Thread 64135710

Why are ground vehicles usually very specialized while planes tend to be more multirole?

>>64135710 (OP)
Planes have to only go through air and not get hit.

all combat aircraft do the exact same things
>fly around
>look at shit
>release heavy objects from hardpoints

>>64135742
Why can't we design a multirole armoured vehicle? We should pour in 1% of gdp to research this methinks

>>64135710 (OP)
Asking why tanks aren't multirole just because there are other vehicles out there is like asking why fighter aren't multirole because there are other aircraft out there.
What would make a tank multirole? Tacking on some AA? Well any actually useful AA would require radar on top which would instantly wreck the profile of a tank and be instantly damaged in the sort of combat a tank is expected to do. The MBT is already multirole, it's a multirole tank. The MBT is fast, armored and has a big gun, all of which were roles previously assigned to separate tanks.
Anyway, just like with aircraft, tanks started out specialized, then merged categories as engines improved. A multirole fighter is a merger of interceptor, fighter and fighter-bomber but it doesn't do the job of the true big bombers.

>>64135710 (OP)
Planes were highly specialized until fairly recently. Interceptors, fighters, night fighters, tactical bombers, strategic bombers, reconnaissance... Not to even mention all the support roles.
Hell, most of those categorizations still exist. It's just the lighter airframes which have become modular thanks to advances in propulsion allowing them to carry a wide array of standardized gear. Why build several different kinds of planes, when one can do the job with specialized loadout? They've got the carrying capacity.

You can't pull out the most of the armor and the turret off an MBT and make it into a self-propelled howitzer in fifteen minutes. But pluck out the AAM's and tack on guided bombs, and presto. A truck into a recon vehicle? Won't do. Stick on additional sensors and/or an electronic warfare suite? You got it.

>>64135710 (OP)
are IFV's a joke to you or something?

>>64135710 (OP)
>>64135716
> implying planes are not very specialized

>>64135710 (OP)
The Hammer's Slammers hovertank is pretty capable at multi-role performance for an armored vehicle.
>anti-armor
>anti-infantry
>relativistic weapons mean it can beam an aircraft as soon as it hits the horizon
>satcomm and inter-unit networking allows the main gun or the top gun to be used remotely by command for beyond-visual firing or for intercepting small drones or arty
Pretty much the only thing it can't do is carry shit/people in volume.

ground tactics is more complicated due to factors of terrain, environment, sustainability, and logistical factors.

A plane operating theatre is the same everywhere else in the world. Airspeed and temp doesn't matter as much for a plane as all planes are meant to go fast & drop ordinance wherever they operate. Air combat will operate the same as the pacific to the Baltics. The only limiting factor is the amount of airbases available for rearmament & refueling

Ground vehicles are still scriptable to environmental issues such as heat, terrain factors, combat range dictated due to environments. You can't expect a 60ton tank to move through a mountain, swamp or jungle environment due to the limiting factors associated with ground warfare.

>tl;dr
Air combat in a 3D space stays the same while ground unit in 2D space dictates more factors in deployment

You just can't move through a swamp as well as you can through air therefore air supremacy is literally godlike power

>>64136520
>Why can't we design a multirole armoured vehicle
we did. They're called "main battle tanks" because they replaced most or all previous tanks, and were able to perform all of their collective roles. How much more multi-role can it get?

>>64139198
to add to that:
pretty much every military ground vehicle is "multi-role" with the exception of things like SAM launch units, TEL missile trucks, etc

>IFVs
>also multi-role vehicles, as they're designed and employed for transportation, assault, elastic defense, fire support, and raiding purposes

>SPGs
>also multi-role vehicles, as they're designed to perform fire missions, tow ammo carriers, and are also capable of performing direct fire support

>APCs
>transportation, light fire support, medivac, earthmoving, engineering, towing, combat recovery, command/communication, etc etc

>>64135710 (OP)
There are plenty of "multirole" ground vehicles. The Humvee could be a jeep, a troop transport, an AT missile launcher, an anti-air platform, a police car, an ambulance...
Or any truck can be modified to be a gun carrier, or tow a missile system. There are some specialized ground vehicles like an M-1, but a Bradley could fulfill several missions.
Or do you mean truly "multi-role" like an F-16, where one day it could carry all air-to-air missiles, and the next day carry bombs?

>>64136577
>fighters, night fighters, tactical bombers
day bombers and night bombers too

You can't fool me that's just a leman russ proxy.

>>64135710 (OP)
>while planes tend to be more multirole
The "more" is doing a lot of work here, planes are heavily specialized.
That said, if you're talking about a multirole fighter, you can change it's specialisation by changing the loadout. The same just doesn't work for ground vehicles.

>>64135710 (OP)
>Read Hammer's Slammers series for the cool hover tanks
>Colonel Hammer has a hyper lethal homicidial maniac gay twink as his personal bodyguard/assassin who is creepy obsessed/loyal towards him
>Everyone in the outfit is terrified of him since he's in charge of the MPs
>Crazy twink arranges his own assassination when he is no longer useful/becomes a liability to the Colonel after he becomes a planetary dictator
>Mysterious doppleganger of the very dead crazy twink inexplicably shows up latter, much to everyone's confusion and terror
Anyway. As others have said, I think IFV's count as multi-role armored ground vehicles.

>>64135710 (OP)
"Multirole" in a plane is still a limited thing. A "multirole" fighter plane does not transport troops or equipment, or carry really big bombs/missiles, or a large radar. There are specialized planes for those tasks, just like specialized ground vehicles.

>>64135710 (OP)
Because the tank and other ground vehicles are built around their primary weapon like the 120 cannon, an ATGM launcher, an autocannon ect. Planes have their weapons added to them on a mission by mission basis. A missile rail doesn't really care if it's got a sidewinder or, maverick or a Mk82. The aiming of the weapon doesn't even really require the aircraft and can be done independently by another unit with a designator or by the weapon it's self.