself, but Vympel damn say such distances for RVV-MD. Lying? And AIM-9X2 is made at 36 km.
Suppose they all lied and really their range is 10+ km. What does it change? Your opponent is 10 km away. spins the fort, it somehow prevents the example of OLS-35 to keep escorted by your opponent?

Auto tracking area +/- 900 in azimuth, - 150 ... + 600 in elevation.

Quote: Lozovik

40 years ago, however, little has changed, the pilot always seeks to launch with a minimal aiming error, otherwise nothing.

40 years ago, pilots did not even dream of electron-optical systems with 360-degree all-round visibility and a detection range of further 30 km. 40 years ago, infrared seeker missiles were seen nearby and capture was carried out at a minimum distance. Now GOS melee missiles are usually multi-range and, for example, AIM-9X can receive initial guidance from radar with subsequent capture of the target of their own GOS. Here is what has changed.

Quote: Lozovik

Why would a person withstand rocket overloads?

To take your plane away from her.

Quote: Lozovik

Call Lockheed Martin, say their F-22 shit is out of date.

I don’t know Marilyn’s phone ...

[Lozovik]

Quote: Puncher

You want to say that radars with AFAR are not capable of tracking targets on the ground including hovering helicopters? Type manufacturers lie in their presentations?

It's about Doppler radar.

Quote: Puncher

And don’t talk. I can’t believe it myself, but Vympel damn say such distances for RVV-MD. Lying?

Do not lie - they are cunning.

Quote: Puncher

And AIM-9X2 is made at 36 km.

The engine from the AIM-9L is not much different, the mass also. Again, let on a ballistic trajectory.

Quote: Puncher

Your opponent is 10 km away. spin the fort

The beginning of the battle is not so.

Quote: Puncher

Does this somehow prevent, for example, the OLS-35 from being kept accompanied by your opponent?

It will go into cloud cover, smoke, will leave the escort zone. Everything has limitations on use.

Quote: Puncher

40 years ago, pilots did not even dream of electron-optical systems with 360-degree all-round visibility and a detection range of further 30 km.

TP-26 or OEPS-27 may not 360 degrees, but see beyond 30 km.

Quote: Puncher

40 years ago, infrared seeker missiles were seen nearby and capture was carried out at a minimum distance.

"Not far" is how much in numerical terms? For example, say, AIM-9L?

Quote: Puncher

Now GOS melee missiles are usually multi-range

How's that?

Quote: Puncher

for example, AIM-9X can receive initial guidance from radar with subsequent capture of the target of its own seeker.

There is little sense in this, the capabilities of the head and the rocket are comparable, except to shoot from the internal compartments.

Quote: Puncher

To take your plane away from her.

Absolutely optional.

[D16]

The beginning of the battle is not so.

If the enemy has an air show with demonstrations at this time, then this is how the battle will begin .

[EvilLion]

Do you even know what a Doppler radar is, why it is used, and how can a modern radar detect the same helicopters? I suggest, Su-35 may well find a helicopter, including specials. search mode for this, but only because the helicopter has a constantly moving source of the reflected signal in the form of a huge rotor.

[voyaka uh]

"as well as at long ranges at near-zero rendezvous speeds" ////
-----
Modern AFAR will not lose its target, even if the fighter crashes like a helicopter (F-35B can do this), and the target is a hovering enemy helicopter.

[D16]

And the PFAR will lose?

[voyaka uh]

PFAR has one radio signal emitter and many receivers. The PFAR transmitter is forced to work in battle at full power of one frequency, while in the AFAR each element can be tuned to its own frequency and receive (after processing by a computer) a "three-dimensional picture" of the object of observation.
Like a radio scan.

[D16]

The frequency of AFAR directly depends on the distance between the APM. That is, in the process of changing the frequency they move?

[tchoni]

Quote: voyaka uh

PFAR has one radio signal emitter and many receivers. The PFAR transmitter is forced to work in battle at full power of one frequency, while in the AFAR each element can be tuned to its own frequency and receive (after processing by a computer) a "three-dimensional picture" of the object of observation.

Not quite right. PFAR transmitter one. But there are a lot of antennas. And the signal from the transmitter to them goes through the phase shifter, which ensures the beam scanning is the same as that of the AFAR. Such a scheme with a single master oscillator is simpler than the AFAR, although it has several disadvantages. For example, it does not allow the simultaneous formation of several scanning beams at different frequencies, etc.

[And Vasya.]

voyaka uh! 3-dimensional - you were not mistaken, maybe 4-dimensional? I wonder what your ICO is! Not radio scanning, but phase control of the radiation pattern - write technically correctly ...

[Herman 4223]

Modern radars also see helicopters due to the Doppler effect, there is a rotation of the propellers on this and they detect it.

[Nehist]

Totally agree with you. Over-maneuverability is like hand-to-hand combat. That is, a very specific type of battle that is practically impossible in relation to aviation in modern realities

[Thrifty]

Thank you for the article, it is good that the author did not make another blunder, "reckoning" Ф35, the aircraft of generation 4 ++ to the fifth generation! !!

[Eug]

At least gives confidence to the pilot when maneuvering in critical modes, significantly expanding their boundaries.

[svp67]

Super-maneuverability of fighters and its advantages

Over-maneuverability is certainly good, but it would also not hinder the possibility of detecting an enemy, how not to forget at a greater distance and be able to hit him at the same distance with high quality and guaranteed

[malyvalv]

Finding an enemy at a great distance is the concern of ground systems and AWACS.
The reasoning that our plane is better because the radar is more powerful does not stand up to criticism. This is how to wage an oncoming night tank battle and claim that we are the enemy’s fence because we have a more powerful searchlight. Like we have a chance to see him before than he does us. With the spotlight on.

[svp67]

Quote: malyvalv

This is how to wage an oncoming night tank battle and claim that we are the enemy’s fence because we have a more powerful searchlight. Like we have a chance to see him before than he does us. With the spotlight on.

You gave a not entirely successful example, for a night battle, modern tanks use night vision devices without illumination, that is, without a searchlight and these devices allow you to see the enemy at a distance of up to 5 km, which greatly increases the chances of surviving in battle. So it is with the plane, but who in general said that it should illuminate targets at a long distance by itself? He is definitely not obliged to do this, but his pilot is simply obliged to have all the information for the maximum detection range, "network-centric war" is already a reality

[malyvalv]

What am I talking about? Network-centricity is provided by ground-based systems.
There were no words about night vision devices. It's about a night battle of tanks with searchlights, which is similar to the battle of fighters with radars on over long distances. Since there are fans here to scream that the adversary’s radar sees 200 km and ours only 100. Although anyone with a more powerful radar doesn’t really matter.

[LAWNER]

Let me add .... Will powerful spotlights in hilly (ravines, riverbeds, mountainous areas) help them. Or is maneuverability still better? Israel is coming from Lebanon. Of course, you can climb higher and light up from above. But this means it will substitute Shot Zushek and MANPADS.

[malyvalv]

Everything is important. And maneuverability and speed and stealth. Ultimately, the right tactics for using one's own advantages will decide.
This is always a problem. Before the war, great bets were placed on the super-maneuverability of the I-15 and I-153 biplanes, which did not materialize. On the other hand, the stealth of the U-2 proved to be extremely effective in night bombing. At the same time, no one had counted on this before the war.
I just wanted to say that the importance of the power of fighter radars and the ability to independently determine targets with their help over long distances (more than 100 km) is currently greatly exaggerated.

[Operator]

Super-maneuverability can only be achieved with the help of UHT, since aerodynamic control surfaces lose their effectiveness at low speeds, which are characteristic of maneuvers with overload 10 g. Currently, only three fighters are equipped with UHF - F-22, Su-35 and Su-57.

Super fighter maneuverability is needed in two cases:
- to gain an advantage in close combat using cannon weapons;
- to avoid air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles.

The latter case is achievable only when fuel is generated by a rocket and its flight by inertia, after which the overload placed by the rocket decreases from 40 to 20 and less than g. As a result, super-maneuverability up to 4 times reduces the distance of effective use of short, medium and long-range missiles, due to which the F-22, Su-35 and Su-57 have a multiple advantage over all other fighters.

In particular, the F-35 for the effective use of the long-range AIM-120D missile against the Su-35 or Su-57 requires approaching them at a distance of at least 45 km, i.e. to get out of the zone of their invisibility by Sushki's radars - it is natural that the Penguin will be guaranteed to be shot down by any Russian medium-range missile while still approaching this line.

[malyvalv]

I wonder how a rocket will change its vector of motion from 20G if it runs out of fuel? It looks somehow incredible.

[Operator]

The area of ​​the rudders (head and / or tail) of the rocket is sufficient for 20 g - until the speed drops below 1 km / s, naturally.

[malyvalv]

Deploying a rudder rocket is not a problem. The problem is to overcome the inertia of the previous trajectory. Without a working engine in any way. Especially when deploying a rocket, braking increases sharply

[Hole puncher]

Quote: malyvalv

I wonder how a rocket will change its vector of motion from 20G if it runs out of fuel? It looks somehow incredible.

On the one hand, this is true, gas-dynamic rudders are useless after fuel production, but the mass and size of the rockets are small, which allows maneuvering using aerodynamic surfaces. With a loss of speed, of course, it will not work for a long time to maneuver.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Operator

Super maneuverability can only be achieved with the help of UVT

Sit down, deuce. It can be provided without UVT, Su-27 as an example to you

[malyvalv]

Not Su -27, but Su -47 Golden Eagle.

[EvilLion]

Su-27 is not super-maneuverable.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Operator

Super fighter maneuverability is needed in two cases:
- to gain an advantage in close combat using cannon weapons;
- to avoid air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles.

There is another third point that I put in first place in importance is
over-maneuverability for working out terrain folds - which allows part of the flight to pass at a very low altitude.
As for the cannons, these are only rare patrol targets. As for "avoiding missiles", it was reasonable before the appearance of missiles with an active seeker, today missiles are more maneuverable (the plane is limited by human physiology) and can track the target themselves. Even if some super plane with a super pilot can get away from 1, 2 of today's missiles (this is possible due to the small viewing angle of the seeker), then from missiles with an active all-perspective GOS and a controlled thrust vector it is not guaranteed to get away with. It is possible to avoid such missiles only by using similar (in terms of functionality) missiles of the RVV-BRD class in anti-missile mode (that is, when they target an enemy missile).

[Herman 4223]

And even a short take-off thanks to uv, the ability to fly at about zero speeds, and aimed bombing with conventional ammunition. Maneuverability is absolutely necessary thing, I don’t understand how you can doubt it.

[Nehist]

Only in the absence of enemy air defense. In the presence of air defense flight at very low altitudes, suicide

[Lozovik]

Quote: Operator

Super-maneuverability can only be achieved with the help of air-blasting devices, since aerodynamic rudders lose their effectiveness at low speeds, typical for maneuvers with an overload of 10 g.

Even near the ground for ny rasp = 9 Vist not less than 650 km / h, and for steady bends - 850 km / h.

[mvg]

None mastered .. About nothing. And "Puncher" wrote the comment correctly.
PS ,: Do not write if he is not in the subject. There are topics that the author copes with. This is not the option. My opinion.

[Grits]

From all that was written, he made one conclusion for himself. Since it is impossible to contain all the positive factors at once in one plane, it is necessary to separate them. Everyone knows that a universal technique will never be better than a specific one. Therefore, you need to have two types of fighters. One is super-maneuverable for close combat. The second is fast and inconspicuous with a powerful radar and long-range missiles. Super maneuverable we have. This is the Su-35S, Su-57. There is an interceptor Mig-31. It remains to replace him to create something inconspicuous with similar characteristics without any fortunes.

[Setrac]

Quote: Gritsa

The second is fast and inconspicuous with a powerful radar and long-range missiles.

We have a MiG-31, of course it is with a decrease in visibility tight, but here, like a rhinoceros, these are problems of others.

[Herman 4223]

Subtle f22,35 is not at all fast, but the Su-57 is quite fast, maneuverable and moderately subtle.

[Avior]

Ф22- Maximum speed: 2410 km / h
nitsche not fast ....

[Herman 4223]

This is the maximum possible speed, but in fact it is limited to 2100 km / h, the raptor has s shaped air intakes, there is no wedge to adjust the air flow, and the engines choke at a speed greater than that. The f-35 has a maximum of 1900 km, for the same reason.

[Avior]

this is the maximum horizontal flight speed.

[EvilLion]

Since when did it fly so fast? Theoretically, it can and can, but it has uncontrollable air intakes, and with such around 2000 a limit.

[Avior]

This is a common figure in all known sources.
Do you have this limitation at the IMHO level or is there a link to the actual data?

[Nehist]

Do not believe it, but the MiG-31 is not super-maneuverable aircraft !!! It is just imprisoned for long-range combat, that is, a missile defeat

[Hotwizer]

Maneuverability is good, but as history shows, one cannot do it alone: ​​the I-16 was superior to the Bf-109 in horizontal maneuver, but seriously inferior to it on the verticals (not to mention speed characteristics), which did not allow the enemy to impose their own battle conditions. The main disadvantage of both the Soviet and the Russian military-industrial complex is the low quality of electronics relative to probable opponents. Well, at least they began to replace foreign work with domestic developments, but time is lost, and it is always difficult to catch up.

[Nehist]

The latest I-16 models were not inferior to Messers in speed! We conceded in rate of climb due to the less powerful engine and aircraft structure. And the rest you are right

[vova1973]

Quote: Operator

Super-maneuverability can only be achieved with the help of UHT, since aerodynamic control surfaces lose their effectiveness at low speeds, which are characteristic of maneuvers with overload 10 g. Currently, only three fighters are equipped with UHF - F-22, Su-35 and Su-57.

Super fighter maneuverability is needed in two cases:
- to gain an advantage in close combat using cannon weapons;
- to avoid air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles.

The latter case is achievable only when fuel is generated by a rocket and its flight by inertia, after which the overload placed by the rocket decreases from 40 to 20 and less than g. As a result, super-maneuverability up to 4 times reduces the distance of effective use of short, medium and long-range missiles, due to which the F-22, Su-35 and Su-57 have a multiple advantage over all other fighters.

In particular, the F-35 for the effective use of the long-range AIM-120D missile against the Su-35 or Su-57 requires approaching them at a distance of at least 45 km, i.e. to get out of the zone of their invisibility by Sushki's radars - it is natural that the Penguin will be guaranteed to be shot down by any Russian medium-range missile while still approaching this line.

At what speeds can super-maneuverability be realized? In my opinion 200-300 km / h, but what is the combat speed of the aircraft? If there is a launch of two missiles with a small gap, no plane can escape from them - one cannot evade the second.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: vova1973

At what speeds can super-maneuverability be realized?

Each car is different. Su-35S with suspended missiles and PTB will not be able to realize such abilities. Even dropping the PTB. There are restrictions on overload, speed and flight weight.

[EvilLion]

To convert thrust directly from the engine to a change in trajectory is, as it were, at any speed, good.

[Demagogue]

Quote: Operator

In particular, the F-35 for the effective use of the long-range AIM-120D missile against the Su-35 or Su-57 requires approaching them at a distance of at least 45 km, i.e. to get out of the zone of their invisibility by Sushki's radars - it is natural that the Penguin will be guaranteed to be shot down by any Russian medium-range missile while still approaching this line.

And why exactly 45, not 25, say? Where does the digital come from?
And why would a penguin with a better radar and stealth than the su-35 be shot down earlier? And the penguin also has all kinds of interference.
Miracles on bends.
In fact, beyond 30 km there are few chances to shoot down even a su-30mka. Closer to get close. And there really is a su-35 will see the penguin. There is one problem only. Since the penguin has a lower EPR, this nuance, multiplied by better interference, will give him the opportunity to more effectively evade missiles. That is, you can detect it, launch a rocket, too, but getting into it is more difficult. It is also in the infrared range much less noticeable.
But you can shoot down of course. Just not as easily as you imagine. Stealth still has all sorts of tricky tactics for use in battle, when one is trained by the radar from afar, and the rest flies with the radars turned off from the side and launch rockets from the slaughter distance.
In any case, without an effective missile approach warning system and a serious jamming system on board, it is better not to cling to the stealth.
And the penguin, as it detects a plane with a higher EPR earlier, will be able to choose battle tactics, and not adapt to the enemy. Having a numerical superiority, join the battle or dodge if the balance of forces is unfavorable. This is a huge advantage.

