Any form of dynamic deceleration drastically reduces airspeed and pulse doppler closure rate allowing for sudden change of direction. All radar missiles rely on high PRF frequencies for targeting (closure rate). The ability to drastically decelerate and reach a near zero energy state instantly greatly assist in defeating radar missiles and is soviet doctrine. It is also why air superiority/dominance fighters of the 5th generation are equipped with the ability.
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
(title is wrong, it’s PPI-50AK flare)
1 Like
Soviet doctrine was never based on dynamic slowdown tactics - Cobra is more or less a demonstration manoeuvre without much tactical use.
It has several drawbacks - it can only be used at lower speeds, its execution requires a very experienced pilot, the energy loss is very high.
You might want to look at what the Soviet doctrine actually was - high speed, high altitude, passive detection and missile launches combined Radar and heat-seeking. Cobra, perhaps only in an absolute emergency as a last-ditch maneuver before certain death.
1 Like
The flight model change was by and large an improvement to the way that the plane handles. Immediately cobra-ing at 900kph and losing all speed is not very useful in gameplay.
Right now as it stands the flight model is still inferior to pretty much all of the USA stuff but that is mainly a factor due to it’s lack of energy retention / ability to regain energy while turning.
Why are you fixated on the cobra maneuver? I have been liking what you have posted since coming to the thread, but it seems you are now intentionally missing the point out of pride.
Again, it is absolutely irrelevant whether you think the cobra is useful or not. The issue is the aircraft cannot perform it any longer in full real at any speed.
This not totally correct. Frontal aviation fighters such as the Mig-29 was not a designed for high altitude combat. They were designed for low altitude rapid response point defense. That is why (as well as the Flanker) both have an IR ACM that points upward for detection of target passively. The Mig-29 was designed with low weight and highest thrust to weight outside the F-15 to immediately make contact and dispatch targets at close range using high alpha capability. They were specifically given high off-boresight missiles and HMD to greatly assist in this doctrine. Close quarters and dynamic attainment “Super Maneuverability” is soviet doctrine.
Yes, the Flanker is a Strategic Air Armies Asset and designed more for long-range high-altitude combat, but it does not change the fact that its supermaneuvrability is still there and actually much better than the Fulcrums.
Yes, The Soviet doctrine at one point was purely focused in the 60’s-70’s on high speed and high-altitude combat. The Soviet Union was heavily invested in high-speed interceptors during that period to deter the SR-71 and US’s strategic bombers with aircraft like the Mig-23, interceptors like the Flagon and Foxbat. We are not talking about those aircraft we are talking about 4th generation fighters where the Soviets favored supermaneuverability and the US favored energy maneuverability. Both favored 1:1+ thrust to weight and aerodynamically integral designs (high lift in fuselage)
The Su27’s supermaneuverability was perfect in dev server. It was its instructor’s regular flight that made the aircraft a little too good.
The devs knew exactly how to model its special performance in. It was only when they started balancing it out against other fighters after release is where performance degraded in full real. Again, I think they did a good job with it. But full real and the speeds in which you can utilize supermaneuverable maneuvers such as Kvochur’s Bell, J-turn and the cobra have been limited to a pathetic 400mph. When the speeds are truly around 550-600.
I know it sounds negligible, but that slight variation of speed means the difference of completely stalling out or staying in the dogfight.
Being able to cobra at 900km allowed airspeed left for the Flanker to maintain altitude and stay in the fight and not stall. The cobra maneuver does not mean total loss of air speed. That is not how it’s done.
Any slower than (as it is now) stalls the jet out taking all tactical use out of it. Supermaneuverability does not mean stalling your plane out and losing all your airspeed and control.
Supermaneuverability is the capability of fighter aircraft to execute tactical maneuvers that are not possible with purely aerodynamic techniques. Such maneuvers can involve controlled side-slipping or angles of attack beyond maximum lift.
