When looking back in the 1970's and 1980's there were still many fighter jets coming out that was designed to maximize the air-to-air capabilities to gain full air-superiority. Jets like the F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, F-16 Falcon, Su-27 Flanker, MiG-29 Fulcrum or the MiG-25 Foxbat and MiG-31 Foxhound were basically designed to fight targets in the skies while the F-14, MiG-25 and MiG-31 are interceptors to fight enemies from the long-range distance being fast but less agile. Later most jets' platforms were upgraded to fighter bombers leading to F-15B/E Strike Eagle, Su-30, F-16B/D which carried LGBs and AGMs while the YF-17 became the F/A-18 Hornet which might be the first real multirole fighter jet to roll out when entering service the early 1980's. Now many projects from the 1980's like the YF-22, EF2000, Rafale, Gripen and the J-10 started from the direction to develop more advanced fighter jets of the 4th and 5th generations. But before being deployed/entering service they had changed the purpose from pure air-superiority fighter to multirole jets to reach a better balance between air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities. Even the YF-22 became designated F/A-22A Raptor which means that its groundstrike capability is considered to reach an optimum and not just an add-on feature. The Russians also developped a two seater version of the Su-37 Terminator to increase the groundstrike capability. Now, I wonder whether we will ever witness any "pure" air-superiority fighter jets anymore since the need for multirole has been increasing since the early 1980's. Fighter bombers like the Panavia Tornado, JH-7 seem to be getting replaced too by the multirole fighters. So all newer jets are stereotypes/ allrounders while the old fighter jets were either good in AAC or in AGC.
fighter jets trend: from air-superiority to multirole
- Thread starter PLA2025
- Start date
Of course. This is a mostly political-inspired development. While I would think that modern technologies makes it indeed more feasible to deploy a fighter jet that offers good air-to-air capabilities as well as being useful in a strike role, it still represents a compromise being made out of severely reduced defense budgets.
With the F-22 and its redesignation the whole "we go multirole because of the cash"-spectacle reached its peak, as far as I can see. Here you have a air-superiority fighter in the purest sense of the word, heavily RCS-optimized, emphasize on internal (meaning smaller) payload. Actually I think the AC will never truly evolve into a real strike/multirole AC ever...although looking back at the F-16 anything might happen.
If cold war style funding and requirements would return tomorrow, it is my perspective that it would not take too long and we could see the advent of AC which could be put in clearer categories again.
Of course that would ignore the whole UCAV-development. But even here there is a chance that the new possibilities in UAV technology might lead the way back to distinctive types of fighters.
With the F-22 and its redesignation the whole "we go multirole because of the cash"-spectacle reached its peak, as far as I can see. Here you have a air-superiority fighter in the purest sense of the word, heavily RCS-optimized, emphasize on internal (meaning smaller) payload. Actually I think the AC will never truly evolve into a real strike/multirole AC ever...although looking back at the F-16 anything might happen.
If cold war style funding and requirements would return tomorrow, it is my perspective that it would not take too long and we could see the advent of AC which could be put in clearer categories again.
Of course that would ignore the whole UCAV-development. But even here there is a chance that the new possibilities in UAV technology might lead the way back to distinctive types of fighters.
Last edited:
why cante f22 evolve into the f16 of the future?turin said:Of course. This is a mostly political-inspired development. While I would think that modern technologies makes it indeed more feasible to deploy a fighter jet that offers good air-to-air capabilities as well as being useful in a strike role, it still represents a compromise being made out of severely reduced defense budgets.
With the F-22 and its redesignation the whole "we go multirole because of the cash"-spectacle reached its peak, as far as I can see. Here you have a air-superiority fighter in the purest sense of the word, heavily RCS-optimized, emphasize on internal (meaning smaller) payload. Actually I think the AC will never truly evolve into a real strike/multirole AC ever...although looking back at the F-16 anything might happen.
If cold war style funding and requirements would return tomorrow, it is my perspective that it would not take too long and we could see the advent of AC which could be put in clearer categories again.
Of course that would ignore the whole UCAV-development. But even here there is a chance that the new possibilities in UAV technology might lead the way back to distinctive types of fighters.
it has two features which can be very usefull in both airsuperiority as well as the ground attack role(stealth and the supercruise).
supercruise will enable it to enter the battle zone quickly,stealthily and with lower fuel consumption whereas stealth will ensure high survivabilty(i expect it to be the us f15 of the future).
At least the stealth advantage would be gone, would the F-22 evolve into some kind of bomb truck the way the F-16 did. There is little use for a RCS-optimized fuselage when you are adding additional underwing weapons, esp. heavy air-to-ground ordnance.
As I said, its hard to see wether there will come up future versions of the F-22 which take a more solid approach at adapting to air-to-ground, however another factor certainly is that different to the F-16 the F-22 was never conceived as a aircraft with a moderate price in the first place. So the price tag will surely influence any decisions on further adaptions of the Raptor with more accent on multirole and, resulting, a wider application of the F-22.
As I said, its hard to see wether there will come up future versions of the F-22 which take a more solid approach at adapting to air-to-ground, however another factor certainly is that different to the F-16 the F-22 was never conceived as a aircraft with a moderate price in the first place. So the price tag will surely influence any decisions on further adaptions of the Raptor with more accent on multirole and, resulting, a wider application of the F-22.
The_Zergling
New Member
Agree with above post, the F-16 was designed to be a mass produced "cheap" aircraft, while the F-22 was designed to be the number one undisputed master of the sky... it's probably one of the last aircraft that was designed for a strictly air to air role...
Even if costs force the company or government to add additional missio roles via external hardpoints or such the F-22 will never be as cost effective as say, the F-15E Strike Eagle.
Its internal bays are designed to carry thin and long AMRAAM missiles, and can't really carry enough of those fat and destructive JDAMs...
But the simplest answer to the "question" or trend that was mentioned in the beginning of the thread is that these fighter jets cost WAY too much nowadays, and having a fighter that can only do one role is redundant, especially if the enemy can outnumber you by a long run...
Even if costs force the company or government to add additional missio roles via external hardpoints or such the F-22 will never be as cost effective as say, the F-15E Strike Eagle.
Its internal bays are designed to carry thin and long AMRAAM missiles, and can't really carry enough of those fat and destructive JDAMs...
But the simplest answer to the "question" or trend that was mentioned in the beginning of the thread is that these fighter jets cost WAY too much nowadays, and having a fighter that can only do one role is redundant, especially if the enemy can outnumber you by a long run...