[motorized rifle]

That's right, what's new is well forgotten old. The topic of "supermaneuverability" was very closely discussed back in the late nineties, early 2000s. Moreover, aviation journalists discussed it, as well as combat pilots, test pilots and aerodynamicists. And they came to the conclusion that the use of supermaneuverability DOES NOT GIVE ANY ADVANTAGES IN ANY KIND OF COMBAT!
But since not all readers have the opportunity to understand this issue, I will dare to help them a little.
So, by aerodynamics maneuverability is understood as follows;maneuverability is the ability of an aircraft (LA) to change the velocity vector in magnitude and direction.
Another point in aerodynamics is considered (studied) two components of the movement of the aircraft, namely the movement of the Center of Gravity on the flight path and the movement around the Center of Gravity. In particular, all spatial and flat maneuvers (turns, loops, slides, spirals, etc.), this is the first case. Barrels and other inertial rotations, this is the second case.
At the same time, the aircraft whose energy level is higher or if it can accumulate energy during the battle will have an advantage in maneuverable combat. Without going into details of the concept of Energy and its level, I will say that at the present time, its level depends mainly on the flight speed.
Now let's look at the COBRA maneuver diagram at the beginning of the article. The red line shows the trajectory of the Center of Gravity (or, if someone likes it more, the Center of Mass). From the point of view of maneuverability, a rather weak change in direction, and a fairly strong one in speed (heavy braking).
Those. An aircraft that has been attacked will still be fired at with a cannon or with a rocket, it begins to perform a similar "super-maneuverable" maneuver, the trajectory changes are negligible to disrupt the capture of the seeker or increase the correction for firing from the cannon. At the same time, the speed decreases and thereby improves the conditions for shooting at it. And even if the enemy misses in close combat, no one prevents him from re-attacking the aircraft with a low (after braking) energy level, since the attacker has enough energy for the next attacking maneuver.
It is possible to actually obtain some semblance of super-maneuverability by significantly reducing the radius (and, accordingly, the time) of turns by using a change in the thrust vector to create a normal overload at speeds when the lifting aerodynamic surfaces are not capable of doing this. True, then the thrust vector (total_ must pass near (ideally through) the aircraft's Center of Gravity.

[Shahno]

It doesn't work in combat. But it's nice. It's one thing on a super-maneuverable vehicle, and another on the F-35. You can make a cobra and a bell there. But like this you just shoot back, it's a shame.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: motorized infantryman

But since not all readers have the opportunity to understand this issue, I will dare to help them a little.

Hmm ... sorry, generously, but ... some strange help came out. Or I don’t understand something at all.

Quote: motorized infantryman

And they came to the conclusion that the application of super-maneuverability, NO ADVANTAGES, IN ANY KIND OF BATTLE, DOES NOT GIVE!

Strange, I heard something completely different from the pilots

Quote: motorized infantryman

So, by aerodynamics maneuverability is understood as follows; maneuverability is the ability of an aircraft (LA) to change the velocity vector in magnitude and direction.

Please tell me why you, when discussing super-maneuverability, apply the concept of maneuverability. You know that these are completely different concepts. Or ... is super-maneuverability really so fast for you? It's hard to believe. You make the impression of a knowledgeable person.

Quote: motorized infantryman

At the same time, the aircraft whose energy level is higher or if it can accumulate energy during the battle will have an advantage in maneuverable combat. Without going into details of the concept of Energy and its level, I will say that at the present time, its level depends mainly on the flight speed.

Well, if you consider that for modern aviation, in any case, maneuvering up to 9 the same frontal resistance does not exceed the available thrust, then you are probably right. Is that so? I ask without jokes, I don’t know this myself.

Quote: motorized infantryman

Those. An aircraft that has been attacked will still be fired at with a cannon or with a rocket, starts performing a similar "super-maneuverable" maneuver

And why should he? Indeed, in essence, over-maneuverability is the preservation of stability and controllability at supercritical angles of attack, and this is much wider than Cobra, which, by the large Hamburgian, is nothing more than a circus trick. In fact, an ultramodern aircraft, having found a target outside the limits of the CA issuing sector for its missile weapons, can, without really changing the direction of the flight, turn towards the target and hammer on it from the heart, while an ordinary aircraft will have to turn around for a long time and dreary with overload 9 same, and God forbid that the pilot come to his senses on time, to work out the goal

[motorized rifle]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Please tell me why you, when discussing super-maneuverability, apply the concept of maneuverability. You know that these are completely different concepts. Or ... is super-maneuverability really so fast for you? laughing It's hard to believe. You make the impression of a knowledgeable person.

The problem is in terminology, what is the difference and similarity between maneuverability and supermaneuverability? Perhaps I did not try to explain it very well. I will try again. For example, the flight of a boomerang, its Center of Gravity (Mass) moves along the flight path strictly in accordance with the laws of aerodynamics (the first case mentioned in the previous post) and at the same time the boomerang rotates around its CG, this is the second case. Then the flight along the trajectory is maneuverability, and rotation is supermaneuverability. So it turns out according to you. Now it is probably not difficult to imagine that the term supermaneuverability implies stable (controlled) rotation (in one form or another) around its own CG. Is this term correct?

Well, if you consider that for modern aviation, in any case, maneuvering up to 9 the same frontal resistance does not exceed the available thrust, then you are probably right. Is that so? I ask without jokes, I don’t know this myself.

In modern aviation (in other matters, as before), in order to have a "big" maneuver, of course, you need an appropriate thrust to compensate for the resistance, but now the restrictions are mainly for pilots on maximum overloads, and the engines allow.

And why should he? Indeed, in essence, over-maneuverability is the preservation of stability and controllability at supercritical angles of attack, and this is much wider than Cobra, which, by the large Hamburgian, is nothing more than a circus trick. In fact, an ultramodern aircraft, having found a target outside the limits of the CA issuing sector for its missile weapons, can, without really changing the direction of the flight, turn towards the target and hammer on it from the heart, while an ordinary aircraft will have to turn around for a long time and dreary with overload 9 same, and God forbid that the pilot come to his senses on time, to work out the goal

No, it won’t work out. Firstly, if the defender is able to turn around (like a boomerang) towards the attacker, he will not be able to fix his plane in this position for the time necessary to capture the GOS of his missiles or aim from the guns. For the rotation of his aircraft will have some angular velocity which will be continuous. To carry out aiming in this way, it is necessary that the plane can fly along a helicopter, i.e. tail or side forward, as the trajectory of the DH will not change instantly Aircraft-type aircraft (except for VTOL aircraft and even then, in flight mode on traction, not on wings) are not capable of this. Here in helicopters, the coaxial circuit is quite.
Secondly, why do YOU ​​think that only the attacker will fight the overload by turning on the "super-maneuverable" aircraft? It is clear that the higher the difference in speeds, the greater the overload needs to be developed, but if the magnitude of this overload depends on many factors and on speed as well, then the angular rotations in the form of barrels or such super-maneuverable figures also give not a small overload. Here, for example, from the PRESENT aerodynamics textbook, when performing Nesterov's loop on a training aircraft, the overload can reach 4g, and when performing a triple corkscrew barrel, it can exceed 6g (on the same aircraft).

[Demagogue]

Here you are talking about super-maneuverability and somehow completely forget that the same f-35 and f-22 have cruising supersonic. And the su-57 will. And this significantly increases the mobility of such aircraft on the battlefield. They can arrive on the battlefield faster and with more fuel. That is, and stay in the air longer. An important factor. That is, the 5th generation airplane has the same advantage over the same Su-35.

