Originally Posted by lazybastard

The trade-off applies more to the earlier generation of aircraft like the F-4. But such trade-off doesn't really apply to the modern generation of aircraft. Take the F-15 for example. It was designed as a pure air-superiority fighter, the motto being "not a pound for air-to-ground". Yet the same airframe with some modifications, makes a fine ground attack in the form of the F-15E. Another example would be the F-16. Coming out of the lightweight fighter mafia, which basically argued that expensive, heavy multi-role fighters like the F-4 would be overwhelmed by cheaper, lighter, and more maneuverable MIGs. Therefore the US should also build such lightweight fighters. Out of that design philosophy came both the F-16 and the YF-17(predecessor to the F/A-18). So what role is the F-16 doing now? They got navigation/targeting pods bolted on and are now flying ground attack.

Most of the supposed trade offs mentioned by the Air Marshal between fighters and strike aircraft do not warrant two separate planes. Need to trade maneuverability for range? Use external or conformal fuel tanks. Need extra navigation equipment? Attach a pod to a hardpoint. All it takes is a few hours work by the ground crew.