F-22 vs Fokker Triplane

[Braeden108]

It sounds like an easy fight. The F-22 would win hands down, right? But I was thinking about it. The WWI bird doesn't have a big radar signature and its going slow, so the F-22's radar missiles would be useless. The engine probably doesn't emit enough heat for a heater to pick it up. So all the F-22's fancy weapons are rendered useless. Now it's a gun fight. A WWI aircraft can out turn an F-22 all day long. So I think the WWI bird would have a better chance than you'd first think. What are your thoughts?

[lemoen]

Nah, no contest. The DR1 can do 115mph and has two 30cal machine guns. The F22 can go 1000+mph and can shoot and hit the Dr1 from way further. Also, it moves so fast the Dr1 prob won't be able to aim and hit it and the small caliber guns may not even damage the F22 appreciably. Basically, to win, the F22 pilot only has to do a supersonic buzz of the Dr1 to break it.

[komemiute]

I think the main problem for the DR.1 is that it's enough for the F-22 to pass fast enough and close enough to make it stall.

Probably even a partial impact would fatally cripple the DR.1 leaveing the F-22 still plenty flyable.

[shagrat]

(...)Basically, to win, the F22 pilot only has to do a supersonic buzz of the Dr1 to break it.

 

Pretty much this. I guess the sheer impact of the shockwave could rip through the light fabrics on the wings and may even break structures. It is strong enough to break glass windows, at least.

I would expect the pilot getting a bit "dazed", also.

[=DECOY=]

[Art-J]

OP's thoughts are not unjustified, though. I remember reading about serious problems Tigercat pilots had during Korean War, attempting to intercept night raids made by Po-2s. Indeed, fabric structure made them difficult to be detected by radar, while their agility and low speed made manoeuvring for firing position even more challenging.

 

It's not coincidence that on modern battlefield task of intercepting small and slow planes is given to attack choppers or COIN aircraft.

[MikeMikeJuliet]

While a "little fun thought experiment", I think there is something to be thought about in here.

 

 

Utility aircraft, especially tactical transports or CSAR helicopters etc are slow and barely maneuver. While they do pose a larger radar signature, if flying very low, they might not be easily detectable. I would also consider the "wtf is that?" moment of the F-22 pilot, and the difficulty of measuring the target aircrafts energy state, direction of motion and especially speed, since these kinds of targets are not the norm. A target that is significantly larger or smaller than what you are used to is more difficult to judge distance to and the speed of. In a quick one-shot situation this might be the million-dollar luck the defensive aircraft needs to avoid the instant kill, try to get out of sight and pray for a safe RTB.

 

Now of course, there will never be a real fight between the F-22 and the Fokker, but some aspects may still translate to other engagements. A leaker aircraft meets a supportive aircraft in the visual arena... might be the pilot is not prepared, and won't put up his/her A-game.

 

 

Taking the OP setup, I feel the F-22 pilot's worst mistake would be to try to dogfight the Fokker. Slow, light aircraft turn in such a small area that there is no contest there. Then again, with even a little common sense, the F-22 pilot pulls to the vertical and the Fokker is unable to do anything anymore. This not taking into account the likely disintegration of the Fokker due to the forces emitted by the F-22 close by...

 

 

A funny thought experiment in any case.

Edited September 13, 2017 by MikeMikeJuliet

[Bushmanni]

F-22 gun has an effective range of 1-1.5km so while there's zero chance of F-22 being able to maneuver behind the Dr.1 it doesn't really need to. He can shoot down the triplane from standoff range from head on. The triplane also probably doesn't have enough speed to move out of the way of the incoming explosive shell cloud.

 

While the Dr.1 in itself is slow and hence harder to detect using doppler shift, the engine spins with the prop propably giving off enough doppler shift to make detection easy.

[VZ_342]

Fabric and wood is flexible, unlike glass. I wouldn't think the shockwave would destroy the triplane, and the F22 pilot wouldn't want to risk the 7.92 bullets damaging the engines (unlikely, but still a risk that's not needed to be taken).

 

I vote F22.

