Omni-role fighter

**avon1944** · 17 Aug 09,, 04:35

I feel the Rafale and Typhoon meets the requirements as 'Omni-role'. The first jet I heard that was referred to as omni-role by its designers was the Rafale.

**FOG3** · 28 Aug 09,, 00:38

Originally Posted by NUS

What about fuel use? Supersonic crafts are knows as "kerosene destroyers".

The beauty of supercruise using dry military thrust as designed, instead of afterburner spurts as is traditional, is it's more fuel efficient per distance traveled even if it consumes more fuel over time. So why would that be a big concern?

***

As for Omnirole aircraft at least as fighter is often now interpreted, one reality that has shown itself is you should have seperate air frames optimized for supersonic vs subsonic flight. A pointy nose can not do the same mission as a roundy nose like a A-1, A-10, S-3, or otherwise.

Some missions don't involve zooming past at high speed. Sometimes the mission calls for low and slow, which isn't the province of zoom jets.

**Stitch** · 28 Aug 09,, 05:15

Originally Posted by zraver

There are very credible reports that the F-22 can supercruise above mach 2. Power to weight and drag are both better than SR-71 and its claimed they figured out a way to avoid having variable inlets most craft use for supersonic flight so that the big turbofans just keep on kicking. I think heat is probably the only real limit on the F-22.

Yes, kinetic airframe heating is the limiting factor with the F-22, especially with the stealth materials involved; this is the limiting factor for most supersonic aircraft, but especially so for the F-22. The engines have more than enough power (35,000 lbs.+ ST each), but I think the composite stealth materials might start to delaminate at high temperatures.