[Yuriy_999]

f-35 no cruising supersonic

[region58]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

it's much wider than Cobra

[Dooplet11]

100500 + !!!
It is a pity that many who discuss "super-maneuverability" do not understand the meaning of maneuverability as applied to an aircraft. And they fall into heresy, confusing maneuverability and turning ability.

[Operator]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

a super airplane ... from missiles with an active all-view homing and thrust vectoring control is guaranteed to fail

Before the rocket engine runs out of fuel (at the first quarter of the maximum flight distance), after the fuel has been used up, the aircraft with the UVT moves away from the rocket by means of a sharp climb and a turn with a turning radius close to zero - a rocket flying by inertia will not be able to repeat such a maneuver.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Operator

a rocket flying by inertia cannot repeat such a maneuver

You offer an option with launch at Max range, such as 20 km. Sidewinder. But there are a few but.
1. For a timely maneuver on a collision course, it is necessary ... to detect the fact of rocket launch. For the OLS-35, this is a rather difficult task.
2. A machine with an air-blast gear is forced to lose speed and lose sight of the enemy, thereby allowing the enemy to reduce the distance by making a second missile launch that will go unnoticed by the attacker.
The loss of speed in modern combat is deadly.

[Operator]

1. The AIM-120 rocket intercepts the Su-35 radar at a distance of 180 km from the radiation of an aircraft radar, which directs a missile at a target, and an aircraft radio transmitter that sends a target indication to the missile until the target is captured by the missile’s CGTH (30 or less than km). After that, the rocket is tracked by the radiation of the CWSH
The AIM-9 rocket is detected by the Su-35 OLS by torch of the engine at a distance of 18 km.

2. The F-35 and Su-35 will approach each other under conditions of oncoming missile launches, with the AIM-120D having to be used from a distance of 45 km or less (until the missile's fuel runs out, otherwise the Su-35 will escape the attack due to its super-maneuverability), while the Su-35 will radar-detect the Penguin at a range of 90 km and use the RVV-BD with a range of 300 km. Even after the fuel runs out at a distance of 75 km, the overload capacity of the RVV-BD will be sufficient to destroy the F-35, which does not have super-maneuverability. Therefore, for the Penguin to continue approaching the Su-35 at a distance of 45 km is tantamount to suicide.

[Avior]

1. The AIM-120 missile is detected by the Su-35 radar at a distance of 180 km from the radiation of an aircraft radar pointing a missile at a target

and how does su-35 determine from this radiation that a missile is aimed at a target?

An aircraft radio transmitter transmitting target designation to a missile until the target is captured by the missile homing system

and how does he determine this radiation? Which, moreover, may not exist if the guidance is inertial.

The rapprochement of the F-35 and Su-35 is carried out in the conditions of oncoming launches

Why's that? If an F-35 pilot finds out about the Su-35 before, why would he rub it on his forehead?

[Operator]

Quote: Avior

and how does su-35 determine from this radiation that a missile is aimed at a target?
and how does he determine this radiation?
Which, moreover, may not be, if the guidance is inertial.
If the F-35 pilot finds out earlier about the Su-35, why would he shove him in the forehead?

According to the set of features, the appearance of the F-35 radar flare at the moment of opening the hatch of the internal compartment of the weapons for launching the AIM-120D, the beginning of the operation of the radio command channel AIM-120D.

On the structure of the radio signal.

Inertial guidance on a moving target is impossible by definition.

If the F-35 doesn’t smack into the forehead at the line of the guaranteed defeat of the Su-35 (45 km), it will not fulfill its role as a fighter.

[Avior]

According to the set of features, the appearance of the F-35 radar flare at the moment of opening the hatch of the internal compartment of the weapons for launching the AIM-120D, the beginning of the operation of the radio command channel AIM-120D.

AIM-120D has inertial guidance in the middle section, not radicommand.
and radio correction is only possible, but not required.
and how is he

the beginning of the radio command guidance channel AIM-120D.

On the structure of the radio signal.

and how will the enemy determine this? will this electronic intelligence aircraft be?

The F-35 flare still needs to be detected, what is the scanning time for the radar there, and determine what exactly the launch of the rocket was.
or two.

Inertial guidance on a moving target is impossible by definition.

easy if the target does not change course and speed.

If the F-35 doesn’t smack into the forehead at the line of the guaranteed defeat of the Su-35 (45 km), it will not fulfill its role as a fighter.

why's that? As soon as the F-35 determines the enemy, he will go sideways, let him in and attack not on the forehead, but on the side or behind.

[Operator]

Quote: vova1973

At what speeds can maneuverability be realized? In my opinion 200-300 km / h

600-700 km / h, speed is reset using climb.

[bone1]

Since the late 60s, aviation designers have found themselves in a psychological impasse (before that it was traditionally the higher the speed, the better the plane) - I want new aircraft, but what to do is not clear - the last decades have come up with a new "super maneuverability" feature - missiles can fly with overloads tens of times more than those that the plane can withstand (not to mention the pilot) - who needs your super-maneuverability?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Bone1

the last decades have come up with a new feature "super maneuverability" - missiles can fly with overloads ten times greater than those that the plane can withstand (not to mention the pilot) - who needs your super maneuverability?

Kostya, study at your leisure what super-maneuverability is. When you figure out that it has almost no relation to maneuverability, you may understand what kind of nonsense you have just written.

[bone1]

How thoughtfully-read, and you yourself will understand, if there is nothing to say, why get out?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Bone1

How deeply-read and understand yourself, if you have nothing to say

And what's the point of explaining to you that super-maneuverability is maintaining stability and controllability at supercritical angles of attack? Do you know something about these corners? And me - do you need to read lectures here? Good advice was given to you, and then your business

[Dooplet11]

over-maneuverability is maintaining stability and manageability at supercritical angles of attack?

- this is not super maneuverability, this is supercontrollability. There is a substitution of concepts.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Dooplet11

it is not super-maneuverability, it is super-directivity. There is a substitution of concepts.

Alexander, well read EVERYTHING WISHED

"Super-maneuverability is the ability of some aircraft to maintain stability and controllability at supercritical angles of attack with high G-forces, which ensures the safety of combat maneuvering, as well as the ability of the aircraft to change its position relative to the flow, which allows aiming weapons at a target outside the current trajectory vector."

[Dooplet11]

Wiki is, of course, an authoritative source. But if, without "at least", and without Wiki, where "by definition" does maneuverability turn into super-maneuverability? From the point of view of air combat, and not the ability to "turn the nose"?

[Dooplet11]

"It should be noted that the term" super maneuverability "was introduced in the West in the second half of the 80s. and had a very arbitrary interpretation, which comes down mainly to the aircraft's ability to maintain stability and controllability at supercritical angles of attack. "
this is from here: http://alexandrov-jets.ru/blog-dnevnik-stati/sverhmanevrennost-sredstvo-pobezhdat/

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Dooplet11

and had a very arbitrary interpretation, reduced mainly to the ability of the aircraft to maintain stability and control at supercritical angles of attack."

Could not read themselves? :)))) This time. And secondly, regardless of what was said in 80-x there is the current understanding of the term, and when they say that this plane has super-maneuverability, but this one is not, it means controllability at supercritical corners.

Quote: Dooplet11

where "by definition" maneuverability turns into super-maneuverability? From the point of view of air combat, and not the ability to "turn the nose"?

Nowhere. Maneuverability - a change in the aircraft in space. Let us imagine an airplane as a point in the XYZ coordinate system (height, width, length) —that is, its movement in this system characterizes maneuverability. And super-maneuverability is precisely the change in the position of the aircraft relative to its trajectory.

[Dooplet11]

Couldn't you read?

- well why ... I fully appreciated that "super-maneuverability" in the arbitrary interpretation of the layman is nothing more than the ability to turn at supercritical angles of attack. It relates to agility as part of a whole.

Nowhere. Maneuverability is the change in an airplane in space. Imagine a plane in the form of a point in the coordinate system XYZ (height, width, length) - this is its movement in this system that characterizes maneuverability. And super maneuverability is precisely a change in the position of the aircraft relative to its trajectory.

