I've always been curious......are there really dogfight maneuvers in the real jet fighter world as shown in the movies, like split-S etc etc? I'm curious because in the past jet fighter games I've played, I always have a problem getting my bearings high up in the sky after several turns, rolls, climbs, dives etc. I mean, how do you know where your bogey is if he goes one way and you decide to go another way in order to try and get onto his 6? Or do you, as the pursuer, just repeat everything that he does in order to stay on his tail? Any current or retired jet fighter pilot can shed some light? Thanks in advance.
Yes there are manouvres like the split S, high and low speed yo-yos, immelmens, however in dogfights you often find that manouvres aren't set as a fixed manouvre....you often blend into one...for example an opponent might be turning and you have eccess speed you will try to climb a little and then you can cash in the energy immediately or later...which is techincally a high speed- yoyo. You might end up doing these manouvres without consciously planning them. As for finding you bogey...once you have tally NEVER lose it unless you can help it. If you do lose tally then you are in trouble. You can either continue turning in the hope of finding them. Flee if you think you can outrun them or what I find often works is to aim for the deck. You then only need to look up and it can be difficult for them to keep eyes on you and hit you if you are down very low. It's also worth keeping an eye on your RWR for azimuth clues
Like the other guy said about maneuvers blending together and flowing from one into the next. Once you have a feel for how an aircraft moves, it's less a "maneuver" and more you just knowing your aircraft and it's abilities. In a virtual aircraft, you can't feel the Gs or the plane shifting. You also tend to be restricted on looking around unless you have headtracker (still not great because you have to turn head, but look in different direction. Unless you have like a full 360 setup or a VR headset, it gets very hard to keep track of anything. in VR you can start to feel depth and feel your plane sliding in the air during turns in good simulators, but it's still not to a level of what a real pilot could do.
The mk84 series bombs are designed to glide, not go straight down... It is why they have been adapted over time in to things like the JDAM and Paveway series of bombs... Their Center of Gravity is the key point in the Russian and older bomb designs the center of gravity is closer to the nose where as for the newer designs they are design has the center of gravity more towards the middle of the bomb to promote the ability to glide.
Even with older WWII bomb designs they were very unlikely to ever hit at a 90 degree angle, from WWII bombing charts you'll find that, at most common bombing altitudes and speeds, bombs would usually hit around 80 to 50 degrees.
@matthewkern3619 naaaaah. You see the alkohol would make you see it differently so obviously because you see it differently its not happening. Silly matthewkern3619.
It's called a parabola, Cap. The shallower the launch angle the challower the descent angle due to horizontal momentum. Also see Hcakdot's comment about centre of gravity. The same thing effects missiles but especially unguided rockets. An overstable rocket will see 'windcocking' where it will actually lean into the wind.
Hey Cap and GR gents . Our OLD dudes flying group of IL2 1946, have done similar bomb offs - and have had success going bit further PAST the target before releasing on curve, and pulling straight into the vertical longer for closer to 90' fall.. physics engine is obv different and less fidelity, but maybe give it a shot ✌🏼🤞🏻
Knew an A4 Marine pilot who on a range set up to practice that exact bomb release method managed to hit the 2" brass marker in the center of the target area with a 2lb practice bomb.
I just had to fire up the spreadsheets and investigate some bomb physics... The thing that would make the bomb fall straight down is the horizontal component of drag, and it's going to be very small for a slick and heavy bomb (low drag, lots of inertia). For a 400 knot bomb released 80 degrees nose up, horizontal component is only 70 knots. If that bomb is released at 10,000 ft and horizontal component bleeds down to 50 kts, it will impact at 85 degrees at best. If the fins are VERY draggy, then yes, the bomb will fall more vertically, but the whole point of the fins is to keep the bomb aligned with the airflow, which reduces drag and makes the bomb adhere to the naive ballistic arc more closely.
Cap, I always find your vids entertaining and I enjoy the creativity that you guys put into them...and some just make me laugh. I rarely comment but I thought I would make an exception in this case. I could be wrong but I thought the mig-21 in DCS actually has a nuclear bomb that you can drop although the effects are not modeled properly. Regardless I found this vid pretty funny. All of you would not have survived even if the bomb was a low yield nuclear device...say the 8 megaton range. You would have to be more than 10 miles from detonation to have any reasonable expectation of outrunning the blast wave or at least staying in control. There were several techniques for dropping nukes but the best aircraft for that role in Nato in the 60's were the f-104 and f-105's. I know because that is what I trained for (f-104) back then. Most of us felt that it would have been a one way trip regardless because you would have run out of fuel more than likely. Fast as lightening approach on the deck of course to the popup point. I will also add that the b61 that we practiced with (thank god we never used it) was parachute retarded. Three reasons... stabilize the bomb, give more time to escape the blast, and finer control for the altitude of detonation. You wanted the nuc to go at a set altitude above the target...not hit the ground. Keep up the entertaining vids.
Hi. We can make our own bombs in DCS and I thought about adding Mk7 8kt nukes to each plane, but it would have caused problems measuring how far the aircraft got away from the target.
@@mobeus5019 Fat finger typing...I meant Kt not Mt. IIRC, CB was in the 15MT range but was never tested. Thanks for the correction. IIRC, the yield could be adjusted dependent on target and delivery...I can't exactly remember but I think it was from a minimum of .3 to the high 300's to 400kt for the latter 61.
22:30 Ideally, a bomb will follow a parabola in the air. A parabola is never vertical. The more aerodynamic it is, the more it will retain lateral motion.
Do you believe that the software is showing a very accurate simulation based on real world aerodynamics of the bomb bodies and fins? Or do you think it's probably that the software developers use an algorithm that throws in more horizontal motion because it's designed to simulate non-vertical bomb drops?