Edited September 13, 2017 by VZ_342
Spelinge

[Braeden108]

Interesting points, this is one of the reasons I want WWI aircraft for DCS. I think you're underestimating the Dr.1's maneuverability and overestimating the F-22's radar. Regardless you guys should try fighting a WWII aircraft in a jet fighter, and vice versa. Fighting a FW190 in an M2000 blew my mind. Those Fukke-Wolf's can climb.

[Pilotasso]

these days sensors have no trouble picking up biplanes even if they are mostly made of wood and canvas by area and volume, they still have radar reflecting materials (im thinking about those piston engines).

 

AESA radars and IIR sensors can pick up minimal signatures much better than 1980's F-14's. :D

 

End result would be a massacre and no competition.

[MikeMikeJuliet]

I don't really think there is any competition here - but thoughts that arise from such a ridiculous asymmetric setup.

 

 

I vote for the Fokker... the F-22 pilot will laugh so hard he dies. :D

[GGTharos]

It sounds like an easy fight. The F-22 would win hands down, right? But I was thinking about it. The WWI bird doesn't have a big radar signature and its going slow, so the F-22's radar missiles would be useless. The engine probably doesn't emit enough heat for a heater to pick it up. So all the F-22's fancy weapons are rendered useless.

 

That is a very uninformed assumption. Lost this fight before it even started.

 

Now it's a gun fight. A WWI aircraft can out turn an F-22 all day long. So I think the WWI bird would have a better chance than you'd first think. What are your thoughts?

Who cares if it can out-turn an F-22 if it's basically sitting in place? The F-22 doesn't need to turn. It will just do a fly-by and the fokker will fall apart from 1nm range gunnery. It's no different than gunning down a heli. This is the same silly argument make about aircraft out-turning missiles 'but missiles can't keep up with this turn rate because they're going mach 4!' ... yep, and they also don't care, because all your turn rate won't get you out of their way. Edited September 14, 2017 by GGTharos

[probad]

gg nailed it again. rate with no speed produces no displacement.

 

really this shouldnt have to be pointed out in a flightsim community.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Great rate, no displacement.

 

You think you cant shoot it?

 

[shagrat]

 

Ah, Hollywood! Guess the F-22 would be no match for any of these :music_whistling: :

 

[Rotorhead]

Now, I probably suck at thought experiments, but it really begs the question why on earth would the F-22 pilot even want to fight the Fokker? Unless the archvillain is escaping in a Fokker to his evil underground base, and the F-22 is the only fighter available (since we are already speculating, we may as well go all the way, right ;)), wouldn't it be most sensible for the F-22 pilot to ignore the Fokker and mind his/her own mission anyway (since the Fokker has no means to hurt the F-22).

 

As GG correctly pointed out, for the F-22 it would be nothing else than intercepting a helo, or.... wait for it... attacking a ground target, but still, it doesn't even matter. Who cares whether F-22 wins or loses to a Fokker, if it wasn't meant to fight WWI planes in the first place? It's bit like theoretizing that the Abrams tank really sucks at hunting rabbits - yes, I guess it does, and that's why we use hunting rifles instead.

 

As I said, I suck at thought experiments, so sorry for being a spoilsport. But eh, still better than the time I put a cat in a sealed box with a Geiger counter and a bottle of neurotoxin. :D

[The Black Swan]

It's bit like theoretizing that the Abrams tank really sucks at hunting rabbits

 

LOL I'd love to see that!!!

Actually the Abrams might be good at it, with those fancy IR sensors.

Then again the caliber of the machine guns might not leave much left :megalol:

 

But good analogy.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

14bis is superior tbqh

[MikeMikeJuliet]

Now, I probably suck at thought experiments, but it really begs the question why on earth would the F-22 pilot even want to fight the Fokker? Unless the archvillain is escaping in a Fokker to his evil underground base, and the F-22 is the only fighter available (since we are already speculating, we may as well go all the way, right ;)), wouldn't it be most sensible for the F-22 pilot to ignore the Fokker and mind his/her own mission anyway (since the Fokker has no means to hurt the F-22).

