What WWII aircraft could fulfill uselful modern military rolls?

[Oreo]

Wuzak is showing us that not all modern militaries have totally shaken off the prop-plane. Wiki states Russia is likely to use the Bear into 2040! And the US still uses the P-3 and C-130 extensively.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

BTW, comparing the H8K to the P-3, it is obvious the P-3 is faster and has modern reliable turboprop engines. However, it is half again heavier than the H8K, meaning, construction wise it would be theoretically half again more expensive to produce (other things being equal, which of course they are not). Since it seems that turboprop engines weigh much less than radials of the same power, it would seem we could upgrade on the Emily's power somewhat while still lowering engine weight. Equipment would vary in weight, but we probably would still be cheaper in production compared to the P-3 as long as the production run is long enough to invoke economy of scale. My specification does not call for speed to match the P-3, so less powerful engines can be used, also being less expensive than the P-3. The P-3's engines are 4,600 hp (Wiki) and the H8K's were circa 1,800-2,000 hp, so turboprops of around 2,500 hp could still improve the performance, especially with modern propellers.

Not really true..

It will depend on manufacturing techniques, tooling and the lay out of the factory. I built P-3s and it was a fairly easy aircraft to build until some of the tooling wore out.

I still can't see building a large flying boat or amphibian.. Because of the salt water environment you have added maintenance. Operationally you have additional training and operational risks (landing at sea as opposed to a runway) that also add expense and risk.

 

[Shortround6]

I disagree. The same airframe can be used, and on any given example, the accessory components can be removed or added as needed. Even my Chevy Astro can do that. Passenger seats can be taken out and work racks can be installed. If you build modular component ability into the airframe, it is rather easy to do. If we need to haul heavy cargo, we can take out all the other stuff. It would be likely that some a/c would be maintained as cargo birds while others would be maintained as patrol birds, but either could be converted to the other as needed.

The convertibility thing always sounds better in theory ( or the sales brochure) than in practice. And somethings are either there or they are not. Larger hatches to accommodate large cargo objects for one, reinforced floors to handle things like crated engines. Some modern (or not so modern jets) had freight versions with these things and were "convertible" to passenger use but had a higher empty weight which cut into the fuel load for the same gross weight. An overhead crane to move cargo to the loading doors/hatches is also rather nice (or rollers in the floor?) anad while the crane mechanism can be removed the structural bracing for it cannot. And according to Murphy, when the manure hits the oscillating air mover, whichever configuration the planes are in will be the wrong one.

As for the bombing of land targets, naturally it could not be done unless the situation were safe enough. C-130 gunships face the same problem, and yet there they are. This is also why I stressed the ability for the crew to repair the aircraft either in flight, or after landing. Holes in the hull should be able to be patched in flight, for instance.

If you have that kind of air superiority you should have other planes (land or carrier) that can bomb, you don't get air superiority with flying boats and float planes.
Damaged land/carrier planes do not have to patch up the hull in order to land.

BTW, The P-3 was based off a commercial airliner so a good amount of the R&D and even tooling was already in existence. many countries take advantage of a similar situation for smaller coastal recon/patrol planes using modified commuter airliners fitted with sensor suites and operators to hold costs down.

The more Jobs you try for ( it sings, it dances, it tells jokes, it does the dishes, it even washes windows) the higher the costs actually go.

 

[Rogi]

I guess a lot of aircraft could fit into this mold, The Yak series I still see as "useable" harasement/scout aircraft. It really depends on what kind of use were talking about, full combat roles I can't really see for much aircraft of WW2 but I could see a transport/scout role for many WW2 airplanes. It also depends on if your going up against a technologically superior enemy or someone on par with what your air force has at its disposal.

Is the question more geared towards what we think would be as effective against modern equipement?

 

[Shortround6]

"Is the question more geared towards what we think would be as effective against modern equipement?"

