Interceptor vs. Air Superiority Fighter - What's the Difference?

I am struggeling with those two terms, "Interceptor" and "Air Superiority Fighter". I wonder how exactly aircrafts and their respective missions differ.

 

When do I send an interceptor and when an air superiority fighter into battle, what is the exact difference between these two roles? Why can't (shouldn't?) an interceptor assume the role of an air superiority fighter and vice versa?

What makes an aircraft an interceptor, technically spoken, and what an air superiority fighter? Not the weapons, right?

As I understand it there are no hard fast rules regarding the 2, but generally speaking an interceptor is build for SPEED and may have somewhat less ordnance with the intent of getting somewhere very fast to tie up the bad guys so your superiority fighters can get there slightly later but with more weapons and higher maneuverability...

 

So you launch the interceptors and keep them busy, then launch the slower but more combat capable aircraft after the fact. The interceptor keeps the bad guys occupied until the others arrive.

 

Obviously there can be a lot of overlap as far as equipment goes and in some cases you may use the same aircraft for both missions and simply load them out differently...

 

On the opposite end of the spectrum would be the Foxbat which is a perfect example of a true interceptor. Not very agile but damned FAST...

I am struggeling with those two terms, "Interceptor" and "Air Superiority Fighter". I wonder how exactly aircrafts and their respective missions differ.

 

Interception requires a fast response time. You get from A to B as fast as you can and you shoot (or escort, or whatever).

 

Air superiority is pretty much what it says: You claim a patch of air and the air superiority fighter stays there and makes sure you can back-up your claim.

 

Here an interceptor is not necessarily appropriate since you may have to do a bit more than just point and shoot.

 

Generally an interceptor is considered somewhat defensive. It will protect YOUR patch of air from incoming flying things (bombers, cruise missiles) and it may need a lot of help from the ground.

 

An air superiority fighter is more offensive: You go into the other guys patch of air and you bring a lot of stuff with you to help you get in it and stay in it (powerful radar, high performance missiles etc).

 

When do I send an interceptor and when an air superiority fighter into battle, what is the exact difference between these two roles? Why can't (shouldn't?) an interceptor assume the role of an air superiority fighter and vice versa?

What makes an aircraft an interceptor, technically spoken, and what an air superiority fighter? Not the weapons, right?

The whole system. Some aircraft today function in both roles. You have the pure interceptors like MiG-31, but today a Su-27, an F-15, an F-22 all function as interceptors. The MiG-31 probably can't do too well as an air superiority fighter though, but it out-performs the others in some intercept tasks (particularly speed).

Interceptor is a subset of air superiority fighter. A true AS fighter needs interceptor ability to counter the threat posed by other interceptors but must also be able to counter smaller fighter aircraft. The F-15 and F-22 would be an examples that do both. The MiG-31 and F-16 would be examples of pure interceptors and fighters. That's my take on it anyway.

Allright, thanks guys! That made it clearer to me.

I think interceptor is more of an old term when aircraft where design with a single specific role. This aircrafts may have been used for other missions, but when originally design had only one role.

Examples of interceptors;

F-102

F-104

F-106

Mirage III

Mig-21

Mig-25

 

I think the hole "Air Superiority" fighter is a semantics thing, trying to sell capabilities of aircraft. AFAIK, the term started around the time F-15 where first introduce.

Interceptor = Bugatti Veyron

 

Air Superiority = Main Battle Tank

First, that's a very interesting thread.

Second : I like the clear distinction GGTharos made between both roles and I agree with most of what he says.

Now, I (probably) naively think, that interceptors fighters answer to a 'Scramble Scramble Scramble' order and have to go fast from A to B, while the Air Superiority ones are already in the area and are doing a CAP-like mission with every ordinance needed to do so, and communicating with an AFAC or ground control, looking for what's going on in this area, may it is remote or that of a sovereign country respectively.

I also think that Air Superiority missions can't go without AA refueling capabilities (remote areas).

That's how I see the difference between both kind of missions.

 

Now, I wonder if this is really fighter-jet dependant since most of them are now fast and have more or less the same capabilities to carry a lot of different A-A armaments.

The only difference I see is on the fuel quantity they can take and use before needing A-A refueling.

As for the planes mentioned by Mvsgas, should they have delta wings or not ? I honestly don't know but I thought It was worth mentioning it

Very simplistic: Interceptors shoot down bombers, air superiority fighters shoot down fighters.

Well not quite an old term, but rather pure interceptors fell a bit out of fashion, with only MiG-31 remaining. Nowadays most air superiority fighters do just fine as interceptors too.

 

I've always thought F-14 for example, to be just a little bit closer to interceptor than air superiority fighter.

 

When pure interceptors were a thing, there were high altitude heavy bombers and reconaissance aircraft to intercept, now they are not as prominent instruments anymore as their mostly have left their task to lighter fighter aircraft, huge missiles, or satellites.

