Comparison of 4-th and 5-th aircraft. Part of 2. Close air combat

This is a continuation of the previous article. For completeness, I advise you to read the first часть.

Continuing to compare the capabilities of the 4 ++ fighter generation with the 5, we will turn to the most prominent serial representatives. Naturally, this is Su-35 and F-22. This is not entirely fair, as I said in the first part, but still.

Su-35 is a development of the legendary Su-27. What is the uniqueness of his ancestor, I think, everyone remembers. Until 1985, for nine years, the F-15 reigned supreme. But the mood overseas plummeted when the first production Su-27 began to be adopted. A fighter with super-maneuverability, capable of reaching previously unattainable angles of attack, in 1989 for the first time publicly demonstrating the “Cobra Pugachev” technique, is beyond reach of Western competitors. Naturally, his new "thirty-fifth" modification absorbed all the advantages of the ancestor and added a number of its features, bringing the design of the "twenty-seventh" to the ideal.

A striking feature of the Su-35, as well as the rest of our generation of aircraft 4 +, is a deflectable thrust vector. For unknown reasons, it is distributed only in our country. Is this element so unique that no one can repeat it? The technology of the deflected thrust vector was also tested on fourth generation American aircraft. General Electric developed the AVEN nozzle installed and tested on an F-16VISTA aircraft in 1993 g. No.1. Pratt Whitney has developed a PYBBN nozzle (a better design than GE), installed and tested on an F-15ACTIVE aircraft in 1996 g. No.2. In 1998, the TVN deflected nozzle for Eurofighter was tested. However, not a single fourth-generation western aircraft received a COT in the series, despite the fact that modernization and production continues to this day.

Figure No. 1

Figure No. 2

Having appropriate technologies for the deviation of the thrust vector, in 1993 (AVEN) on F-22 they decided not to use them. They went the other way, creating a rectangular nozzle to reduce radar and thermal visibility. The bonus was the deviation of these nozzles only up and down.

What is the reason for this dislike of the West for the vector of deviation? To do this, we will try to understand what the close air combat is based on, and how a deflected vector of thrust can be used in it.

The maneuverability of the aircraft is determined by overloads. They, in turn, are limited by the strength of the aircraft, the physiological abilities of the person and the limiting angles of attack. Also important is the thrust-weight of the aircraft. When maneuvering - the main task is to quickly change the direction of the velocity vector or the angular position of the aircraft in space. That is why the key issue in maneuvering is established turn or forced. With a steady turn of the plane as quickly as possible changes the direction of the motion vector, while not losing speed. The forced turn is due to a more rapid change in the angular position of the aircraft in space, but it is accompanied by active loss of speed.

A.N. In his books about the First World War, Latchinsky cited the words of several Western aces pilots: German ace Nimmelman wrote: “I am unarmed while I am below”; Belke said: “The main thing in air combat is vertical speed.” Well, how not to remember the formula of the famous A. Pokryshkin: "Height - speed - maneuver - fire".

Structuring these statements with the previous paragraph, we can understand that speed, height and thrust-to-weight ratio will be decisive in aerial combat. You can combine these phenomena with the concept of energy altitude. It is calculated by the formula shown in Figure No. 3. Where He is the energy level of the aircraft, H is the height of flight, V2 / 2g is the kinetic height. The change in kinetic height over time is called the energy rate of climb. The practical essence of the energy level lies in the possibility of its redistribution by the pilot between altitude and speed, depending on the situation. Possessing a margin of speed, but a lack of height, the pilot can perform a slide, as bequeathed by Nimmelman, and gain a tactical advantage. The ability of the pilot to properly manage the available energy is one of the determining factors in an air battle.

Figure No. 3

Now we understand that when maneuvering at steady turns, the plane does not lose its energy. Aerodynamics and engine thrust balance resistance. With a forced reversal, there is a loss of energy of the aircraft, and the duration of such maneuvers is not only limited by the minimum evolutionary speed of the aircraft, but also by the expenditure of the energy advantage.

From the formula in Figure No. 3, we can calculate the parameter of the climb rate of the aircraft, as I said above. But now it becomes clear the absurdity of data on the rate of climb, which are given in open sources for different aircraft, as this is a dynamically changeable parameter, depending on the height, flight speed and overload. But at the same time, it is the most important component of the energy level of the aircraft. Based on the foregoing, the potential of the aircraft on the set of energy can be conditionally determined by its aerodynamic quality and thrust-to-weight ratio. Those. You can increase the potential of an aircraft with worse aerodynamics by increasing engine thrust and vice versa.

Naturally, it is impossible to win a battle by one energy. Equally important is the characteristic of turning the aircraft. For it, the formula shown in Figure No. 4 is valid. It can be seen that the characteristics of the rotation of the aircraft are directly dependent on overload Ny. Accordingly, for a steady reversal (without energy loss), Nyr is important - a disposable or normal overload, and for a forced reversal of Nypr, the ultimate overload overload. First of all, it is important that these parameters do not go beyond the limits of the operational overload of the Nye aircraft, i.e. strength limit. If this condition is met, then the most important task in designing an aircraft will be the maximum approximation of Nyp to Nye. Simply put - the ability of an aircraft in a larger range to perform maneuvers without loss of speed (energy). What affects Nyp? Naturally, the aerodynamics of the aircraft, the greater the aerodynamic quality, the higher the possible value of Nyp, in turn, the improvement of aerodynamics is influenced by the indicator of the load on the wing. The smaller it is, the higher the turning point of the aircraft. Also, Nyp is also affected by the thrust-to-weight ratio of the aircraft, the principle we spoke about above (in the power industry) is also true for turning the aircraft.

Figure No. 4

Simplifying the above and not yet touching the deviation of the thrust vector, it is fair to note that the most important parameters for a maneuverable aircraft will be the thrust-to-weight ratio and the load on the wing. Limit their improvements can only cost and technical ability of the manufacturer. In this regard, the graph presented in Figure No. 5 is interesting, it gives an understanding of why F-15, prior to 1985, was the master of the situation.

Figure No. 5

To compare Su-35s with F-22 in close combat, we first need to refer to their ancestors, namely Su-27 and F-15. Let us compare the most important characteristics available to us, such as thrust-to-weight ratio and wing load. However, the question is, for what mass? In the RLE, the normal take-off mass is calculated on the basis of the 50% of fuel in the tanks, two medium-range missiles, two short-range missiles and a gun ammunition. But the maximum fuel mass of the Su-27 is much greater than that of the F-15 (9400 kg versus 6109 kg), therefore, the 50% reserve is different. This means that the F-15 will benefit in advance at least in mass. In order for the comparison to be more honest, for the sample I propose to take the mass of 50% of the Su-27 fuel, so for the Eagle we will get two results. As the Su-27 armament we take two P-27 missiles on APU-470 and two P-73 missiles on the p-72-1. For the F-15C AIM-7 armament on the LAU-106a and AIM-9 on the LAU-7D / A. For the specified masses we calculate thrust-bearing capacity and load on the wing. The data are presented in the table in figure No. 6.

Figure No. 6

If we compare the F-15 with the fuel calculated for it, then the indicators are very impressive, however, if we take fuel equal to the mass of 50% of the Su-27 fuel, then the advantage is almost minimal. The difference in hundredths in the weight ratio, but still the load on the wing of the F-15 is decently ahead. Based on the calculated data, the "Eagle" should have an advantage in melee air combat. But in practice, the training battles between F-15 and Su-27, as a rule, remained for ours. Technologically, the Sukhoi Design Bureau could not create an aircraft as light as its competitors, it is no secret that we were always a little inferior in terms of avionics. However, our designers have chosen a different path. In training competitions no one used the "Cobra Pugachev" and did not use the CAT (it was not there yet). It was Sukhoi’s perfect aerodynamics that gave him a significant advantage. The integral layout of the fuselage and the aerodynamic quality of the 11,6 (with the F-15c 10) leveled the advantage of the wing loading of the F-15.

However, the advantage of the Su-27 has never been overwhelming. In many situations and with different flight modes, the F-15c can still compete, since the majority still depends on the pilot’s qualifications. This can be easily traced from the maneuverability graphs, which will be discussed below.

Returning to the comparison of the fourth-generation aircraft with the fifth, we draw up a similar table with the characteristics of the thrust-to-weight ratio and the load on the wing. Now for the basis of the amount of fuel we take the data on the Su-35, since the F-22 has less tanks (Fig. No. 7). As weapons "drying" two missiles RVV-SD on the AKU-170 and two missiles RVV-MD on the P-72-1. The armament of the Raptor is two AIM-120 on the LAU-142 and two AIM-9 on the LAU-141 / A. For the overall picture, calculations for T-50 and F-35A are also given. The parameters of the T-50 should be treated skeptically, as they are estimated, and the manufacturer did not give official data.

Figure No. 7

From the table in figure No. 7, the main advantages of the fifth generation aircraft over the fourth are clearly visible. The separation in the wing load and thrust-weight ratio is much more significant than that of the F-15 and Su-27. The potential for energy and Nyp increase in the fifth generation is much higher. One of the problems of modern aviation - multifunctionality, and touched the Su-35s. If with thrust on the afterburner it looks good, then the wing load is inferior even to the Su-27. This clearly shows that the design of the fourth-generation airframe cannot, with modernization, achieve the fifth.

It should be noted aerodynamics F-22. There are no official data on aerodynamic quality, however, according to the manufacturer, it is higher than that of the F-15c, the fuselage has an integral layout, and the wing load is even less than that of the Eagle.

Separately, it should be noted engines. Since only Raptor possesses fifth-generation engines, this is especially noticeable in thrust-to-weight ratio in the maximum mode. The specific consumption in the “fast and the furious” mode, as a rule, is more than twice the flow rate in the “maximum” mode. Engine operating time at the afterburner is significantly limited by the aircraft fuel reserves. For example, Su-27 on the “afterburner” eats more than 800 kg of kerosene per minute, therefore, an aircraft with better thrust-to-weight ratio at the “maximum” will have advantages over a much longer period of time. That is why 117 ed is not the fifth generation engine, and neither Su-35, nor T-50 have the advantage over the F-22. Therefore, for the T-50, the fifth generation engine being developed is a “type 30” engine.

Where from all of the above can a deflection vector be applied? To do this, we turn to the graph in figure №8. These data were obtained for the horizontal maneuver of the Su-27 and F-15c fighters. Unfortunately, similar data for the Su-35 is not yet publicly available. Pay attention to the boundaries of the steady reversal for the 200 m and 3000 m heights. On the ordinate axis we can see that in the 800 – 900 range km / h for the specified heights, the highest angular velocity, which is 15 and 21 deg / s, is reached. It is limited only by aircraft overload in the range from 7,5 to 9. It is this speed that is considered to be the most advantageous for conducting a close air combat, since the angular position of the aircraft in space changes as quickly as possible. Returning to the fifth-generation engines, the aircraft with greater thrust-to-weight ratio and capable of moving on a supersonic without using an afterburner gains an energy advantage, since it can use up the speed to climb, until it falls into the range of the most advantageous for the BVB.

Figure No. 8

If you extrapolate the graph in Figure No. 8 on Su-35 with a deflected thrust vector, how can you change the situation? The answer is perfectly visible from the schedule - no way! Since the limit on the limiting angle of attack (α dop) is much higher than the limit on the strength of the aircraft. Those. aerodynamic controls are not fully utilized.

Consider the graph of the horizontal maneuver for heights 5000 – 7000 m, presented in Figure No. 9. The highest angular velocity is 10-12 degrees / sec, and is achieved in the speed range 900-1000 km / h. It is pleasant to note that it is in this range that the Su-27 and Su-35s have decisive advantages. However, these heights are not the most advantageous for maintaining the BWB, due to the drop in angular velocity. How in this case will the deflected vector of thrust help us? The answer is perfectly visible from the schedule - no way! Since the limit on the limiting angle of attack (α dop) is much higher than the limit on the strength of the aircraft.

Figure No. 9

So where can one realize the advantage of a deflected thrust vector? At heights, above the most favorable, and at speeds, below optimum for BVB. At the same time deep beyond the boundaries of the established reversal, i.e. with a forced turn, at which the energy of the aircraft is consumed. Therefore, OVT is applicable only in special cases and with energy reserves. Such regimes are not so popular in the BWB, but, of course, it is better when there is a possibility of vector deviation.

Now turn a little to stories. On the Red Flag exercises, the F-22 constantly scored victories over fourth-generation aircraft. There are only isolated cases of loss. He had never met Su-27 / 30 / 35 machines at Red Flag (at least, there is no such data). However, Su-30MKI took part in the Red Flag. Online race reports for 2008 are available. Of course, Su-30KI had an advantage over American cars, as well as Su-27 (but not at all at the expense of OVT and not overwhelming). From the reports we can see that the Su-30MKI on the Red Flag showed the maximum angular velocity in the 22 region, deg / s (most likely, at speeds in the 800 region, km / h, see the graph), in turn, F-15c went to the corner speed in 21 degrees / sec (similar speeds). Curiously, F-22 showed the angular velocity in 28 degrees / sec at the same exercises. Now we understand how this can be explained. First, the overload on certain modes of the F-22 is not limited to 7, but is 9 (see the RLE Su-27 and F-15). Secondly, due to the lower load on the wing and greater thrust-weight ratio, the limits of the steady reversal on our charts for F-22 will shift upwards.

Separately, it should be noted the unique aerobatics, which can demonstrate the Su-35s. Are they applicable in melee air combat? With the use of a deflected thrust vector, such figures as “Chakra Florov” or “Pancakes” are performed. What unites these figures? They are performed at low speeds, in order to get into operational overload, far from the best in BVB. The plane abruptly changes its position relative to the center of mass, since the velocity vector, although shifted, does not change drastically. The angular position in space remains unchanged! What is the difference rocket or radar that the plane is spinning around its axis? Absolutely none, while he also loses his energy of flight. Perhaps with such somersaults we can fire back at the enemy? It is important to understand that before launching a rocket, the aircraft needs to capture the target, after which the pilot must give “consent” by pressing the “enter” button, after which the data is transmitted to the rocket and the launch is carried out. How long will it take? Obviously more than a fraction of a second spent with "pancakes" or "chakra", or something else. In this case, all this is also in deliberately losing speeds, and with the loss of energy. But you can launch short-range missiles with heat heads without capture. At the same time, we hope that the GOS of the rocket itself will capture the target. Consequently, the direction of the velocity vector of the attacker should roughly coincide with the vector of the enemy, otherwise the rocket, by inertia received from the carrier, will leave the zone of possible capture of its homing vessel. One problem - this condition is not satisfied, since the velocity vector is fundamentally with such aerobatics does not change.

Consider the Pugachev Cobra. To perform it, it is necessary to turn off the automation, which is already a controversial condition for air combat. At a minimum, the qualifications of combat pilots are significantly lower than that of aces pilots, and even this needs to be done in extremely stressful conditions. But this is the lesser of evils. The cobra is performed at altitudes around 1000 m and speeds within 500 km / h. Those. the plane should initially be at speeds lower than recommended for BVB! Consequently, he cannot reach them until the enemy loses as much energy in order not to lose his tactical advantage. After the execution of the "cobra", the speed of the aircraft falls within 300 km / h (instantaneous loss of energy!) And is in the minimum evolutionary range. Consequently, “Drying” must go into a dive to gain speed, while the enemy not only maintains an advantage in speed, but also in height.

But can such a maneuver provide the necessary benefits? It is believed that by such braking we can skip the opponent ahead. Firstly, the Su-35 and so there is the possibility of air braking without the need to turn off the automation. Secondly, as it is known from the flight energy formula, it is necessary to slow down with a climb, and not otherwise. Thirdly, what does a contestant have to do closely in the rear of a modern fight without attacking? Having seen the “Drying” in front of me performing the “cobra”, how much easier will it be to aim at the increased area of ​​the enemy? Fourthly, as we said above, it will not be possible to capture a target with such a maneuver, but a rocket fired without capture will go “into the milk” with the inertia obtained. Schematically, such an event is presented in Figure No. 17. Fifth, again I want to ask how the enemy was so close without being attacked earlier, and why the Cobra, when can you make the Gorka, saving energy?

Figure No. 10

In fact, the answer to many questions on aerobatics is extremely simple. Demonstration performances and shows have nothing to do with the actual techniques in close combat, as they are performed on the flight modes that are obviously not applicable in the BVB.

At this, everyone for himself must conclude how the plane of the 4 ++ generation is able to withstand the fifth generation plane.

In the third part we will talk more about the F-35 and T-50 in comparison with competitors.

Продолжение следует ...