This is a crooked translation of the Western term, called in the domestic special literature "turniness".

[Dooplet11]

From here:
http://www.plam.ru/transportavi/istorija_aviacii_2001_04/p9.php
It reads:
"In order to confirm or deny this, let us ask ourselves the question: what types of maneuvers against medium-range missiles are used in aerial combat? Two types are known from tactical instructions and combat experience:

- maneuvers aimed at “withdrawing” the area of ​​possible launches from a rocket and reducing its flight range due to energy consumption;

- maneuvers aimed at increasing the probability of missed missiles.

Both types of maneuvers involve an intensive change in the angular position of the aircraft in space with the simultaneous use of significant angular velocities and a significant curvature of the trajectory when this position is changed. However, as was shown, neither the cobra nor the hook significantly alter the spatial position of the aircraft, since when performing these maneuvers, only a high angular velocity of rotation of the fighter relative to the center of mass is achieved, and by no means a turn of the trajectory. A rotation relative to the center of mass does not directly lead to a change in the spatial position of the aircraft and the missile seeker is not perceived as moving the target, and therefore does not lead to an increase in the angular velocity of rotation of the coordinator of the seeker and, consequently, to an increase in expendable overload, not to mention disruption capture. Moreover, “freezing” in a “cobra” type maneuver means the absence of maneuverable counteraction to the guidance of the SD and increases the likelihood of defeat, which means that they give absolutely nothing in anti-ballistic maneuvers.

Considering the fact that the AIM-120 guided missile, which implements multi-channel guidance and the “let-forget” principle, is currently the “long arm” for medium-range combat in American-made fighters, one can almost certainly assume that when organizing maneuverable counteraction to this long-range and very maneuverable (for its class) SD our fighters are unlikely to be helped by “cobras” and “somersaults”.

Indeed, the Su-27 performing this maneuver has too little angular movement over a sufficiently long period of time. Let us remind you that it takes no more than 6 seconds to complete the "cobra" or "hook". When it is executed, the average speed of the Su-27 is only 365 km / h (which corresponds to M = 0,3 or slightly more than 100 m / s), i.e., in fact, it does not exceed the minimum evolutionary speed, and this even theoretically will not allow our fighter significantly change the spatial position, thereby forcing the enemy missile to spend energy and thus reduce its flight range or increase the guidance error. Note that the American missile launcher in the final section of the trajectory, after the engine stops working, in the worst case (with a continuous climb from the moment of launch) will rush at a speed corresponding to M = 0,75-0,8 (at which controlled flight is still possible ). Of course, there is an insignificant possibility that under these conditions the "American", who is on her last legs, will not have enough "energy" and she will not reach our car, which is hovering in this pirouette, but this is clearly not worth counting on. Thus, it is quite clear that in missile combat at medium distances, "cobras" and "hooks" not only add nothing to the arsenal of the fighter's defenses, but are even harmful. "

[Dooplet11]

Continued 1:
"The main property that determines the ability to win in close combat is maneuverability, that is, the ability of the aircraft to change the velocity vector in magnitude and direction over time. The faster the aircraft is able to change its speed in magnitude and direction, the higher the maneuverability. Main characteristics of maneuverability. aircraft are accelerating characteristics, braking characteristics and turn time, or, which is basically the same, the angular rate of turn, which is inversely proportional to time. It is the latter that determines the ability to take a tactically advantageous position in close combat. For modern fighters, the maximum angular velocity of a steady turn ( without loss of speed, if the turn is performed in the horizontal plane) is achieved at M = 0,8-0,9 at all altitudes.It is at these speeds that you should engage in close air combat.Steady turns are performed with overloads, which are called thrust limit ( ny before). In this case, the drag is completely compensated for by the thrust. Unsteady maneuvers are performed with overloads close to available (ny ras), i.e., those that can be created at a given altitude and speed and they are limited either by aircraft strength (nuemax), or by the physiological capabilities of the pilot, or by the permissible angle of attack ( adop), i.e., by stalling. Their execution is accompanied, as a rule, with an intense drop in speed, so the number of such maneuvers performed in a row is limited to two or three. The speeds at which the maximum angular speed of such turns is realized corresponds to the number М = 0,55-0,65. For example, the maximum angular velocity of a steady turn in the horizontal plane for an F-15 fighter at an altitude of 3000 m is 16 ° / s (ny pre = 7,5) In this case, the time for a full turn is 22 s. The highest angular velocity of unsteady (forced) turn is achieved at low altitudes at a speed of 680-700 km / h and is 25 ° / s (nuemax = 8,5), but the time for a 360 ° turn for such a maneuver, as a rule, is not even considered , since long-term braking is fraught with stalling.

For fighters with a thrust-to-weight ratio of about one or more, there is an area corresponding to low altitudes and numbers 0,85 <M <0,99, where the value of ny before exceeds the maximum operational overload. For example, at an altitude of 1000 m, the maximum value of ny in front of the F-15 fighter is achieved at M = 0,98 and is 11 units, with Puemax = 8,5. In the specified range of heights and speeds, the implementation of steady turns (and turns with a loss of speed) is possible only with throttling of the power plant (up to "idle").

So, the range of speeds to which it is advisable to strive to obtain the greatest maneuverability, as the theory and practice of air battles in local wars shows, corresponds to the range of 0,6 <M <1,0. There are significant restrictions on height. In particular, the upper limit exists because of the danger of losing eye contact with the enemy due to the large turning radii. It is believed that the longest range of stable visual observation of a maneuvering target is about 3,5 km. Therefore, the upper boundary of the main area of ​​maneuvering is the altitude at which fighter planes are able to perform turns without losing speed with a radius of 1800 m.If the battle is transferred to high altitudes, the opponents, finding themselves on opposite sides of the maneuver, will lose eye contact and the battle will not take place. This conclusion is confirmed by the experience of Vietnam and the Middle East, where most of the battles were fought at altitudes from extremely low to 9500 m. "

[Dooplet11]

Continued2:
"As an offensive maneuver" cobra ", as we have seen, it is not only ineffective, but most likely, even impossible, but it may be suitable as a defensive one ....
... Thus, the implementation of the "cobra", when the enemy is in the rear hemisphere at a distance of more than 1000 m, will not lead to the failure of aiming and guidance of the issued SD ...
... Thus, it becomes obvious that at the present time, the removal of restrictions on the used angle of attack does not yet give any advantages to a fighter in close maneuvering combat, but, on the contrary, may lead to a decrease in its effectiveness. Even reaching the admissible angle of attack is far from always advisable, not to mention the angles of attack that are 3-4 times larger. In addition, dynamic conclusions at large supercritical angles of attack are maneuvers of increased complexity and danger. It is quite possible that attempts to use such maneuvers in a combat situation characterized by significant psychophysical loads on the flight crew, which already cause errors in piloting and the use of weapons, will almost inevitably lead to a significant increase in accidents with the death of personnel and the loss of military equipment. "

[Dooplet11]

Continued3:
“Pokryshkin's formula can be written in the form“ energy-maneuver-fire. ”This is the“ energy ”approach to building combat maneuvers of a fighter, which consists in accumulating and wisely spending energy in air combat to take a tactically advantageous position. strange desire of some specialists to use "super maneuverability" modes in air battles, which so far can be realized only at low speeds and altitudes, i.e., deliberately lowering the fighter's energy and, in the end, its "reset" to almost zero when performing a maneuver from access to supercritical modes. "

[DimerVladimer]

Quote: Dooplet11

Both types of maneuvers involve an intensive change in the angular position of the aircraft in space with the simultaneous use of significant angular velocities and a significant curvature of the trajectory when this position is changed. However, as was shown, neither the cobra nor the hook significantly alter the spatial position of the aircraft, since when performing these maneuvers, only a high angular velocity of rotation of the fighter relative to the center of mass is achieved, and by no means a turn of the trajectory. A rotation relative to the center of mass does not directly lead to a change in the spatial position of the aircraft and the missile seeker is not perceived as moving the target, and therefore does not lead to an increase in the angular velocity of rotation of the coordinator of the seeker and, consequently, to an increase in expendable overload, not to mention disruption capture. Moreover, “freezing” in a “cobra” type maneuver means the absence of maneuverable counteraction to the guidance of the SD and increases the likelihood of defeat, which means that they give absolutely nothing in anti-ballistic maneuvers.

