Ever seen a military jet Hover that is not VSTOL capable?

[SUBMAN1]

Seems you can hover in an F-22

-S

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW2Hvu_mUdU&mode=related&search=

[fatty]

Cool vid, I think the F-15 may have been the first fighter to have a T:W > 1 to maintain speed in a vertical climb, I might be wrong.

[JALU3]

Again, has the F-22 ever been in a Red Flag wargame against a SU-35 or similar aircraft . . . if so, does anyone know if there is video or AARs of the engagement?

Because I have read posting on other boards about F-14s v F-15s and other such wargame engagements.

[TteFAboB]

That looks incredibly fun. Is there an F-22 for FSX that can do that?

[Steel_Tomb]

Bah, F-22...the USAF doesn't want to play with RAF Typhoons now after one of them successfully locked an F-22 from long distance. The F-22's went home crying that they were "unstealthed" and the US Gov't decided not to play with the RAF anymore lol :rock:.

Don't ask me for proof of this, because I can't rememeber where I read it from (I visit a lot of forums!) but it was mentioned in an RAF report.

[Kapitan]

I have seen a SU35 go almost verticle into a hover put its gear down then land on a short runway saw that at an airshow in st petersburg, and some of the monovers they can do.

[bradclark1]

Bah, F-22...the USAF doesn't want to play with RAF Typhoons now after one of them successfully locked an F-22 from long distance. The F-22's went home crying that they were "unstealthed" and the US Gov't decided not to play with the RAF anymore lol :rock:.

Don't ask me for proof of this, because I can't rememeber where I read it from (I visit a lot of forums!) but it was mentioned in an RAF report.
Short answer 'during take off'.
Might have been from this:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/military-aviation/13336-eurofighter-vs-f-22-a.html

[SUBMAN1]

Bah, F-22...the USAF doesn't want to play with RAF Typhoons now after one of them successfully locked an F-22 from long distance. The F-22's went home crying that they were "unstealthed" and the US Gov't decided not to play with the RAF anymore lol :rock:.

Don't ask me for proof of this, because I can't rememeber where I read it from (I visit a lot of forums!) but it was mentioned in an RAF report. Short answer 'during take off'.
Might have been from this:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/military-aviation/13336-eurofighter-vs-f-22-a.html

Probably right - lots a romors I see. THe only time it can probably be seen is during the firing of a missile - already too late for the Typhoon, or during take / landing when the gear is extended. Both scenarios are of a time when the Raptor is not being stealthy.

Steel Tomb - Trust me, the US Gov doesn't have any issue playing with your boys. To me I bet it is more a case of the B-2 - they value their toys because they are so expensive and don't risk them for every little wargame that comes along. Losing one is a great loss since not many exist.

-S

[waste gate]

'Hovering' like that may be cool and all, but I'm not sure where it would come in handy during combat. Seems to me that if it was tried during a fight the a/c wouldn't be around very long. Unless I'm missing something 'speed is life'.

[SUBMAN1]

'Hovering' like that may be cool and all, but I'm not sure where it would come in handy during combat. Seems to me that if it was tried during a fight the a/c wouldn't be around very long. Unless I'm missing something 'speed is life'.

Speed used to be life, but now with thrust vectoring and massive amounts of power, it has become an ability of getting your nose to point the direction you want on a moments notice. Speed used to translate into rate of rate of turn in degrees per second to get on an enemies tail, but now that is not so neccesary anymore since you can simply just point the nose. Couple this aircraft to the Aim-9X with 120 degrees of high off boresight capability (helmet cued to kill where the pilot looks), and how can you fight and even begin to win against it? You can't! His nose is on you and a missile is in the air long before you can react.

One manuver that is more impressive than most any other is the flat spin where he is faliing straight down, but just swiviling the nose in 360 degrees of rotation - pointing it anywhere he wants. This aircraft can do whatever it wants. How can you follow something like that?

This is simply its dogfight capability. This is not touching on its apeture scan radar, super cruise capability, stealth capability, nothing.

The only way to possibly even see this thing on radar is from the side, and that is going to be difficult. Coming or going, no one can see it.

-S

[micky1up]

you can in a a10 warthog becasue it has such a low stall speed

[waste gate]

'Hovering' like that may be cool and all, but I'm not sure where it would come in handy during combat. Seems to me that if it was tried during a fight the a/c wouldn't be around very long. Unless I'm missing something 'speed is life'.

