COAS Witnesses Shaheen VII Exercise- Video

[Deino]

J10 is the only single engine fighter jet in the world that can perform cobra maneuver . F22 and su30/35 are twin engine jets with same capability.
No dpubt j10C a potent 4.5 gen aur superiority jet .better than f16 block 50 plus.
PAF should go for J10 C/D with TOT atleast for 4 squadrons with production setting up in pakistan as like JFT .

Nope ... currently we have not seen a regular J-10 performing this manoeuvre and concerning first and only single engine type at least the joint US-German X-31 did it and I think the F-16-VISTA too.

 

[BATMAN]

Reportedly, several subsystems in "C" and jf-17blk3 are similar,

Yes many subsystems are crossed over

With subsystem, what do you gurus have in mind?

Subsystem are the parts which define shape of aircraft, incl. wings, tail, fuselage, structure, even wheel opening closing mechanism, location where wheels stow... etc. @MastanKhan
For heaven's sake.... these are the last things that resembles among jF-17 and J-10

In case PAF go for J10 it would be to carry on mirage doctrine, but than they'll pay for life cycle costs through their noses, but operational requirement come all of above.

 

[Muhammad Omar]

72 of these will give a huge boost and will help replacing our Ageing Mirages

 

[Thorough Pro]

What you mentioned are parts of the body, sub-systems would include things like Radar, RWR, EW, Communication system, computers, networking system, combat load management system, fuel management system, etc

With subsystem, what do you gurus have in mind?

Subsystem are the parts which define shape of aircraft, incl. wings, tail, fuselage, structure, even wheel opening closing mechanism, location where wheels stow... etc. @MastanKhan
For heaven's sake.... these are the last things that resembles among jF-17 and J-10

In case PAF go for J10 it would be to replace carry on mirage doctrine, but than they'll pay for life cycle costs through their noses, but operational requirement come all of above.

 

[Raider 21]

Nope ... currently we have not seen a regular J-10 performing this manoeuvre and concerning first and only single engine type at least the joint US-German X-31 did it and I think the F-16-VISTA too.

Agreed. All prototypes. The Cobra has become a good stunt for airshows (with a half fuel state in the display aircraft).

 

[MastanKhan]

With subsystem, what do you gurus have in mind?

Subsystem are the parts which define shape of aircraft, incl. wings, tail, fuselage, structure, even wheel opening closing mechanism, location where wheels stow... etc. @MastanKhan
For heaven's sake.... these are the last things that resembles among jF-17 and J-10

In case PAF go for J10 it would be to replace carry on mirage doctrine, but than they'll pay for life cycle costs through their noses, but operational requirement come all of above.

Hi,

The biggest interest is the commonality of all weapons---.

The most important part is that the J10 is China's baby more so than the J20---.

The J10 is their first true modern aircraft that gives them pride in their fighter aircraft industry---.

The next best thing---and the most important thing is that the chinese will develop the J10 to its fullest to beat the most advanced F16 in combat---.

The sub systems would be electronics and all the paraphernalia that comes together---.

 

[CriticalThought]

Agreed. All prototypes. The Cobra has become a good stunt for airshows (with a half fuel state in the display aircraft).

You can use it to force some pesky enemy in hot pursuit to overshoot you. What they don't show in airshows is Cobra at high speeds. The real test is whether the aircraft allows the pilot to pull it off at high speeds.

 

[enroger]

You can use it to force some pesky enemy in hot pursuit to overshoot you. What they don't show in airshows is Cobra at high speeds. The real test is whether the aircraft allows the pilot to pull it off at high speeds.

You can't do Cobra at high speed period. The g-load would be way above 10g, even if the plane doesn't disintegrate the pilot would break his spine....

 

[Windjammer]

Albeit, the J-10 is only about a foot longer and taller than the F-16 but it appears massive compared to the American aircraft even though both have underside intake.

 

[CriticalThought]

You can't do Cobra at high speed period. The g-load would be way above 10g, even if the plane doesn't disintegrate the pilot would break his spine....

Of course you would know all about it. Except that you really don't. There is no reason why the cobra cannot be used at the speeds where turning fights are conducted.

 

[MastanKhan]

You can't do Cobra at high speed period. The g-load would be way above 10g, even if the plane doesn't disintegrate the pilot would break his spine....

Hi,

The crucial question has been---at what 'maximum' speed the cobra can be performed---where the pilot and the aircraft both survive the G forces---.

 

[messiach]

Correct.

You can't do Cobra at high speed period. The g-load would be way above 10g, even if the plane doesn't disintegrate the pilot would break his spine....