Based on:
https://ru.scribd.com/doc/310225465/Air-launched-Guided-Missiles
//www.anft.net
//www.exelisinc.com
//www.cram.com
//militaryrussia.ru
//www.globalsecurity.org
//www.airwar.ru
//www.pw.utc.com
//vpk.name
https://www.flightglobal.com
//www.dassault-aviation.com
//www.lockheedmartin.com
//www.migavia.ru
//www.boeing.com
//en.academic.ru
Babich V.K. Fighters change tactics
A. N. Lapchinsky in the book "Air Combat"
Sosulin Y.G. “Theoretical Foundations of Radar and Radio Navigation”.
P.A. Bakulev. "Radar systems".
A.A. Kolosov. "Fundamentals of over-the-horizon radar".
V.P. Berdyshev. "Radar systems".
A.N. Lagarkov, M.A. Pogosyan NEWSLETTER OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES volume 73, No. 9
//www.vonovke.ru
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDqLeWhPrzAKhv_dl7azNgw
//purepowerengines.com/
//nationalinterest.org
//tass.ru
//www.jsf.mil
//www.ausairpower.net

Comments

[Wild_grey_wolf]

When you read articles of such a plan, several questions always arise. . .
Does the browser know all the secret data when it flaunts formulas.
Practice always diverges from theory and what seems to be beautiful according to the formula is often not quite right in practice.
And it turns out that's where our chief designer sits on the forum. . . and at the enterprise mediocrity and losers did not manage to take into account the simplest parameters. . .

[Connie]

also an "expert" in aerial combat and history ...

Maybe him just like for some reason to completely write all the inside out?

[Connie]

more accurately rewrite

[Leto]

Like there are secret laws of physics?

[Wild_grey_wolf]

Quote: Leto
Like there are secret laws of physics?

data on parameters, stiffness of the airframe. . .
exit parameters to transcendental modes. . .
that the designers used the deflected thrust vector and at the same time scored that it was useless, since the glider could not stand it and the pilot himself was not able to control the aircraft at such overloads. . .
It does not seem to you that this is somehow strange, the author of the article took this into account, and the designers neglected this. . . ? ? ?
Well, or we are much smarter here than the whole corporation combined.
There is only one conclusion.

[Leto]

The author figures in the data provided by the developer, assuming that they are not fake.

[Wild_grey_wolf]

Quote: Leto

The author figures in the data provided by the developer, assuming that they are not fake.

those. it turns out the developers laid out the formulas, data, and the experts calculated and made conclusions and said yes you guys are not building a plane very much and are obviously losing. . . and they will build it like that anyway. . .
. . . so logically it turns out. . .
or I don’t understand something.

[Leto]

The developers did what the customer required of them. The customer formulated TTZ according to certain concepts (as they saw them at that time).
70 years, guided weapons in-in extremely unreliable and limited in use. Short-range missiles were used from a line of sight, not more than 2 km., The angle of view is narrow and intensive maneuvering at a distance of up to 1 km. coupled with the use of heat traps could disrupt guidance. The same is true for medium-range missiles, use at a distance of 10-20 km., Low selectivity, radar instability to interference, semi-active guidance system requiring illumination, maneuvering again in combination with interference allows you to disrupt guidance ...
But progress jumped qualitatively, electron-optical systems and multi-band TGSNs appeared with a field of view of 180 degrees allowing to capture targets already at a distance of 20-30 km., Radars with AFAR and active RLGSNs appeared ... all this made over-mobility an unnecessary option destroying the resource as an engine so glider.

[Vlad.by]

The Tiger also had excellent optics and a wonderful anti-aircraft gun, as a VET. That's just the tower turned well, very slowly. This was used until the IS-2 appeared, capable of tearing down the Tiger tower with a blank from the same 1000-1500 m and resisting the Tiger's frontal shot at these ranges.
In my opinion, having maneuverability is much better than not having it.

[Connie]

But not the fact that he figures them correctly.

[Grim Reaper]

The large mass of the bumblebee and the small area of ​​the wings make it incapable of flying. But the bumblebee does not know this. ;) (with)

[Rozmyssel]

nimbleness and maneuverability, of course no one will discount them, but considering the main thing is victory in aerial combat, then of course the ability of the aircraft itself will not be decisive, and the capabilities of weapons come to the fore i.e. missiles and radar capabilities to detect targets.
How will the modern battle develop? The enemy, who decided to bomb say a factory city, put together fist distant cruise missiles launching from ships, tactical bombers and escort destroyers.
A strike by hundreds of Tomahawks around the city can be leveled only by layered air defense, for a more effective breakthrough, front-line bombers immediately loaded with missiles to suppress anti-aircraft defense f15, f35 with f22 cover destroyers will immediately go, and avaxa will hang from behind. What is interesting in modern combat (I recently read) is that such a scheme was devised by the Americans to create a guaranteed breakthrough zone, behind a group of bombers and destroyers they are going to launch transport airplanes laden with missiles, which from a long distance will densely launch a large group of missiles from a certain distance by meeting the destroyers. Such is the American horror story for modern air combat. Considering that our planes can be much less rely only on advanced air defense, and even we won’t be able to fight off all missiles in this way, some of the tomahawks and bombers will break through to the object. The role of our destructive units in such a battle looks pale. We have no 35 Su50, it’s not serious, the MiGs are 29 years old and the use of the MiGs against f22 with its low visibility and afar seems unpromising. The main forces are su27, which have 5m2 EPRs that will be quickly detected and killed by the prevailing number of enemy missiles. Of course, there will be losses among the attackers, but if such a group is tasked with demolishing a city / factory for the production of the same air defense systems from 300/400, then it seems that such a task will be solved.

[Connie]

Forgot about the MiG-31 and so on "little things".

[Vlad.by]

This, is not the case Joan Rowling wrote horror stories?
Read more fantasy.
Why do you assume that the enemy will be able to create a group of dozens of ships with "long-range missiles", hundreds of planes with them, have time to take it all up into the air, get to the launch line and then finish off the air defense with the second ramp?
But who will allow it to him? They did not forget that even in our purely defensive doctrine, there is a clause on the first, preventive nuclear strike, in the event of the inevitability of aggression against the Russian Federation.
The take-off of hundreds of aircraft towards the borders is immediately fixed, the launch of missiles from ships is an additional confirmation of aggression.
ALL! AMBA! After that, the Military danger mode is canceled and the RED BUTTON is pressed.

That’s because for now, while no one is trying to break through our air defense. And no one doubts that sooner or later any air defense can be breached.
Already wrote - air defense - these are border troops. For the pre-war situation, they are needed only in order to force the enemy to accumulate a group of means of overcoming and thereby express their aggressive intentions. Well, and, if possible, to bleed this group in the first minutes of the raid, to force the enemy to spend as much as possible manpower and resources (and human resources) to overcome the "border". And then other showdowns will begin, which will end as a result of head-on battles on the rifleman. For those who will still be able to shoot.

[sivuch]

Once upon a forumavia V.P. Bazhenov spoke in the spirit that BVB begins in health, and ends in evolutionary ones. Here for the latter, i.e. In order not to fall into a tailspin, OBT is very useful.
It’s another matter that OBT, of course, has its drawbacks, first of all, the price and resource. Therefore, the question is whether the game is worth the candle

[Lucy]

The kid needs to start with the curves of Zhukovsky, see what a "crab" "knot" "shell" is ..., to understand why they fly in pairs in IA!

[Yak28]

In 1989, for the first time publicly demonstrating the Cobra Pugachev’s technique, we won’t reach Western competitors ... And how does this cobra help when a rocket flies into you? A bunch of articles on the topic that drying is equal or not inferior to F-22, but in the states scientists fools are sitting, plus they have the opportunity to study our planes that came to them from the Warsaw Pact countries and Iraq. In the third part we’ll talk more about the F-35 and T-50 in comparison with competitors ..... what can I say if yes if? The F-35 is a finished product that is mass-produced, but the T-50 and other competitors have not yet joined the series. And the T50 will get into the series, a bunch of sores will be revealed that will be corrected later. When our troops have at least two or three hundred T-50s US 6th generation will be adopted

[Connie]

F-35 generally does not make sense to compare with the T-50, it does not have a fan.

[Pimply]

F35A and C too

[Connie]

Everyone doesn’t have a T-50. How can you compare a plane with one dvigl and two keels with a plane in which one keel and two dvigla? Therefore, Rafale lego F-35A and F-22 dealet. Let's faster the 3rd part about the F-35C and B, also there I will not throw them.

[Hyperboreas]

The effect of "Pugachev's cobra" is that when it is executed, any missile has a breakdown of the tracking. the target's speed instantly drops to zero. The rocket simply does not have time to react.

[Leto]

Write nonsense, the R-73 can hit targets maneuvering with 12G, and the laser fuse absolutely does not care what speed the target has.

[ICT]

he just writes that in the selector of moving targets the plane may disappear,
but there are many systems and this is just one of them

[Connie]

he did not write anything about the selector.

[EvilLion]

Because the P-73 does not have radar guidance. But Doppler radars target low-speed screeners.

[Slon1978]

When a rocket is launched on the plane, regardless of the direction of its launch, the execution of Pugachev’s cobra will only turn the plane into a static target.

[mav1971]

Speed ​​drops to 200-250 km / h.
It seems to you that to zero.

So the Doppler will work fine.

[Connie]

The angles are still changing.

[Hyperboreas]

And you can continue to lie on the couch and sing deferambs to mattresses. Although the country you need to get rid of.

[mav1971]

And you may be trying to grow wiser and understand that the world is not only red and white.
And what should be learned from enemies, especially when there is something.
And such as you, they sang songs in 1939 (to fight with victory but in someone else's territory) and even rotted by the end of 41 (near Moscow) ...

And many millions of people were killed.

[Connie]

Ja-Ja ... maybe you will stop yours?

No, better sing. It will be better to see you at the headquarters.

[ICT]

Quote: Hyperborea

you can continue to lie on the couch and sing deferambs to mattresses

cheers patriotism worse than fascism

Quote: Hyperborea

The effect of "Pugachev's cobra" is that when it is executed, any missile has a breakdown of the tracking. the target's speed instantly drops to zero.

how many combat pilots can it perform?

[Leto]

The question may sound simpler, is it possible to do Cobra Pugachev with a combat load ...

[ICT]

I don’t know the cobra, but the bell for a moment 29, did

[svp67]

And Cobra did ...

[Connie]

it's not a cobra

[Leto]

Empty ... So that was what Draken Cobra did ...

[kugelblitz]

Yes, he did!

[svp67]

Quote: Leto

Empty..

From the recollections of the chief pilot MiG Menitsky:

By the way, it is generally accepted that the first and only “cobras” were made and still are made only by pilots of the Sukhoi company, although this is not so. The first to do this aerobatics was the Mikoyan team (though we called it differently and it looked a bit different). Then Igor Volk and Leonid Lobas took up this figure closely in the LII - they are the real creators of it in the form in which we know it today. But to show for the first time in public this truly spectacular aerobatics figure was honored by the test pilot OKB them. Sukhoi to Viktor Pugachev. With a light hand of journalists and leaders of the Sukhov firm, he was dubbed the creator of the "cobra." But Victor did not dissuade anyone in this, and in response to the puzzled questions of his colleagues, he only answered:

- Whoever needs it, even proves that it was not me who invented the "cobra", but that does not bother me.

I would not write about it, but there is some kind of incorrectness in this position in relation to Wolf and Lobas, people quite famous and authoritative in our circles. Still, aerobatics are not invented every day, and I want authorship to belong to their real creators.

[igor67]

. On f 22 make a cobra

[Connie]

and this is not a cobra, this is a cobra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqra4BYaNyE
on 059
in the same place at the beginning on the simulator 027 with Typhoon what is it for

[Connie]

Not at all. The ability to perform it with drill democrats is disabled.

[ICT]

It seems like yes, the maneuverability of the su-27 is artificially limited to, 7G

[Connie]

This maneuver (and the like) is done according to a certain algorithm not by the EMDS, in it its ability is disabled.

[RPG_]

Why don’t you negotiate? Limited by structural strength.

[Connie]

Quote: RPG_

Why don’t you negotiate? Limited by structural strength.

Because slander is limited by concern for the health of American pilots.

[Falcon]

Quote: Leto

The question may sound simpler, is it possible to do Cobra Pugachev with a combat load ...

The question is even simpler - why? It does not give anything, it is dangerous, and at obviously losing speeds. There are air brakes or climb for braking.

[Wild_grey_wolf]

Quote: Falcon

Quote: Leto

The question may sound simpler, is it possible to do Cobra Pugachev with a combat load ...

The question is even simpler - why? It does not give anything, it is dangerous, and at obviously losing speeds. There are air brakes or climb for braking.

---
Do you really consider yourself smarter than designers and pilots?
And what do you all know, take into account all the parameters and all the data?
And the developers rudely neglected this?
And what do all other countries do right, but we do not?

[Falcon]

the developers rudely neglected this?
And what do all other countries do right, but we do not?

Where did I say that?

Repeat_

Therefore, OVT is applicable only in special cases and with a supply of energy. Such modes are not so popular in BVB, but, of course, it is better when there is a possibility of vector deviation.

[Connie]

Already answered why.

[Slon1978]

The thesis of the author of the article that OVT is needed only for shows and is not applicable in real BVB seems extremely doubtful, it needs to be analyzed here and I am sure that the author did not take into account all aspects of modern air combat. We know how to do shows, no doubt here, but they also know how to count money. For the sake of the show, it was enough to equip our aerobatic teams with engines with OVT, but the decision to equip the Su-35 and Su-30 combat aircraft with them cost a lot of money and could not be made without serious analysis and justification.

[Falcon]

The thesis of the author of the article that OVT is needed only for the show and is not applicable in real BVB seems extremely doubtful

There is no such thesis in the article.

[Wild_grey_wolf]

Quote: Falcon

The thesis of the author of the article that OVT is needed only for the show and is not applicable in real BVB seems extremely doubtful

There is no such thesis in the article.

Perhaps there are no such theses on the line, but you are drawing to conclusions that way. . .
I don’t understand the main thing. . . ours stubbornly make these planes, Hindus buy, the Chinese, many admire. . .
. . . it turns out they are all blind, do not understand that this direction is wrong?
and need to follow the american design school?

[Falcon]

it turns out they are all blind, do not understand that this direction is wrong?
and need to follow the american design school?

And I didn’t say that.

Our Su-30 Su-35s are good not because they have OBT and not because someone admires them!
And because the Su-27 was already a leader among the fourth generation, thanks to aerodynamics and acceptable thrust-weight ratio. I wrote about this in the article, as it seems to me quite clearly.

And there is no American school. The use of OBT is not a school - it is a feature.

[Wild_grey_wolf]

Your answers now look like an excuse. . .
. . . I do not understand the meaning of the article. . . in which everything looks somehow convincing and you have to make excuses. . .

By the way, I agree with this:

Quote: mark1

the author uses exclusively Western materials (as well as our reprints FROM THERE) and this, at least, is not correct.

[Falcon]

Your answers now look like an excuse. . .

It's even funny Why should I make excuses to someone
I answer questions to those who may be interested. And I’m definitely not trying to convince those who do not need it

in which everything seems somehow not convincing and you have to make excuses. . .

So far, your arguments have been that since our media say that it works, it means it works. It doesn’t matter on the laws of physics, on aerodynamics, on piloting techniques - and this cannot be as it cannot be.
Well, actually "Good". No need to argue

the author uses exclusively Western materials (as well as our reprints FROM THERE)

This is generally funny. I wonder what is taken from there and what is reprinted
If the law of physics is discovered by Newton - is it taken from there or reprinted?

P / S / and judging by your comments, if you read the article, then it’s certainly not until the end

[Slon1978]

You expressed this thesis in almost direct text at the very end of the article.

[zyablik.olga]

Of course not! Kirill, do not pay attention to unconstructive criticism, because not everyone has a specialized education like yours! First, Sergei, and then I read your publications with great interest!

[Slon1978]

In particular, the author considered the "pincers", "ladder" and others described in the history of close air combat tactics. But these are techniques related to the BEGINNING BVB - the beginning of the attack. But if we consider the middle stage of the BVB, the attack itself in its classical sense - when an attacking aircraft tries to enter the rear hemisphere and direct its missiles - there is a mutual maneuvering of both aircraft with a mutual loss of speed. In this situation, an aircraft with an OVT will have an advantage both in the position of the "attacking" and "defending" one.

[Falcon]

there is mutual maneuvering of both aircraft with a mutual loss of speed.

With a loss of speed - the one who loses maneuvers - as energy drops.

[Slon1978]

You may not understand me. During aircraft maneuvers in the BVB with an attempt to capture from the rear hemisphere, the aircraft maneuvers approximately the same way, the attacker tries to repeat the victim’s maneuvers in order to win seconds to capture the target of the GOS missile, while both aircraft lose speed. The lower the speed decreases, the worse the aerodynamics for maneuvering works, and the greater the role in the maneuvering the OBE will play.

