Hey /k/. How the fuck do the Russians do it? Why are their planes

They are hackers

>>32283439
Because they burn through all their fuel in ~45 minutes through the superfluous magic of thrust vectoring.

>>32283439
Ebin t/w ratio

>>32283439
thrust vectoring. 5 seconds in Google could have answered that you degenerate mongoloid

>>32283688
>superfluous
What happens if ECM actually works and the planes end up closing to within a couple km

Post-stall maneuvering is a lot less useless when an F-15 is tailing you

>>32283439
Clean plane and half fuel

>>32283439
isnt the cobra super airframe taxing and pretty much grounds for inspection afterward??

>>32283439
>Do 360 roll with the magic of vectoring
>lose 99% of speed
>BVR missile going 2,000mph hits you

>>32283439
Sukhois are rear heavy, which allows for easy maneuvering, even without TVC, as seen in all the Su-27 and Su-33 cobra videos.

File: anus.jpg (25KB, 300x195px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x195px

>>32283439
The planes anus shoots its ass-gas in a different direction so that the force of the ass-gas sends the plane at a different angle.

Pic related, you can see one of the planes anal holes sphinctered in a different direction to the other anal pipe.

>>32286158
Not only this, but cobras and tail slides literally have no place in combat, purposely stalling is the last thing you want to do in a dogfight.

>First, a little thrust vectoring history. The USAF tested a 3D nozzle on the Multi-Axis Thrust Vectored F-16 in the early 1990s. It was found that thrust vectoring was really only useful at speeds below 250 knots (with the F-16; the speed will vary with other jets). Above that speed the jet had enough g available and was maneuverable enough that thrust vectoring didn't add anything. Also, at high speeds, if the nozzles start to swing the jet violently around you're apt to induce unacceptable loads on the airframe.

>Thrust vectoring, whether 2D or 3D, is a two-edged sword. If you're going to use it, you'd better kill me now. Ever seen videos of the Super Flanker spinning around like a top and doing back flips at an airshow? First off, the jet is slow – not a place to be in a multi-bogey environment. Second, when thrust is steered off-axis the axial component of thrust is decreased. Axial thrust pushes the jet (and wing) through the air at a speed required to maintain lift. Take away forward thrust, take away speed and lift. Go back to the videos. What's happening? The Flanker is dropping like a rock at slow speed (no lift is being produced by the wing). If the Flanker pilot does not kill me now, the other edge of the sword is about to fall. He's automatically building in vertical turning room for me and it's going to take an unacceptable amount of time for him to get enough smash back to take it away due to his low airspeed. If I'm still alive I'm turning him into a strafe rag.

>I flew enough BFM against the Raptor before I retired where the new Raptor pilots were discovering there's a time for thrust vectoring and there's a time to leave that club in the bag.

File: 2307809.jpg (265KB, 1400x946px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1400x946px

>>32283439
Flanker is from an era that cared more about aerodynamics and performance over millions of lines of jenga code, environmentally friendly jet fuel and stealth design.

>>32286412
>and there's a time to leave that club in the bag.

Why do pilots talk like jackasses?

File: 1474762108313.png (231KB, 643x537px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 643x537px

>>32286235
>planes anus
>ass-gas
>anal pipe

>>32286235
What aircraft is this? Looks like Mig-29 engines, but the airplane is weird

>>32286461
It's just a golf reference, anon

>>32286194
do you even know the correct procedure for shaking a missile?
nobody does 360 rolls.

>>32283688
>implying NATO / US dont use thrust vectoring too

>>32286235
Please refrain from describing it like this. I have a sever fart fetish and now I have to jerk off to farts 30 minutes before church

>>32283439
Lol, we did that in the 60s...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqiDEcfSnXs

>>32287629
Severe

File: 14274365_10206968472642446_1772348478_o.jpg (113KB, 1512x1512px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1512x1512px

>Its a /k/ makes the stupid assumption that "thrust vectoring = manouverability" episode

>>32287641
As an Aersospace engi you hurt my soul, anon.
Even basic physics in a simple Google'd though experiment could completely prove you wrong.