Speed used to be life, but now with thrust vectoring and massive amounts of power, it has become an ability of getting your nose to point the direction you want on a moments notice. Speed used to translate into rate of rate of turn in degrees per second to get on an enemies tail, but now that is not so neccesary anymore since you can simply just point the nose. Couple this aircraft to the Aim-9X with 120 degrees of high off boresight capability (helmet cued to kill where the pilot looks), and how can you fight and even begin to win against it? You can't! His nose is on you and a missile is in the air long before you can react.

One manuver that is more impressive than most any other is the flat spin where he is faliing straight down, but just swiviling the nose in 360 degrees of rotation - pointing it anywhere he wants. This aircraft can do whatever it wants. How can you follow something like that?

This is simply its dogfight capability. This is not touching on its apeture scan radar, super cruise capability, stealth capability, nothing.

The only way to possibly even see this thing on radar is from the side, and that is going to be difficult. Coming or going, no one can see it.

-S

OK, but nothing you said makes hovering a good tactic in a fight.

[XabbaRus]

While I was in Moscow I was watching a live news report from the run up to MAKS and they should an SU-35 do a practice run. It did an amazing maneuver where basically it did a very slow flat spin in total control and when it exited to normal flight it was in a totally controlled manner not the sometimes wobbly way they drop out of some moves.

[fatty]

OK, but nothing you said makes hovering a good tactic in a fight.

I don't think it is, but the point I guess he was making was that many of today's jets have very powerful engines which help out in close quarters. And with a T:W > 1 as I said, they can do flashy things just for fun like appear to hover.

[waste gate]

OK, but nothing you said makes hovering a good tactic in a fight.

I don't think it is, but the point I guess he was making was that many of today's jets have very powerful engines which help out in close quarters. And with a T:W > 1 as I said, they can do flashy things just for fun like appear to hover.

The F-15 has a T:W > 1. It can accelerate in the vertical. This is not a new capability. Perhaps the thrust vectoring allows the hover, which is a nice airshow trick but of limited value in ACM where energy controll is the key to survival close in.

[Skybird]

Not denying that some of the capabilities of the F22 currently maybe are unique, but compare to this Su-35 video that was linked here:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=120380&highlight=Su-35

The Raptor is not really that totally off-and-away Uber-plane. No plane today is that.

I heared that rumour that Typhoon(s) locked onto Raptors in an excercise and "shot" them down, but I was only vaguely told. Any link for the solid story? Reminds me of that story about the Type 212 that managed to penetrate the ASW screen of a US carrier group in the north sea two years ago or so, "torpedo" the carrier and remain undetected all the time. :lol:

Nice plane the F22 nevertheless is. It just looks ugly, like a toy. Russian planes like the Mig-29 and Su-35 are looking far more sexy these days. Thank God that wars are not won by looks. :lol:

[Kapitan]

Mig-25 could climb verticle on 3/4 power but then again they did hit speeds of mach 3.

[SUBMAN1]

'Hovering' like that may be cool and all, but I'm not sure where it would come in handy during combat. Seems to me that if it was tried during a fight the a/c wouldn't be around very long. Unless I'm missing something 'speed is life'.
Speed used to be life, but now with thrust vectoring and massive amounts of power, it has become an ability of getting your nose to point the direction you want on a moments notice. Speed used to translate into rate of rate of turn in degrees per second to get on an enemies tail, but now that is not so neccesary anymore since you can simply just point the nose. Couple this aircraft to the Aim-9X with 120 degrees of high off boresight capability (helmet cued to kill where the pilot looks), and how can you fight and even begin to win against it? You can't! His nose is on you and a missile is in the air long before you can react.

One manuver that is more impressive than most any other is the flat spin where he is faliing straight down, but just swiviling the nose in 360 degrees of rotation - pointing it anywhere he wants. This aircraft can do whatever it wants. How can you follow something like that?

This is simply its dogfight capability. This is not touching on its apeture scan radar, super cruise capability, stealth capability, nothing.

The only way to possibly even see this thing on radar is from the side, and that is going to be difficult. Coming or going, no one can see it.

-S
OK, but nothing you said makes hovering a good tactic in a fight.

No - it is not a tactic - that was for fun! What should be gleaned from that hover is not what he is doing, but what the aircraft is not doing - Notice you are not encountering a compressor stall? This is not a normal thing for a jet to do because a compressor stall would happen in almost every other jet due to the stall entering the engine inlet. THis is not happening!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Mig-25 could climb verticle on 3/4 power but then again they did hit speeds of mach 3.

