"Bravo Sierra" check (was "China's Army on Combat Alert")

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.

The Russians came up with that maneuver. It seems that when they do that
move, our targeting radar, not seeing movement, mistakes the radar return as
a ground feature. (mountain, etc) Since the Russians do not use radar
(having cryogenic heat viewers, instead) they have a distinct advantage.
They can see our targeting radar sweeps, but do not output a signature,
because their infrared gear is passive.
I believe it is called the "Snakehead" maneuver.

"Pepperoni" wrote in message
...

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.

The Russians came up with that maneuver. It seems that when they do that
move, our targeting radar, not seeing movement, mistakes the radar return
as
a ground feature. (mountain, etc)

Horsefeathers, they dont come to a complete stop, such a manoeveur
makes aircraft fall out of the air, they make a momentary change of heading
at the cost of a large energy loss. This seems extremely unlikley
to cause a break in radar lock. It is in any case a close combat move
when any bandit would be looking to use heat seekers

Since the Russians do not use radar
(having cryogenic heat viewers, instead) they have a distinct advantage.

More horse****, the Russians assuredly DO use radar, theit BVRAAM's
are radar guided.

They can see our targeting radar sweeps, but do not output a signature,
because their infrared gear is passive.
I believe it is called the "Snakehead" maneuver.


Cobra

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Pepperoni" wrote in message
...

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.

The Russians came up with that maneuver. It seems that when they do
that
move, our targeting radar, not seeing movement, mistakes the radar
return
as
a ground feature. (mountain, etc)

Horsefeathers, they dont come to a complete stop, such a manoeveur
makes aircraft fall out of the air, they make a momentary change of
heading
at the cost of a large energy loss. This seems extremely unlikley
to cause a break in radar lock. It is in any case a close combat move
when any bandit would be looking to use heat seekers

I stated it appeared to come to a stop. It really didn't. The AC actually
never stopped. It just appears that way at the range it was noted. It did
come to stall speed but if you dump enough power to anything you can get
around that. But I can say this, that was either a balsy pilot or one
damned stupid one.


Since the Russians do not use radar
(having cryogenic heat viewers, instead) they have a distinct advantage.

More horse****, the Russians assuredly DO use radar, theit BVRAAM's
are radar guided.

The last time I checked, the old Aphid AA-6 was a Radar Homer and that dates
back to the 60s or early 70s.



They can see our targeting radar sweeps, but do not output a signature,
because their infrared gear is passive.
I believe it is called the "Snakehead" maneuver.


Cobra

Keith

"Admin" wrote in message
s.com...

More horse****, the Russians assuredly DO use radar, theit BVRAAM's
are radar guided.

The last time I checked, the old Aphid AA-6 was a Radar Homer and that
dates
back to the 60s or early 70s.


The AA6 was Acrid, AA-8Aphid was a short range IR missile

More Modern missiles such as AA-10 Alamo, AA-12 Adder
have sem-active or active radar seekers

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"text-east.newsfeeds.com" wrote in
message ...

"Admin" wrote in message
s.com...

More horse****, the Russians assuredly DO use radar, theit BVRAAM's
are radar guided.

The last time I checked, the old Aphid AA-6 was a Radar Homer and that
dates
back to the 60s or early 70s.


The AA6 was Acrid, AA-8Aphid was a short range IR missile

Thanks. It's been a few years since I had to know what was which.



More Modern missiles such as AA-10 Alamo, AA-12 Adder
have sem-active or active radar seekers

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Pepperoni" wrote in message
...

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop"
is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution
easier.

The Russians came up with that maneuver. It seems that when they
do that
move, our targeting radar, not seeing movement, mistakes the radar
return
as
a ground feature. (mountain, etc)

Horsefeathers, they dont come to a complete stop, such a manoeveur
makes aircraft fall out of the air, they make a momentary change of
heading
at the cost of a large energy loss.

Some versions of the Su27/Su37 have thrust vectoring nozzles and can
thus balance on their tail till the fuel runs out.

The Joint German American X-31 which has thrust vectoring has a I
believe a 20:1 kill ratio in dogfights against F16s.

In otherwords in dogfights it is decisive. (In a world of Stealth one
would expect dogfights to occur by accident)

(back in test to acquire data on vectoring for STOL)




This seems extremely unlikley
to cause a break in radar lock.

It would not show up on MTI or give a doppler return. If done close
enough to ground it might prevent an acquisition due to ground
clutter.

It is in any case a close combat move
when any bandit would be looking to use heat seekers

Since the Russians do not use radar
(having cryogenic heat viewers, instead) they have a distinct
advantage.

More horse****, the Russians assuredly DO use radar, theit BVRAAM's
are radar guided.

They can obviously maintain radar silence till they need to illuminate
the target. The AA11 alamo "amraamski" is only in limited service
but has an active homing radar.



They can see our targeting radar sweeps, but do not output a
signature,
because their infrared gear is passive.
I believe it is called the "Snakehead" maneuver.


Cobra

Keith

"The Enlightenment" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Pepperoni" wrote in message
...

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop"
is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution
easier.

The Russians came up with that maneuver. It seems that when they
do that
move, our targeting radar, not seeing movement, mistakes the radar
return
as
a ground feature. (mountain, etc)

Horsefeathers, they dont come to a complete stop, such a manoeveur
makes aircraft fall out of the air, they make a momentary change of
heading
at the cost of a large energy loss.

Some versions of the Su27/Su37 have thrust vectoring nozzles and can
thus balance on their tail till the fuel runs out.

The Joint German American X-31 which has thrust vectoring has a I
believe a 20:1 kill ratio in dogfights against F16s.

