How effective would WW1 biplanes be against modern fighters such as a F-22?

[Archinist]

So let's say there are a few scenarios as well as being an open-ended question. Sorry if this is a silly question, but I have some reasons at the bottom of the thread.

Scenario 1: a very rich man is enjoying his $100 trillion yacht when there is a strange growling in the air and 4 biplanes slowly fly over and shoot his yacht just once, so that the rich man can watch his yacht slowly slowly sink into the ocean. But then there is a terrible thunder in the sky and a pair of modernized F-22's fly over the yacht, flipping it over and killing the man.

2: A group of WW1 Nazis (???) capture a man inside his home and tell him of a airplane dogfight that will take place in the area soon. They place bets that if their own planes win, they will torture and execute the man, but if their planes lose, they will execute themselves. They have been told that the enemy is equipped with 3 biplanes, and the Nazis have 10 biplanes. But something is not quite right about the 3 biplanes as they appear to float away from the ground... (F-35B)

3: A WW1 Nazi flagship, separated from it's fleet by a mighty storm of blue electricity that none of the world has ever seen before lands upon a helpless Australian fishing village and pillages the village, committing many awful atrocities there. But then there is a strange roaring in the sky, and 20 modernized CAS A-10 warts, 5 B-2 bombers, 40 F-22s, 10 F-35Bs, and 20 Ospreys with 20 marines inside and 10 CH-47D chinooks carrying 1 modernized stryker and 10 soldiers + AFV crew each.

BONUS SCENARIO: 10 biplanes and 2 latest F-22s are placed on a massive square asphalt surface, 100 meters apart, and none can fly. What happens here?


Okay, so at first I decided to google how typical vs. matches of biplanes against modern fighters thinking that provided reasonable numbers that the F-22 should win easily. But no, apparently according to some websites, the F-22 missiles won't lock onto the old planes for some reason, the F-22 is flying too fast and will crash/miss the biplanes, the biplanes are better at airshows therefore better at aerial combat, and some very confident people that said the biplanes have lots of machine guns, therefore the F-22s won't be able to dodge the sheer amount of lead?

So, according to some forums, a modern jet against 5+ biplanes isn't so bad, after all. How well do you think it would do? Would the biplane pilots be frightened by the jet fighter, or they would be just think it was a highly advanced biplane? How well would the biplane's guns do against a F-22? (or any year 2000+ jet fighter)

[Zixinus]

Modern jet engines still carry machine guns, namely a M61 Vulcan that can shred any aircraft to shreds. Missile locks wouldn't even be necessary (they don't lock on because old biplanes were made out of wood and thus harder to detect by radar). Shooting down old bi-planes wouldn't be a problem. Meanwhile, the biplanes may be more maneuverable (the biplanes at airshows use very modern engines that are much more powerful than old WW1 ones), they are still slower and will have abysmal chances of getting a target on the much faster jet fighters.

[Elheru Aran]

Weapons won't even be necessary.

Line up jet to pass directly above or below biplane, hit afterburners. The air displacement of the sheer mass of a modern fighter jet zooming by at the speed of sound or above, if it doesn't shake the biplane to pieces, will almost certainly throw it into severe aerodynamic distress (namely, falling out of the sky).

[Elheru Aran]

Also, your second scenario... what the fuck is a WWI Nazi flagship?

[Darth Tanner]

In the air F22s will kill biplans simply by flying past them too fast.

I understand an F22 only carries 8 missiles so thats 8 biplanes dead there plus 480 rounds of main gun which with say 8 round bursts adds 60. That should mean a single F22 can shoot down around 68 biplanes just on its weapons before it has to resort to using sonic booms to smash them out of the air... at which point it can retreat and reload...

On the ground is a more interesting match, the F22 can't really fire its missiles and the biplanes can likely target the F22 at the same rate the F22 can them with its main gun... the only question is how much damage biplane grade machine guns would do to an F22, I'm guessing pretty heavy as there is limited weight for armour.... with a numbers advantage the biplanes should be able to kill the F22s on the ground... although again there is nothing stopping the F22 using its speed advantage to disengage, whislt staying on the ground and then targeting the biplanes at greater range with its superior guns.

F35s would be worse as they carry more missiles.

As ever your scenarios are stupid and lack any sense of scale or common sense.