Mach 2.8 max - engine burns up past that. At Mach 3, if the aircraft comes home, the engines need to be thrown away.

Thrust to weight ratio in a MiG-25 is 1.12:1 as of current generation. That is full power - 100%, so this is not true that you say only 3/4 power. The F-15 has more power - which is why it is nicknamed the Foxbat killer. The Foxbat is barely faster in a straight line, but the F-15 can sustain the speed for longer, resulting in the Foxbats death. This was proved over Islreal and all Foxbat flights stopped after the F-15 was introduced. This is also why the F-15 Streak Eagle (Notice I did not say Strike Eagle) took the record away from the MiG-25 in the time to climb record back in 1975 (This kind of ticked off the Kremlin at the time).

Some info on the time to climb record:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=621

The F-22 now even has 'more' power than the upgraded F-15! The F-22 accelerated and pulled away from its F-15 chase planes where the F-22 was only in military power, and the F-15's were in full afterburner! Think of what kind of power this plane has when those burners are lit!

-S

[bradclark1]

I heared that rumour that Typhoon(s) locked onto Raptors in an excercise and "shot" them down, but I was only vaguely told. Any link for the solid story?

I searched high and low for this elusive story. Couldn't find it. what does that say?

Reminds me of that story about the Type 212 that managed to penetrate the ASW screen of a US carrier group in the north sea two years ago or so, "torpedo" the carrier and remain undetected all the time. :lol:
If it couldn't I'd ask why I spent all that money on this super sub. Our Fast Attacks do it all the time. Getting caught isn't good for ones advancement. Thats the name of the game.

[Skybird]

I heared that rumour that Typhoon(s) locked onto Raptors in an excercise and "shot" them down, but I was only vaguely told. Any link for the solid story?

I searched high and low for this elusive story. Couldn't find it. what does that say?
Obviously nothing yet. I meant Steel-Tomb anyway, since his posting indicates he also heared of that event.

Reminds me of that story about the Type 212 that managed to penetrate the ASW screen of a US carrier group in the north sea two years ago or so, "torpedo" the carrier and remain undetected all the time. :lol:
If it couldn't I'd ask why I spent all that money on this super sub.
Maybe you better ask why spending money on those super carriers. ;) In any new pacific war they probably won't last long. Like In WWII carriers made battleships obsolete, I have this theory that in the next war subs will make carriers obsolete. but that is an old debate, as you certainly know.

[XLjedi]

Personally, I was more impressed with the Flankers double back flip...

No doubt the raptor is a tough customer, but at what point does the video guy get tired of watchin the F-22 point its nose in the air?

[XLjedi]

I have this theory that in the next war subs will make carriers obsolete.

Interesting... but doubt it, seriously. Unless that's the war in 2150 when the carriers are also subs.

[bradclark1]

Maybe you better ask why spending money on those super carriers. ;) In any new pacific war they probably won't last long. Like In WWII carriers made battleships obsolete, I have this theory that in the next war subs will make carriers obsolete. but that is an old debate, as you certainly know.
Carriers will never go away. It depends on preparedness. If it was an ambush before hostilities were declared a sub would probably stand a good chance of hitting a carrier. Who knows in a time of war. So many variables and never say never.

[JALU3]

Maybe you better ask why spending money on those super carriers. ;) In any new pacific war they probably won't last long. Like In WWII carriers made battleships obsolete, I have this theory that in the next war subs will make carriers obsolete. but that is an old debate, as you certainly know.
Carriers will never go away. It depends on preparedness. If it was an ambush before hostilities were declared a sub would probably stand a good chance of hitting a carrier. Who knows in a time of war. So many variables and never say never.

Well, being here in San Diego, seeing the S-3 retired from its intended ASW mission, the MMA taking forever and a day to get out to see . . . and the ASW School here on Harbor Drive seem at times damn near silent . . . I worry about our ASW capability in the near future.

Maybe they can develop a SV-22 for a replacement of the ASW role . . . we'll see.

But yes, a Swedish Sub did do that during war games (atleast within 2 years) and one has been stationed, at cost, here at Point Loma Naval Base . . . for further training excersizes.

----
As for the fighter discussion . . . I feel sorry for the F/A-18 & the F-2, I'd imagine that they'd be one of the first to go.