If you have some exhaust momentum P1 along an axis x (Doesn't matter the orientation) and cannot redirect it then your forward resulting momentum will always be exactly equal and opposite to P1, lets call it P2.

If you change that exhaust momentum lets sayy... 45 degrees oriented down from the X axis, you now have a momentum component on the X axis we used to be moving along and now we have an momentum component along a new axis, a Y axis which is perpendicular to our X axis.

Because we know our P2 (our momentum) will ALWAYS be equal and opposite to P1, we now move 45 degrees up from the X axis.

Simple trig can be used to find the vector components of this momentum, and it can be done in 3 dimensions and some simple polar coordinates can be used to again. find the resultant (P2) momentum vector.


In what world do you live in where redirecting a force does NOT effect the object that the force is acting upon?

>>32287665
**thought

>>32287665
In the sense that people think thrust vectoring is a means to change your vector, not something that gives you nose authority at the cost of falling like a brick.

File: 0KAGxOt6Ef4.jpg (84KB, 807x454px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 807x454px

>>32283439
>Hey /k/. How the fuck do the Russians do it? Why are their planes so maneuverable?
Shitty engines in Soviet times forced them to invest time into aerodynamic research. Superior soviet math school provided superior aerodynamic which made this possible.

>>32283439
>there are people that still think that the cobra is of any value outside of airshows

Bleed all of your energy and airspeed in a world where HOBS has been a thing since the 70s. Brilliant idea.

>>32286481
>It's just a golf reference, anon
So talking like jackasses?

>>32283439
russians have perfected multitrack drifting years ago

File: airshow.webm (3MB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x405px

Why is she so maneuverable lads?

File: techpriest porn.gif (2MB, 320x256px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x256px

>>32287629

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBp-vl7-A4A

I think a lot of modern fighters can do similar stuff

>>32283439
Its the pilots not the planes. Russias are trained from birth to be great pilots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x84GKqcpY4E

There is no snow and ice covered ground in the sky to deal with, its like putting on ankle weights during training.

File: 1414801855369.gif (2MB, 480x271px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x271px

>>32288626
Wew lad

They know that their only chance is to teleport behind the enemy and do a dogfight.

>>32288558
>showing its bomb bay
>l-lewd

File: sweating towel guy snake.jpg (32KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x500px

>>32288626

Because they're not stealthy.

>>32283688
They were doing Cobras before they had thrust vectoring.

File: kvochru's bell stall maneuver.png (287KB, 642x470px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 642x470px

Didn't some fag try this during the Yom Kippur War? And immediately got BTFO'd?

Air show tricks have no place in air battles in the same way your stupid cartwheel/tactical acrobats have no place in an actual firefight.

>>32289510
And Cobras have been useless since forever.

Because they like designing their planes for yesterday's war.

>>32283439
whats the point of these maneuvers now that planes can be shot down from miles away with tracking missiles and pilots arent trying to get behind them to gun them down with machienguns?

>>32289567
Proof of concept and skill

File: cannons.jpg (41KB, 800x599px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 800x599px

>>32289567

Close-range aerial maneuver has it's place.

>>32289557

>he says, as he hopes his Sparrow is reliable enough to actually shoot down that MiG-21

Nobody uses MGs in fighter design anymore. Go big, or go home.

>>32286461
pilots are usually jackasses unless they are transport pilots

>>32289538
There are certainly maneuvers that are useful when ECM and analog countermeasures fail you, but anything appropriate for an air show is probably going to be useless on the battlefield.

Most combat maneuvers are novel ways to conserve as much momentum as possible while making a very sharp and aggressive maneuver, with the intention of reducing predictability of vectoring.

If you need to climb to enter the maneuver, it's probably useless on the battlefield. You're usually sacrificing some altitude immediately in a desperate attempt to shake off an immediate threat. Climbing reduces airspeed, and increased airspeed increases survival.

