what to expect from Su-27 module?

How hard is it to accept that it is better to have the Cobra maneuver at ur disposal then not.

Stating that a particular maneuver is ineffective in combat =! performance allowing for said maneuver is useless.

Reading comprehension. Seriously- this lack of it is getting old.

Stating that a particular maneuver is ineffective in combat =! performance allowing for said maneuver is useless.

 

Reading comprehension. Seriously- this lack of it is getting old.

Then I would claim that F-22s vector engines are ineffective in combat :)

lunaticfringe, is it not useful that Su-27 can turn 360° faster than F-15 and F-16 as well :?

The beauty about Su-27s airdynamics is that it can handle any situation you throw the aircraft in at low speeds, Where othere 4th generation aircrafts have problems to recover or need more altitude to do that, even if they have better processors for their fly by wire. :)

Here is one example where aircraft can get saved by AOA at ur disposal.

Then I would claim that F-22s vector engines ineffective in combat :)

You realize the F-22's TVC is symmetrical and mostly used for reduction of drag when super-cruising, right? It helps in maintaining a high AoA turn, but it doesn't actually cause high-AoA flight dynamics to happen - they have to be there from the start. The F-35 can maintain 50 deg AoA controllable in flight without any of this. It probably doesn't much help in maneuvering post-stall since it is symmetrical - all of this is done via control surfaces and maybe asymmetric thrust. It's not like the 3d TVC that you see on some flanker models or the X-31.

Here is one example where aircraft can get saved by AOA at ur disposal.

lunaticfringe is it not useful that Su-27 can turn 360° faster than F-15 and F-16 :?

You realize the F-22's TVC is symmetrical and mostly used for reduction of drag when super-cruising, right? It helps in maintaining a high AoA turn, but it doesn't actually cause high-AoA flight dynamics to happen - they have to be there from the start. The F-35 can maintain 50 deg AoA controllable in flight without any of this. It probably doesn't much help in maneuvering post-stall since it is symmetrical - all of this is done via control surfaces and maybe asymmetric thrust. It's not like the 3d TVC that you see on some flanker models or the X-31.

 

Didn't you read what he wrote? :)

Dont agree , You can throw the aircraft into AOA with help of TVC,

look at X-31, from 41 sec where the pilot force the aircraft into AOA with help of TVC.

It can be used for making better turns in supersonic but it can as well be used in dogfight, as Su-27s Cobra ( cobra is a demonstration, you don't need to pull as much as shown in Su-33 video.

I have read what you say, maybe we are trying to say same thing. Or I dont understand you.

Seriously, did you read what I wrote? I don't know where this disconnect is coming from.

The X-31 has a 3D TVC. Look at it do stuff at 41sec, yes. Then look at F-22 do the same thing, with single-axis TVC. In other words, both engines will tilt the TVC at the same angle on one axis. Everything else is done by the airframe, unlike the X-31.

By the way, what does 'throw the aircraft into AoA' mean?

Anyway, I don't see the point in this discussion: A Su-27S will do a Cobra, but he can't point his nose around as much as those other planes. The whole point of the Cobra is a demonstration of post-stall control, but it's not much control.

The Cobra itself, as far as use in combat goes, has some fairly narrow described uses of it in the pilot's manual IIRC, relating to pretty much shooting across the circle. With missiles. And that's all fine and dandy - we've seen it used this way in-game when it was available.

look at X-31, from 41 sec where the pilot force the aircraft into AOA with help of TVC.

It can be used for making better turns in supersonic but it can as well be used in dogfight.

Seriously, did you read what I wrote? I don't know where this disconnect is coming from.

 

The X-31 has a 3D TVC. Look at it do stuff at 41sec, yes. Then look at F-22 do the same thing, with single-axis TVC. In other words, both engines will tilt the TVC at the same angle on one axis. Everything else is done by the airframe, unlike the X-31.

 

By the way, what does 'throw the aircraft into AoA' mean?

 

Anyway, I don't see the point in this discussion: A Su-27S will do a Cobra, but he can't point his nose around as much as those other planes. The whole point of the Cobra is a demonstration of post-stall control, but it's not much control.