A very good point. What are the 'threats' this WW II aircraft (or clone) would be facing. Leaving out the air to air component AA weapons would include the Redeye/Stinger/Strela at all but the most primitive of opposition. Single 12.7mm MG to quad 14.5mm mounts. Single and multiple 20-23mm mounts. Fire control can vary enormously from a wetted finger held skyward and a prayer to Allah to a modern solid state radar and fire control computer. the 40mm Bofors gun is in wide scale use and the "modern" version (1950s on?) has a cycle rate 50-100% higher than the WW II version, high velocity, improved shells ( including proximity fuses) faster traverse and elevation with powered mounts and so on. heavier tube AA is scarce once you get past the 76mm OtoMelara mounted on a wide selection of fast patrol boats scattered all over the globe. A scattering of twin 30mm and 35mm guns fill out the majority of the different mounts. The Modern 20mm guns can have a cycle rate 2-4 times higher than WW II guns and have higher velocity.

How well the shoulder fired AA missiles could lock onto a Big piston engine (or it's exhaust) I have no idea, although the Strela is credited with an 0-2 Cessna.

Pirates and smugglers would tend more to the smallest heavy MGs and the shoulder fired AA missiles. Third world Navies could have a 300-500 ton patrol boat who's AA suite ( guns, radar,fire control computer) would be the envy of many a WW II Destroyer captain.

 

[Rogi]

"Is the question more geared towards what we think would be as effective against modern equipement?"

A very good point. What are the 'threats' this WW II aircraft (or clone) would be facing. Leaving out the air to air component AA weapons would include the Redeye/Stinger/Strela at all but the most primitive of opposition. Single 12.7mm MG to quad 14.5mm mounts. Single and multiple 20-23mm mounts. Fire control can vary enormously from a wetted finger held skyward and a prayer to Allah to a modern solid state radar and fire control computer. the 40mm Bofors gun is in wide scale use and the "modern" version (1950s on?) has a cycle rate 50-100% higher than the WW II version, high velocity, improved shells ( including proximity fuses) faster traverse and elevation with powered mounts and so on. heavier tube AA is scarce once you get past the 76mm OtoMelara mounted on a wide selection of fast patrol boats scattered all over the globe. A scattering of twin 30mm and 35mm guns fill out the majority of the different mounts. The Modern 20mm guns can have a cycle rate 2-4 times higher than WW II guns and have higher velocity.

How well the shoulder fired AA missiles could lock onto a Big piston engine (or it's exhaust) I have no idea, although the Strela is credited with an 0-2 Cessna.

Pirates and smugglers would tend more to the smallest heavy MGs and the shoulder fired AA missiles. Third world Navies could have a 300-500 ton patrol boat who's AA suite ( guns, radar,fire control computer) would be the envy of many a WW II Destroyer captain.

Thank you for the response, but in it lies a crucial explanation in itself . As you mentioned even the weapons that were in WW2 have evolved, so we in essence have to evolve our answer, or evolve the WW2 aircraft to fit in the role we would like to place it in.

I'd take a modified Yak-3 or 9, better engine (I'm sure we could scavenge one out of a older model Russian Transport that could do the job), better armor (I'm sure metals and such could be substituted from its original frame) and a heavier cannon. For a strafing or (and this being more likeley) having a scout aircraft. I think the Scout itself would be more likely with modern cameras attached to it to find or fufil roles like drug busts and border patrol. Although not that much of a "military" role I think it fits the criteria for the opinion warrented in this case since Yaks have seen combat in Korea, I guess there already proven as a "modern" WW2 aircraft that could mix it up with almost all tech. out there.

Although a bit "cheating" I think the perfect aircraft even more a military usage would be the Douglas A-1 Skyraider its been through everything its nearly WW2 (trials started in 45 if I'm correct?) and it has been in "modern" warefare (Korea, Vietnam etc)

One aircraft which I'd like to see re-fined would be the He-162, although it would not last long in any modern engagement I think theres promise in the airframe and some minor tweaks it wouldn't be a bad contender for a fighter on fighter roles (Now don't rip me apart for this one, I can dream can't I people? )


-I think the Martin Mars would still be able to do a long haul role, busting people for illegal shiping etc and patroling its original route in Hawaii etc and hauling supplies. I think good ole Canada has a crew that still uses the Mars? (although the major issue is money, working with this kind of aircraft for oil, repairs etc)

 

[JoeB]

"Is the question more geared towards what we think would be as effective against modern equipement?"

1. A very good point. What are the 'threats' this WW II aircraft (or clone) would be facing. Leaving out the air to air component AA weapons would include the Redeye/Stinger/Strela at all but the most primitive of opposition.

