WWII Aircraft still useful

[Charles Talleyrand]

Suppose someone was willing to give a modern air force a bunch of
planes from WWII. The Luftwaffe can have several hundred
Fw-190s. The US can have a pile of Catalina's (or DC-3s). The British can
have as many Mosquitoes as they want.

Are there any WWII aircraft that could still be useful in a modern
war? Can a Fw-190 compete with an A-10/AH-64 if we're giving
away Fw-190s? Can a B-29 do the same mission as an MC-130,
if we're giving away B-29s but you still have to maintain them?

Is there any WWII aircraft that would still be useful today?

[Cub Driver]

>Are there any WWII aircraft that could still be useful in a modern
>war?

Storch.

C-47.

Skyraider (AD-1) -- not operational before 1945, but in the pipeline


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Keith Willshaw]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> Suppose someone was willing to give a modern air force a bunch of
> planes from WWII. The Luftwaffe can have several hundred
> Fw-190s. The US can have a pile of Catalina's (or DC-3s). The British
can
> have as many Mosquitoes as they want.
>
> Are there any WWII aircraft that could still be useful in a modern
> war?

Against a modern air defence system ?

Nope

> Can a Fw-190 compete with an A-10/AH-64 if we're giving
> away Fw-190s?

Unguided rockets and bombs that require you overfly
the target versus FLIR packages and guided weapons.
What do you think ?

> Can a B-29 do the same mission as an MC-130,
> if we're giving away B-29s but you still have to maintain them?
>

Nope

>
> Is there any WWII aircraft that would still be useful today?
>

DC-3 for transport usage

Keith

[David Bromage]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> Is there any WWII aircraft that would still be useful today?

Some air forces still use C-47s.

Cheers
David

[robert arndt]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Suppose someone was willing to give a modern air force a bunch of
> > planes from WWII. The Luftwaffe can have several hundred
> > Fw-190s. The US can have a pile of Catalina's (or DC-3s). The British
> can
> > have as many Mosquitoes as they want.
> >
> > Are there any WWII aircraft that could still be useful in a modern
> > war?
>
> Against a modern air defence system ?
>
> Nope
>

> Keith

Again, more words of ignorance spoken like the non-authority Keith is.
Hey Keith, it has already been done. On May 28, 1987 Matthias Rust, a
West German amatuer pilot, took his unarmed Cessna and flew 400 miles
through the USSR's air defenses (the world's greatest)to land on Red
Square.
We all know that if he had carried a nuke Moscow would have been
history.
No US military pilot had ever or will ever accomplish a similar feat.

Rob

God, I love proving Keith wrong. By all means Keith, keep saying
"No/Nope" :)

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Suppose someone was willing to give a modern air force a bunch of
> > > planes from WWII. The Luftwaffe can have several hundred
> > > Fw-190s. The US can have a pile of Catalina's (or DC-3s). The
British
> > can
> > > have as many Mosquitoes as they want.
> > >
> > > Are there any WWII aircraft that could still be useful in a modern
> > > war?
> >
> > Against a modern air defence system ?
> >
> > Nope
> >
>
> > Keith
>
> Again, more words of ignorance spoken like the non-authority Keith is.
> Hey Keith, it has already been done. On May 28, 1987 Matthias Rust, a
> West German amatuer pilot, took his unarmed Cessna and flew 400 miles
> through the USSR's air defenses (the world's greatest)to land on Red
> Square.
> We all know that if he had carried a nuke Moscow would have been
> history.

I doubt you would volunteer to fly a Cessna into combat
in a modern air defence environment, I know I wouldnt

> No US military pilot had ever or will ever accomplish a similar feat.
>

I would sincerely hope not. I dont relish the prospect
of global nuclear war.

Keith

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 1/9/2004 8:49 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
>> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Suppose someone was willing to give a modern air force a bunch of
>> > planes from WWII. The Luftwaffe can have several hundred
>> > Fw-190s. The US can have a pile of Catalina's (or DC-3s). The British
>> can
>> > have as many Mosquitoes as they want.
>> >
>> > Are there any WWII aircraft that could still be useful in a modern
>> > war?
>>
>> Against a modern air defence system ?
>>
>> Nope
>>
>
>> Keith
>
>Again, more words of ignorance spoken like the non-authority Keith is.
>Hey Keith, it has already been done. On May 28, 1987 Matthias Rust, a
>West German amatuer pilot, took his unarmed Cessna and flew 400 miles
>through the USSR's air defenses (the world's greatest)to land on Red
>Square.
>We all know that if he had carried a nuke Moscow would have been
>history.
>No US military pilot had ever or will ever accomplish a similar feat.
>
>Rob
>
>God, I love proving Keith wrong. By all means Keith, keep saying
>"No/Nope" :)
>

If you checked the radii of the Soviet air defense radar at different altitudes
you would see it was only at low altitude like Rust used. Now then, the
question was WW2 aircraft. Rust used a post war airplane with limited payload.
Let's assume he flew a nuke in and blew Red Square apart. Gee, what an
accomplishment to start WW3. It was an entirely impractical act. If you are
going to give an example make it valid.

BTW, I believe Rust went nuts and stabbed someone about 10 years ago.


>No US military pilot had ever or will ever accomplish a similar feat.

U.S. Military pilots have been doing similar things during time of war for
decades. Prove me wrong.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Chris Mark]

>From: David Bromage

>Some air forces still use C-47s.

Do any still use C-54s or C-46s?


Chris Mark

[Walter Kotiaho]

(robert arndt) writes:
> Again, more words of ignorance spoken like the non-authority Keith is.
> Hey Keith, it has already been done. On May 28, 1987 Matthias Rust, a
> West German amatuer pilot, took his unarmed Cessna and flew 400 miles
> through the USSR's air defenses (the world's greatest)to land on Red
> Square.

When Rust did this wery flight, he took off at Helsinki, flew along
the Gulf of Finland to Leningrad (now St Petersburg), then sought
the railway track going to Moscow, which is practically very much
a straight line, and simply flew along the track to Moscow.

When Rust was flying somewhere close to Leningrad, he was catched
by two MiGs. The MiGs spinned for a while around the Cessna and
then simply let it be. I guess that a lonely Cessna was a very
confusing sight to MiG pilots and their commanders just did'n know
what to do.

Just a few years before there had been the shameful tragedy when
soviet fighter shot down the korean passenger plane on the Japan Sea.
I think that soviets wanted to avoid, as much as ever possible,
anything like that happening again. Maybe this was a major
reason why an odd Cessna could fly straight through soviet
defence.
--
Walter

[Ad absurdum per aspera]

> Suppose someone was willing to give a modern air force a bunch of
> planes from WWII. Are there any WWII aircraft that could still
> be useful in a modern war?

This response assumes that by "modern war" you mean a fight against an
enemy who knows he's at war and has meaningful radar-based
surface-to-air and air-to-air assets. The former criterion lets out
sucker-punching an undefended target in terrorist/insurgent fashion
(postmodern war?). The latter criterion excludes third-world
uglinesses whose technological level doesn't extend to SAMs and modern
AAA and jet fighters.


Period fighters would be pretty useless against modern ones except in
"golden BB" scenarios. They might be able to evade and survive, but
merely surviving isn't accomplishing a mission. With their energy,
armament, and sensor and guidance systems based on slight
augmentation of the Mk I Eyeball, it's hard to imagine what they'd
have to say either offensively or defensively to an intelligently
flown jet. ("Intelligently flown"? Well, I suppose that if the jet
pilot were silly enough to play to their strengths while ignoring his
own...) If the jet were pantsed by circumstance (taken unawares in a
low energy state, or running on the memory of where the fuel used to
be and thus unable to fight, or whatnot), that too would work, but
overall one may bet heavily even on early jets.


Something to game on a rainy day would be a saturation attack on a
point target such as a CV battle group using large numbers of
attack-capable fighters, torpedo bombers, or dive bombers. You might
score, though probably at terrible cost. How you would marshal a
suitably large force undetected is another question entirely, and
that's probably what puts it into the realm of paperbacks.


Heavy bombers of the period trying to drop iron bombs over defended
enemy territory today -- sounds like a silly waste of men and
machines even if escorted by period fighters. They might be useful
as ALCM trucks if they could launch before being intercepted. Some of
them could certainly still give yeomanlike service in antisubmarine
warfare if granted modern sensors and weapons, or as ELINT or AEW
platforms.


Many of the twin-engine cargo planes could play a role in theater
airlift if nothing more modern were available, and could drop
paratroopers.

Strategic airlift in those days was a technology-limited embryonic
notion, with converted bombers hauling small amounts of stuff at the
speed of a mortified tortoise. Aircraft that were follow-ons of WWII
aircraft were successfully used as tankers for jet fighters, but it
was a hairy enough proposition that the advent of the KC-135 was a big
improvement.


All in all, there are reasons jets and turboshafts elbowed their
recip/prop predecessors into niche combat roles, and ultimately into
the surplus market, as their capabilities improved. Their speed and
power let you do more and have better odds of surviving the attempt.


> but you still have to maintain them?

Ah, there's yet another question: whether these aircraft (no longer
widely familiar, and not always easy to operate or to maintain) come
out of the time warp with their aircrew, ground crew, spares, and a
lot of high octane?

Cheers,
--Joe

[David Bromage]

Ad absurdum per aspera wrote:
> Many of the twin-engine cargo planes could play a role in theater
> airlift if nothing more modern were available, and could drop
> paratroopers.

There are several hundred An-2s in military service around the world,
and being a 1947 design could be considered to be almost WW2 vintage.