 

The Cobra itself, as far as use in combat goes, has some fairly narrow described uses of it in the pilot's manual IIRC, relating to pretty much shooting across the circle. With missiles. And that's all fine and dandy - we've seen it used this way in-game when it was available.

Like both of us saying, it is a demonstration of extreme AOA as the bell maneuver.

Su-27 aerodynamics does allow the aircraft to higher AOA than others, Cobra is a demonstration of that, You don't need to take it to Cobra extremes, as shown in Su-33 video.

Whit fly by wire you can throw the aircraft out of the control, because of the aircraft's unstable aerodynamics makes it possible. To get back control, you need the right aerodynamic if you don't have TVC.

Im sure F-15 can do Cobra but it would take longer time to regain control, that why swedish pilots did Cobra in DRAKEN at higher ALT. I believe I have seen F-15 pull a hard turn whit no AOA limiter, Cant find it.

F-15's don't do Cobras. They do ok AoA, but not like an F-18 or Su-27. Why, I don't know - but they do lack some vortex generating devices which could help. They leave those aside for acceleration and speed instead - it's a trade-off.

This has nothing to do with FBW - Su-27 has FBW :) The Cobra demonstrates only one thing: Not that the plane can fly at higher AoA, but that you can stall it and keep some form of control. Controllable AoA is not the same as Cobra maneuver. There's a world of difference - probably Su-27 can fly at higher AoA than some planes that can do Cobra, and then again there are probably planes that fly higher AoA than Su-27 but can't do a Cobra for who knows what reason.

Like both of us saying, it is a demonstration of extreme AOA as the bell maneuver.

Su-27 aerodynamics does allow the aircraft to higher AOA than others, Cobra is a demonstration of that, You don't need to take it to Cobra extremes, as shown in Su-33 video.

Whit fly by wire you can throw the aircraft out of the control, because of the aircraft's unstable aerodynamics makes it possible. To get back control, you need the right aerodynamic if you don't have TVC.

Im sure F-15 can do Cobra but it would take longer time to regain control, that why swedish pilots did Cobra in DRAKEN at higher ALT.

I've seen someone lose a fight doing a cobra and it did not look cool at all.

I had time to disbelieve, roll my eyes, facepalm, aim and cut off both wings. Very un-cool :P

I am however certain that it could be cool. I recall a video of someone in a Su-33 cobra-ing everything in sight. It looked cool.

I predict two things from the Su27 AFM...

 

1) Someone will win a fight performing the cobra.

2) Someone will lose a fight performing the cobra.

 

Both will look cool doing it.

If you're going down, you might as well do it with style! 8)

F-15s lack the Leading Edge Extension Authority.

I've seen someone lose a fight doing a cobra and it did not look cool at all...

:D True

Well, but these were cool Cobra shots, however Iv seen more exciting and shocking virtual dogfights (gunzo and heaters only at real/live competitions) when capability of doing a Cobra brought many benefits both in one and two circles dogfights ;)

(Actually Su-27 is a Su-33 in this first video) :)

This has nothing to do with FBW - Su-27 has FBW :) The Cobra demonstrates only one thing: Not that the plane can fly at higher AoA, but that you can stall it and keep some form of control.

4th gen Fighters fly whit FBW, if not the aircraft would be very sensitive and unstable, or might not be able to fly without it. You could use this to your advantage where the aerodynamics of the aircraft without FBW would make you do something crazy. If you could make this with some sort of control or prediction where your aircraft will be after such extreme maneuver, it becomes useful. I believe that other aircrafts except MIG-29 dont do it because they get different outcome each time they execute such moves.

Watch from 1:51 and you will notice that one of them lose control while executing Cobra.

J-35 went in to service 1959 ;)

Flanker Live Forever

Glad this thread is alive still... Sad so many got banned taking the side of the FLANKER...

And now finally we are seen DCS Su27s releasing soon shortly.

I once said in this thread regarding a flight model of SFM FC3 type but now I m glad we are seen PFM (Professional Flight Model) which will I think open up doors for more developers to produced new Russian Combat Modern jets or Europeans ones (Tornados, Mirages, Grippen etc).

Thank you everyone who didn't ignore the AMAZING FLANKER AND ITS COBRA move !

