Air Combat Thread?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Air Combat Thread?
>>28272583
Air combat is a meme. Battles are won in space
>>28272606
Or on top of very tall mountains.
Well there is that time where an F-15 shot down a satellite while in a supersonic, straight up climb, does that count?
>>28272583
Take your science-fiction magical bullcrap somewhere else. Powered heavier-than-air flight was 50 years away in 1900, and it's 50 years away now. It's never going to happen.
>>28272583
oba su pala
Bumping out of interest.
US combat training with East German MiG-29's in the 1990s. The MiG's curbstomped US fighters so hard it was ridiculous, partly because the MiG-29 was legitemately awesome for the time, and also partly due to being the first fighter aircraft in use with a helmet mounted sight, this made the US scramble to produce their own helmet mounted sights for their fighters.
Also a MiG-21 is supposedly responsible for the only air-to-air kill on a B-52.
For jets with a weight/thrust of 1 or over, in a combat situation in visual range, is the concept of energy fighting a lot less prevalent, since climbing, even vertically, will never result in a stall? What does a dogfight in VR with jets look like, compared to WW2 prop dogfights, or even early jet dogfights when weight to trust was below 1?
>>28274029
mig29 I think is an underrated plane.
I always take Pak Fa bashing threads with a grain of salt.
If the ruskies could produce something that competent under the *most* incompetent form of government...
It's scary what they can do now that they're not fucking starving or getting shot for breathing capitalism or some bullshit
>>28274029
There is no source for this
>>28274135
VR?
EM is still a thing since your controlability goes down with airspeed. you can't guns jink if you're out of knots (minus maybe one thrust vector jink). i can personally attest to the fact that it's still taught in the USAF.
the Western method of ACM is different from the FSU method
>>28274029
>Slavaboos actually believe this
>Air combat thread
For what purpose? All that ever happens is the slavshitters shitpost about MiGs and questionable Korea/Vietnam stats and call anyone who likes Yank planes a shill.
>>28276182
No, NATO did.
>>28276307
>>28273234
>>28274029
>>28274081
Guy who posted these here, don't give a shit about country of origin, if it's good, it's good, if it's bad it's bad it's bad.
>>28276182
If I was a slavboo I wouldn't say the Russians weren't the first to do the Pugachev's cobra maneuver, It was the US / Germany with the Rockwell-MBB X-31, which also did the more useful Herbst Maneuver.
Planes and pilots being awesome is all I give a shit about.
>>28277616
>Cobra
What is the f14?
What is the j35 draken?
>>28277691
Christ I knew I was mixing my planes, The Draken did do it first, the X-31 just did even more insane stuff, sorry.
>>28277691
Also kinda feel like this has become a "Cool shit planes have done" thread instead.
So how about the fact that at high speeds the Blackbird actually starts using less fuel due to the engine design, and the fact that the engines could keep going faster than mach 3.6 but the SR-71 itself couldn't handle it.
>>28277777
>Until 1981, possibly a bit later than that, U-2 & SR-71 crews weren't allowed to discuss altitudes with air-traffic-control above 60,000 feet (for reference, air-traffic controllers refer to an altitude as "FL" for flight-level followed by altitude in feet, rounded to the nearest hundred feet, and then divided by 100, so fifty-thousand feet would be FL500). Soon after this restriction was lifted, the following exchange is alleged to have occurred.
>SR-71 radio call-sign Aspen 21: Control, this is Aspen two one requesting clearance for flight-level seven zero zero.
>Air Traffic Control: (laughing audibly on the mic and then speaking incredulously) Good one! If you can climb up that high, it's all yours!
>Aspen 21: (nonchalantly and without missing a beat) Roger that, descending to that altitude.
>All who heard the exchange: !!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>28277777
checked
>>28277851
Ha, didn't notice.
>>28277691
On the note of Saab aircraft, the Viggen is to date the only aircraft to achieve a missile lock on an SR-71 blackbird flying at its usual altitude, the pilot and RSO of the blackbird were impressed and amused enough with this to give the Viggen pilot a congratulatory certificate.
>Captcha is for pictures of planes.-
>>28277777
damn son
>>28274029
Actually the Mirage F1AZ was the first plane with a HMS. The mig-29 was the first jet that combined a HMS with a HOBS missile.
>>28277929
Always nice to learn a little more, thanks.
>>28274029
>MiG-29 was legitemately awesome for the time,
As long as it fought a stones throw away from their airbases. It had a notoriously short range.
The Avro Vulcan and its intakes for the Bristol Olympus engines that resonate when the jet is working near or at max thrust in certain air conditions, that makes it sound kinda like a TIE fighter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTJOKW8qIYo
>>28272583
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojiNbALIlUY
>>28274029
>US combat training with East German MiG-29's in the 1990s. The MiG's curbstomped US fighters so hard it was ridiculous, partly because the MiG-29 was legitemately awesome for the time, and also partly due to being the first fighter aircraft in use with a helmet mounted sight, this made the US scramble to produce their own helmet mounted sights for their fighters.
No, the US was going to develop HMDs and high off boresight heaters too, till they decided that it was WAY more important to develope launch and leave medium range missiles instead. See: ACE/AIM-VAL and the development of the AIM-120. They canned the next gen IR missile after those trials, because killing enemies at BVR > WVR.
Yeah, the archer and its HMD were better than anything we had fielded, and offered a pretty big advantage in a dogfight, but by that time, dogfights were pretty much dead. Both sides already had all aspect IR missiles anyway. With any missiles developed past 1980, there basically will be no merge.
What I suppose might count as the out of service big brother to the B-52, the B-36 Peacemaker.
It had a bomb made just for it that's worth mentioning, the T-12 Cloudmaker, weighing at 43,600 lbs in its final variant, it was basically a super sized version of the already huge grand slam bomb.
>>28278081
So the only thing off is that the US didn't really rush to make the HMDs just because the MiG-29 put it to really good use, since they were focusing on more important stuff?
Time to go older, the Sikorsky Ilya Muromets, a heavy bomber in use from 1913 to 1922, this piece of Russian crazyness had up to a total of nine MGs on it at once for defense use, German pilots apparently tried to avoid the thing like the plauge, with some flatly refusing to attack it, the only recorded kill on one was three German fighters ganging up on it.
Oh, and a bit of a question for anyone that may know, is there a specific reason guns mounted on bombers for defense kinda stopped being a thing?
If I had to guess it's.
>We have escorts.
>Fighters clear the skies for us before we get there.
>Guns wouldn't really be very useful in the age of very high speed fighter jets.
>>28278302
Not so much jets but missiles.
B52 tail gunners were some of the highest scoring aces of the Korean war. There were jets, but no missiles. However missiles are super good at killing fat slow bombers, and they never have to get within gun range to do it. So now friendly fighters that can go out and get the enemy fighters before they get to the bombers are the best defense.
>>28278081
>muh bvr is da future
they've been saying this shit for decades and yet we keep seeing wvr engagements in every war. amraam only has something like a 50% hit rate anyways(against monkey model slav shit on top of that). aim54 has a 0% success rate in US usage
now that everyone is transitioning to stealth the engagement envelope will shift even further inwards, if anything
>>28272583
>tfw you will never shoot down a biplane
>from a huey
>with a kalashnikov
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol52no2/iac/an-air-combat-first.html
>>28278585
You just reminded me of something amazing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH
In short, fighters should not fuck around with attack helicopters that have air to air missiles.
