The term "Fighter"

What does it mean nowadays with the introduction of multirole fighters
.. Does it mean :

(1) An aircraft tasked with destroying other enemy aircraft ie Tornado
F.3

(2) An aircraft that is tasked with destroying enemy military hardware
including: SAM sites, AA Guns , tanks and other aircraft on the ground
or in the air IE most of the USAF/USN fastjet tactical inventory with
the exception of the A-10

Has the term become diluted over the years to mean an aircraft that
can destroy most GENERAL militery hardware?

I have seen articles and even books that include bombers such as the
B-17 under the rubric of "fighter."

To somebody utterly naive about warfare, "fighter" is just another
term for "warplane."

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote

I have seen articles and even books that include bombers such as the
B-17 under the rubric of "fighter."

To somebody utterly naive about warfare, "fighter" is just another
term for "warplane."

_Small_warplane, generally with a small crew and no facilities for getting
up to go to the bathroom.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:20:36 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
wrote:


"Cub Driver" wrote

I have seen articles and even books that include bombers such as the
B-17 under the rubric of "fighter."

To somebody utterly naive about warfare, "fighter" is just another
term for "warplane."

_Small_warplane, generally with a small crew and no facilities for getting
up to go to the bathroom.

there was the xb-40, and yb-40 armed escorts

Lyle wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:20:36 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
wrote:


"Cub Driver" wrote

I have seen articles and even books that include bombers such as the
B-17 under the rubric of "fighter."

To somebody utterly naive about warfare, "fighter" is just another
term for "warplane."

_Small_warplane, generally with a small crew and no facilities for getting
up to go to the bathroom.

there was the xb-40, and yb-40 armed escorts

Back in the good old days fighters had P designations (for Patrol or
Pursuit, depending on who you talk to)... but then someone decided to
strap some bombs onto the aircraft and then along came the
fighter-bombers, which today would simply be an attack aircraft.
The Germans really changed everything with the Fw 190 and Ju 88 which
were true multirole aircraft.
Post WW2 the new USAF started reclassifying aircraft for simplicity
sake:

F= Fighter
B= Bomber
A= Attack
C= Cargo
R= Recon
TR= Tactical Recon
SR= Strategic Recon
U= Utility (cover for U-2, which really was a jet sailplane)
and so on...

But as the dedicated air superiority fighters started having to double
as attack aircraft the now idiotic F/A designation is applied to
purpose-built multirole aircraft like the F/A 18 Hornet and F/A 22
Raptor while the multirole capable F-16 Falcon and F-15E Strike Eagle
remain under the F designation.
I think our designation system is in need of redefinition. Why not use
an MR designation for MultiRole aircraft? I suggest the following
changes:

AS= Air Superiority
B= Bomber
S= Strike
MR= MultiRole
C= Cargo
R= Recon
TR= Tactical Recon
SR= Strategic Recon
GR= Global Recon
FX= Field-Effects craft
NFX= Nuclear Field-Effects craft
UAV= Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
AAV= Autonomous Aerial Vehicle
UCAV= Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle
ACAV= Autonomous Combat Aerial Vehicle
MAV= Micro Aerial Vehicle

Rob

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
snip

But as the dedicated air superiority fighters started having to double
as attack aircraft the now idiotic F/A designation is applied to
purpose-built multirole aircraft like the F/A 18 Hornet and F/A 22
Raptor while the multirole capable F-16 Falcon and F-15E Strike Eagle
remain under the F designation.
I think our designation system is in need of redefinition.

No, it needs for the system to be followed. There is an excuse for the
F/A-18, but not for F/A-22 (_reason_ yes, excuse no). AIUI the system
defines aircraft with F and A roles as F's

Why not use
an MR designation for MultiRole aircraft?

You mean like the M? e.g. MH-53E, MH-60R, MH-60S. Don't know if it can be
used as the 'primary' letter, and can't be bothered looking in the FAQ to
check.

I suggest the following
changes:

snip suggested over-long designation system

Currently Q is drone. Some changes in this area would probably be useful
before too long.


--
Errol Cavit |
I've heard a tape of collected kakapo noises, and it's almost impossible to
believe that it all just comes from a bird, or indeed any kind of animal.
Pink Floyd studio out-takes perhaps, but not a parrot.
Douglas Adams, _Last Chance to See_

Prowlus wrote:

: Has the term become diluted over the years to mean an aircraft that
: can destroy most GENERAL militery hardware?

No. The reality has always been that an aircraft designed
to do air combat efficiently must be have good handling
qualities, high power reserves, good armament, robustness,
and spare lifting capacity. Ever since WWI, this has meant
that a good fighter can be very useful in other roles too.
Sopwith Camels made good attack aircraft and even
dive-bombers...

As fighters are the essential aircraft of an air force,
which is is almost impossible to do without, cuts tend
to be made in the other categories. The real onset of this
was during WWII, when fighters became so big and powerful
that they replaced first light and then also medium bombers,
although this process was not completed until after the
war. Naval air forces, that had to parcel out the limited
space on a carrier, were particularly quick to recognize
that a good fighter could be a decent bomber. In the 1930s
dual-role fighters-and-dive-bomber types were fashionable.

