Talk:Strike fighter

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.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: 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. 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 Aircraft WikiProject

[edit] Strike fighters and a fighter-bombers

How is a Strike fighter different than a fighter-bomber? Oberiko 15:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A fighter-bomber might do strategic-type bombing - example might be the nuclear-armed Super Sabres of the 60s - while a strike fighter's bombs would be more tactical. But as all of these articles point out, the terms are not precise. The cynical would say that "strike fighter" is only being adopted because it sounds more "cool"; but that would be cynical, because the military would never ever invent new terminology for political or PR purposes... :-) Stan 18:24, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is the political speculation on the reasons for adopting the "Strike Fighter" designation REALLY necessary? Or NPoV? Iceberg3k 15:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And Multirole?

And what about Multirole? What's the difference between a Strike fighter and a Multirole one? --Henrickson ^{User talk | Contribs} 06:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rationalise the ground attack articles

See:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force#Close air support - ground attack aircraft - strike fighter
• Ground attack aircraft#Merge

--Philip Baird Shearer 10:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)