Directional warheads are a feature of most gen5 missiles.
Then post sources and stop making stuff up
The Supermaneuvrability is useful? Even when I post sources you do not even read them…
What source do you need? A Russian pilot saying its useful? Or American?
Do you need me to provide official VKS Weapons & Tactics doctrine? Probably a little illegal & hard to find…
Are missiles with thrust vectoring better in close quarters?
Why wouldn’t aircraft with TVC?
The dimensions of the air-to-air missiles do not allow this to be done
1 Like
Why are you so antagonistic lol?
I think you need to take a break from these forums, it can be good for your blood pressure.
2 Likes
Pilot & now a cardiologist? What haven’t you done?
Look, I am asking what I need to provide. Yeah, it’s a little sarcastic but all in good fun. Plus, dramatic claims get dramatic responses. Some find it funny. You are apparently not.
I do gtg. thanks for reminding me. Later.
There are well sourced third party studies on these tactics, a Google search would do you well. I know they don’t teach this where you’ve been for a decade, but you can use Google scholars to find better sourced materials for reading or even just search by filetype:pdf
Everything I have ever sourced you never read it, you ignore it.
What do you need? Be specific? A Russian pilot saying, “yeah dude totally” or an American one saying, “yeah bro, totally”?
Because all you guys have is one F-16 pilot saying “nah bro its weak” (of course he would) & reddit experts claiming it’s not useful either of course.
Do you guys have 3rd party studies stating supermaneuvrability is useless in a dogfight???
3rd party studies? Ok, I can find those for days. Secondary sources then. No tertiary?
Spoiler
According to Top Gun & the US Navy advisors that worked on the film Kvochur bell is definitely a tactic that can go down :)
Not dodge a missile per say but definitely swing over and slot behind opponents. Nah?
https://youtu.be/bwhjerfaAy0?si=bhg3MnBEbnl2PNpT
https://youtu.be/d7GbMg5X2yo?si=i5ZHaZHPMZTQcVO_
I am so surprised none of you have done random funny kills with the su27 in WT…Its funny because players in RB do not expect you to do it. I know @BBCRF would.
You have never been in a losing rate fight & ditch into a flat spin in the center (falling leaf)? Get off R-73s? Once your spin starts going, your nose will swipe or even follow the opponent perfectly. With HMD the low airspeed R73s are perfect for maneuvering… I had some pretty dope replays on the last update wish I saved them. It’s rare those opportunities happen but I look for them. I had a gun pass before too. A lot of times I do it too early and get sprayed, it happens. Best to do it in a rate (not a straight-line chase) where is nose cannot get you, but you know they are winning.
Or I will go vertical chasing a guy and at the peak of the climb I will hit full real & immediately pitch the nose directly at him before he even finishes (therefore my G-lock ends first) turning over & is likely still G-locked himself.
Kvochur bell is actually the easiest to perform in WT. Roll + pitch + elevator @ .70 or lower with full weapons & fuel (safest). Press the W key only to end it quicky if needed. You can bleed energy and still have enough speed to keep your nose on him the entire time switch back & HMS, R-73. I actually have my full real where my flaps went. (4th gen no longer need use of your flaps)
The trick is to disable your mouse for full real so it’s only keyboard, & use the mouse to free look (track IR is best). You need to switch back to mouse however to use the HMD effectively (it will lock up at center screen sometimes if IRST or HMD is not selected first with lock prior. (Still trying to find out what exactly causes it.).
Works amazing in cockpit especially with Track IR. Just look at the opponent. Does not for 3rd person (balance).
Matter of fact I will spend the rest time we have left to update getting some vids & providing sources.
1 Like
This isn’t relevant, there are scientific studies on the usefulness of the maneuvers. Read them.
This assumes the opponent got too close to you on accident, the implication being that the person on the offensive seriously messed up and you were defensive after a merge (meaning you messed up).
The opponent didn’t tighten down and move vertical away from your nose? Even so, why were you in such a slow speed and defensive to begin with?
You’re proving my point. Apparently it is a last ditch effort after you and the enemy both made massive mistakes. Even so, it only works out in video games.
1 Like
Sometimes it’s hard to look behind in the vertical my boy.
Who said it was any other? What’s massive mistakes? irl it’s hard to see everything you understand this. It’s not easy under the stress of combat. You think things develop so methodically?
Why?.. The nozzle 2D program started in 1979, the ATF program in 1981… Initially, it was planned to completely replace the entire F-15 fleet with 382 5th generation fighters… All other aviation countries of the world noted aircraft with front horizontal tail…
Spoiler
1 Like
From C.W. Lemoine, a retired F-16 pilot, these maneuvers just make you an easier target and would only work against pilots that are just “driving”. This was his comment from his reaction to BF3’s Hornet mission and to TGM’s clip you showed. The reason these maneuvers are looked down upon is that it bleeds all of your energy for an attempt at a target overshoot and follow up missile shot.
