Is the world shrinking?

[McColm]

Good day,
Just heard Alf Stewart talking to some Shelia about the last flight of our F-111 'Pigs'. Should have sold them to those pomies when they tried to off load one of their aircraft carriers on us.
So is the world shrinking,
Seems as though the fourth generation aircraft rely heaverly on air-to-air refueling. Gone are the days of the long range fighter or bomber,instead the Hornet and Super Hornets have taken over. No longer is the need for a 3,500NM range, just launch from a carrier if you've got one. If you haven't then your enemy has to get closer to the 2,500NM limit.
It's a bit like the British Army selecting the SA-80 rifle. Fix bayonets and wait for the attacking forces to get a bit nearer. At least the SLR was almost twice as long.
Again the fifth generation legs are even shorter. The F-35 and stablemate F-22 to name but a few. At least the Eurofighter offers some releif. As for the French they don't go for long range either. The Rafale longer range than the Gripen, but not as much as the typhoon fully loaded.
Should have ordered something from the Su-27 family!!

[Fulcrum]

Yeah, the Flanker has good range. I kinda thought that some years ago, the mig-29 was looked down upon for it's small range, but that was before the new Mig-29M version with more range.

Too bad the Mig-29M was never ordered into anyone's service as it would have make a great fighter aircraft.

If it's range is still short, then maybe add some f-16-style CFT's to it.

[Taiidantomcat]

The SA-80 choice makes sense to me. I was in the US Marines and although you train for bayonet work, Its far more a psychological effect (for both sides) I really don't think a qualifier for a modern combat rifle should be "well yeah, but can it take a bayonet well?"  Having a smaller, more compact rifle for urban warfare, paratroops, vehicles, even aircraft crewman seems smarter.

I do see your point though.

Western fighter aircraft seem to trade everything for performance. The worlds best sprinters, not distance runners. Not a bad thing but like you say it has trade offs.

[pyro-manic]

I think part of the problem is the amount of electronic gubbins that are crammed into modern aircraft - there are more black boxes to be shoehorned in, and that takes up volume that would previously have been used for fuel. And with current "stealthy" designs, it's even harder, because you can't just add on a big spine or blisters like was done to the Skyhawk, F-16, Lightning etc.

[Maverick]

And one would assume another problem would be the refuellers are definitely not stealthy, so you'd hope that there's no interdictors trawling about in the rear areas otherwise those 'stealthy' fighters have a fracking great signature flying around with them.

But then again, the F-22 & F-35 are just so gosh darned good that nothing will come near them anyway, or so it's said.

Regards,

Mav

[Army of One]

All hail  the L1A1 and its mighty 7.62x51mm full of stopping power cartridge........I appreciate the argument for a smaller weapon for certain roles.....re house clearing though....why clear the house of enemy by going in (dangerous...!) with a pop gun when you can sit outside and shoot through the walls til they dead or surrender........?? 

Before anyone has a go an argues in favour of pop guns.....I placed a  at the end of my statement....!!

[Maverick]

There's a degree of truth there Hank.  I remember reading an account about the Falklands where a Brit SF trooper mentioned his dislike of the 5.56 round after chewing up an Argie with a burst that didn't do too much in the way of stopping him.  I've also had similar conversations with ADF personnel who served in Vietnam and watched the disparity with their L1A1s and US M16s.  There's also USMC accounts of their dislike for the 16 as opposed to their earlier M14s because in the worst case they couldn't be used as clubs in hand to hand.

Of course, shooting through walls has its own set of problems if there's non-combatants inside.  The ADF found out the hard way by using grenades to clear rooms in A'stan recently.

It is, however, a bloody big can of worms.

Regards,

Mav

[AeroplaneDriver]

There's a degree of truth there Hank.  I remember reading an account about the Falklands where a Brit SF trooper mentioned his dislike of the 5.56 round after chewing up an Argie with a burst that didn't do too much in the way of stopping him.  I've also had similar conversations with ADF personnel who served in Vietnam and watched the disparity with their L1A1s and US M16s.  There's also USMC accounts of their dislike for the 16 as opposed to their earlier M14s because in the worst case they couldn't be used as clubs in hand to hand.

Of course, shooting through walls has its own set of problems if there's non-combatants inside.  The ADF found out the hard way by using grenades to clear rooms in A'stan recently.

It is, however, a bloody big can of worms.

Regards,


Mav

While the 5.56 is a good compromise for a lot of things, it says a lot that the US Military are issuing a hell of a lot of 7.62 M14s in SW Asia these days...

[Army of One]

Mav....I remember reading something similar re the Falklands incident....something about the Argentine being shot a number of times (3 or 4) and the only reason he stopped fighting is that blood from a wound sustained found its way into his eyes and he app could fight no more.......no idea if its true or not......

[anthonyp]

OK, this thread has gone into the realm of a horror movie, so I'm locking it so more descriptive accounts aren't posted.  This is a What-If site, not a place for retelling of how such-and-such weapon does x-amount of damage where another would be better to destroy a fellow human being in macabre detail.