Energy Manuverability vs Super Manuverability which wins?

>>33352903
the one that didn't got ass blasted i every conflict ever

>>33352922
Undoubtedly the west has enjoyed superior BvR radar and AWACs technology which makes most times any WvR advantage mute as the defender wont survive to use it, But I want to know purely based on WvR

bump?

>>33352955
It depends

>>33352903
It's easier to recover from a mistake with energy maneuvering than it is with being able to point your nose quickly at the cost of all your energy

probably works best when both are used together.

>>33352903
There's no such thing as manuevering without energy, and tailslided cobras and kulbits are not combat maneuvers. This is a retarded thread and you educate yourself on how aircraft actually fly, and learn for yourself what acm tactics entail.

DCS is a free download. Fyi

File: X-31 high-alpha.jpg (644KB, 1538x2105px) Image search: [Google]

644KB, 1538x2105px

>>33352903
E-M, easily. Supermaneuverability was an conceived notion from the outset. Unfortunately it took the F-22's entry into service for the chairforce to finally realize that deliberately stalling your jet in combat is a fucking retarded idea. Nevermind the fact that the ONLY advantage supermaneuverability ever offered - the ability to snap your nose towards the enemy for an early shot - doesn't even matter anymore now that HMDs and HOBS missiles exist.

>>33356745

Exactly, all the best modern WVR missiles are now all-aspect with helmet-cued high off-boresight capabilities. Where the planes nose is pointing doesn't really matter, what matters in WVR is how much information you have and how quickly you can act on it.

>>33357073

F-22 doesn't have a helmet cueing system.

you still want to point your nose at where the bandit is/will be when you shoot, even in WVR. the Pk of a HOBS shot is much less than a "heart of the envelope" shot.

>>33352903
Super maneuverability is meaningless in modern air combat. Just for air show or meme.

>>33356745
this

>>33357105

I thought the pointwas that the F-22 is one of those air superiority fighters going for supermaneuverability. Other aircraft like the F-15C and Typhoon do have this.

Isn't this the point though. An aircraft that haemorrhages energy to point its nose for a direct shot is a sitting duck for a HOBS shot.

>>33357105
>the Pk of a HOBS shot is much less than a "heart of the envelope" shot.
If you're WVR, then you're in the NEZ.

>>33352903
>distant 2 is blind

I kek'd

>>33357142
If you are too close HOB can fuck you over. Missiles aren't capable yet of tuning down power for tighter turning. In REALLY close combat.

>>33356745
>Unfortunately it took the F-22's entry into service for the chairforce to finally realize that deliberately stalling your jet in combat is a fucking retarded idea


1. The only people who use the phrase "energy maneuverability theory" are non pilots, i.e. desktop jockies. Needing energy to move is not something that pilots just now found about, nor is it something that someone had to stop and take the time to 'think' up. Pilots have been using energy tactics since WW1.

2. The F-22 has thrust vectoring for supercruise, better fuel economy at high speed. Instead of using the elevator to make pitch adjustments, which causes drag, the nozzles themselves move. Csusing as little loss in speed as possible. It wasn't put there so pilots could tail slide around.

3. No pilot or designer in the air force has ever thought stalling has been a good idea... and when Russian MiGs starting doing it airshows it was immediately dismissed as retarded by all actual combat pilots.

F-16 and F-15s can also snap roll and tail slide too, so it's not like even that was something new to the US anyways

>>33359095
>>33356745
BTFO
T
O

>>33357187
>distant 2 is blind
Every fucking time. God damnit two just be in position

>>33357214
The min range of an AIM-9X, ASRAAM, AA-11, Python IV, and whatever other missiles I'm missing is really low. Only way you're going to hope to min range is by 1-circle and even then it probably won't be min ranged until a few passes into the fight.

Knows-nothing-about-air-combat-tactics-fag here-

Could someone explain the difference between energy maneuverability and super maneuverability? From what I've found the former has to do with an aircraft's ability to maneuver at high speeds, like most people think a dogfight happens, while the latter has to do with an aircraft's ability to maneuver once it'd dumped all of it's energy; ie stalled out, a'la pugachev's cobra. Is there more to it than that? Am I missing it entirely?

>>33360891
It's easy, neither really exist and are just catch phrases coined by non pilots. ACM tactics haven't changed since WW1, because physics haven't changed.

Aircraft are not rockets and need ever present air speed to turn, no speed = no maneuver.

What you should look into is lateral turn fighting vs vertical

>>33360891
Energy maneuverability is about maintaining energy, not really about maneuvering at high speeds. Generally you retain energy better at high speeds because of induced drag where you lose less energy to drag at high airspeeds. Super-maneuverability is about being able to turn on a dime but that will bleed all your airspeed no matter what fighter it is. EM is better for a 2-circle "rate fight" where SM is better for a 1-circle "radius" fight.

>>33357187
He turns into the sun every fucking time.

>>33360979
>ACM tactics haven't changed since WW1, because physics haven't changed.

That's not really true. Defensive ACM maybe, but there's far more vertical used now and you can have way more distance between each fighter due to the size of a modern jet. A bracket now is going to be way better than a bracket back then.

>>33361046
Actually vertical tactics were invented in WW1, and its the reason why faster higher flying fighters like the D7 were banned after the war.

>>33361087
Good luck having a 5-10k feet vertically stacked formation in biplanes.

File: sprey.jpg (42KB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 700x394px

>>33352903
A-10 can out dogfight anything you fucking plebs.

File: ppschair.jpg (114KB, 729x1024px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 729x1024px

>>33352903
F-18 vs east german MiG-29
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn1sBfIlUjY

90's wargame after germany inherited east german mig 29s

mig 29s get shit on

>>33361137
That's not even a tactic in modern planes...... nor does it have anything to do with basic one on one vertical advantage fighting.