In otherwords in dogfights it is decisive. (In a world of Stealth one
would expect dogfights to occur by accident)

(back in test to acquire data on vectoring for STOL)




This seems extremely unlikley
to cause a break in radar lock.

It would not show up on MTI or give a doppler return. If done close
enough to ground it might prevent an acquisition due to ground
clutter.

Oddly enough, even the Russian test pilots said that they really saw no
combat utility for the Cobra maneuver.

Brooks


It is in any case a close combat move
when any bandit would be looking to use heat seekers

Since the Russians do not use radar
(having cryogenic heat viewers, instead) they have a distinct
advantage.

More horse****, the Russians assuredly DO use radar, theit BVRAAM's
are radar guided.

They can obviously maintain radar silence till they need to illuminate
the target. The AA11 alamo "amraamski" is only in limited service
but has an active homing radar.



They can see our targeting radar sweeps, but do not output a
signature,
because their infrared gear is passive.
I believe it is called the "Snakehead" maneuver.


Cobra

Keith

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"The Enlightenment" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Pepperoni" wrote in message
...

This seems extremely unlikley
to cause a break in radar lock.

It would not show up on MTI or give a doppler return. If done close
enough to ground it might prevent an acquisition due to ground
clutter.


Oddly enough, even the Russian test pilots said that they really saw no
combat utility for the Cobra maneuver.

Brooks

I remember reading about this one in AW&ST about this. This was,
interestingly enough, a strategy developed by some US Air Force people
who were researching potential threats. They came up with some sort of
a strategy where a SU-27 or derivative uses some Cobra-like maneuver to
drop the aircraft's velocity below the threshold set for the Doppler
radar to discriminate between ground and moving aerial targets. How you
would maintain that is fuzzy to me, but it seems that you'd have to
maintain some flight path that keeps you at a constant, or slightly
decreasing, radial distance from the aircraft trying to detect you.
Assuming that you do this within AMRAAMSKI range, you could launch a
missile to defeat the US aircraft without being tracked accurately
enough by the US aircraft to destroy you. From the US point of view,
the SU-27 appears on your screen, then disappears.

The supporters of this theory claimed that it was further indication
that the F-15 was becoming obsolete in the face of new threats, and an
aircraft that provides little warning to provoke an SU-27 to adopt this
strategy (F/A-22) was (and is) required. They had managed to run a
number of (two-dome, I believe) simulations where they could kill F-15s
with regularity in a SU-27-like simulated threat. The detractors claim
that this was an unlikely manuever in any realistic combat situation,
and would be very difficult for people with less training than the US
Air Force to carry out.

To me, it also seems that such a strategy requires better situational
awareness than most SU-27 operators could muster.

Michael Zaharis wrote:



Kevin Brooks wrote:

"The Enlightenment" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Pepperoni" wrote in message
...

This seems extremely unlikley
to cause a break in radar lock.


It would not show up on MTI or give a doppler return. If done close
enough to ground it might prevent an acquisition due to ground
clutter.



Oddly enough, even the Russian test pilots said that they really saw no
combat utility for the Cobra maneuver.

Brooks


I remember reading about this one in AW&ST about this. This was,
interestingly enough, a strategy developed by some US Air Force people
who were researching potential threats. They came up with some sort of
a strategy where a SU-27 or derivative uses some Cobra-like maneuver to
drop the aircraft's velocity below the threshold set for the Doppler
radar to discriminate between ground and moving aerial targets. How you
would maintain that is fuzzy to me, but it seems that you'd have to
maintain some flight path that keeps you at a constant, or slightly
decreasing, radial distance from the aircraft trying to detect you.
Assuming that you do this within AMRAAMSKI range, you could launch a
missile to defeat the US aircraft without being tracked accurately
enough by the US aircraft to destroy you. From the US point of view,
the SU-27 appears on your screen, then disappears.

The supporters of this theory claimed that it was further indication
that the F-15 was becoming obsolete in the face of new threats, and an
aircraft that provides little warning to provoke an SU-27 to adopt this
strategy (F/A-22) was (and is) required. They had managed to run a
number of (two-dome, I believe) simulations where they could kill F-15s
with regularity in a SU-27-like simulated threat. The detractors claim
that this was an unlikely manuever in any realistic combat situation,
and would be very difficult for people with less training than the US
Air Force to carry out.

To me, it also seems that such a strategy requires better situational
awareness than most SU-27 operators could muster.


BTW, before flaming, I am not claiming that this is a workable strategy
or not. I haven't enough first-hand knowledge of ACM or BVR engagements
(in fact, I have none - everything I know is from reading and talking
with people). Just repeating what was reported regarding this in AW&ST.

"Michael Zaharis" wrote in message
...
xxxxxxxxxxx

I remember reading about this one in AW&ST about this. This was,
interestingly enough, a strategy developed by some US Air Force people
who were researching potential threats. They came up with some sort of
a strategy where a SU-27 or derivative uses some Cobra-like maneuver to
drop the aircraft's velocity below the threshold set for the Doppler
radar to discriminate between ground and moving aerial targets. How you
would maintain that is fuzzy to me, but it seems that you'd have to
maintain some flight path that keeps you at a constant, or slightly
decreasing, radial distance from the aircraft trying to detect you.
xxxxxxxxxxx

The maneuver is to pitch the aircraft into vertical flight and maintain a
constant altitude with the throttle. The aircraft has near zero airspeed,
and constant altitude.
This causes the targeting radar to disregard the return. The radar,
looking for a moving aircraft does not identify the echo as a jet aircraft.
Meanwhile, the attacker is emitting radar seek signals, closing on the
target and being tracked by passive infrared. (and also giving a radar seek
signal vector)

I'm quite sure the Russians developed the maneuver to exploit our radar
weakness before we had any idea.

Pepperoni