May we see a Modern Flanker in the future also with regards of the PFM module....:thumbup::pilotfly::):joystick::book: :thumbup:

F-15s lack the Leading Edge Extension Authority.

Not really.

It's funny how discussion of Su-27 brings arguments about using Pugachev's Cobra. In my books if real plane can do it, we should be able to do it in game, and it does not matter if its not effective in combat. Well sometimes it can help, had a lot of situations where Cobra would have helped me get a kill in MP.

I'd agree with you Sir. The future of the Russian 'air superiority' fighters is compromised in DCS to say the least. More advanced opponents are in development (F-22/35/18, EF2000...) while at the same time a single and much less capable MiG-21 appears to be the only planned reinforcement for Red pilots. One more threat to multiplayer IMO.

Hmm, well the F-22, F-35, and EF2000 are not realistic opponents of a plane like the Su-35BM. I assume that the Russians, and maybe the Chinese, are going to fly a plane like the Su-35BM and neither Russia nor China is a realistic target of say the USA or EU. The Mig-29 and the Mig-21 ought to make for realistic opponents, though. Don't get me wrong, I would love to sim fly a Su-35BM, in fact I might make it my main 4th++ generation fighter, but I would not take too seriously a scenario where the latest Su35 fighters are fighting F-22s, F-35s, or EF-2000s in a World War. A scanario where the Su-35BM is fighting alongside the F-22A, in a cooperative anti-terror operation, is probably a more realistic future real World scenario. Even if we had a Su-35BM in DCS multiplayer, planes like the Mig-21 and Mig-29 would probably be the realistic likely opponents for the Su-35BM.

Hmm, well the F-22, F-35, and EF2000 are not realistic opponents of a plane like the Su-35BM. I assume that the Russians, and maybe the Chinese, are going to fly a plane like the Su-35BM and neither Russia nor China is a realistic target of say the USA or EU. The Mig-29 and the Mig-21 ought to make for realistic opponents, though. Don't get me wrong, I would love to sim fly a Su-35BM, in fact I might make it my main 4th++ generation fighter, but I would not take too seriously a scenario where the latest Su35 fighters are fighting F-22s, F-35s, or EF-2000s in a World War. A scanario where the Su-35BM is fighting alongside the F-22A, in a cooperative anti-terror operation, is probably a more realistic future real World scenario. Even if we had a Su-35BM in DCS multiplayer, planes like the Mig-21 and Mig-29 would probably be the realistic likely opponents for the Su-35BM.

Well for one. No.

The F-22 hasn't been used really in anti-terror operations despite being around for the better part of American's two middle eastern asymmetrical wars. Furthermore, the Su-30 etc family is the most likely opponent for F-22's/35s and EF2000's etc. The PAKFA barely exists. The United States is placing a heavy emphasis right now on reversing strategic emphasis to the pacific to combat threats in that region. Threats that field large numbers of Su-30s....China mayhaps? Nah Couldnt be. There is also the recent issue over Ukraine, which while nothing may become of it now, it only goes to show that large scale conventional war is still a very real possibility on the political stage. Several nations mobilized over that little bruhaha, and the USA deployed aircraft there to make a point. Large scale conventional war is not a thing of the past. It WILL happen again. If it wasnt a real possibility you wouldnt see nations shoehorning war plans away for it and placing money and resources into large conventional armies and navies to fight exactly that kind of war. I have a entire books published as recently as 2010 about the threat certain large asian nations fielding large numbers of Gen 4++ flankers are considered to be. Chinese Aerospace Power, Chinese Maritime Strategy, and Chinese Energy Strategy are just a few, and they are all peer reviewed. This modem idea that the only enemies of the future are terrorists is utter non-sense. They said the very same thing before both ww1 and ww2. In Short: The Su-35 or Su-30 are very realistic opponents, especially when you consider that they are exported all over the place.

Well for one. No.

