Talk:Multirole combat aircraft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plagiarsim[edit]

Example which shows the difference between Swing-Role and Multi-role: "an F/A-18A squadron carrying out a raid might have half its aircraft configured for the strike mission while the rest are tasked with providing top cover, these definitions would remain unchanged until the aircraft had landed again . However in a swing role type (F/A-18E) all the aircraft would be configured for optimum attack capability and once the raid has been carried out they are all pure fighters with no compromise again just by the touch of a button" [1] Source is correct, but with following licence: "You are free: 

   to copy, distribute, display, and perform the material under the following conditions:

Attribution. You must attribute authorship of the work to "waynos; a member of AboveTopSecret.com", and include the title of the message thread, Dumbest question ever; and this full link URL to the post: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread136807/pg1#pid1413845. (Unless otherwise noted, photography and other artwork linked within member posts are subject to the usage rights of the individual owners of the linked artwork.) Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. This includes display on any website that contains advertising, accepts member donations, or any other form of monetary compensation. Display must be open to the general web browsing public with no access restrictions.

No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work."

Hence copy/paste the post is violating the terms given and the quoted text should remain removed. /BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ AboveTopSecret.com Difference between Swing-Role and Multi-Role

Other uses for "multirole"[edit]

The term "multirole" is not just limited to combat aircraft. A C-130, for instance, is also a multirole aircraft. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JAS Gripen[edit]

I'd like the Gripen to be added to Europe. 217.210.224.224 22:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done ... but added to Sweden. Askari Mark (Talk) 14:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado not multirole?[edit]

Should the tornado really be in the list? I know its name included "multi-role", but actually any given variant was either a strike aircraft or an interceptor (none were both). If it is included then should other planes eg Saab Viggen? F-15? MiG-23? All of these have both ground attack and interceptor/fighter varients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.6.122 (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Way too many planes are as multirole as the tornado. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.221.202 (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was solved on various user talk pages, bad place to solve yes but still, the Tornado is where the term came from. G. R. Allison (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show me please[edit]

Name one modern jet fighter than cannot drop bombs. Even the Eurofighter and the Raptor have been jury rigged with minimal ground attack capabilities. It's getting fairly obvious that multirole fighter should simply redirect to plain old ordinary jet fighter as nothing is just in one category or the other. And do the same with strike fighter. Hcobb (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference has alway been how accurate those dropped bombs will be. In the past, jet arcraft could not carry the avionics and other equipment for both the air-to-air and air-to-ground mission. WHen air-to-air fighters were replaced by more modern fighters, or were not effective from the beginning, they became fighter bombers, but were never very accurate, not compared with the dedicated attack aircraft of the time, but were none the less useful. Modern avioncs, especially from the F/A-18 on, has enabled one aircraft to do both missions without major changes between missions, and often now on the ssame missions (self-escorting). Does the article need a rewrite? Yes, but it can be useful. - BilCat (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The part about Strike Fighters being different from Multirole Aircraft is odd. What makes an f16 multirole and not the f15E? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AThousandYoung (talk • contribs) 06:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above comment. The F-15E Strike Eagle article says in the very first sentence that it is an all-weather "multirole fighter". So why is it not included here? Rocketmaniac RT 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think advances in modern avionics have made this really complicated- The F-22 is listed here as multi-role, but it was meant as a pure A2A fighter, and lacks a targeting pod. Almost any jet fighter can mount bombs, and with GPS guided bombs and modern avionics, its not difficult to enable an air superiority fighter to perform a strike mission. For that matter, the AV-8B harrier - an attack aircraft, has a radar and can mount AIM-120 AMRAAMs, and thus has pretty good A2A capabilities. I think just about every jet fighter that has had a modenrization program in the last 20 years would count as multiroleEmaNyton (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stub?[edit]

Why is this article still considered a "stub"? It seems to be fairly in-depth. It has a good beginning, the history of the term and nice examples. Rocketmaniac RT 15:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please restubbify it. Turn it into a one paragraph category page which any aircraft called a "Multirole combat aircraft" by a RS is welcome to join. Hcobb (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; have promoted this to start-class. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Rafale, you say ?[edit]

Does your page make promotion of Sukhoi, or Mig, or chinese aircraft ? or simply Tornado, Typhoon, F-35...

To MilborneOne and Ahunt: I simply don't recognise the supposed WP philosophy in your attitude, while MilborneOne is WP administrator and Ahunt is reviewer. If a product (here aircraft) has some qualities noother aircraft has, the simple naming of these qualities is surely seen by the competitors as promotion... but any impartial observator would easily see the difference.

In our situation, the observator was looking at Libya operations, reading the reports, where this aircraft has obviously prooved these qualities, much more than other aircraft, and especially, from Day One (before any other aircraft or cruise missile or UAV), with these Multirole and Swingrole qualitiés... and there are journalists - not french - who have signed papers on that list of facts and evidences !

