Ridiculous musing, but...
Discussion
ApexJimi said:
I was watching Tora! Tora! Tora! this afternoon, and it got me thinking - how many old WWII fighters could a single 4 / 4.5 gen fighter take on?
One for each missile it could carry, while in theory a modern jet could gun down a few ww2 fighters with its cannon modern jets are too expensive to actually risk using in a close dogfight.A modern jet pilot would be mad to get into a turning fight - it would remove many of the advantages of having a jet fighter, and in terms of guns a WW2 fighter probably has more firepower - Spitfire IX having 2 .5" calibre machine guns and two 20mm cannon if memory serves, against the 1" single cannon in a Typhoon.
do the piston engined aircraft have enough of an IR signature for IR homing ( i.e. sidewinder type) missiles to lock on to ?
radar guided missiles should have no problem with a aluminium airframe of any vintage - how big is the radar cross section of a mossie ?
a close in turning dogfight could be intersting especially against a cold war 'air superiority' interceptor like a tornado F14 / F16 rather than an F16 / typhoon or even something like a jaguar ...
the late cold war 'mixed fighter force ' could be interesting with the nav / RIO in a tornado / F14 acting as a fighter controller to a mixed force of other aircraft including Hawks etc .
apache vs ww2 fighter would be interesting
as would Harrier or other vectored thrust aircraft vs ww2 fighter ( how much 'viffing' ability does the f35 have ? )
radar guided missiles should have no problem with a aluminium airframe of any vintage - how big is the radar cross section of a mossie ?
a close in turning dogfight could be intersting especially against a cold war 'air superiority' interceptor like a tornado F14 / F16 rather than an F16 / typhoon or even something like a jaguar ...
the late cold war 'mixed fighter force ' could be interesting with the nav / RIO in a tornado / F14 acting as a fighter controller to a mixed force of other aircraft including Hawks etc .
apache vs ww2 fighter would be interesting
as would Harrier or other vectored thrust aircraft vs ww2 fighter ( how much 'viffing' ability does the f35 have ? )
davepoth said:
Spitfire IX having 2 .5" calibre machine guns and two 20mm cannon if memory serves, against the 1" single cannon in a Typhoon.
More homework needed mate!The speed and climb of the jet would allow it to pick its fight, engage and disengage at will. However I don't know well how a modern missle, IR or radar, would follow a Spitfire or Zero when reefed into a tight turn. The WW2 era 'plane would be able to dodge but not engage; the jet would be able to enage but possibly not hit an alert enemy. Almost a stalemate with the jet winning on points I'd say.
Piston Vs Jet happened during the Korean War.
In one case it was a Hawker Sea Fury Vs Mig 15, the Sea Fury splashed the Mig as the Mig pilot made the mistake of getting into a turning contest at low level. Also the Sea Fury had 4 X 20mm cannon instead of 6 X .5 machine guns carried by the F-86 et al. I think some Migs took on a pair of F4U Corsairs with similar results.
Something a lot more modern could engage with missiles at BVR and it would all be over before the prop fighters knew what hit them.
In one case it was a Hawker Sea Fury Vs Mig 15, the Sea Fury splashed the Mig as the Mig pilot made the mistake of getting into a turning contest at low level. Also the Sea Fury had 4 X 20mm cannon instead of 6 X .5 machine guns carried by the F-86 et al. I think some Migs took on a pair of F4U Corsairs with similar results.
Something a lot more modern could engage with missiles at BVR and it would all be over before the prop fighters knew what hit them.
Simpo Two said:
davepoth said:
Spitfire IX having 2 .5" calibre machine guns and two 20mm cannon if memory serves, against the 1" single cannon in a Typhoon.
More homework needed mate!The speed and climb of the jet would allow it to pick its fight, engage and disengage at will. However I don't know well how a modern missle, IR or radar, would follow a Spitfire or Zero when reefed into a tight turn. The WW2 era 'plane would be able to dodge but not engage; the jet would be able to enage but possibly not hit an alert enemy. Almost a stalemate with the jet winning on points I'd say.
Even when the Vulcan cannon was introduced in the late 1950's, it was a 'game changer'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfDwDOAwtnw
Regarding manouverability, I think some of the more agile jets, perhaps the Typhoon, F22 and SU34 might be able to assert themselves well in a turning fight.