2. How well the shoulder fired AA missiles could lock onto a Big piston engine (or it's exhaust) I have no idea, although the Strela is credited with an 0-2 Cessna.

1. In the actual wars fought in the last few years 'antiaircraft' weapons have been mainly limited to small arms and RPG's latter a real threat to low flying or hovering helo's though not usually fixed wing a/c, and to a lesser extent MANPADS missiles. Even pretty light AA guns haven't usually been practical for those opponents to lug around or hide. Anyway in situations where helicopters can survive, using IR countermeasures against MANPADS, so could WWII piston airplanes, using countermeasures. Of course in difficult situations of overlapping highly capable AD systems neither a helo (except continously hiding behind terrain) nor slow mover prop could survive.

But slow piston a/c (ie again Predator A) do also survive in real combat environments, in the operational profiles they actually use, usually pretty high up using optronics and PGM's. Surely the theoretical WWII strike a/c would have to be refitted with these capabilities to be of any use either, even besides survivability issues. Roaring around at low altitude strafing what they see and hoping to see friendly forces' recognition panels or avoid civlians targets...just not gonna work in today's politico-military environment.

2. The original uncooled seeker type of shoulder fired missiles (eg Sa-7), which sought hot metal, worked very well against the exhausts of big piston a/c. VNAF A-1's were quite vulvernable to them in the closing stages of the Vietnam War, again without effective countermeasures, lacking the speed of a jet to exit the envelope before the missile got there, and tending to get hit right in the fuselage if so, not in the extreme tail (the all time cumulative kill rate of Sa-7 v fast jets is very low, though they downed some). Later cooled seekers operating in sometimes multiple bands can detect all kinds signatures of an a/c, one mode used by Stinger for example looks for the ultraviolet dark spot the a/c creates against the background of the sky, more sophisticated ones in AAM's so far see the image of the plane...they will pick up any type of a/c which lacks countermeasures able to fool their seekers, and it's best to just stay out of their envelopes (ie long rang optronic sensors and PGM's) and/or dip inside the envelope and be back out before the missile can catch up (as fast jets can do much better than slow movers).

Joe

 

[Gixxerman]

"Cast aluminum alloys" have not changed much since WW2. Alloying, casting and heat treating techniques have gotten way better as well as ensuring metallurgical purity but in the end if you have a 2024 aluminum casting, there's little difference from what might produced during WW2.

Composites - whole different story. Equal or greater strength, lighter but harder to repair.

It would be fun to reimagine a WW2 engine with the use of modern materials, oils fuels tho.
That 2500 - 3000rpm limit could go.

I guess the racers will know all about this one but I'd imagine the power torque outputs (even if turned down a little for reliability) are a vast leap forward on the WW2 levels.

I'm not sure (besides the ubiquitous DC-3/C47) that many of them would have much relevance today.
(I'd have included the Ju52 as well along the Douglas except for the spares problem)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Wuzak is showing us that not all modern militaries have totally shaken off the prop-plane. Wiki states Russia is likely to use the Bear into 2040! And the US still uses the P-3 and C-130 extensively.

Not just those. The US military still uses quite a few Prop Aircraft extensively. Nothing wrong with a good turboprop aircraft.

C-130 Hercules
P-3 Orion
E-2 Hawkeye
C-2 Greyhound
C-26 Metroliner
HC-144 Ocean Sentry
T-6 Texan II
C-12 Huron
C-27 Spartan
E-9A Widget
T-41 Mescalero
Cessna T-51
Diamond T-52
U-28 (Pilatus PC-12)
UV-18
C-23 Sherpa
C-31 Troopship
EO-5
RC-12 Huron
T-34 Mentor
Beech T-44

Some of the above aircraft are used in very small numbers, some of them in very large numbers. The point being is that the prop aircraft has not out used it usefulness.

I don't know a military in the world that does not use them. Many are still designing and building new ones. Take the Airbus A400M for example, which flew for the first time in 2009.

 

[davebender]

This aircraft can loiter over a battlefield for hours calling in artillery and air strikes. If the target is small it can attack directly. Just as the aircraft did during WWII.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This aircraft can loiter over a battlefield for hours calling in artillery and air strikes. If the target is small it can attack directly. Just as the aircraft did during WWII.

Love the aircraft but it's a taildragger, ain't gonna happen...