 

The F-22 hasn't been used really in anti-terror operations despite being around for the better part of American's two middle eastern asymmetrical wars. Furthermore, the Su-30 etc family is the most likely opponent for F-22's/35s and EF2000's etc. The PAKFA barely exists. The United States is placing a heavy emphasis right now on reversing strategic emphasis to the pacific to combat threats in that region. Threats that field large numbers of Su-30s....China mayhaps? Nah Couldnt be. There is also the recent issue over Ukraine, which while nothing may become of it now, it only goes to show that large scale conventional war is still a very real possibility on the political stage. Several nations mobilized over that little bruhaha, and the USA deployed aircraft there to make a point. Large scale conventional war is not a thing of the past. It WILL happen again. If it wasnt a real possibility you wouldnt see nations shoehorning war plans away for it and placing money and resources into large conventional armies and navies to fight exactly that kind of war. I have a entire books published as recently as 2010 about the threat certain large asian nations fielding large numbers of Gen 4++ flankers are considered to be. Chinese Aerospace Power, Chinese Maritime Strategy, and Chinese Energy Strategy are just a few, and they are all peer reviewed. This modem idea that the only enemies of the future are terrorists is utter non-sense. They said the very same thing before both ww1 and ww2. In Short: The Su-35 or Su-30 are very realistic opponents, especially when you consider that they are exported all over the place.

Actually, I think that the F-22 was used against ISIL, but I should fact check my sources. It is my understanding that the F-22 has not only hit ground targets, but that it has also coordinated and helped facilitate the actions of other strike aircraft. Now, as for a World War, due to the interconnected nature of the Global economy, the lessons learned from the First Great War and WWII, and the fact that the USA, EU, China, and Russia, are disproportionate beneficiaries of the new World order, I can't imagine any one of those powers undermining the current Global order and starting a World War. What would it be over? It isn't going to be over trillions of dollars worth of energy resources off the coast of Crimea or North Korea. Such a war is possible, but highly improbable. I think that a Sharknado in New York is more likely. =) I think that the Su-35BM will eventually be used in anti terror operations alongside NATO aircraft, but I doubt that such a sophisticated aircraft would be in the hands of a group like ISIL or any other likely US adversary. Right now, the Mig-21 and Ford pickup trucks are likely opponents of the F-22.

No. Globalization was the primary argument for ww1 and 2 being impossible as well. The stakes are higher now, that is all. Believing otherwise is a wishful fantasy that thinks human beings are so rational or so experienced that they wont repeat the mistakes of the past. Globalization doesn't prevent large wars. It makes them larger. It forces nations to force large coalitions to protect their vested interests. Simply being invested in the same region or interests does not automatically place these nations on the same side. So instead of small wars with small nations, you get gargantuan ones with many on each side. IE: world war. If it makes you feel better to think that we are past killing each other on such a scale, go right ahead. Whatever helps you sleep at night. The USSR was reliant on American grain during the cold war, and while they didnt go to war, youd be crazy to think that it wasn't a possibility.

Actually, I think that the F-22 was used against ISIL, but I should fact check my sources. It is my understanding that the F-22 has not only hit ground targets, but that it has also coordinated and helped facilitate the actions of other strike aircraft. Now, as for a World War, due to the interconnected nature of the Global economy, the lessons learned from the First Great War and WWII, and the fact that the USA, EU, China, and Russia, are disproportionate beneficiaries of the new World order, I can't imagine any one of those powers undermining the current Global order and starting a World War. What would it be over? It isn't going to be over trillions of dollars worth of energy resources off the coast of Crimea or North Korea. Such a war is possible, but highly improbable. I think that a Sharknado in New York is more likely. =)

And people would ABSOLUTELY fight over resources. You think Poland mobilized for no reason? Everyone is trying to avert a major conflict in that region but nobody is faffing about either. National sovereignty, resources, and other economic concerns are all at stake. The thing you are forgetting is that human beings fight over ideas and principles and not just pragmatism. I doubt this will turn into anything the way it is going right now, but there were numerous incidents in the Balkans before ww2 that were diplomatically averted until they failed once: and you had a ww1. Diplomacy only has to fail once. WW1 was fought more about ideas, principals, and national pride than anything else. WW2 started over intangibles as well. Had anyone been purely pragmatic, with no moral concerns getting int he way, it would proabably have been economically better for Europe to just let Poland get eaten up by Germany and Russia. This is what you dont get. People fight each other for more than just dollars or oil. We scoff at moral affronts, perceived or otherwise. And thank goodness we do, because I dont want to live in world where we dispense with morality just to keep our checkbooks balanced.