@@JoeCuv Sorry, I have no reference for attempting an answer. I've never played the game. I dropped from high enough, every bomb eventually reaches near-vertical.
@@JoeCuvit appears to be pretty realistic. As he said, if the bomb is released with any lateral momentum, it will not reach a vertical state. It’s actually more likely that this is the case, in real life there are external factors that could cause it to potentially go vertical, it makes more sense that in the sim they don’t simulate these external factors.
You just don't get it do you? The only way that it might drop straight down is if you drop from a hover. If it has any forward momentum, it will come down in an arc.
I saw a film where a B-47 did it. If those planes were doing it there shouldn't be any surprise that Tex Johnston did a barrel roll in a 707 prototype which was heavily influenced by the B-47.
F-111 = fast af, but it would have had to start the climb a mile before the target just to get verticle in time to drop. Same issue they had with Russian planes.
When released, the bomb isn't supposed to fall immediately. It is supposed to be released when the airplane kicks up into ascent, so then when the bomb is released it acquires enough inertia to continue up and over and finally after all that time delay-- finally down in a grand arc. That way the pilot peels off when the bomb is still ascending, to buy himself extra getaway time. The whole idea is for the plane to approach at "treetop level" so as to be invisible to enemy radar for the maximum transit time, attack from beyond city limits, and escape before pursuit planes can have a chance to catch up..
@@jameson1239 wouldn’t it be easier to try and shoot it further away rather than higher up? I’m not any kind of expert and certainly not math brained enough to figure it out myself lol.
Physics-wise, you're both right and wrong about the bombs, Cap. Yes, gravity is constant where lateral motion is only the initial impulse, but energy is conserved, so adding an force downwards won't actually _reduce_ lateral motion, it'll just add more vertical motion. The nice thin-and-heavy low drag Mk8x bombs should do a pretty good job of following the parabolic arc they start with all the way down (Edit: as you found later on, dropping them slower significantly changes the arc; this is correct), which means they won't really get vertical. The fatter, higher drag bombs will fall more vertical simply because the more drag they have, the farther they get from a mathematical parabola... on the other hand, the more drag they have, the slower they fall, and the more they impair the plane carrying them. Overall, DCS appears to be doing a pretty good job of simulating the real-world physics here. Take a look at the Wikipedia page on Projectile Motion for some pretty pictures and animations and stuff which explain it much better than I can.
The bomb doesn’t lose its initial horizontal velocity with gravity, only air resistance. If it is dropped with 50 mph ground speed, it will only get down to like 30 mph over the 20 seconds. The aoa of the bomb should be near 0
Our pilots practiced this in A4 they'd fly straight up over the target and release this was the closes way to get a bomb to hit 90 deg. Without fragging themselves.it was also safer than dive bombing. When launching nukes it was a way to get higher and farther away when using nukes
There is a USN film called "Delivery Of Atomic Weapons By Light Carrier Aircraft - Execution" (1959) The film covers 5 methods: - low-angle loft - medium-angle loft - high-angle loft - dive bombing (?!) - laydown bombing
Cap, you're wrong about the physics. If the bombs are moving along the ground they will take a while to end up pointing straight down. It all depends on how much 'longways' push you give the bomb at release and that is down to the moment you release the bomb. If you release the bomb when vertical, the bomb will fall straight down. That's the way i think i would do this. Pull the climb directly above the target and release when you are dead vertical
I learned it from Mythbusters and Veritasium's video on the rods from god, cylindrical objects tend to fall on their side, instead of their "pointy end". I assuem the reason why they don't do that is partially the fins, keeping the bomb almost straight, as they generate the most drag. Also these bombs supposed to glide a bit, extending their range.
I think, the bombs are holding part of the trajectory of the fighter dropping them. Most people look like they are releasing before they are over the vertical so the bomb is pushing out. If you drop exactly vertical the bomb would go straight up then straight down. Maybe hold vertical release then turn?
You forgot the F 105 Thunder Chief had a feature called Snap Up, the pilot flips the switch and the plane automatically throws the nuke, flips and rolls over becsuse the g forces would cause pilot to blackout.
In a system such as this, horazontal velocity will be constant from the point of release, take away some aerodynamic drag. In this case maybe why the Russian bombs seem to work beter is that they are slightly heavier, meaning they are accelerated downwards faster, so there's not as much time to deviate latterally from target.
@@jamesellery7267 latterally? horazontal? What sort of Aerospace Engineering words are these? Failed QC killed a lot of people. Please check your work. Anything tossed in an arc will come down in an arc unless the program changes it. Physics.
Noted, not my strong suit. English is not my first language, maybe you should know a little bit more about people before you have a go at them, just a suggestion.
15 degrees feels like too much, but my vast experience in games like kerbal space program suggests that it is completely normal, 10-20 degrees is what id expect unless you release it perfectly (which you did on 25:49). I didnt do any physics on it though, this is just anecdotal comment.
There isn't enough drag on the tail fins of the GBU's in the early bomb-tosses. That's why it drops cockeyed like that. there's more drag present on the body of the bomb than the fins themselves.
