[Thaeris]

Moden missiles are dangerous because the possess a HUGE amount of kinetic energy. An AIM-120 has a V-max which probably exceeds Mach 4. Given a frangible warhead (armed with an explosive undoubtably greater than the WWII era stuff like Torpex), a directed blast from that missile is going do deliver serious carnage. Period.

Keep in mind combat reports from the Gulf War. A Hornet flying a combat sortie encountered a MiG-21. Firing upon the fighter with... a Sparrow I believe?... the MiG indeed was in trouble. I'm certain it was a critical hit. BUT, it didn't just blow to pieces like a pinata. I'd actually like to see how a B-17 or '24 would react to a moden missile hit... Needless to say, I don't think your bomber would fare well.

[NGTM-1R]

I know the incident you refer to: it was outside the lethal radius. Run your modern aircraft into the edge of the hanger while taxiing. Is it still mission-capable? Have it hit a telephone pole on takeoff. Can it still fly?

They do not have the structural strength, because it costs weight. Similarly, they do not have the armor, because it costs weight.

[Bobboau]

well, most of them don't, there are a few with a different design philosophy, like the A10

[Mika]

I think you are comparing apples to oranges.

There is an incident involving an Israeli F-15 mid-airing an A-4, losing basically the other wing and still keeping on flying. Would like to see a WWII era plane that could do the same. Commercial jetliners are also designed to withstand failures of control surfaces and other parts of the hull, as are modern military aircraft. For instance, take a look how Soviet Union acquired their first working heat seeking missile from US. And I'm pretty sure going above Mach 1 requires a sturdy structure in itself, and is something that the WWII era thingies cannot do.

The reason why modern aircraft are grounded for hitting the edge of a hangar is to minimize risks. The same applies to commerical aviation, take a look what kind of abuse airliners encounter during their service life. One of the Boeing aircrafts in Hawaii (1970s era) lost 10 meters of its roof in midflight and was able to return back safely.

I think you are comparing the relative effectiveness in an odd way. Larger amount of explosives doesn't necessarily mean higher probability of destruction. If the projectile is not accurate enough, yield needs to be increased. Modern projectiles seem to pack smaller yields which would hint that they are quite accurate.

Back to topic, lasers could drastically change the air combat if they can be made small enough to fit in modern jets and still have a reasonable range.

[NGTM-1R]

There is an incident involving an Israeli F-15 mid-airing an A-4, losing basically the other wing and still keeping on flying. Would like to see a WWII era plane that could do the same.

This is an illustration of exactly what I mean. Modern aircraft have a huge surplus of engine power, because they are designed in such a way as to encourage it. Of course a WW2 aircraft can't do that. It doesn't have enough excess engine power, because it isn't designed that way. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if an Oscar could do it.)

And I'm pretty sure going above Mach 1 requires a sturdy structure in itself, and is something that the WWII era thingies cannot do.

There's this thing. It's called "compressability". Military aircraft confronted the sound barrier long before the X-1 rocketplane. The speed of sound is lower at high altitude, and when military aircraft started being able to realistically breach the 20,000 foot barrier, they started diving from it. And then a little later, they started diving from it with powerful engines. And they started crashing, because of compressability: that whole speed of sound thing, and how it affected their particular design. You may note low-speed modern aircraft look significantly different from high-speed ones. That's because they learned it takes a different sort of design to handle breaching the sound barrier and remaining controllable. The X-1 did it simply because it was ridiculously overengineered.

The reason why modern aircraft are grounded for hitting the edge of a hangar is to minimize risks.

Because it's probably damaged. This wasn't an issue with a design of a WW2 aircraft.

[Scotty]

I would imagine that at the higher speeds aircraft engage at in the modern era, missiles impart more kinetic force to their target upon interception.  Then again, those same speeds can rip aircraft apart if there is a whole that the (?)wind(?) catches.

[Thaeris]

Any time you smack something into something else, it's damaged. The seriousness of that damage is another issue.

Modern fighter planes are generally designed to take over 9+ times the force of gravity. And deal with it a lot... that's a sustained figure for a sizable amount ot time. Of course the pilot can't deal with that so much, but there you go. Thus, the fighter is actually capable of taking more than that number of G-forces... it's just not designed to deal with that number of forces sustained.

