Ideal war machines

In todays world, the superpowers has reach their advanced point.

or examples:
the US has F-22, F-35, FFW ect.
Germany has IdZ, Panzer Howitzer 2000 tank, Tornado, ect.
Europe has EF-2000 Typhoon, Taranis, Neuron, and some of them will have F-35 too, and maybe in the future they will make fighter such like Raptor.
Rusiian will have T-50 and I-2000, Skat and others new toys.

but if we see in advanced perspective as future warfare.

In the future we should can to send troops anywhere on earth. In all wheater and environment and condition.

but for example: the F-35 major role is not for combat, but for bombing.

i mean, the term Fighter means Fighter not bomber!

so, does actually the effectiveness of a vehicle depend on the enemys environments like now US in Iraqi desert(extreme, open fielded), or just create an ultimate one(for fighting and bombing/for invasion and deep strike mission)?

i'm not an expert so please help me

thx before

Originally posted by Eastpolar Commander


i mean, the term Fighter means Fighter not bomber!

so, does actually the effectiveness of a vehicle depend on the enemys environments like now US in Iraqi desert(extreme, open fielded), or just create an ultimate one(for fighting and bombing/for invasion and deep strike mission)?

A multirole aircraft gives military planners *significantly* greater capability during a conflict - you no longer have a bunch of your air force sitting around doing nothing while the skies are made safe by your air dominance force, you no longer have your air dominance force doing nothing but escort missions while your bomber force hits its targets.

A multirole or swing role aircraft can fight its way onto the target, hit it and fight its way out again. It can provide better ground support as well, dealing with the enemies inbound bomber force and also delivering its own ground ordnance when required.

A multirole aircraft reduces the number of aircraft you need to have, support and maintain during the conflict, which means lower cost and better focus of man power.

With speciality aircraft, you are always at a potential disadvantage where that speciality may not be needed or needed for a very short duration during the conflict, rendering the fleet surplus to requirements for most of it.

As technology increases, the number of different types of aircraft will diminish until an airforce comprises of one or two types (so that one type can be grounded in an emergency and not render the air force unable) that can do anything required in its class - air dominance, interceptor, bomber, ground support, close air support, recon, sigint.

Thx Richard, how about the F-35 dogfight capability, it's a heavy fighter, with low internal armament load capacity, and has no vectoring nozzle.
does the F-35 want to replace the moving vectoring nozzles (in case it won't detected by radar) with mounted helmet, so the F-35 has same capability as if it's raptor's manuever?

thx

Originally posted by Eastpolar Commander
Thx Richard, how about the F-35 dogfight capability, it's a heavy fighter, with low internal armament load capacity, and has no vectoring nozzle.

The F-35 is a Strike Fighter - it mixes the ground attack and fighter roles, it is not an air dominance or superiority aircraft and thus will not feature in those roles.

Its sort of mid way between a few of the generations I described in my last post.

does the F-35 want to replace the moving vectoring nozzles (in case it won't detected by radar) with mounted helmet, so the F-35 has same capability as if it's raptor's manuever?
thx

The F-35 won't be as maneuverable as the F-22 because its not part of its job role.