Look what the Ruskies are doing...(Airplane Geek Stuff)

[Noble Dreg]

Could not find a "non-funny video thread"...whoa, they ain't copying B-29's anymore...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yDfIyNeAtE

[Bodharan]

Can't quite do those things in a Cessna, that's for sure (though I have been known to try).

[ravic]

Given all the saber rattling & chest thumping coming out of Moscow lately, that video is a little disturbing.

[DeadBishop]

Looks like they made Mikhail Baryshnikov a fighter pilot... 

[Tipsy Gypsy]

Bears a fair resemblance to an F-15, doesn't it?

T-Birds flew a show right over my office a few years ago. Veryfrikincool, indeed.

[Elennare]

Hello thrust vectoring!
It's actually a derivative of the SU 27, which was the first aircraft able to perform a Cobra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugachev%E2%80%99s_Cobra).

We have better though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Q6Vb9xJM0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9wLKvXMxZ0
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdRVbr1OfKc

[Captain Jack Wolfe]

Wait, they're our pals, right?  No?  I keep losing track... 

[Vexed Viscount]

I'm not a pilot, more of an ordnance guy, but my question would be: Is all that low speed verctoring really going to help the aircraft avoid an missle incoming at mach 2.5? It seems to me it's kinda like the sword wielding guy vs Indiana Jones; it's flashy, but ultimately ineffective.

Stealth aircraft allow our pilots to see them before they see us, fire missiles with superior guidance, and move quickly to new targets, all before an enemy has even spotted them on radar. I'm not sure how low speed sit-and-spins trump that.

[Lady Christina de Pond]

i don't either vexed but can't watch the videos here i love the plane stuff. maybe the slow capablity is to throw a person off thinking that it's a viable means of missile carrying technology?

[Captain Jack Wolfe]

That sucker would be nasty to dogfight. 

[Vexed Viscount]

In a traditional shooting (guns) dogfight I agree. However, using projectile arms in modern aerial dogfights that primarily rely on missiles is akin to bring a knife to a gunfight 

[Elennare]

True, dogfights are much less common now, but they could still happen.  The fancy flying these planes are capable of also helps them to maneuver in a way that is less detectable to radar-i.e. able to react better when flying low and able to be controlled at slower speeds, which can help when firing weapons.  When considered in addition to their stealth features, it helps make the planes more survivable overall.

And yes, given enough warning (and the radar keeps getting better and better at doing that), being able to fly like that most certainly helps avoid incomming missiles.  Because the missiles do not have thrust vectoring they are not able to turn on a dime, so it gives the pilot a bit of an advantage to dodge/counter said missile.

I hope that makes sense and doesn't come off as rude (not my intent!)...my brain is fried right now for some reason.

[Vexed Viscount]

Actually, I love talking aircraft and aerial combat, I think that's the Air Force Blue in me seeping out 

True that dogfights *can* happen but a pilot is more likely to be struck by lightning than get in a shooting contest. That said we do still install guns, albeit  for the same reason we install ejector seats: Worst case senario. But a superior missile platform is going to win over a superior gun platform 99 times out of 100, if not more.

Thrust vectoring is a very useful feature, of course. Our own F22 Raptors use it. However, its main usefulness is not low speed, crowd-pleasing acrobactics. Thrust vectoring's best use is for high-speed manuvers used to get pilots into a firing solution for missiles. Couple that with stealth technology and a pilot can get into a firing solution and fire before an enemy even knows he/she is in danger. At that point, low-speed thrust vectoring will not save that enemy and his/her only hope are counter-measures, which are becoming increasingly ineffective against superior guidance technology.

As far as low speed thrust vectoring being used for avoiding missiles, that would be the equivelent of me trying to dodge bullets. An airacraft moving at a few hundred knots is never going to be able to avoid a mach 2.5 missile no matter which direction it turns. Bullets aren't that manuverable, but to a target moving much slower it doesn't matter.

The arms race is a perpetual rock/paper/scissor game. Currently, the biggest rock in aerial combat is stealth technology. Until someone invents a better paper, the stealth rock trumps all others and low-speed vectoring is just yesterday's scissors. It's great for airshows and impressing oil-rich kings and princes who have more money than warfare acumen, but not that useful in actual aerial missile contests.

Still, I would love to see it in person 

[Elennare]

Vexed Viscount, you said exactly what I was trying to say, only much more eloquently.  I meant high-speed manuvers for the missile avoidance/countering, not the low speed stuff like they do at airshows.  I should have been more clear.  As a side note, some plane have guns for taking out tanks rather than dogfighting.  The A-10 was actually designed AROUND the gun!    The Spooky gunship is another plane that doesn't use it's guns for dogfighting (VERY cool plane.  check it out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T73nkuAgnoQ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw7nk4Zmq1U&feature=related).  'Couse, neither of those are fighter planes, so if you were talking specifically about fighter planes you're correct.

I love talking about airplane too, especially since I'm an aerospace engineer and would LOVE to get to design planes like these one day.