A video appeared on the web with the implementation of the Su-57 "flat corkscrew"

A video appeared on the Web published by RT on the conduct of a training flight by a Russian fifth-generation fighter Su-57, during which the pilot performed an aerobatics “corkscrew”.

A short video, only about a minute long, included taking off a fighter, flying with some elements, aerobatics “corkscrew” and landing. By the way, pay attention to the first seconds of the video - there is a feeling that these are not real shots of the Su-57 takeoff, but frames from a computer game. Of course, for such a short period of time it is impossible to enjoy the flight of this beautiful and powerful aircraft, but we hope that soon such flights will become commonplace for us.

A corkscrew is a deadly condition for any aircraft. The plane descends in a steep downward spiral, rotating relative to all 3's axes. It is very difficult to get a lost car out of this state. At the beginning of the 20 century, a corkscrew was the main cause of the death of pilots. It was believed that it was impossible to get out of the tailspin. But on 24 of September 1916 of the year, pilot Konstantin Artseulov, on a Newpor-XXI aircraft at an altitude of 2000 meters, intentionally put the aircraft into a tailspin and left it. The next day, he submitted a report to the authorities of the Sevastopol Aviation School, in which he proposed introducing a corkscrew into the training program.

Comments

[Nevsky_ZU]

They say that over-maneuverability is no longer relevant, and hot multi-angle nozzles are a unmasking factor.
Close combat is not possible, but we are stuck in the old paradigms of Pokryshkin and Kozhedub, etc. Who is right?

[Vladimir16]

Who is talking? Who can't do that?
Those whom we saw in the SU-35 sight?

And how to get away from a rocket for example?
Using a catapult?

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

In the article "Why maneuverability is not the main thing for a fighter. Our days", published on this site on August 27.08.19, XNUMX, as well as in a number of comments to it.

[Shurik70]

Probably, it would be worth asking the opinion of Indian (8 aircraft) and Pakistani (24 aircraft) pilots who encountered in a battle over Kashmir. Specifically participating in the battle pilots commentary on the progress of the battle found little.
But I found a comment on this battle of the Air Force major, master of sports in aerobatics on jet aircraft, pilot-instructor Andrei Krasnoperov:

"no one is immune from close combat when fighting on bends"

[Dooplet11]

In the article "Why maneuverability is not the main thing for a fighter. Our days", published on this site on August 27.08.19, XNUMX, as well as in a number of comments to it.

Can they be trusted "naslovo"?

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

I pointed out the source of the opinion that in modern aerial combat maneuverability - not even over - is not important.
And here "on the word"?

[Dooplet11]

And I ask, is this source the ultimate truth?

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

The question is not at the address. Do you really not understand this? I somehow made it clear to you that I share the point of view of the author of the article? Please indicate at this point.
For truths and instances, ask the author of the article or commentators sharing his opinion.
I hope you do not have to give a link to the article.

[Big Cat]

What a nonsense ...

[novel66]

they write nonsense. when using the entire Reb potential, it is unlikely that long-range and medium-range missiles will be so effective, and the approximation speed is rather small, one horseradish to a dog dump will come down

[rocket757]

Quote: novel xnumx

they write nonsense. when using the entire Reb potential, it is unlikely that long-range and medium-range missiles will be so effective, and the approximation speed is rather small, one horseradish to a dog dump will come down

Ha ha ha
Hello Roman
And who can survive in a dump? "Penguin" disappears immediately, not a tenant. "Raptor" ... it looks like a powerful machine. It remains the F-16, it seems like a melee fighter is not bad ...

[voyaka uh]

"F-16 remains, it seems like a melee fighter is not bad" ///
----
Norwegian pilots use both F-16 and F-35. They argue that in close combat, the F-35 outperforms the F-16 in terms of maneuverability.

[rocket757]

Quote: voyaka uh

Norwegian pilots use

And tell us what it is, Norwegian pilots ??? maybe there are Norwegian ASAs?
In short .... a very revealing example

[novel66]

warrior, well, right word, you're an experienced person ... just by looking at the plane you can understand what he will do and what not ... and the Norwegians still ... who is it ??? well, your pilots would say something like that ... adjusted for the wind, you can take

[voyaka uh]

You're wrong.
The Norwegian Air Force has about 50 F-16 aircraft. They train on them precisely as fighters, and not as drummers. It is considered one of the best air forces in Europe. Training over the sea in the harsh conditions of the North Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean. When the Americans need to conduct serious Air Force exercises in Europe, they choose just the Norwegians as the most trained. They already have 19 F-35 aircraft, and there will be 52.

[novel66]

they don’t touch me with their training !! your fighting on them !!! but they are silent ... and these - let them tryndyat ...

[Ka-52]

voyaka uh (Alexey)
Norwegian pilots use both F-16 and F-35. They argue that in close combat, the F-35 outperforms the F-16 in terms of maneuverability.

Well, if you try to think about something, then the answer will appear) first of all replayed due to the thrust-weight ratio and lower EEC. No wonder.

[vitinka]

Jesli skazut po drugomu, sto F35 huze f 16 viletat iz VVS puļeij. business

[Slon379]

English scientists were disguised as Norwegian pilots.

[Victorio]

Quote: voyaka uh

that in close combat, the F-35 outperforms the F-16 in terms of maneuverability.

===
what do the Israeli pilots say?

[voyaka uh]

We have not published the results of such exercises (and never
not published at all). Our F-35s are actively engaged in ground strike operations.
Like the F-16. Norwegians are interesting precisely because their aircraft are completely fighter.
And imprisoned for aerial combat. Therefore, Americans love to butt in exercises with them.

[Victorio]

Quote: voyaka uh

Therefore, Americans love to butt in exercises with them.

===
Norwegians are good sailors, I didn’t know about pilots

[novel66]

and let's bend your fingers, because no one has canceled the NATO countries. and f-18 I forgot for sure .. and there they rafali, and flu, and typhoons .. there’s someone to wrestle with
Victor, hello !!