The arc of a bomb is generally close to a parabola. For a 90° fall angle, the parabola would essentially need to be a straight line, i.e. a drop at the exact 90° vertical. Yes, gravity and tail drag will eventually tug the bomb more downwards towards 90°, so being slightly off can still result in gravity cancelling out the horizontal motion, but it's not nearly as potent a force as you think compared to the enormous inertia of a ~500kg mass and its angular inertia (resistance to turning.) Factoring in the drag from the fins keeping it along the vector of the airflow, it will be quite resistant to gravity 'tugging' at it until that drag bleeds away all the lateral velocity imparted from the jet's angle at release. If you consider that an object's velocity vector is the sum of all its forces' effects, even though the pull of gravity will be essentially 90° straight down it has to totally cancel out the lateral motion to get there. It will rapidly overcome the initial large difference in angle of the bomb as it slows at apex and pull the nose down towards the ground assisted by the drag of the fins, but as the bomb falls faster and faster that lateral motion vector will get more and more difficult to overcome. This effectively means bombs will fairly quickly change their vector towards 50-80° down, but that change rapidly slows as the two forces reach rough equilibrium and the bomb 'settles' at its final vector. Gravity slowly will overcome that lateral force as drag bleeds away the lateral and vertical speed. Since there's no longer any significant forces imparting lateral forces (barring wind or fin/body lift) yet still the constant force of gravity, that equilibrium shifts slowly to favor gravity's 90° force vector. If you did this simulation in water you'd see the much greater effect of drag on this, and the bombs would very quickly settle into a straight 90° drop as it kills the lateral motion very quickly.
Interesting video! I got some ideas in case you want to try this again some day. - Do practice runs right next to the burj khalifa for easy visual reference of horizontal speeds. - Important to note is each aircraft's decouple force, dropping a bomb sideways and pause 1-3 seconds later to see how much it went sideways. Or look up the value fed into the game somehow. - For getting a better drop attitude, you can set up deadzoning per axis if your joystick happens to use a combined-axis deadzone. This way if you exit the pitch deadzone you will still be in the roll deadzone. - What you're doing is essentially firing an airborne mortar, it follows basically a parabolic trajectory and due to the small component of horizontal velocity it will not bleed off horizontal speed in meaningful quantities before impact. You could get some math on how bad each degree of error is different velocities by getting an artillery formula and plugging in aircraft angle, and velocity. Ballistic coef. of the ordnance should be easy to find. - And while we're at it, why even come in level with the target? If you are at a collision course with the base of the pyramid you will go at least part of the way to pure vertical before going over the target, and if you just subtract 100 meters from your mortar elevation that just decreases the severity of any error in the drop by a bit. You might consider this cheating because targets wouldn't be that elevated IRL but IRL they're cheating too because they can physically feel when they are pure vertical as gravity and aircraft velocity align making it a decent bit easier. - At the end do it again everyone at the same time, basically a train sorted from worst to best (at the back), to get some idea of grouping and differences between different models of ordnance. Use live nukes where possible to make it interesting, the best planes have more power to run with, but can they make it before the nuke from the early jets kills them? Anyways, keep up the good work!
A former Victor pilot at my local engineering club used to do this in victors during training in the cold war except they would release earlier to lob the bombs before soviet defences
the lateral pull of the bomb is surprisingly strong, I can't really do the math in the comments but because the drag is so low on modern bombs and the inertia imparted from the release, is what's causing the bombs to fly off in a ballistic arc, I know the bomb is heavy but at these speeds the bomb would need to fall for a couple of kilometers before it would be going completely straight down, you comment on that when the bomb tumble it's a good sign of accuracy, it's simply because the bomb stalls out so it doesn't have enough lateral movement to continue it's ballistic arc and it's now moving so slowly it's flight path becomes unstable causing it to tumble around in the air
Think of the angle of attack. When you get straight vertical, the plane isn't travelling straight vertical. If you want to do the straight pull up toss, you actually need to pull up sooner
The bombs follow a parabolic trajectory from the departure point to the impact. The only time it could be straight vertical is if it reaches terminal velocity, then it is going as fast as possible under gravity
What is the wind speed and direction set at ? could exacerbate the natural aerodynamic properties of the bombs making the drift worse, the pitch seems to be persistent a the 80ish mark, see what pitch they fall at with 0 wind speed, adding to the problem is the height its dropped at, the longer the fall the more time the wind has to push it. you could test by dropping at the same altitude, speed, as a control experiment.
Mk 84 is designed to fly laterally rather than nose down. Think like a BTHP bullet design. Center of gravity is not at the nose it helps it glide longer. So hard to get a nose down flight.
I know time is limited but i would love to see the LABS results too just for comparison sake biggest problem i see is training becuase the LABS computer is not the easiest to remember.
+GrimReapersAtomic *Simulated B7 Mod 1 nuclear device: A BEAR of a mission.* Eagle Dynamics doesn't support the Sukhoi-34 Bombardirovshchik (AFIC: Fullback), unlike the Sukhoi-27/30/33/35 and Shenyang J-11/J-15 (AFIC: Flanker) and Sukhoi-25 Tankov'yj (AFIC: Frogfoot).
I would assume that since the bombs are released in a parabolic ark they will follow the parabola. With the larger bombs you have large wings for stabilization yet the force you input into the bomb is always there. Hence the tilt of the bombs upon landing
Guys I'm pretty sure you are meant to be lobbing the bomb forward on a high and then near vertical drop on a target a few miles or so in front of the bomb release its meant to be done on anywhere from a 45°- 80° toss forward whilst the pilot continues to do the loop to get away from the bladt zone, there's an interview with the UK military intelligence agent that captured the Soviets practising this type of delivery of nukes in East German training ground for the 1st time ever in Western intelligence, then all the nations of the cold war started using this technique, you are not meant to lob it over your shoulder it lobs forward!!! Check scources for actual technique for lob tossing nukes throughout the cold war!
I agree that there was something funny going on at 18:12. I can't say if that is realistic behavior or not but that bomb clearly experienced some AoA and lift -> speed in the horizontal increases. Trajectory looked normal after 18:33.
