Multi Role Planes

[fcuco]

WWII saw all kinds of different types of tanks: light, medium, cruiser, heavy, specialized tank destroyers and so on. Today, beyond maybe a minor distinctions all tanks are basically the same: main battle tanks that fulfill the roles of all those previous denominations.

I was wondering how come planes haven't follow the same trend of one size fit all multi role aircraft. I am aware that most modern planes try to be at least multi role fighters, but we still have all kinds of denominations: heavy bombers, attack planes, and so on.

Maybe it is simply impossible for a plane to be all those things at the same time and that's the reason for all the F35 problems.

 

[UAE]

Lots of parameters necessitate the existence of different airplanes that are made for militarily purposes. War scenarios evolve and so do measures to deal with them. Since you mentioned the F-35 then let's take that as example. In terms of payload, the F-35 has a certain limit to carry missiles/bombs. Bombers have the ability to carry a lot more/cause sever damages air-to-ground then F-35 or any other multirole fighter jets however, bombers needs protection to execute missions and that is being done through fighter jets escort which have the capability to eliminate air threats that the bombers don't have. Another example is that fighter jets are being classified into category. For example, interceptor fighter jets. They are assigned to prevent foe aircrafts form carrying a mission e.g bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. Attack fighter jets are designed for attack mission. Many factors play a role here for example, speed, weight, range....etc.

 

[fcuco]

But air forces in general have indeed tried to accomplish all those possible roles with single platforms with very negative results. Maybe the whole fighter / bomber desinations are indeed completely different roles just like tanks are not artillery so you can't have a tank that functions as everything on the field, but there has been a serious push to merge both attack and fighter capabilities onto a single platform and what you end with is a plane that can't do both things right. I think everybody agrees by now that the F35 can't replace the more specialized A-10 and by being a jack of all trades it excels in none of those roles, main battle tanks, on the other hand, now carry the punch and armor of what used to be heavy tanks but the power to ratio and speed of what used to be called light tanks, they are indeed the whole package.

 

[Falcon29]

Plane roles won't see change, air superiority planes will always be necessary. Multi-role will always be there. Attack planes, I'm not so sure, we might see them gone in the future. Bombers will remain, mostly for use against powerful nations in an all out war. Nowadays, there is more dependence on cruise missiles when it comes to most operations.

 

[fcuco]

If anything, we will see more attack type of operations since the wars of today are fought against rouge nations with barely any infrastructure to bomb. In this new type of asymmetric warfare where the enemies are rouge groups of people precision strikes are more valuable than carpet bombing a military base or an airfield that are not important to these decentralized cells.

I doubt that we will ever see an all out war in our lifetimes, it is pretty obvious right now that all the world's powers are in bed together, no matter the rhetoric and posturing that you see in the news.