Hamilcar       10/19/2009 12:22:03 AM

 

Its funny you mention it cause think that too.

I will try to enjoy it, thank you.

And i did learn something:

Hotlinking from designation-system.net is not allowed

If the F-15 pilot is dumb enough to get slow with a P-51, he deserves to get shot down.

 

Sidewinders are sensitive to a lit cigarette.  In Vietnam, a few guys fired them at trucks for grins and scored kills.  A Sidewinder would have no trouble homing in on any WWII aircraft, especially since by 1944 the USAAF was going all bare metal, which reflects the sun rather nicely.

 

If old German radars with about one-tenth the sensitivity of modern radars could pick up aircraft, how do you think a F-15 would do?

 

Sorry, but the only thing such an engagement like this would accomplish is some enterprising USAF pilot breaking Dick Bong's record in 24 hours or less.  It reminds me of that Dos Gringos song, where they talk about only using heat seekers on Tuesdays, and on Wednesdays manuever only.

 

 

 

About the mythic combat between F-15 and P-51, I completely agree.

 

But for the sidewinder, even if the event you mention is plausible,  It had a very bad reputation in Vietnam.

 

Sparrow and sidewinder were expected to have a very good hit probability. Some optimistic general and engineer even stated it would be as high as 95%. For those reason, The New fighter of the time was designed for dash speed and without internal gun.(F-4 phantom). however, In the Vietnam war, all that turn out to be completely untrue, Sparrow and sidewinder were unreliable and had a very low hit/kill ratio, Pilot often had to use multiple missiles just to hit one target. it even become a "standard" to lunch 2 missiles at the time.

 

When you look at the current doctrine, its funny to see how story tend to repeat itself isn't it?

The idea that a Mustang or Thunderbolt would present an especially difficult target for a modern fighter using guns is false. Something like 65-75% of all aircraft shot down in aerial combat in the World Wars never knew their attacker was there until the first bursts were fired.

 

Modern aircraft like the F-15 or F-16 could use their overwhelming advantages in situational awareness and performance to neatly position themselves behind and below a flight of Mustangs. Their radars would easily provide a firing solution for a closure velocity of around 3-400km/h or so, and the Vulcans would tear the fighters to shreads in less than a second. After the initial burst they could disengage, without having to maneouvre especially hard.

Red Paradize wrote "Against Bomber, some of them did survive a direct hit from a 88m artillery shell. "

 

The only way any aircraft could take a direct hit from such a large calibre weapon and live to tell about it is if the shell failed to explode. I'm with sentinel28 all the way on this, Second World War aircraft would be a snack for modern day AAMs.

the piston fighter pilot can't see in time and dictate the fight

the piston fighter can't react in time to change the fight

the physics is against the piston fighter being able to visually acquire, guess the convergent spot for their guns and make the shot.

the jets have an altitude advantage which means they dictate the shot

the jets have a speed advantage which means they dictate engagement and disengagement rates.

the jets have a rate of fire advantage

finally, its not whether piston aircraft can survive an 88mm or an explosive round ipso facto they live another day or can survive modern combat - its an issue of where they were hit.  There have been aircraft downed because the pilot was killed, there have been other aircraft that took hundreds of rounds and came home  (ie/eg USG COIN in Sth America in the last 4 years)

I think that RedParadize's analysis is pretty definitive.  The WWII aircraft can win by simply taking the modern fighters best shot, accepting the loses, and carrying on to hit their bases.  The number of aircraft are just to lopsided.

 

The only way for the modern forces to win is to hit the WWII airbases the night before with cluster bombs and cruise missiles to whittle down their numbers.

I would think the attack would disintegrate fairly quickly. The amount of terror and confusion that would spread after dozens, maybe hundreds of aircraft in an attacking strike package are mysteriously shot down in a couple of minutes or so (BVR) is unimaginable. It is even possible for an individual missile to destroy more than one aircraft if the bombers are flying in box formation.

If you're looking at it like an arcade video game then, yes, it is theoretically possible to simply run the defenders out of missiles and ammunition, but that is completely ignoring the human factor. I think the psychological effect would be very similar to a Great War infantryman being on the receiving end of a severe artillery barrage in no-man's land. Death can come at any moment, without any warning, and there is simply no hope of taking cover. It would turn into the aerial equivalent of a rout.

would there not be some issue with modern missilies ability to lock on against older and cololer enginered piston engined fighters and bombers?

Sidewinder will home on a hot piston engine. AMRAAM doesn't care, It uses radar.

Also engagement speed and how much to lead a older slower target would also raise some issues i would assume...

 Thar would be an issue for guns. Missiles, you would have to adjust for your  closure rates and approach aspects. Chase would be a good option.

Further consideration:

the 1945 USAAF bases in a lot of cases are no longer there... where would the USAAF be based from...

  

====================================

Redparadize' mathematics is also dubious. Its not how many there are. Its how many you can mass and where and when.  

 

The actual  massing for combat using Gulf War and WW II concentrations would be about 1500 WWII fighters and

2300 bombers  *8th Air Force (Great Britain) against about 1100 USAF tactical aircraft (Iraq). With ,more than 10,000 Sidewinder and 3,000 Sparrow missiles in LOCAL on hand inventory and more than 100,000 Sidewinders and 30,000 sparrows available in the national stockpile, and with a WWII enemy with NO EFFECTIVE countermeasures, its like shooting clay pidgeons in the air.  Rga Gulf War force loses more through wear and tear attrition than from enemy action.

 

After the 8th is destroyed, you move to the next target set, *the 15th, rinse and repeat as necessary. The various USAAF forces are scattered and out of mutual supporting distance of each other, so you can treat them as discrete target sets. Wipe them out as geographical subunits, in separate air campaigns. Take about three months.     

====================================

After three examples, there is really no further point to waste time in this topic, Warnerd. The best you can do us note the evidence, what it actually shows and then move on. 

 .   

 

Mustangs could not intercept Me-262 due to the latter's greater speed.

 

Basically, USAAF 1945 vs USAF 1991 is going to be a one-sided slaughter.