 

[wuzak]

The point being is that the prop aircraft has not out used it usefulness.

I don't know a military in the world that does not use them. Many are still designing and building new ones. Take the Airbus A400M for example, which flew for the first time in 2009.

In many roles they are far more efficient than turbojets or turbofans. Like the P-3 really - using jets wouldn't really add anything, and would reduce range or require more fuel.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Don't take me wrong though. I am not saying that these aircraft could sustain an airforce.

 

[parsifal]

part of the problem for modern aircraft relate to cost. Do turboprops techs offer less expensive solutions to providing airpower to an airforce, compared to jet propulsion, or rotary wing aviation?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In many roles they are far more efficient than turbojets or turbofans. Like the P-3 really - using jets wouldn't really add anything, and would reduce range or require more fuel.

Depends where and where they are operated. Newer smaller turbines are extremely efficient and do offer better fuel consumption to any WW2 in line or round engine.

 

[gumbyk]

Generally, a prop-driven aircraft will have greater static thrust, and a shorter take-off roll than a jet type, but the trade-off is high-speed thrust, and reduced top speed. Which is why the C-130/A400M types are utilising turbo-prop powerplants.
Horses for courses, really.

 

[Shortround6]

it depends on the mission. Somewhere there is a crossover point on speed, below the cross over the propeller is more efficient, above the jet is more efficient, turbo fans still falling pretty much in the jet class. Many transport missions, maritime reconnaissance, many training missions and so on don't need speeds of 400mph and up.

For combat thinks get tricker. The faster planes (still subsonic) spend less time within the AA envelope and just like WW II the faster planes present a more difficult intercept problem.

In a low threat environment ( bush wars) Turbo props need shorter runways, operate from dirt a bit better, fly fast enough and use less fuel than jets. ( think jet trainer/strike vs turbo prop trainer/strike aircraft). Against more sophisticated enemies the turbo prop may not do as well. A metal prop is probably the next best radar reflector to a front fan turbo fan with metal blades. Nobody seems to be designing stealth turbo props

Same with rotary wing, what is the mission profile? Look at the Osprey, an attempt to get the best of both worlds. given a short runway a turbo prop can carry a heavier load, faster, with less fuel ( and maintenance) than a rotary wing. BUT it needs that runway.

 

[Oreo]

I know that many / most /all people in charge of procurements don't want tail-draggers, but I didn't ask what would they buy but rather what could be useful. Or, at least that's what I meant. So having said that, let's move on to a tactical aircraft for brush wars in third-world countries.

This spec asks for a relatively inexpensive aircraft to do the following things:
1. Tactical Recon
2. COIN attack
3. Soft ground units attack
4. Destruction of slow enemy aircraft, especially rotor-craft and UAV's.

We want something that:
Flies and maneuvers well at altitudes under 1,000 meters
Handles and maneuvers well within 100 meters of the ground
Carries a drop-ordinance load not less than 1,000 kg (Many that did not do so in WWII could be stressed for it)
Carries a fixed forward-firing armament heavy enough to give good chances of survival against combat helo's
A max speed not less than 250 knots at 500 meters to be able to outrun all rotor craft
Endurance of at least four hours
Efficient loitering characteristics
Ease of maintenance in forward units
Ease of takeoff and landing, especially on rough strips
Resistant to small arms fire
Ability to carry whatever avionics are considered necessary for brush wars. . . .
Preferably a decent view of the ground while flying.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I know that many / most /all people in charge of procurements don't want tail-draggers, but I didn't ask what would they buy but rather what could be useful.

The point is they won't be useful. Although, depending on use and design can offer better takeoff and landing performance BUT you are operating a configuration that requires more training and has a higher accident potential when operating in hazardous weather conditions, especially during takeoff and landing. In today's world I know of NO modern military flight training syllabi that has any program for a tail wheel check out during primary training, in other words you don't have pilots readily available to fly the aircraft if it became available.

 

[razor1uk]

So most developed nations don't even have a tail dragger as the earliest form of training A/C then FBJ?

Mind due, if its the design being modernised, I'm sure there's enough expertise to fit a nose gear and adjust the mains to compensate.. so long as the spars aren't moved or cut, the main gear could always be located aft of the main spar btween the aft/supporting trailing(?) spar...