Some interesting thoughts here.
My own thoughts were, as simpo says, that due to thrust & altitude ability, the modern jet could theoretically engage / disengage at will.
Someone mentioned an Apache v's WWII fighters. That's an interesting one. Remember the Apache v's Exige on Top Gear? Ok, I know it was relatively contrived, but it did demonstrate how devastating capable the Apache is at long distance, even against a moving target.
ETA: Reading "Apache" confirms the above, multiple target aquisitioning too
My own thoughts were, as simpo says, that due to thrust & altitude ability, the modern jet could theoretically engage / disengage at will.
Someone mentioned an Apache v's WWII fighters. That's an interesting one. Remember the Apache v's Exige on Top Gear? Ok, I know it was relatively contrived, but it did demonstrate how devastating capable the Apache is at long distance, even against a moving target.
ETA: Reading "Apache" confirms the above, multiple target aquisitioning too
Edited by ApexJimi on Saturday 2nd June 20:11
SlipStream77 said:
Regarding manouverability, I think some of the more agile jets, perhaps the Typhoon, F22 and SU34 might be able to assert themselves well in a turning fight.
I guess that would come down to wing loading. If they have to slow to the speed of the WW2 'plane to stay with them then they've lose their biggest advantage. Would both pilots be wearing g-suits?NB Got buzzed by a (the) Lancaster today, which was a nice surprise - one pass then steep bank and off.
williamp said:
The A-10 thunderbolt 2 with its cannon and protection would be an interesting choice. Or a Harrier with rockets. Luckily we have both stationned in the UK, so we're still safe...
In other news, Will this year finally be Damon's year??
As well protected as a a-10 may be ww2's cannons still packed one hell of a punch and could rip tanks apart let alone a relatively protected but still ultimately vulnerable plane.In other news, Will this year finally be Damon's year??
Godalmighty83 said:
williamp said:
The A-10 thunderbolt 2 with its cannon and protection would be an interesting choice. Or a Harrier with rockets. Luckily we have both stationned in the UK, so we're still safe...
In other news, Will this year finally be Damon's year??
As well protected as a a-10 may be ww2's cannons still packed one hell of a punch and could rip tanks apart let alone a relatively protected but still ultimately vulnerable plane.In other news, Will this year finally be Damon's year??
ApexJimi said:
Some interesting thoughts here.
My own thoughts were, as simpo says, that due to thrust & altitude ability, the modern jet could theoretically engage / disengage at will.
Someone mentioned an Apache v's WWII fighters. That's an interesting one. Remember the Apache v's Exige on Top Gear? Ok, I know it was relatively contrived, but it did demonstrate how devastating capable the Apache is at long distance, even against a moving target.
ETA: Reading "Apache" confirms the above, multiple target aquisitioning too
It was me who mentioned Apaches above ... people underestimate helicopters of the appache type - and it seemed to be played down how efffective they were when they were used in libya in the 'inferior' LPH and apache that the RN and AAC sent vs carrier and harrier that the RN and RAF/RNAS were unable to sendMy own thoughts were, as simpo says, that due to thrust & altitude ability, the modern jet could theoretically engage / disengage at will.
Someone mentioned an Apache v's WWII fighters. That's an interesting one. Remember the Apache v's Exige on Top Gear? Ok, I know it was relatively contrived, but it did demonstrate how devastating capable the Apache is at long distance, even against a moving target.
ETA: Reading "Apache" confirms the above, multiple target aquisitioning too
Edited by ApexJimi on Saturday 2nd June 20:11
Modern Air2Air missiles would have absolutely no problem getting a lock due to the massive radar signature of old fighters! Just the number of exposed rivet heads would be enough to "light up the screen" from a massive distance away, let alone all the exposed control surface ends / undercarriage and even the prop! Added to which, the missiles massive speed would see it come out of nowhere before the old skool fighter pilot had even seen the missile, so making it pretty difficult to avoid!
But as mentioned, the cost of each missile alone would be more than the cost of each fighter!
But as mentioned, the cost of each missile alone would be more than the cost of each fighter!
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff