Why did fighter jets stop being called interceptors?

because i can intercept them with my ruger ya fucking ruskie.

>>29086434
when they stopped being designed to intercept bombers?

>>29086434
Because interceptors were a sub-category of fighter aircraft that lost usefulness with the end of the Cold War.

>>29086434
jets advanced, so they no longer needed that kind of specification

>>29086434

Because most aircraft designed after the 60's could easily go supersonic and launch long range missiles to kill bombers while still be capable of dropping bombs and kill other fighters. From the late 40's to the 60's most service jets where either slower cheap fighters/bombers and the interceptors where essentially engines with wings meant to zoom up to a bomber and fuck it with rockets/short range shitty missiles.

Because there is only one interceptor in service anymore, the MiG-31. Also F-14's are pretty much interceptors, but evolved way past that so it's a bit iffy.
That is, off the top of my head. I think maybe some shitter poor country could still be using MiG-25's but you get the idea.

Now the real question, why isn't anyone making interceptors anymore? Well, because current doctrines across the world don't need a very fast jet optimized for a single task. It's not cost effective. But speed never gets old, eventually interceptors will make a comeback, just not in the recent future. To put it even easier, talking about the big power blocks:
>The US needs no interceptor, their varied fleet of fighters can deal with anything and there's no opposition able to take anything to the sky that would require an interceptor (like, huge fleets of supersonic bombers.)
>Russia already has MiG-31's which are excellent planes and will see service for a long time. Russia actually needs interceptors as their air power isn't as well rounded and they need something able to go from point A to B quickly.
>Anyone else doesn't have the funds to mantain such role specific aircraft even if they wanted

File: xf_103_cutaway.jpg (525KB, 2000x1166px) Image search: [Google]

525KB, 2000x1166px

>>29086434
Because current(ish) strategies and budgets favor one-size-fits-all solutions, and the technology has mostly caught up to a point where that can be done to a usable degree.

File: rs11516_l-f1-xm145-reheat-runs-at-warton-rsf1-22.jpg (4MB, 3072x1934px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3072x1934px

>>29086458
It's too bad really, they were the primary boundary-pushers of aviation design.

>>29086689

You'll see interceptor drones before you see interceptor fighters come back. And if theres a need for interceptor drones, might as well just make a smarter missile.

>>29087153
Who knows. We're all thinking about drones and shit but in reality, in the real world, we're still far from even having BVR working with direct human control.

>>29086434
Because we use missiles to do intercepts now

>>29087216

The fact of the matter is in the real world, logistics wins (conventional) wars and you don't need accuracy once you pass having X number of whatever thing thats doing the killing.

>>29087115
There's more to boundary pushing than going fast and high.

>>29086434
Fighter = can turn well and dogfight, maybe max out at Mach 2.
Interceptor = designed to turn in a straight line, kill bombers / AWACS / tankers / straggler fighters, big fuel tanks, Mach ~2.5 capable.

>>29087245
It's all fun and games until you have blue on blue every day, which is not fun.

>>29087115
We are just taking a break. Hypersonics are the new bleeding edge.

Though what I really want to see is a nuclear jet engine/ rocket like what was on project Pluto, but utilized for Upper atmosphere research on Jupiter.

>>29087278

Its all good if its all robots.

>>29087308
I understand what you're saying, but the way technical limitations are in place this isn't going to be even remotely a thing for the next 80 years.

File: X-24C_Configuration_January_1977.jpg (88KB, 640x887px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 640x887px

>>29087282
Hypersonics aren't nearly as practical as they're made out to be. You're forced to fly at the very edge of the air-breathing envelope (~100,000ft) for it to even be possible, and it requires a design that's not really practical for anything except going retardedly fast. You can't really maneuver, and for any substantial flight time you're going to need a ridiculous fuel fraction. You'd most likely need a carrier aircraft to deploy the hypersonic vehicle as well, as it can't be wasting any fuel or weight on things like landing gear and takeoff.

On top of all of that, you've got the issue of weapons separation. There has never been any attempt to deploy a payload at hypersonic speeds, and such a concept is hardly a trivial thing.

>>29087115
>they were the primary boundary-pushers of aviation design.
Only in the very niche area of "let's go super fucking fast," and even then they were eclipsed by dedicated high-speed experimental vehicles.

The focus with aircraft development more recently is shifted elsewhere. You've got a focus on cheaper, more sustainable flight rather than raw performance. That means instead of just slapping the most powerful engines on the smallest airframe available and calling it a day, you're working to refine things to improve efficiency.

If you look at NASA's recent projects, they've been things like
>aeroelastic research aimed at manipulating aeroelastic effects to an aircraft's advantage, allowing for a lighter, more flexible airframe
>sonic boom research aimed at producing designs capable of quieter, more efficient supersonic flight
>active anti-flutter systems aimed at making thinner, lighter airframes more feasible

File: ...butipoopfromthere.png (113KB, 1315x494px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1315x494px

>>29087744

Couldn't the jet just poop it out like the A5 was supposed to do?