[Skybird]

Maybe you better ask why spending money on those super carriers. ;) In any new pacific war they probably won't last long. Like In WWII carriers made battleships obsolete, I have this theory that in the next war subs will make carriers obsolete. but that is an old debate, as you certainly know.
Carriers will never go away. It depends on preparedness. If it was an ambush before hostilities were declared a sub would probably stand a good chance of hitting a carrier. Who knows in a time of war. So many variables and never say never.
right. but in principle a CBG is more vulnerable to a sub than a sub is to a CBG. If I would need to choose on which side to fight and survive, and assuming both sides offer modern equipment, good crews and commanders, I'd always go with the sub. CBGs are nice tools with inferior enemies and for political pressuring. Against a determined enemy of more serious combat potential (Russia, China etc, and some NATO units) - that is something very different.

[Tchocky]

Found this one, about the Gotland

http://www.knbc.com/news/10116514/detail.html?rss=la&psp=news

[joea]

right. but in principle a CBG is more vulnerable to a sub than a sub is to a CBG. If I would need to choose on which side to fight and survive, and assuming both sides offer modern equipment, good crews and commanders, I'd always go with the sub. CBGs are nice tools with inferior enemies and for political pressuring. Against a determined enemy of more serious combat potential (Russia, China etc, and some NATO units) - that is something very different.

Ok I agree ... sort of. But what aboutt he capabilities of carriers? I mean what they allow us to do. In WWII, carriers could do the tasks of battleships. I mean they could attack and sink ships, subs, and hit ground installations. They could also defend against air attack. True battleships were more accurate with shore support than airpower, but overall the carriers could do it more flexibly and much farther away.

Problem is today can subs do the roles carriers and other surface ships do? As in WWII a CBG without subs is more vulnerable than a sub force without CBGs. But the latter can't do much to project power ashore or alone protect sea trade. They can interdict it for sure. Unless you are saying power projection will be impossible and therefore the advantage will always be with the littoral power. Sounds like jeune école stuff.

Naturally, this all goes by the wayside if we are talking nuclear strategic warfare, subs are the top there...even more so than bombers and land based missles they are the arbiters of power.

Perhaps even a fleet centred on subs would still need smaller carriers, though not the so called "through deck cruisers" like Ark Royal, and certainly amphibious support and surface escorts. At least until merchant shipping and troops can travel undersea.

[Skybird]

right. but in principle a CBG is more vulnerable to a sub than a sub is to a CBG. If I would need to choose on which side to fight and survive, and assuming both sides offer modern equipment, good crews and commanders, I'd always go with the sub. CBGs are nice tools with inferior enemies and for political pressuring. Against a determined enemy of more serious combat potential (Russia, China etc, and some NATO units) - that is something very different.

Ok I agree ... sort of. But what aboutt he capabilities of carriers? I mean what they allow us to do. In WWII, carriers could do the tasks of battleships. I mean they could attack and sink ships, subs, and hit ground installations. They could also defend against air attack. True battleships were more accurate with shore support than airpower, but overall the carriers could do it more flexibly and much farther away.

Problem is today can subs do the roles carriers and other surface ships do? As in WWII a CBG without subs is more vulnerable than a sub force without CBGs. But the latter can't do much to project power ashore or alone protect sea trade. They can interdict it for sure. Unless you are saying power projection will be impossible and therefore the advantage will always be with the littoral power. Sounds like jeune école stuff.

Naturally, this all goes by the wayside if we are talking nuclear strategic warfare, subs are the top there...even more so than bombers and land based missles they are the arbiters of power.

Perhaps even a fleet centred on subs would still need smaller carriers, though not the so called "through deck cruisers" like Ark Royal, and certainly amphibious support and surface escorts. At least until merchant shipping and troops can travel undersea.
No contradiction. It is all this what I meant with "inferior enemies and political pressuring". Maybe I should have made the latter more clearly - but now you did. However, these subtletities loose in importance once you are in an conventional all-out-war with let's say a coaltion of hostile forces in SE Asia, and there are several major candidates: China, Russia, India.

[Spoon 11th]

Wow, that's one impressive plane. Time for Tom Cruise to make Top Gun II.

[SUBMAN1]

Wow, that's one impressive plane. Time for Tom Cruise to make Top Gun II.

Only if he crashes and dies in the movie. I'd go see it then, otherwise, pick a better actor.

-S

[Spoon 11th]

Only if he crashes and dies in the movie. I'd go see it then, otherwise, pick a better actor.

-S
Opinions are like a-holes. I think Cruise is not bad actor as long as he doesn't smile. He and Val Kilmer could be competing Top Gun instructors in the new movie and they could collide in mid air and crash and die in about middle of the movie. Then in the end of the movie the new Top Gun, some current male teen idol, would go to Persian Gulf to fight against iranians in some incident and clear the skies of enemy planes.

[XLjedi]

Opinions are like a-holes. I think Cruise is not bad actor as long as he doesn't smile. He and Val Kilmer could be competing Top Gun instructors in the new movie and they could collide in mid air and crash and die in about middle of the movie. Then in the end of the movie the new Top Gun, some current male teen idol, would go to Persian Gulf to fight against iranians in some incident and clear the skies of enemy planes.

Hey now... don't be knockin Val. He totally redeemed himself as Doc Holiday. :yep: ...and when he came on SNL and spoofed the Iceman character as an airline pilot, that was classic!:rotfl:

What do I know about acting? I like most of Cruise's movies... it's just the underlying person that has begun to grate on my nerves.

[SUBMAN1]

Opinions are like a-holes. I think Cruise is not bad actor as long as he doesn't smile. He and Val Kilmer could be competing Top Gun instructors in the new movie and they could collide in mid air and crash and die in about middle of the movie. Then in the end of the movie the new Top Gun, some current male teen idol, would go to Persian Gulf to fight against iranians in some incident and clear the skies of enemy planes.
Sounds like a good script to me! Except I kind of like Val Kilmer as an actor. So maybe Cruise can cruise and crash into someone else? :D We need Val (Iceman) in there who is unflinching and can kick some Iranian butt with our hero actor at the end! Otherwise we are all doomed!

-S

[bradclark1]

Found this one, about the Gotland

http://www.knbc.com/news/10116514/detail.html?rss=la&psp=news

HENRY: Although this emerging undersea threat is a top priority for the U.S. Navy, the U.S. is committed to its nuclear submarine force, and has no plans to develop subs like the Gotland.

The Navy says it just wants to know how to detect and kill them.
I think thats a bit of a mistake. We should have a half dozen or so subs of this technology for foreign coastal work. But then how silent is the Sea Wolf?

[Chock]

That's a very impressive display, that thing sure can move, but it reminds me of the USAF 50th anniversary show at Fairford some years ago, where I watched an F-16 and an Su-27 Flanker trying to outdo one another in tight turning circles. They made about the same radius turns (maybe the Flanker was a little bit tighter, but not much in it). They turned at about the same rate too, but the Flanker was doing it without afterburners whereas the F-16 was on full 'burner to sustain the rate.

Which of course means it would have lost the dogfight in a stalemate when it simply dropped out of the sky after about six minutes of 'burner followed by an embarrassing silence as it ran out of JP4. Moves like that don't really prove anything over an airfield, where they can land on fumes after p*ssing all their fuel away doing showboat stuff like that which is tactically meaningless for the most part.

Far more impressive is the supercruise and radar detection capability of the Raptor. Pulling tight turns is all very well, but it generally means that you've gone defensive and cocked things up after the merge. Still, the Fleet Air Arm proved that funky vectored thrust moves can help you win a dogfight, so if the Raptor can do that stuff without blowing all its fuel away, it could be useful. But I'd like to see it do it with weapons and mission fuel on board, which it clearly has not got when performing at an airshow!

Incidentally, Top Gun is the biggest repressed closet homosexual movie on the planet, please god not another one!

And using the Northrop's as MiGs just gets funnier every time you watch it. Hot Shots is more technically accurate.

:D Chock

[Tchocky]

Top Gun was repressed?!

Another thing to consider about that Su-27/F-16 standoff is the relative sizes of the two aircraft. The Flanker is 50% heavier and quite a bit larger than the Falcon. It also has the extra engine, and over double the wing area. Fairly impressive bird.

[Iceman]

I remember seeing those Gotland subs a few years ago we talked about it...The Swedes could write they're own check with that baby and I'm sure they did ...thats the kind of technology you can't let bad guys get a hold of...Ahh the beautiful swedes :)

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_050627-N-0685S-003.jpg

And this was the crew they sent with it to protect its most precious secrets... :)

http://www.teamdarkside.ca/gallery/04231140341.jpg

Where do I sign up for the Swedish Navy?