[Archinist]

In the air F22s will kill biplans simply by flying past them too fast.



As ever your scenarios are stupid and lack any sense of scale or common sense.

How? This scenario is very good, because it is balanced and the scenarios are decent. The biplanes may have a reasonable chance in the air and an excellent chance on the ground.

[Simon_Jester]

So let's say there are a few scenarios as well as being an open-ended question. Sorry if this is a silly question, but I have some reasons at the bottom of the thread.

Scenario 1: a very rich man is enjoying his $100 trillion yacht when there is a strange growling in the air and 4 biplanes slowly fly over and shoot his yacht just once, so that the rich man can watch his yacht slowly slowly sink into the ocean. But then there is a terrible thunder in the sky and a pair of modernized F-22's fly over the yacht, flipping it over and killing the man.

2: A group of WW1 Nazis (???) capture a man inside his home and tell him of a airplane dogfight that will take place in the area soon. They place bets that if their own planes win, they will torture and execute the man, but if their planes lose, they will execute themselves. They have been told that the enemy is equipped with 3 biplanes, and the Nazis have 10 biplanes. But something is not quite right about the 3 biplanes as they appear to float away from the ground... (F-35B)

3: A WW1 Nazi flagship, separated from it's fleet by a mighty storm of blue electricity that none of the world has ever seen before lands upon a helpless Australian fishing village and pillages the village, committing many awful atrocities there. But then there is a strange roaring in the sky, and 20 modernized CAS A-10 warts, 5 B-2 bombers, 40 F-22s, 10 F-35Bs, and 20 Ospreys with 20 marines inside and 10 CH-47D chinooks carrying 1 modernized stryker and 10 soldiers + AFV crew each.

BONUS SCENARIO: 10 biplanes and 2 latest F-22s are placed on a massive square asphalt surface, 100 meters apart, and none can fly. What happens here?

Okay, so at first I decided to google how typical vs. matches of biplanes against modern fighters thinking that provided reasonable numbers that the F-22 should win easily. But no, apparently according to some websites, the F-22 missiles won't lock onto the old planes for some reason, the F-22 is flying too fast and will crash/miss the biplanes, the biplanes are better at airshows therefore better at aerial combat, and some very confident people that said the biplanes have lots of machine guns, therefore the F-22s won't be able to dodge the sheer amount of lead?

So, according to some forums, a modern jet against 5+ biplanes isn't so bad, after all. How well do you think it would do? Would the biplane pilots be frightened by the jet fighter, or they would be just think it was a highly advanced biplane? How well would the biplane's guns do against a F-22? (or any year 2000+ jet fighter)

Archinist, please start taking your meds, stop trolling, or both.

The details just make this stupider. Pretending that "very confident people" have said the dumb things you're saying don't make things more credible.

[Archinist]

bv

Archinist, please start taking your meds, stop trolling, or both.

The details just make this stupider. Pretending that "very confident people" have said the dumb things you're saying don't make things more credible.

But they have, though and I'm just asking if that's possible. It makes sense that a modern F-22 fighter might have trouble firing a gun at a much slower biplane, and that missiles might have trouble locking onto a wooden biplane. Also I saw it on a gamespot forum, so they're probably not the most accurate. I thought that rational, sensible details would make the thread better?

[Vendetta]

How? This scenario is very good, because it is balanced and the scenarios are decent. The biplanes may have a reasonable chance in the air and an excellent chance on the ground.

The pressure wave of a close supersonic flypast would tear the wings off any WWI (or even WWII) fighter aircraft. A modern fighter would not need to fire its guns or missiles, it could destroy WWI fighters simply by flying near them.

[Jub]

Is nobody going to point of that the Nazi party, and thus Nazis, didn't exist in WWI? Not only can Dumber than a Parrot not make an interesting scenario, he also can't use google to figure out that it was the German Empire that fought in WWI...

[VX-145]

Firstly, what fucking WW1 Nazis? Did Hitler get ahold of a time machine and decide to go get inferior equipment? Secondly, learn to use wikipedia. I've posted my sources down the bottom, next time you feel like providing a scenario like this do a similar amount of research. It took me less than five minutes; in fact typing this sentence took longer than the research.

The relevant incident you're perhaps talking about with a biplane beating a jet fighter happened during the Korean War, where a North Korean reconnaissance biplane managed to bait an early-model jet into crashing. That particular jet wasn't armed with air-to-air missiles according to Wiki, nor even a gun. Seriously.