Looks like some of the other bombs (13:05, 19:33) experienced some amount of negative lift, which made them fall steeper than expected by the naive ballistic arc.
23:08 This bomb was released almost exactly straight up (88) and aligned itself with the airflow very quickly on the way down -> almost no lift, almost no added horizontal speed component. Impact 87 degrees nose down.
The next bomb of the same type was released around 80 and impacts at 84 (24:30), which is close to the average for this video. They all behave as expected when there's no funny stuff going on at the top.
Forgive my simple (Prolly wrong) mah and "Excellent" Piloting. If the goal is to pull back to 110 degress before releasing. Wouldn't you want to eye your AOA... For example if it's 20. And put that together with the drop? So crank back to 130 degrees if the AOA was 20, then release? Doing that just past the target to toss it over the shoulder should do that, right?
21:50 ideally it should be a parabola, and then it is not a perfect 90 degs (minus drag). It just gets closer and closer to it. So without drag you will go infinitely far, if you drop it high enough, since the horizontal part of the velocity doesn't change. And with the little drag high up and only the short phase in the thicker atmosphere and with the low horizontal speeds, it is a decent approximation.
I think ou were correct thinking the forward movement was keeping it from going plumb. My guess is that on the US bomb the end with the fins is lighter than the russkian so it has less inertia so the air resistance has a bigger effect on the tail as an opposing force Edit: meant NATO not Russian
3:15 - I dont agree with this. If the harrier has an issue carrying a bomb on one side that is enough of an issue that we need a counterweight, then surely we should also drop the counterweight when peeling off? Otherwise, we seem to be simulating a bomb that has left some part of it still attached to the aircraft and effecting the aero after dropping? Surely drop the entire simmed bomb at the same time?
ST[C(A)P]RFIGHTER: The (C)F-104. From 1961-72. Thank you for asking. Looks like you need to redo the video to include the only jet specifically tasked for the nuclear strike role. Search RUclips: Backbone of Canada's 1960s-era nuclear deterrence strategy in Europe; Canadair CF-104 Starfighter
Get a B-52 and see if you can simulate the B-47s Idiots' Loop lob-toss. I think a lot of your issues derived from expecting a low-drag modern bomb to behave like and old high-drag bomb.
Loved the video but shouldn't the distance measurement be from the point of impact and not from the center of target since realistically it doesn't matter where the target is if the impact is a mile off target?
If you throw a rock, shoot a bullet, or toss a bomb - they all follow a parabola. The fins are there to prevent tumbling. I dont know why you think any of those bombs would hit with a 90 deg angle.
I've always been curious......are there really dogfight maneuvers in the real jet fighter world as shown in the movies, like split-S etc etc? I'm curious because in the past jet fighter games I've played, I always have a problem getting my bearings high up in the sky after several turns, rolls, climbs, dives etc. I mean, how do you know where your bogey is if he goes one way and you decide to go another way in order to try and get onto his 6? Or do you, as the pursuer, just repeat everything that he does in order to stay on his tail?
Any current or retired jet fighter pilot can shed some light? Thanks in advance.
Old vids but should be relevant:
ruclips.net/video/kV391POGaV4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/Ae49ajEDFXk/видео.html
Yes there are manouvres like the split S, high and low speed yo-yos, immelmens, however in dogfights you often find that manouvres aren't set as a fixed manouvre....you often blend into one...for example an opponent might be turning and you have eccess speed you will try to climb a little and then you can cash in the energy immediately or later...which is techincally a high speed- yoyo. You might end up doing these manouvres without consciously planning them. As for finding you bogey...once you have tally NEVER lose it unless you can help it. If you do lose tally then you are in trouble. You can either continue turning in the hope of finding them. Flee if you think you can outrun them or what I find often works is to aim for the deck. You then only need to look up and it can be difficult for them to keep eyes on you and hit you if you are down very low. It's also worth keeping an eye on your RWR for azimuth clues
@@Pukin-Dogin other words it’s really f’n hard for both parties.
Would have been cool if an actual fighter pilot answered.
Like the other guy said about maneuvers blending together and flowing from one into the next. Once you have a feel for how an aircraft moves, it's less a "maneuver" and more you just knowing your aircraft and it's abilities.
In a virtual aircraft, you can't feel the Gs or the plane shifting. You also tend to be restricted on looking around unless you have headtracker (still not great because you have to turn head, but look in different direction. Unless you have like a full 360 setup or a VR headset, it gets very hard to keep track of anything.
in VR you can start to feel depth and feel your plane sliding in the air during turns in good simulators, but it's still not to a level of what a real pilot could do.
The mk84 series bombs are designed to glide, not go straight down... It is why they have been adapted over time in to things like the JDAM and Paveway series of bombs... Their Center of Gravity is the key point in the Russian and older bomb designs the center of gravity is closer to the nose where as for the newer designs they are design has the center of gravity more towards the middle of the bomb to promote the ability to glide.
this, your bomb is aerodynamically nothing like the mk 7 thor
Even with older WWII bomb designs they were very unlikely to ever hit at a 90 degree angle, from WWII bombing charts you'll find that, at most common bombing altitudes and speeds, bombs would usually hit around 80 to 50 degrees.
This. Centre of gravity vs centre of pressure.
A simple, tubular design can get a lift to drag ratio of about 3 to 1. The lift drag ratio and glide ratio are the same.
Interesting.
The US Air Force used to train the B-47 bomber pilots to perform that maneuver. I would like to see you do that with 1950's bomber aircraft.
B-52 would be just the thing for it.
Im sorry, B47?!
Wow! That's a big bomber...