Absolutely true - over-maneuverability has nothing to do with the possibility of disrupting a missile attack, or anti-missile maneuvers.
Methods of disrupting a missile attack - the main one is to either exit the missile's range or change the velocity vector in the transverse direction (let's say, dive under the attacking missile) - the total approach speed increases, in some conditions the missile does not have enough turning radius.
It is only clear that the speed here is very important and its loss is not permissible - you are absolutely right!

[bone1]

So do not explain, someone asked? -And such good advice, imagine yourself.

[Avior]

why, at some point it was necessary for the BVB, which, whether you like it or not, had to be driven within visual range, 2-5 km, no more, and, therefore, at low speeds, where super-maneuverability had a chance to prove itself.
but the appearance of helmet-mounted target designation systems and missiles with capture after launch greatly depreciated this quality.
the full-spherical ols have devalued even more.

[Saxahorse]

At the household level, for some reason, many believe that over-maneuverability allows the pilot to easily dodge missiles. Particularly stubborn, I would suggest trying to dodge bullets at the forefront. Usually it makes you think. After rockets, the speed is even higher.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Saxahorse

Particularly stubborn, I would suggest trying to dodge bullets at the forefront.

Neo in "The Matrix" demonstrated super-maneuverability dodging bullets ... But this is just a fantastic movie.

[iouris]

Everything has a downside. Super-maneuverability costs money, so any "over" is an excess cost. It is only necessary to invest in technologies that ensure a given combat effectiveness.

[Michael]

Still print. Of money.

[Demagogue]

Quote: Puncher

Quote: Saxahorse

Particularly stubborn, I would suggest trying to dodge bullets at the forefront.

Neo in "The Matrix" demonstrated super-maneuverability dodging bullets ... But this is just a fantastic movie.

The firearm helps against kungfu almost flawlessly))
In general, I can’t understand all this fuss with super maneuverability. If this is to capture the target in sight, then with the advent of helmet-mounted sights it is practically not necessary. If you leave the missiles, then the interference is much more effective. When is the battle to be fought, if you tumble all the time, moving away from missiles? This is not enough health.

[Avior]

and if two of them were launched, you won’t leave at all ...

[Operator]

Quote: Demagogue

Why 45

This is one-quarter of the maximum range of the AIM-120D rocket — the distance at which the rocket engine runs to produce fuel.

[Avior]

behind the times. modern rockets have a dual-mode engine and do not work as you described.
first, the engine accelerates the rocket, and then goes into speed maintenance mode, the rocket does not fly by inertia

[Operator]

Quote: Avior

first, the engine accelerates the rocket, and then goes into cruise control mode

The AIM-120D acceleration mode operates on the first 5 km of the flight distance, the speed-keeping mode - from 5 to 45 km, the remaining 135 km AIM-120D flies by inertia.

[Demagogue]

Quote: Operator

Quote: Demagogue

Why 45

This is one-quarter of the maximum range of the AIM-120D rocket — the distance at which the rocket engine runs to produce fuel.

It’s not relevant how much fuel there is. As soon as the attacking fighter detects the radar irradiation of the attacking machine, it can escape or crush the missile with maneuver or interference. So that he didn’t run away, the distance should be no more than 30 km on the opposite courses. With the new hypersonic missiles, apparently more. But they are not really in service yet. In any case, the greater the distance in battle, the better the interference and the harder it is to shoot down.

[Avior]

As soon as the attacking fighter detects the radar irradiation of the attacking machine, it can escape or crush the missile with maneuver or interference.

it is convenient- radar turned on- the enemies fled.
Why did they even fly in?

[Operator]

Quote: Demagogue

As soon as the attacked fighter's weapon detects the attack of the attacker with a radar, it can escape or suppress the rocket by maneuver or interference. So that he did not run away, the distance should be on the oncoming courses no more than 30 km

In the oncoming engagement of the Su-35 with RVV-BD against the F-35 with the AIM-120D, the range of guaranteed defeat of the Penguin is 75 km, the range of guaranteed defeat of Sushka is 45 km.

[Avior]

from the realm of fiction, however.

[Town Hall]

It's just a troll

[Demagogue]

Quote: Operator

Quote: Demagogue

As soon as the attacked fighter's weapon detects the attack of the attacker with a radar, it can escape or suppress the rocket by maneuver or interference. So that he did not run away, the distance should be on the oncoming courses no more than 30 km

In the oncoming engagement of the Su-35 with RVV-BD against the F-35 with the AIM-120D, the range of guaranteed defeat of the Penguin is 75 km, the range of guaranteed defeat of Sushka is 45 km.

By whom is it guaranteed, defeat? Is that a government loan bond? There, the packs also believed in the Uberwaffe of white people, but they did not bring down the drying with the Amraham. Faith was not strong enough and sincere, probably, well, they sinned a lot. You just count how much the Amraham can catch the target that leaves the afterburner. There is even simple arithmetic.
Aim-120c of the same packs loses speed up to 1 km / h after 500 km. That is, if the rocket did not hit anyone before this moment, then the fighter leaving the afterburner will not catch up. It flies for 65 km in 65 seconds. Imagine that f-86 spotted a su-16mki for 30 km on a collision course. U-turn and sneaker on the floor to say 30 mph. Rocket launch. Taking into account the bend, drying in 2 seconds will be approximately 000 km at a speed of 85 km / h. I did not take into account the acceleration time to 70, but the fighter has a time reserve. Yes, there are all sorts of aim-2000d and meteors, but here it’s as if all one is guaranteed not to shoot down from 2000 km, because we have not yet discussed the interference factor. And in our time they exist and very high quality. From this distance I do not want the wilderness.
Moreover, the situation is fictitious, because the attacking aircraft will begin to irradiate the target well in advance, long before approaching 30, 45, etc. km. That is, the warned target can evade much earlier.

[Avior]

Aim-120c of the same packs loses speed up to 1 km / h after 500 km.

can you give a reference to this?
very much the speed is lost with you.

[Nehist]

You are considering a hypothetical duel. Unfortunately, dueling in aviation is becoming less and less common. Work out the work of the link and you will realize that those who discover earlier have a huge advantage

[Avior]

Maneuverability is, of course, a useful thing, but its importance, as well as the relatively recently developed super-maneuverability, have largely lost their significance with the advent of new missiles, including full-spherical launch with target acquisition after launch, dual-mode engines, helmet-mounted target designation systems, and advanced optical-location systems, including those with indication on the helmet shield.
Why do we need over-maneuverability with limited capabilities to deflect the nose of the plane from the direction of the velocity vector in dynamics, if it is enough for the pilot to turn his head and aim?
It was extremely important for a pilot in the 80s of the last century to point the nose of the plane at the enemy in order to aim, now it is not necessary to make turns for this, it is enough to turn your head and aim.
And a modern full-spherical OLS will allow close combat beyond visual range, that is, at higher speeds, at which all super-maneuverability will lose its meaning.