How possibly can you give your 'validation' to a page on multirole aircraft,

  • which simply doesn't cite once this Rafale, which is obviously the most multirole operational aircraft in the world, ever (and with carrier-borne, and with an unbeattable commonality between Marine B, C and M) ?
  • where the only cited aircraft are those where UK is involved, more (Typhoon and F-35) or less (Gripen) ?!! It's to such a degree that I just can't believe my eyes ! How do you name this attitude ? POV, no ??? It's so much obvious that any honnest person would tell you manifest a partial attitude
  • and, you like it or not, the fact is that aircraft is omnirole (from latine, omni, for all, not only multi, for several), since it can do everything, even deterrence... and these roles are all available potentially at any moment (except that it can't of course carry douzens of missiles all together... ;-) ).

And there are citations, links, references... I am really surprised, and disappointed, I frankly didn't expect these facts, to such a degree, with WP ! AirCraft (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, I think I can see where they are coming from; it was just too much coverage upon one aircraft - it looked to me like canvassing, that the Rafale was being pushed forward to dominate various discussions, and awarded a subjective superiority on a single editor's personal preference. Some of that superiority is deserved, parts are cited to sources as a by-the-by, we can't always take Dassault's advertising at face-value, such as the superiority of its multi-role abilities - in practice the cockpit arrangement doesn't sound dramatically different to the F/A-18's, and naturally the salesman is going to drum up his product, including throwing around fancy latin words to obfiscate the issue. We honestly shouldn't make much of a deal out of the 'difference' between Omni-role and Multirole - you may feel than Omni-role implies/is a whole new level of design, I feel it's just a different word for the same thing from the marketing department; its superior value isn't objectively superior, if that can be understood - I personally would want more than just a "rose by any other name"). I do believe there should be some Rafale coverage - but it doesn't need any more coverage than what other aircraft get, else it is WP:UNDUE. It makes little sense to bang on about every vagary of the Rafale, yet not give other aircraft a similar amount of coverage and attention - I remember back in the 1980s, the Hornet's ability toswitch between fighter-attack was cutting edge, and these articles are supposed to reach back with historical perspective, not just that of the current day and the current king (whomever you feel that king to be). Also, some of the wording was over-complimentry, in my opinion, a more neutral stance not only serves the plane more fairly, but would discourage the opinion that it is a promotional peice/unfairly in favour of one agenda. I can accept any editor having a favourite aircraft, but we all have to walk a line between neutrally adding detail and placing favouritism into an article. Kyteto (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kyteto: I can understand, even if I dont agree completely (and I'll reply below). I agree with AirCraft, and there is another problem with these deletions by MilborneOne and Ahunt:
Kyteto: I have some difficulties understanding some words or expressions you use (by-the-by, obfiscate) sorry, but I think I get the general idea..
  • Too much coverage (Rafale) ? I understand, but my english is not so good, and it's easier for me to let the citation. It's very easy for them to delete (one clic), it's very difficult for me (and probably others) to build arguments in that language (which has become international, so no other way). And for the moment, the coverage had been reduced to only 2 aircraft (one - F-35 - not operational, and EF, with no real air-to-ground capacities before 2018) + some words on Tornado (not an excellent example of multirole) + a picture of Gripen (multirole, swing role) => the examples have disappeared, the table also, which helped to have an idea of what aircraft do what...
  • we can't always take Dassault's advertising at face-value. Yes, that's why) citations were useful (field, Libya, and form journalists) which were scrapped... And there was a discussion about the costs, and the benefits, which also disappeared... Crucial point: multirole capacities might be a bad idea, so it's important to see if it's really a good idea ! (but for that, different points of vue are necessary ! and not the fast but not constructive deletion click...  ;-) )
  • cockpit arrangement not very different to the F/A-18 ? I don't know, but Spectra self protection suite, OSF, data fusion, etc. all that makes a hudge difference if a pilot was assigned different tasks in the same sortie, and if he is facing airborne and ground threats (see below)
  • Fancy latin words ? frankly it's just a way to make the difference with multirole, which seems difficult to present: so many multirole aircraft, with so many differences fonctionnally. The difference is :1. all roles, 2. swing roles 3. ability to simultaneously carry out different roles (see the 1st paragraph -in omnirole- which was deleted, on that very important point) So it's not just a different word for the same something: "the Rafale's weapon system can simultaneously deal with airborne and ground threats", which makes a hudge difference between a dead pilot or a pilot alive !! VHiTek (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is to be a concept article then we can have two short sections. The first being the attributes of a hypothetical generic multirole fighter, and the second being a list of them. The first section will name no fighters and the second section will name no attributes. If the readers are interested in the attributes of the listed aircraft then they can click through. (This really needs to be a category page...) Hcobb (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hcobb: it could be seen as a very interesting idea, if the 'attributes' were not linked to "Multirole" aspects, but it is note the case, the following points (for Rafale) are directly linked to MULTIROLE: 1. Two major roles simultaneously, 2. Several roles in the same sortie (swing role), 3. Survivability thanks to Spectra self-protection suite, data fusion, osf, (simultaneous roles) 4. pilot was not overloaded (linked to all this). And it's interesting to see how these points, or other points (linked to Multirole capabilities), are covered in other aircraft. So comments on other aircraft are (also) welcome ! VHiTek (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion, for the moment, according to me: 1. I'll restore some parts, which were deleted. And restore the organization: Multirole, Swingrole, Omnirole, since it's a gradation in multirole capabilities. 1bis. One question could be "Omnirole" =paragraph, or =subparagraph of Swingrole ? In the latter case, this paragraph would become too big, that's why I'll let it like it was. 2. I'll rewrite, in bad english, the paragraph Omnirole, in order to shorten (a bit) it; but short is not so easy, because it's complex notions, and because examples are often the best mean to understand. VHiTek (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with VHiTek, and I've completed the multirole and swingrole paragraphs with examples. I still dont understand why the deleted table could be considered as OR. And other examples (swingrole benefits for example), welcomed !AirCraft (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You would agree with VHiTek, you're the same person trying to game the system through multiple accounts; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Laurent Simon. Kyteto (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The table can be considered as OR if you are assembling a collection of aircraft that you believe are multi-role and comparing them, rather than that which a relisable source has compared. Since you are dividing them into groups for comparison this is more questionable than a straight list without comparisons. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for this answer, GraemeLeggett. But the deleted table did not make any comparison, it's like a list without comparisons, is not it ? And that's only facts (carrier-capable or not, one major role or two, specialized, same basic design-different variants vs Multirole (according to the definition given), where is the problem ? AirCraft (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I would say that you had interpreted the original source (translated version) into your own criteria, which are absent from the original. As to whether the source is reliable in the first instance.... GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may also be worth mentioning that the editor who originally added this material (Lauren Simon (talk · contribs)) shares the same name as the author of the blog past he cites ([1]) adding a potential WP:COI on top of the big original research issue we have here. --McSly (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pre Tornado MRCAs[edit]