@matthewkern3619 i mean isnt MADE to toss nukes, but it certainly could with enough gin
@matthewkern3619 naaaaah. You see the alkohol would make you see it differently so obviously because you see it differently its not happening. Silly matthewkern3619.
Dropping ordinance at the pyramids from aircraft of multiple generations is actually going to be a scene in the director’s cut of Napoleon…😂😂😂
It's called a parabola, Cap. The shallower the launch angle the challower the descent angle due to horizontal momentum. Also see Hcakdot's comment about centre of gravity. The same thing effects missiles but especially unguided rockets. An overstable rocket will see 'windcocking' where it will actually lean into the wind.
Hey Cap and GR gents .
Our OLD dudes flying group of IL2 1946, have done similar bomb offs - and have had success going bit further PAST the target before releasing on curve, and pulling straight into the vertical longer for closer to 90' fall.. physics engine is obv different and less fidelity, but maybe give it a shot ✌🏼🤞🏻
Thanks!
Knew an A4 Marine pilot who on a range set up to practice that exact bomb release method managed to hit the 2" brass marker in the center of the target area with a 2lb practice bomb.
It’s ok. 4 out of 5 men suffer from early release of their nukes.
Premature irradiation.
Only a few men have nukes, the rest have bombs or bomblets 😂
Just like our AA missiles, these bombs have a lifting-body effect, causing a slight bit of lift.
Loving that you lined up a whole bunch of tossers for our entertainment
GR tosser best tosser.
I just had to fire up the spreadsheets and investigate some bomb physics... The thing that would make the bomb fall straight down is the horizontal component of drag, and it's going to be very small for a slick and heavy bomb (low drag, lots of inertia). For a 400 knot bomb released 80 degrees nose up, horizontal component is only 70 knots. If that bomb is released at 10,000 ft and horizontal component bleeds down to 50 kts, it will impact at 85 degrees at best.
If the fins are VERY draggy, then yes, the bomb will fall more vertically, but the whole point of the fins is to keep the bomb aligned with the airflow, which reduces drag and makes the bomb adhere to the naive ballistic arc more closely.
Cap, I always find your vids entertaining and I enjoy the creativity that you guys put into them...and some just make me laugh. I rarely comment but I thought I would make an exception in this case. I could be wrong but I thought the mig-21 in DCS actually has a nuclear bomb that you can drop although the effects are not modeled properly. Regardless I found this vid pretty funny. All of you would not have survived even if the bomb was a low yield nuclear device...say the 8 megaton range. You would have to be more than 10 miles from detonation to have any reasonable expectation of outrunning the blast wave or at least staying in control. There were several techniques for dropping nukes but the best aircraft for that role in Nato in the 60's were the f-104 and f-105's. I know because that is what I trained for (f-104) back then. Most of us felt that it would have been a one way trip regardless because you would have run out of fuel more than likely. Fast as lightening approach on the deck of course to the popup point. I will also add that the b61 that we practiced with (thank god we never used it) was parachute retarded. Three reasons... stabilize the bomb, give more time to escape the blast, and finer control for the altitude of detonation. You wanted the nuc to go at a set altitude above the target...not hit the ground. Keep up the entertaining vids.
Hi. We can make our own bombs in DCS and I thought about adding Mk7 8kt nukes to each plane, but it would have caused problems measuring how far the aircraft got away from the target.
8 Mt is NOT small yield. Your approaching Castle Bravo there...
@@mobeus5019 Fat finger typing...I meant Kt not Mt. IIRC, CB was in the 15MT range but was never tested. Thanks for the correction. IIRC, the yield could be adjusted dependent on target and delivery...I can't exactly remember but I think it was from a minimum of .3 to the high 300's to 400kt for the latter 61.
22:30 Ideally, a bomb will follow a parabola in the air. A parabola is never vertical. The more aerodynamic it is, the more it will retain lateral motion.
Do you believe that the software is showing a very accurate simulation based on real world aerodynamics of the bomb bodies and fins? Or do you think it's probably that the software developers use an algorithm that throws in more horizontal motion because it's designed to simulate non-vertical bomb drops?
@@JoeCuv
Sorry, I have no reference for attempting an answer. I've never played the game. I dropped from high enough, every bomb eventually reaches near-vertical.
@@JoeCuvit appears to be pretty realistic. As he said, if the bomb is released with any lateral momentum, it will not reach a vertical state. It’s actually more likely that this is the case, in real life there are external factors that could cause it to potentially go vertical, it makes more sense that in the sim they don’t simulate these external factors.
You just don't get it do you? The only way that it might drop straight down is if you drop from a hover. If it has any forward momentum, it will come down in an arc.
sure there is lateral force on the bombs! There is a certain degree of lift on the body and fins that "pushes" on it. It glides until Lift- Drag= G.
hmmm this is complex.
It would have been interesting to see how the Mirage IV and the F-111 would have done. You could say they were made to do this.
I saw a film where a B-47 did it. If those planes were doing it there shouldn't be any surprise that Tex Johnston did a barrel roll in a 707 prototype which was heavily influenced by the B-47.
F-111 = fast af, but it would have had to start the climb a mile before the target just to get verticle in time to drop. Same issue they had with Russian planes.
That's probably the best 15 second introduction I've ever heard on RUclips.
I think the idea about lateral movement is correct with its effect on pitch. The Sabre bombs have bigger fins which held kill lateral
There's also the fact that when falling there's air-resistance on the side of the bomb-body that's pushing it.
fwd momentum of a few hd kts mattrs, too@@BlackLiger788
Royal navy Buccaneers that was the way they trained to drop the nukes and could hit the target almost every time
When released, the bomb isn't supposed to fall immediately. It is supposed to be released when the airplane kicks up into ascent, so then when the bomb is released it acquires enough inertia to continue up and over and finally after all that time delay-- finally down in a grand arc. That way the pilot peels off when the bomb is still ascending, to buy himself extra getaway time. The whole idea is for the plane to approach at "treetop level" so as to be invisible to enemy radar for the maximum transit time, attack from beyond city limits, and escape before pursuit planes can have a chance to catch up..