With few exceptions, pure fighters have been defensive
interceptors, often all-weather intereceptors with
expensive and fragile electronic systems. Even Spitfires
and Sabres were fitted with bomb racks as soon as their
operators could find the opportunity. These days, equipping
aircraft purely as fighters make little sense, even for
a rich air force such as the USAF; why not exploit all
the capabilities of a very expensive airframe?

--
Emmanuel Gustin

(Prowlus) wrote in message . com...
What does it mean nowadays with the introduction of multirole fighters
. Does it mean :

(1) An aircraft tasked with destroying other enemy aircraft ie Tornado
F.3

(2) An aircraft that is tasked with destroying enemy military hardware
including: SAM sites, AA Guns , tanks and other aircraft on the ground
or in the air IE most of the USAF/USN fastjet tactical inventory with
the exception of the A-10

Has the term become diluted over the years to mean an aircraft that
can destroy most GENERAL militery hardware?

These days, "fighter" usually means "A single or dual-seat fast mover
capable or at least originally designed in some variant or other for
reasonably effectively performing an air superiority or intercept
mission, regardless of what else it can do" the reasonably-effectively
part translating into "at least mach 1, carries air-to-air missiles,
and ideally supersonic with a air-intercept radar" and the "what else"
usually being strike, recon, and SEAD.

There are instances when an aircraft receives a fighter *designation*
for unusual reasons (the F-117), but these are anomalies. Also F-111,
which was supposed to be a fighter but didn't work out as one, and
such.

Also, USAF tactical aviation doesn't like calling anything an "attack"
aircraft so aside from the A-10 (clearly not a real modern fighter,
being subsonic, even if it can carry a few sidewinders!) we get things
like F-105 ("It's a fighter because it's got a gun and is supersonic,
even if it's not used as one"). The Harrier and such get in the way a
bit, but Sea Harrier at least has an air-intercept radar, while the
other types are more attack aircraft

On 23 Dec 2003 19:54:25 -0800, (David L. Pulver)
wrote:

These days, "fighter" usually means "A single or dual-seat fast mover
capable or at least originally designed in some variant or other for
reasonably effectively performing an air superiority or intercept
mission, regardless of what else it can do" the reasonably-effectively
part translating into "at least mach 1, carries air-to-air missiles,
and ideally supersonic with a air-intercept radar" and the "what else"
usually being strike, recon, and SEAD.

Invariably in this discussion we get a melding of the historic and the
current, insertion of an occasional red herring and a convolution of
USN and USAF terminology.

In USAF terminology, a "fighter" usually means a tactical fast mover.
It probably has good agility and a sensor suite to detect enemy
airborne targets, but for the last thirty years has been acknowledged
as an aircraft that will seldom encounter a credible air/air threat.

"Air superiority is something a fighter pilot does on his way to and
from the target." I said it, and I still believe it.


There are instances when an aircraft receives a fighter *designation*
for unusual reasons (the F-117), but these are anomalies. Also F-111,
which was supposed to be a fighter but didn't work out as one, and
such.

The F-111 was supposed to be a tactical fast mover. See above for USAF
tradition.

Also, USAF tactical aviation doesn't like calling anything an "attack"
aircraft so aside from the A-10 (clearly not a real modern fighter,
being subsonic, even if it can carry a few sidewinders!) we get things
like F-105 ("It's a fighter because it's got a gun and is supersonic,
even if it's not used as one").

Now you're on the fighting side of me. The F-105, designed in the
early '50s and fielded operationally with the D model in 1959 (FY '58
production), was single seat, single engine and very capable air/air.
It had an air/air radar mode, lead computing gun sight, good agility
(+8.67/-3.0 G) and was sidewinder capable. If fought with an
understanding of the aircraft's P-sub-s and V-G diagrams, it was
pretty serious air/air. You might want to review the number of MiG
kills by F-105s for verification.

Oh, and did I mention that killing MiGs was something we did on our
way to and from the target?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

In article , David L.
Pulver wrote:

Also, USAF tactical aviation doesn't like calling anything an "attack"
aircraft so aside from the A-10 (clearly not a real modern fighter,
being subsonic, even if it can carry a few sidewinders!) we get things
like F-105 ("It's a fighter because it's got a gun and is supersonic,
even if it's not used as one"). The Harrier and such get in the way a
bit, but Sea Harrier at least has an air-intercept radar, while the
other types are more attack aircraft

Well, in the US, Harriers are designated AV-8 - so attack, not fighter.
In the UK, they are Harrier GR.x (x being the mark number), for ground
attack and recce - so, still not fighters. The Sea harrier is designated
FA.2, since it's got a realistic air combat role.

Aetherem Vincere
Matt
--
To err is human
To forgive is not
Air Force Policy