Cheers
David

[John Keeney]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> Suppose someone was willing to give a modern air force a bunch of
> planes from WWII. The Luftwaffe can have several hundred
> Fw-190s. The US can have a pile of Catalina's (or DC-3s). The British
can
> have as many Mosquitoes as they want.
>
> Are there any WWII aircraft that could still be useful in a modern
> war? Can a Fw-190 compete with an A-10/AH-64 if we're giving
> away Fw-190s? Can a B-29 do the same mission as an MC-130,
> if we're giving away B-29s but you still have to maintain them?
>
> Is there any WWII aircraft that would still be useful today?

As fielded in WWII, probably some of the transport such as the C-47.

Upgraded with modern avionics?
Well, perhaps the versions of the B-25 with a 75mm canon
could play a CAS role but they would more vulnerable than
current A-10s and survivable techniques would take some
working up.

[robert arndt]

> >Again, more words of ignorance spoken like the non-authority Keith is.
> >Hey Keith, it has already been done. On May 28, 1987 Matthias Rust, a
> >West German amatuer pilot, took his unarmed Cessna and flew 400 miles
> >through the USSR's air defenses (the world's greatest)to land on Red
> >Square.
> >We all know that if he had carried a nuke Moscow would have been
> >history.
> >No US military pilot had ever or will ever accomplish a similar feat.
> >
> >Rob
> >
> >God, I love proving Keith wrong. By all means Keith, keep saying
> >"No/Nope" :)
> >
>
> If you checked the radii of the Soviet air defense radar at different altitudes
> you would see it was only at low altitude like Rust used. Now then, the
> question was WW2 aircraft. Rust used a post war airplane with limited payload.
> Let's assume he flew a nuke in and blew Red Square apart. Gee, what an
> accomplishment to start WW3. It was an entirely impractical act. If you are
> going to give an example make it valid.
>
> BTW, I believe Rust went nuts and stabbed someone about 10 years ago.
>
>
> >No US military pilot had ever or will ever accomplish a similar feat.
>
> U.S. Military pilots have been doing similar things during time of war for
> decades. Prove me wrong.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

What US military pilot flew through 400 miles of the USSR's air
defense network and landed in Red Square? Even the SR-71 was reduced
to spying with side-looking cameras outside Soviet airspace.
Done.

Rob

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 1/10/2004 9:07 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>> >Again, more words of ignorance spoken like the non-authority Keith is.
>> >Hey Keith, it has already been done. On May 28, 1987 Matthias Rust, a
>> >West German amatuer pilot, took his unarmed Cessna and flew 400 miles
>> >through the USSR's air defenses (the world's greatest)to land on Red
>> >Square.
>> >We all know that if he had carried a nuke Moscow would have been
>> >history.
>> >No US military pilot had ever or will ever accomplish a similar feat.
>> >
>> >Rob
>> >
>> >God, I love proving Keith wrong. By all means Keith, keep saying
>> >"No/Nope" :)
>> >
>>
>> If you checked the radii of the Soviet air defense radar at different
>altitudes
>> you would see it was only at low altitude like Rust used. Now then, the
>> question was WW2 aircraft. Rust used a post war airplane with limited
>payload.
>> Let's assume he flew a nuke in and blew Red Square apart. Gee, what an
>> accomplishment to start WW3. It was an entirely impractical act. If you are
>> going to give an example make it valid.
>>
>> BTW, I believe Rust went nuts and stabbed someone about 10 years ago.
>>
>>
>> >No US military pilot had ever or will ever accomplish a similar feat.
>>
>> U.S. Military pilots have been doing similar things during time of war for
>> decades. Prove me wrong.
>>
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>What US military pilot flew through 400 miles of the USSR's air
>defense network and landed in Red Square? Even the SR-71 was reduced
>to spying with side-looking cameras outside Soviet airspace.
>Done.
>
>Rob
>
I said similar, not same.

I suggest you look at Bird Dog missions during Viet Nam and similar in WW2 and
Korea.

The Soviets DID track him but he was not worth shooting down.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:49:16 -0000, "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>
>"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
>> Suppose someone was willing to give a modern air force a bunch of
>> planes from WWII. The Luftwaffe can have several hundred
>> Fw-190s. The US can have a pile of Catalina's (or DC-3s). The British
>can
>> have as many Mosquitoes as they want.
>>
>> Are there any WWII aircraft that could still be useful in a modern
>> war?
>
>Against a modern air defence system ?
>
>Nope
>
>> Can a Fw-190 compete with an A-10/AH-64 if we're giving
>> away Fw-190s?
>
>Unguided rockets and bombs that require you overfly
>the target versus FLIR packages and guided weapons.
>What do you think ?
>
>> Can a B-29 do the same mission as an MC-130,
>> if we're giving away B-29s but you still have to maintain them?
>>
>
>Nope
>
>>
>> Is there any WWII aircraft that would still be useful today?
>>
>
>DC-3 for transport usage
>
>Keith
>
Piper Cub. I don't know what you could use it for, but it
sure is fun :-)

Al Minyard