It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What is roles funtion for actually?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:40 PM
there are multirole fighter, tactical fighter, ect.

i don't understand.

in the US, there is Tactical Airforce, Naval Airforce, and Airforce

but why in time like WW2 there so much fighterplane, just like "selling what we make" rather than "making what we sell".

in other country there is different orientation of Airforce.

i just don't get it. now in the US there is only two roles: F-22 for tactical and F-35 for multirole.

can u explain

[edit on 9/14/2007 by Eastpolar Commander]

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Eastpolar Commander
...can u explain...

I'd love to but you'll have to state your question more clearly as I'm not really sure what your trying to say.

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:09 PM
There are many roles in air warfare. You have strategic bombing (B-1, B-2, B-52) where you destroy huge areas of land, tactical bombing (F-15E, F/A-18) where you go after smaller targets, like vehicles, radar sites, etc, and then you have "pure" air to air roles (F-22) where you go hunting for other fighters and bombers in the air.

To fulfill these different roles the US went with using just a few types of aircraft, rather than having 25 or 30 types to do the same missions. It's easier to take a proven airframe, like the F-15 and modify it to do another mission, than to build a new airframe from scratch to do the same thing. However, sooner or later your opponent is going to come up with something better, so you HAVE to build a new type. Thus you have the F-22 and F-35 being built.

As for USAF and USN, they are separate services, with different responsibilities and equipment.

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 01:19 AM
Thx Zapod58. It's a good information. but does the contractor could make their own built and sell it without gov. requirements?

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 01:21 AM
No. At one point someone like Kelly Johnson (who created Skunkworks) could go to the government and say "Hey, I have this design and I think you need something like this." and the military would look at his design, but now almost nothing is done without some kind of proposal from the military first. You may see designs developed from the original design, but the military puts out what they call an RFP or Request For Proposals to the various contractors, and they compete to get the contract to build a new plane.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:23 AM
How about the Stavatti Ae. they should get the requrements from the US Airforce. they planned to roduce about 6000 STALMA. is the Stavatti really exist?

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 05:11 AM
The STALMA may be a real design, but I doubt it. This kind of gives it away at the bottom of their webpage:

The designation SM-36 STALMA™ is an internal, corporate assigned air weapon system designation and does not reflect USAF/USN/USMC/DoD concurrence. USAF/USN/USMC/DoD concurrence is neither implied nor intended. The SM-36 is the STAVATTI MODEL (SM)-36 aircraft. The designation SM-39 AVATAR™ is also an internal, corporate assigned air weapon system designation and does not reflect USAF/USN/USMC/DoD concurrence. USAF/USN/USMC/DoD concurrence is neither implied nor intended.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 11:32 AM
A while ago (about 3 years) Stavatti I believe was concluded to be some guy's fantasy.

There was a debate on it and there is no evidence to support that Stavatti is a real company and not a single of Stavatti's systems have ever left the concept stage. Ever.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 11:26 PM
I tried to find it by google earth. but there is none! it think it's true, there is no Stavatti. How dare! it's a good one. at least we can count on it.

top topics


log in