 

As GG correctly pointed out, for the F-22 it would be nothing else than intercepting a helo, or.... wait for it... attacking a ground target, but still, it doesn't even matter. Who cares whether F-22 wins or loses to a Fokker, if it wasn't meant to fight WWI planes in the first place? It's bit like theoretizing that the Abrams tank really sucks at hunting rabbits - yes, I guess it does, and that's why we use hunting rifles instead.

 

As I said, I suck at thought experiments, so sorry for being a spoilsport. But eh, still better than the time I put a cat in a sealed box with a Geiger counter and a bottle of neurotoxin. :D

 

I guess the point of all this was not to debate weither or not the F-22 would or should fight the Fokker. The nice thing about thought experiments is that we can just ignore that aspect and focus on the dynamics of the fight itself.

 

It indeed makes no sense, but that is partly why it is a thought experiment and not a serious debate.

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

[Rotorhead]

Yeah, that's how I understand it, too.

 

Just that this "thought experiment" reminds me too much of those "simulated excercises", where a fancy, hyper-modern, billion-dollar super-fighter is pitted against a not-so-fancy, slightly old, relatively cheap bog standard plane - except they are limited to guns only, max 6G turns, with pre-defined starting positions, they carry devices to equalize their RCS, and so on.

 

And the super-fighter loses to the ordinary one, and then the internet generals are all like "I can't believe our government just wasted so much money on it!" Yes, with that defined set of starting conditions, the lesser airplane might as well defeat the fancy one. Except, in a real fight, the older plane won't ever get in gun range. Neither will the other pilot deliberately allow him to enter the merge at his 6 o'clock. Or not going to use his airplane's ful maneuvering potencial. Etc.

 

So what we have here is a very realistic assetment of a very unrealistic situation. Sure, as a thought excercise, not bad. But it just must be taken for what it's worth.

[MikeMikeJuliet]

Yeah, that's how I understand it, too.

 

Just that this "thought experiment" reminds me too much of those "simulated excercises", where a fancy, hyper-modern, billion-dollar super-fighter is pitted against a not-so-fancy, slightly old, relatively cheap bog standard plane - except they are limited to guns only, max 6G turns, with pre-defined starting positions, they carry devices to equalize their RCS, and so on.

 

And the super-fighter loses to the ordinary one, and then the internet generals are all like "I can't believe our government just wasted so much money on it!" Yes, with that defined set of starting conditions, the lesser airplane might as well defeat the fancy one. Except, in a real fight, the older plane won't ever get in gun range. Neither will the other pilot deliberately allow him to enter the merge at his 6 o'clock. Or not going to use his airplane's ful maneuvering potencial. Etc.

 

So what we have here is a very realistic assetment of a very unrealistic situation. Sure, as a thought excercise, not bad. But it just must be taken for what it's worth.

 

Yea, those ones... No, this is something else. And on the chit-chat subforum for a reason.

Those kinds for "internet sensation" tests... they are not what this is about.

 

Besides, the case here from the outset is utterly absurd... no-one here is trying to prove the case one way or the other.

 

At least for me, thought experiments are a way of keeping one's reasoning fresh... and a way to look at things that one doesn't agree on from the opposing side. Not a way to prove biased arguments.

[BitMaster]

Yea, those ones... No, this is something else. And on the chit-chat subforum for a reason.

Those kinds for "internet sensation" tests... they are not what this is about.

 

Besides, the case here from the outset is utterly absurd... no-one here is trying to prove the case one way or the other.

 

At least for me, thought experiments are a way of keeping one's reasoning fresh... and a way to look at things that one doesn't agree on from the opposing side. Not a way to prove biased arguments.

 

Correct statement !

[BitMaster]

On a rainy day I'd vote for the Tri-Plane. :badmood:

 

 

Old Iron & Wood ( waterproof ) vs. Flying-BareBoneMotherboard ( not so waterproof ).

 

Fokker GoGoGO :joystick:

[David OC]

Ive mentioned this before and was surprised how many here have not tried this before.

 

Setup a battle in the F15 vs 109 in DCS, Guns only of course:)

 

OK, Perhaps a tiny little bit sadistic;) Still fun, perhaps it is just me.....:music_whistling:

 

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by David OC