Interceptors need speed, and a lot of it. When you think about an intruder entering your airspace you need to plot an intercept to get to him. But now this intruder is not going to fly a straight line, he is going to maneuver and everytime he changes course, you need to plot a new intercept and fly a lot of extra distance. Slow bombers you can intercept but a fast target is very very hard to intercept. Interceptors were optimized to get to high altitude and speed as fast as possible, intercept, and RTB. The faster the intruders became the less you could rely on inteceptors to defend you airspace.

 

On the other hand to maintain air superiority you need staying power. You need to be able to seal some airspace and do so continously otherwise the enemy can just wait till you leave and then launch his strikes. Air superiority fighter is definitely not a semantics thing in my opinion. Modern military doctrine dictates you want to establish air superiority over an area of operations and an air superiority fighter is optimized for this role. It has staying power, long range own sensors and a lot of air-to-air weaponry and it needs the capability to engage multiple targets at once. Pure air superiority was not really possible with older technology unless you employ huge numbers of aircraft.

 

With modern multirole fighters the difference is in the loadout. Interceptor role loadouts will be lighter, air superioirty/cap will have heavier loadouts with more fuel and weapons but they can be the same airframe.

the roles are distinct, although as mentioned air superiority generally entails the ability to intercept.

 

the interceptor needs speed, time to altitude, and traditionally did this at the sacrifice of endurance. the "modern" definition probably encompasses very long range BVR missles, ie what the MIG-25/31 and the F-14 would carry.

 

The air superiority fighter needs performance in most flight regimes, and endurance. the F-86 was the last purpose designed air superiority fighter until the F-15, although the F-14 was "both" at the expense of a massive maintenance liability. As pointed out though the distinction is perhaps no longer helpful, look at the F-4 and the Mig-21. Both aircraft were designed as interceptors in response to the tactical problem of the 50's (mass bomber formations) but were instead used as dog-fighters in the 60's and 70's. It would also be very interesting to hear what actually happened when the F-14s and the F-15s engaged in DACT exercises. since the F-14 was more of a compromise than the Eagle. I've heard multiple stories that one or the other beasted the opponents, but nothing in concrete...

the roles are distinct, although as mentioned air superiority generally entails the ability to intercept.

 

the interceptor needs speed, time to altitude, and traditionally did this at the sacrifice of endurance. the "modern" definition probably encompasses very long range BVR missles, ie what the MIG-25/31 and the F-14 would carry.

 

The air superiority fighter needs performance in most flight regimes, and endurance. the F-86 was the last purpose designed air superiority fighter until the F-15, although the F-14 was "both" at the expense of a massive maintenance liability. As pointed out though the distinction is perhaps no longer helpful, look at the F-4 and the Mig-21. Both aircraft were designed as interceptors in response to the tactical problem of the 50's (mass bomber formations) but were instead used as dog-fighters in the 60's and 70's. It would also be very interesting to hear what actually happened when the F-14s and the F-15s engaged in DACT exercises. since the F-14 was more of a compromise than the Eagle. I've heard multiple stories that one or the other beasted the opponents, but nothing in concrete...

 

When the IAF was considering getting F-14 or F-15 they conducted tests with some of their pilots and also some of the USAF pilots. F-14 vs A-4 and F-15 vs A-4. They wouldn't let them fight each other. The Eagle outperformed the Skyhawk quite handily while the TomCat had a hard time beating this little old ****er. The IAF pilots said the F-15 felt superior as a fighter merely on performance to the Skyhawk while they didn't get this sense of superiority flying the F-14.

 

F-14 was designed mostly to defend the fleet as some sort of interceptor operating from carriers. Hence the size and the characteristics of the jet.

The AIM-54 was also very much an interceptor weapon.

Interceptor - Defensive role, to combat threats to your own territorial air space. High rate of climb, high speed, short endurance - Lightning 1, Starfighter, MiG-21 etc

 

Air superiority fighter - More endurance, more capable of penetrating deeper into enemy territory to take and hold airspace. F4 Phantom, SU-27, F22 etc

As for the planes mentioned by Mvsgas, should they have delta wings or not ? I honestly don't know but I thought It was worth mentioning it

 

No, F-89, F-101, F-104, etc. had interceptor versions and did not have deltas.

Maneuverability, its simply the one thing interceptors were not designed for, all other attributes be it endurance, performance,cost there was an interceptor, eg long endurance interceptors like tu-28 or range and performance mig-31 etc.

Although there are specialist airframes built for the interceptor role F-101B, F-4B etc I also see it as a mission that any fighter can take on e.g.

 

F-16A ADFs were used in the Interceptor role for the USANG

 

Also this can depend on what you might be intercepting, in Vietnam in 1962 the USAF had F-102As but the USN used EA-1F Skyraiders to intercept slow flying aircraft at night.

I am struggeling with those two terms, "Interceptor" and "Air Superiority Fighter". I wonder how exactly aircrafts and their respective missions differ.

