19 ms·
Cobra Maneuver
- funstuff007 4y agoDidn't Maverick pull this off in Top Gun?
- capableweb 4y agoAlso a common maneuver in Ace Combat, speaking about fictional uses.
- favflam 4y agoHe did a manual wing sweep on the Tomcat to pull up and force an overshoot of the Sukhoi. Growling Sidewinder on youtube says that is a Cobra.
- breck 4y agoI wasn't there, but IIRC it was a 5th gen fighter against Maverick and Rooster in an F-14 that pulled this off. Unfortunately for the 5th gen pilot it later came down to the pilot, not the plane, and he became splash 2.
- jmvoodoo 4y agoI think that was actually something called the Kvochur bell, not the cobra.
- loloquwowndueo 4y agoSo. He does the “deceleration by using the F-14 variable wing sweep” twice - once in Top Gun and once in Top Gun: Maverick. He also does an actual “high angle of attack” cobra on an F-18 in TG: M.
- acidburnNSA 4y agoIn Top Gun 1 he did something like it twice in an F-14 against the MiGs: "I'm gonna hit the brakes, he'll fly right by". Once in the first dogfight and then again in the last one.
- bazillion 4y agoIn Top Gun 2, he uses it twice. Once, during the training dogfight where Rooster has a chance to shoot him down (he says, "Too late, you had your chance" and then pulls off the maneuver, targeting Rooster instead afterwards). After the training dogfight, he is told by Cyclone, "...and I don't ever want to see that Cobra shit again. That could have gotten you both killed". The second time was towards the end when they're fending off the SAM attacks -- Rooster is in trouble with no flares to launch, and Maverick simultaneously pulls off a Cobra Maneuver while launching his own set of flairs, resulting in his own aircraft being hit.
- bentcorner 4y agoTop Gun 2 is really a fantastic movie but for anybody skipping the film here's the clips: First time: https://youtu.be/zlWmeo-4ulw?t=72 https://youtu.be/zlWmeo-4ulw?t=72 Second time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nwBwJiyQ_g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nwBwJiyQ_g Tom Cruise is kind of a weirdo but his films are incredibly entertaining.
- bongobingo1 4y agoThe film is ... filmed in/with real aircraft too. Obviously there are stand in effects when they're exploding missiles, but the in-cockpit shots are all practical "effects" of the actors sitting in second seat. Real canopies, real g-forces, etc. Pretty cool!
- trevorishere 4y ago> flares Which do nothing for radar-guided SAMs... but pumping out chaff wouldn't be very visually impressive (if you could see it at all). And of course, the strike package would have been accompanied by the EA-18G Growler to jam SAM radar.
- giantrobot 4y ago> And of course, the strike package would have been accompanied by the EA-18G Growler to jam SAM radar. Well it should have been preceded by a Wild Weasel mission to take out the SAM radars and launchers. The Growler mission would just be extra SAM defense. There also should have been a counter-air element to deal with the enemy fighters flying CAP. There was enough intelligence available for the mission every fixed SAM site should have eaten a couple Tomahawks in addition to the airfield. It's also a mystery why the whole facility wasn't just leveled by some B-2s loaded with GBU-37s. There would have been fewer dog fights but that probably would have been ok.
- ozim 4y agoYeah so you know it is just as believable maneuver as crane kick from Karate Kid :)
- akkartik 4y agoIs this the maneuver John Boyd used to use? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p55LY30AIoc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p55LY30AIoc
- egillie 4y agoFlat plating the bird! Who did it first?
- somerandomqaguy 4y agoI don't think so. The way I'm reading it, both fighters should be in a turn fight with the opponent closely following Boyd's rear at high speed. In the case of a flat plane, you're dumping airspeed but you don't stall the aircraft. This guy explains it way better then I can, describing the maneuver as a Rudder Reversal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ab6Ek1UCcM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ab6Ek1UCcM. Skip to 2:07 to see him demonstrate it with model airplanes. The Cobra you do enter into a stall (the airflow departs the top surface of the wings) and are instead relying on other some other aspect of the plane to control the aircraft and get the plane back into the fight. Note that this is just what I know from superficial memory, I never studied it in depth.
- william-at-rain 4y ago“Go up, blow up” is the common phrase in this kind of aerial combat. You highlight your heat signature against… space. Even without heaters, I can be extremely aggressive on a guns attempt because an overshoot in the vertical isn’t nearly as risky - few aircraft can capitalize on an overshoot uphill. Almost all defenders in that situation (if they live through the attack) will be forced downhill anyway.
- thot_experiment 4y agoAlso a maneuver that takes so much energy and trades it for heat/turbulence better also be getting a kill out of that trade immediately, and that kill had better the be the last guy left trying to kill you. There are vanishingly few situations where a cobra won't leave you reeeally wishing you still had the energy you just spent.