[voyaka uh]

The trick is that in the last decade, there were explosives,
able to do a 180-degree turn in place.
And they significantly change the rules of air combat.
A runaway plane that has been trapped in the tail launches a rocket that,
turning, flies back. The persecutor becomes a victim.

[Connie]

This is what happens, now at the start of the battle you have to turn your tail to the enemy and launch missiles back?

[Slon1978]

Certainly spectacular aerobatics like "pancake" or "Pugachev's cobra" are of little use in real close combat because of the colossal loss of speed by the aircraft. But with these maneuvers, in simple terms, OVT is applied at maximum angles, in extreme modes for entertainment. In real combat, the OVT will be applied at insignificant angles without disabling the automatic mode and without significant loss of speed, which will complement the aerodynamic properties of the aircraft during active maneuvering and will allow the attacking pilot to compensate for losses in his response from target evasion maneuvers or, as a defender, to reach the desired the angle of the forced turn to avoid the capture of your aircraft by the enemy from behind.

[Falcon]

In a real battle, ATS will be applied at insignificant angles without disabling the automatic mode and without significant loss of speed, which will supplement the aerodynamic properties of the aircraft during active maneuvering and allow the attacking pilot to compensate for losses in his reaction from maneuvers to evade the target or

Try to accelerate by car to 120 km / h and sharply turn the steering wheel. Question - why do you need the ability to turn wheels at 120 degrees on 90 km? In the air, the situation is similar, except that at the most advantageous angular velocities, the overload from the oncoming flow is close to the chapel in strength and therefore it is not possible to deflect even aerodynamic surfaces to the maximum.

[Slon1978]

You either do not read carefully or do not understand. In real melee combat, OBT will be used at small angles when speed drops and the rudders work less efficiently. The aircraft will maintain maneuver due to ATS.

[Slon1978]

You yourself write that the maximum turning speed is achieved at speeds of 800-1000 km per hour. What will happen when the speed drops lower? But it will fall - there are no alternatives. There are only two choices - you either try to hit the enemy’s tail, maneuver and consequently lose speed, and then the OBP begins to give a decisive advantage or try to get out of the battle, but you get the risk of attacking the tail with medium / long range missiles if the enemy has weapons, fuel and a wish.

[Falcon]

You either do not read carefully or do not understand. In real melee combat, OBT will be used at small angles when speed drops and the rudders work less efficiently. The aircraft will maintain maneuver due to ATS.

Here rather you are not careful. In the article I talked about this

So where can one realize the advantage of a deflected thrust vector? At heights, above the most favorable, and at speeds, below optimum for BVB. At the same time deep beyond the boundaries of the established reversal, i.e. with a forced turn, at which the energy of the aircraft is consumed. Therefore, OVT is applicable only in special cases and with energy reserves. Such regimes are not so popular in the BWB, but, of course, it is better when there is a possibility of vector deviation.

[Philip Staros]

Just thinking out loud ... I haven't counted it yet, so "together with the audience" ....

So. We are talking about "the best speed for TRADITIONAL maneuvers".
And we say that at a speed of 800 kilometers per hour, a super-maneuverable aircraft cannot realize its abilities.
1. And what is the concealment of a forced reversal? Suppose with a loss of speed - but HOW MUCH?
2. Actually, why did you start writing - what if the most advantageous for the Su-35S is the speed of "super-maneuverability"? And so ... Such a Su is flying ... I decided to look around (once again - RADAR, then we have a certain "elongated" diagram of "vision") ... I slowed down (about 2-3 if necessary) to a low one and arranged a "maple leaf" ".
Spotted the enemy plane to his right by turning the radar. 100 kilometers. This is 300-400 seconds before the meeting. You can do while LONG ROCKET FIGHT. He turned on the spot and unhurriedly launched the rockets. To return to the "advantageous speed" you need about fifteen seconds. Moreover, the direction, etc. will already be "correct".
In general, braking, turning and accelerating "where necessary" will take about 20-25 seconds. This is twice as much as the "well-established reversal".
BUT.
If we need not the direction of FLIGHT but the direction of RADAR and ROCKET then until the moment of the desired position we have = 3 seconds of braking and a couple of seconds to maneuver - 5 seconds.
Voilà!

And so - if an adversary creeps up to us from behind, then we can turn around in an arc for ten seconds and be "fast" and, not excluded, dead.
Or "stand in the air" and turn to the enemy in five to six seconds. Truth without speed. But the missiles will look "strictly in the forehead."
At a distance of 50 kilometers, for example, we will launch rockets to meet and accelerate back in 15 seconds (the enemy takes about five to six kilometers during this time).

Acceleration - data from an article on the network that the Su-27 accelerates from 600 to 1000 in 10 seconds. This is the fast and the furious, yes. But the batch is already underway!

[Pacifist]

The use of cobra is not for BVB. This is a technique for disrupting capture and guidance. Its use in BVB is extremely limited and specific.

[mark1]

the author uses exclusively Western materials (as well as our reprints FROM THERE) and this, at least, is not correct.

[kugelblitz]

The author again missed the moment where Rafal, without UHT, bent the Raptor with, though defective, but still UHT. All these "need-needlessly" merge before one factor, namely the instability in the limiting modes. Those. The Su-27 is less likely to fall into a tailspin than the F-15, as it is, incidentally, very indicative of a training close combat between a French and an American, which speaks of Raphael's excellent aerodynamics. The same will be in the opposition of the T-50 against the F-22, although more likely to an even greater extent. In the video, in some moments you can see what the plane is capable of.

[Vadim237]

Whether the T 50 will appear in service with the Russian Air Force is not yet fully known.

[Connie]

Will appear. Armed with the VKS.

[Philip Staros]

WHO IS UNKNOWN ?! CONTRACTS are already signed. On the first batch.
Or does the T-50 have competitors? Instead of something they will buy?

[Barakuda]

Cool article.
But I have a comrade, the Order of Lenin and the Red Star. Techie Alive yet. . I disassembled the Dryer to the bolt and gave recommendations. to the manufacturer.

[Wild_grey_wolf]

would paint their impressions. . . what do you mean ?

[Wild_grey_wolf]

Falcon,
So far, your arguments have been that since our media say that it works, it means it works. It doesn’t matter on the laws of physics, on aerodynamics, on piloting techniques - and this cannot be as it cannot be.
Well, actually "Good". No need to argue

--
So your comparisons so far look like a young naturalist in a circle. . .
. . . comparisons are superficial and do not explain, if there are so many minuses and losses, then explain why our designers go stubbornly this way or do you only see and know this?
It only amazes me.

[Falcon]

. . . comparisons are superficial and do not explain

I'm afraid the graphics and formulas are not mine. Everything is perfectly explained by the graphs, you can even write nothing. By the way, the graphics are not "from there", but "from us."

if there are only minuses and losses, then explain why our designers go stubbornly this way?

Just go to others. Since they are creating the fifth generation engine for the T-50.

And again, a repeat:

better when the possibility of deviation of the vector is.

But this is not a decisive factor. And at least Western designers do not agree with him, especially after testing their similar systems (but this is their business).

By the way, the Chinese are creating 5-generation aircraft without ATS (I could be wrong, I was not very interested in them).

By the way, look for data on the old Red Flag. When the Su-30MKI first appeared, the Indians flew a bunch of battles, as they pulled the OVT at every opportunity. But then they got used to it and began to use the "classic" advantages of the Su-27 design. The result was not long in coming.

[Wild_grey_wolf]

The Chinese simply can not make an engine of such complexity, and you already know which engine we are building, it is generally classified. . .
You will never understand that you are drawing global conclusions on surface data and this is annoying. . .

[Falcon]

The Chinese simply can not make an engine of such complexity

CLEAR! What are we talking about now? Oresource, about T gas in front of the turbine, about gaskets, about compressor, about supports?
It seems no ...
We are about OBT.
A small educational program - all nozzles are adjustable in cross section. This is done by hydraulic cylinders - the Chinese have coped with this somehow. Now think about how complex the deflection design is. In the first approximation, the same hydro-cylinders. Well, or electro "machines" as someone. Infa is complete even in the public domain - for example, patents.

You will never understand that you are drawing global conclusions on surface data and this is annoying.

Actually "Good". So as not to get annoyed - green tea with mint

[Wild_grey_wolf]

Are you sure of the quality of the engines and for what reason then do they buy our engines? If they are so handsome.
Laugh No one forbids you. . . Of course you are right in everything and well done. The best and everyone knows.

How much our enterprises lost without having such a valuable and knowledgeable Employee. . .
even somehow sympathize. . .

[Falcon]

Are you sure of the quality of the engines and for what reason then do they buy our engines? If they are so handsome.

Repeat:

What are we talking about now? Oresource, about T gas in front of the turbine, about gaskets, about compressor, about supports?
It seems no ...
We are about OBT.

[voyaka uh]

So the whole thing is in the composition and heat treatment of the alloy of the turbine blades.
They withstand a significantly greater resource than the Chinese.
There are no other secrets.
If the Chinese do not "split" the material, then they risk changing their engines in half
more often than imported.

[Leto]

Quote: Slon1978

You may not understand me. During aircraft maneuvers in the BVB with an attempt to capture from the rear hemisphere, the aircraft maneuvers approximately the same way, the attacker tries to repeat the victim’s maneuvers in order to win seconds to capture the target of the GOS missile, while both aircraft lose speed. The lower the speed decreases, the worse the aerodynamics for maneuvering works, and the greater the role in the maneuvering the OBE will play.

You do not understand that the borders of the BVB have expanded from 2 km. up to 20, at a distance of 10 km. it will absolutely not matter to you which fortels the enemy is twisting, and if he loses speed at the same time, it will only be at your fingertips.
For example, you have AKM in your hands, and the opponent in front of you jumps on furniture a la Jean Marais at a distance of three meters, or the same situation, only he does it at a distance of 30 meters, when is the probability of getting higher?

[Slon1978]

Write funny things :))) I correctly understood your idea that when you irradiate your fighter radar of another fighter with 20 km, you only have to eject? :)) But it’s a sinful thing for me and exclusively because of the simplicity of my soul I thought about missile defense maneuvers, sincerely believed that from 20 km the pilots have no visual contact, and the beam of the airborne radar for guiding the missile is very narrow and you can try to jump out of it), then you can use electronic warfare (believed in the old fashioned way that medium-range missiles have mainly radio command guidance). And all this often leads opponents, where? In close combat. In general, I lagged behind life, my views are outdated :)))

[Wild_grey_wolf]

Quote: Falcon

Are you sure of the quality of the engines and for what reason then do they buy our engines? If they are so handsome.

Repeat:

What are we talking about now? Oresource, about T gas in front of the turbine, about gaskets, about compressor, about supports?
It seems no ...
We are about OBT.

As I understand it, we are talking about nothing, just like the article is about nothing. . . and what purpose of the article is also not CLEAR.
It doesn’t seem like a scientific work, it doesn’t seem like a report on the identified minuses after being applied in the next conflict. . . and the enterprises work, modernize, take into account experience and somehow are in no hurry to abandon their decision.
. . . More questions than answers. . .

[Falcon]

As I understand it, we are talking about nothing, just like the article is about nothing. . .

Well, it’s kind of like talking about OBT, no?

like an article about anything. . .

Actually "Good".

[Taoist]

Strange article. And for some reason, the BVB is considered at the level of almost the Second World War. In particular, the possibilities of a variable thrust vector in terms of performing an anti-missile maneuver as well as a maneuver for disrupting escort in combination with the use of electronic warfare are not considered at all. In particular, the same "Cobra" with the shooting of heat and radio traps ... Strange article.

[Falcon]

And for some reason, BVB is considered at almost the level of World War II.

In the second world optimal speed for BVB, the 0,9m smoke?

the possibilities of a variable thrust vector are not considered at all in terms of performing an anti-ballistic maneuver

At what speed can this be done - without crashing the plane? On the big one - why deflect a vector when you can do this with aerodynamic planes?

In particular, the same "Cobra" with the shooting of heat and radio traps ...

Why cobra when shooting heat traps? Need to slow down - there are aerodynamic means or climb

[Taoist]

Well, for starters, aerodynamic surfaces are not always effective at all angles of attack. "shading", "stalls" and other joys. Changing the thrust vector is always effective and this effort does not depend on the aircraft speed. (as opposed to aerodynamics). Second. No aerodynamic surface (including the brake) is comparable in torque to the thrust of the main power plant. (and as I already wrote above, this moment is independent of the aircraft speed at the moment of the maneuver and, accordingly, the flow mode). Accordingly, a maneuver in which the angle of attack does not change with respect to the aircraft's motion vector without changing the thrust vector is generally practically impossible - namely, such maneuvers allow, for example, to continue to keep the enemy in the ILS field during active maneuvering ... A modern BVB is determined by a set of new tactical techniques and not at all by speed at which it is being conducted.

[Falcon]

Changing the thrust vector is always effective and this effort does not depend on the speed of the aircraft.

Effective, if you do not take into account that the plane is losing energy. Since the deviation leads to a slip and therefore a forced turn.

I already wrote above this moment is independent of the speed of the aircraft at the time of the maneuver and, accordingly, the flow regime).

It is foolish to argue with this, at low speeds it is effective, I do not deny it. Only first, you need the enemy to fall to the same speed and lose the advantage in "angular velocity".

namely, such maneuvers allow, for example, to continue to keep the enemy in the field of ILS with active maneuvering ...

Which again is true only for low speeds, where maximum overload is not achieved.

[Des10]

"They went the other way, creating rectangular nozzles to reduce radar and thermal signature. The bonus was the deflection of these nozzles only up and down."
so about this back in 1980 in the Foreign Military Review there was an article short with a picture.

[Operator]

Another mistake of the author of the article - rectangular nozzles in F-22 engines are used exclusively to reduce infrared noticeability.

[Falcon]

Another blooper article author

Your incompetence coupled with obstinacy continues to amaze.
They cover part of the turbine blades, thereby playing the role of radar blockers (but not fully)

[Connie]

Radar. They close them no better.

[Operator]

Infrared - rectangular nozzles provide a greater intake of ambient air to the jet stream of the engine, thereby organizing better mixing of air and exhaust gases and faster cooling of the jet.

To eliminate the radio visibility of the turbine blades of the engine, a radar blocker is used, to reduce the reflection of the probe radar signal from the nozzle, a radar absorbing coating of a ceramic ferromagnet is used.

[Connie]

Against OLS the most. They also thought it would be easier.

[Falcon]

To eliminate the radio visibility of the turbine blades of the engine, a radar blocker is used

I wonder how this radar blocker can close the turbine blades? How would he just for the compressor is fair

[voyaka uh]

According to all statistics of exercises and battles, the Americans calculated that
optimal speed for air combat - 0,9 MAX.
According to their concept, it is necessary to optimize the aircraft maneuverability at such a speed.
So that he was maximally maneuverable (and maximally efficient) at 0,9 MAX.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Wild_Grey_Wolf

Practice always diverges from theory and what seems to be beautiful according to the formula is often not quite right in practice.

... there is an even more deadly argument - as a rule, the capabilities of technology / weapons - determine the tactics and strategy of use and counteraction, and not vice versa. Those. the emergence of missiles "ducked and forced" the Air Force to fly and break through to the MV-SMV. Likewise, super-maneuverability and the ability to perform non-standard aerodynamic figures will allow them to be used in combat operations and have advantages, especially in UAVs.

Quote: author

What is the reason for such a dislike of the West for a rejected traction vector

very simple - they DO NOT ABLE TO DO THEM (no technology)!
We also did not immediately learn this. Approached this - whole 30-40let. Starting on the Yak-36 and prototypes with the P-27-300 turbojet engine with rotary nozzles ...
Then, when we learned, we switched to OVT

As for the "capture" and the capture "for tracking" of the target - in the conditions of spaced radar antennas, when the avionics of the aircraft becomes "all-round" - there is no need to "keep the nose of the fighter on the target," as it seems to me. And at the same time, the launch is made when the RV destroys the enemy with a given probability ...

[Falcon]

As for the "capture" and the capture "for tracking" of the target - in the conditions of spaced radar antennas, when the aircraft avionics becomes "all-round" - there is no need to "keep the nose of the fighter on the target," as it seems to me.

When it’s all-perspective, but for now it’s only DAS for F-35, then maneuvering almost becomes unnecessary

[Sars]

Using approximately the same formulas, the Americans in the 60s came to the conclusion that the maneuvering fighter battle was completely futile. As a result, their fighters of the hundredth and fourth series were virtually devoid of wings and were beaten by our twenty-first instant.
The Germans, still on the Tornado, conducted training battles with the F-22, spoke very disapprovingly about the combat properties of these machines.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Leto

all this made over-mobility an unnecessary option destroying the resource of both the engine and the glider.