Actually, I think that the F-22 was used against ISIL, but I should fact check my sources. It is my understanding that the F-22 has not only hit ground targets, but that it has also coordinated and helped facilitate the actions of other strike aircraft. Now, as for a World War, due to the interconnected nature of the Global economy, the lessons learned from the First Great War and WWII, and the fact that the USA, EU, China, and Russia, are disproportionate beneficiaries of the new World order, I can't imagine any one of those powers undermining the current Global order and starting a World War. What would it be over? It isn't going to be over trillions of dollars worth of energy resources off the coast of Crimea or North Korea. Such a war is possible, but highly improbable. I think that a Sharknado in New York is more likely. =)

I was briely deployed as i recall. I didnt say it wasnt ever used, just not significantly. Fact is, if you just wanted to bomb terrorists you could hook a TGP to a P-47 and call it a day.

And people would ABSOLUTELY fight over resources. You think Poland mobilized for no reason? Everyone is trying to avert a major conflict in that region but nobody is faffing about either. The thing you are forgetting is that human beings fight over ideas and principles and not just pragmatism. I doubt this will turn into anything the way it is going right now, but there were numerous incidents in the Balkans before ww2 that were diplomatically averted until they failed once: and you had a ww1. Diplomacy only has to fail once. WW1 was fought more about ideas, principals, and national pride than anything else. WW2 started over intangibles as well. Had anyone been purely pragmatic, with no moral concerns getting int he way, it would proabably have been economically better for Europe to just let Poland get eaten up by Germany and Russia. This is what you dont get. People fight each other for more than just dollars or oil. We scoff at moral affronts, perceived or otherwise. And thank goodness we do, because I dont want to live in world where we dispense with morality just to keep our checkbooks balanced.

No way. No one is starting a World War with the USA and EU vs Russia and China, or anything like that. The USA, EU, Russia, and China, are all too formidable and the benefits of winning such a war just aren't there. There is no apparent weakling power to pick on, stomp, and profit off of. I read all kinds of crazy comments on Youtube, from the USA, EU, China, and Russia, with persons claiming that one or the other power could win a conventional war against the other in days and the winner would live happily ever after. This is surely all absurd.

In reality, a single destroyed bridge, tunnel, or skyscraper, can take many years to plan and construct, if not decades. Even a victor of such a conventional war, involving the USA, China, Russia, and EU, would result in the winners of such a war spending the rest of the Twenty First Century in ruins and reconstruction. Such a war would totally suck for everyone. For the USA, the Russians and Chinese have millions of troops, many professional and battle hardened, all potentially backed by the over 650 million persons fit for military service, between Russia and China, according to the CIA. I don't care what claims NATO makes, they can save it for Call of Duty, because the US economy is too important to my future. Idiot terrorists, with box cutters, could get through NATO, hit the Pentagon and NYC, in the same day. Nineteen terrorists killed thousands of persons and left skyscrapers in ruins.

I appreciate the pride of some soldiers, but I know that they can't guarantee the safety of US bridges, tunnels, roads, or citizens, not from Russia and China. These soldiers have pride, but I have experience. A military that could not stop a 767 is not going to promise me that it can stop a hyper sonic missile. I will not listen to such blanket claims of military prowess, certainly not after 9/11. I am not listening to war hawks babble about crushing the Russians and Chinese in two days and having the boys and girls home by Christmas and I doubt that any US or EU politician is either.

A missile shield may be helpful, but even that can be sabotaged and may not be that effective to begin with. Stopping HAMAS rockets and stopping a country that travels into outer space, builds hyper sonic missiles, and develop no escape APAA seekers, is not necessarily the same thing. I doubt that EU or US leaders would take potential war hawk claims of easy victory and a big payoff very seriously. US leaders are many things, born yesterday is not one. =) I highly doubt that Chinese and Russian leaders really see the USA or EU as easy targets, either.

The F-22 won't likely be used against Russia or China, though it should provide invaluable assistance in many situations where