- VBprogrammer 4y agoSomewhat related: during the Falklands war it was common technique for Harriers to use their thrust vectoring nozzles to slow down quickly with a similar outcome.
- zokier 4y agoApparently yet another aviation myth according to Wikipedia: > Braking could cause a chasing aircraft to overshoot and present itself as a target for the Harrier, a technique formally developed by the USMC for the Harrier in the early 1970s.[33][34] This technique was much discussed in the media before the Falklands War in 1982, but ultimately not used by British pilots in that conflict.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet#Operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet#Operation
- VBprogrammer 4y agoHa, fair enough. It was written in a book I had as a child and I've just always accepted it as fact.
- shapefrog 4y agoI'm gonna hit the brakes, he'll fly right by
- gizmo385 4y ago"You're gonna do WHAT" - Merlin
- ei8htyfi5e 4y agoPlot hole: the F14 wasn’t listed as a cobra capable aircraft, only the F16
- hatsunearu 4y agoUnfortunately the circumstances where this is useful is very limited. You'd have to be in very close range and in a very bad disadvantage, which honestly doesn't last long (you'd blow up very fast) and when you start decelerating you become a very easy target to hit. And after your opponent overshoots--you just lost a ton of energy--and energy is everything in aerial combat. Energy is the currency you spend to maneuver, and you've just spent it on this hail mary.
- hutzlibu 4y ago"And after your opponent overshoots--you just lost a ton of energy--and energy is everything in aerial combat. " The idea is, to be able to make the kill, after you are now behind. Then it does not matter, if you are too slow. But wikipedia indeed says, this manoever has never been confirmed in real air combat, so yes, its usefullness is quite limited.
- twawaaay 4y agoThe problem is, you are now not only behind but also much slower than your opponent. And as parent poster mentioned, energy is everything. I would also point out both aircraft are in straight and level flight, basically in formation, with the pilot composed and prepared. This is not how a dogfight looks like.
- Sightline 4y ago"you are now not only behind but also much slower than your opponent." That's what HMD's are for: (ignore the shit music) https://youtu.be/-D9ZhmFxz3M?t=194 https://youtu.be/-D9ZhmFxz3M?t=194
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y agoDumb question - why can't planes shoot in reverse? It seems like this would be useful for these situations. I get that it would be hard to aim - but can't computers do that?
- Keyframe 4y agoIt was in 80's kids vocabulary when discussing fighter jets and which one is better - 'yeah, but can it do Cobra?!'
- chasd00 4y ago“I’m gonna hit the breaks and he’ll fly right by!” - Top Gun
- nextstep 4y agoIt’s incredible how deeply war culture propaganda permeates American society
- juunpp 4y agoNeed to sell more bullets.
- andrewflnr 4y agoYoung boys don't need propaganda to be fascinated by war. Show me a culture where boys don't have sword fights with sticks.
- trevorishere 4y agoWar itself is terrible. The machinery, ingenuity, and eventual incorporation of some of that technology into civilian life is important and possibly the only way to get funding for new technologies by the (US) government. The NRO offered two spy satellites (I believe rumored to be Keyhole family satellites) to NASA back in 2011/2012 -- neither have launched yet, but they have the same sized mirror as the Hubble, but with a better focal length giving the satellites a 100 times wider field of view. The now-named Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope is scheduled to launch by Nov 2026 on a Falcon Heavy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_Office_space_telescope_donation_to_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_O... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace_Roman_Space_Telescope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace_Roman_Space_Telesc... The NRO also donated Keyhole satellite mirrors to create the Multiple Mirror Telescope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMT_Observatory#Multiple_Mirror_Telescope_(1979%E2%80%931998) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMT_Observatory#Multiple_Mirro... NASA was the last to fly the SR-71 as a research platform. Unfortunately, the military is often what pushes technology forward.
- js2 4y ago> Super stall plagued the early years of Saab 35 service, causing several deaths, which led the Swedish air staff to implement extra training on how to counteract and recover from them. The result was the cobra maneuver. Necessity, the mother of invention.
- canjobear 4y agoAlthough in this case there's no evidence that it was a useful invention.
- sidewndr46 4y agoIt's not useful for combat. It is useful for training.
- zokier 4y agoI guess it was useful for the purpose it was invented for; training, and for Russians showing off in airshows.
- zoomablemind 4y agoThis maneuver requires high thrust while 'slowing down'. Not sure if that's a reasonable energy trade off. Would you go into a dogfight with external tanks still on? Sure the pursuitor jet won't (rather should't) be in such close proximity position, unless intending to shoot the enemy with his handgun. Thus with reasonable separation, this at best may force a break of the lock, but at the same time slowing down and with extra fuel loss. It is fun to watch at shows, though these days these wows are awarded to the vectored thrust tricks.
