Aircraft: Jack-of-all-Trades vs Master-of-One

[pmaitra]

Aircraft: Jack-of-all-Trades vs Master-of-One

This thread is to debate the two competing schools of thought:

• An aircraft should be designed for a dedicated role.
• An aircraft should be multi-role and be able to do everything.

An aircraft can include aeroplanes, helicopters, or anything that is a hybrid of both, such as the Mil-24/35 Hind.

I am going to kick this off by quoting another post with a very interesting interview about the F-35.

[HR][/HR]

@Ray Sir, @Kunal Biswas, @JBH22, @Razor, @p2prada, @Pulkit, @Mad Indian, @ersakthivel, et al.

 

[Srinivas_K]

I think in future we see UAVs along with Fighter jets under taking missions.

UAVs are becoming advanced and are deployed as a group, the UAVs in each group co operate and exchange info. between each other.

So the unit which is going to attack or defend consists of all types of aircrafts which includes AWACS, Drones, manned fighter jets,F18 growlers (to Jam the enemy defences), Support aircraft(air to air re fuelers) aided by satellites and cruise missiles.

The technology should be developed to make this unit as self sufficient and can do any kind of missions.

 

[Pulkit]

Aircraft: Jack-of-all-Trades vs Master-of-One

This thread is to debate the two competing schools of thought:

• An aircraft should be designed for a dedicated role.
• An aircraft should be multi-role and be able to do everything.

An aircraft can include aeroplanes, helicopters, or anything that is a hybrid of both, such as the Mil-24/35 Hind.

I am going to kick this off by quoting another post with a very interesting interview about the F-35.



[HR][/HR]

@Ray Sir, @Kunal Biswas, @JBH22, @Razor, @p2prada, @Pulkit, @Mad Indian, @ersakthivel, et al.

"Jack-of-all-Trades" Hye!!!! I just used that phrase....
Anyway I don't have the copywrite....

I am no expert but I don't just like the idea of putting everything on one plate or in one aircraft....
Every role require its own standards it has its own requirements ... It needs it all....

If i don't have to worry about money I would surely like a have a aircraft designed to do a particular role....


Multitasking is good but when it is about someones life and Pride of a whole Country you cannot settle for anything lesser than the best....

If its feasible possible to have a aircrafts capable of doing everything 100% precise then why not but that's not theoretically possible.....
An aircraft designed for deep penetration cannot provide support to ground troops.... As it cannot have that speed ,turn rate , cannot stay over the field for long....

What you can do is have an aircraft designed for a particular role to perfection and look for opportunities in other roles it can perform ....
Idea of having an Aircraft which can do it all right at the beginning like in the case of F-35 I just don't buy it.....

I think in future we see UAVs along with Fighter jets under taking missions.

UAVs are becoming advanced and are deployed as a group, the UAVs in each group co operate and exchange info. between each other.

So the unit which is going to attack or defend consists of all types of aircrafts which includes AWACS, Drones, manned fighter jets,F18 growlers (to Jam the enemy defences), Support aircraft(air to air re fuelers) aided by satellites and cruise missiles.

The technology should be developed to make this unit as self sufficient and can do any kind of missions.

When it comes to UAVs I don't think they can take over an aircraft flown by a pilot sitting inside it than the one sitting in a control room....

The idea of having UAVs that advanced I don't want it...
People say that it will reduce the lives lost ..... but that's not true as it will brings wars battles to the level of video games.....
We do need them for dedicated purposes but we don't need it all....
Srinivas if i understood you wrong do correct me,,,,,

 

[Zebra]

Aircraft: Jack-of-all-Trades vs Master-of-One

This thread is to debate the two competing schools of thought:

• An aircraft should be designed for a dedicated role.
• An aircraft should be multi-role and be able to do everything.

An aircraft can include aeroplanes, helicopters, or anything that is a hybrid of both, such as the Mil-24/35 Hind.

I am going to kick this off by quoting another post with a very interesting interview about the F-35.



[HR][/HR]

@Ray Sir, @Kunal Biswas, @JBH22, @Razor, @p2prada, @Pulkit, @Mad Indian, @ersakthivel, et al.

In my layman's terms, it all depends what we want from that aircraft.

I mean, we can have an aircraft with limited capability of nearly everything.

But that aircraft can't perform as good as MiG-31 or Su-34.

 

[Ray]

Having a single role aircraft is expensive in terms of finance, crew and support staff and so on. And it is only fit for the role designed for. If there is no such role cropping up regularly in combat, then the combat power is underutilised.