"super-leverage is an unnecessary option"? ;)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
You and those who say so simply do not know HOW TO USE THIS!
And besides, they do not know AND DO NOT HAVE TECHNOLOGIES for the production of nozzles with OVT. And they don’t know and don’t know how to coordinate the capabilities of the PLANER, moving with OBT and RV.

They would also like to know the combat tactics of using airborne vehicles with ATS and their capabilities. ;))))

[Falcon]

They would also like to know the combat tactics of using aircraft with OB

It’s more likely from the Hindus to learn. Unlike us, they have 240 Su-30MKI in service. And on the Red flag they participate. And for a long time.

We have something else in the 100 area of ​​vehicles with military hardware in the army.

[Leto]

You and those who say so simply do not know HOW TO USE THIS!

"You just don't know how to cook them" ... from the same series.
For example, fencing for a long time was an important knowledge necessary in battle, up to the 20th century. Until a rifled weapon appeared, it allowed to neutralize the enemy with relatively high accuracy at a distance. Suppose that fencing is now possible and useful, it is possible that a saber will serve better than a gun, but the likelihood is extremely low, is it worth it to spend a lot of time on training? Yes, in the circus, in the cinema, on the Olympic track, when both rivals in the same conditions can, but not in battle. Remember the scene from Indiana Jones?

[voyaka uh]

"They would very much like to know more about the combat tactics of using aircraft with OVT and their capabilities" ////

They found out. They specifically clamped on the teachings of the Indians by several
airplanes so that they go on aerobatics and ATS
and squeezed the maximum out of the Su-30 (for this the Americans "sacrificed" their other aircraft).
The Indians had the best aces and they did not hit the dirt in the face.
And the Americans monitored with pictures all the maneuvers - they have an air training ground
equipped with all sorts of computers and video.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Falcon

Small educational program - all nozzles are adjustable in section.

...not! Not all nozzles are adjustable! :)))
What for some aircraft, even maneuverable ones to have an "adjustable nozzle" (and hemorrhoids with that)?
РС - have only those aircraft that need to "optimize" the characteristics of the engine with flight modes in H and V. Moreover, when the latter change in a wide range. MiG-15 and MiG-17 did not have RS, like the Su-25 and many others ...

[Falcon]

...not! Not all nozzles are adjustable! :)))

I did not put it correctly. It was about modern fighters

very simple - they DO NOT ABLE TO DO THEM (no technology)!

Complete stupidity. It has no tax in the world. On f-22 could? Adjustable could? Have you tested the F-15 and F-16? Such an unprecedented design is straightforward.

On F-35, the degrees are rejected by 90, but on F-35A they almost could not do it.

[Connie]

The F-35B has a Soviet nozzle. Like almost all of himself. With a small angle, Russian deviations are also better.

[Taoist]

The MiG 15 engine has a centrifugal compressor - it is much more stable than an axial engine. Therefore, in general, they did not need an adjustable nozzle. But all subsequent ones already required adjustment of the nozzle section and an air bypass system to prevent surging when changing operating modes.

[Connie]

And an adjustable airspace, at supersonic.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Falcon

OBT is not a school

OBT is SCHOOL! Like production, empowerment and use.
And it’s not fully mastered, especially in terms of unlocking capabilities and introducing them into the Air Force control unit

[P0LYM]

Falcon, thanks for the interesting article ...

[Rus2012]

Quote: Falcon

Complete stupidity. It has no tax in the world. On f-22 could? Adjustable could? Have you tested the F-15 and F-16? Such an unprecedented design is straightforward.

On F-35, the degrees are rejected by 90, but on F-35A they almost could not do it.

... well, of course - "Complete nonsense. It has no analogue in the world"! If you don’t know how, you have to argue that way at least ... And write - "OVT is an unnecessary option" As well as ICBMs with "flat trajectory" with "maneuvering BB" ...

As you write - "Have you tested the F-15 and F-16? Such an unprecedented design is straight."
Do you know what result they tested? Right - negative, in the sense - problems with reliability and problems with coordination of aircraft and gas turbine engines with ATS. Therefore, they abandoned it.

[Falcon]

If you don’t know how, you have to argue at least that way ...

Arguing graphics.

Right - negative

Not surprisingly, depending on what they wanted to get from them.

reliability issues

The reliability of hydraulic cylinders? This then was not the problem of OVT but the whole industry. I didn’t hear something to complain. I heard that the Indians on the red flag of Al-31 were refused at first, so they just didn’t spend half of the fights. But recently, such news, thank God, is not heard.

Therefore, they abandoned it.

F-22 is still there with OVT

[Connie]

Why would they? This is "unnecessary" and "even harmful" ...

[Connie]

I heard about the Indians - but you can read where?

[Rus2012]

Quote: voyaka uh

optimal speed for air combat - 0,9 MAX.

Yankees almost always become hostages of their erroneous concepts: Fu117, Fu35 ...

[Rus2012]

Quote: Falcon

F-35 - then maneuvering almost becomes unnecessary

... and assuming that the future of the Air Force is "super-maneuverable mass-optimized UAVs"?
Try to knock him down ...

[voyaka uh]

To do this, make super-maneuverable missiles BB, like Python-5

[Zaurbek]

Again, a bunch of data tied to the ears ....

[Zaurbek]

Eurofighter and Rafal are in line for the installation of OVT. The Americans are busy arming the F-35 and are not spending money on upgrading the cardinal F-15 and F-16.

[Taoist]

By the way, one more remark is that the creation of all-aspect nozzles for changing the thrust vector is not a task of creating the corresponding power drives or nozzle rotation mechanisms. First of all, this is the most difficult problem in gas dynamics. The fact is that any changes in the gas flow in the IM tract are directly related to changes in the overall stability - and the resulting pressure fluctuations in the nozzle can lead to surge and even destruction of the engine. Accordingly, in order to be able to arbitrarily change the direction of movement of gases in the engine tract, regardless of modes and flight altitude, it is necessary to create and calculate algorithms for the operation of the corresponding fuel automation. In particular, in the West, for a very long time, they could not, for example, solve the problem of stable supersonic combustion in a curved nozzle, which did not allow the creation of a vertical with a FC, this problem was actually solved on our Yak141, (which eventually allowed the United States to buy technology at a low cost) to equip a supersonic nozzle and your "vertical" ...
Changing the thrust vector in an arbitrary direction (especially in afterburner modes) is generally an extraordinary level of design decisions and theoretical development.

[Falcon]

the fact is that any changes in the gas flow in the blood pressure path are directly related to the change in overall stability - and the resulting pressure fluctuations in the nozzle can lead to surging and even destruction of the engine. Accordingly, in order to be able to arbitrarily change the direction of gas movement in the engine path, regardless of the modes and altitude

Let me remind you that there was a project to modernize the Su-27 combatant drills by replacing ONLY nozzles with OVT without replacing the engine ...

of supersonic combustion in a curved nozzle, which did not allow the creation of a vertical with a FC, this task was actually solved on our Yak141, (which eventually allowed the United States to buy technology at a low cost) to equip its own "vertical" with a supersonic nozzle ...

FK deflection applied to another plane rather than nozzle

[Taoist]

Replacing nozzles without changing the algorithm of the fuel automation is impossible. Those. you most likely call "replacing nozzles without replacing engines" a very serious modernization in which, in addition to the nozzles, it was necessary to completely replace both the aircraft control system and the engine control system ... The fact that the gas generator and compressor parts of the engine do not change are actually the smallest from works.

[Taoist]

Where are FC rejected? Maybe you should read THAD at your leisure? And the processes that accompany the boosting of blood pressure by burning the fuel behind the turbine?

[Taoist]

And how you were going to replace the "nozzles" without replacing the entire control system of the aircraft and the fuel automatics of the engine, I (and the theory of AD) also do not understand ...

[Operator]

The knowledge of the author of the article is at the level of aircraft of the Second World War.

The super-maneuverability of modern fighters in close air combat is ensured not by two indicators - thrust-to-weight ratio and wing load, but by four - including glider aerodynamics with maintaining lift at supercritical angles of attack and a controlled thrust vector of the engine.

In the 1992 year, the Su-27 couple conducted an official BVB training with the F-15 during an official visit to the United States. All Su-27 fights won with a dry score due to its aerodynamics.

The main tactical technique used by the Su-27 pilots in the BVB was to pull the F-15 into maneuvering on verticals, where the Needles lost speed up to 650 km / h and flew on the verge of stalling into a tailspin, after which the Sushki were guaranteed to hit them in the tail.

The author's attempts to suck out of his finger some "optimal" speed of the BVB at the level of 800-1000 km / h, based on the tabular values ​​of a limited set of indicators, are pure spherokonin and have nothing to do with the tactics of air combat from the word at all.

In a similar way, fighting on verticals, as well as by performing a pancake maneuver using a horizontally deflected thrust vector (which the Raptor does not have) in the BVB, the Su-35S will also win dry over the F-22.

At the same time, the "pancake" maneuver in the BVB has a completely specific purpose - firing RVV-MD homing missiles into the rear hemisphere (when the enemy aircraft enters the tail) without losing the missile's energy. Turning short-range missiles in the air by 180 degrees using its own engine reduces their flight range by an order of magnitude.

At the same time, a larger supply of fuel on board will allow Sushka to fight on the afterburner of engines with a thrust-to-weight ratio 1,14, and the Raptor, in order to save a small supply of fuel, will have to be content with the maximum non-afterburner thrust with a thrust-to-weight ratio 0,86.

Taking into account the advantage in the detection and aiming range of the Su-35S using an optical-location station (which the F-22 does not have), we can confidently predict that the new Sushka will tear the Raptor in the BVB, just like its predecessor tore the Igla "a quarter of a century ago.

[Falcon]

The main tactical technique used by the Su-27 pilots in the BVB was to pull the F-15 into maneuvering on verticals, where the Needles lost speed up to 650 km / h and flew on the verge of stalling into a tailspin, after which the Sushki were guaranteed to hit them in the tail.

While the climb rate of the F-15 is greater

In a similar way, fighting on verticals, as well as by performing a pancake maneuver with

Vertical pancake at 1 speeds

The author's attempts to suck out of his finger some "optimal" speed of the BVB at the level of 800-1000 km / h,

This is not for me, but rather for the practice of exercises. But the operator in 3 glasses from the tank knows better

At the same time, a larger supply of fuel on board will allow Sushka to fight at the afterburner of engines with a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1,14, and the Raptor, in order to save a small supply of fuel, will have to be content with the maximum non-afterburner thrust with a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0,86.

Super fantasies from local Munchausen You need to fight on transporters then, there is plenty of fuel

it is safe to predict that the new "Drying" will tear the "Raptor" in BVB

It is safe to predict that a dreamer with "bugs" as illustrations to his articles, as usual, writes only his own ideas in order to suck at least something out of his finger

[K-36]

For Falcon personally, and for those who are not indifferent to this Topic as some starting reference Knowledge. As they say, from the first person. Kharchevsky. Preparation for the BVB with the F-15 (about the superiority of which was written even in our secret Soviet documents). About how they examined his (F-15) vulnerabilities with an experienced look, and how, after imposing his battle tactics on him, they gave the vaunted F-15. And so several times ... And it seems to me that if Falcon watched this Harchevsky interview, then we (readers of VO) would see a completely different text of his article.
So, Kharchevsky’s interview (... Americans will never be friends with us)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ePwd2B331U

[Connie]

It seems that he saw, he’s just a friend to the Americans ...

[Falcon]

This is a response to Falcon's phrase "... Given that the F-15 has a higher rate of climb

imposing his battle tactics on him, they paid the vaunted F-15. And so several times ...

Did I say somewhere that Su-27 could not do F-15? Or didn’t you just read the article?
And in an interview, he says that on the graphs they could not find where Su-27 is superior to F-15. Which is not immediately true, since all the graphs clearly show in which ranges Drying is superior. And at the same speeds they won there

[gladcu2]

Those. SU-27 must bind the conditions of maneuverable combat at speeds close to 800 km / h.
In conditions of dual combat, when the enemy is obliged to bring down an opponent, such a thing can and will pass. But when the opponent refuses the fight, then, how to introduce him into the situation, accept the offer.

[K-36]

This is the answer to Falcon's phrase "...Despite the fact that the rate of climb of the F-15 is greater "
[media = http: // https: //youtu.be/1ePwd2B331U]

[Connie]

The same one will do the same.

[Rus2012]

Quote: voyaka uh

So the whole thing is in the composition and heat treatment of the alloy of the turbine blades.

and "monocrystal"?
Mode of production?
Calculation of surfaces?
By the way, the method of "trial and selection" of geometry has not been rolling for a long time. Only "chuyka booty", "brilliant foresight at the level of the unknown", three-dimensional (3D) calculation in dynamics, with confirmation at the stand - rolls. And in "mathematics, chess and music" - we were always the first! (C) ...
And for some reason, THIS is lost with the return "to the promised land". Where are the Israeli super moves? There is none of them! ;))))))))))))

[voyaka uh]

"Where are the Israeli super-moves? There are none!;" /////

You mean, "booty booty"? We are more ... head.
Super exploits are left to others.

[Operator]

Quote: Leto

all this made over-mobility an unnecessary option destroying the resource of both the engine and the glider

Like buy a non-maneuverable "Penguin" - he will tear everyone

[Operator]

Quote: Connie

"expert" of air combat and history ... Maybe he just likes to completely write all the topsy-turvy for some purpose?

Idol worship of Western wunderwaffles is bad for the brain.

[Operator]

Quote: Slon1978

maximum turning speed is achieved at speeds of 800-1000 km per hour. What will happen when the speed drops lower? But it will fall - there are no alternatives. There are only two choices - you either try to hit the enemy’s tail, maneuver and consequently lose speed, and then the ATS starts to give a decisive advantage or try to get out of the battle, but you get the risk of attacking the tail with medium / long range missiles if the enemy has weapons, fuel and a wish.

It is useless for the author to explain that the BVB is conducted over the entire range of speeds and heights at which the aircraft does not fall into a tailspin. At Falcon's head, the table template 800-1000 km / h at a spherical cone was firmly fixed.

Su-27 in 1992 in the BVB defeated the predecessors of the Raptor F-15, which could fight strictly according to the tables.

[Falcon]

It is useless for the author to explain that the BVB is conducted over the entire range of speeds and heights

Fantasies of the Operator, more important than the results of the exercises

[Connie]

He had about the results of the exercises.

[gladcu2]

The operator generally is full. Threshes Old without any logic and in violation of the laws of physics.

[potroshenko]

Quote: Pacifist

The use of cobra is not for BVB. This is a technique for disrupting capture and guidance.

As the saying goes, "pour out".

[Rus2012]

Quote: Falcon

The reliability of hydraulic cylinders? This then was not the problem of OVT but the whole industry. I didn’t hear something to complain.

... and you know that any FC with PC - has an overhaul resource less than the rest of the engine? Why did it happen?
It's not about the cylinders, although much depends on their reliable operation.
There are a lot of problems: erosion and changing the characteristics (and geometry) of working elements, MTBF of moving active elements and actuators ... and so on. And so on...
In fact, only a few units are able to produce PK with MS in the world. Axisymmetric OBTs are only us, and of two types ...

Quote: Falcon

F-22 is still there with OVT

as you know - in a primitive way ...

And the Yankees - they threw a lot when faced with problems: analogues of the "Armata", auto-loading, unmanned tanks ...
Explaining - hopelessness. But we understand that - we have failed, but to admit - they are unprepared and incapable ...

[Falcon]

as you know - in a primitive way ...

I am not inclined to think so, for a number of reasons.
1. Tests of all aspects were conducted as I said
2. The concept of the F-22 implied flat nozzles - there it is much more difficult to realize all-round design constructively than on round ones.
3. Nevertheless, there, in spite of the temperature-loaded nozzle, the deviation is realized!
4. On the F-35, a deviation of 90 degrees was implemented, including the one used in flight (you can find the video where it flies its tail forward).
5. Nevertheless, the F-35A did not realize even a slight deviation, although this task is simpler.

... and you know that any FC with PC - has an overhaul resource less than the rest of the engine? Why did it happen?

Here statistics are not on our side. Overhaul period for edition 117s 1000 hours, resource 4000 hours, for F-15E 229 8000 hours "on the wing"

[Wild_grey_wolf]

I don’t understand. What are you trying to prove here?
Well done, they’re cool and everything’s right with them,
Well, study further the best examples of technology. . .
You see your opinion here does not deserve credibility.
Try your luck elsewhere.
For example, where they pray for the American, the best thing is.

