Is the supersonic interceptor dead for good? It seems that close air support is the flavor of the month.
here is some glorious Starfighter howl
>Is the supersonic interceptor dead for good? It seems that close air support is the flavor of the month.
The one has nothing to do with the other.
The supersonic interceptor will make a comeback, anon. It will come back as a multirole AWACS/missile truck.
It will coordinate swarms of UAVs, and expand a nation's air defense envelope well beyond its borders.
I think right now the focus is on stealth. But stealth is an evolutionary dead end because there is only so much you can mask while detection techs will catch up. Eventually, the advantages of stealth will be overcome and we will revisit speed and manuverability.
Sadly, I think so. Modern day fighters are plenty fast enough, and more versatile. Also, like >>28455870 said, our missile systems are leagues better than at the time we were first developing interceptor aircraft. The focus now is more towards electronic warfare and stealth. Unfortunately, the air to air development has kinda stagnated (limited to minor tweaks of existing missile systems), because nowadays air to air engagements are rare. Sure, NATO forces will intercept a TU-95 every now and again, but the interceptor role has come and gone for the most part.
We live in an age of faggotry where there are no jet interceptors or battleships.
Aren't jets like the F-22 and Eurofighter basically just interceptors though? I mean, sure they're more maneuverable than older interceptors but that's just to be expected from technological progression yes?
>Fleet Interceptors, anyone?
It's called the SM-6.
>swarms of UAVs
Love this meme, it never ceases to amuse
Interceptors are like night fighters and all weather fighters: Their capabilities are rolled up into more modern planes as technology improves.
You don't call an F/A-18 an all-weather fighter.
And you don't call an F-22 an interceptor.
You're implying that we've regressed in capability. Seriously.
...Holy shit you're fucking serious. Oh my god.
Please. Enlighten me.
>Things "progressed" until big wars didn't happen anymore, and all the lessons of the previous wars could be forgotten
Modern MBT's are more mobile than preceding medium tanks and better armed and armored than preceding heavy tanks.
Only thing that kept light tanks relevant was the fact that there is places where MBT's are too heavy for roads and terrain. IFV's have replaced most light tanks. Few are still around and there would be big gun turrets for IFV's, but those haven't become popular.
Similar thing with modern air superiority and multirole fighters. Those are equal or better in special tasks of specialized combat aircraft of old times.
if you like that noise, go listen to an F-15 with PW-229s.
This, times two, with a weird shriek in the front.
Here, this is what it sounds like in normal engine run, not taxi.
Metamaterials are getting better and better. While you can always build better sensors, there's only so far you can deduce without catching more photons. If your plan to detect something that's nigh-invisible is to carry a 10m diameter telescope / radar aperture around, you've run into a spot of trouble.
The age of the pure interceptor is long dead. Air superiority fighters can do everything an interceptor can do while also being able to stay on station longer and actually deal with any escorts.
yes broham. me too. I was the only career field that could arugable get away with sitting on top of the jet during a burner run, testing out the ECS pack with a nicart. Feels. Still, no fucking regrets at this point about getting separated. The airforce has gone full retard as far as culture goes right now.
>Unfortunatley we have missiles to do the job now.
This. But it's a tradeoff. Supersonic interceptors can cover a certain area within a certain time. Base the interceptors closer together and you need less speed to get out in front of an incoming threat. OP's Arrow made more sense for Canada with wide open spaces and greater distances to cover quickly. The alternative is a lot of ground bases. But with ground-based missiles, you don't have the luxury of delaying the decision to fire like you do with interceptors. So you have to get your targeting done up front, before you launch. So, more fixed radar as well.