When do I send an interceptor and when an air superiority fighter into battle, what is the exact difference between these two roles? Why can't (shouldn't?) an interceptor assume the role of an air superiority fighter and vice versa?

What makes an aircraft an interceptor, technically spoken, and what an air superiority fighter? Not the weapons, right?

 

The dedicated interceptor fighter is about to become extinct. The only true modern interceptor today is the russian MiG-31 Foxhound which entered service in 1981. The last true american Interceptor was the F-106 Delta Dart which served from 1959 to 1988 while the F-14 Tomcat also had many interceptor attributes. To understand that we should take a look at the historical development:

 

Air interception has been a task since the beginning of air combat which was WW1. It was usally carried out by air superiority fighters as one of their tasks. That also applies to WW2 where ground controlled interception (GCI)-guided Spitfires intercepted german aircraft in the Battle of Britain. But WW2 also saw the birth of true dedicated interceptors in form of the german Nachtjäger (night fighter). Those aircraft usally where 2-engine powered, radar-equipped heavy fighters tasked with shooting down allied bomber formations at night and that was pretty much the task that defined the interceptor fighter in it's heydays during the first half of the Cold War.

 

In the early years of the Cold War strategic bombers flying at high altitudes and at high speeds, equipped with atomic bombs where the biggest threat. To be able to intercept them (and high altitude recon aircrafts like the U-2) dedicated interceptor aircrafts with high speed and high altitude capabilities where needed. That's why many interceptors have delta wings, because they provide exactly that while lacking in maneuverability which isn't important for intercepting bombers and recon planes.

In the following years long range A-A missles became another important feature for intercepors. On sowjet/russian side this would be the Wympel R-33/AA-9 Amos especially developed for the MiG-31 and on US-side it would be the AIM-54 Phoenix developed for the F-14 and it's special AN/AWG-9 radar. That's one of the main reasons why the F-14 can also be designated as an interceptor. With it's radar and the Phoenix missle it can track down and attack planes and even cruise missles at very long ranges. It was also able to attack 6 targets simultaneously which isn't that useful for fighter engagements but very useful to intercept large enemy ASuW-Bomber formations equipped with long range anti-ship missles to protect the carrier battle group.

 

Today most air superiority fighters are so advanced, that they also can carry out interception tasks without drawback.

 

Edited October 28, 2014 by QuiGon

 

The dedicated interceptor fighter is about to become extinct. The only true modern interceptor today is the russian MiG-31 Foxhound which entered service in 1981. The last true american Interceptor was the F-106 Delta Dart which served from 1959 to 1988 while the F-14 Tomcat also had many interceptor attributes. To understand that we should take a look at the historical development:

Air interception has been a task since the beginning of air combat which was WW1. It was usally carried out by air superiority fighters as one of their tasks. That also applies to WW2 where ground controlled interception (GCI)-guided Spitfires intercepted german aircraft in the Battle of Britain. But WW2 also saw the birth of true dedicated interceptors in form of the german Nachtjäger (night fighter). Those aircraft usally where 2-engine powered, radar-equipped heavy fighters tasked with shooting down allied bomber formations at night and that was pretty much the task that defined the interceptor fighter in it's heydays during the first half of the Cold War.

In the early years of the Cold War strategic bombers flying at high altitudes and at high speeds, equipped with atomic bombs where the biggest threat. To be able to intercept them (and high altitude recon aircrafts like the U-2) dedicated interceptor aircrafts with high speed and high altitude capabilities where needed. That's why many interceptors have delta wings, because they provide exactly that while lacking in maneuverability which isn't important for intercepting bombers and recon planes. In the following years long range A-A missles became another important feature for intercepors. On sowjet/russian side this would be the Wympel R-33/AA-9 Amos especially developed for the MiG-31 and on US-side it would be the AIM-54 Phoenix developed for the F-14 and it's special AN/AWG-9 radar. That's one of the main reasons why the F-14 can also be designated as an interceptor. With it's radar and the Phoenix missle it can track down and attack planes and even cruise missles at very long ranges. It was also able to attack 6 targets simultaneously which isn't that useful for fighter engagements but very useful to intercept large enemy ASuW-Bomber formations equipped with long range anti-ship missles to protect the carrier battle group.

 

Today most air superiority fighters are so advanced, that they also can carry out interception tasks without drawback.

 

 

NICE!

I like the history lesson! Well said and it amazes me that no matter how much I learn I am always learning things I didn't know... And usually from this forum...

 

:thumbup:

Interceptor - Defensive role, to combat threats to your own territorial air space. High rate of climb, high speed, short endurance - Lightning 1, Starfighter, MiG-21 etc

 

Air superiority fighter - More endurance, more capable of penetrating deeper into enemy territory to take and hold airspace. F4 Phantom, SU-27, F22 etc

Sorry but the Phantom II was not an Air Superiority fighter. It was used as one but it was designed as a "Fleet Defence Vehicle" which is the Navy term for an Interceptor :smartass: