When reading about various planes I have seen the term fighter and interceptor used. What makes a fighter or an interceptor? I do not have the reference book with me so I can not help with specific planes.
Chris
The purpose of a fighter is to achieve air superiority over the battlefield. The purpose of an interceptor is to intercept and shoot down invading bombers. In the early-mid stages of the Cold War, the military had interceptors like the F-102, F-104 and F-106 who were designed specifically for that mission… they were very fast, but I don’t think their maneuverability was all that good.
Later the approach to warfare was changed, and the US started looking for more versatile planes, and ended up with the F-15 and F-16. While designed to be more traditional fighters, some of them are assigned to squadrons whose sole mission is, or at least was, interception.
That’s essentially it—interceptor is a role or mission. But you left out three of the requirements for an interceptor: short time to altitude, all weather capability, and highly effective, long range armament. Any fighter, regardless of original intent of the design, that has these qualities can and has been used in the interceptor role. As far as I recall without looking it up (again! creeping senility!) Only the F-89, F-94, F-102, F-104, F-106, F-3 (F3H), F-6 (F4D-1), and YF-12 had intended interceptor roles from the design phase. Both the F-14 and F-15 were intended as multirole aircraft including that of interceptor.
I agree with everything you said, ck, except the part about maneuverability: as it turned out, the F-106 was actually quite maneuverable; not as maneuverable as, say, the F-15 or -16, but for a “pure” interceptor, it was surprisingly manueverable (due to it’s low wing-loading). Towards the middle of the -106’s career, there was even talk of “updating” the avionics, and submitting it in the Air Force’s “FX” (Fighter Experimental) competition as the “F-106X”; that contest was ultimately won by the F-15.
i actually thought the F-15 was the interceptor fighter. Am i right in saying that the f-15 is the only fighter never to be shot down in a dogfight??
Kelly, not just the F-106. The F-104 has maneuverability comparable to that of the F-16 at some altitudes and air speeds. But CKF is correct in that maneuverability is generally not a prime consideration in design, and thus may not be sterling in the production aircraft.
Gordon, I believe you are correct about the F-15 never being downed in air to air combat. I know I heard or read that at one time, but that was awhile back.
The F-15 was designed to be the ultimate air-to-air aircraft. It is one of the very few successful designs—perhaps the only one ever—intended to have all around air-to-air capability. It isn’t only a superlative dogfighter, it is a superlative interceptor, and with slight modification, a magnificent mud mover—all without sacrificing any capability in any other role.
Perhaps the most striking hallmark of United States aircraft designs is their incredible adaptability. Almost all US aircraft that entered production turned out to be very good to excellent in roles they were never intended to fill.
Yes & no; the F-15 has never been shot down by an adversary; a few years ago, an F-15J (the JSDF version) accidentally shot down another F-15J with a Sidewinder (weapons malfunction).
Wow!! Thanks for the answers. The book I was looking at that inspired these questions was titled(Ithink!) X-Planes at Edwards . Kinda interesting book.
These jets sound familiar from the book.
Chris
I remember i saw or read that somewhere myself, which was a wee while ago now. I also remember seeing an F-15 with one wing (cant remember what happened) but it still flew and landed safely. That was pretty cool. Awesome plane the f-15, mean looking too.
The F-15 flying without a wing was the result of a midair collision during an Israeli training exercise. It really happened, and that Israeli was one Sierra Hotel pilot!
Here’s the video recreation of the incident.
thats the one guys. I love the color of that f-15, im going to do mine that dark grey…
He landed very well too didnt he? when i saw this last time i cant remember him landing the plane. Awesome…
thanks for the link
regards gordon
The promary mission of the early F-14’s was to protect the fleet from aerial threats, it was only later that other mission, such as the Bombcat, where assigned to it
I seem to remember a story that an A4 Corsair II was shot off a carrier deck with the wings still folded up. It flew out, came back around and landed back on the carrier. Any one else hear this story?
what i would like to know is how did the F-117 get the “F” (fighter) designation ?The F-117 is not a fighter , its does not have any "fighter "capabilities does it ? And how did the fighter aircraft go numerically from the F-18 to the F-117 and now back to the F-22 ? [%-)]
The F-117 is outside of the “normal” sequence. It has been said that “F-117” was used for dis-information purposes, but it stuck and remained in use.
The designation “F-19” was believed to have been skipped because Northrop requested “F-20” to represent a “new generation” rather than continue the line with “F-5G” for the Tigershark and to (so it has been claimed) prevent possible confusion with the Mig 19 in export markets.
F-21 was used when the USN acquired IAI Kfirs for DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Training) purposes
I can’t speak for the veracity of the information contained within, but this page is an interesting read. http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/nonstandard-mds.html#_MDS_F35
Phil thanks for the explanation and the link, a lot of interesting info there !
I doubt I’ll get it 100% right but what I think I recall is that it had to do with funding sources. There was $ to fund a F program but not a B . . . at any rate, a hoop of really interesting info on that whole thing, as well as the SR71 and U2, etc, in the book Skunk Works. Great read for almost anyone. They do address that item in the book, but its been a long while.
12A thanks , i 'll give that book a look .[:)]