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 a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (comments) |
||||||
|
|||||||
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)