>>29086434
Technology improved, now you can make everything a multirole.

>>29087945
That's possible, but remember all the problems the A-5 had with that system - the wake of the aircraft fucked with the stores being jettisoned. At hypersonic speeds, the wake effects are going to be even worse, and any tumbling that occurs would likely be catastrophic to the payload (and possibly even the launch aircraft).

File: TornadoF3.jpg (333KB, 1024x646px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 1024x646px

>>29086434
They didn't, exactly.

Interceptors are a particular type of fighter. As specialists they have mostly disappeared, but the Mig-31 is still around and in service as has been mentioned.

The F-14 also mentioned was an air superiority fighter rather than an interceptor, the difference being that interceptors are designed around high speeds (to intercept an aircraft, typically a bomber or bomber escort, before they get close to the target) whereas the F-14 relies on long range sensors and weapons to shoot the same target down from much further away, so it can effectively do the same jobs without needing to actually be a specialist interceptor.

And for the most part that's what's happened to Interceptors - for the most part air superiority fighters and mult-role fighters have become good enough interceptors there is little need for specialized interceptor aircraft. The last specialized interceptor produced in the west was the Tornado, which was still in service through 2011 in the RAF and is still flown by Saudis and the Italians.

"Interceptor" was a completely invented fighter category created to circumvent assmunching doctrinal restrictions on fighter plane development during the 1930's. The result was the P-38 Lightning, our first "Interceptor".

File: 2740269.jpg (385KB, 1280x912px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1280x912px

>>29086434
I believe that's been so since the MIG-31 stopped being produced.

>>29086977
What a sleek plane.

>>29086434
Interceptors are primarily intended to intercept bombers, but only a handful of nations still fly bombers anymore. One of those nations, Russia, is also under threat of a bomber attack from the USA so they still operate interceptors.

>>29086434
When drones and SAMs took the lead.

>field like 9 drones for the price of a single foighta
>all have comparable loadout and superior maneuverability to a foighta because you don't have to worry about a squishy meatbag driving the thing
>both are equally susceptible to EMF jamming so argument invalid there m8

File: F-15 launching ASM-135 ASAT into SPAAAAAAACE.jpg (1MB, 2400x2977px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2400x2977px

>>29087744
>You can't really maneuver
You can't pull off very good turn rates, true, but you can certainly still pull Gs at least (which is more important anyways when it comes to trashing missiles).
>On top of all of that, you've got the issue of weapons separation.
True
>There has never been any attempt to deploy a payload at hypersonic speeds
Sure there has. There was the X-43 and the X-51, plus countless exoatmospheric payload deployments and numerous multistage rocket stage separations (if that counts).
>and such a concept is hardly a trivial thing.
It could be made pretty trivial by zooming up to where dynamic pressure is minuscule just before release, but that may not be the most practical approach (especially if you're being shot at).
>>29089902
>both are equally susceptible to EMF jamming so argument invalid there m8
Uh..... yeahno.

>>29086689
The f-15 is an intercepter. There's no other reason for its speed.

>>29089988
Oh god this isnt going to be a repeat of "the F-16 has the heart of a PURE INTERCEPTOR" guy from a few years back, is it?

>>29089902
>both are equally susceptible to EMF jamming so argument invalid there m8

Wrong.

Jam the manned fighter and there is still a human in there to fight, he just lost some sensors.

Jam the drone and the human is no longer just laggy, he's disconnected completely.

>>29090024
If the F-15 is used to escort airforce one, it has to be an interceptor. I've played some games and I know that you absolutely need the speed to defend a jet liner from boogies.

>>29090039
In the latter case, that's when the onboard AI takes over and rekts shit up.

>>29087806
>what is MиГ-25
Literally fastest combat aircraft ever, probably could have caught an SR-71 if they scrambled.

>>29090039
>>29089944
>just lost some sensors
You mean
>just lost literally all combat effectivivity and has become a flying turd
ftfy

File: 1427929696029.jpg (178KB, 1118x1109px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1118x1109px

>>29088225
isn't the panavia tornado more a MRCA then an interceptor? just askin'
pic somewhat unrelated

>>29090182
Except for the part where fighters are getting uber tier radar, IR and passive RF sensors.

>>29090070
>Implying they never tried

>>29089944
>There was the X-43 and the X-51, plus countless exoatmospheric payload deployments and numerous multistage rocket stage separations (if that counts).
What I meant was more a hypersonic vehicle deploying a payload from the final stage. So something like the X-15 or X-43 deploying some kind of payload during cruise, which to my knowledge has never been done.

>>29088225
How can it be said that interceptors are intended to tackle bomber escorts? Isn't it the other way around? Though I could understand those F-14s happily targeting the escort superiority fighters.

>>29090321
I don't think you know what EMR/EMF jamming is.
In other words, AWACS = GOD

>>29095217
EMR jamming can fuck your manual compass brah. You have to look at the ground and gtfo really quick because it usually means you're about to get shitfucked by an AIM-9 or some lame shit like that.

>>29090070
>probably could have caught an SR-71

...and trash the engines in the process