SU-30's Cobra Maneuvers - A Treat for PAF Shaheen

[Gabriel]

Conventional air-to-air missiles see targets as dots - a fact which makes it hard for the missile to tell between true or false targets. The Python 5's head seeker literally sees a clear image of the target and background, giving it an incredible advantage over other missiles by authenticating the target, thus reducing the chance of being mislead by counter measures. Using this technology allows the luxury of locking on a target after the launch.

Blatant advertising ...methinks.

 

[SSGPA1]

Cobra is done to break out of being chased by another aircraft or a chasing missile following you at your six o'...while you lose precious energy...skilled pilots recover from the cobra and land up on the enemy plane's six o'...and the missile basically gets spent till the time it recovers it's flight path(it has to travel a mile long radius to turn back in)

PAF pilots have done similar moves but with much bigger loops but this is exceptional what SU-37 did.

 

[MastanKhan]

Actually seems like even against a 40 G capable missile the Cobra will be pretty competitive. Assume the worst case -- the missile is 1 meter behind the aircraft and is about to explode. The pilot pulls a Cobra.

Remember that the acceleration experienced by the plane and the missile are very different -- for the aircraft it is flying at high speeds and then exposing the entire bottom of the aircraft to the airflow to stop it (plain deceleration) . For the missile it has to do a full circle turn.

If you assume that the missile is flying at barely supersonic (assume it can slow down from mach 2+ -- it is easier to turn at subsonic speeds ) and that it can take 40 G (400 m/s^2) of centripetal acceleration, it will take about 9 seconds to do a full turn. If the human being can take 10 G for a few seconds, then the aircraft can pretty well do a full stop within that time. The aircraft would have done a pretty full stop, while the missile would be about 2 kms off by this point. Now the missile can cover this 2km within a few seconds , but the aircraft gets time to react .

Basically the whole move gains about 10 seconds (Assuming that the missile was about to explode when the pilot used the cobra). But I agree, it will be rarely used against missiles. More likely use is against other aircrafts in tail fights. Nothing else stops an aircraft faster.

Hi,

The missile may also have a proximity fuse---if it blows up that close to a plane---20--50 meters away---it can still bring down a plane or make it non operative.

 

[blain2]

I am not saying that flares will seduce %100 of the time. I am saying that there is much more than what press releases say for public consumption. Regarding what you say, we do not know the distances between launch and target aircrafts. If the IR missile is launched in sufficiently short distance, it will break through the IR saturated field of view and quickly reacquire the target while it is still in its early acceleration phase. If the missile was launched at further distance and the missile reached its maximum velocity, it will be seduced.

How many Gs can a missile turn? The mid-20s are average and mid-30s are used for after target lock. Any claim above 40 and I would be suspicious.

Mid-20s is more than sufficient against most aircraft as long as the seeker finds it mark.

 

[paritosh]

the thrust vectoring missiles...have capable turning capacities.

 

[paritosh]

what about JF being supported and coupled with the Erieye!??

BVR combat requires you detecting targets at BVR as well as destroying them as well with BVR missiles.The awacs would give you early detection and guidance...but you need to have BVR capable missiles too...and these "what if" scenarios are not productive to discuss...I am considering the stand-alone performances of the SU-30.

 

[paritosh]

PAF pilots have done similar moves but with much bigger loops but this is exceptional what SU-37 did.

thrust-vectoring does provide the pilot with more maneuverability options...some kill the kinetic energy like the cobra..but have their uses.

 

[Arsalan]

BVR combat requires you detecting targets at BVR as well as destroying them as well with BVR missiles.The awacs would give you early detection and guidance...but you need to have BVR capable missiles too...and these "what if" scenarios are not productive to discuss...I am considering the stand-alone performances of the SU-30.

you doubt that pakistan have BVR missiles??
or do you challenge the performance of AMRAAM and the SD10???

i guess there is no what if scenario in JF being supported by erieye! this is what the erieye is for and this is what the JF is all about. turst me they both can fly unlike the LCA

my best wishes!
regards!

 

[Zulfiqar]

I am considering the stand-alone performances of the SU-30.

No body is comparing JF-17 to SU-30 here. In real battle both sides are going to be supported by airborne early warning radars and both sides have BVRs so SU-30s advantage will be canceled out.