Ever see an F-104 wing? I have... up close. And yes, the blighter's quite sharp. A modern wing is a LOT tougher than a WWII plane's wing: I'm going to base this argument off the '104 (a little old...), but that will serve my purpose. The F-104's wing is INCREDIBLY heavy... It's mostly metal. That compensates for it being so thin as well as the high stresses on that structure. I'm not even sure it had a fuel tank in it... should look that up some time. To handle supersonic speeds, an immense wing loading, etc., modern wings are very strong. So, why would you ground an aircraft like that if it happens to ram something on the ground? Here's why: you're flying at supersonic speeds and putting immense forces on the aircraft from even light maneuvers. Any shearing, however miniscule, on that structure will be multiplied by whatever the aircraft does in flight. A WWII aircraft didn't have to worry about that so much because it was very much subsonic. If it was hitting the transonic region, the pilot was probably in for a nasty surprise...

Could an Oscar fly without a wing despite its high power-to-weight ratio? NO. Engine power is one part of the equation, but not all of it. Aerodynamics has a huge part in this matter, namely the airfoil and fuselage lift characteristics. The Oscar had a cambered airfoil as far as I can tell, meaning it was deigned to generate lift at 0 AOA. The net force from the two wings lifting upward would have been centered in the fuselage centerline. Take away a wing, and your lifting force is no longer down the central Z-axis (given z is front-to-back). The plane is uncontrollable/unrecoverable because there is not enough counterforce from any of the control surfaces to counter the moment. That plane is doomed.

Again look at the '104 wing. It's pretty much symmetrical in its cross-section. Most modern fighters (and aerobatic aircraft... but that's a little different) will be like this. You can fly a 1-winged Eagle because it has a low or zero-camber wing... given that it has sufficient airspeed. It also has that wonderful lift-inducing fuselage. It also has slab-elevators (not to mention the control surfaces on the remaining wing) which will pitch as well as roll the fighter... and they have a HUGE area. Thus, you have sufficient force to balance any non-symmetrical moment.

Lasly, kill the Hollywood physics. A hole in an airliner window will not rip the fuselage apart. It will depressurize, but that only makes sense. A moden fighter plane, as evidenced by what they do, is not made of paper. Keep in mind many modern FIGHTER planes can carry over 20,000 lbs of ordnance, more than most heavy bombers of WWII. And they can usually keep doing it, too.

[NGTM-1R]

An airliner is irrevelant. It's not fast enough. There are very tight tolerances on the design of high-speed aircraft. Damaged, the first thing any pilot will do is slow down because he doesn't want to stress his airframe. At high speed adding holes in your airframe to be torn at, hammered at, by the wind, is not a good thing. Progressive damage is not a myth, and above Mach 1 it isn't a slow progression.

You're not getting it. Just because it can handle more stress of a different type doesn't give it overall better at handling stress. You can see the same progression in modern warships too. There's no armor in the design anymore. It's not considered a worthwhile addition. You cannot possibly believe that unarmored airframes will ever be as durable as armored ones. Similarly, the design of WW2 aircraft functioned under different rules. Metal fatigue wasn't a well-understood concept, neither was a lot of other engineering. They were built to unnecessarily strong standards because nobody was quite sure and they wanted to be safe. C-47s that were built in the 1940s still fly today. The original airframes, never overhauled. That's not something any aircraft of the jet age is reasonably capable of.

If you really want an idea of how well a modern aircraft holds up to damage, consult the Zero. It's basically designed to the same paradigms. No armor, maximum effort to save weight and minimize drag. The strength of the materials used hasn't increased terribly much, the all-metal design is pretty old by now and modern aircraft typically have less bracing than some of their forebears. The massive increase in ability to carry weight has everything to do with the increase in engine power, not any magical stress-bearing increase.

[Kosh]

A moden fighter plane, as evidenced by what they do, is not made of paper. Keep in mind many modern FIGHTER planes can carry over 20,000 lbs of ordnance, more than most heavy bombers of WWII. And they can usually keep doing it, too

A slow 1940's era prop plane of any kind is technically more durable because it doesn't usually have the extreme stress on the airframe of going really fast. Jet engines are many times more powerful and allow you to travel faster, but when you go faster the airframe stress increases greatly. The greater the stress the less tolerance for failure.


Btw, on a different note isn't a MiG-29 capable of taking off and landing from less than suitable runways? How "rough" can they be?