>>32287632
That actually looks even sharper and quicker than with a bigass heavy Flanker.

>>32289597
>Close-range aerial maneuver has it's place.
can you explain? i am genuinely curious, i thought this type of stuff was pointless for anything outside of airshows

can these be used to dodge missiles? or confuse the tracking of missiles?

File: HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg (47KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 562x437px

>>32288710
>Russias are trained from birth to be great pilots.

>>32289882
The Navy and Airforce discovered this the hard way over Vietnam. Non gun-armed aircraft had difficulty against the North Vietnamese.

And, anon, missiles can be jammed.

>>32290565
Uh, no. That's not what happened at all. Non-existant pilot selection criteria, shorty training, and a rear-blind formation were what had the Air Force have bad combat performance. The Navy never had guns and maintained superior combat results the entire war.

>>32290565
What the Air Force discovered is that a bomber pilot in a fighter plane is not the same as a fighter pilot.

File: Su35 TVC.webm (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>32289538
>Air show tricks have no place in air battles in the same way your stupid cartwheel/tactical acrobats have no place in an actual firefight.
This tricks are used with jamming, flares and corner reflectors. If you drop your reflectors, radar will compare speed of plane and speed of decoys, selecting fastest target. When you use this kind of manoeuvres, you can hide in decoys with maximum efficiency. Your speed will be same as speed of decoys.

>>32290783
Yeah no we don't use 30 year old radars anymore, that's not going to spoof them

File: why-you-always-lying.jpg (20KB, 467x414px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 467x414px

>>32283439
Because it's a photoshop, dummy.

>>32289882
no missle in the world can track a plane if it makes a 10g+ turn at the right time

File: 1423507610873.webm (356KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 960x540px

>>32291169

File: 1445897517005.webm (864KB, 718x404px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 718x404px

>>32291297

File: An_acrobatic_figure_by_a_Sukhoi_Su-35_in_Paris_Air_Show_2013_resized.jpg (3MB, 10000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 10000x3000px

>>32291307

>>32291280
What if they fire two missiles?

>>32283439
Pretty much every US fighter can do the same thing. It's not some sekret Russian tactic only slavs can do.

>>32291350
firing missles in intervals is a common tactic

>>32290783
You're retarded

>>32286461
I understood the reference. Did you?

>>32288351
And doing a cool airshow stunt (with a low fuel, unarmed aircraft) is easier than winning the air to air fight which is a mix of usually HIGH speed aerodynamics, weapon systems and electronics. I saw a F-14 do something equivalent without thrust vectoring in the early 80s. And it had a real radar and four missiles on board. Few low speed maneuvers will get you out of the way of a sidewinder. And if you do that maneuver in a real dogfight someone will smoke you. Like the wingman of the guy you're trying stupidly to evade or the other guy will go to guns and you are presenting a full sized low deflection target. You are giving up a lot of energy to do that maneuver.

>>32290565
Navy Phantoms never had guns and still outperformed AF Phantoms. Stop getting your information from the History Channel

>>32289555
Other than looking cool, absolutely. I'm just pointing out that all the anons answering "because thrust vectoring" are completely wrong on that count.

>>32291280
Why not if the missile is pulling 40G+?

The missile doesn't have to actually hit either, all modern missiles have fragmentation warheads.

>>32292481
>Navy Phantoms never had guns and still outperformed AF Phantoms

translation

>the AIM-9 scored more kills than the unreliable sparrow

>>32293236
Nope, the Navy had plenty of Sparrow kills too. Because they actually knew how to fire their weapons inside the envelope, while AF pilots tended to fire when they had zero chance of a hit.

>>32293236
Not even.

File: USAF Vietnam.png (376KB, 2456x3351px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 2456x3351px

>>32293236
Dunno about that, the Sparrow killed more than the AIM-9 in USAF service

>>32293366
The AIM-9 had the most kills for the entire war. Deal with it.

>>32293400
Still doesn't validate the "guns were important" meme.

