Talk:Multirole combat aircraft

message: 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" AboveTopSecret.com Difference between Swing-Role and Multi-Role
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)
thread_title: Plagiarsim

message: 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)
thread_title: Other uses for "multirole"

message: I'd like the Gripen to be added to Europe. 217.210.224.224 22:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done ... but added to Sweden. Askari Mark (Talk) 14:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JAS Gripen 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tornado not multirole? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Show me please 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I agree; have promoted this to start-class.  —Compdude123 (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pre Tornado MRCAs 

message: None of the larger multirole aircraft are covered. Hcobb (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Do the reliable sources describe it as a MRCA? GraemeLeggett (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to Multirole tactical combat aircraft 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK, i'l create a gallery. How many max images in the gallery? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 01:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

text: * I moved the last 3 images to a gallery section. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of images 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aircraft, or aircraft type? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion