Multi role vs single mission aircraft

Member for

14 years 8 months

Posts: 545

Which one is more useful in the setting of big war of attrition involving intense combat over a number of weeks to months Alternatively which is more useful in a more limited conflict
Original post
Profile picture for user obligatory

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 6,983

i think a huge AF can benefit from having specialized types, but smaller AF are better off with one size fits all
Profile picture for user SpudmanWP

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 5,196

There are many factors which govern this question like "Is there a limit to the number of aircraft available?" If the answer is no then by all means, specialized aircraft all the way. Unfortunately that is not the case, ever. In actuality the limit of aircraft can be quite pronounced, especially for countries with limited resources or unique situations like a US Naval action where they are limited to what can be on a carrier. There is a reason why the world's top defense departments have been concentrating on multirole fighters for the past 30+ years.
Profile picture for user paralay

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 1,344

Practice-criterion of truth 1940 - 1945 light fighters Як-1 (8734), Як-3 (4848), Як-7 (6399), Total 19981 heavy fighter ЛаГГ-1 / ЛаГГ-3 (6598), Ла-5 (9920), Ла-9 (1882), Total 18400 interceptors МиГ-1 (100), МиГ-3 (3178), Total 3278 multirole fighter Як-9 - 16769 [ATTACH=CONFIG]251212[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]251214[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]251213[/ATTACH]
Attachment Size
park.JPG 202.88 KB
4.jpg 822.23 KB
i1n01s.jpg 19.18 KB

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 11,742

The F-35, SH, Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen a.s.o. give the answere. In a high threat war it is about air-superiority at first. It has to be done with the fighters at hand and is decided within a short time. An air campaign will not last more than a month in most cases or gone nuclear.

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 353

Perhaps it is not one or the other, but a mix is likely best. It is important to consider why you are suffering from high attrition in your hypothetical scenario. If it is to superior air and surface based defenses defeating your single mission aircraft then you have the wrong mix- you need multirole that can fight and protect themselves, or or a better mix of complementary aircraft that can deal with the threat. In WWII sending certain single mission aircraft unescorted into enemy airspace proved suicidal (il-2, JU-87's B-17's....) Things improved when proper escorts were assigned to handle the air-to-air threat. Same lesson in Vietnam. Attack/bomber packages did much better when dedicated air-to air and SEAD resources were assigned to go with the attack aircraft. Frankly there is something to be said about complementary aircraft that allow more specialized aircraft to do what they excel at- but it is expensive as you need multiple types and larger numbers. If you can have the high mix go in and gain air superiority and defeat/suppress enemy air defenses, then you can go in with lower mix single mission aircraft. Multi/Omni role aircraft have blurred this distinction. In you more limited conflict, whatever can do the mission is good enough. In many instances a simple COIN aircraft would have sufficed against enemies with zero or limited defenses- but no one wants to invest in aircraft that can only fight an unsophisticated enemy. Also important to consider training. All tasks require training and are perishable skills. How much time can you afford to spend on each mission skill? Some of the best air-to-air crews spend most of their time on air-to-air skills. Same goes for other missions. I say if you can afford it, a complementary fleet is ideal.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 11,742

In a high-low mix, the older ones can be effective in single missions as well. It makes no economical sense to have the highend ones for all missions always. In an asymmetrical war or peace-time it will prohibited to do so the related cost in mind.
Profile picture for user obligatory

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 6,983

come to think of it, time also influence in favor of multirole, nowadays there is no time to start up production of any fighter after war started, it just takes too long, so what you got in your inventory is what you have to your disposal in the conflict