[rocket757]

Ha, ha!
As such a "funny" expert says, Colonel M.M. Khodarenok, imagine a list of your victories and achievements !!! Well, at least something ...

[novel66]

while we can only talk about maneuverability, and if the Indians do not lie, that the Su-30 left the aim-120 due to maneuver, then what can we talk about?

[rocket757]

No wonder the pilots are studying / practicing anti-aircraft maneuvers !!!

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: novel xnumx

long and medium-range missiles are unlikely to be that effective

I can’t agree with you only because in my memory rocket weapons, which were controlled by wire (which were unheard of joy and delight). The principle of shot-and-forget came in 30 years. I’ll tell you that in fifteen years there will be air-to-air missiles that hold the target visually and have hypersonic speed and an electronic warfare suppression system that will hit the target. The only way to deal with such missiles will be (if able to detect) - the physical destruction of either the missile itself or the guidance system.

Quote: novel xnumx

one hell to a dog landfill it all comes down

This is quite realistic if the aircraft find each other suddenly (due to stealth), and then maneuverability can come in handy.

[novel66]

as well as the appearance of anti-rocket ... dogfight !!!

[Big Cat]

Have you come up with?

[rocket757]

Quote: Nevsky_ZU

They say that over-maneuverability is no longer relevant

They say, they say ... they simply cannot do it themselves, and no one has yet proved the opposite!
And you can write, say anything!

[Alex_You]

Just yesterday, the article was: https://topwar.ru/161675-pochemu-manevrennost-ne-glavnoe-dlja-istrebitelja-nashi-dni.html

[Wolverine]

Quote: Nevsky_ZU

They say that over-maneuverability is no longer relevant, and hot multi-angle nozzles are a unmasking factor.
Close combat is not possible, but we are stuck in the old paradigms of Pokryshkin and Kozhedub, etc. Who is right?

If the mess starts and everyone turns on the electronic warfare, then we'll see about close combat.

[Elephant]

Quote: Wolverine

If the mess starts and everyone turns on the electronic warfare, then we'll see about close combat.

If the electronic warfare system will affect the electronics of the rocket, then can it have a bad effect on the electronics of the aircraft (one's own and the enemy)?

[HAM]

There is only one way to test these theories, but it is extremely undesirable. And all this talk is just idle talk about anything.

[Elephant]

Quote: HAM

There is only one way to test these theories, but it is extremely undesirable. And all this talk is just idle talk about anything.

I would not say that. Everyone knows that both we and the enemy are thoroughly studying all of each other’s weapons, especially modern ones, including mined real samples and performance characteristics of systems, etc. Do you think everyone is engaged in computer modeling from nothing to do, for the sake of idle talk?

[HAM]

In any case, modeling does not give a complete picture of the use of technology. Take at least the abandonment of cannon weapons on fighters, the theory said that it was no longer needed, but practice showed the opposite. In my opinion she is overly categorical ..

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Nevsky_ZU

They say that over-maneuverability is no longer relevant, and hot multi-angle nozzles are a unmasking factor.
Close combat is not possible, but we are stuck in the old paradigms of Pokryshkin and Kozhedub, etc. Who is right?

I also thought so, why super-maneuverability when everything is decided by a small EPR and long-range and medium-range missiles. But laser weapons invade our lives, dazzling heads of homing will be at times and hi good old gun battle. Of course, this is not a matter of the near future, but after 15-20 years something will definitely stick

[rocket757]

Quote: Vol4ara

hello good old gun battle.

As the saying goes, when the gun is placed against the temple, it remains to pull the trigger and nothing to think for a long time!

[AUL]

Quote: Vol4ara

good old gun battle.

And the cavalry is good! Fast, maneuverable ... Checkers naked and forward, with lava - hurray!

[Vol4ara]

Quote from AUL

Quote: Vol4ara

good old gun battle.

And the cavalry is good! Fast, maneuverable ... Checkers naked and forward, with lava - hurray!

For you, probably the news is that machine guns are no longer put on fighters :)

[Sky strike fighter]

Americans everywhere promote their F-35, and try to focus the attention of potential buyers on the strengths of the F-35 and accordingly hide the flaws of this car, claiming that over-maneuverability is allegedly no longer relevant. They emphasize the strengths and hide the flaws of the F-35. In fact, everything is important both stealth and over-maneuverability. Just everyone is trying to play on the strengths of their fighters. This is competition.

[voyaka uh]

The disadvantages of F-35 are known:
1) low afterburner speed
2) low rate of climb (vertical speed gain).
Therefore, it cannot serve as an interceptor.
He has good maneuverability (steep turns at transonic speed, flying with a high angle of attack, etc.). This was checked since the end of 2018, when the software restrictions on overloads under G were removed.

[Ka-52]

He has good maneuverability (steep turns at transonic speed, flying with a high angle of attack, etc.). This was checked since the end of 2018, when the software restrictions on overloads under G were removed.

what are "steep turns"? T-22 could also perform steep turns, but from the point of view of its pilots Usually they talk about the speed of a steady turn, as indicators of the characteristics of the aircraft. Judging by the not-too-high EEC F35 with this indicator, he was all sour.

flight with a high angle of attack, etc.

Flying at large angles of attack can perform any aircraft, to known limits. It’s better to say what angles and what speed he is stalling.
minus is not mine

[voyaka uh]

"rate of steady turn," ////
----
F-35 confidently makes a circle with an angular speed of 28 degrees per second at a speed of 0.9 MAX.
This is higher than the F-16, which is considered a very nimble fighter.

[Ka-52]

F-35 confidently makes a circle with an angular speed of 28 degrees per second at a speed of 0.9 MAX.