[Thaeris]

Modern fighters are armored. In many ways, they're just as armored as WWII fighters. WWII fighters typically had self-sealing fuel tanks and armor plates in the cockpit. You'd be hard-pressed to find a modern combat type without those features. The external skin applied to the late war fighters was aluminum alloy as a general rule... you're just as aware of WWII aviation as I am (I assume as such), so I need not delve into construction techniques. Unless that fighter was something special like the Hs-129 or The Il-2, armor was more or less the same with the exception of magnitude in certain areas.

The rules of phyics and engineering apply to all things. Our understanding of these matters is what changes, not the actual forces. Again, you know this. WWII aircraft did not fly by a separate set of rules. As clearly evidenced by aviation design of that period, certain principles were not well understood. You just said the same thing. And so here I agree with you, that is why aircraft were often "overbuilt," which is never typically a bad thing, either.

Aircraft like the DC-3/C-47 are oddities much like the B-52 and military 707's: they last much longer than their designers intended them to. You could in fact say all of the listed aircraft are overbuilt, which is a neccessary element in the successfulness of their service lives. However, if we refer to WWII era aircraft, how many Ju 52s are still out there, or any of the other myriad commrcial aircraft? A tough aircraft is a tough aircraft, regardless of the era in which it was built... and a lot of them weren't nearly as tough as a C-47. Although the Ju 52 is not a great example: Axis aircraft weren't benefitted by being on the losing side, look at the Allied aircraft that were in fact "not-so-tough." A great many British aircraft were quite frail in comparison to their American counterparts. The toughness and strength of American aircraft was a defining characteristic in WWII, and few aircraft from the other powers could possibly hope to live up to those standards in general.

Kosh made a great point: WWII aircraft may seem to be so much tougher because they are not subject to the much more extreme forces a modern aircraft will be. That's already been noted beforehand. That does not actually make them tougher, though. Again, you cite engine power. That's part of overcoming the force of gravity and drag, but a thin pair of wings carrying over 10,000+ lbs of ordnance plus the weight of the aircraft still requires an incredibly tough structure. If engine power was everything, why don't we see a MiG-21 blasting off with a payload like that? The last '21's had almost 17,000 lbs of thrust at their disposal. Again, structure and aerodynamics. Too high a wing loading, too light a structure. But, it is by no means a weak aircraft. It is designed for a mission and does that mission; most WWII fighters were the same in that sense.

Lastly, how can you validate the "tougher" thing? Sure, those aircraft often operated in terrible conditions. I mean, terrible (of which you again are well aware). Referring to Kosh's question, modern aircraft can deal with like circumstances IF they are designed to handle it. Cold War Soviet types are a fantastic example. But, what about everything else? FOD. A modern jet wouldn't last in "Guadalcanal conditions" not because it isn't tough enough, but because the weight of modern systems and the tendancy of jets to suck up debris would make such an operation harrowing at best. For something like that, you really need something specail. The WWII fighters could also be compared to old automobiles. Sure they were MUCH more complex, but you could rip 'em apart in the field to service them, just like you could work on an old car in your garage. To continue the analogy, a modern fighter might be compared to a modern car. You can look under the hood to check things out, but you need special equipment to find out what's wrong and then fix it. Modern systems by virtue of the computer and other advanced technology are like that. The older planes weren't necessarily tougher, it's just technology has often gone beyond the good 'ol analog.

[mxlm]

The reason modern aircraft--and ships--are more frail is because, by and large, MOAR!ARMOR isn't going to help. You cannot possibly put enough armor on your battleship to defeat an anti-ship missile designed to pwn it. So no one bothers trying.

[Flaser]

The reason modern aircraft--and ships--are more frail is because, by and large, MOAR!ARMOR isn't going to help. You cannot possibly put enough armor on your battleship to defeat an anti-ship missile designed to pwn it. So no one bothers trying.

This actually creates a funny situation: current battleships (in mothball) have enough armor to shrug off most of the (non-nuclear) missiles used today. If they were outfitted with missiles they could be very powerful platforms.
Granted if armor *was* used on most ships, then missiles would be quickly developed to deal with it - at a much cheaper price.

[Mongoose]

This actually creates a funny situation: current battleships (in mothball) have enough armor to shrug off most of the (non-nuclear) missiles used today. If they were outfitted with missiles they could be very powerful platforms.
Granted if armor *was* used on most ships, then missiles would be quickly developed to deal with it - at a much cheaper price.

