Talk:Interceptor aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military aviation task force

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Aviation Portal

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated projects or task forces:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

If the aircraft deleted from the list were not truly interceptors, then their articles should be reviewed and perhaps edited, since I added them because of what their articles said about them. Stan 12:14 23 May 2003 (UTC)

I doubt, if Supermarine Spitfire and Messerschmitt Me 109 were interceptors. They were common all-purpose fighters. I think they should be removed. Pibwl 16:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They were most certainly no point-defence interceptors, the Mig-21, Saab Draken and Viggen aren't either. - Alureiter 10:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FB-111

I think it fits pretty well here, as a long-range interceptor. Despite the name, the FB-111 really isn't suited for general dogfighting and serious bombing usage. It does a little bombing, and some non-bombing ground attack, and some electronic warfare, and a good deal of being useful as an interceptor.

24.110.60.225 06:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

On what planet? I've never heard of the Aardvark being used as an interceptor. Trekphiler 06:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There's some terminology confusion here. The aircraft in question is not the FB-111, but the F-111B. This model never entered production due to intractable weight problems. It most definitely was an interceptor. Maury 14:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maneuverability

Somebody's fallen into the old trap of criticising interceptors for their lack of it... Most fighter combat, as far back as WW1, was a slash attack, with surprise, & a zoom away, per Boelcke, Chennault, et al. The P-38, F4U, & Phantom, among others, proved pretty successful fighters despite "lack of maneuverability".

I think you underestimate the magnitude of the problem here. For instance, in dash the MiG-25 cannot turn, basically, at all. And while high speed passes were the basic maneuver of any air combat. the equation is being upset by the ever-widening aspect of modern missiles. You no longer have to close on your target, the winner is the guy that gets the seekers tracking, not the guy that closes to gun range first. Although you note the F-4 as a great fighter, you fail to mention why; it was the great pilots in them, not the aircraft. In fact it was the poor performance of the F-4 in real-world combat that led to the creation of the fighter mafia, who demanded the creation of a highly maneuverable day fighter, eventually leading to the F-16. Since then every new design has focused on improved maneuverability; MiG-29, Su-27, Eurofighter, F-35 etc. All of these aircraft are designed with lower wing loading than was typical in the 50's and 60's, deliberately sacrificing outright speed for improved sustained turn. This is the direct opposite of the interceptor tradeoff. This equation is being upset once again by the introduction of stealth technologies, but one certainly wouldn't describe the F-22 as unmaneuverable. Maury 14:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Range

I changed "At the start of the Second World War, european fighters were "short-legged". US made single engine fighters weren´t much different. The P-40 had a longer range than a Spitfire/Me109, but still not long enough and the P-39 was very short-legged even for single engine fighters, because the long-range bomber escort role had not been envisaged by any nation.Markus Becker02 (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)