China developing 180,000-ton catamaran aircraft carrier

[Ideologue]

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.

Clearly you've never seen excellent Nic Cage/Sean Young vehicle Firebirds.  Not one but two Saab Drakens.

[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.

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.

The burster on the Flak 88s weren't much bigger than 3kg, and they'd blow a wing off real nice with a straight shot.

[Siege]

This would be "downbuilding". I don't think building obsolete machines is the solution.

[The Brain]

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.

Clearly you've never seen excellent Nic Cage/Sean Young vehicle Firebirds.  Not one but two Saab Drakens.

Such a lovely aircraft.

[Ideologue]

Really was.  Probably the prettiest jet fighter of them all, almost certainly prettiest production fighter, just about equaled only by the F-16XL (which was not, you wag, just a version of the F-16 that let itself go).

[grumbler]

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.

Not so.  A modern missile warhead would rip open fuel tanks and the plane would go down in flames.  WW2 bombers were able to survive small bullets holes, but not massive shaped-charge-type holes.

[dps]

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.

Not so.  A modern missile warhead would rip open fuel tanks and the plane would go down in flames.  WW2 bombers were able to survive small bullets holes, but not massive shaped-charge-type holes.

The B-17 begs to differ.

[Neil]

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.

Not so.  A modern missile warhead would rip open fuel tanks and the plane would go down in flames.  WW2 bombers were able to survive small bullets holes, but not massive shaped-charge-type holes.

The B-17 begs to differ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-1qIN6UeC4

Seems like heavy bombers were vulnerable.

[PDH]

A B-17 couldn't withstand a hit from a 16 inch gun.  Victory for the dreadnought again.

[Ideologue]

You lose a few.  On the plus side, if you don't die, you get to take a bath at the end of your shift.

[grumbler]

The B-17 begs to differ.

The approximately 3500 lost of approximately 12,500 produced agree with me.  Some B-17s made it back with damage that looked like it should have destroyed them, but the vast majority with that kind of damage were, indeed, destroyed.

[dps]

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.

Not so.  A modern missile warhead would rip open fuel tanks and the plane would go down in flames.  WW2 bombers were able to survive small bullets holes, but not massive shaped-charge-type holes.

The B-17 begs to differ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-1qIN6UeC4

Seems like heavy bombers were vulnerable.

The B-24 was the heavy bomber equivalent of a boxer with a glass jaw.

[CountDeMoney]

The discussion about whether a WW2 strategic bomber could survive a modern-day missile weapon is about as interesting as whether or not swarms of Incan torpedo boats could sink the USS New Jersey.  Only dumber.

[Ed Anger]

Ju-88 vs Roman Ballista.

[CountDeMoney]

Jericho trumpets ftw.