In game, I have used high AoA as a last ditch attempt to kill aircraft, sometimes being successful. However the Su-27 is a terrible close range fighter. It is humongous and burns energy so fast for its one turn advantage. There have been others that have tried to do this against me, and every time it has led to their death as they get gunned down due to their more exposed surface area or I exploit their energy disadvantage.
4 Likes
lol. He’s is a pilot trained in a fighter with the exact opposite design doctrine & tactics.
Of course he will say it’s terrible. As much as I like the guy. This is standard issue propaganda. All actual fighter weapon school graduates are pretty clear. “If we can help it, avoid course quarters with the flanker.” What is so difficult in understanding this. Even as video gamers. They are tremendously dangerous close quarters fighters. The Flanker have both one circle & two circle capability, powerful engines & high Off boresight capability. Why would you want to deal with that in a dogfight?
How strong is the F-16 in a one circle? Who is likely to shoot first in a nose to nose fight?
What studies do you have saying it’s useless in a combat.
Simple question. I can say the same thing. “ “go read the studies that say useful.”
Or do you have more American propaganda from our American sweetheart YouTube personality C.W. Lemoine?
As it turns out, there is no serious counter argument to him either. Topped by the fact that he’s a real fighter pilot and you’re not means your argument is 100% your opinions alone.
If you want to deface his argument, you need to provide a counter argument from a reputable source.
Strong enough to remain competitive against modern HOBS missiles as it currently sits.
It’s useless in offensive engagements where the enemy hasn’t made a glaringly ignorant mistake. Stop trying to twist other people’s argument to make it appear as though they’re claiming more / less than they are.
It’s a last ditch capability that may as well contribute nothing to the overall design if it comes at the cost of degrading performance elsewhere. A great example that was provided earlier was the YF-23. This would be far superior to the F-22A we have today.
Additionally, the J-20B doesn’t exist. The Su-57 fits their flawed fighter doctrine the same way carousel autoloaders fit their flawed tank doctrine. Supermaneuverability is the turret tossing lynch pin of the Russian air doctrine.
To understand my point better, consider that while the ammo is centrally located behind all of the armor - it is weak armor. Any shot will end up almost always hitting the ammo if it successfully penetrated (and they often do). This means that the design feature sounds good on paper but turns out poorly in practice. For supermaneuverability you sacrifice energy maneuverability, speed, other performance metrics to favor a last ditch effort that shouldn’t be necessary unless you’re in a losing situation to begin with.
Stop the bad discussion practice, post something that supports your opinion and stop flexing a college education. If you really had one you’d know how to source your statements.
1 Like
so, no studies… just some gamer dude you, who pretends to a pilot can dictate what is useless in a field he only knows from video games, google & interpreted with a High School diploma…
cool.
It’s useless, understood. Thank you, gamer dude. Are you done?
get wrecked
:)
Gamer dude. You stay larping as expert huh?
J-20 Stealth Fighter Upgraded With New Engine Claims China (thedefencetimes.com)
Already in full scale production :)
In the two situations I mentioned, it was very much the case. Especially noteworthy was Maverick’s reaction, as he just stared at it and not attempt to gun it. However, since it’s a movie, it would be boring if he did that.
Supposing that a Gentleman’s agreement was made to not shoot before a merge, the combination of high off boresight and strong instantaneous turn makes the Su-27 extremely capable in the one circle, this is undeniable even to those who do not like the aircraft. However, if the inital advantage is lost and a kill isn’t made during the first or second turn, the Flanker will find itself defensive as the two circle ability lags behind even the F-15 as the two planes fight for the advantage. Either War Thunder and DCS are wrong about the Su-27’s flight model (with available public data), or the abilties of the IRL Flanker is overstated.
1 Like
Sure, let’s suppose this still happens, yes.
ok sure, but how much energy you think was wasted? Its a 2-circle fighter too. It Is not the Fulcrum.
Also, you do know no one counts your ability to decoy in these scenarios? If a missile was successfully launched. The simulation is over. The name of the game is no shot. after a merge.
Interesting, China does not seem to think so. They have the money & capability to replace, but the flanker is here to stay. Just like the F15 :)
Public data is not valuable. It’s just open-source garbage put out there to deceive each side. It’s not closed source intelligence. Each side has export restricted flight manuals and doctrinal sources.
You think they don’t?
Thats why I think it’s funny & quite sad to see these dudes really think they know everything. So confident too lol.
In fact, the Fulcrum is a very good 2-circle fighter, the German 29s clearly demonstrated this when training with US F-16s.
Replacing the Flankers with a brand new aircraft will be very expensive, you forget that in addition to ground crew training, new weapons systems and pilot training, the new design will also bring its own problems and these will take a certain amount of time to fix.
Why should the US replace the F-15? It is a battle-proven tool that shows how excellent it is in almost every scenario.