- vruiz 4y agoShoutout to all the Spaniards who thought "hacer la Cobra" [0] had gone international. [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sJYDSR3ijw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sJYDSR3ijw
- stavros 4y agoI was hoping it'd be Pagafantas.
- keithalewis 4y ago
- polio 4y agoThere's nothing to be gained from racial slurs, but being proficient at war is very useful. One should just hope it's waged judiciously.
- keithalewis 4y ago
- gmiller123456 4y agoIs there a reason why modern planes can't shoot backwards? A lot of the WW2 planes had turrets a separate gunner would control, but they all seem to have disappeared. My only guess is that dogfights don't actually happen much anymore.
- chrisseaton 4y agoTo put a gun in a turret it's got to be pretty small. Turret guns were therefore only good for shooting at slow, close aircraft. You basically don't get that anymore.
- googlryas 4y agoThis is correct. It's actually rare for pilots to even see the planes they're attacking, if they're attacking a plane at all.
- amelius 4y agoPerhaps the maneuver could be used against an incoming missile? I.e., it might be easier to out-maneuver it this way than to shoot it.
- chrisseaton 4y agoLike a CIWS? They get through far far too much ammunition to be mounted in a plane. Planes have just a few seconds of ammunition for a medium weight of fire, CIWS fire for tens of seconds at a much higher rate of fire at each missile.
- trevorishere 4y agoIt's an airshow maneuver. Speed is life. USAF (and presumably other AF's) send out 2 to 4 ship (or if we look at Desert Storm, over 70 ships). If you "stall" or perform this maneuver, whomever is behind you might overshoot, but his or her buddy will nab you. Check out Stroke 3. This is an F-16 strike on an oil facility in Iraq. Stroke 3 avoided six Iraq (Russian-made) SAMs /without/ deploying any counter measures. Simply amazing to listen to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uh4yMAx2UA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uh4yMAx2UA And here's a visual illustration of the entire strike package that went out. 76 aircraft as part of Package Q. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg Fun (?) fact -- the first strike in Desert Storm was performed by eight Apache attack helicopters with two Pave Low helicopters leading them at NAP of the earth level at nighttime.
- otikik 4y agoIn Spain, that’s when someone tries to kiss someone in the mouth and the other person reacts by moving their head back real quick in order to avoid it.
- giraffe_lady 4y agoI see it is time to get horny for war machines on "hacker" news again.
- curiousgal 4y agoThis actually raises a question, have jets ever been in air combat? Like jet vs jet, not jet vs ground units.
- SonicScrub 4y agoYes. Quite a lot. A small number at the end of the second world war. Regular use of machine-gun armed jets during the Korean War. The Vietnam war saw jet fighters armed primarily with missiles engaging each other (195 kills claimed by the US). Various conflicts in the middle east including the The Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, the Iran-Iraq war (around 100 kills claimed by Iran) and The Gulf War (44 claimed kills by the US). And many more conflicts as well. The most recent US air to air kill was in 2017. An F-18 shot down a Syrian SU-22. Russia also claims some air to air kills in Ukraine. Jets have gone toe to toe with each other since the moment they were first introduced continuously until the present day. The total number of air engagements is somewhere on the order of magnitude of 1,000, and a fair bit less if you are only considering fighter aircraft
- mr_toad 4y agoIncreasingly rarely it seems. The US has all the best toys and no-one else wants to play any more. The F14 scored 130 kills… for the Iranians. The F15 has an impressive 100-0 kill ratio (mostly by Israel); zero air to air losses, but 175 losses to accidents. F16’s have about 60 kills (almost all by Israel again, they really love American jets). F18 two kills, I think. Soviet airframes are pretty much the same. Almost all their kills are in the hands of Middle Eastern third parties (Syria, Egypt, Iraq). These are wars from decades ago, and we don’t have any modern examples of large scale air combat, or of combat that wasn’t highly one-sided. F22’s have hardly ever been used, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the same happens with the F35. Too damned expensive to take out of the box.