It is irrelevant whether you or I think the Cobra is useful or not. It is the ability to properly do it in full real at correct speeds and maintain proper flight that is the issue at hand.
The Su-27 in the development server was not good. You are vastly overestimating how good it is in full real controls.
The first iteration that came to live server was also not particularly good in full real controls and the way that it behaves now is better than before due to a change in Oswald Efficiency.
Is there any source that specifics the speed at which the plane should be able to execute a cobra maneuver? From what I have seen it is basically a trick that is executed at lows speeds to entertain crowds at airshows and not something that anyone is doing while near mach 1.
Which is something that the Su-27 is able to do in game. I play in in sim and the high AoA limit and ability to rudder around in a circle is situationally useful.
The “super maneuverability” is not the factor that is holding the plane back. It’s the fact that it’s conventional maneuverability ends up being very lack luster due to how quickly the plane loses energy in normal turns.
1 Like
Perhaps, but regardless the cobra maneuver does not mean total loss of airspeed like some indicated.
Most sources say high subsonic. High subsonic is not as fast as you think… its roughly around 800km-900km. Thats only 497mph to 550mph. Which was perfect btw and how it was modelled prior. Speed of sound is 767mph or 1,234km/h
How slow do you think an aircraft should be to become supermaneuverable? Sports cars can go almost as fast as those speeds (over half). Currently in game its capped at around 700km… 430 mph… of course, you will lose all energy after any maneuver. That is not supermaneuvrability, and the cobra does not mean a total loss of airspeed like it does in game.
The problem is that general public suffers from a misconception that states supermaneuvrability and the maneuvers associated like the cobra mean zero energy state. That’s not true and is western propaganda/pop culture when the US itself equips it’s top 5th generation air dominance fighters with the ability.
Stalling an aircraft does not mean you loss all your airspeed. Stalling means loss of lift, not airspeed. Aircraft such as the Su27 and 5th generation fighters have the ability to perform maneuvers not possible with conventional aerodynamic technique. Such as controlled side slipping and angles of attack beyond maximum lift.
What sources define high subsonic speeds as 800kph-900kmph? The only place I am seeing high subsonic speeds in relation to the cobra maneuver is on Wikipedia and it is pretty ambiguous.
Going from 280mph to 80mph is practically a standstill in aviation terms.
I don’t have anything to add other than the fact that “super” maneuverability isn’t necessarily the focal point of any US 5th Gen fighter.
The issue in-game is not the Su-27s gimmicky post stall characteristics…its the fact that it’s conventional maneuverability parameters are quite garbage…i.e you lose turn rate extremely quickly when performing instantaneous turns and you cannot regain energy due to how inefficiently the air frame is modeled.
The only thing the Su-27 does well in the game is high AoA maneuvers at low speed and controlled side slipping. It’s everything else up to that point that is not very good.
1 Like
Higher than that is what is called transonic speeds which begins around Mach .8
Sorry I’m not able to reply in detail at moment. Be back in a little
So are you just going based off of conjecture that high subsonic speeds has to be right up to the limit of transonic speeds?
Since when did airshow performances determine the full combat capability of any given fighter aircraft? You are aware the F22 is capable of performances not shown publicly, right? The Soviets/Federation as well. Do we need to go over reasons why combat aircraft do not perform to their full potential at public air shows?
The F22 does not even perform to its full capability with allied nations during mock dogfights and many times has its drop tanks still attached. There is a reason for this. Performances and behind the door numbers are classified. Su27 has behind the doors numbers that the US knows from their ownership of their flankers but still does not publicly disclose them.
No one ever said it’s the focal point of 5th generation fighters. But it is a requirement of 5th fighters whose primary role is air dominance. US, China & Russia.
That’s why it’s literally called high subsonic. What would you call it? “super duper high subsonic”?
I don’t understand why you are splitting hairs over this.