>>32293360
AIM-9 kills
USN Total: 46

Sparrow kills
USN Total : 10

>>32286461

Because generally speaking, they ARE jackasses.

File: kill1.jpg (203KB, 1156x878px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1156x878px

>>32293419
whatever you say, jack...

>>32293366
Unrelated but I love how two MIG-21's were shot down by B-52 50 cal guns

File: kill2.jpg (212KB, 1176x904px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1176x904px

>>32293527

>>32283439
Outstanding pilot's

>>32293527
>>32293545
>>32293366
>Only one to get double-digit gun kills was the F-105

>>32293545
>USAF
>Take pilots from bombers and recon aircraft and put them in fighters with minimal air to air training
>don't properly train them on utilizing their missiles
>they only get 1:1 win/loss against the north
>start to actually train them in ACM in using their missiles properly
>in addition put a gun on the plane
>they do better

>USN
>F-4s never have guns for ACM, only ground attack
>train pilots properly from the start
>never have to add a gun because it's not needed, only proper employment of missiles is
>finish the war with a better record than the USAF.

Go ahead and continue to spout memes on how the gun saved the USAF though, that's clearly what happened anon. (How could Dogfights ever lie to you?)

>>32293535
This comes up every time

>>32286235
my fucking sides!

>>32293639
>I'm going to argue with literal black and white statistics

>>32283439
they have impressive moves. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to count for shit when they're getting blasted by sand people on the ground.
Russias armor and infantry is unbelievably strong as is their anti air/ ICBM tech. Everything else is quite lacking for them at the moment.

>>32293906
>I dont understand that there are several reasons that the USAF improved later in the war with the gun being a very minor one

>>32293906
>I'm going to keep trying to claim guns were important even when the numbers disagree with me!

>>32293984
>I dont like the fact that many gun kills were scored in Vietnam, not only by the US, but especially by the NVA, who's pilots highlighted how hilariously out of touch with reality US commanders were

>>32294179
I'm fine with the fact that guns were used to score kills, they just weren't needed.


Why did the USN do better than the USAF if guns were so important?

>>32294215
>Why did the USN do better than the USAF

The disparagy between the USAF and USN isnt about guns...., but about the difference in use between two very different missiles. Surely you realize this has already been discussed in the thread complete with total kill counts provided?

You have all the numbers in front of you, yet you're having such a hard time with figuring out what they mean. Sad.

>>32294377
So the superior pilot selection, training that actually emphasized combat and de-emphasized the bomber-based "flying safety of the AF, and the pilots actually knowing how to properly operate their aircraft made no difference?

>You have all the numbers in front of you, yet you're having such a hard time with figuring out what they mean. Sad.
You mean the numbers that don't agree with you?

>>32294604
>You mean the numbers that don't agree with you?

The only one arguing with literal numbers is you. I'm the one posting the black and white.

There were at least 43 gun kills from the USAF alone. That's almost up there with the 56 total achieved kills the Navy had with missiles...

>>32294777
And more than half of the gun kills were F-105s you tard, not Phantoms. And the Navy had a K:L rate 10x better than the AF the entire war.

>>32294797
>And more than half of the gun kills were F-105s you tard

and? The F-105 also carried missiles, too...

Are you also going to say MiG-17's and 21's shooting down US fighters with guns is irrelevant? I guess they were shooting blanks and the US just 'thought' they were being hit.

You really are a strange person. Literally arguing against reality with nothing to gain.

Very sad.

>>32294882
>and? The F-105 also carried missiles, too...
And only got two kills.

>Are you also going to say MiG-17's and 21's shooting down US fighters with guns is irrelevant?
They mainly did it because the 4-ship formation (written into doctrine by John Boyd) completely blinded Air Force Phantoms to rear attack, which MiGs exploited the fuck out of.

Get yourself some real education: https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf

>Very sad.
Yes, you are.

>>32294933
>And only got two kills.