I'm not sure how to phrase this, but I was thinking that there may be some history of attempts at multi-role aircraft though they wouldn't have been called that. Prior to the Second World War the British drew up specifications for aircraft that were supposed to be able to carry out several roles; "general purpose" aircraft. An example is the specification that led to the Fairey G.4/31 and others - expected to be capable of "level bombing, army co-operation, dive bombing, reconnaissance, casualty evacuation and torpedo bombing". Whichever aircraft design was selected would replace both the Gordon and the Wapiti then in service. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Multirole tactical combat aircraft[edit]

None of the larger multirole aircraft are covered. Hcobb (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The name should stick to WP:COMMONNAME. Additionally, changing the scope of an existing article would possibly break the intended usage of all the links that presently lead here. I think, for now, one can add all multirole aircraft here, both non-fighters and fighters (if that is what you imply with the word "tactical"). If the article would grow overly large, it would be logical, I guess, to separate multirole fighter in a manner of WP:summary style - and this would be perfectly along WP:COMMONNAME. --Kubanczyk (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a test case. The Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules is a tanker, a cargo plane and a strike aircraft. It is clearly a multirole aircraft that engages in combat. List it? Hcobb (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do the reliable sources describe it as a MRCA? GraemeLeggett (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number of images[edit]

The article has too many images already. I believe no more images should be added to it. A thought: add a new gallery section, with a range of images. Another thought: another section for list of multi-role airplanes may be started like it has been done at Fifth-generation jet fighter. Suggestions? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainty no more images in with the text than the current 5 images. A gallery would work, but could easily be overloaded with images. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, i'l create a gallery. How many max images in the gallery? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 01:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved the last 3 images to a gallery section. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the FA-50 Fighting Eagle doing in this list, and twice ?[edit]

The headline says it all.

Aircraft, or aircraft type?[edit]

Thinking particularly of the Tornado, this is an aircraft which famously was developed as the "MRCA". Yet it now exists in variant, the IDS/GR and ADV, also the ECR, which are individually no longer so flexible. The program development was shared and the airframes are the same (unlike the F-5/T-38, and even closer than the F-15/F-15E) but the differing radar fit changes their capabilities significantly.

Should this article make this difference clearer? Some programs develop multi-role aircraft, but individual models may still become re-specialised.

There's also the cost aspect to this, which is underplayed in the article. Particularly post Cold War and outside the US, the cost of aircraft is dominated by the development costs, not the production costs of the few aircraft built and flown. So shared program costs across multiple roles is an important reason for this type of multi-role program. Also the provision of an air-defence grade radar can be so much above a ground attack and navigation radar that cost saving encourage model splitting. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Multirole_combat_aircraft&oldid=1194963536"