Traditionally Air Forces have been armed with two types of fighters with prevailing missions of winning air superiority or attacking surface targets correspondingly. But nowdays this division is getting less and less distinct. Does it mean that many countries (except super powers) could have only one type of fighter in the inventory of their Air Force?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Omni-role fighter
Collapse
X
-
AK the multi-role fighter has been a concept becoming more and more common since the mid-cold war. Traditionally there were heavy fighter, interceptor, escort fighter, day fighter, night fighter, strike fighter and other roles I am currently forgeting. Airplanes and various varients of airplanes were designed for this role, and were merely competant at other roles if able to preform them at all. The cost of maintianing and develping new aircraft that were used this rarely was tremendous so in the 60's more multirole aircraft became popular. Its more a case of economics causing this shift. There is also the issue of better materials airplane control and engines allow an airframe to succed in a greater number of roles.
AS to the only one type of fighter in inventory once again I think we'll see it happen but once again due more to economics than a desire to build mission dedicated aircraft.
-
F-16 grew from a light weight day fighter to multi-role strike fighter. Many nations in the world operate them today and form the backbone of their air defense and strike missions. So in a way, it has already happened."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
Omni-fighters.... Ack! The clans are attacking Terra some one tell Comstar!
Sorry for the Battletech quip. Most fighters have been multi role. In the early jet age especially early in Vietnam but going back to the Korea war as well. As fighters lost their edge in A2A roles they traded roles and started killing things on the ground. The piston engined Corsair, the F-80, the F-100 all spent extra years in the air by becoming fighter bombers. As technology improves both the amount a plane can carry and the amount of ordance profiles it can be rigged with the line between fighter and fighter bomber has blurred. The F-4 was probably the worlds first true multi-role fighter.
I think the keys here are engine ratings- more power means more ordnance. Cost- a fighter bmber that can fight its way into the target, drop its bombs and fight its way out is better that having a whole suite of specialized aircraft. Computing power- as computers get more powerful the ordnance profiles a plane can be fitted with goes up. And its ability to deliver that ordance goes up as well. Combine these three and highly functional multi-role fighters make the most sense for most air forces. The exception beign of course the dedicated super fighters like the F-22 and what ever follows. Stealth by its very nature limits the amount of ordnance that can be carried, but makes the ordance carried much more lethal if used right.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostStealth by its very nature limits the amount of ordnance that can be carried, but makes the ordance carried much more lethal if used right.
It's not stealth, it's compromises of design.Winter is coming.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kommunist View PostBTW, are there any true interceptors operational in the world today, other than the MiG-35??
Hm... Mig-25? Some countries still use them.Winter is coming.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by NUS View Postbut it's hard to tell long F-22 can sustain supersonic speed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View Postthis was about fighter sized craft which lack big roomy internal bays.
I think heat is probably the only real limit on the F-22.Last edited by NUS; 25 Jun 09,, 09:55.Winter is coming.
Comment
Comment