I don’t know for what height this figure is given, but I’m very unsure of such a turning angle. If it does not complicate, reset the link. Even a simple comparison with the F-22 shows that with the same thrust-weight ratio, larger wing area and less load, the F-22 has 21-22g / s. at an altitude of 3000. And your 28 ....
regarding F-16 wrote above. But you need to understand that at different angles of attack, the rate of entry into the bend / roll, they can be different.

[Dooplet11]

Is maneuverability just agility?

[NEXUS]

Quote: Nevsky_ZU

Close combat is unlikely, but we are stuck in the old paradigms of Pokryshkin and Kozhedub,

Rapprochement speed on collision courses, a high probability of a long-distance miss, missile defense systems, ground-based air defense systems and AWACS planes ... all in a compartment and gives a great chance of a dog fight. Or do you think that two fighters in clear skies, over absolutely uncovered territory, will be fired at by far missiles of the far arm?

[Vita vko]

Quote: NEXUS

Or do you think that two fighters in clear skies, over absolutely uncovered territory, will be fired at by far missiles of the far arm?

Too much uncertain and inaccurate information on the performance characteristics of both the F-35 and Su-57. In addition, a lot depends on the specific tactical situation. Now, if someone could be invited to Aviadarts, for example, Israel with their F-35, then it would be possible to really appreciate the advantages of the flaws. Although a negative result in the form of an official refusal to participate in these competitions on the F-35 could be regarded as a bluff and fraud of the United States in relation to its allies.

[Piramidon]

Quote: Nevsky_ZU

They saythat over maneuverability is no longer relevant

And who says "experts" who are now spread over the net like fleas on a dog? Every gopher is an agronomist, every blogger is an expert in any field.

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: Piramidon

Every gopher is an agronomist, every blogger is an expert, and in any field.

You see ... Creating apparatuses with certain physical properties and technical characteristics is much more difficult than explaining the shortcomings and imperfections of one or another capability of this apparatus.
Gopher, most likely not an agronomist. Only he does not collect in the reserve for the winter empty and spoiled grains.
The designer of "Lada-Kalina" (especially the yellow one) also considers his car to be the standard of the price / quality ratio ...
A writer can write a novel, but it can be appreciated by a reader who makes four mistakes in the word "still" (ischo) ...

[VeteranVSSSR]

Guys, I don’t know what the experts say, but damn it’s beautiful !!!!

[AVA77]

People say .. You want to live, know how to spin! ( And that’s it. )

[ioan-e]

Quote: Nevsky_ZU

Close combat is not possible, but we are stuck in the old paradigms of Pokryshkin and Kozhedub, etc. Who is right?

This is not the first time in history that theorists "buried" a dog fight, but the Vietnam War has already refuted this!

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Nevsky_ZU

Close combat is not possible, but we are stuck in the old paradigms of Pokryshkin and Kozhedub, etc. Who is right?

Americans base their tactics on the principle of "first saw - competently built an attack - shot down" (or avoided a fight if it is obviously unprofitable). In principle, this is true - to attack first, since the missile is faster and more maneuverable than any aircraft. By attacking first, you put the enemy in a deliberately disadvantageous condition. In the west, they rely on stealth and AWACS

Which, however, does not cancel the close maneuverable battle. And western planes are ready for that. Close air combat is at speeds of 0,6 - 0,9 M, and in this range are F-22, Rafal, Grippen, F-16, and even F-35 demonstrate good maneuverability.

Quote: Nevsky_ZU

over maneuverability is no longer relevant

that’s precisely what is super maneuverability, not maneuverability. This quality of aircraft in the west has never been abandoned. It was just that super-maneuverability was not put at the forefront (to the detriment of other qualities, in particular, stealth)

[abc_alex]

Quote: Gregory_45

This quality of aircraft in the west has never been abandoned.

And on what plane were they able to achieve this? It is precisely supermaneuverability, that is, the ability of the machine to maintain the direction of flight, changing its position in space. As far as I know, even the Raptor does not have such a property, the designers could not achieve this, and marketers said that the United States has its own super-maneuverability, which is not like the others. :)

[Karabas]

that the States have their own overmining, not like the others. :)

They have the super ability to dive at 2km. No one will definitely find, they have already checked on the F-35

[Grigory_45]

Quote: abc_alex

It is overmovement

You did not hear me? I talked about the fact that they did not refuse maneuvering qualities. Not raising them to absolute. It's about maneuverability, not super-maneuverability. Do you understand the difference?

Super-maneuverability is about the same marketing ploy as "invisibility".

By the way, fighters, not distinguished by excellent maneuverability, were created in the USSR. These include the MiG-21 and MiG-23. On these machines, pilots were not recommended to get involved in close maneuver combat. Both of these fighters lost all the air battles at the Akhtubinsk air base, the American captured F-5. And in the cabs of Soviet cars sat honored pilots and Heroes of the USSR. Check out a very interesting story.

At the same time, there were highly maneuverable vehicles in the west. Tigers F-5 and Skyhawks played the role of MiGs in training battles, and F-16 is universally recognized as one of the best light fighters. Maneuverability is distinguished by F-22, Grippen, Rafal. These are serious opponents in aerial combat.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Gregory_45

Super-maneuverability is about the same marketing ploy as "invisibility".

Unfortunately not. This is an absolute must. The fighter's radar should "look" forward and upward. And the attack aircraft radar forward and down. To combine the functions of a fighter and a bomber, a conventional fighter must be able to fly "leaning forward". In general terms, this is supermaneuverability.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: abc_alex

The fighter's radar should "look" forward and upward. And the attack aircraft radar forward and down. To combine the functions of a fighter and a bomber, a conventional fighter must be able to fly "leaning forward"

narrowness)))
All radars can look away from the construction axis. Because either they have a moving antenna sheet, or an electronic beam transfer.

Quote: abc_alex

This, in general terms, is over-maneuverability.