I wouldn’t say that its a requirement only for 5th gen it requirement for any modern air superiority fighter
1 Like
Yes, and that is why every modern fighter who’s primary role is air superiority has thrust vectoring or the ability to perform supermaneuverable regimes. Literally the most modern air superiority fighters of US, Russia and China are designed to be supermaneuverable and perform in tactics associated for offensive and defensive purposes.
1 Like
Does supermaneuverableilty really needed now as most engagement are done from bvr or does it help defending from incomeing missiles much more then with out that ability
Sorry if its hard to follow its very late
1 Like
No worries bro.
Yeah, because rapid deceleration and rapid change of direction greatly enhances a fighters ability to perform radar defeating maneuvers such as notching. A lot of people initially think (myself once too) that super maneuverable performances are reserved for a dogfight.
However supermaneuverability greatly increases survivability against radar missiles. That is why 5th generation air superiority fighters are equipped with the capability even though engagements that go on to make it to a merge are increasingly unlikely.
You can somewhat see in game now how high alpha capability in fighters greatly assist in notching radar missiles such as the kfir c.7 or J8F.
1 Like
That doesn’t make sense, even 5th gen fighters presumably would have issues sustaining afterburner or would have problems with maintaining control of the aircraft at altitude with such reductions in speed. This all has to do with the minimum speed for safe afterburner operation and such of course. Maybe @BBCRF knows which charts from the manual depict the minimum airspeeds by altitude.
Doing a “cobra” for example at high alt just to notch would reduce your ability to turn around and extend away from the missile. I’m not even sure such a maneuver would be better than simply turning 90°… with a short but sustainable turn might even be faster than dumping all your speed to point the nose and return to the neutral position… Last I checked the ‘Cobra’ didn’t end up 90° from previous heading but back to straight forward. The talk of rapidly slowing oneself down is almost always reserved for brief nose-pointing type maneuvers that result in a return to previous heading… such maneuvers don’t accomplish a ‘notch’. They’re reserved for dogfights to allow for a HOBS missile launch in the first few turns or as a last resort to force an overshoot from a defensive position. It’s true that such aircraft would naturally have high instant turn rate and such - but I don’t think a rapid attainment of AoA beyond the point of flow detachment is possible from the speeds and altitudes where BVR combat normally occurs…
When the Soviets stated that their new aircraft like MiG-29 and Su-27 had a newer capability or ability to turn for a notch sooner they likely were in reference to the improved instant turn rates. The MiG-23 was fast, accelerated well… but the turn radius was (and is in-game) quite large especially at higher altitudes and if you want to pull too hard it bleeds speed… but of course not as fast as something like the Su-27.
Almost all fourth gen fighters still in use have a variety of electronic warfare and decoy methods to defeat radar missiles. I don’t think I’ve ever read “slowing down to 80mph” as a response / tactic for defeating a missile.
Such a lot wrong with those assumptions it’s hard to cover all the situations. Hope this is still relevant to the thread as well but lmk if we’re getting a bit off topic.
Just do a little research. It will make sense.
Look up the innovation that is in the F22 raptors engines which has more thrust than the S71 engines. the jet can super cruise faster than some fighters can fly with afterburner. The F-22’s F119 engines produce more thrust without afterburn than the F-15’s F100 engines with afterburn. The F22 does not need to sustain long periods in afterburn with such insanely powerful engines. Neither will the new Russian Product 117 engines and the Chinese WS-15
here is a video to help you understand what 5th generation engines are capable of.
Because you do not need to slow down to 80mph to cobra, kvochur’s bell, j-turn etc or any maneuvers associated with supermaneuvrability. Lol.
I am not splitting hairs; I am asking for a source of what you are using to define as high subsonic speeds. Pretty much anything over 250mph is considered high speed for a subsonic in aviation terms.
You are insisting that the Su-27 can immediately pull a Cobra maneuver while going 550mph, presumably with a combat load and fuel.
The maneuver as far as I am aware has only been demonstrated at what we would consider to be low speeds.
1 Like