Talk:Interceptor aircraft

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: On what planet? I've never heard of the Aardvark being used as an interceptor.  Trekphiler 06:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  FB-111 

message: 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)
thread_title: Maneuverability

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pretty much the entire article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use of the term during WWI in question. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 . 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)
thread_title: Content borrowed

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