F-22 Raptor vs Vickers Gunbus

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@control-z

I don’t think that’s true at all. Bird strikes have taken down fighter jets.

The biplane isn’t made of birds. I wouldn’t suggest ramming the main fuselage, but wing-to-wing contact would destroy the Gunbus’ wing spars and do very little damage to the F-22 (maybe damage some of the control surfaces).

In any event, the F-22 is capable of a controlled stall thanks to its thrust vectoring so maintaining a low enough airspeed to shoot the other plane down with guns wouldn’t be that difficult.

[GusNSpot]

I’ve heard in the past from WWII fighter jocks that most of the WWI fighters, in an open field with one or two BIG trees in it would defeat their WWII planes if pilot skills were fairly even.

New super planes , chain guns, radar & computer assist will even eventually defeat a big tree, but give the F-22 a single gun barrel regular machine gun, rigidly mounted, both shooting, say a .30 cal. bullet, with no tracers, I would still go with a canny WWI pilot & plane.

[UncleRojelio]

@GusNSpot

I’ve heard in the past from WWII fighter jocks that most of the WWI fighters, in an open field with one or two BIG trees in it would defeat their WWII planes if pilot skills were fairly even.

What’s the tree have to do with it?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

The planes are strapped to tanks. It’s the only way any of that makes sense.

[Dissonance]

@Kobal2

Once that hurdle is overcome, there’s relatively little functional difference between hunting a Biplane 5 and hunting a modern attack helicopter - and that’s a turkey shoot for *any *fighter jet.

Helicopters can make horrible targets for modern fighters. If the helicopter pilot is aware that he is under attack, he can make it incredibly difficult to be shot down by conventional methods. The fighter will be forced to make head on passes against the helo, which is likely to be firing its own cannon and any unguided rockets its carrying to discourage the fighter from continuing the engagement. Robert Shaw goes into the issues in some detail in Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering. It’s available online as a pdf here, the section Helicopters versus Conventional Fighters starts on page 207 of the pdf, page 188 of the book. One of his conclusions is the best way to go about dealing with such a situation is to bomb the helicopter, something that was done in the First Gulf War by an F-15E, albeit with a laser guided bomb.

Although no self-respecting fighter pilot would carry a bomb, there is no telling what kind of low-life may be met over a battlefield, so such an attack must be considered. Should some sort of ballistic projectile be seen falling from the enemy aircraft, the helo should immediately turn away from the predicted impact point and make tracks to gain separation as rapidly as possible. The chances of actually being hit by such a bomb are small (especially when it is dropped by a fighter pilot), but the fragments from typical bombs can be lethal more than 2,000 ft from the point of detonation.

[Ludovic]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The planes are strapped to tanks. It’s the only way any of that makes sense.

That doesn’t even make sense, but is much cooler. Now if only the tanks were piloted by T Rexes.

[GusNSpot]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GusNSpot View Post
I’ve heard in the past from WWII fighter jocks that most of the WWI fighters, in an open field with one or two BIG trees in it would defeat their WWII planes if pilot skills were fairly even.

What’s the tree have to do with it?

The smaller, slower & more maneuverable WWI fighter can twist & turn & actually keep the tree/s between him and the high tech fighter. He can fly just fine below the height of the tree.

[Mr.Kobayashi]

Thanks for the replies so far guys and gals, interesting that the F-22 could probably down the Vickers without even firing a single missile or bullet.

One thing that did pique my interest - I’d always assumed that modern fighter planes were at least somewhat armoured; if the F-22 took a rake of fire from the .303 Lewis LMG on the Vickers would it be in serious trouble?

[AK84]

@KarlGauss

Althought it’s not at all relevant, I can’t resist pointing out that the reason the snail-speed Swordfish (essentially a “typical” WWI biplane (!) with some modifications) was able to inflict catastrophic damage on the state-of-the-art battleship Bismarck (other than luck) was that the Bismarck’s guns panned too quickly to keep the slow-moving Swordfish in their sights.

How the Sowrdfish drivers ever managed to fit their balls in such a small craft I will never know.