I guess I don't understand why you would WANT to do this with a nuke, but I'm also guessing the answer to that question is named henry kissinger.
It gives the bomb altitude and therefore time to get away
@@jameson1239 wouldn’t it be easier to try and shoot it further away rather than higher up? I’m not any kind of expert and certainly not math brained enough to figure it out myself lol.
@@Southboundpachyderm don’t worry I’m not either and what you said makes sense
@@Southboundpachyderm toss bombing is for more farther away but for the hail Mary is was for more accuracy and time to get away from the nuke blast
@@loren021 I see. Thanks for taking the time to explain!
Physics-wise, you're both right and wrong about the bombs, Cap. Yes, gravity is constant where lateral motion is only the initial impulse, but energy is conserved, so adding an force downwards won't actually _reduce_ lateral motion, it'll just add more vertical motion.
The nice thin-and-heavy low drag Mk8x bombs should do a pretty good job of following the parabolic arc they start with all the way down (Edit: as you found later on, dropping them slower significantly changes the arc; this is correct), which means they won't really get vertical. The fatter, higher drag bombs will fall more vertical simply because the more drag they have, the farther they get from a mathematical parabola... on the other hand, the more drag they have, the slower they fall, and the more they impair the plane carrying them.
Overall, DCS appears to be doing a pretty good job of simulating the real-world physics here. Take a look at the Wikipedia page on Projectile Motion for some pretty pictures and animations and stuff which explain it much better than I can.
The bomb doesn’t lose its initial horizontal velocity with gravity, only air resistance. If it is dropped with 50 mph ground speed, it will only get down to like 30 mph over the 20 seconds. The aoa of the bomb should be near 0
Our pilots practiced this in A4 they'd fly straight up over the target and release this was the closes way to get a bomb to hit 90 deg. Without fragging themselves.it was also safer than dive bombing. When launching nukes it was a way to get higher and farther away when using nukes
F-18 best plane ever, confirmed.
Never!
Great video only thing I wish you could have had is the F105 and the F100 jet! That would have been epic.
Yay! I was one of those people! Thanks for this! Pure GRness this is. :)
There is a USN film called "Delivery Of Atomic Weapons By Light Carrier Aircraft - Execution" (1959)
The film covers 5 methods:
- low-angle loft
- medium-angle loft
- high-angle loft
- dive bombing (?!)
- laydown bombing
Ballistic trajectories are always parabolic.
Cap, you're wrong about the physics. If the bombs are moving along the ground they will take a while to end up pointing straight down. It all depends on how much 'longways' push you give the bomb at release and that is down to the moment you release the bomb. If you release the bomb when vertical, the bomb will fall straight down. That's the way i think i would do this. Pull the climb directly above the target and release when you are dead vertical
I think one key to success is to keep wings level when you pull up.
Agreed
That was the technique to be used by the Vulcan bomber once they switched to low level ingress!
I learned it from Mythbusters and Veritasium's video on the rods from god, cylindrical objects tend to fall on their side, instead of their "pointy end". I assuem the reason why they don't do that is partially the fins, keeping the bomb almost straight, as they generate the most drag.
Also these bombs supposed to glide a bit, extending their range.
I think, the bombs are holding part of the trajectory of the fighter dropping them. Most people look like they are releasing before they are over the vertical so the bomb is pushing out. If you drop exactly vertical the bomb would go straight up then straight down. Maybe hold vertical release then turn?
A good little competition.
You forgot the F 105 Thunder Chief had a feature called Snap Up, the pilot flips the switch and the plane automatically throws the nuke, flips and rolls over becsuse the g forces would cause pilot to blackout.
I think a Tornado would be a good option.
Lol they’re actually bombing a Target super store in that photo
Simba launched that bomb into low orbit lol
It's never going to come down in a straight line. It travels in a ballistic arc. Physics.😂
In a system such as this, horazontal velocity will be constant from the point of release, take away some aerodynamic drag. In this case maybe why the Russian bombs seem to work beter is that they are slightly heavier, meaning they are accelerated downwards faster, so there's not as much time to deviate latterally from target.
@@jamesellery7267 latterally? horazontal? What sort of Aerospace Engineering words are these? Failed QC killed a lot of people. Please check your work. Anything tossed in an arc will come down in an arc unless the program changes it. Physics.
@@jamesellery7267 spell check before posting. most engineers do that
at least the good ones do
Noted, not my strong suit. English is not my first language, maybe you should know a little bit more about people before you have a go at them, just a suggestion.
15 degrees feels like too much, but my vast experience in games like kerbal space program suggests that it is completely normal, 10-20 degrees is what id expect unless you release it perfectly (which you did on 25:49). I didnt do any physics on it though, this is just anecdotal comment.
Well, that was a nice Thursday BoomBoom!
There isn't enough drag on the tail fins of the GBU's in the early bomb-tosses. That's why it drops cockeyed like that. there's more drag present on the body of the bomb than the fins themselves.
That red lorry was mine.......and my insurance provider would like to have a word.
The arc of a bomb is generally close to a parabola. For a 90° fall angle, the parabola would essentially need to be a straight line, i.e. a drop at the exact 90° vertical. Yes, gravity and tail drag will eventually tug the bomb more downwards towards 90°, so being slightly off can still result in gravity cancelling out the horizontal motion, but it's not nearly as potent a force as you think compared to the enormous inertia of a ~500kg mass and its angular inertia (resistance to turning.) Factoring in the drag from the fins keeping it along the vector of the airflow, it will be quite resistant to gravity 'tugging' at it until that drag bleeds away all the lateral velocity imparted from the jet's angle at release.
If you consider that an object's velocity vector is the sum of all its forces' effects, even though the pull of gravity will be essentially 90° straight down it has to totally cancel out the lateral motion to get there. It will rapidly overcome the initial large difference in angle of the bomb as it slows at apex and pull the nose down towards the ground assisted by the drag of the fins, but as the bomb falls faster and faster that lateral motion vector will get more and more difficult to overcome.
This effectively means bombs will fairly quickly change their vector towards 50-80° down, but that change rapidly slows as the two forces reach rough equilibrium and the bomb 'settles' at its final vector. Gravity slowly will overcome that lateral force as drag bleeds away the lateral and vertical speed. Since there's no longer any significant forces imparting lateral forces (barring wind or fin/body lift) yet still the constant force of gravity, that equilibrium shifts slowly to favor gravity's 90° force vector.
If you did this simulation in water you'd see the much greater effect of drag on this, and the bombs would very quickly settle into a straight 90° drop as it kills the lateral motion very quickly.
Interesting video!
I got some ideas in case you want to try this again some day.
- Do practice runs right next to the burj khalifa for easy visual reference of horizontal speeds.
- Important to note is each aircraft's decouple force, dropping a bomb sideways and pause 1-3 seconds later to see how much it went sideways. Or look up the value fed into the game somehow.
- For getting a better drop attitude, you can set up deadzoning per axis if your joystick happens to use a combined-axis deadzone. This way if you exit the pitch deadzone you will still be in the roll deadzone.
- What you're doing is essentially firing an airborne mortar, it follows basically a parabolic trajectory and due to the small component of horizontal velocity it will not bleed off horizontal speed in meaningful quantities before impact. You could get some math on how bad each degree of error is different velocities by getting an artillery formula and plugging in aircraft angle, and velocity. Ballistic coef. of the ordnance should be easy to find.
- And while we're at it, why even come in level with the target? If you are at a collision course with the base of the pyramid you will go at least part of the way to pure vertical before going over the target, and if you just subtract 100 meters from your mortar elevation that just decreases the severity of any error in the drop by a bit.
You might consider this cheating because targets wouldn't be that elevated IRL but IRL they're cheating too because they can physically feel when they are pure vertical as gravity and aircraft velocity align making it a decent bit easier.
- At the end do it again everyone at the same time, basically a train sorted from worst to best (at the back), to get some idea of grouping and differences between different models of ordnance. Use live nukes where possible to make it interesting, the best planes have more power to run with, but can they make it before the nuke from the early jets kills them?
Anyways, keep up the good work!
A former Victor pilot at my local engineering club used to do this in victors during training in the cold war except they would release earlier to lob the bombs before soviet defences
LOL! 38:29 "...that's acceptable for dropping a nuke."
Add Egypt to the long list of countries that hates GR for using the great Pyrimids as nuke practice 😂
Well, they did their bests to pause the bombs before they hit. Only a few impacted.
...and I loved the display...thank you grs
the lateral pull of the bomb is surprisingly strong, I can't really do the math in the comments but because the drag is so low on modern bombs and the inertia imparted from the release, is what's causing the bombs to fly off in a ballistic arc, I know the bomb is heavy but at these speeds the bomb would need to fall for a couple of kilometers before it would be going completely straight down, you comment on that when the bomb tumble it's a good sign of accuracy, it's simply because the bomb stalls out so it doesn't have enough lateral movement to continue it's ballistic arc and it's now moving so slowly it's flight path becomes unstable causing it to tumble around in the air
Think of the angle of attack. When you get straight vertical, the plane isn't travelling straight vertical. If you want to do the straight pull up toss, you actually need to pull up sooner
Omg to see a b47 doing that!
my guess on why the bombs weren't falling vertical could be either a design flaw or modeling flaw of the tail fins not providing enough drag
The bombs follow a parabolic trajectory from the departure point to the impact. The only time it could be straight vertical is if it reaches terminal velocity, then it is going as fast as possible under gravity
What is the wind speed and direction set at ? could exacerbate the natural aerodynamic properties of the bombs making the drift worse, the pitch seems to be persistent a the 80ish mark, see what pitch they fall at with 0 wind speed, adding to the problem is the height its dropped at, the longer the fall the more time the wind has to push it. you could test by dropping at the same altitude, speed, as a control experiment.
Mk 84 is designed to fly laterally rather than nose down. Think like a BTHP bullet design. Center of gravity is not at the nose it helps it glide longer. So hard to get a nose down flight.
Simba Wimba in the F18!
I know time is limited but i would love to see the LABS results too just for comparison sake biggest problem i see is training becuase the LABS computer is not the easiest to remember.
There is a reason the adage is: "Close counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear war".
+GrimReapersAtomic *Simulated B7 Mod 1 nuclear device: A BEAR of a mission.* Eagle Dynamics doesn't support the Sukhoi-34 Bombardirovshchik (AFIC: Fullback), unlike the Sukhoi-27/30/33/35 and Shenyang J-11/J-15 (AFIC: Flanker) and Sukhoi-25 Tankov'yj (AFIC: Frogfoot).
I would assume that since the bombs are released in a parabolic ark they will follow the parabola. With the larger bombs you have large wings for stabilization yet the force you input into the bomb is always there. Hence the tilt of the bombs upon landing
Putin was escorted by four SU-35 during his recent visit to the UAE. May be you could try to intercept him on his return trip …
My dad did this with a A1 and A4.