Anyway, the deciding factor in air-to-air engagements is not manoeuvrability but speed, which the F-22 has in spades and the biplanes do not. It doesn't matter how fast a biplane can turn because the F-22 isn't going to get into a turnfight - it's just going to make one pass, pull away before the biplane can react, and make another pass.

Scenario 1: Why does the yacht even exist? It adds literally nothing to this scenario other than a gratuitous "fuck the rich", which while certainly a valid perspective is not really necessary in a scenario involving the fucking Nazis. Christ. Anyway, jets win because even if the biplanes manage to get a shot off (they won't), WW1 aircraft had notoriously bad sights and they're using at the absolute most four 7.7mm machine guns, which isn't remotely enough to "fill the air with lead". The F-22 pilots wonder why the utter fuck the 100 trillion yacht didn't have air defence systems given that it was such an investment that losing it probably bankrupted a superpower, go home to try to pretend they had nothing to do with it, and down the biplanes by accident when they go supersonic. Total losses: some fuel.

Scenario 2: F-35s lose because the F-35 is a terrible design. Okay, hyperbole, the jets still win because the biplanes are just that slow. Yes, even the F-35 with its many design flaws can beat a ww1 biplane. For comparison, the F-35A (reference model) is capable of breaking the sound barrier with a top speed of nearly 2000km/h. The Fokker D.VII biplane - the very latest in WW1 biplane technology - can get to 200 km/h. The difference is literally an order of magnitude. Total losses: firstly the fuel involved, then the F-35s as they crash on the way back. The universe finally realised that it let an F-35 fly and corrected itself.

Scenario 3: The B-2s drop their bombs from well above the WW1 Nazi(?!) flagship (???)'s effective AA defences. Given it's specifically a first world war ship, it doesn't even have air defences. Again, hyperbole, but not much so - the Bayern class, for example (again the latest in ww1 battleship technology), was equipped with just two AA guns with an effective range of 9k metres. The B-2 can fly at 15k metres. The rest of the force leaves it to the B-2s, who destroy the battleship in one pass. The remaining Nazis, presumably in the fishing village, see this and surrender. Assuming they're brainwashed SS and don't, the A-10s destroy any strongpoints while the infantry cleans up. Total losses: some infantry, a fishing village and a few tens of thousands of dollars worth of ordnance.

Bonus scenario: Literally the only scenario where the biplanes even have a snowball's chance in hell, although it's far more likely that they surrender once they see just how devastating the 20mm rotary cannons on the F-22s are. One hit from one of those will render the biplane useless. All the surviving pilots quickly realise they're in an Archnist scenario and kill themselves out of shame.

Sources: Wiki articles, Bayern class dreadnought, F-35, B-2, Po-2, F-94 Starfire, Fokker D.VII. Didn't even bother lookup up the stats for the F-22.

[Tribble]

So let's say there are a few scenarios as well as being an open-ended question. Sorry if this is a silly question, but I have some reasons at the bottom of the thread.

Oh not to worry, silly questions and retarded scenarios seem to be your specialty.

Scenario 1: a very rich man is enjoying his $100 trillion yacht when there is a strange growling in the air and 4 biplanes slowly fly over and shoot his yacht just once, so that the rich man can watch his yacht slowly slowly sink into the ocean. But then there is a terrible thunder in the sky and a pair of modernized F-22's fly over the yacht, flipping it over and killing the man.

..... And? That's not a scenario, just a set of stupid facts. Are the planes fighting, or did they just fly overhead? Assuming that there was some kind of dogfight going on, the F-22's destroy the biplanes by either shooting them with machine gun fire or just flying over them at high speed. End of story.

2: A group of WW1 Nazis (???) capture a man inside his home and tell him of a airplane dogfight that will take place in the area soon.

Yes, I am also quite surprised that a group of WW1 Nazis captured a man inside his home, especially considering the Nazi organization did not form until after WW1. You are apparently to write, but have you ever actually picked up a book and read it? You should try it sometime.

They place bets that if their own planes win, they will torture and execute the man, but if their planes lose, they will execute themselves.

...because Nazis are so well known for keeping their word. Chances are they will shoot the man either way and move on. Btw, what's the whole point of this little side-quest? Is the man supposed to try and escape or something?