>I just admitted a fighter scored considerably more kills with guns than missiles
>I'm literally the same guy that said guns were stupid and useless
>I have no idea what I'm doing here

File: Nguyen Van Bay.jpg (135KB, 782x524px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 782x524px

>>32293419
>"guns were important" meme.

Guns.... "unimportant"

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

>stupid American

>>32294986
It's entertaining how backwards you are on this.

F-105 Gun kills: 25
F-105 Missile kills: 2
F-105 total: 28

USAF F-4 Gun kills: 15
Missile: 77
F-4 total: 108

The F-105 was dependent on guns, had a massively outdated radar, and barely fought in Vietnam.

>>32295010
You don't get to talk if you have a negative K:L ratio zipperhead.

>>32294986
>fighter
American "education", everyone

>>32295109
>negative K:L ratio
American "education", everyone

File: downs3shot.jpg (25KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x225px

>>32295148
>>32295176

>>32295100
>The F-105 was the only fighter that flew in the war that guns, and was the only one that needed them, lol.

You really are an odd kid. The USAF achieved more kills with guns than heaters, the Navy barely got any kills with the sparrow, and had to rely on the AIM-9, as it was practically their only weapon. Logic only dictates that they would have achieved MORE, certainly not less, kills had they had another reliable weapon in their inventory to use.

The next fighter the Navy used to replace the Phantom, it had a gun....

The USAF saw to it that their next air superiority fighter had a gun with at least 900 rounds of ammunition...

File: howard.jpg (59KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1200x630px

>>32295148
Oh, the Anti-gun fag who doesn't understand air combat is a europoor

now it all makes sense.

>>32295109
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio
You seem to be having some difficulty with the concept, so here's a guide

>>32295241
>be American
>lie about F-105 being a fighter in order to "win" internet arguments
>be fat
>get shot by police

File: 1479039373424.jpg (32KB, 640x312px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x312px

>>32283439
OVERGEE OVERGEE OVERGEE OVERGEE OVERGEE

>>32295213
>The USAF achieved more kills with guns than heaters
Except that that's wrong. Very wrong. I bet you believe the myth that AF Phantoms couldn't do BVR IFF, either.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1028.0

>the Navy barely got any kills with the sparrow, and had to rely on the AIM-9, as it was practically their only weapon. Logic only dictates that they would have achieved MORE, certainly not less, kills had they had another reliable weapon in their inventory to use.
They reliably killed a lot more fighters than the Air Force did because they knew how to fire their missiles at the right time. They didn't need guns to begin with, and it was a desperation move for the Air Force to add gun pods on to try to improve their barely trained pilots' chances.

>>32295250
>Look how little I understand air combat statistics!

"Negative" refers to K:L ratios below 1:1, numbnuts.

>>32295277
>be europoor
>claim guns are useless
>try to make joke about F-105 being nothing but a bomber
>in the same post state said 'bomber' achieved numerous guns kills against more maneuverable MiGs
>ah fuck, I destroyed my argument again because I'm eurotrash

>>32295372
>"Negative" refers to K:L ratios below 1:1, numbnuts.
So in other words you are mathematically illiterate. Negative kill ratios are an oxymoron. You're just a regular moron.

>>32295349
>They didn't need guns to begin with
>immediately build next fighter with guns

>>32295395
F-105 was a bomber, kid.

>>32295397
No, you're just completely ignorant of the subject.

>>32295415
All of the teen series had an M61 Vulcan, there was just no reason not to slap one in at the time.

>Gun in modern era so unimportant Navy doesn't want it built into the F-35 B and C.

>>32295425
Show me a negative kill ratio, Einstein

I'll be waiting

>>32295461
Are you just being contrarian to troll at this point?

>>32295457
The Bs at least should see some use of the gun pod in permissive environments.

>>32295481
There's literally no such thing as a negative kill ratio. Kill ratios only exist in a set going from Zero to infinity. Negative kill ratios are literally impossible. Is math hard for you? You must be black.

>>32295489
Right, but that's kind of the point, the GAU-22 is a ground attack gun that has limited modern usefulness.