30 years later, he claimed a couple grim reapers.
I would have watched a whole video of you guys just figuring out how to dial that maneuver in with any one of those planes.
A foxhound would probably be good for the "and getting away" side of things.
Agreed
reminds me of throwing a shoeput in my juner high school days
Could you add the A-10 to the list of planes for Part II, please? I think it could do very well.
rgr
part 2 with more airframes? Viggen, A-4 etc?
Guys I'm pretty sure you are meant to be lobbing the bomb forward on a high and then near vertical drop on a target a few miles or so in front of the bomb release its meant to be done on anywhere from a 45°- 80° toss forward whilst the pilot continues to do the loop to get away from the bladt zone, there's an interview with the UK military intelligence agent that captured the Soviets practising this type of delivery of nukes in East German training ground for the 1st time ever in Western intelligence, then all the nations of the cold war started using this technique, you are not meant to lob it over your shoulder it lobs forward!!! Check scources for actual technique for lob tossing nukes throughout the cold war!
I agree that there was something funny going on at 18:12. I can't say if that is realistic behavior or not but that bomb clearly experienced some AoA and lift -> speed in the horizontal increases. Trajectory looked normal after 18:33.
Looks like some of the other bombs (13:05, 19:33) experienced some amount of negative lift, which made them fall steeper than expected by the naive ballistic arc.
23:08 This bomb was released almost exactly straight up (88) and aligned itself with the airflow very quickly on the way down -> almost no lift, almost no added horizontal speed component. Impact 87 degrees nose down.
The next bomb of the same type was released around 80 and impacts at 84 (24:30), which is close to the average for this video. They all behave as expected when there's no funny stuff going on at the top.
I don’t know if it’s been mentioned, but there is also a thousand pounds of momentum pushing it. A ballistic path is always going to be an arc.
Maybe try a Buccaneer, Jaguar, or a Tonka!
Yeah ! Buccaneer and RAF/RN pilots 😂
None of those airframes available as pilotable assets 😢
Damn...I was literally walking in the target region and climbing in the pyramids 6 weeks ago..
Forgive my simple (Prolly wrong) mah and "Excellent" Piloting. If the goal is to pull back to 110 degress before releasing. Wouldn't you want to eye your AOA... For example if it's 20. And put that together with the drop? So crank back to 130 degrees if the AOA was 20, then release? Doing that just past the target to toss it over the shoulder should do that, right?
see if you can have a 'snake eye' package on the bombs, they do make it for the mk84's
You need CH to make The B83 and B61 Mod13 ;)👍
I think, Cap, that you have proven conclusively that there's a good reason they gave up on this technique.
lol yes.
Did anybody else have the opening music to The Sum of All Fears in their heads watching this?
21:50 ideally it should be a parabola, and then it is not a perfect 90 degs (minus drag). It just gets closer and closer to it.
So without drag you will go infinitely far, if you drop it high enough, since the horizontal part of the velocity doesn't change.
And with the little drag high up and only the short phase in the thicker atmosphere and with the low horizontal speeds, it is a decent approximation.
This is going to be a good one !
I think ou were correct thinking the forward movement was keeping it from going plumb. My guess is that on the US bomb the end with the fins is lighter than the russkian so it has less inertia so the air resistance has a bigger effect on the tail as an opposing force
Edit: meant NATO not Russian
3:15 - I dont agree with this. If the harrier has an issue carrying a bomb on one side that is enough of an issue that we need a counterweight, then surely we should also drop the counterweight when peeling off? Otherwise, we seem to be simulating a bomb that has left some part of it still attached to the aircraft and effecting the aero after dropping? Surely drop the entire simmed bomb at the same time?
ST[C(A)P]RFIGHTER: The (C)F-104. From 1961-72. Thank you for asking. Looks like you need to redo the video to include the only jet specifically tasked for the nuclear strike role. Search RUclips: Backbone of Canada's 1960s-era nuclear deterrence strategy in Europe; Canadair CF-104 Starfighter
Get a B-52 and see if you can simulate the B-47s Idiots' Loop lob-toss.
I think a lot of your issues derived from expecting a low-drag modern bomb to behave like and old high-drag bomb.
You all dropped at the same place you pulled up from. Which is directly past the target lol
I really like when you guys do weird stuff like this, also it is kinda weird the bomb takes that long to go vertical, not sure if that's right or not.
Loved the video but shouldn't the distance measurement be from the point of impact and not from the center of target since realistically it doesn't matter where the target is if the impact is a mile off target?
Have you tried toss bombing or loft bombing. You toss the bomb from long distance.
This is a job for the F-15E...
should do this with the F-104G, I know the RCAF trained to perform this.
Shame there’s no Buccaneer modelled in the game, this was its primary attack method for surface strike against Soviet navy groups
dear GR...PLEASE ADD LIGHT FIGHTER VARIANTS SUCH AS THE FA-50,YAK,MAYBE EVEN THE TEJAS
Cap. Are Tornado and Sepcat Jags in DCS? I would like to see them having a go at this.
Not as flyable planes 😢
Of course, with a real nuke, 3000 feet is still basically a bullseye.... 😂
If you throw a rock, shoot a bullet, or toss a bomb - they all follow a parabola. The fins are there to prevent tumbling. I dont know why you think any of those bombs would hit with a 90 deg angle.
Inertia baby.
You would have to get rid of the horizontal component of its velocity entirely for it to fall straight down plumb.
I’d love to see you try this in the A10 see if she could do it, I know escape distance wouldn’t be great.
Not sure if an A-10 would reach 400 knots! :D
Cool Stuff GR!! ;)