They have been told that the enemy is equipped with 3 biplanes, and the Nazis have 10 biplanes. But something is not quite right about the 3 biplanes as they appear to float away from the ground... (F-35B)

F-35s destroy the biplanes and move on, wondering what they were wasting their ammo for. End of story.

3: A WW1 Nazi flagship, separated from it's fleet by a mighty storm of blue electricity that none of the world has ever seen before lands upon a helpless Australian fishing village and pillages the village, committing many awful atrocities there.

..... ok? Again, Nazis did not exist during WW1. And what exactly is a "WW1 Nazi flagship"? I'm going to assume it's some kind of warship maybe? Or a blimp? Either way it doesn't matter - No single piece of WW1 era tech is remotely a match for the forces described below. Are you on acid?

But then there is a strange roaring in the sky, and 20 modernized CAS A-10 warts, 5 B-2 bombers, 40 F-22s, 10 F-35Bs, and 20 Ospreys with 20 marines inside and 10 CH-47D chinooks carrying 1 modernized stryker and 10 soldiers + AFV crew each.

..... And? Again you're just describing what's there, not what their objectives are. I'll assume they are all against this "WW1 Nazi Flagship," in which case all but one of them go off to do more important things while the last one takes a few seconds to blow it up before going on to do more important things. End of story.

BONUS SCENARIO: 10 biplanes and 2 latest F-22s are placed on a massive square asphalt surface, 100 meters apart, and none can fly. What happens here?

The only scenario where the biplanes have a chance. If all 10 of them star firing on the F-22s immediately and are able to score hits, presuming the WW1 era machine gun fire is able to penetrate the F-22's armour they should be able to take them about before the F-22s are able to take them all out. However, the F-22s are likely still a lot faster while on the ground than the biplanes, and they might be able to disengage by driving away at high speed. I imagine that the machine guns carried on the F22's would have far greater range and firepower than the biplanes, so if they are able to get away they would likely win.

Okay, so at first I decided to google how typical vs. matches of biplanes against modern fighters thinking that provided reasonable numbers that the F-22 should win easily. But no, apparently according to some websites, the F-22 missiles won't lock onto the old planes for some reason, the F-22 is flying too fast and will crash/miss the biplanes, the biplanes are better at airshows therefore better at aerial combat, and some very confident people that said the biplanes have lots of machine guns, therefore the F-22s won't be able to dodge the sheer amount of lead?

So, according to some forums, a modern jet against 5+ biplanes isn't so bad, after all. How well do you think it would do? Would the biplane pilots be frightened by the jet fighter, or they would be just think it was a highly advanced biplane? How well would the biplane's guns do against a F-22? (or any year 2000+ jet fighter)

As others have pointed out, the F-22s would be able to knock them out of the sky just by flying overhead or shooting them with their machine guns. More importantly, the F-22's won't have to engage the biplanes in a dogfight at all - they are able to fly far faster and higher than the biplanes can, and are even capable of VTOL. The F-22s would be able to dictate the range of the fight, and any competent pilot would make sure to keep themselves out the range rang of the bi-planes when attacking. The biplane pilots probably won't even know what hit them as the F22's attack from above and behind. The F-22s really shouldn't be at risk here unless for some asinine reason they decided to play chicken and go head-to-head with the biplanes.

How? This scenario is very good, because it is balanced and the scenarios are decent. The biplanes may have a reasonable chance in the air and an excellent chance on the ground.

No it's not, the F-22s are far superior in every respect, and even if they are unable to use their missles they'll be able to kill the bi-planes without risk because they can easily dictate the range and altitude of the fight. Even on the ground the F22s should be able to haul ass away and dictate the range of the fight.


Hell, you're not even aware of the fact that the Nazi Party was formed after World War One. See this parrot?





Based on your posts on this forum so far, chances are it's a lot smarter than you.

Is nobody going to point of that the Nazi party, and thus Nazis, didn't exist in WWI? Not only can Dumber than a Parrot not make an interesting scenario, he also can't use google to figure out that it was the German Empire that fought in WWI...

My post took longer to type than yours, which is why you beat me to it

[Lagmonster]

Oddly, here's how I stand as administration.