[motorized rifle]

Yes and no. Over-maneuverability is really unnecessary and even dangerous, subsequent loss of speed. For an attacker, whether it is an UR or a fighter with a gun, this is only to hand, they wrote above that the missile works normally even on a hovering helicopter. But here is the reasoning:

And a modern full-sphere ols will allow melee combat beyond visual visibility, that is, at higher speeds at which all super-maneuverability will lose its meaning.

considering it is likely that the maneuverability has gone trailer to super maneuverability, it seems to me not true. The fact is that from what distance do not fire the missile, it must go to the distance of effective detonation of its warhead in order to defeat it. Those. how to engage in close combat with a target, for which, having approached along one or another attack curve, if not hit, then fly near the target in the area of ​​action of your warhead. And now, as Admiral Nelson said: "Let's count." We will count approximately, but this will be enough for a general understanding.
So, let's assume that the missile has an available overload (as written above) of 40g and a speed of 600 m/s (figures out of thin air), let the attacked fighter have a speed of 300 m/s. The missile has fuel, i.e. its flight is not inertial and it can maintain the maximum overload. Naturally, the missile needs to create sufficient angular velocity to turn towards the target, otherwise it will not fit into the target's trajectory. Let's see what its capabilities are. With the given overload and speed of the missile, the available maximum angular velocity is 0,66 rad/s (about 38 degrees/s). It is calculated simply, according to one of the methods: Maximum acceleration (40gx9.81) is divided by the linear velocity of the missile and we get the maximum available angular velocity of the missile. 40gx9,81:600=0.66 rad/s. To hit the target, it must be greater or at least the same as the target. The target, unlike the missile, has a limit on the maximum overload that the pilot can withstand, let it be 5g. Since the pilot can withstand such an overload for quite a long time, unlike 9g, then the pilot's tactics will consist of gradually creating (as they get closer) the same angular velocity of the turn, i.e. 0,66 rad / s and maintaining the course angle relative to the latter at 90 degrees. Will the pilot be able to create such an angular velocity? Yes, with an overload of 4,5g, a turning radius of 450 m and a flight speed of 300 m / s. The pilot's task is to force the missile to reach the maximum overload so that it is not enough for the final turn to the target. Now let's look at the limit values ​​​​of the missile. The required angular velocity of the turn to the target is equal to the target velocity multiplied by the sine of the course angle (sine of 90 degrees = 1) and divided by the distance to the target. Simply put, you need to calculate at what distance from the target the missile will no longer have enough angular velocity (and, accordingly, overload) to turn. To do this, divide the target velocity by the maximum angular velocity of the missile 300: 0.66 = 455 m. That is, having approached the target closer than 455 m, the missile can no longer turn to it, there will not be enough angular velocity, even if the pilot then flies in a straight line. As you can see, even in this approximate example, maneuverability (ordinary) is too early to be discounted. Of course, you need to determine in time that the missile has been launched, determine its spatial position relative to the attacked aircraft, but there is a chance, even without electronic warfare.
Used literature:
V.A. Bulinsky. Dynamics of maneuvering a fighter aircraft in aerial combat.
V.N. Mednikov Maneuvering in a fighter.

[Avior]

Figures are a crafty thing.

creating (as it approaches) the same angular velocity of rotation, i.e. 0,66rad \ s and maintaining the course angle with respect to the latter in 90 degrees. Can a pilot create such an angular speed?

according to your formulas
4,5gx9,81: 300 = 0.15rad \ s
- can not.

the tactics of the pilot will consist in the gradual creation (as they approach) of the same angular speed of rotation, i.e. 0,66rad \ s and maintaining the course angle with respect to the latter in 90 degrees.

and how will he maintain an angle of 90 degrees if he knows neither the direction, nor the distance to the rocket?
not to mention the fact that you can forget about the speed of 300 m / s - in order to try to maintain an angle of 90 degrees, the linear speed cannot be a constant value, and the rocket will turn over all the time.
and create such conditions for the moment

300: 0.66 = 455m. Those. approaching the target closer than 455m, the rocket can no longer turn on it

completely unrealistic - 455 m is approximately 0,6 seconds for a rocket.
It’s definitely easier to dodge bullets at the front line, their speed will be similar.

[motorized rifle]

[quote] Figures are a crafty thing. [/ quote]
[quote] according to your own formulas
4,5gx9,81: 300 = 0.15rad \ s
- will not be able. [/ quote
I agree, there’s nothing to do with the numbers, my carelessness, I calculated the target angular velocity according to the formula w = V: r since I needed a maneuver radius, everything is correct here (300: 455 = 0,66), but how did overload work with such parameters in 4,5g, I can’t imagine! I didn’t bother to check. And the overload will be 300x0,66: 9,81 = 20g! More than extraordinary for the pilot. My cant, I admit.

[motorized rifle]

Well, in fairness, having said "A", I must say "B". In the given hypothetical example, the UR outperforms the aircraft in angular velocity three times, taking into account the overload restrictions for the latter. This radically changes the picture, indeed, maneuverability and even more super-maneuverability look pale, but unmanned fighters, of which they are talking so much now, already have good chances of evading.

[Operator]

Quote: Demagogue

Who is guaranteed by defeat?

TTX missiles, certainly.

[Mooh]

The second decent article from Cyril in one day. I am in shock. It is also striking that a significant part of those commenting on the article either did not read, or did not understand at all.

[Petrovvich]

The article is interesting and relevant, but the angles of attack of 180 and slip of 90 smiled.

[Demagogue]

Quote: Avior

Aim-120c of the same packs loses speed up to 1 km / h after 500 km.

can you give a reference to this?
very much the speed is lost with you.

It is not surprising that the amraham workshop today is rather average than distant. And it depends on the generation, 5 or 7. And very much on the height.

In speed I took from http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2018/10/aim-120c-study-using-missile-sim-part-1.html?m=1

But similar figures were laid out by the Indians, apparently the truth is somewhere nearby)

[Avior]

honestly, it does not seem like something realistic.
1. Aerodynamics of a rocket - actually taken from the ceiling.
2. Data - two bast shoes on the map.
look at the diagram of the dependence of speed on distance. 50 km of distance - either 1M, or 3.5M.
There is no real data on engine operation. The author is an artist, he sees it that way.
3. The difference in rocket versions, including the engine, is not taken into account. And on the engine, they are noticeably different.
4. accounting for the second engine mode, did not see.
for exercises for the mind will fit, but as a reality, the question.

[Demagogue]

Quote: Operator

Quote: Demagogue

Who is guaranteed by defeat?

TTX missiles, certainly.

https://ibb.co/4Yjrx6L
At what height only?

[Demagogue]

Quote: Operator

Quote: Demagogue

Who is guaranteed by defeat?

TTX missiles, certainly.

[Operator]

What goals for AIM-120C are meant on your chart - IL-76?

[Demagogue]

Quote: Avior

honestly, it does not seem like something realistic.
1. Aerodynamics of a rocket - actually taken from the ceiling.
2. Data - two bast shoes on the map.
look at the diagram of the dependence of speed on distance. 50 km of distance - either 1M, or 3.5M.
There is no real data on engine operation. The author is an artist, he sees it that way.
3. The difference in rocket versions, including the engine, is not taken into account. And on the engine, they are noticeably different.
4. accounting for the second engine mode, did not see.
for exercises for the mind will fit, but as a reality, the question.

This is all clear, but the picture is roughly reflected. I found close data from the Swedes. The table below them to some extent confirms.
On the whole, according to Amraam, all indicate a sharp drop in speed as a drawback, which was eliminated on the Meteor. This is a much more serious animal, and when hypersonic missiles are finished, then the range of application will grow even more significantly.

[Avior]

In general, for Amraam, everyone indicates a sharp drop in speed as a drawback

This factor alone does not make a rocket useless even at long range.
no matter what they wrote above, until its seeker starts working, the probability of its detection is not very high, so you can expect that the target will not maneuver until then.
but what will happen after that is the question.
when maneuvering the aircraft, speed is lost, but the pilot does not know how far it was launched and whether it is possible to try to turn around or rely on interference and so on.
The meteor, of course, is much more serious in this matter with its combined engine, here you are right.

[Alexey Vasilievich I]

"what has been eliminated on Meteora. This is a much more serious animal."
This problem was fixed, but another arose. As far as I understand, Meteor has big restrictions on its own overload due to a ramjet engine. The "classic" RVVs are better than Meteor in terms of maneuverability and their own overloads.

[Operator]

The available overload of the Meteor before running out of fuel is 24 g (compared to 40 g for the AIM-120D).

[Dooplet11]

A ballet dancer has "super maneuverability" compared to a boxer. How it turns, scoundrel! But this is unlikely to help unscrew from the boxer's fist ...