Maneuverability - the ability to change speed, direction of movement (course).
Super-maneuverability - the ability of some aircraft to maintain stability and controllability at supercritical angles of attack with high overloads

[abc_alex]

Quote: Gregory_45

All radars can look away from the construction axis. Because either they have a moving antenna sheet, or an electronic beam transfer.

What angle? What axis?

Quote: Gregory_45

Super-maneuverability - the ability of some aircraft to maintain stability and controllability at supercritical angles of attack with high overloads

This is just high maneuverability.
Quote wikipedia to the end:

as well as the ability of the aircraft to change position relative to the flow, allowing you to aim the weapon at the target outside the vector of the current trajectory

[Grigory_45]

Quote: abc_alex

What angle?

for each specific radar - its own values. For example, for Н001 Sword (which is on the Su-27) - ± 60 degrees in azimuth and the same in elevation. For Bars - ± 70 degrees in azimuth and ± 40 degrees in elevation.
What prevented myself to be puzzled by this issue?

[abc_alex]

I hinted to you that a deviation in elevation is not enough to complete all the tasks.

[Durman_54]

Over-maneuverability was never relevant nearly ever. Well, except for the show off at the air show. All these hypothetical missile evasions are leveled by a very real non-contact fuse. Yes, and when was the last close air combat there, in Vietnam?
Although, of course, I understand that I have now stepped on one of the local sacred cows. Approximately next to a flightless penguin and unnecessary stealth.

[Adcapa]

Durman_54 (Dmitry)

when was the last close air combat in Vietnam?

Alas, you are mistaken:

battle in the Bekaa Valley.
96 Israeli fighter jets and a drone squadron decided to destroy Syrian anti-aircraft missile bases on June 9, 1982, successfully destroying 17 of the 19 missile batteries in the first two hours. The Syrians launched up to a hundred of their aircraft to fight back. The air battle lasted for two days,

"THE INCIDENT IN THE GULF OF CIDRA (1981)"

one of the Su-22s unexpectedly launched an air-to-air missile. In response, both F-14s took up convenient firing positions and attacked the Libyans with AIM-9 rockets, as a result of which both Su-22s were shot down
Read more: http://smartnews.ru/articles/12836.html#ixzz5xt4weupe

1998 Eritrea

On May 16, a pair of Eritrean MiG-29s appeared in the airspace above Barentu, but was intercepted by Ethiopians on duty here. As a result of a fleeting battle, one MiG was shot down; the second in the course of the pursuit received damage from a R-27 missile, but managed to make an emergency landing at Asmara’s airport
Read more: http://smartnews.ru/articles/12836.html#ixzz5xt5bkpgb

Moreover, read here on VO articles on US "Aggressor" squadrons (these materials were recently published), you will be surprised but they often practice just "dog fight" with both f-22 and f-35. what is it for?

[Adcapa]

As a postscript Durman_54 (Dmitry), in order not to trample the "sacred cows" before writing a post, read the topic. eg. briefly "google" Military conflicts of the 2nd half of the 20th century. subsection Air battles. did not minus.

[Durman_54]

Ueli) However, dogfight is not a mass phenomenon in any case.
My passage about missile evasions is still valid.

[Adcapa]

Durman_54

My passage about missile evasions is still valid.

Dima is a namesake. that's exactly what the "passage" is First: don't think that the newest SDs about which we read here on VO immediately go to the troops, it will take years if not decades and in any conflicts it is theirs not apply (well, if there is no problem to test the novelty of course) Secondly: it comes from the first to test the use of new weapons it takes time so that right up to the automatism this is done by a limited number of units in the theater of operations can be counted on fingers. and cherish from respectively. Third: just Melee, due to the density of interaction between the parties, leaves almost no chance of dodging a missile. There is no corny time for this. Start - the rocket has gone and now a hot "hello" flies into the target. It is most dangerous when attacking in the rear hemisphere when the power ratio of the missile system is critical, which allows it to quickly reach the target. On the aisle, a turn may be required on the attacked object with a logical short-term loss of the target of the GOS, and this is a chance. and maneuverability here oh how "plays". However, the main thing in the BB is always not to let the enemy capture themselves in the sight (almost guaranteed shooting down), and this is precisely maneuverability. Fourth: distance combat. All reasoning that someone will highlight the target for you / will lead to the attack is from the evil one. in 99% of cases, our radar is everything. Even purely psychologically, a person trusts himself first and not his uncle in the first place. It's like a sniper who will aim without looking at the sight only at the commands of a partner - will he shoot a lot? Yes AWACS. ground-based ACS ("Sky" like we have) partners in the end. will lead you to the "square". even help to take the optimal position for the attack. but then he himself - himself with pens. This, even from the specifics of radar systems, long-range means simply do not provide the necessary accuracy of target localization and are not compatible in range. Other fighters for guidance use a rather narrow beam that will force the partner to be in a very limited cone to receive this signal, leveling all the secrecy. Data exchange is also not a panacea, because the signals of active radio exchange, and the data packets here will be rather big, which will require a "thick" and constant communication channel, they will simply be guided, they will definitely pay attention to who it is, the name is actively communicating in the empty square of the sky for 6 hours. Here I see the most progressive use of SD with active guidance heads, because it allows you to use a short-time illumination of the target and then change the mode or turn off the radar leaving the defeat at the mercy of the rocket. But here it starts to play ... Fifth: due to objective reasons (case diameter, etc. ) GOS missiles have a rather narrow beam and a sector of view. With proper endurance, the pilot can, by energetic maneuver, simply leave the missile seeker’s sector of the missile and force him to start a second search for the target, while SD is limited in energy capabilities and in the last sections of the flight it flies by inertia, this will lead to self-destruction or inability to attack again. Actually this is the classic anti-ballistic maneuver. Moreover, one or 2 missiles in a salvo is not important because the difference in launch is almost zero and their field of view is almost the same. But when starting from two cars it is already more difficult. especially if they attack from different angles. At startup, with a large time difference, breaking the guidance of one. a sufficiently maneuverable aircraft can continue vigorous maneuvering and escape from the second missile. Further, the energy of the rocket is limited accordingly limited and the detection range of the target. at long ranges, the missile launcher is simply launched into the "square" - the zone of the supposed location of the target where its localization of the seeker is already taking place.
By the way. super-maneuverability is not a prerequisite for anti-missile maneuvers. There is such a "boa constrictor" technique in our VKS. its essence is to keep the target lock at the very edge of the radar field of view while moving like a snake. the point is. that with a simultaneous launch, the enemy missile will be forced to wag, tracking the position of the target, lengthening the trajectory and spending excess fuel on the maneuver, while the missile launched by you will go straight ahead. As a result, either hitting the target first, you will disrupt the guidance of the semi-active head, or you will go to a rendezvous with an active SD with a gain in energy, because it will run out of fuel.
This, of course, is far from all, but I think to catch up with the idea that the URO does not always steer directly and that he has enough Achilles heels, I could.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Durman_54