First off, we have a "no dogpiling" rule. Mocking the idea is fine, provided you write more than "dis dumb an you dumb". Ignoring a thread is always an option if you cannot stand it. If enough people stop replying, the problem becomes one of spam control, which the administration will deal with.

But as long as someone is willing to engage, and Captain LSD up there doesn't ignore any more rebuttals or replies the forum rules still apply. That's a hint to you, Archinist. If someone replies meaningfully to your posting, and you don't agree with or understand the argument, it's up to you to reply meaningfully. If you can't do that, concede. That doesn't mean "fade out of the thread and start a new one". It means concede the thread. If you continue to engage, and you don't respect the forum rules regarding debating, you will be told to stop.

[Tribble]

You know, I don't think it's the scenario itself so much as the way it's being presented. It's not that the scenario is "WW1 biplanes vs Modern Jets" that annoys me, it's that:

A) You clearly did not do your research (WW1 Nazis indeed).

Rule #1 when making a scenario - know the material well enough to make the scenario plausible. Doesn't matter whether it's real life or fantasy, if you don't know what you are talking about it shows. If you just assumed that the One Ring gave Frodo the ability to sprout wings, fly and shoot laser beams out of his eyes and you put that into your scenario because you can't be bothered to read the LOTR wiki and fact check, it can come across as stupid, even though it's fantasy.

B) The people in your scenarios are all Dumber Than Parrots.

Rule #2 when making a scenario - your characters should act like either real people, or a least act in character. Relying on people being Dumber Than Parrots in order to make the scenario work is just plain stupid. Come up with a better reason, or better yet come up with a better scenario.

C) Your scenarios are incoherent nonsense. I actually like silly scenarios, but the difference between, say, Zor and you as that with Zor there is always clearly a method to his madness, whereas your scenarios convey that you are either a child, retarded, on drugs, or just trolling. If you want to make some wacky scenarios that's fine, maybe you should just act some of us for advice before posting them.

[Adam Reynolds]

I thought about going in more detail, but as Archinist clearly is an idiot, it isn't worth the time. But I have to point out this. Archinist, do you have any knowledge about anything? How can anyone think Nazis were in power in the First World War? I can almost understand some of the other ideas, if also very foolish, but that is something so obvious as to make you look like an utter moron.

There is something of an interesting idea here, though Archinist isn't clever enough to realize it. The idea of mass numbers against the F-22 is an interesting one, because while the plane would be nearly impossible to shoot down, it only carries 6+2 air to air missiles. Swarming tactics, especially if it used cheap and thus expendable drones and decoys, would be an interesting counter to the F-22. Though there are a few potential solutions for the USAF, none have been fully developed because of budget limitations. One simple option is the ability to carry double missiles on one internal pylon, which will likely be developed for the F-35 before the F-22.

Also, with respect to the Zor comparison, Zor's comparisons(at least lately) are also usually about strengths and weaknesses of centralized and decentralized systems. Which are often somewhat interesting.

[Simon_Jester]

The practical reality is that the F-22 is unlikely to ever need to shoot down more than eight (or for that matter four) enemy fighters in a single sortie. Realistic, historical air to air kill rates are much lower than that with a handful of exceptions, and F-22s are deployed in groups, so the total missile firepower available adds up quickly.

Moreover, in any theater of real warfare, the F-22s will be backed up by hosts of multirole fighters that can carry air to air missiles. So if the threat is low-capability planes in huge numbers, everything that can carry a Sidewinder gets launched, and the resulting missile spam will be enough to inflict unacceptable losses on the enemy weak-plane spam.

The only time you actually needed an F-22 to be the plane that brings the missiles to the table is if the enemy's planes are themselves high-capability aircraft. In which case shooting down four or six of them is a Big Deal, and the enemy simply won't have hundreds of them at a time in the air at once for you to need to worry about shooting down.

Huge swarms of weak manned aircraft (i.e 1000 Piper Cubs with a bomb on board) will take such massive losses to attrition that you won't be able to make them effective. Huge swarms of weak unmanned aircraft (i.e. 1000 drones with bombs on board) are called "cruise missiles," and intercepting them is usually its own problem. Among other things because you do it with a combination of flying interceptors and ground-based air defense systems.

Oddly, here's how I stand as administration.

First off, we have a "no dogpiling" rule. Mocking the idea is fine, provided you write more than "dis dumb an you dumb". Ignoring a thread is always an option if you cannot stand it. If enough people stop replying, the problem becomes one of spam control, which the administration will deal with.