 

[CriticalThought]

Hi,

The crucial question has been---at what 'maximum' speed the cobra can be performed---where the pilot and the aircraft both survive the G forces---.

Correct.

@enroger

Seat of the pants calculation. Most combat occurs in the .7 M range. Some seat of the pants calculations:

1 Mach = 343 m/s
.7 M = 240.1 m/s
.3 M = 102.9 m/s
vf^2 = vi^2 + 2a(rf - ri)
a = vf^2 - vi^2
-----------
2(rf - ri)
A deceleration over 100 m means
a = -52.94205
With g = 9.8 m/s^2
a = 5.4 G

Remember that in an ideal cobra the aircraft retains its height. So, this is the horizontal force experienced. Then there are the rotational forces, but the cobra doesn't feature a high angular velocity. The other force is the thrust the engines need to provide to counter gravity due to loss of lift and maintain height. This has to equal 1 g. So overall, approximately 6.4 G of forces if the pilot wants to decelerate from .7 M to .3 M.

 

[SQ8]

Of course you would know all about it. Except that you really don't. There is no reason why the cobra cannot be used at the speeds where turning fights are conducted.

Recalling from what Ive read over the years..
The high pitch maneuver to use the airplane as a “brake” was first done by the father of modern air combat John Boyd, something he referred to as “flat plating the bird” which he would perform using a F-100 super saber. His focus was to lose airspeed quickly to allow him to position behind a jet(Top Guns interesting “hit the brakes and fly right by comes from this”) since the F-14 could do it too except they called it a tailslide that would usually lead to a compressor stall in the TF-30.
As mentioned here, the Flanker does it by having weight configured a certain way so the pitch up is rapid enough but its flight computer can then compensate for it later.

Subsequently it was tried on other airplanes but it was found that some airframes are better at it than others.
Eventually as air combat and energy management came into practical air combat where 1v1 was rare and aircraft fought as units; losing energy by such maneuvers was found wasteful and dangerous.

To the extent that pilots were told to “snake” their flightpath to stay behind an opponent instead of using airbrakes to dump speed.

The Cobra done by the sukhoi is done at a relatively benign transonic speed because the fly by wire on the jet will never let you exceed airframe limits(hence carefree handling).
The same way AoA limiters will kick in on the JF-17 if anyone tries it because the flight computer is focused on keeping the aircraft in control and flyable rather than letting it depart “controlled” flight.
The TVC variants of the flanker only override pitch rates at speeds as long as the flight computer is sure the airframe is not overstressed.

So the J-10 could theory do it, but frankly is has 0.001% utility in modern air combat.

 

[enroger]

@enroger

Seat of the pants calculation. Most combat occurs in the .7 M range. Some seat of the pants calculations:

1 Mach = 343 m/s
.7 M = 240.1 m/s
.3 M = 102.9 m/s
vf^2 = vi^2 + 2a(rf - ri)
a = vf^2 - vi^2
-----------
2(rf - ri)
A deceleration over 100 m means
a = -52.94205
With g = 9.8 m/s^2
a = 5.4 G

Remember that in an ideal cobra the aircraft retains its height. So, this is the horizontal force experienced. Then there are the rotational forces, but the cobra doesn't feature a high angular velocity. The other force is the thrust the engines need to provide to counter gravity due to loss of lift and maintain height. This has to equal 1 g. So overall, approximately 6.4 G of forces if the pilot wants to decelerate from .7 M to .3 M.

All of your calculation assumed the plane can pull an "ideal cobra the aircraft retains its height" at speed like M0.7.

Theoretically it would be possible if and only if the plane have extremely bad lift quality. Think of it this way, by definition a cobra would require the plane to transition from 0 degree AoA to 90 AoA. A decent modern jet will not stall at M0.7 below 30 degrees AoA, yet they would easily be pulling 10g below 20 degrees AoA at 0.7M. That means if you tries to pull a cobra at M0.7, you will experience max g at around 30 to 40 degrees AoA which would certainly exceed 10g by a wide margin.

In short, it is indeed possible to build you a jet that can do cobra at M0.7, however this jet would have to have the absolute worst lift quality ever (to keep you from experiencing g-load over 10, the plane would either have to stall below 20 degree AoA, or have max g below 10 at AoA 30-40). This plane would absolutely suck at sustained turn rate.

Hi,

The crucial question has been---at what 'maximum' speed the cobra can be performed---where the pilot and the aircraft both survive the G forces---.

Below M0.4