Over-maneuverability was never relevant nearly ever. Well, except for the show off at an air show

For a combination of fighter and strike functions in one vehicle, super-maneuverability has always been relevant and is relevant now. Not everyone can achieve it. Therefore, they act according to the principle of "fox and grapes".

[Vitaly Tsymbal]

Who is talking? Americans who now dictate the fashion for military aircraft? So the American dream is that no one will see or hear you, and while you are far from the place of battle, the situation in which changes every moment, I watch how others are fighting for you)))

[Ros 56]

Whoever remains alive will be right. Any theory is tested by practice.

[totoro21]

Who is right to show can only practice. But in general, close combat was declared impossible back in the 60s. And so impossible that the American Phantoms didn’t even have guns, as unnecessary. And today there is a gun on both the F-22 and the F-35, although their developers are rubbing the whole world around how their planes will shoot everyone from afar with rockets. Here.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: totoro21

And today there is a gun on both the F-22 and the F-35, although their developers are rubbing the world around how their planes will shoot everyone from afar with rockets

because the priority is the tactics of long-range missile combat. first saw - built an attack - first hit the target. Well, the cannon .. the cannon on the boat is proof that they are considering both close maneuverable combat and are ready for it.

[EinsamerSturmvogel]

So our planes and long-range missiles have.

[Karabas]

They say that over-maneuverability is no longer relevant, and hot multi-angle nozzles are a unmasking factor.
Close combat is not possible, but we are stuck in the old paradigms of Pokryshkin and Kozhedub, etc. Who is right?

All are right and wrong. SU-57 is the last manned generation of fighters, like it or not. Even if there is no close combat during the life of the model, for drones and robots this is very important and useful.

[yehat]

Quote: Nevsky_ZU

They say that over-maneuverability is no longer relevant, and hot multi-angle nozzles are a unmasking factor. Close combat is unlikely, but we are stuck in old paradigms

right is he who thinks with his own head
Why do you think the Americans put an air gun on each fighter?
For overseas art support?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: yehat

Why do Americans put an air gun on every fighter?
For overseas art support?

probably not as a counterweight)
They are considering the possibility of close combat with the use of short-range missiles and air guns.
No wonder the planes of the "aggressor" squadron were painted in camouflage of a potential enemy. For visual identification. When fighting at a long-medium distance, it does not matter how the aircraft is painted or whether it is painted at all. The radar does not transmit such information

[Tarasios]

Someone says that boxing with a melee is not relevant - since the time when the compact firearm appeared;)

[siberalt]

Nevsky minuses for curiosity? But this is already a complete "Ukraine of the brain"!

[Vladimir16]

Beautiful aircraft.
Our designers do not make a car, but a work of art.
Whatever the plane - a bird in flight!

Mattresses also pile a bird - a penguin. Will they have an ostrich next?

[Ravil_Asnafovich]

I do not agree, but which plane drove the enemy away from the MO aircraft? So oh maneuverability as needed.

[Elephant]

Quote: Ravil_Asnafovich

I do not agree, but which plane drove the enemy away from the MO aircraft? So oh maneuverability as needed.

And I didn’t see something, that in this situation our plane was spinning aerobatics, emptying its fuel tanks as much as possible !!!

[Archivist Vasya]

Great maneuverability! When I watched the video at 36 - 38 seconds, it was so interestingly shot that it seems like the operator who was shooting fell out of the plane and continued to shoot in free fall)))

[Sarmat Sanych]

Fantastic!

[Retvizan 8]

All who bury Russia is dedicated!
Glorious Russian plane and glorious Russian pilot !!!
Do not wait!

[Trevis]

Beautiful is how!

[Elephant]

And it will be prettier when the gap in the number of new aircraft is narrowed, and not as it is now 1: 100!

[pavelty]

Why around three axes? Around the X axis (roll), it does not rotate when it comes to a flat corkscrew

[vinschu]

Did you "spin" or ...... an expert?

[Dmitry Zadorozhniy]

Anyone who says that the maneuver is not important, well, take "Mriya". Download P.U. and go into battle. There will be missiles from the train. And when such a bird lands you on the ground, then you will tell what the fighter needs and what is superfluous.

[Sky strike fighter]

You about Mriya, of course, have turned down. Does Mriya have an airborne radar for guiding missiles at targets? This is a highly specialized singular transport vehicle.

[depressant]

Once ren-tv began to talk about the project PAK FA. Since then, this plane has been waiting with enthusiasm and bated breath. And here is our handsome man in the sky!
Long live our designers, engineers, programmers, technicians and workers who created this miracle!
Glory to our great pilots!

[abc_alex]

Quote: Sky Strike fighter

Does Mriya have an airborne radar for guiding missiles at targets?

Put on top where Buran stood, from the ground complex. Remove from the chassis and hide under the cowl.

[totoro21]

Maneuver is of course important. But after all, the F-22 can easily maneuver, and twist the aerobatics. Yes, not such figures as the Su-35, but still. The question is whether the aerobatic capabilities of the Su-35 will be in demand in real combat? Or will radar capabilities be more important? Or low visibility? Or top speed?

[Alexey G]

The Americans have a simple and logical idea. In vain, we think this is nonsense.
Their idea is simple: 1. To be invisible to the enemy. 2. Know everything about the enemy.
Stealth is provided by the STELS system, first-class radar knowledge of the enemy.
Having the first 2a of superior quality, better than the enemy, they get the right of the first blow.
A rocket flies faster than an airplane. This is an axiom. Conclusion: the first I beat, I win and fly away.
It remains to make the missile accurate, fast and maneuverable, and this is easier than making an entire airplane like this.

[Big Cat]

Exactly. Who first discovered, first struck - he won. And minus the cotton cheers-patriots, knocking down the hats with earflaps Raptor.

[Elephant]

Quote: Big Cat

And minus the cotton cheers-patriots, knocking down the hats with earflaps Raptor.

This is true, well said!

[bk316]

This is true, well said!

Two acrobat brother with echo or censor?

[Alexey G]

We are not from a planet called seeking truth

[bk316]

We are not from a planet called seeking truth

Cool! I have never seen such pathos in VO.
Young man, can I ask you some questions?

And what is not a capsule? Truth, and even on a planetary scale, deserves large letters!
And what will you do when you find it? Share with the coplanters?
What are you doing in VO? The truth is not in the forums in Big Garbage, but in the dust and silence of libraries - you have to look there!

[Alexey G]

And here is pathos? I think that everyone should seek the truth and not engage in self-deception, which is inherent in many. Then who said that if you read VO, it prohibits sitting in the library? Of course, you can share the truth, but only the public does not always want to know the truth, the lie is sweeter than visible.
Thanks for the young man !! I'm really not that young.

[totoro21]

The idea is extremely simple and logical. But my question is: why then do Americans need guns on 5th generation airplanes if they are the first to hit and immediately win?

[Alexey G]

Yes there is a gun. On f22 20-mm gun M61A2 Vulcan (480 shells); From Wikipedia.
I think the gun became an emergency weapon, like a gun from an officer or a dagger from a medieval knight. He is there in case the main weapon doesn’t work, the missiles will simply run out.
But with Drying F22 will probably not go to a turn close melee, it will squeeze everything out of the engine and fly home, as I heard it’s better than ours in terms of power.
And this is the main weapon, the whole bet on him.
Air-to-air missiles:

six AIM-120C AMRAAM;
two AIM-9M Sidewinder.
True, these missiles already have a sort of replacement for the steeper.

[English tarantas]

like a gun from an officer or a dagger from a medieval knight

As practice has shown, usually a gun officer to shoot something, and a dagger to a knight to finish off and loot. You can use both for their intended purpose, but if the enemy has a rifle or a sword, then you are likely to lose.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Alexey G

Stealth is provided by the STELS system, first-class radar knowledge of the enemy

Moreover, the second contradicts the first. What has been said many times by all and sundry. You can't rely on stealth and radar at the same time.

[Alexey G]

Firstly, we don’t yet know exactly how the radar works on F22. Perhaps there is a secret that we simply don’t know about, and which nevertheless allows them to combine what seems incompatible to us. After all, we kind of solved the problem of hypersound, and to many in the West it seems fantastic, despite all our assurances. They think it’s impossible to control hypersound. Either you fly fast and without control, or you don’t fly fast but you control.
Secondly, it can at least work in tandem with AWACS, because aviation is not a separate element, but an element in the system. Then one gives target designation and the second covertly approaches the lethal distance and hits the target.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Alexey G

Firstly, we don’t yet know exactly how the radar works on F22. Perhaps there is a secret that we simply don’t know about

A strange assumption. But maybe...

Quote: Alexey G

Secondly, it can at least work in tandem with AWACS, because aviation is not a separate element,

And he will be complete ..... who will allow the US AWACs to fly with impunity near their borders in war. This is the primary goal for all air forces, air defense systems and operational-tactical missile systems. The destruction of such aircraft is of primary importance, they must be openly hunted at such a level that the take-off order would cause involuntary bowel movement from the crews of the PVAKS. In our case, long-range interception aircraft with extended-range missiles are required to destroy the state's early warning aircraft first. If necessary, equip the rocket with black warheads, but these flying chandeliers should be on the ground. The US Air Force should not have the ability to work in a pleasant environment.

[Alexey G]

Firstly, it is not clear why the first assumption is strange, it is just quite likely.

Radar "Raptor" has a special mode of operation LPI (low probability of interception), which is especially important for the aircraft, built on technology "stealth". Unlike conventional radars, the Raptor emits low-energy pulses in a wide frequency range. This eliminates the effectiveness of enemy EW and RTR equipment - the enemy does not even know that F-22 is close and has already launched an attack. The only one who is able to understand the random flow of signals at different frequencies is the AN / APG-77 radar processor itself, which gradually accumulates data and, according to the theory of probability, finds the true position of the target.

I refer to Oleg Kaptsov. I know he often goes too far, but his explanation is for example.
Secondly, it will not be easy to bring down AWACS. He sees in my opinion 800 km if not further. He will be covered both from earth and from heaven. Shoot down such a bird will not be easy. In addition, the Raptor can receive data on targets from drones, from conventional fighters, from a satellite, etc.
Everything will have to be wetted and put on the ground !!! And oh, it’s not so easy. Hope it reaches you ???
By the way, we also have our own version of AWACS - A50, and we are making another one, as powerful as that of amers or maybe better. So how do you think what for us is this if this chandelier can be easily taken out and destroyed ?? Okay, your mattress covers are critical, but then who are we ?? If we do the same. SU 57 ??? A 50, etc.
Reaches now ???

[bk316]

first-class radar.

So first-class that it works off?
Ever heard the abbreviations RTR?
You can not turn on the radar and go unnoticed.