[Kobal2]

@Mr.Kobayashi

One thing that did pique my interest - I’d always assumed that modern fighter planes were at least somewhat armoured; if the F-22 took a rake of fire from the .303 Lewis LMG on the Vickers would it be in serious trouble?

Quite the contrary : modern planes are mostly made of lightweight aluminium or even thinner composites, in a perpetual quest for better power-to-weight ratios. Good P/W means better acceleration, better top speed, better climb rates, generally speaking better manoeuvrability and of course, you can pack more boom per trip. Armour drastically increases weight without adding to power, which makes it harder to evade attacks, which would make even *more *armour necessary :).

So combat planes are pretty fragile.
One notable exception is the A-10 Warthog, which is renowned for being nigh-impossible to kill. But then, it’s by design : it’s a close support bird meant to move in low and slow and kill tanks from spitting distance, so they buffed it some. In return, it’s not manoeuvrable, fast, or pretty, and it can only really be deployed after total control of the skies has been achieved as it’d be hopeless in a dogfight.
But it *is *goddamn tough - I believe one flew home from a Desert Storm mission missing half a wing, one engine and part of its tail. No biggie

[QUOTE=Dissonance]
Helicopters can make horrible targets for modern fighters. If the helicopter pilot is aware that he is under attack, he can make it incredibly difficult to be shot down by conventional methods. The fighter will be forced to make head on passes against the helo, which is likely to be firing its own cannon and any unguided rockets its carrying to discourage the fighter from continuing the engagement. Robert Shaw goes into the issues in some detail in Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering. It’s available online as a pdf here, the section Helicopters versus Conventional Fighters starts on page 207 of the pdf, page 188 of the book. One of his conclusions is the best way to go about dealing with such a situation is to bomb the helicopter, something that was done in the First Gulf War by an F-15E, albeit with a laser guided bomb.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting, very interesting. Thanks for that !

[dogbutler]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

In any event, the F-22 is capable of a controlled stall thanks to its thrust vectoring so maintaining a low enough airspeed to shoot the other plane down with guns wouldn’t be that difficult.

So you’re saying the Raptor could take off on a treadmill?

[Reply]

@Kobal2

In return, it’s not manoeuvrable,

Ok

fast,

Right

or pretty…

But they’re beautiful!

[Kobal2]

@Reply

But they’re beautiful!

I believe the term “acquired taste” applies in full there, and then some

[GusNSpot]

As to maneuverable, IMO, most competent Warthog pilots would beat even the F-22 in the bottom of the Grand Canyon with both armed only with the Gatling gun.

I have seen the demo flights of the jets stopping, pivoting, nose up in place, reversing direction etc. They never do that close to the ground or close to return fire.

Yes, high tech weapons allows them to win from afar but they can not play in the mud with just bullets from equal weapons with the Thunderbolt. IMO.

But what do I know… Bawahahaha

[Kobal2]

Trouble is, you don’t always have a Grand Canyon handy

ETA: besides, the whole “running through a canyon to evade pursuit” thing is 'tarded, I’m afraid. See, people can follow your race through the canyon… from 10.000 feet above. Where there isn’t any terrain to dodge. Get better mileage, too.

[GusNSpot]

@Kobal2

Trouble is, you don’t always have a Grand Canyon handy

ETA: besides, the whole “running through a canyon to evade pursuit” thing is 'tarded, I’m afraid. See, people can follow your race through the canyon… from 10.000 feet above. Where there isn’t any terrain to dodge. Get better mileage, too.

It is not for running down, it is for having a big rock that you can maneuver around much better that there super jet and since he has nothing to hit you from 10K feet with, the old bird wins. Remember, they both have to use a regular machine gun.

We are talking maneuverability, not weapons.
Get the jet down where a mistake will kill you or just going a little wide in the corner will kill and the super jet loses.

That is why I said a big tree, if the fighter has to stay & fight at those altitudes, he does not have the maneuverability to do so.

The maneuverability of the modern jet, even the F-22 is not better than most WWI fighters.

So, IMO, the old school wins the maneuverability and cost per unit of fighter built today.

I am not saying they are better, just that they are not better in every way. IMO