[iwind]

Quote: Wild_Grey_Wolf

I don’t understand. What are you trying to prove here?
Well done, they’re cool and everything’s right with them,
Well, study further the best examples of technology. . .
You see your opinion here does not deserve credibility.
Try your luck elsewhere.
For example, where they pray for the American, the best thing is.

And why do you decide for others whose opinion is authoritative? The man prepared the articles, with a good evidence base, read the RLE and books on mannerisms. Preparations do your
Or any opinion that is not consistent with the party line is a mistake? I remember that something similar was about cybernetics and genetics ....
And the author only wrote that the United States also worked with UVT very thoroughly, but then it was abandoned.

[Wild_grey_wolf]

Well, you know, I understand foreign technology, but you don’t argue until you turn blue and you don’t prove that it’s a light in the universe, at least I can recall your comments. . . and I ask the author. . . explain to me then if he could figure out the graphs, calculate everything, read the correct Literature. . . why our design bureaus cannot understand this and follow stubbornly the wrong way. . . so he does not explain. . . for what reason, is that a betrayal of the motherland?

So I recommend knocking at all levels, since he only could figure it out. . .
. . . I am wrong ?

[iwind]

Well, you know, I understand foreign technology, but you don’t argue until you turn blue and you don’t prove that it’s a light in the universe, at least I can recall your comments. . . and I ask the author. . . explain to me then if he could figure out the graphs, calculate everything, read the correct Literature. . . why our design bureaus cannot understand this and follow stubbornly the wrong way. . . so he does not explain. . . for what reason, is that a betrayal of the motherland?

Why not right? The Russian Federation and the United States have different paths. Not one not the second is not erroneous (most likely). And what I see in aircraft manufacturing does not contradict the conclusions of the author. UVT are not the key to victory in the BVB (then we would have had completely different planes), as many would like, but it will not be superfluous. There is no secret that with increasing speed, the weight of the aerodynamic planes increases and the weight of the shock-wave equipment decreases. And UVT is not free, it’s good to be healthy and rich to have everything that is possible, but you have to choose, they chose one, we are different.
This is what the BVB looked like in Iraq. 1991 year. One can already see how the missiles follow the enemy’s aircraft.

Now they have another AIM-9x.

[Connie]

This is not a cobra with the F-16. Its Su-27 can do without ATS.
What was unusual in the AIM-9x compared to the AIM-9M, and was there an American OBT in its own special way on the F-4? Or maybe even static instability?

Or was the next abundance of texts and illustrations as advertisements?

[P0LYM]

I fundamentally disagree with this approach ... I think, instead of such statements, it is better to work hard and reasonably refute Falcon's conclusions, as was done in the first part of the article. There adept666, peaceonyou, Operator and others made very weighty arguments and were quite convincing. In general, I think such discussions are extremely useful and interesting ... But this: "... and I have ... yes, I ... yes, in general, schA like ... with a shovel ..." not comme il faut ... IMHO.

[gladcu2]

The operator did not give any arguments. He only made an assumption. In the article, the author non-alternatively shows that over-maneuverability has a very narrow scope. Neither

[Connie]

The words operator and author are not synonymous.

[Wild_grey_wolf]

If you have any complaints, then write to the factory, seek an audience,
either do better yourself or strive to work at the plant and correct errors. . .
and here what you want to achieve is not clear to me. . .
Yes well done. You are smarter than everyone. . . hold the order.
What do you want?
. . . or do you understand better in Aerotechnics than factories with a Centennial history.
You could understand the graphs, but they could not do it.
Well that's how it is.
Everywhere everything is fine except us.

[Wild_grey_wolf]

This right already looks like a dispute with someone longer. . .

[L10n77]

8000 hours at 229 is our designated resource, and every 500 hours it has a full troubleshooting service, in our terminology - overhaul. So again, a mistake or deliberate falsification.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Falcon

Here statistics are not on our side. Overhaul period for edition 117s 1000 hours, resource 4000 hours, for F-15E 229 8000 hours "on the wing"

... where does it come from?
When was the 117 developed and when was the engine of the 15 made?

There is such a tendency - when transferring a newly developed engine to a series, they can have an overhaul of only 50 hours!
The assigned resource is set according to the type standards - 4000. Which during operation in 25 years (type service life) is repeatedly extended, based on experience, and can reach (exceed) 10 thousand hours ...

I am writing about the ratio of resources between FC and PC and another part of the engine (compressor-turbine with a combustion chamber)

[Falcon]

This is just the point. 117-th is develop Al-31. On most Su-27 are Al-31F ser.2. He is older than 229. And now they have an overhaul 500 designated 1500.

You write that Americans do not implement OBT due to insurmountable difficulties:

There are a lot of problems: erosion and changing the characteristics (and geometry) of working elements, MTBF of moving active elements and actuators ... and so on. And so on...

But in what, and in the resource they cannot be reproached

[Rus2012]

Quote: Falcon

This is just the point. 117-th is develop Al-31. On most Su-27 are Al-31F ser.2. He is older than 229.

your anhydrite ...
And 229 is the development of Pratt & Whitney F100 !!!
And years old - 100 almost !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They repeat to you - the product 117 (AL-41F1) is not a product 99 (AL-31f)! There are significant differences! If some nodes are worked out, then others are new - with an unverified resource, don’t you? How they will work in a complex - only the Lord knows!

After putting into production for installation on an aircraft, he had an initial resource = 50 hours of work!
And during 25let - it will gradually increase both the overhaul and the assigned to the values ​​established according to the standards!

[Falcon]

And 229 is the development of Pratt & Whitney F100 !!!
And years old - 100 almost !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

229 is the same development of F-100 as 117 is the development of Al-31. (i.e. very different engines)

And during 25let - it will gradually increase both the overhaul and the assigned to the values ​​established according to the standards!

Once again, Al-31F Ser 2. It is still being manufactured for installation on Su-27 and after almost 30 years it has an assigned resource in 1500 hours.

By the way, almost all of the Yaki-VTOL aircraft could fly backwards, never seen before :)))))))))))

And I said that this is unseen. Those. here they somehow coped with the algorithms, on the F-22 they coped, on the tests they coped. But still has no tax in the world. Well, let it be so.

[Operator]

The funny thing is that the author cannot figure out the graphs that he himself cites in the article.

So, on chart No. 8, the reserve of the angular velocity of a steady turn at 600 km / h is clearly indicated, in other words, the structural strength of the aircraft still allows for a more drastic maneuver, but the aerodynamic rudders are no longer available.

For example, at a speed of 600 km / h, the Su-27 has a steady angular rotation speed of 18 degrees / s, and taking into account the reserve, 26 degrees / s.

The reserve of the angular velocity of a steady U-turn is realized with the help of a shock wave in the horizontal plane. This is the advantage of the all-perspective UVT that the Su-35С and T-50 have.

Compared to them, F-22s with UHTs are only in the vertical plane, and F-Xnumxs with no UHTs are in a deep ass in close air combat.

[Falcon]

So, on chart No. 8, the reserve of the angular velocity of a steady turn at 600 km / h is clearly indicated, in other words, the structural strength of the aircraft still allows for a more drastic maneuver, but the aerodynamic rudders are no longer available.

Lord, operator, what other reserve . The dotted line is not a reserve - it is data on Ф-15. See where the border is by angle of attack

[Svateev]

"The dotted line is not a reserve - this is F-15 data."
But on the 8 graph, the lines of both Su and F-15 go beyond the ultimate strength only at speeds above 800 km / h. And at speeds up to 800 km / h there really is a margin in the corner of the headland. Or how do you read these charts?

[iwind]

Quote: Svateev

"The dotted line is not a reserve - this is F-15 data."
But on the 8 graph, the lines of both Su and F-15 go beyond the ultimate strength only at speeds above 800 km / h. And at speeds up to 800 km / h there really is a margin in the corner of the headland. Or how do you read these charts?

and we also have a margin of angle of attack (the ability of aerodynamic planes) to give an advantage to high-speed airborne engines of up to 600. At altitudes of 3000, the angular repetition rate can be raised from 22 to 26 degrees per second.

[Falcon]

Svateev
I’ll add to the fact that you have already been answered - look for where the limit on the angle of attack on the chart

[Svateev]

Why, "iwind" also agrees that the UHT (OVT) at a speed of 600 km / h will benefit - it will increase the turning speed.
So let's check the 8 chart reading:
At a speed of 600km / h, the steady U-turn in Su is slightly more than 20 deg / s, for the F-15 about 19 deg / s. So? And the tensile strength is about 26 deg / sec. So or not?
And by the way, does graph 8 have an "angle of attack" - that is, the angle between the incoming air flow and (as far as I remember the term) the median plane of the airfoil wing? Which line is it?

[Falcon]

At a speed of 600km / h, the steady U-turn in Su is slightly more than 20 deg / s, for the F-15 about 19 deg / s. So? And the tensile strength is about 26 deg / sec. So or not?

Not so, or rather not really. First you need to understand what height we are talking about. If about 200m, which is not realistic for BVB, then Su has 20 degrees at Ф- 19 degrees. Durability aisle for this height at Su in the 28 area. The limit on the angle of attack (alpha extra) for this height is higher than the limit on strength. At the same time, it will not come to such a turn at such a speed. Since a forced turn is possible only for a split second, otherwise the plane will fall into a dive.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Falcon

4. On the F-35, a deviation of 90 degrees was implemented, including the one used in flight (you can find the video where it flies its tail forward).

about that...
on Fu35В a TURNING nozzle aki Yak-141 is used. A TURN, rather than an OBT, controlled vector is always according to the algorithms of multi-mode flight and combat use.
And what stood on Yak is just the 2-th stage of the development of VTOL ...
By the way, almost all of the Yaki-VTOL aircraft could fly backwards, never seen before :)))))))))))

[Connie]

This "just", together with the supporting systems, was much more difficult to do.
On their own, this did not work for anyone other than the USSR.

[Connie]

In fairness, there should have been a different picture with Yak and not with the F-35.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Falcon

Once again, Al-31F Ser 2. It is still being manufactured for installation on Su-27 and after almost 30 years it has an assigned resource in 1500 hours.

ABCs:
AL-31F
It is in mass production. Resource brought by 1000 / 4000.
Modifications
AL-31F ser. 1 (ed. 99B, 1983) - the first production version with turbine engine blades with the so-called half-loop cooling system and 150 / 200 h resource.

AL-31F ser. 2 (ed. 99B, 1985) - with new turbine engine blades with cyclone-vortex cooling and a resource of 500 / 900 h, later 500 / 1500 h. It is used on most modifications of the Su-27 family of aircraft.

AL-31F ser. 3 (ed. 99A, 1987 g.) - with an additional special operating mode (12 800 kgs thrust, gas temperature increased by 75К) for Su-27K (Su-33) ship fighters.
On an experimental Su-27KUB aircraft from 2003, the AL-31F ser engine is tested. 3 with UVT (rotary nozzle similar to that used on AL-31FP).

AL-31FP (publ. 96, 1997) - with a rotary nozzle in the same plane, which made it possible to implement thrust vector control and a fighter super maneuverability mode. It is used on Su-30MKI aircraft and their modifications. Since 2000, it has been mass-produced at UMPO, licensed production is being developed in India.

AL-31F-M1 (publ. 99M1, 2002) - a modernized turbofan engine with a new four-stage fan KND-924-4, increased to 924 mm in diameter and self-propelled guns with a digital integrated engine controller, developed by the Salyut MMPP. Thrust increased to 13 500 kgf, resource - up to 1000 / 4000 hours. Installation of an all-round UVT nozzle is possible. Since 2002, flight tests have been carried out on LL Su-27 No. 37-11. Designed for use on modernized aircraft Su-27, Su-33, etc.

AL-31F-SM (ed. 99СМ, formerly AL-31Ф-M2, ed. 99М2) - the second stage of modernization of the serial AL-31F, developed by the Salyut MMPP. Designed for installation on modernized Su-27СМ aircraft and others. New turbine stages and improved KND, self-propelled guns with full responsibility with a digital integrated engine controller are applied. Installation of an all-round UVT nozzle is possible. Thrust increased to 14 000 kgf.

AL-31F-M3 (publ. 99M3) - The third stage of modernization of the serial AL-31F, developed by the Salyut MMPP. A new three-stage fan KND-924-3 is used, manufactured according to the Blisk technology, a new compressor and new blades for a theater. Thrust will increase to 15 000 kgf. Tests scheduled for 2006

AL-31FN (ed. 39, 1997) - modification with the bottom box of units for the J-10 single-engine fighter manufactured by the PRC. The first deliveries to the customer in 1997 were made by NPO Saturn. Since 2000, it has been mass-produced at the Salyut MMPP.

[Skubudu]

Having not yet begun to read the article, knowing about the first part (long-range combat), he approximately guessed that, contrary to the opinions of all authoritative experts, the author would try to convince us that the F-15 / F-22 / F-35, at least, did not lose the neighbor battle and often win the SU-27 / SU-35 / T-50 ...
I stopped reading the "scribble" after figure 7, in which the author deliberately overestimates the flight characteristics of the F-35 / F-22 and underestimates the flight characteristics of the T-50 / SU-35
taken from the wiki:
F-35 - thrust-to-weight ratio with maximum take-off weight:
F-35A: 0,57
F-35B: 0,67
F-35C: 0,57
The author declares 0.71 / 0.66
T-50 - thrust-to-weight ratio with maximum take-off weight:
at maximum take-off weight: 0,85 kgf / kg - Those. it is higher than that of the F-22 - 0.83
Author declares 0.7
SU-35 thrust to weight ratio with maximum take-off weight: 0,811
Author declares 0.69
Where did the wind blow not from Israel by accident?
ps The maximum angular velocities of the forced turn do not exceed 23 and 21 degrees / s for F-35A (C) and F-35B, respectively. For comparison, the same indicator in our front-line fighter Su-27 reaches 30 degrees per second.
Taken from here
http://www.arms-expo.ru/news/archive/amerikanskiy-f-35-uverenno-proigraet-rossi
yskomu-su-35-no-est-voprosy12-12-2008-17-09-00/

[Falcon]

Not yet starting to read the article

In principle, without reading anything, as I understand it.

F-35 - thrust-to-weight ratio with maximum take-off weight:

And you can’t count it And why do I need maximum take-off

Author declares 0.69
Where did the wind blow not from Israel by accident?

What a joke!

taken from the wiki:

There is an eighth wonder of the world - a calculator. It helps when elementary mathematics is unknown

[Skubudu]

So you have all the advantages based on the declared thrust-weight ratio, which is overestimated in relation to American aircraft and underestimated in relation to Russian aircraft.
I always look before reading the table, Fig. 7 immediately caught my eye with incorrect data in my opinion

[Falcon]

I always look before reading the table, Figure No. 7 immediately caught my eye with incorrect data in my opinion

Thrust-to-weight ratio at maximum take-off weight does not matter. In fact, in such modes, the plane more represents the bus.
Therefore, the article says for what specific conditions it is designed.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Falcon

Those. here they somehow coped with the algorithms, on the F-22 they coped, on the tests they coped. But still has no tax in the world.

I repeat - Yak-VTOL, Fu-35V, - "TURNING" for vertical take-off and landing. Algorithm for matching a glider with a gas turbine engine in multi-mode flight - NO
Fu22 - flat single-plane OVT

Su-30MKI, AL-31FP (product 96) - single-plane OVT
Su-27M, Su-33M ..., AL-31F-M1 (product 99M1, 2002), version - all-aspect OVT, indeed, "does not have an analogue in the world" (c)
Su-27SM, AL-31F-SM (ed. 99SM, earlier - AL-31F-M2, ed. 99M2), version - all-aspect OVT, indeed, "does not have an analogue in the world" (c)

By the way, yes!
MiG-29 (MiG-33), RD-33MK (RD-33 ser. 3M, RD-133, publ. 42, 2002) - deep modernization of the turbofan engine RD-33 ser. 3 with a new KND (like the RD-33K), a modified KVD and a turbine with improved cooling, a new smokeless KS, a new electronic self-propelled guns with full responsibility. Thrust increased to 9000 kgf, resource - to 1000 / 4000 hours. It is possible to equip with an all-angle rotary nozzle of the CLIVT type. , indeed, "does not have an analogue in the world" (c)

[Falcon]

P / YBBN
и
Aven
Also all-perspective
"has no analogue in the world" (c)

[Svateev]

Quote: Operator

the "pancake" maneuver in the BVB has a quite specific purpose - firing homing RVV-MD missiles into the rear hemisphere (when the enemy aircraft enters the tail) without losing the missile's energy.

It turns out that the enemy has gone into our tail, and we are "pancake" and are already shooting in his tail ... How's that?

[Operator]

After turning "pancake" 180 degrees, the Su-35S shoots in the forehead at the enemy aircraft, which has entered Sushka's tail. The angular rate of turn in this case reaches 60 degrees per second - all other fighters without an all-aspect UVP are in deep out with their 18-26 degrees per second.

In addition, the UHT ensures the execution of the "Pugachev cobra", which in the BVB serves not at all for deceleration, but for a missile attack of an enemy aircraft located in the upper hemisphere, without losing time to turn with a climb.

[Svateev]

Now, if "on the enemy's forehead" - then right. And then you first wrote "in the back hemisphere".
By the way, tell me how they could find this my comment, because the new site put it at the end of the discussion?

[Operator]

Your koment found the method of continuous viewing.

Let's hope that the functionality of the new site will someday be supplemented by an old feature - the ability to view only those comments that have been added since the previous viewing of the topic.

[Svateev]

"Pancake" for a shot "in the forehead" - that's right. Otherwise, first you wrote "into the back hemisphere" ...
And with "Cobra" everything is not easy:
1. It is performed at low flight speeds, and specially losing speed is fraught with ...
2. And is there a gain in time compared with going into a small cabrio?
3. You can go into a small pitch-up (raise the "nose") at any speed, that is, it is always suitable at the reflex level. But pondering whether it is possible to enter Cobra in this mode is not a waste of time?

[Svateev]

Quote: Operator

Turning short-range missiles 180 degrees in the air using their own engine reduces their flight range by an order of magnitude.

An order of magnitude is at least 10 times. Where does the data about such a loss of range of “deployable” RVVs come from?

[Operator]

From reports on tests of short-range missiles with thermal seekers, it is known that when launched into the rear hemisphere from a carrier aircraft flying in the opposite direction, the missile must additionally expend the energy of its fuel to dampen the speed of the carrier aircraft, turn 180 degrees and start gaining speed to the level of the carrier aircraft. The missile's flight range drops from 20-40 km to 2-4 km.

In the case of a “pancake” maneuver, the rocket spends additional energy only to dampen the speed of the carrier aircraft and take off. The missile's flight range drops from 20-40 to only 5-10 km.

And that’s not all - when assessing the range of use of air-to-air missiles, we must not forget that the maximum distances are stated only for the case of an attack on low-maneuverable targets such as a strategic bomber, transport aircraft or AWACS aircraft.
To attack a maneuverable tactical aircraft such as the Su-34 or F-15E, the range of use of air-to-air missiles is halved, taking into account the sufficient energy to maneuver the missile when flying by inertia on the final part of the trajectory.
To attack a super-maneuverable aircraft such as the Su-35S or F-22 (maneuvering at the limit of the pilots' capabilities with an overload of up to 10g), the range of use of air-to-air missiles is reduced by four - during the operating time of the rocket engine, which ensures its maneuverability with an overload of more than 20g.

Therefore, the actual distances for using short-range air-to-air missiles with a probability of falling 0,8-0,9 on a super-maneuverable fighter when launched into the front hemisphere are 5-10 km, when launched into the rear hemisphere with a “pancake” maneuver - 2,5, 5-1,25 km, without performing the “pancake” maneuver - 2,5-XNUMX.
Real ranges for using long-range air-to-air missiles with a probability of hitting 08-0,9 on a super-maneuverable fighter are: for the RVV-BD - 75 km, for the AIM-120D - 45 km.

PS It is easy to see that in order for the F-22 to effectively use the AIM-120D missile against the Su-35S, it needs to approach it at a range of 45 km - i.e. to the distance of guaranteed detection of the Raptor using the Sushki onboard radar

[Svateev]

"the rocket must additionally expend the energy of its fuel to dampen the speed of the carrier aircraft, turn 180 degrees and start gaining speed to the level of the carrier aircraft."
Due to its kinetic energy, the rocket will not only turn 180 degrees using the rudders alone, but it will also have some speed in the opposite direction from the carrier. Therefore, reversal losses are not so great.
"The missile's flight range drops from 20-40 km to 2-4 km. In the case of the pancake maneuver... The missile's flight range drops from 20-40 to only 5-10 km"
Where do these numbers come from? From what “reports is it known”?
And by the way, when firing from a pancake, how does the rocket leave the pylons - with its tail towards the oncoming air flow?

[Operator]

There is a video on the Internet of firing a short-range missile with a turn towards the rear hemisphere (relative to the carrier aircraft).

The missile leaves the underwing pylon with the engine already running, describes a steep loop under the aircraft in the vertical plane, captures the target of the thermal seeker and goes in the opposite direction from the direction of the aircraft's flight.

The timing shows that the engine operating time during a turn is a significant amount (3 seconds) out of approximately 10 seconds of available time. Plus the time for acceleration from - 900 km/h to + 900 km/h (since the rocket leaves the frame, calculating the time for acceleration is impossible).

[Svateev]

And one more thing: “pancake” as it is described in words - “a turn in a horizontal plane by 360 degrees without loss of speed” - I have not seen anywhere yet. If this is what they call a flat corkscrew, which occurs with an almost complete loss of speed relative to the air and which is often found in roller skates, then this is not a new figure. Or rather, this: for airplanes without a wind turbine, a flat spin is a disaster from which only a very good pilot can recover, and only if he has some altitude to spare. And for an airplane with a high-tech aircraft, a flat spin has become one of the aerobatics maneuvers, as our aces demonstrate.
But with the combat use of a flat corkscrew... You have to lose speed to zero... And while you are slowing down to zero, the enemy is attacking you. And is the flat corkscrew applicable in combat?

[mav1971]

your conclusions are correct.

Maneuvers in one plane and one course trajectory (the pancake often mentioned here), especially when the enemy is behind you - ceremonial suicide in the style of a psychic attack of the white army.
That's 6-8 seconds to maneuver...
Turn 180 - 4 seconds. - Yes, the maneuverer will not have time to turn his nose 45 degrees before he receives a second burst from a cannon from the attacker,
And everything is in profile. like a standing target. point blank.
At a long range, an AP missile is launched as if it were an excellent non-maneuvering target, and in addition, the attacker has a 4-second head start to maneuver from the line of potential fire up/down.

Pancake is suicide in a real fight.

[Operator]

The pancake is intended only for launching missiles into the rear hemisphere (relative to the forward motion of the carrier aircraft) when conducting close air combat at a distance of about 10 km.

When conducting air combat at a distance of 1 km using cannon weapons, the pancake is useless.

10 km is 10 seconds of flight of a missile launched from an enemy aircraft. The pancake execution time is 6 seconds, after which the executing aircraft has 4 seconds to try to escape from the enemy missile - quite enough time to carry out any maneuver.

[Connie]

It can be done much faster, you can use a protracted cobra or shoot it from a cannon.

[Philip Staros]

Well, in general, I tried to figure out a battle at launch distances of thermal missiles... and a vertical escape maneuver.
But it turned out that drying (and F) are quite capable of flying vertically upward at a speed below sound speed! Well, in afterburner, of course. And at altitudes of 20-25 km. Of course, OVT will help, but the rocket will still feel better there...

In general, the advantages of super-maneuverability so far are that we can exchange speed for a quick turn. Those. instead of 10 seconds of turning, we can “stop” in three seconds, turn where the RADAR needs to be in a couple of seconds... In total, we gain 3-4 seconds and aim at the enemy faster...
But, we will lose speed (once) and our missiles will have to accelerate from scratch (and not from full speed as in the case of a “steady” turn).
Gravity will hardly help us in such sharp maneuvers. We will only gain about a kilometer during braking...


By the way, how long does a rocket fly to us from 6 km? About four or five seconds? No, we won’t make it with 6 km.
But if they fire at us from 10 kilometers, then we will have time to remove the nozzle “behind our back” by turning our nose in 6 seconds and we will have another two, three or four seconds to hit back. Including on a rocket, if the electronics have time.

[iwind]

Loss of altitude yes. What trouble would not say. The same F-35 goes into automatic mode from it.

[Operator]

A pancake and a flat corkscrew are completely different things.

A flat spin requires a mandatory drop in flight altitude, while a pancake spin requires only maintaining the flight altitude (the plane carries out two movements - horizontal translational and rotational around a vertical axis).

I won’t tell you the speed of forward movement - there are no landmarks in the frames of the corresponding videos. And the time for a complete 360-degree turn is about 6 seconds, from which the angular velocity can be estimated at 60 degrees per second.

The capture of an enemy aircraft attacking from the rear hemisphere by an air-to-air missile is carried out when the carrier aircraft rotates at an angle of 120-150 degrees, the missile is launched when an angle of 180 degrees is reached, after which the carrier aircraft completes a rotation at an angle of 360 degrees and continues horizontal flight with the nose downstream.

[Falcon]

A pancake and a flat corkscrew are completely different things.

Especially if you consider that the speed in front of the cobra is no more than 500 km, then with “pancakes” it is even less, otherwise the overloads will be higher than the design ones, then continue to fantasize...

[Connie]

The speed can be higher than on the Cobra, there is not such intense braking.

[Svateev]

“in front of a cobra the speed is no more than 500 km, then with pancakes it is even less, otherwise the overloads will be higher than the design ones”
Indeed, at what speed can the vertical tail be able to withstand and not break when the aircraft turns sideways to the flow? After all, the tail is not designed for such a lateral flow. That is, the forward speed of the l/a should be very low. But that's not so bad.
The main problem: why can’t the rocket just be launched back? But because she will begin to catch up with her plane: the oncoming flow will quickly turn her 180 degrees - “head into the wind.” And with a “pancake” l/a, when he launches a rocket, he flies “tail forward” along the stream and the ROCKET ALSO FLYS TAIL FORWARD IN THE FLOW. Therefore, to prevent the oncoming flow from turning the rocket onto its own aircraft, it is necessary that at the moment of loss of physical contact with the aircraft (leaving the guides), the rocket has already accelerated to at least the flight speed of the aircraft, but in the opposite direction, so that although would not be blown by the flow from behind. And at what speed is this possible? On a very, very small one. That is, the “pancake” itself, and even more so firing a rocket from it, is possible at very low flight speeds. And how realistic is this situation in battle? Therefore, the combat effectiveness of the “pancake” is questionable.

[Connie]

... is doubtful, and planes generally fly relying on the firmament.

[Connie]

here (or here) at the very end of the first comment it says something like this
https://topwar.ru/99530-o-proze-zhizni-v-missiyah-apollo.html

[Svateev]

SO THAT THE WOMEN MODERATORS OF THIS SITE GIVE THEM THE SAME JUST AS THIS NEW SITE GIVES US WORK - THROUGH Z.A.D.N.I.C.U. !
May the great and mighty Russian language forgive me...
Yesterday the Reply button always opened the Reply window. Why on earth did the same button on the last comment in the thread start hitting the window at the end of the article today?! Stop touching the design, it is impossible to adjust it because too many drastic changes have been made. Either bring back the old design, or leave everything as it is and accept the slow loss of users.
If you also constantly change this design, then we will run away even faster.

[Connie]

Also of genuine interest is trolling with the change of place in “cancel” - “poison” and “accept corrections” - “cancel”.

[Svateev]

"https://topwar.ru/99530-o-proze-zhizni-v-missiyah-apollo.html"
Is that what you wrote?!

[Connie]

No, you couldn’t do that... I don’t have enough literary talent.

[Svateev]

“If you can turn a plane against the flow, then you can turn a rocket” - Connie
The plane does not fly against the flow, but overshoots this unstable position by inertia and returns to a stable one - with its nose downstream. The rocket will do the same. And how can you make it fly tail first for a few seconds until it accelerates? This needs to be done to control the rudders... Is there evidence of the existence of missiles that can be launched “with their tail against the wind”? If you made such a rocket, then why the “pancake”?! Let's just let it go "backwards"....
The "pancake" shown on the rollers in this thread is a flat corkscrew at zero speed. From such a “pancake” - yes, a rocket can be launched in any direction, because there is no oncoming flow at all - the ground speed is zero. And the tail will not fall off, because there is no blow from the side.
But with such a “pancake” it is impossible to get behind the enemy. And hence the question: are our missiles aimed in a lateral projection? Or just "in the tail"?

[Connie]

Quote=Svateev
The plane does not fly against the flow, and this unstable position slips through inertia and returns to a stable one - with its nose in the flow.

All planes fly against the flowbecause they are flying.

Such overshoots do not happen, so almost all other aircraft from the Draken and the F-14 to the F-22 can only do dynamic casts and slides, but not such turns as this one or like the Cobra. Su-27 aircraft can do this because, on the contrary, they fly in an unstable position with their nose forward, and with their tail forward they fly steadily. The EMDS ensures that the aircraft does not turn tail first from an unstable position. These tails don’t fall off because that’s what they’re designed for.
This is called a statically unstable aircraft.
Rockets were launched this way 50 years ago, at first without success.
This is not a flat corkscrew.

[Svateev]

Quote: Wild_Grey_Wolf

Is this treason?
So I recommend knocking at all levels, since he only could figure it out. . .
. . . I am wrong ?

In this way of posing the question, I am absolutely right. But “we’re not in ’37.”

[Wild_grey_wolf]

It’s not about posing the question. . . but in the way the author zealously defends his point of view, assuring that he has figured it all out, and the Aviators are doing everything wrong. . .
The conclusion here is either he doesn’t understand something and is mistaken, or it’s time for him to write to the prosecutor’s office. . . that we are building things wrong and it’s time to sort it out. And he can sit down at the drawing board and build masterpieces.

[Svateev]

But “ours do it this way” is not an argument. Our people may be wrong. It would be better if you gave specific objections to the proposals in the article. And the reference to authorities is so unreliable...

[Wild_grey_wolf]

If the author does not argue, but flaunts it is not clear where the graphs came from and it is not clear what year this information was. . . him. Why should I argue? . .

[Svateev]

So, according to one of the graphs, there is a counter-argument to the author (a little higher), let's see what he answers.

[Operator]

In graph No. 8, the left inclined boundary of air maneuvering at a speed of 600 km/h (when crossing which the plane falls into a tailspin) passes at the level of the angular speed of a steady turn of 28 degrees per second.

At the same time, the right inclined boundary of air maneuvering at a speed of 600 km/h (when crossing which the aircraft's airframe falls apart from overload) passes at a level of 26 degrees per second.

The latter indicator is precisely the maximum achievable when installing the UVT (+6 degrees per second to the steady-state turning speed of the Su-27 without the UVT at an altitude of 200 meters and +11 degrees per second at an altitude of 3000 meters).

[Wild_grey_wolf]

and yet ours do exactly this and are considered the best. . . but if you look at the graphs, then everything is the same as everyone else and our technology is not able to fly at all and will fall apart and only the Author knows what to do. . . Isn't it strange, don't you think?

[Svateev]

“if you look at the graphs, then everything is the same as everyone else and our equipment is not able to fly at all”
No, graph 8 just shows that at speeds up to 800 km/h it makes sense for UVT. It seems that the author knows this and therefore, to “justify” his rejection of UVT, he only considers speeds above 800 km/h, and at them, in fact, according to the schedule, UVT is not needed.
So we ask the author: why can’t BVB be carried out at speeds less than 800 km/h if the aircraft is equipped with an AVT? After all, with the UVT it will be possible to use the entire safety margin of the glider to its fullest, make a steeper turn and reach the enemy before he reaches you?

[Falcon]

No, graph 8 just shows that at speeds to 800 km/h makes sense for UVT.

I’ve repeated it several times already, and I’ll repeat it again. At speeds to 800 km/h there is a possibility for UVT. I did not deny this and spoke about it in the article:

So where can the advantage of deflected thrust vector be realized? At altitudes above the most advantageous, and at speeds below optimal for BVB. At the same time, deep beyond the boundaries of the established reversal, i.e. during a forced turn, which already consumes the aircraft’s energy. Therefore, OBE is applicable only in special cases and when energy is available. Such modes are not so popular in BVB, but, of course, it is better when there is the possibility of vector deviation.

And more:

So we ask the author: why can’t BVB be carried out at speeds less than 800 km/h if the aircraft is equipped with an AVT?

It can be carried out, it can be carried out on any. But the main task in BVB is to conserve energy and change the angular position of the aircraft in space as quickly as possible. This is achieved with a steady turn. And the maximum angular speeds of a steady turn lie in the range of 800-1000 km/h. This is the most advantageous speed for conducting BVB, in all textbooks, both ours and theirs.
If your speed is lower, then the steady turn will take place at a lower angular speed - which will lead to defeat. But you can use a forced turn at lower speeds. At the same time, taking into account that the energy is already less than the enemy, for a forced turn no one even considers the time to travel 360 degrees, since the aircraft speed drops below the evolutionary speed and the turn turns into a dive. OVT allows you to carry out a more forced turn at low speeds, this is certainly a plus, but only if the enemy also made a mistake and fell from the highest angular speeds, and the speed did not fall below the evolutionary one.
In principle, this is all in the article.