[Demagogue]

Quote: Avior

In general, for Amraam, everyone indicates a sharp drop in speed as a drawback

This factor alone does not make a rocket useless even at long range.
no matter what they wrote above, until its seeker starts working, the probability of its detection is not very high, so you can expect that the target will not maneuver until then.
but what will happen after that is the question.
when maneuvering the aircraft, speed is lost, but the pilot does not know how far it was launched and whether it is possible to try to turn around or rely on interference and so on.
The meteor, of course, is much more serious in this matter with its combined engine, here you are right.

Here, too, is its weakness - while it flies on inertial, it relies on the datalink from the aircraft, but if the aircraft loses its target in combat, then there will be no one to update the information. And in combat, a lot can happen in 90 seconds, while the missile flies 65 km. Perhaps the aircraft that launched it will have to quickly leave the battlefield. Then, as the aircraft move away from each other, it is much easier to jam the radar of the aircraft that launched the missile, that is, the data on the datalink to the missile will be incorrect or will not go at all.

[Demagogue]

Quote: Nehist

You are considering a hypothetical duel. Unfortunately, dueling in aviation is becoming less and less common. Work out the work of the link and you will realize that those who discover earlier have a huge advantage

And no one denied this. The question was discussed at what real ranges modern aircraft can be shot down. In particular, amraham rockets.

[Zoer]

It's funny Following the logic of adherents of range and futility beyond maneuverability, the best fighter is AWACS with 20 AIM-152 AAAM under the wing))))))

[Demagogue]

Quote: Alexey Vasilyevich I

"what has been eliminated on Meteora. This is a much more serious animal."
This problem was fixed, but another arose. As far as I understand, Meteor has big restrictions on its own overload due to a ramjet engine. The "classic" RVVs are better than Meteor in terms of maneuverability and their own overloads.

VV missiles are apparently a dead end in general. In Syria, an American who shot down an unfortunate drying antique Syrian with an Amraham flew up to her from behind, all the time. As it follows from the table that I posted above. There was no launch for 100 km. And Amraam stands mother do not worry - 500-2 M flickered. Until they develop lasers, they will try to squeeze something out of the rockets. And as before, everything will be decided in close combat. The Americans in front of Vietnam believed that guns on fighters were not needed, their time had gone, and again hello in the end. Only breakthrough technology can make a difference.

[tchoni]

The article is terrible. For it can all be reduced to this paragraph.

Concept benefits

Super-maneuverability is useful, first of all, in close combat. The angular velocity of a passing target may be high, which places special demands on the maneuverability of an attacking aircraft. He must have time to turn on the target to perform a successful attack. Similarly, the situation is with the defense: a more maneuverable aircraft will be able to "twist" the enemy and get out of the blow, including the transition to a counterattack.


Maneuver "Cobra" - a variant of the use of super-maneuverability. Figure Wikimedia Commons


In long-range missile combat, super-maneuverability can be used to increase the effectiveness of an anti-missile maneuver. In addition, in various conditions, some typical aerobatic maneuvers can be used to counter enemy radar systems. In particular, the figures "cobra" and "bell", providing for a sharp drop in speed, can interfere with the operation of Doppler radar.

Thus, careful study and proper use of the capabilities of the aircraft should have a positive impact on its fighting qualities. In some situations, a fighter with super-maneuverability will have advantages over the machine without such capabilities, although the real effect of it depends on a number of factors.

At the same time, in this paragraph the thesis is PRESENTED, without any evidence, that over-maneuverability rules. And that’s all. The rest is water. Conversations about aerodynamics and examples of the concept. Topic Title

Super-maneuverability of fighters and its advantages

absolutely not disclosed.

[Operator]

Quote: Avior

easy if the goal doesn't change course and speed

How do you imagine it: the Su-35 recorded the Penguin's radar beam, on the Su-35's radar screen, out of nothing, the Penguin's illumination with an open hatch of the armament compartment appears, the Su-35 detects the specific radiation of the AIM-120D radio command guidance channel - and when this Su-35 maintains its course and speed (like it seemed)

[Flurry]

“The presence of a knife in the equipment of a modern infantryman is useless and even dangerous - it gives a false sense of advantage over an enemy who does not have a knife, and generally costs additional money and reduces the weight of the ammunition we carry. gives undeniable tactical advantages in oncoming infantry combat ";))

[Operator]

Quote: Lozovik

for steady turns - 850 km / h

With UHT, the steady-state rotational speed in 1,5 - 2 is less.

[Flurry]

Quote: Zoer

It's funny Following the logic of adherents of range and futility beyond maneuverability, the best fighter is AWACS with 20 AIM-152 AAAM under the wing))))))

Not a AWACS, but a MiG 31 with a radar pumped by the area and power of the canvas, more than one fighter can not be compared. And supersonic fly-away, not a single AAM will catch up! And bunches of different-range long-range missiles under the belly and wings ... And yet, yes, nafih gun ... And you all about static stability, the established angular velocity of a turn, who needs it now ?? We saw, shot missiles, and back to tear on the afterburner !!!

[Flurry]

Quote: Operator

Quote: Lozovik
for steady turns - 850 km / h

With UHT, the steady-state rotational speed in 1,5 - 2 is less.

1. A glider with a shock wave system in place is deployed even at zero speed. In the event of a counter attack and miss, the first salvo will need to be turned over to launch after it, and all this after the anti-ballistic maneuver and loss of speed.
2. UVT allows you to fend off any corkscrew, stall, etc., while maintaining controllability.
3. UVT adds pivot speed to all three axes, which is important when moving away from missiles.

[Demagogue]

[quote = Operator] What are the goals for the AIM-120C in your diagram - [quote = Operator] What are the goals for the AIM-120C in your diagram - IL-76? [/ quote]
Goauld bomber "Alkesh"))
A question the answer.

[Demagogue]

Quote: Yuri_999

f-35 no cruising supersonic

It is true that in the literal sense of the word there is none, but it can fly 250 km in 1.2 mach.

[Whisper]

There would be at least one pilot. I think everything would fall into place. And yes, they started a discussion without understanding the practice.

[iouris]

Quote: Sheptun

started a discussion without understanding the practice

Indeed, some of the comments are very sensible. The problem is not "pilot", but engineering.

[MrFox]

When you are discovered and a missile is flying in your direction, you no longer have time for super-maneuverability, and in general there is only one thing left - to survive at any cost.
Watch a video from the middle, an American pilot tries to dodge a rocket

[PilotS37]

Unfortunately, the author missed some very important points regarding both history and the features of the application of super-maneuverability.
1. The article does not say anything about the (at one time) well-known program for studying super-maneuverability, the American AFTI. There, on several aircraft, modified from serial (F-15 and F-16), aerodynamic capabilities were studied to create super-maneuverable fighters. To achieve this, the "triplane" scheme and an additional bow keel were used. Those aircraft could move linearly along all three axes (other aircraft (even with OBT) change direction of flight only by changing their angular position, that is, the angles of pitch, yaw and roll. ).
By the end of the 1980s, the program had come to naught, giving way to the pursuit of stealth.
As far as I know, one of the problems of AFTI-technologies turned out to be a crazy complication of the control system due to the need to automatically parry cross-links when sliding.
2. On Soviet-Russian aircraft, not a full-fledged PGO, which can be used for active pitch control, is installed, but a kind of "destabilizer" deviating according to a rigidly specified program. Actually, the appearance of the PGO on the T-10M pursued the goal of obtaining static instability in the longitudinal channel (the T-10 was originally conceived as unstable, but when switching to the T-10C, only a neutral aircraft was obtained).
3. The effectiveness of the OVT greatly decreases with increasing speed: with M numbers of the order of 0,5 ... 0,7, it can no longer compete with purely aerodynamic controls (although, of course, at an angle of attack of 90 degrees, any "poke" help).
4. The overloads arising during the execution of "super-maneuverable" figures are transcendental not only for the pilot, but also for the glider, therefore super-maneuvering is, in principle, possible only at low speeds.
Nevertheless, in the conditions of close air combat (which cannot be avoided), a more maneuverable aircraft will always surpass a less maneuverable one.