- LWIRVoltage 4y agoAs others have pointed out, the idea is to possible get your opponent ot overshoot- But I don't understand why it's not deadlier today- given some things -Your Su 35, 37(there aren't many)- Felon, and Raptor have thrust vectoring - without doing post stall tricks, they can nose point extremely WELL -Next- The Flanker series does a trick- this applies to the old Su 27 without thrust vectoring that can Cobra- where to do any of this they disable a AOA limiter that lets them pull AOA up the wazoo- being able to instantly rotate your aircraft and nose point anywhere- means your opponent, near 100% of the time, can be looked at then shot at- with guns, or .... #3. high off boresight missiles. Your Aim 9X, or even better yet...if what i've heard is true, the IRIS T missile, to an extreme degree- i'm talking turning 60 degrees or more to chase and kill a target- which would start to look as nutty as the SAMS from Behind Enemy Lines, the missile will keep turning to chase you -One circle or two circle- if one circle, you just pull up, line up and shoot- and your HOBS missile can be cued and shot at the opponent regardless. Now yes, they might be starting to close hard on you- but that's just a matter of how good the missile is with high kinetic energy changes and leading and reacting. Two Circle- you're in a rate fight on the deck, just disable your AOA limiter, turn tighter until you're looking at him, and let your Fox 2's (IR missiles fly- they shoudl ,especially if HOBS missiles, just chase and get him. Or you could go for guns, but....you have to line up on them, and that's where the 3D thrust vectoring, or Maaaaybe rudder, help sometimes. And a gun system that can put a lead piper on a target who might not be that close- But, slow shouldn't matter as much when you can be shooting at the opponent 100% of the time. As for sinking or recovery- Thrust weight ratio high enough? You won't sink. Recovery? If it's thrust vectoring, you just cna keep twisting at will- so you can just keep shooting at your opponent, or if they fly past you, immediately rotate FAST- then shoot at them, and yoru missile being a HOBS missile can be off at them before you finish rotating your plane, even quicker. The counter some might think to this, would be- missiles aren't all that good yet, - But i think the Cobra was the first half of lopsided dogfighting. The 2nd half, is High off boresight missiles. -Admittedly, in a Raptor(I've heard they can change their flight control system ,not sure if they can flat out disable AOA though like the Flanker and Felon Family)you have enough nose pointing ability and a mean enough turn rate that you are almost always looking at your opponent anyway- But it still helps to have that ability no matter what I'll admit, i've also heard that in at least the early flankers- not sure on the rest- Disabling the AOA limiter would disable the G limiter , which would be risky if you were too fast- and could risk G -LOC. I have to think more modern planes with the ability to uncap AOA and let you rotate freely at will- might keep the G limiter perhaps- if it doesn't restrict you when you're pulling AOA and just rotating your plane backflipping while still heading in the original direction. Close range shouldn't be needed given every weapon should be able to be used from this state regardless of what you're doing, unless we're talking strictly guns, since guns aren't guided onto targets using targeting systems on planes.
- WalterBright 4y agoJohn Boyd wrote a paper about air combat, "Aerial Attack Study". Boyd was never defeated in air-air training combat. http://www.ausairpower.net/JRB/boydaerialattack.pdf http://www.ausairpower.net/JRB/boydaerialattack.pdf There's also the classic Dicta Boelcke: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicta_Boelcke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicta_Boelcke
- wly_cdgr 4y agoTerrific for movies, largely irrelevant for real life I'd expect
- SergeAx 4y agoThis article definitely lacks an "In Popular Culture" section.
- roeles 4y agoI see lots of talk about lack of usefulness in combat. I agree with most, but the cobra maneuver illustrates something important about the post-stall behavior of an airplane. It is incredibly difficult to keep the vortices symmetrical during such a maneuver. Most Western fighters couldn't do it because they would sway left or right. The ability to perform the cobra illustrates how the design handles at and beyond stall, which can have implications on its ability to turn sharply. The same goes for the tailslide. It illustrates properties of the air intake and engines.
- MasterYoda 4y agoI did not Sweden was first to do the cobra maneuver with the Saab 35 Draken, fun. It is very impressive how little Sweden with SAAB have been able to develop stage of the art fighter planes. By exemple JAS 39 Gripen was the first 4th genereation fighter jet in the world, and many older fighterplanes set many records too. I really like Draken, it is a beautiful plan. And I love this picture :D The timing and composition is perfect and I wounder what the person in the canoe thought haha. https://i.imgur.com/EBxuaAa.jpg https://i.imgur.com/EBxuaAa.jpg
- aivisol 4y agoIt is my speculation that they learned during WWII that to stay neutral they need to be well armed.
- jabl 4y agoI highly doubt that. WWII fighters didn't have the thrust/weight ratio or vectored thrust etc. to pull something like this off. Also due to the much lower thrust/weight ratio energy management was more important in WWII than in modern jets.
- instagraham 4y agoDidn't know it was invented by a Syrian pilot in a MiG-21 of all things! https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-unknown-story-of-the-syrian-mig-21-pilot-who-developed-the-cobra-manoeuvre-i-e-pugachev-wasnt-the-first-to-perform-the-cobra/ https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-unknown-story-of-the-syr...
- jeanlou 4y agoIs this useful and relevant in the age of 5th generation airplanes and current weapon (e.g. missile) technology ? My intuition tells me not