My apologies; I should bear that in mind in future.

[Sea Skimmer]

F-22 can carry 12 missiles, 16 on paper if the outer wing stations actually got equipped with launchers, which has never happened for lack money or need. Not like it needs to be stealthy against people with no radar. There is no way to increase the internal payload count without designing clean sheet new missiles.

The F-35 could get a doubled internal AMRAAM launcher in the future because its weapons bay is physically fatter to hold larger air to ground weapons. The F-22 can take a 1000lb bomb max and has a wider single main bay, the F-35A/C can carry internal 2,000lb bombs in each internal bay, the B version has a weapons bay fat enough for this but not long enough (required weight saving change), so it can take the doubled AMRAAM but only a 1,000lb JDAM. The USMC never had any real requirement for the 2,000lb bomb anyway; but it also means a four rack of SDB-1 won't fit either, SDB-2 is being designed shorter specifically to cover this. SDB-2 is just silly in the level of anti tank firepower were reaching.

The air to air argument is largely irrelevant because an F-22 has enough radar range to cover the entire combat flying radius of typical WW1 biplanes. So it can stand off, watch where they come and go from, and then go attack the bases with impunity as soon as they land. It's got air to ground imaging modes so high resolution that would be able to show the aircraft parked through cloud cover and some trees once the general airfield location was known. Facilities and mechanics were always in tight supply, destroying those that exist is extremely crippling. It was not at all like even WW2, where people had up to several hundred mechanics ect...per squadron. F-22 can bomb and strafe at will and pretty single offensive F-22 sortie would shut down a whole enemy squadron. This is also pretty relevant to the F-22 employment against modern jets; though with more work by other assets to actually attack the enemy airfields.

Actually shooting down a biplane with cannon fire would be hard, simply because the biplane is so slow and yet very agile compared to the minimal F-22 flying speeds. However most of the time the biplanes would have no idea they are under attack and easy pickings. Missiles will all certainly work.

The problem with using drones and other spam against the F-22 is simply that to have enough range and speed to actually cover the F-22 refueled mission radius in a useful amount of time, probably call that 750nm, you end up with something pretty damn serious drone wise. At the moment the US has a huge advantage in that field because it makes the best families of small turbofans. This is how we get the 2,200lb JASSM-ER/LRASM 500nm range missiles now, previously only large cruise missiles in the US had used turbofans. Just about all foreign cruise missiles and small drones are still using turbojets for cost and producability reasons. So idea workable...but it's not a very cheap idea and still depends on putting up some kind of opposition to the F-22 directly, otherwise the F-22 supercruise is absolutely idea for knocking down cruise missile attacks. It and the MiG-31 are the only planes you could really call good at it. Large scale networking of SAM sites + airborne sensors would provide a good counter, but again only the US is known to have made serious progress doing this. It's not easy, the radars on the missiles themselves just can't see all that far, a huge amount of total system precision is needed to lob them OTH.

Multistatic radar drones will probably eventually render stealth moot in full scale battles, but actually making moving drone formations work like that while the enemy has jammers active is a programming and data transmission nightmare still to be overcome. It would also be hard for said drones to survive in an offensive role. Since they are emitting radar constantly and all.

[Darth Tanner]

How? This scenario is very good, because it is balanced and the scenarios are decent. The biplanes may have a reasonable chance in the air and an excellent chance on the ground.

You seem to have ignored every single response. There is no means by which any number of biplanes could engage a modern fighter jet except in the arbitrary scenario of them fighting on the ground. You could have 5 million biplanes and the F22 would still win as it could out endure them after wiping out huge numbers of them via sonic boom and cannon fire. Can you explain why you would be silly enough to think a modern fighter jet would only be a reasonable match for biplanes?

[Raw Shark]

This scenario is very good, because it is balanced and the scenarios are decent. The biplanes may have a reasonable chance in the air and an excellent chance on the ground.

Pass that shit to the left-hand side, son. I could use a good hit after this weekend.

[Enigma]

Archivist is rapidly approaching JasonB levels of stupidity. He's not just dumber than parrots, he's dumber than a bag of dead parrots.

Bi-planes will lose every engagement against any type of fighter jet (that I know of). Even attack choppers would have a hell of a fun time with the bi-planes before the chopper pilot gets bored and shoots it down.

Before posting crap like this, think first. Does this scenario really make any sense? Would it be feasible? It is one thing to post David versus Goliath type scenarios, it is another to have scenarios that have David being blind, deaf, mute and have no limbs and is severely mentally retarded up against a heavily armored Goliath wielding an assault rifle.

Think first, then post. Not post first, then drool.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Also, your second scenario... what the fuck is a WWI Nazi flagship?

In Archinist World, the Nazis took over in the 1900s, instead the 1930s, like in the real world.


And, the Australia of Archinist World lacks armed forces of any kind, including squadrons of Super Hornets (and potentially Lightning IIs), and regiment of regular troops and SAS who would naturally be the first to respond to such a threat in the real world we all know and love.

[Zwinmar]

I can think of one instance when a scenario like this could happen, baring the b.s. of Nazi's somehow time traveling back to WWI.

Namely, Warthunder and Gaijin pulling their usual crap.

[Broomstick]

OK, I am going to totally ignore the scenario bullshit and just answer the title's question:

How effective would WW1 biplanes be against modern fighters such as a F-22?

And my reply is:

Er... ha. Ha ha... tee hee >snort< guffaw ha ha HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

By the way, please note that my avatar is an actual picture of actual me actually preparing to fly a biplane. OK, it was a 1942 PT17 Stearman and not a WWI fighter but honest to god that Stearman hasn't a fucking chance against an F-22 and at that it's better built, faster, and more of a fighter than anything that flew before 1916.

WWI fighters were made of wood and silk. Accidentally ripping the cloth covering of an airplane is still a concern with modern Dacron and the like, even more so back in WWI. The wake from a cruising modern fighter, F-16 on up, has been known to literally tear apart small airplanes. The F-22's don't even have to shoot, they can just kick in the afterburners and do a fly-by. The speed of the air in their wake vortices would exceed the never-exceed speed of WWI biplane winds by a comfortable margin, the "never-exceed" speed being the airspeed at which the plane starts to either experience control-lock-up, suffer permanent damage, or spontaneously disassemble.* Also, jet exhaust is very hot, it would instantly ignite a dope-and-paint-covered silk and wood airplane if it hit the plane.

Would WWI era fighters be afraid of a jet? Well, quite likely but fear never stopped those guys. They wouldn't know what was providing power to it, as there's no propellor, but monoplanes and weirder shapes existed back then. I think their reaction to seeing their first jet would be the same as Chuck Yaeger's - shoot it down. Except, unlike Yaeger, they wouldn't have a fucking chance.

The only hope the biplanes would have would be either a very lucky shot - unlikely, because they'll have zero experience with anything moving that fast and it was hard enough to manually line up a shot for something moving at WWI speed in a rickety, vibrating, shaking airplane. Or they could attempt to ram one of the F-22's - again, unlikely due to zero experience with aiming at/leading something that fast. That is, in fact, why F-22's and the like have avionics equipment to assist them in targeting - even trained humans would find it difficult to impossible to successfully aim at something moving that fucking fast.

Again - all the F-22's have to do is fly by really fast, maybe fishtail a smidge to whap the bipes with their exhaust, and the WWI guys are literally toasted. And falling out of the sky in pieces. Flaming pieces.



* Actually, the damage/disassembly is supposed to hold off until 150% of Vne but you're a goddamned fool if you fuck with that limit to any degree.

[Tribble]

Before posting crap like this, think first. Does this scenario really make any sense? Would it be feasible? It is one thing to post David versus Goliath type scenarios, it is another to have scenarios that have David being blind, deaf, mute and have no limbs and is severely mentally retarded up against a heavily armored Goliath wielding an assault rifle.

David can still win that scenario, all he has to do is get Goliath to trip over his body and with any luck Goliath will break his neck in the fall.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Before posting crap like this, think first. Does this scenario really make any sense? Would it be feasible? It is one thing to post David versus Goliath type scenarios, it is another to have scenarios that have David being blind, deaf, mute and have no limbs and is severely mentally retarded up against a heavily armored Goliath wielding an assault rifle.

David can still win that scenario, all he has to do is get Goliath to trip over his body and with any luck Goliath will break his neck in the fall.

And, crush David like a wine press in the process, since he's unable to get out of the way, and too stupid to realize he needs to do so.