[Alexey G]

You are too categorical. Perhaps someone managed to solve the problem that you still cannot solve, but this does not mean that it cannot be solved decently.
There is a version that the American’s radiation is special, I don’t remember exactly, but it’s something like a discrete beam, more scattered or something, which does not allow it to be accurately identified. But I don’t presume to say I don’t know for sure, these are the secrets that our probably beats when creating the SU57go.
But the essence is different, if ours built a plane, which in essence is in many respects an analogue of F22, then it means there is a need for it and it's stupid to refuse.

[rotmistr60]

Nevsky_ZU
Close combat is unlikely, but we are stuck in the old paradigms of Pokryshkin and Kozhedub,

Before the Vietnam War, they also thought so, but she refuted, and completely, these assumptions.

[Alexey G]

Dear comrade. Vietnam is a very long history, although poor Pope McCain was also planted on a rocket there, so much so that he went through his whole life with it in his head.
Missile weapons are now at the zenith of fame, and guns and machine guns, like the rest of firearms, are a gradually passing history of wars, sadly enough.
I would be glad to be wrong, because I am for us, not for them, but it seems to me that the picture is like June 41st. Fritz is a blizzard on top, and we are maneuvering from below.

[Ka-52]

we were taught anti-cork maneuver to automatism.

[yehat]

and how is it? compensate for the rotation of the ailerons and the handle on yourself?

[Ka-52]

and how is it? compensate for the rotation of the ailerons and the handle on yourself?

vice versa: handle away from you, throttle forward, ailerons to neutral, pedals to the side opposite to the direction of rotation. After stopping the pedal to neutral, RUS on yourself.

[Alexey G]

Escaping missiles is a difficult task, as they are very perfect. The experience of Syria has shown us downed aircraft from missiles.
EW systems can help, but as I understand it, they affect one or another missile homing head, and the latter are constantly being improved, new, noise-protected ones appear. EW is a defensive system and it may not work because the attacker always has some advantage. In addition, electronic warfare is also not a cheap system and has not yet been installed on all of our aircraft, as shown by the experience of Syria.
To protect against attacking missiles, the aircraft’s maneuverability can certainly serve, but this is hardly a panacea. From one rocket we dodge, but from 2x or 3x? In addition, dodging is obviously a defensive tactic and loss of initiative at the beginning of the battle.

[Big Cat]

How, that's how you all are going to, damn it, dodge a rocket? Well explain to me ... have you seen enough of Hollywood?

[totoro21]

As an option: many radars lose a target that has zero speed. This is necessary to filter out the signals reflected from the ground.

[Alexey G]

I heard about this only with respect to anti-aircraft missiles. In particular, about the old version of Buka. and something like in the new, this drawback is overcome. I have not heard about aircraft radars on airplanes. Is there any specific data?
In addition, the zero speed of the aircraft ?? It’s a bit complicated. You can reduce it, but to 00 ?? Can you read more? The plane does not seem to be a flying saucer or a helicopter, and it cannot freeze.

[totoro21]

Well, it is necessary to reduce there not to zero, but to a certain boundary value. Which is never small, for the S-300 more than 100 km / h if I do not confuse. I studied for a long time, I have already forgotten half, but I remember asking the question: if the plane does not fly to the air defense system and flies around it in an arc, then the radar will not see it? To which they answered me that yes, he wouldn’t see, but in this case the plane couldn’t attack, and with proper air defense it should fall under the shelling of the neighboring complex. Turntables on the radar are visible due to exposure from spinning blades. Yes, I also have data on air defense systems, about aircraft radar and GOS missiles, there are no specifics, but physics is the same for everyone, the signal reflected from the surface must be cut off somehow, one way or another. Then there is still a nuance: when the aircraft is taken for escort, its estimated flight path is calculated based on data from the radar (coordinates, speed) and on the estimated maneuverability characteristics. That is, if the computer believes that the plane is obliged to fly forward, and the plane turned around on the spot and flew back - there will be a breakdown of escort. In general, I’m certainly not ready to say that over-maneuverability will allow us to leave the radar, but I’m not ready to say that it is useless in modern combat.

[Alexey G]

There is only one physics, of course, but the planes fly high from the ground and the signals reflected from it probably weaken at altitude, I'm not special here, but the specifics of air combat should also be taken into account. You can try to inflate a missile, but for example it has infrared guidance in addition to the radar head and then only turning off the engines will help, but you can’t turn them off in an airplane.
And with our handsome man, they also burn brightly and rotate in all angles like red underpants for a chick walking, here the pencil case will certainly fly in and make ajizhai
In addition, radar heads are being improved, I watched a video, there on Buki our problem with freezing targets and the invisibility of a stationary object was eliminated, I do not think that the Americans are lagging behind here.

[totoro21]

Missiles with an infrared head are now effectively treated with complexes like Vitebsk / President, and in the foreseeable future they will be completely jammed by lasers. Airborne radars, of course, have their own specifics, and technology does not stand still, but still I want to believe that our everywhere shove ATS for a reason. Although personally my IMHO: it would be nice to have options for combat aircraft and with conventional engines without ATS. Let not be so maneuverable, but cheaper. Although, of course, it depends on how much OBT is more expensive

[Alexey G]

I would like to believe in our Vitebsk. I watched a movie about him, of course they say that this is a fairy tale. But there is such a thing

AIM-9X - a modern modification of the rocket. The resolution of the photodetector matrix is ​​128 × 128 [13]. Improved noise immunity to thermal traps. Maneuverability is improved thanks to the thrust vector control [14]., Integration with the helmet-mounted display JHMCS [15] is implemented. It is delivered since 2002. More than 3000 missiles were produced [16] [17].

This is from Wiki.
In general, that defense is good, but it wouldn’t be bad for Raptor to be the first to embed, and he is hiding the bastard and hammering all sorts of things.
By the way, AIM 120 has an active head and does not need to be accompanied all the time, on approaching a target it makes a decision and manages a foreign infection.

