purely theoretical air combat question

[Darg]

An F16 is perfectly capable of flying without stalling at 250-300mph (roughly the best spits dogfighting speed)

If it got into a dogfight between them then it'd be quite a close match. As said before though missiles are what throw it way out of whack.

Also the fact that if the F16 was in trouble he could simply ram open the afterburners and be a dot on the horizon within seconds.

No missiles and pure dogfighting alone it would probably be a close thing.

 

[Housey]

The F16 should have little problem, but its not unrealistic for a Spitfire to get guns on one, it wouldn't be the first time an older warbird had taken out a jet plane but the vast majority of the time the F16 should win. The Lightning could pull a 6G turn and the F16 around 9.5 at maximum attack but a Spitfire could turn inside both at certain speeds but a well trained pilot would not get into such a situation I would suggest.

 

[Vulcan]

It wouldn't be close at all, the F-16 seriously out powers the Spitfire. The F-16 would just need to keep doing Immelmann Turns and it would get to the point where the Spitfire would lose too much speed to follow the F-16... and a slow plane is a dead plane.

Not to mention the modern HUD on the F-16, and the Vulcan cannon which fires 20mm explosive shells at 6,000 RPM. Much more powerful than the .303 or .50 rounds used by the Spitfire.

 

[Eddie182]

how many Air to air missiles does an F-16 have?

Six, US F-16Cs can carry AIM-9 Sidewinder (M and X models) and AIM-120 AMRAAM (B and C models), in whatever combination you care to fit.

 

[Tefal]

Six, US F-16Cs can carry AIM-9 Sidewinder (M and X models) and AIM-120 AMRAAM (B and C models), in whatever combination you care to fit.

are the other 5(?) hardpoints only for bombs/fuel pods then?

 

[big_white_dog84]

Would it be as one sided between a large WW2 battleship eg Bismark and a destroyer from today's Royal Navy?

 

[Saytan]

the f-16 was a purely typical suggestion

if anyone thinks another aircraft may be more capable... say a Su-27 or F-22 then go ahead. a lot of the f-22's advantages in modern-on-modern would be lost though

i chose the F-16 since it is probably the most common aircraft in current western arsenals

 

[Saytan]

Would it be as one sided between a large WW2 battleship eg Bismark and a destroyer from today's Royal Navy?

modern destroyers typically have a very specific role. and old battleships carried a LOT of armour.

 

[Housey]

the f-16 was a purely typical suggestion

if anyone thinks another aircraft may be more capable... say a Su-27 or F-22 then go ahead. a lot of the f-22's advantages in modern-on-modern would be lost though

i chose the F-16 since it is probably the most common aircraft in current western arsenals

This is OCUK, you MUST justify EVERYTHING

 

[Rroff]

If you were to take it to the realm of prop v prop dogfighting then the spitfire would possibly have enough maneuverability to stand a chance for awhile... but otherwise the F-16 could just circle the dog fight at a medium range and pick the spits off one by one with missiles well outside the few hundred yards the spitfires guns are effective for.

 

[Dark88]

modern destroyers typically have a very specific role. and old battleships carried a LOT of armour.

Our destroyers are air defence, and the type 45 only carries a 4.5 inch gun.
A type 23 frigate however, could fire off a couple of harpoon antiship missiles, bye bye battleship!

 

[Housey]

Challenger II or MG Metro?

 

[Saytan]

saying that - how many navies in the world have that kind of capability?

recommission HMS Belfast and put her to sea.... how many navies have ships that 1-on1- could stop her?

 

[Gackt]

A volley of photon torpedoes ought to do it.

 

[Stolly]

Would it be as one sided between a large WW2 battleship eg Bismark and a destroyer from today's Royal Navy?

If it was Type-45 vs the Bismark the Type-45 wouldn't have any real chance.

Remember modern surface combatants do not carry armour, and all our destroyers are specialised anti-air.

 

[Stolly]

Our destroyers are air defence, and the type 45 only carries a 4.5 inch gun.
A type 23 frigate however, could fire off a couple of harpoon antiship missiles, bye bye battleship!

Probably not, i doubt a Harpoon will penetrate the main belt of something like the Bismark.

It was proof against the torpedoes of the time, and the Harpoon iirc is designed to impact just above the waterline.

 

[Tefal]

saying that - how many navies in the world have that kind of capability?

recommission HMS Belfast and put her to sea.... how many navies have ships that 1-on1- could stop her?

how many navies fight 1on 1 ?

 

[Housey]

If it was Type-45 vs the Bismark the Type-45 wouldn't have any real chance.

Remember modern surface combatants do not carry armour, and all our destroyers are specialised anti-air.

A salvo of Harpoon Missiles would take out the Bismark 20 miles outside the range of its best weapon...if fitted.

 

[Tefal]

If it was Type-45 vs the Bismark the Type-45 wouldn't have any real chance.

Remember modern surface combatants do not carry armour, and all our destroyers are specialised anti-air.

except the type -45 could have harpoons fitted if it was expected for ship combat or it could just launch it's helicopter to destroy it with missiles.

 

[Tefal]

Probably not, i doubt a Harpoon will penetrate the main belt of something like the Bismark.

It was proof against the torpedoes of the time, and the Harpoon iirc is designed to impact just above the waterline.

Don;t you wonder why modern ships don't have such a belt?

Modern missiles and warheads are capable of defeating heavy armor, so it isn't used as it's just wasted weight and speed.