China developing 180,000-ton catamaran aircraft carrier

[Ideologue]

On what, pogo sticks?

[Ed Anger]

Fuckers couldn't even crash an EP-3.

[Neil]

I'm sure that the B-29 would be very vulnerable to modern shoulder-mounted AA missiles, which the Russians, Chinese and Raytheon would be only too happy to provide them.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm sure that the B-29 would be very vulnerable to modern shoulder-mounted AA missiles, which the Russians, Chinese and Raytheon would be only too happy to provide them.

You think those things could reach the B-29s altitude? I tend to think not.

[Neil]

I'm sure that the B-29 would be very vulnerable to modern shoulder-mounted AA missiles, which the Russians, Chinese and Raytheon would be only too happy to provide them.

You think those things could reach the B-29s altitude? I tend to think not.

I'm not sure what the max altitude is on a stinger.  Still, I'm sure the Russians, Chinese or some US company would have something that could handle the B-29.

[dps]

Anything that's heat seeking would actually be more effective against a jet aircraft than a piston-powered plane.

[Ideologue]

The point is that you can lose one a day and it's, like, no big deal.

Max range of a Stinger is something around 17,000 feet, btw (and they have UV sensors as well as IR, but I imagine that's even less useful against a piston engine aircraft).

[Viking]

The Original Stealth Fighter

[Viking]

I'm sure that the B-29 would be very vulnerable to modern shoulder-mounted AA missiles, which the Russians, Chinese and Raytheon would be only too happy to provide them.

the crappy little warheads on the modern things are designed to fuck up high rpm finely machined turbine engines as you find in helicopters and jet planes. Trying to take down a WW2 bomber would probably require multiple hits with missiles.. in more than one engine.

[Ideologue]

I'm sure that the B-29 would be very vulnerable to modern shoulder-mounted AA missiles, which the Russians, Chinese and Raytheon would be only too happy to provide them.

the crappy little warheads on the modern things are designed to fuck up high rpm finely machined turbine engines as you find in helicopters and jet planes. Trying to take down a WW2 bomber would probably require multiple hits with missiles.. in more than one engine.

I was actually wondering about that myself, but I'm not confident in saying that a 3kg explosive would not fuck up a B-29 very badly.  It seems to me like it'd be very likely to severely damage/take off a wing.

[Viking]

A Quick study found two occasions of piston engined aircraft being brought down by shoulder held aa missiles. Both Air Rhodesia Vickers Vicounts and both being brought down by Strela 2 missiles, both planes being civilian passenger liners and in both cases all passengers died, though in one of the cases the guerillas had to go to the crash site and murder the survivors.

The Vickers Vicounts were developed from WWII era Wellington medium bombers; which were flimsy and consequently taken out of bombing duty being relegated to being naval patrol aircraft.

Though both these cases seem to have been at low altitude during take-off or gaining altitude after take off. Plus, the engines and fuselages on Fortresses and Lancasters were considerably sturdier.

[Admiral Yi]

I was unaware the Strela was that old.

[Siege]

Stingers are only good against choppers.

I don't think there is any fixed wing aircraft kill on record for stingers.
I'll have to look it up.

[Siege]

Strella 7s were all over Africa.

[Siege]

7 being the original Soviet designation for shoulder fired rockets, whether anti-tank, anti-personel, or anti-aircraft.
They abandoned that designation in the late 80s if I recall correctly.