But I see you dont want to admit acm tactics are 100 years old

File: aircraft-planes_hdwallpaper_f-18-hornet_83825.jpg (615KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

615KB, 1920x1080px

>>33356745
>the ONLY advantage supermaneuverability ever offered - the ability to snap your nose towards the enemy for an early shot - doesn't even matter anymore now that HMDs and HOBS missiles exist.
HMD/HOBS makes nose-pointing ability MORE important, not less. The days of long dogfights where energy management was a major deciding factor are over. WVR combat in the present day and near future is all about getting the shot off and ending the fight within seconds.

Evidence: the three most recent US fighters
>Super F-18: focus on instantaneous nose-pointing over sustained maneuverability
>F-22: combines both instantaneous pointing ability and world-beating sustained maneuverability
>F-35: nose-pointer to an even greater degree than the F-18s
Only the top air superiority fighter retains the kind of EM performance of the F-15 and F-16, and it's not going to be using that performance in WVR very much, instead using it to achieve dominant high/fast state for the BVR arena

>>33361191
So you're saying that brackets are just 2D and fighters don't stack vertically or that brackets aren't a tactic at all? Either way I know you don't know wtf you're talking about.

File: 4523534523.png (79KB, 768x454px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 768x454px

>>33357214
>Missiles aren't capable yet of tuning down power for tighter turning.
But best can drift.

>>33360979
>ACM tactics haven't changed since WW1, because physics haven't changed.
Weapons changed. In WW1 you can be in visual range and outside of engage envelope. Can't do this now.

Discuss this matter on on >>171223180

>>33361476
No.

>>33361416
>fighters don't stack vertically

You mean like how they did in WW1 and 2?

You do realize this tactic was made from then, right?

>>33361730
As I said before and I'll say it again. 5-10k stacks. That wasn't possible in WW1 fighters.

>>33361834
>F-15s flying at 10,000ft and 20,000ft, and 30,000ft, all searching for Iraqi fighters

>literally fan fiction

>>33361834
Actually they did.... WW1 fighters got up to 20,000ft to search for enemy planes, while the rest laid low

>>>>>>>history>>>>>>

File: F:A-18 HARV.jpg (87KB, 800x589px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 800x589px

>>33359095
>1. The only people who use the phrase "energy maneuverability theory" are non pilots, i.e. desktop jockies.
Well no shit; obviously stick-jockies aren't doing E-M calculations and looking at tables in the midst of combat. Doesn't mean that they don't benefit from existence of E-M as a method of design and analysis. And FWIW, they DO now have an energy trend indicator on the HUD to help them at least remain conscious of energy.
>nor is it something that someone had to stop and take the time to 'think' up.
I suppose jets should be designed without any "thinking," huh? What exactly do you have against "thinking" anyways?
>2. The F-22 has thrust vectoring for supercruise, better fuel economy at high speed.
That's the line they'll give you nowadays, but back when they were actually deciding to include TVC, the rationale was entirely the perceived appeal of supermaneuverability. You won't find shit prior to 2007 about the ATF program having thrust vectoring for the sake of trim.
>It wasn't put there so pilots could tail slide around.
Yes, it was.
>3. No pilot or designer in the air force has ever thought stalling has been a good idea
There are pilots who have literally attempted that shit in combat.
>F-16 and F-15s can also snap roll and tail slide too
Not F-16s. They'll depart.

File: AIM-9X.webm (368KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 480x360px

>>33357214
>Missiles aren't capable yet of tuning down power for tighter turning.
The missiles themselves have TVC nowadays. They can flip immediately upon launch to 90 degrees or more AOA and blast off directly in the direction of the target at 30 times the acceleration of gravity. There's no need to turn down thrust when thrust itself is overwhelmingly the strongest force acting on the airframe (which is almost NEVER the case with a jet itself, mind you).

>>33362828
This is one of the dumbest posts I've seen lately and a good example of why air combat should be banned from this board, as people like this have no clue what they're talking about

>>33362144
They don't fly normal tac formation like that but when flight lead calls a bracket, they do. I bet you're the person who thinks F-15s are anything other than missile trucks for the raptors right now, which was also called fan fiction on /k/. Why don't you get into the community before calling shit fan fiction when you don't know a god damn thing about modern A2A combat?

>>33363299
Not all his points were valid but some were and you should try to attack the invalid ones, not the entire post. The F-22's TVC was designed for super-maneuverability from the start, not efficient supercruise. His points about jets being built for EM was very fucking valid. So WTF about his post was the dumbest thing you've read on /k/?

>>33363829
If you're an actual pilot you should just stop arguing because you'll probably accidentally start discussing classified info to prove some idiot anon wrong.

>>33357187>>33360789
>>33361002
I was hoping some one would get that :D

And thanks all! I always suspected EM/Speed was superior since even say maybe WW2 as that's what all things point to but really why is it that the USSR stuck to SM designs?

>>33363877
>So WTF about his post was the dumbest thing you've read on /k/?

Most of it is is just flat out dumb.

Hint: Anyone who thinks energy tactics is 'new' or had to be thought up by someone in the 70's/80's, is an idiot, and by virtue of thinking that has ZERO understanding of acm and the history of it.


And no, the F-22 was not designed to tail slide around, that is not the reason why it has pitch vectoring thrust. Nor does any pilot think pitch vectoring in tbb is somehow better than normal fixed nozzle turning with sufficient airspeed

>>33364749
*tnb

>>33363829
No, they don't.

There is no formation that literally has a flight of the same 4 ship formation literally spread out 10,000ft apart.

You should kill yourself, or stop posting. Either is good.