The New Jersey, an Iowa-class battleship, actually was fitted with Tomahawk cruise missiles and saw action in the first Gulf War.  I'm fairly certain that it was never fired on in any capacity, though.

[The E]

I think Iowa was fired upon with 2 missiles, one missed, one was intercepted by a Destroyer riding shotgun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship#Cold_War

[Kosh]

The reason modern aircraft--and ships--are more frail is because, by and large, MOAR!ARMOR isn't going to help. You cannot possibly put enough armor on your battleship to defeat an anti-ship missile designed to pwn it. So no one bothers trying.

This actually creates a funny situation: current battleships (in mothball) have enough armor to shrug off most of the (non-nuclear) missiles used today. If they were outfitted with missiles they could be very powerful platforms.
Granted if armor *was* used on most ships, then missiles would be quickly developed to deal with it - at a much cheaper price.

Given that they were never designed to have missiles in the first place, if you want a significant number of them the refit required would be enormous. Also lets not forget that battleships are very expensive to operate, and just not worth it. A carrier is far more effective.

[Flaser]

The reason modern aircraft--and ships--are more frail is because, by and large, MOAR!ARMOR isn't going to help. You cannot possibly put enough armor on your battleship to defeat an anti-ship missile designed to pwn it. So no one bothers trying.

This actually creates a funny situation: current battleships (in mothball) have enough armor to shrug off most of the (non-nuclear) missiles used today. If they were outfitted with missiles they could be very powerful platforms.
Granted if armor *was* used on most ships, then missiles would be quickly developed to deal with it - at a much cheaper price.

Given that they were never designed to have missiles in the first place, if you want a significant number of them the refit required would be enormous. Also lets not forget that battleships are very expensive to operate, and just not worth it. A carrier is far more effective.

That depends. A battleship couldn't be sunk with mere motorboats. It was quite a scandal that is still pushed under the carpet. During one of the last batch of exercises the admiral playing the bad guys (a stand in for Iran) managed to sink the carrier even with all the escorts gunning for him using motorboats and suicide tactics.

[Kosh]

That depends. A battleship couldn't be sunk with mere motorboats. It was quite a scandal that is still pushed under the carpet. During one of the last batch of exercises the admiral playing the bad guys (a stand in for Iran) managed to sink the carrier even with all the escorts gunning for him using motorboats and suicide tactics.

Where did you read that? And do you really think that a battleship with a 50+ year old hull is going to do any better? After all, the Yamato was sunk with rinky dink WW2 fighter-bombers.

EDIT: And those big guns wouldn't be very useful either against some small motorboats.

[Liberator]

If you aim right, I bet you could swamp them.

[Flaser]

That depends. A battleship couldn't be sunk with mere motorboats. It was quite a scandal that is still pushed under the carpet. During one of the last batch of exercises the admiral playing the bad guys (a stand in for Iran) managed to sink the carrier even with all the escorts gunning for him using motorboats and suicide tactics.

Where did you read that? And do you really think that a battleship with a 50+ year old hull is going to do any better? After all, the Yamato was sunk with rinky dink WW2 fighter-bombers.

EDIT: And those big guns wouldn't be very useful either against some small motorboats.

That 50 year old hull is thicker and stronger than anything we have in service today.
Also the Yamato was sunk using torpedoes. Torpedoes can still sink anything on the waters if they explode beneath them. There are modern countermeasures against them that greatly decrease their effectiveness...
...still the battleship would need escorts (hell, it always needed escorts) to protect it from torpedo boats and airplanes.

The same goes for the carrier, but unlike the carrier the battleship couldn't be sunk with a bread-and-butter missile found on any modern cruiser, it would take heavy ordnance and/or a nuke.

[NGTM-1R]

Where did you read that? And do you really think that a battleship with a 50+ year old hull is going to do any better? After all, the Yamato was sunk with rinky dink WW2 fighter-bombers.

EDIT: And those big guns wouldn't be very useful either against some small motorboats.

Yes, it's called armor belt. Also note the amount of ordnance required to sink the Yamato and the number of planes to do it.

Actually, you could use the 16" against a motorboat successfully today. They also retain some of their 5" DP batteries and Sea Whiz.