This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
References
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)
I'd like the Gripen to be added to Europe. 217.210.224.224 22:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. Rocket maniac RT 15:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
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,
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)
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)
None of the larger multirole aircraft are covered. Hcobb ( talk) 15:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
The headline says it all.
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)
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)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
References
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)
I'd like the Gripen to be added to Europe. 217.210.224.224 22:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. Rocket maniac RT 15:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
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,
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)
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)
None of the larger multirole aircraft are covered. Hcobb ( talk) 15:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
The headline says it all.
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)
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)