Multi-role fighter?

Multi-Role?

After reading some of the comments on the F-35 and whether or not it would succeed in the multi-role arena I thought a quick down and dirty about the label was in order.

Historical.

Air arms have not always chased the "holy grail" of multi-role fighters.  Early on it was recognized that the attack, strike, air superiority and bomber missions required optimized aircraft to perform each role.  So having said that where did the multi-role "airplane" come from?  From what little I could dig up I would say that it was made famous (note that I'm not saying they developed the technique, just that they popularized it) by the 8th AF P-47 fighter during the fighting in Europe.  Air Aces like Lt Col Gabby Gabreski pushed their troops hard to always be on the offensive.  After escorting bombers over their targets, and ensuring their safety, he would task his men with attacking whatever target of opportunity they came across...whether enemy airfields, rails, troop emplacements, tanks in the open...he had his people rampaging across Europe.

Later when production increased and P-51's became the main escort fighters for the bombers, the P-47 was loaded with bombs and rockets and then became a fighter bomber.  The roles reversed.  It would seek out ground targets first and THEN go after air kills if the situation arose.

This still isn't a multi-role plane in the manner in which we speak today however.  It simply became re-tasked with the attack mission with a secondary capability to go after enemy fighters.

What is the key to a superior multi-role airplane?

Check my light research but from what I could dig out it appears that optimizing an airplane for aerial combat first allows for it to later become a multi-role (in the modern sense) fighter.  Prime example.  The F-4 Phantom.  Did you know that it was originally designed by the US Navy to be a "Fleet Defense Fighter"?  In other words it needed to be big enough to carry large anti-air missiles to defend the fleet against enemy bombers and fighters, long legged enough to get to them before they could launch their missiles and have enough endurance so that it could remain airborne while performing its duty.  What did that mean?  Well it was a MACH 2 plus airplane that evolved to carry a massive bomb load over a respectable distance when it got pushed into the multi-role scheme.  The plane had it all because it was designed to excel at one mission...it was able to flex into other roles because of that excellence.

Ok Solomon but what about an attacker that became a good fighter?

Again, this is a quick and dirty...so correct me if you find an example...but I couldn't.  As a matter of fact the only strike fighter that was designed with the "strike" mission in mind first and a fighter mission second was the F-105.  I'm not as critical of the plane as many.  People forget that it was made to be a NUCLEAR strike fighter and flexed into the deep strike mission role and then went head to head with MIGS over Vietnam.  It got sent after the roughest targets in that conflict and suffered enormous losses because of it, but other airplanes would have had an even rougher ride.  But back to the issue at hand.  Thankfully we had hardcore roughnecks flying those planes because against more nimble MIGS they held their own.  It wasn't optimal.  It wasn't pretty, but they got the job done.  Unfortunately the institutional memory faded and we're where we're at today.

But what about modern multi-role fighters?

Yeah, I knew you'd bring this up.  Lets talk modern multi-role (or as the French say "omni-role) fighters.  Everyone forgets that everyone of the modern big dawgs was built first as a superior fighter.  The F-16, F-15, F-18, Typhoon, Rafale, Su-27 family...they all were built to be air superiority or (in the case of the F-18) fleet defense fighters.  Technological advances have made them multi-role.  PODS, advanced munitions that are precision capable...but it can't be denied that they were first designed as fighters.  Oh and don't let the clowns at F-16.net or Lockheed Martin tell you different.

So you're telling me that multi-role is fiction?

No.  I'm telling you that you build a fighter to be superior in that role and if you get it right then you can flex it into the strike mission because of that.  If your plane is optimized toward strike then making it a fighter will cause tradeoffs that are unacceptable.

Bottom line?

Build a fighter first.  Then let your plane evolve due to tech into a striker.