Talk:Interceptor aircraft

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)

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)

Yeah, the F-111B was 100% an interceptor; a fleet interceptor, or officially, a ‘FAD,’ ‘fleet air defense fighter.’ MWFwiki (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

Range wasn't then a problem for either the Spitfire or Hurricane. They had both been designed to defend Britain against attacking aircraft on the assumption (by the drawers-up of the specification - the designers wouldn't have known of this) that standing patrols were no longer necessary. Britain was developing an advanced Early Warning radar system (Chain Home) that meant that a fighter could remain on the ground until required, the main requirement being for a high rate of climb so as to 'scramble' and quickly get to the height of the attacking bombers, preferably while they were still over the sea. BTW, this rationale also applied to the later EE Lightning. Other country's aircraft required a longer range in order to maintain standing patrols, i.e., remaining in the air as long as possible until relieved by other aircraft, as well as due to the physical land area of the other countries needing to be defended being larger. The longer range later became an advantage when the war moved over Europe and further afield. As a rule, with the exception of the Mustang, the longer-ranged US fighters proved incapable of surviving aerial combat against Luftwaffe Me 109s and Fw 190s over Europe until the quality of German pilots had deteriorated so much that they were unable to handle their aircraft well due to the lack of fuel for training, so range isn't everything.

Long range fighters that could have been used for bomber escort had been envisaged, but it was thought that it required a two engine design in order to carry the fuel required to get the range, hence the Me 110, Focke-Wulf Fw 187, Gloster F.9/37 Westland Whirlwind, Bristol Beaufighter. Unfortunately, the heavier designs were unable to hold their own in combat with lighter single engined fighters, hence the Me 110 'escort' needing an escort itself, in the form of Me 109s.

When comparing aircraft it is as well to remember that the problems facing different countries vary. For a large country like the US or Canada, or the old USSR, then range becomes of vital importance, however for a country like Britain where nowhere is further than 75 miles from the sea, it is less-so. The EE Lightning is often cited for its 'short range' however it was designed for one main purposes. To take off and climb as fast as possible so as to prevent Soviet nuclear-armed bombers hitting the UK before the V bombers could be scrambled from their Quick Reaction Alert (QRA). Once the V bombers had left, the fate of the Lightning became somewhat academic as there would likely be very little to return to, any Soviet bombers that had gotten through the defences would have almost certainly have made the majority of the UK uninhabitable.

The first interceptors?

The article's opening paragraph includes the sentence "A number of such aircraft were built in the period starting just prior to World War II and ending in the late 1960s." This sentence begs the question: What was the first interceptor aircraft? The article gives no further mention of the early history of who determined what would be an interceptor and what its characteristics would be.

In February 1937 in the U.S., Lieutenants Benjamin S. Kelsey and Gordon P. Saville formulated a pair of specifications for high-altitude fighters, one with a single engine and one with two engines. Both specs called for Allison V-1710 engines with turbo-superchargers for high altitude, both specs called for very fast climb capability, and both specs called for very heavy armament including a cannon. The specifications used the word "interceptor" to describe the proposed aircraft, a term that was new for the USAAC at that time. Kelsey later said repeatedly in interviews, and wrote in his book The Dragon's Teeth?, that his intent was to have a more capable fighter, not a new class of aircraft. He said that his use of the term "interceptor" was very simply a foil to get around the then-current Air Corps restrictions on fighter armament, keeping the weight of all guns and ammo to 500 lbs. Kelsey thought that restriction was horribly wrong-headed, and he dreamed up the new word "interceptor" so that he could double the armament without having his superiors cancel the project. Kelsey intended that this heavily armed fighter would dominate its air-to-air battles, including dog-fighting other fighters. The two aircraft that emerged from the specifications were the Bell P-39 Airacobra and the Lockheed P-38 Lightning, both capable dog-fighters, though arguably not the finest dog-fighters of World War II.

If the definition of interceptor aircraft must include the intentional reduction of dog-fighting capabilities lost in the promotion of speed and firepower, the Kelsey/Saville specification would not be the start of U.S. interceptors. Another factor to weigh is combat range; the Kelsey/Saville twin-engine spec called for long range, but an interceptor is often thought to be short range.

Kelsey's later protests notwithstanding, the term "interceptor" entered the official US Army Air Corps lexicon at that time, with the associated meaning of a high-altitude bomber killer. Despite his wish for a heavier fighter, he created in the USAAC the class of "interceptor". The issue is debatable, as Kelsey sets his intention at odds with his own written proposals and with the official U.S. military interpretation. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The first interceptor was B.E.2c, as far as I know. It was actually referred to as "interceptor", not saying it fits any sophisticated (retro-fitted?) definition of the term. Interceptors were initially exclusively night fighters. --Kubanczyk (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"The Aircraft of the R.A.F. - Standard Fighters Bulldog Siskin - Interceptor Fighters - Fury" - a Flight article from 1932 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"The Hawker 'Fury' Interceptor Fighter with ... " a 1931 Flight advertisement.