[Svateev]

Falcon, you are relying on the BVB rules for aircraft that do not have air conditioning. Favorable speeds for BVB are 800-900 km/h - this is for aircraft without UVT.
Why don’t planes with UHT write new, most beneficial BVB laws?
"If your speed is lower, then the steady turn will take place at a lower angular speed"
The main task in a BVB is not to conserve the aircraft’s energy, but to shoot down the enemy. And if it becomes easier to do this with the help of an unsteady turn with UVT, albeit with a loss of aircraft energy, then why not?
The only question is: does UVT provide such advantages and in what situations?

[Svateev]

“The OVT allows you to carry out a more forced turn at low speeds, this is definitely a plus, but only if the enemy has also already made a mistake and fell from the highest angular speeds.”
Why is it impossible to carry out a forced turn with the UVT at an enemy who is still at a speed of 800-1000 km/h? What if a forced turn with UVT gives a higher angular velocity and allows you to launch a missile into the side projection of the enemy without going into his tail?

[P0LYM]

Quote: Operator

In addition, the UHT ensures the execution of the "Pugachev cobra", which in the BVB serves not at all for deceleration, but for a missile attack of an enemy aircraft located in the upper hemisphere, without losing time to turn with a climb.

Is a turn with a climb a “combat turn”? (just to clarify)

[Operator]

Turn (aerobatic term) = combat turn (tactical term).

[Rus2012]

Quote: Connie

This "just", together with the supporting systems, was much more difficult to do.
On their own, this did not work for anyone other than the USSR.

...for the sake of fairness, there was a Harrier with a single Pegasus, also a VTOL aircraft.

When the engines were being fine-tuned, Yakov asked the product leaders - “Why did you go with the scheme 1 lift-route + 2 lifts? After all, Pegasus looks more organic...” They answered me - “Never mind! The energy and power requirements are the same. Only 2 lifts - short activation and low-resource, - they have worked out the rise and are silent. But Pegasus is multi-functional, complex and threshes the entire mode completely, eating up resources... And for amateurs, yes, it looks kind of impressive"

[Connie]

To be fair, it wasn’t like that on the Harrier, with one and not one, without support systems, and no one gave them a turbofan engine so they could choose.

[dvaposto]

does the author of the article have an avatar? I would like to ask him a few questions about the future of aviation - to chat?

[P0LYM]

Falcon, you have done a lot of work, convincingly proved that OBT is pure self-indulgence... are you ready to answer a simple question? So why do designers wrinkle their brains and improve this useless feature. To amuse the audience at air shows with acrobatic performances? Or is there still a practical application for this? The version of “cutting the dough” is probably not worth considering.

[Falcon]

that OVT is pure self-indulgence

I have not proven this, and I have already written several times both in the article and in the comments that in certain modes OVT gives an advantage, but these modes appear only in the event of a mutual error of both pilots, since they are far from the most advantageous in BVB and from those in which the maximum change in the angular position of the aircraft in space with conservation of energy is realizable, which is the goal in itself of the BVB.

[P0LYM]

Let it be so... But the conclusion is obvious... OVT is for suckers... those who make mistakes in battle... If you fly correctly... don’t let the car stall, then you can forget about OVT... sobsna, the same eggs, only side view...

[Falcon]

Sobsna, the same eggs, only a side view...

Everyone makes their own conclusions. Aerodynamics and thrust-to-weight ratio are more important, as all formulas and graphs show, since it makes it possible to increase the angular speed of a steady turn.

[P0LYM]

Falcon, that’s what I asked you, about the conclusion... here

Aerodynamics and thrust-to-weight ratio are more important, as all formulas and graphs show

I read it... It’s just that your diagnosis to our designers looked unfinished, now it’s clear... we do not produce fighters, but sports aerobatic aircraft with very limited capabilities for combat use... that’s why they are not expensive and they are sold poorly ... so what? How many of them do you need to participate in air shows?

[Falcon]

We do not produce fighters, but sports aerobatic aircraft with very limited combat capabilities...

There's nothing to talk about. I never said that. And who were they selling the F-22 to then? If it's more convenient for you, so be it.

[iwind]

I read it... It’s just that your diagnosis to our designers looked unfinished, now it’s clear... we do not produce fighters, but sports aerobatic aircraft with very limited capabilities for combat use... that’s why they are not expensive and they are sold poorly ... so what? How many of them do you need to participate in air shows?

WHERE is this output? The conclusion is understood UVT can help in BVB but not in all modes. Even more, most likely the advantage will be gained by the BVB in those modes when the UVT does not play a decisive role. BUT UVTs made our aircraft much better in low-speed modes and theoretically if it comes to them, then the SU-XX will have an advantage in maneuverability..

[Connie]

quote=iwind
“Even more, most likely the advantage will be gained by the BVB in those modes when the UVT does not play a decisive role.”

where is this output from?

They have it in almost all modes

[Falcon]

Connie,

The speed can be higher than on the Cobra, there is not such intense braking.

Well, whatever - the inertia remains, the thrust vector is in the opposite direction, lifting force is not created, since the wing does not work in such a flow.
In all the videos, despite the comments of journalists, the pancake is performed in a dive, which in principle is logical

[Connie]

The speed remains, the windage is less than on a cobra. Like the barrel roll, it is performed with almost no loss of height. With OVT, the turn is also steady.

[Operator]

The main thing in close air combat involving super-maneuverable aircraft is which of them can be the first to get behind the enemy at a distance of a quarter of the maximum launch range of a missile with a thermal seeker (the flight distance of a missile with a running engine and an available overload of over 20g).

Launching a missile at a greater distance or at the enemy's forehead leads to a miss with a probability of 0,9 due to the possibility of him performing an anti-missile maneuver with loss of energy in an unsteady turn, but at the same time avoiding being hit by the missile.

The same “pancake” maneuver is intended for self-defense of an aircraft in the event of entering the enemy in the rear hemisphere in order to force him to interrupt the attack and go into an anti-missile maneuver.

Nobody will perform an aerial ballet at a speed of 800-1000 km/h with steady turns in the BVB with the participation of the Su-35S and F-22.

[P0LYM]

Falcon,
No, wait... what do you mean talking about nothing??? You, dear one, very convincingly and convincingly prove to us all that (directly in this part of the article) with close combat our fighters are also “in flight”, OVT is a useless gimmick that can only be used in the case when the enemy is a sucker and stupid "merged", but, clearly, there are no such suckers..., and this OVT is needed only for spectacular aerobatics..., and the designers, apparently, are all lacking in spirit, since they waste money and time on worthless options...
But here is from an interview with the hero of the Russian Federation Pavel Vlasov (if he is lying or embellishing, then write)

I would also like to return to opponents of super-maneuverability. Their main counterargument is that the start of an air battle begins at speeds close to 0,9M, where super-maneuverability is not used. But after just a minute, when there is a confrontation between aircraft with approximately equal characteristics during normal maneuvering, there is nothing left of this Mach. I had to “fight” with the F-16 in Venezuela on a domestic fighter (without OVT). A minute after the maneuver, the speed is already around 400 km/h, that is, in the range where the angle of attack is limited, where the rudders are no longer as effective, etc. It is in this position that super-maneuverability would be very useful. I won because our aircraft has a little more thrust and is a little safer when losing speed, and also due to a number of other more minor features. I repeat, the battle begins at Mach 0,9, and ends somewhere at 400 km/h, where the maneuverability of conventional aircraft has practically dried up, and the one who can turn around for an attack even for a second wins.

[Operator]

“In August 1992, the opportunity arose to meet in a training air battle with the aircraft against which the Su-27 was designed - the American F-15 Eagle air superiority fighter.

The delegation, consisting of pilots Colonel A. Kharchevsky (currently Major General) and Major E. Karabasov, was headed by Major General N. Chaga, head of the Lipetsk Center for Combat Training and Retraining of Flight Personnel. “In terms of technology,” the team included two two-seater S/-27UB aircraft and an Il-76 military transport aircraft.

Working against ours were the pilots of the 1st Tactical Fighter Wing, considered the best aviation unit in the US Air Force, whose pilots traditionally have high flying qualifications, excellent tactical training and fly the most modern fighters.

For joint maneuvering, an air zone was allocated 200 km from the Atlantic coast of the United States at an altitude level of 2500-8500 m. A two-seat Su-27UB (a Russian pilot in the front cockpit, an American pilot in the rear, the commander of this airbase), F- 15D (an American pilot in the front cockpit and a Russian air attaché, also a pilot who acted as an interpreter, in the rear) and a two-seat F-15D as an escort and surveillance aircraft, with a photographer in the rear cockpit.

The conditions were typical for close air combat: an attack from the rear hemisphere (RPS) and an attempt to stay “on the tail” of the enemy, who, in turn, is trying to disrupt the attack and enter the attacker’s RHS.

[Operator]

Extension

In the first “round” the role of the target was performed by an F-15D, which was attacked by a Su-27UB. For the American Eagle, the task of shaking the Russian fighter off its tail turned out to be impossible. But the "twenty-seventh" kept the enemy in sight without much effort.

The change of seats further widened the gap in results. Attacked by an American Su-27UB with the help of energetic turn with a climb at full afterburner broke away from the enemy and, after one and a half complete turns, came into the tail of the “fifteenth”, capturing the target. True, after the S/-27UB “killed” the F-15, it turned out that by doing so it “removed” the witness, who turned out to be the innocent F-15D escort aircraft.

After that, the Russian pilot took up his specific adversary, the two-seat F-15D. And he completely lost sight of the C / -27UB and was forced to request the escort aircraft about the location of the enemy. At this time, the "twenty-seventh" entered the tail of the F-15D and, remaining undetected for that, firmly held it in the sight, which was reported from the escort aircraft.

The American tried to break away from the pursuing "twenty-seventh", but all his attempts were useless."

http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/xussr/su_fight/su_fight.html

[Falcon]

OVT is a useless gimmick, which can only be used in the case when the enemy is a sucker and stupidly “merged”, but, of course, there are no such suckers...,

designers, apparently, are all unskillful, since they waste money and time on worthless options...

I repeat for the hundred and five hundredth time that I did not say that. Therefore, I got pretty tired of explaining that I didn’t declare.

I repeat, the battle begins at Mach 0,9, and ends somewhere at 400 km/h, where the maneuverability of conventional aircraft has practically dried up

This is true for approximately identical aircraft in terms of thrust-to-weight ratio and aerodynamics. That’s why Sushka defeated the F-15 without any OVT. But this is not true for aircraft that differ greatly in thrust-to-weight ratio, since where one loses speed in order to ensure the required angle, the other goes on a steady turn and does not lose energy - it can only wait until the first one is unable to maintain its angle

[iwind]

P0LYM

The key here is in a minute... By this time there will already be one or even two launches of short-range missiles. With modern slapped target designators, the launch area is huge.
Joint maneuvering is one thing, real combat in the air is another; it will be very fleeting; here, whoever is more profitable and quicker (speed) to mark his plane for launch is the king. It is no longer necessary to go into the horsetail for a long time. IR seekers are now working perfectly in overeating the hemisphere.
The conclusion is that the author is very suitable for this interview.

[Connie]

The key here is that a missile fired head-on is avoided in 90% of cases...

After this “joint maneuvering,” no one went into battle with the Su-27, even without OVT.

[Falcon]

The key here is that a missile fired head-on is avoided in 90% of cases...

Well, not 90%, but according to statistics, 50 percent, as I cited in the previous article. And this is true for medium-range missiles. For short-range missiles this figure is much higher.

[Connie]

It depends on who is fighting with whom, and then writes statistics.

[P0LYM]

Another small note... During the Second World War, as everyone knows, German pilots were strictly forbidden to engage in maneuverable combat with the “Russians”... where are all those aces? They entered and won... and raked... but, after all, they were drawn into a maneuverable battle? got involved....what I mean is that the capabilities of the machines are probably adjusted to some vision (tactics and strategy) of application...

ZY All this is in my amateurish opinion...

[iwind]

what other fight could there be? There were no guided weapons back then.

[P0LYM]

in this interview there is this:

– And if a missile is fired at you, will super-maneuverability allow you to escape from it?

– When analyzing combat effectiveness, which is carried out by our specialists, anti-missile maneuvers are also considered, including going to Doppler zero against radar guidance systems, and moving the nozzle out of the direct field of view of infrared missiles and a number of others.

What is Doppler zero?

[Operator]

Doppler zero - when the target is hovering in the air at zero speed.

This maneuver can only be performed by vertical takeoff and landing aircraft for 15-30 seconds until the engine overheats. At the same time, the VTOL flight range drops sharply - from 500 to 200 km.

And the maneuver itself is only effective against air-to-air missiles with a radar seeker without AFAR. Guidance of missiles with a thermal seeker and a missile seeker with an AFAR does not depend on the Doppler effect (the frequency shift of reflected radio emission is proportional to the speed of the target).

[P0LYM]

Thank you for the clarification, about the infrared, it’s clear, but about the Doppler zero, maybe I was thinking about some nuances... about the displacement itself, from my experience as a car enthusiast, of course, I know...

[Connie]

A bell to disrupt guidance in this way can be made by many people, it does not have to be so long, and for it the OBE is very important.

[this]

Hmm, it’s not clear that the author is stuck on certain speeds alone, if the pilots have in stock maneuvers that reduce the speed without losing the situation, and then with a great advantage in maneuverability they themselves can go into the tail. And the performance of the American side’s equipment is clearly overestimated, otherwise They wouldn’t lose to dryers like that in training battles.

[VP]

The reference to the WWI experience was impressive.
Throughout the text there are constantly references to recommended (sometimes optimal) altitudes and speeds for BVB.
I’m curious to know what they are and why and who recommends them.

[mav1971]

Quote: Rus2012

Quote: Falcon

F-35 - then maneuvering almost becomes unnecessary

... and assuming that the future of the Air Force is "super-maneuverable mass-optimized UAVs"?
Try to knock him down ...

I believe that in 5 years there will be a system that will, with a 99% guarantee, shoot down any super-maneuverable ones.
With all-aspect missiles and a system for exchanging data and coordinating joint missile actions.
With the development of the current level of forecasting the lead point in the brains of explosive missiles to the level of joint (2-3 missiles) “driving” the target under attack, because all maneuvers are calculated and predicted.
It's actually not difficult at all.

[Connie]

Building a super-maneuverable aircraft is of course much more difficult...

[gladcu2]

Leto,
Leto,
Summer, you're right. Are all these figures, using a measured vector, good... in the case of superiority in thrust-to-weight ratio. To return as quickly as possible at air combat speed. You can't fool physics. According to the tables, the traction control of the SU is not very good. Then maneuvering with speed reduction should be the tenth thing.

Anyone who has a MIG-17 network in their wartander will fully support the author. Since the author very correctly described the air battle of the MIG-17 with its opponents, superior in speed and not inferior in rate of climb. The MIG-17 maneuver will still get away from one plane. But having lost speed, he becomes a target for another plane.

Without good superiority in thrust-to-weight ratio, maneuverable combat is suicide. The high-speed opponents won’t let you catch up and you won’t be able to get away from them. And maneuvering when the enemy has the initiative makes no sense.

[VP]

Quote: gladcu2

The MIG-17 maneuver will still get away from one plane. But having lost speed, he becomes a target for another plane.

Those. According to the experience of a computer toy, one MiG-17 loses to two?
Sadness...

[Svateev]

Quote: Falcon

in front of a cobra the speed is no more than 500 km, then with “pancakes” it is even less, otherwise the overloads will be higher than the design ones

Indeed, at what speed can the vertical tail be able to withstand and not break when the aircraft turns sideways to the flow? After all, the tail is not designed for such a lateral flow. That is, the forward speed of the l/a should be very low. But that's not so bad.
The main problem: why can’t the rocket just be launched back? But because she will begin to catch up with her plane: the oncoming flow will quickly turn her 180 degrees - “head into the wind.” And with a “pancake” l/a, when he launches a rocket, he flies “tail forward” along the stream and the ROCKET ALSO FLYS TAIL FORWARD IN THE FLOW. Therefore, to prevent the oncoming flow from turning the rocket onto its own aircraft, it is necessary that at the moment of loss of physical contact with the aircraft (leaving the guides), the rocket has already accelerated to at least the flight speed of the aircraft, but in the opposite direction, so that although would not be blown by the flow from behind. And at what speed is this possible? On a very, very small one. That is, the “pancake” itself, and even more so firing a rocket from it, is possible at very low flight speeds. And how realistic is this situation in battle?

[Connie]

If the plane can be turned against the flow, then holding the rocket for the first time is even more so. On a Cobra with more intense braking, the wings do not fold.

[Operator]

There is a video on the Internet of a pancake without loss of altitude, while the Su-35S does not fly at the maximum angle of attack, therefore, its speed is decent - no less than 500 km/h. Plus full-rotating keels, which are installed along the flow (torque is created by the deviation of the thrust vector of the engines).

DARPA is developing airborne interceptor missiles to intercept air-to-air missiles that are planned to be launched into the rear hemisphere of the aircraft - i.e. in the initial section of the trajectory, the air flow will approach from the side of the anti-missile empennage.

[Svateev]

“On the Internet there is a video of a pancake without loss of altitude, and at the same time... its speed is decent - at least 500 km/h. Plus fully rotating fins.”
If the keels are fully revolving, then this issue is removed. But a link to this video please!
"DARPA is developing airborne interceptor missiles to intercept air-to-air missiles that are planned to be launched into the rear hemisphere of the aircraft."
How do we know that these anti-missile missiles will not be launched forward and make a half-loop?
Of course, you can try to calculate the aerodynamics and control the empennage of the rocket so that at first the head empennage will create more resistance to the flow coming from behind than the tail empennage and there will be no turning moment. However, in addition to technical difficulties, this method means that the rocket loses the kinetic energy received from the aircraft. There is a way to store some of this energy in the rocket.

[Operator]

I was looking for a video of the pancake - it didn’t work out, because, as I remember, it was a fragment of a large video about the Su-35S, and they are now on the Internet like uncut dogs.

The small-sized anti-missile missiles planned for creation are designed to intercept RVVs in the immediate vicinity of the aircraft, but, of course, beyond the influence of the fragmentation flow from the RVV warhead (a kind of airborne KAZ). This is about 1 km of range; a rocket engine with a high-pressure propellant is used mainly to increase the available operational overload of the anti-missile missile.
Even DARPA (the task director) does not yet know how the engine and empennage of the anti-missile missile will work; only the first stage of R&D has begun. But it is known that some of the anti-missile missiles on board the aircraft will have to be placed downstream, and some - against the flow.

[gladcu2]

Good article.

The author raised the question of the very narrow scope of application of super-maneuverability in real combat conditions, and not in a training duel.
Let me remind you that in reality, opponents will look for solutions that will lead them to victory or give them the opportunity to survive.

If the plane does not have a reserve of dynamics and good speed, then it works in “passes”. To prevent the enemy from using super maneuverability in a narrow speed range.

[VP]

What do you mean by "passages"?
Model this tactic, taking into account that the enemy is unlikely to want to stand quietly on the sidelines and wait for your return; most likely he will fire a couple of volleys at your tail when you retire to make the next “pass”.
The author’s main problem is that he is trying with all his might to reduce the BVB to a single situation. Namely, “the battle takes place only at a speed of 900-1000.”
Those. everyone stands in a circle and begins to turn at exactly this speed.
It is extremely doubtful that this will happen in any phases of the battle other than the initial phase of the battle.

[Operator]

The author knows only what he read in textbooks 30 years ago and in promotional materials from Western manufacturers. What has not yet been published there does not exist for the author - he is a copy-paste throughout his life (an old-time reader).

As soon as they print that close-in air combat between aircraft with a thrust-to-weight ratio of more than one and with shock-absorbing power is carried out at unsteady turning speeds, expect an enthusiastic article from the author about new tactics of air combat.

And the fact that back in 1992 the super-maneuverable Su-27, due to its aerodynamics, smashed the “correct” F-15 to smithereens is an empty phrase for the author - he only reacts to misinformation about the “superiority” of Western prodigies.

PS Thank God that in the 1980s, domestic aircraft designers relied on improving the flight performance characteristics of fighters (aerodynamics at supercritical angles of attack, thrust vector control), and much simpler, complementary stealth technologies (radar-absorbing coating, radar blockers, elimination of rectangular joints of the structure and differences in the surface of the airframe, metallization of the cockpit glazing, radar shielding) will always be applied.

The main thing now is to refine domestic engines (with high afterburning thrust) and avionics (radar with AFAR, Okhotnik software, SPO) before replicating them on the main tactical aircraft of Russia, the Su-35S, which, together with the less popular T-50, will provide an advantage over competitors 50 years before the advent of 6th generation aircraft.

[Falcon]

Svateev,

Falcon, you are relying on the BVB rules for aircraft that do not have air conditioning. Favorable speeds for BVB are 800-900 km/h - this is for aircraft without UVT.

No - this is for everyone. This is the speed at which the maximum angular steady turn is achieved. UVT is applicable only in a forced turn.

The main task in a BVB is not to conserve the aircraft’s energy, but to shoot down the enemy. And if it becomes easier to do this with the help of an unsteady turn with UVT

remember the old joke:

eat it, he will eat it, but who will give it to him?

A forced turn can be done and is done without UVT. The trouble is that it is very limited in time - as there is a sharp loss of speed. Anyone who starts to force it sharply falls down to evolutionary and “hello, great-great-grandmother.”

And I will repeat once again what I wrote below:

This is true for approximately identical aircraft in terms of thrust-to-weight ratio and aerodynamics. That’s why Sushka defeated the F-15 without any OVT. But this is not true for aircraft that differ greatly in thrust-to-weight ratio, since where one loses speed in order to ensure the required angle, the other goes on a steady turn and does not lose energy - it can only wait until the first one is unable to maintain its angle

[Lucy]

Quote: TIT

Quote: Hyperborea

you can continue to lie on the couch and sing deferambs to mattresses

cheers patriotism worse than fascism

Quote: Hyperborea

The effect of "Pugachev's cobra" is that when it is executed, any missile has a breakdown of the tracking. the target's speed instantly drops to zero.

how many combat pilots can it perform?

What kind of escort? Do you think a rocket should fly into the afterburner with a proximity fuse! So what if the speed drops to zero?
They're talking about BVB here! Start somewhere in 1984. - “forecast-track”, KOLS, OLS, NSC, helmet, non-synchronized shooting, reticle, i.e. which electronic equipment is installed on the aircraft, on which physical ones. principles it works, what manipulations need to be performed when piloting with not small g, and angles with the equipment, and do not forget about 30 mm. HS!
We and they fly in pairs. What trick should the slave perform?
And when the attacking pair performs a “knot” or “roof”, what will your “cobra” give?
There is also tact. unit - link.

[Lucy]

Operator 22 August 2016 18:07

In addition, the UVT ensures the execution of the “Pugachev Cobra”, which in the BVB serves not at all for braking, but for a missile attack on an enemy aircraft located in the upper hemisphere, without wasting time on a turn with a climb.[/quote]

Is it like Energizer? In the upper hemisphere, where is this, on oncoming or passing K? I have heard about PPS and ZPS, but not about VPS. And what manipulations does a fighter aircraft perform to launch a guided missile, with the theoretical assumption that the target is identified “as its own” and <PR>?

[Operator]

Lyusya, does faith not allow you to find out the viewing angles in the vertical plane of the on-board radar and OLS of the Su-35S?

And the value of the target acquisition angle of the thermal seeker of a short-range air-to-air missile suspended under the wing during oncoming/downwind/cross-flight of a target above the carrier aircraft (in the upper hemisphere)?

PS And in order not to get up twice - there is also a lower hemisphere, it is interesting when working on ground targets, evading attacks from anti-aircraft missiles, intercepting low-altitude targets, etc.

[Lucy]

Quote: Svateev

Falcon, you are relying on the BVB rules for aircraft that do not have air conditioning. Favorable speeds for BVB are 800-900 km/h - this is for aircraft without UVT.
Why don’t planes with UHT write new, most beneficial BVB laws?
"If your speed is lower, then the steady turn will take place at a lower angular speed"
The main task in a BVB is not to conserve the aircraft’s energy, but to shoot down the enemy. And if it becomes easier to do this with the help of an unsteady turn with UVT, albeit with a loss of aircraft energy, then why not?
The only question is: does UVT provide such advantages and in what situations?

Interesting information!

BVB rules for aircraft without UVT
From which BU, IA tactics, or document has already been developed in VVA, or in 4 TsBP and PLS and is awaiting its approval, which contains the concept and its definition - BVB rules !

[Lucy]

Quote: gladcu2

Good article.

The author raised the question of the very narrow scope of application of super-maneuverability in real combat conditions, and not in a training duel.
Let me remind you that in reality, opponents will look for solutions that will lead them to victory or give them the opportunity to survive.

If the plane does not have a reserve of dynamics and good speed, then it works in “passes”. To prevent the enemy from using super maneuverability in a narrow speed range.

Before the reality, or flying to the zone on the air base, combatant 1st class fighters from the beginning walk on concrete, with mock-ups and perform on foot along the flight path, to carry out standard operational tasks in the air. Why? Because the ass is higher than the head and the eyes are dark, but you need to “suck the wing”, withstand the power supply, the slave to carry out commands, the leader to control the slave, and work with the equipment!
On the simulator wearing glasses, with stage 2 hypertension. , 2 stages in front of the monitor, or waitresses in summer. It will be a little easier to drive around the dining room.

[sinoptic]

...and neither the Su-35s nor the T-50 have advantages in thrust-to-weight ratio over the F-22. Therefore, the fifth-generation Type 50 engine being developed is very important for the T-30.

After these words, I realized that the article is not serious - the author is a self-taught expert. I could at least study the subject more deeply, so as not to write just anything.
1. Already now, with the engines of the 1st stage, the T-50 at maximum develops about M = 2,1, and the Raptor 1960 km/h (M = 1,82)
2. The engine of the second stage will have an advantage of only about one and a half ten percent, a lot, but not dramatically.

[mav1971]

Quote: sinoptic

...and neither the Su-35s nor the T-50 have advantages in thrust-to-weight ratio over the F-22. Therefore, the fifth-generation Type 50 engine being developed is very important for the T-30.

After these words, I realized that the article is not serious - the author is a self-taught expert. I could at least study the subject more deeply, so as not to write just anything.
1. Already now, with the engines of the 1st stage, the T-50 at maximum develops about M = 2,1, and the Raptor 1960 km/h (M = 1,82)
.

Are you so advanced that you think that the maximum achievable speed is the most important indicator in close air combat?
How is the BVB on the Mig-25/31 versus the Mig-29/Su-30?
According to your logic, for example, in BVB, the Tu-144, Concorde and Tu-160 will defeat everyone...
So?

[Kir1984]

In reality, pilots can only guess what kind of missiles someone has, and what type of missiles/maneuvers the enemy will use. Along the way, everything turns into a lottery. But the situation modeled in the article with a standard set of ammunition is interesting. Again, it seems to me that the Raptor is somewhat further from the F15 than the Su-35 is from its progenitor Su-27, but in any case, the initial comparison criteria will be subjective. The article is at a good level, I liked it, especially the aerodynamic reasoning.
It would be interesting to read more about instant 35 and its prospects in a WB of this kind.

[Sergei1982]

The author, as always, talks fabulous nonsense, praying for planes made in the USA, although there is a video of Rafl beating the F-22 with a score of 4:1. And there is also a description of the battles of the Su-30 MKA worthy of opposing the F-22, but the author believes only the right ones " "foot wraps written from a certain angle.

[Sergei1982]

Quote: Falcon

While the climb rate of the F-15 is greater

As always, the author lied and did not wince, for the F-15 it is 54 m/s; for the Su-27 it is more than 280 m/s,

[Lucy]

Quote: Operator

Lyusya, does faith not allow you to find out the viewing angles in the vertical plane of the on-board radar and OLS of the Su-35S?

At the moment there is no access to the secret, or probably to the owl. secret literature!. I saw the Su-35S only in the picture. I talked with S. Bogdan back in 1996, other acquaintances are unfortunately retired, but I studied the Su-27, 33, MiG-29 flight manuals thoroughly.

And the value of the target acquisition angle of the thermal seeker of a short-range air-to-air missile suspended under the wing during oncoming/downwind/cross-flight of a target above the carrier aircraft (in the upper hemisphere)?

What are you talking about? If you are friends with the simulator, then everything is clear. If you know what manipulations the pilot performs and creates the conditions before launching the R-73, or before firing from the main gun, then the Flight Manual does not contain either the VPS or the NPS.

PS And in order not to get up twice - there is also a lower hemisphere, it is interesting when working on ground targets, evading attacks from anti-aircraft missiles, intercepting low-altitude targets, etc.

And you, why even get up from the couch!!! [/ I] Judging by 2 publications, you are a universal specialist. both for tanks and airplanes?[I]

[Operator]

Judging by the lack of publications, you are an expert on sofas.

"Top Secret" information on radar N035
Viewing area:
- in azimuth ±120°
- elevation angle ±60°
Since you have studied the RLE, you can draw your own conclusions.

Naturally, you could not read such phrases as, for example, “OLS of the lower hemisphere” in the FLE of the Su-27, Su-33 and MiG-29. But this makes the lower and upper hemispheres of the view neither hot nor cold.

[Buffet]

But the OVT is not specifically designed for missile combat, but for a “dog fight,” that is, when the guns are working. Secondly, there is no point in comparing the F35 with the T50; these are different aircraft in their weight category. If you work with the MiG29 (35) it’s still okay. But the T50 comes as a direct competitor to the F22. I don't expect anything good from part 3.

[Philip Staros]

Before I read smart people, let me write a couple of lines of my Delhiite opinion.
1. The data on the wing load of the Su does not take into account its integrated circuit, as I understand it - the fuselage area and so on.
2. Only the classic manner “without loss of speed” is considered, which is great, of course. But maybe if we can turn around IN PLACE we don’t have to fly in a circle for 10-15 seconds?! After all, we can’t really escape from a ROCKET anyway.
3. NOT A WORD about the fact that aircraft RADARs, especially those with fixed AFAR, have a very BIG DIFFERENCE in detection range, etc. depending on the ANGLE RELATIVE TO THE AIRPLANE! Those. To hell with the U-turn - you need to “look around”!

[Philip Staros]

Another moment.
Speed ​​and other things are good...
But let's see how long it will take to TURN THE PLANE (not its trajectory) 180 degrees in two ways - a conventional turn and “some other way”.
Why the reversal? Firstly, to “look back” - deploy the RADAR in the optimal way. Well, “pult”.
The first method gives about 10 seconds.
And second? At low drying speeds, dryers can sharply move their “nose” back. Is it really possible to do this at a speed of 800 km/h? The “autumn leaf” maneuver (well, I don’t know how officially it is - when the dryer rotates 360++ degrees in a horizontal plane) is a wonderful way to “look around” in a general circle.
Will a couple of seconds be enough for the radar to do the job? Don't know. What if YES?

[Philip Staros]

Generally...
It looks like this isn't how it all works at all.
OVT and super-maneuverability is a way to:
1. Turn RADAR and MISSILES on the enemy FASTER. In five to six seconds, 180 degrees instead of ten for a stable turn.
2. The ability to quickly “remove the nozzles from the eyes” of approaching missiles and, perhaps, deceive the guidance head. Or even fire a counter volley.
3. Look around and aim in battle at a MEDIUM distance, where there is enough TIME for low-speed maneuvers to review and launch long-range (medium-range) missiles, and for further acceleration to the required speeds.

In general, let's compare the flight of fighter jets not at ONE speed, but at speeds that are BENEFITABLE for each type of machine.
And so we will see that Su can make a 180-degree turn in two or three seconds. Turn not with a speed vector, but with a radar and a weapon! And let him then accelerate for fifteen seconds, but all this time he will have better control of his trajectory and, most importantly, the enemy will be IN SIGHT.

Distances of a couple of tens of kilometers mean TENS of seconds of time - approach, flight time of missiles, etc. Within this period, even (for ranges of 100 km - it’s still more clear) the su can switch from the “traditional” to the low-speed super-maneuverable mode several times. At the same time, long-range and middle-class missiles will already “delight partners in the ring” to the fullest.

[Philip Staros]

Svateev,
I don’t understand... why doesn’t anyone except me remember about the asymmetry of the aircraft in terms of weapons capabilities, avionics and signature in terms of radars and IR visibility?
Pancake, as I understand it, is a way to increase the range of your awareness of the state of the sky by TWICE in 6 seconds. And at the same time, fire a salvo at previously identified (for example, AWACS) targets, capturing them with a lattice at a convenient angle. Very good thing!
As for the side tail - if the wings don’t break, then why would they break? Everything must be mortgaged.
Speed? Why have the optimal speed for traditional maneuvers if you can perform GUIDANCE twice as fast at a speed that is convenient for YOU?! Meaning?!
Moreover, before you find yourself at a speed of 500, you will ALREADY perform a FORCED maneuver and exchange your speed for some kind of “goodies” “so that it doesn’t go to waste.” And you can regain your speed and “fly further” in 10-15 seconds. Alive!