[totoro21]

These are already high matters that I do not understand. I can only repeat that Dog Fight has already been decommissioned once, hoping for missiles. But he, a bad man, did not leave anywhere.

[Big Cat]

If your plane is captured by two or more missiles - all greetings to the kitten. How are you all going to dodge modern missiles with several types of guidance and remote detonation - like, CARL? Explain to me. Significantly lowering your speed during a maneuver? Substituting the belly instead of the back sphere?

[Alexey G]

They had seen enough of the last TankT34 movie, where our T34-85 dodged Panther shots on the bridge !! It's great in the movies, not that in reality, tricks don't roll
There our tankman at least saw the barrel of an enemy gun, but here?

[abc_alex]

Quote: Big Cat

If your plane is captured by two or more missiles - all greetings to the kitten.

And if two hundred, three hundred, then ....
Totoro21 wrote and this is voiced by experts that overmovement can allow to disrupt the capture-support from the radar. No one is tasked with cheating on a rocket. It is believed that a sharp change in flight direction will disrupt the tracking process from the radar.

[Alexey G]

This is supposed to be good, of course, but the practice of downed planes somehow outweighs the number of people who escaped this. Do you have data on successful maneuvers when moving away from aim120 or sidewinder by jets 29 or su27 ?? It would be very interesting.
You can’t build a strategy on defense, maneuvers, defenses. The best defense is a known attack. We need radars and rockets capable of spaying all their stealth.
means that will reveal their visibility and give our missiles an advantage.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Alexey G

This is supposed to be good, of course, but the practice of downed planes somehow outweighs the number of people who escaped this. Do you have data on successful maneuvers when moving away from aim120 or sidewinder by jets 29 or su27 ?? It would be very interesting.
You can’t build a strategy on defense, maneuvers, defenses. The best defense is a known attack. We need radars and rockets capable of spaying all their stealth.
means that will reveal their visibility and give our missiles an advantage.

MiG-29 is not super maneuverable. And in the Su-27, the properties of supermoveability only accidentally discovered. It would not be desirable, but today combatant pilots capable of realizing super-maneuverability in battle are probably not there. While this is more likely tricks assam.
And with rockets and radars you +100500, I completely agree. But if maneuverability has already turned out, do not win back the same.

[Elephant]

Quote: Alexey G

Escaping missiles is a difficult task, as they are very perfect. The experience of Syria has shown us downed aircraft from missiles.

Moreover, the planes in Syria were shot down in most cases by primitive means of destruction !!!

[Voyager]

The video is very beautiful, but old. He has been walking on the net for years.

[lucul]

At the beginning of the 20th century, a corkscrew was the main cause of the death of pilots. It was believed that it was impossible to get out of the corkscrew. But on September 24, 1916, pilot Konstantin Artseulov, on a Newpor-XXI aircraft at an altitude of 2000 meters, intentionally introduced the aircraft into a tailspin and left it. The next day, he submitted a report to the authorities of the Sevastopol Aviation School, in which he proposed introducing a corkscrew into the training program.

Hmm ....
Our ancestors had iron eggs ....
Nesterov was not the first to be afraid to make a dead loop, and Artseulov was the first to intentionally take the car out of a tailspin ....

[vinschu]

Quote: voyaka uh

The disadvantages of F-35 are known:
1) low afterburner speed
2) low rate of climb (vertical speed gain).
Therefore, it cannot serve as an interceptor.
He has good maneuverability (steep turns at transonic speed, flying with a high angle of attack, etc.). This was checked since the end of 2018, when the software restrictions on overloads under G were removed.

"2) low climb rate (vertical gain of speed)." Yes, you are a "professional"!

[yehat]

Quote: Vladimir16

Who is talking? Who can't do that?
Those whom we saw in the SU-35 sight?

And how to get away from a rocket for example?
Using a catapult?

any corkscrew of any aircraft when viewed on a flat screen monitor becomes flat

[yehat]

Quote: totoro21

Then there is still a nuance: when the aircraft is taken for escort, its estimated flight path is calculated based on data from the radar (coordinates, speed) and on the estimated maneuverability characteristics.

Disruption of escort occurs only with unstable radio contact - it is impossible to constantly maintain. In addition, modern radars themselves determine flight parameters from the latest readings of speed and acceleration. If you are talking about a continuous beam of escort, as you did before, then this is not necessary on new radars.

[yehat]

Quote: voyaka uh

Maneuverability (steep turns at transonic speed

what do you mean? the penguin has very limited permissible loads, especially if he drags weapons and ... if I remember correctly, then the turns, which can be called cool,
near sound very sadly for pilots.
That is why the Americans made the phantom as clumsy as a log - at high speed you can’t really sniff

[yehat]

Quote: totoro21

The idea is extremely simple and logical. But my question is: why then do Americans need guns on 5th generation airplanes if they are the first to hit and immediately win?

it's elementary, Watson! victory salute)))

[yehat]

Quote: Alexey G

Escaping missiles is a difficult task, as they are very perfect. The experience of Syria has shown us downed aircraft from missiles.

firstly, it is very desirable to understand the type of rocket
often this is clear from the situation and the fact of exposure.
when the rocket is clear, you can already do something
if a long-range air defense system is operating, a sharp change of course or a dive to the ground gives good chances to escape. If you shoot melee missiles in the ass, the only question is, do you have time to let out a fan of heat traps, do not have time for anything else.
some kind of imagination and creativity appear only in launches from 30-40 km or when there are many planes in the air.

[Wiruz]

Guys, I do not want to offend the feelings of local cheers, but these frames are not the first year, if anything

[whack]

even I did not see a flat corkscrew in the video. maybe vision problems?

[Sergelis]

Psychology works with a corkscrew - it turns to the left, the handle to the right. But vice versa.