At least it's a lot more likely to hit the actual target than the GAU-8.

>>32295534
I'd argue that even the Phantom E's gun was mostly for ground attack

>>32295516
>1 kill for every 4 lost
>Not a negative ratio
Why be such a complete jackass when you know you're wrong? Not everything perfectly matches its mathematical term use.

File: history.jpg (115KB, 689x949px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 689x949px

>>32295349
>>The USAF achieved more kills with guns than heaters
>Except that that's wrong. Very wrong

...

>>32295586
You keep posting charts showing that you're wrong and claiming victory.

>>32295574
Speaking of wrongness,
>1 divided by 4
>.25
>negative
That's a POOR exchange ratio, not a negative one. Only niggers use vague, lazy language. Stop being a nigger.

>>32295552
>I'd argue that even the Phantom E's gun was mostly for ground attack

>I'd make stuff up just to argue

The cannon pods were sighted in for aerial shooting, Jesus Christ, now you're just admitting to not knowing anything and even lying just to further shit post

>>32295601
Stupid AND racist. Go fuck yourself.

>>32295616
Go learn how ratios work, Jemarcus. Stupid American.

>>32295629
>ONLY THE MATHEMATICAL TERM IS EVER VALID REEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>32295597
>you keep posting facts and claiming victory

Ok, it get now, you've been shit posting this whole time. I knew no one could be as dense as you without purposely doing it. Haha, good show, kid. You almost had me.

File: 1306512046028.gif (2MB, 313x238px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 313x238px

>>32295664
>I'm going to claim he's shitposting when it's been me trolling this whole time! That'll show him!

File: maxresdefault.jpg (51KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1280x720px

>>32295648
>1/4
>negative
American "education" on proud display.

File: Phantom Kills Vietnam.png (29KB, 433x458px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 433x458px

>shitposting about muh gun kills and yet nobody's posted this yet
On the only aircraft that actually carried all three weapons - guns, AIM-9s, and AIM-7s - the Sparrow was responsible for the most victories.

>>32292183
>>32289538
They worked great in WWI agains the japs you fucking NIP

>>32295930
>WWI
>Relevant now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpGO2VTksIw

>>32295930
uwotm8

>>32294377
Are you trying to imply that the USAF didn't try to use AIM-9s?

>>32296954
That's your takeaway from that post? Jeezus...

>On the only aircraft that actually carried all three weapons - guns, AIM-9s, and AIM-7s - the Sparrow was responsible for the most victories

>except in a completely different branch, where in the opposite happened

>>32297073
Meant for
>>32295859

>>32285952
>use thrust vector ingredients to pitch past 70 degrees in a second
>ow
>airspeed is now fucking nothing
>F-15 pilot gently pulls backward and places either a missile or 100+ rounds of 20mm into your stupid ass
>yes

>>32291280
The right time being if the missile is fired from within its minimum engagement range or at its maximum range, sure. Other than that, missile seeker have a very wide field of view, and unless you're right next to them, their gonna be able to point their nose faster than you can cross that FOV.

You pull towards the missile in the hopes that as it gets closers it can't keep its nose in front of yours and undershirts, but if it has any energy that's not a very hopeful hope at all.

>>32293234
Continuous rod penetrating is quite different from frag, and some missiles only have impact fused or hit to kill warheads. That being said, sorta.

>>32283439
They are inherently unstable. Some planes just want to fly straight and level. Russian Planes, especially Su-27 do not. They can achieve these maneuvers (pukachevs cobra) thanks to their post stall characteristics and center of gravity. They do require constant trimming when trying to fly level because of their tendency to pitch up or down.

>>32299280
In oder to pull a cobra Su-27 derivatives have a button to disable the AoA limiter. To do so the pilot must also immediately haul back on the stick to avoid an immediate and powerful pitching moment of down to -6 G.

Fun stuff.

>>32286412
Eurofighters were raping F-22 everytime they tried stupid nonsense