A multi role aircraft, on the other hand, can respond in the role required to meet the then surfacing threat and then revert to another role for another set of surfacing threat. Therefore, it is economical in all ways.

Even so there are some areas where single role aircraft is necessary as is the role of C-17, C-130, KC-135, SR-71 which are all examples of single role aircraft

 

[JBH22]

As kunal rightly pointed out it is up to the concepts and methodologies being formulated by the user. In the case of IAF inspite having threats of fighting two fronts war there is not a single dedicated CAS platform acquired. If we were to examine results of Soviet-Afghan war or Gulf wars then subsonic planes like Su 25 and A-10 which are basic planes have given decent air support as compared to "high end" platforms. These planes are the ones who took great deal of punishment while providing CAS unlike high end planes which would go down with a couple of 23mm shells.

The designers of A-10 closely examined Hans Rudel fame Stuka pilot and also came to conclusion that dedicated CAS plane need armour, subsonic speed to permit visual identification of target and get into close quarter combat with enemy. A Mig-29 or F-16 with all the chills and frills would not be able to perform same role as they are better at air to air fighting at best they may target fixed targets such as Bunkers, fortifications or command centers with stand off missile. That's what I understand.

Now if we are to take the above into consideration then CAS would be better left to army aviation and SEAD and other duties left to IAF. However, as it is always the case with bureaucracies this would lead to turf wars. My take is that India acquired planes such as Jaguar and MIG-27 which are more or less similar in their roles envisaged by their developers. Hence it does show to us that IAF does not always make right acquisition. It goes for Mirage 2000 and MIG-29 during same 1980s period.

My take is that with CSD in place army aviation better starts shopping for dedicated CAS a relatively cheap plane like SU-25 or its update SU-39. IAF to take on high end bombing missions.

 

[Srinivas_K]

When it comes to UAVs I don't think they can take over an aircraft flown by a pilot sitting inside it than the one sitting in a control room....

The idea of having UAVs that advanced I don't want it...
People say that it will reduce the lives lost ..... but that's not true as it will brings wars battles to the level of video games.....
We do need them for dedicated purposes but we don't need it all....
Srinivas if i understood you wrong do correct me,,,,,

There are autonomous UAVs that are being developed which will act on their own in groups, sharing the tasks. I have seen some of the concepts of Lockheed Martin.

A pilot less aircraft will offer super maneuverability and extended range. But Technology needs to be developed in this direction.

Secondly UAVs which are 70000 Km above the sky are always advantageous as they are immune to air attacks and can do surgical strikes as well.

The UAVs offer another dimension to the air doctrines. A mix of UAVs and piloted aircraft combined with AWACs, re fuelers aided by satellites is capable of doing any mission.

So In my post my emphasis is on the above unit of mix of planes.

Some multi purpose some are specialized

 

[SajeevJino]

.

The Term is Different for Every Scenario

It will match both US Russia Israel China Even India

We can't send MRCA into enemy Territory in First day of War .We need to Do Some Mission in case we are going to strike China or Bakistan in Near future First and Foremost We should Destroy their early Warning Radar Sites .For that we need a SEAD/DEAD Aircraft .Then we have have to achieve Aerial Superiority in enemy Territory for that we need a Perfect Air Superiority fighter That will Destroy any Enemy Fighters who tries to Enter our Controlled Enemy Territory .Third only we send a Heavy or Multi Role Platform to support Primary Mission in case of any Specified Target destruction or Provided assist to Ground forces to meet their Target

so for a Mission we need Dedicated SEAD Fighter,Air Superiority Fighter and a CAS or MRCA

If we are going to Strike Sri Lanka or other third countries we may use only the MRCA that can do all the above mission but only as Part Time mission

when the US Entered Iraq they use the AH 64 to destroy Iraqi Early warning Radar sites after F 15 goes into action near Baghdad to kill some key Installation after only A 10 Entered and Smashed enemy Positions and Give Clear and Perfect CAS missions to their Soldiers

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I am all for Army aviation expansion, Including handling of Medium Range Helicopters and Strike and Recon Aircraft let it be any based on budget and availability ..

My take is that with CSD in place army aviation better starts shopping for dedicated CAS a relatively cheap plane like SU-25 or its update SU-39. IAF to take on high end bombing missions.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Regarding the topic, As an Indian centric, i think its best mulit-role aircraft for IAF that too in great numbers and in cheap in both operational and unit costs ..

 

[ersakthivel]

Most of tomorrow'a fighters will be air superiority ones with laser guided long stand off range munitions based designs. UCAVs will also take a major share of CAS role in future.
So after Su-34 full back I dont think such big dedicated strikers being built in fighter versions.