 

[paritosh]

well...the thread is about the cobra maneuver which only the SU-30 MKI is capable of performing...so it about the SU-30...as far as JF-17 is concerned...these are all your scenarios.
@Arsalanaslam123...
see there is a limit to how many aircrafts an AWACS can data-link...the AIM-120 has a kill range of about a hundred kms...AWACS are indispensable assets for any airforce...our frontline fighter will be data-linked too...and would function in and around the AWACS...it is the duty of the strike a/cs to take out the enemy AWACS...and for that role the MKI wouldn't fit...because of it's big RCS...and hence the vulnerability to a BVR hit....the Bisons would fare better...
so a more realistic scenario would be..JF-17s/f-16s with AIM-120Cs data-linked to Erieye AEW&CS...facing wave after wave of migs...armed with bvrs with data-links to the phalcon(the close proximity of the battle-zones to the borderwould enable elaborate coverage for both the AWACS systems...but the Phalcon has a larger operating radius...the erieye doesn't have a proper radius...it's backward tracking capability is seriously limited)
the SU-30mkis would face your strike a/cs...the mirages and F-7s...till the time your AEW&CS aren't taken out.

 

[SBD-3]

well...the thread is about the cobra maneuver which only the SU-30 MKI is capable of performing...so it about the SU-30...as far as JF-17 is concerned...these are all your scenarios.
@Arsalanaslam123...
see there is a limit to how many aircrafts an AWACS can data-link...the AIM-120 has a kill range of about a hundred kms...AWACS are indispensable assets for any airforce...our frontline fighter will be data-linked too...and would function in and around the AWACS...it is the duty of the strike a/cs to take out the enemy AWACS...and for that role the MKI wouldn't fit...because of it's big RCS...and hence the vulnerability to a BVR hit....the Bisons would fare better...
so a more realistic scenario would be..JF-17s/f-16s with AIM-120Cs data-linked to Erieye AEW&CS...facing wave after wave of migs...armed with bvrs with data-links to the phalcon(the close proximity of the battle-zones to the borderwould enable elaborate coverage for both the AWACS systems...but the Phalcon has a larger operating radius...the erieye doesn't have a proper radius...it's backward tracking capability is seriously limited)
the SU-30mkis would face your strike a/cs...the mirages and F-7s...till the time your AEW&CS aren't taken out.

How many migs? couple of thousands?

and bahi sahib Mirages are going to be phased out as JF picks up induction and F-7s are going to be interceptors not strike ACs.Strike role will be assumed by Falcons and Vanguards so expect to face them not skybolts

 

[Zulfiqar]

well...the thread is about the cobra maneuver which only the SU-30 MKI is capable of performing...so it about the SU-30...as far as JF-17 is concerned...these are all your scenarios.

You are not discussing the cobra maneuver either in your recent posts so i am also entitled to reply.

Waves after waves of migs won't always come because we will also be using raa'ds.Our cruise missiles have a greater range.

When discussing something keep the whole picture in mind.

it's backward tracking capability is seriously limited

Our version is different than those offered to greece e.t.c. It has a 360 degree coverage.

 

[Arsalan]

well...the thread is about the cobra maneuver which only the SU-30 MKI is capable of performing

will you care to support this claim???

i guess we have been through a handsom list of plaes able to do this!!
i will be looking frward to your response!

regards!

 

[paritosh]

will you care to support this claim???

i guess we have been through a handsom list of plaes able to do this!!
i will be looking frward to your response!

regards!

i know...i was merely considering the JF-17 and the SU-30MKi.

 

[Munir]

I posted thos argument often but this one (keymag) explains it better... Quatity does make a difference...

Those days are pretty much over. Back during the Cold War the West worked out tactics to avoid the furball. Achieving superiority in the missile filled air of a furball leads to a low kill ratio. It is the unseen shooter that makes most of the kills. This is why BVR is where one-sided kill ratios can be established.
Take a look at the air battles over the Bekaa Valley and PGW#1, they were finished before the merge in most all cases. This despite the missile reliability problems.
In the AIMVAL/ACEVAL test by the USAF they found the F-15A killed the F-5 at a rate of 64:0 in 1V1 combat! The kill ratio went down as the number of fighters increased. By the time the combat had 64 fighters (32 on both sides) the kill ratio had dropped to a kill ratio of 2:1! This is why killing before the merge is so desirable.