... and "Interceptor Fighters ..." a 1930 article, also from Flight.

... and finally, one about the Fairey Firefly II "The Fairey Firefly IIM - An Interceptor Fighter ..."

From the above 1930 article; "The Interceptor Fighter class of aircraft is, as its title implies, intended for intercepting enemy aircraft which has (sic) already crossed our coastline and is making for some objective. It must have a very high performance for a relatively short period, so as to be able to reach the altitude of the invader in the minimum of time, and be able quickly to overtake him in horizontal flight at that height ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.26 (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much the entire article

To be blunt, I think large swathes of it need to be re-written. It spends most of the time discussing WW2 issues and WW2 day-fighters, rather than the purpose built aircraft created from the 50's onwards. Even mention of the WW2 altitude specialists like the Westland Welkin and Spitfire Mk VI is missed from the WW2 section, although to be frank, WW2 shouldn't be the focus of this article. There's also dalliances into "point defense interceptors", which most of the time don't greatly differ from a fighter with poor range, pictures of F-22's (confusing the interception mission with interceptor aircraft), and in some cases some rather Attenborough-esque language.

Fundamentally I think there's also a failure to define what an interceptor is, I would suggest an aircraft that eschews whatever it can (usually strike/manoeuvrability) for altitude/speed in order to engage high value targets which are operating at that high altitude/speed.

Someone has listed on the main page a desire to merge this with Air Superiority Fighter, I don't believe this is appropriate considering most Interceptors cannot fulfill the Air Superiority mission, the sheer number of interceptors built (there were a lot; F-101B Yak-25, Yak-28P, Javelin all haven't been mentioned in the article), and that arguably the two types of aircraft are from different phases of the cold war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KawakkasakiKR1 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Cleaned up quite a bit, especially the WW2 section. If you feel something substantial is missing, please add it. --Kubanczyk (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II

Isn't the inflection point the moment the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II morphed from interceptor to multi-role fighter? (Hint: guns and bombs) Hcobb (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed Edits of a Banned Editor's Sock

I apologize to those who have intermediate edits but in order to ensure accuracy and integrity of the editing process I reverted all the edits here of the sock Иронгрон of the banned editor Irongron. I was away from editing due to obligations and missed what what happening until much later. I looked over the edits and determined this was the best course of action for this article. I tried to keep some but the references hardly were appropriate. Please see the banned editor's sock investigation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JamesBWatson&oldid=618034898#A_Very_Strong_Probable_Sock_of_an_editor_you_permanently_banned_in_April_2014_User:IRoNGRoN The IP 178.216.122.254 and ☭Soviet☭ User talk:Иронгрон Иронгрон is Irongron written in the Cyrillic alphabet... are both socks of ☭Irongron☭User talk:IRoNGRoN

Use of the term during WWI in question.

Hello, I'm wondering if the term interceptor was actually ever used to describe a WWI aircraft? It seems that the term is used to "conceptually" describe WWI fighters at the time, but I doubt, from the many books I've read on WWI planes, that the term was coined, used-whatever, as a class of WWI aircraft during that period of time. Just my thoughts, does anyone care to revise/clarify the second paragraph that states this usage? Thanks.

PS Kind of new to this level of editing on Wikipedia. I've contributed information to several different topics, only to find that they are usually edited out, by the "Wiki-police"...(obviously my term, haha) those overzealous wardens of what does and doesn't belong on Wikipedia on any given day... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AA Pilot16 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Content borrowed

Noticed most of this article is borrowed/stolen from this web site: http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/interceptor_aircraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.17.29 (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that site stole its content from Wikipedia. The dead give-away: Under references, it says "Template:Military aircraft types (roles)", which is some sort of text reader version of {{Military aircraft types (roles)}}. There's a couple of other places in their text where that's happened too, where the site's "editor" sloppily didn't remove all the leftover WP artifacts. I've seen this type of stuff before. Once, I recognized wording/sentences that I wrote myself! Some of the regular editors on this page may recognize their own content there. - BilCat (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Intercept

Please see here! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for a source that will address the many issues of this page.

This page does not explain, in any way, what the difference between a "fighter" and an "interceptor" is. It does not answer the simple question "What was the first interceptor?". I suggest that someone reads Colin Sinnoott's "The RAF and Aircraft design, 1923-1939" published by Frank Cass (studies in air power series) in 2001 (ISSN 1468-5597 ) and rewrites the whole page. Colin Sinnott explains that in the late 1920s RAF policy evolved two classes of fighter; The "zone fighter" and the "interceptor". The zone fighter was to be able to be flown by both day and night and were meant to be based at airfields in an arc around the South and East of London. Each Squadron would only operate in its own "zone" or box, roughly 15 miles square. They had a fairly high endurance to enable them to patrol their "box" for long periods. The idea being that no enemy bomber formation could reach London without flying through one of these boxes and being spotted by the patrolling fighters. The "interceptor" class were meant to be based at forward airfields near the coast (like Tangmere) and be day fighters only. Their design would sacrifice endurance for speed and rate of climb. The idea was that such an aircraft would take off when an enemy formation was spotted overhead and pursue it. Later, with the building of the "sound mirror" it was hoped to provide early warning of the approach of enemy aircraft by telephone, but the pursuit would still be done by sight (it was part of the interceptor specification that such aircraft should not carry WT (radio) to save weight). Thus you can see that the original idea of an "interceptor" was somewhat at odds with what the term has come to be thought of today, where guidance by ground control or AWACs aircraft is usually implied by the term. The first fighter to be built to a full "interceptor" specification was the Hawker Fury and it failed miserably in its first set of air exercises, being unable to climb fast enough to overtake its targets (or even see them in the first instance). Colin Sinnott stresses in his book that just the use of the word "intercept" in any document prior to the late 1920's does not imply an "interceptor". As a class of aircraft no interceptor existed until the late 1920s. Later the role of interceptor and zone fighter were combined (for example in the Hurricane and Spitfire) but it was the term "interceptor" that was retained while the term "zone fighter" fell away and has now been largely forgotten. It should be noted that Colin Sinnott's book is a scholarly work that drew on a lot of Air Staff material that was declassified in the 1980s and 90s. It is a shame it has not been more widely read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.221.115 (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The 1926 Air Ministry Specification F.9/26 called for a "Day and night 'zone' fighter" resulting in the: Armstrong Whitworth Starling II, Blackburn Blackcock / Turcock, Boulton Paul Partridge, Bristol Bulldog Mk.I, Bristol Bullpup, Gloster Goldfinch, Gloster SS.18, Hawker Hawfinch, Vickers Type 141.

The specification was later cancelled and replaced in 1927 by F.20/27 which specified instead an "Interception single-seat fighter'" which led to the: Armstrong Whitworth Starling II, Bristol Bulldog Mk.II, de Havilland DH.77, Fairey Firefly II, Hawker Fury, Saunders A.10, Vickers Jockey, Westland Interceptor.

A similar type of 'zone' or 'box' defence was later used by Germany in the form of the Kammhuber Line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.11 (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a late reply, but I think your comment(s) are worth addressing.

First off, ‘interceptor’ is mostly a retronym when referring to aircraft functioning in the interceptor role prior to WWII.

The concept of dedicated interceptors — and the term itself — solidified around the late Pre-War period. Even then, most nations didn’t often use the term ‘interceptor’ specifically. Instead, bomber destroyer (in the US), zerstörer (lit. ‘Destroyer,’ German), jachtkruiser (‘heavy cruiser,’ or ‘air cruiser, Dutch — a catch-all term for aircraft the Dutch Air Force believed would serve as ‘bomber-killers’) were used. Nowadays, we refer to these airframes as heavy fighters — yet another retronym.

Anyways, the tenders (official requests) for these aircraft would often specify that the aircraft would be used “to intercept…” or for “interception.”

Point being, I think the term ‘interceptor’ is just fine being applied the way it is.

Thus, I’m wondering what your point was? I think the article makes it fairly clear what is/is not an interceptor.

Where it gets a bit murky is the concept of a ‘fighter-interceptor’ (FI). In my opinion, a FI is an aircraft that, while not designed outright to function as an interceptor (high rate of climb, relatively heavy armament for destroying heavier airframes, and — optionally — a relatively robust airframe that would allow the aircraft to shrug off defensive gunner fire), it is capable of doing so, while also being capable of functioning as a more ‘standard’ fighter (an air superiority fighter; A fighter that can dogfight, more or less).

One thing we should avoid is basing the classification of an aircraft based off of how effective (or ineffective) it was in its original role. For instance, I’ve seen people claim that the F-104 shouldn’t be described as an ‘interceptor,’ since it rarely performed that task (well, considering WWIII never happened, NO post-war interceptor ever actually proved itself, anyways) and because it was used as a ground-attacker (by the post-war West German Luftwaffe). A ridiculous assertion, in my opinion, when it was clearly designed as a fairly purebred interceptor. MWFwiki (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

First off, ‘interceptor’ is mostly a retronym when referring to aircraft functioning in the interceptor role prior to WWII.

No it isn't. The UK Air Ministry and Flight were both using the term 'Interceptor' as far back as 1932. see the links in an earlier section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.245 (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

As I said, “mostly.” One country’s air force using it once in blue moon doesn’t make it a commonly-used term. Also, the word “interception” would of course have been used. I’m not arguing that there were no dedicated interceptor designs (at least proposed or conceptualized) in the early years of military aviation. My only point is that term “interceptor,” as a distinct role or even class, was not commonly used until much later. WWII at the earliest.MWFwiki (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)