Talk:Strike fighter

Strike fighters and a fighter-bombers

How is a Strike fighter different than a fighter-bomber? Oberiko 15:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A fighter-bomber might do strategic-type bombing - example might be the nuclear-armed Super Sabres of the 60s - while a strike fighter's bombs would be more tactical. But as all of these articles point out, the terms are not precise. The cynical would say that "strike fighter" is only being adopted because it sounds more "cool"; but that would be cynical, because the military would never ever invent new terminology for political or PR purposes... :-) Stan 18:24, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is the political speculation on the reasons for adopting the "Strike Fighter" designation REALLY necessary? Or NPoV? Iceberg3k 15:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And Multirole?

And what about Multirole? What's the difference between a Strike fighter and a Multirole one? --Henrickson ^{User talk | Contribs} 06:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Terms are synonymous

All these terms are really roughly synonymous and fall under the general heading of "multirole fighter". The term "strike fighter" was coined by the Navy as an almost exact synonym to "fighter-bomber"; a one- or two-man aircraft designed for air combat but big enough to carry a few bombs and so capable of ground attack. It crossed over to land-based aircraft with the F-15E, while before this time the USAF had been using the "multirole" descriptor for its F-16's dual-mission profile.

If there's any distinction to be made, it's in the origin story; a "strike fighter", as the term is most commonly used, refers to an aircraft designed and intended to focus on ground attack while remaining capable of air combat. A fighter-bomber is a design originally intended and even used to fight air-to-air engagements, but which is adapted and pressed into service as an attack aircraft. A "dual-role" or "multirole" fighter is a design intended from its conception to be equally capable of both mission types. So obviously, the terms blur; is the F-15E a "fighter-bomber" because it was adapted from a pure fighter for ground missions, or a "strike fighter" because the modifications were fairly extensive and result in a focused ground strike aircraft? Is the F/A-18 a "strike fighter" because it entered service as a primary attack aircraft replacing the A-6 but that could also run BARCAP, or a "dual-role fighter" because its design requirements always had air combat in mind in parallel with the ground attack role?

Really, looking at all the aircraft in the "multirole" category, "fighter-bomber" is becoming an obsolete term, as virtually all designs of the last quarter-century are either 100% pure fighters and used as such, or else specifically designed (or heavily modified from previous designs) for additional mission profiles. That leaves "multirole" for any fighter capable of ground strikes, and the more specialized "strike fighter" for a fighter-like aircraft designed primarily for ground attack. 2602:306:3214:F080:840D:C643:9631:F74F (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Rationalise the ground attack articles

See:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force#Close air support - ground attack aircraft - strike fighter
• Ground attack aircraft#Merge

--Philip Baird Shearer 10:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete this article.

I call this item should be deleted. It offers nothing other than a very American perspective on US aircraft of the 80s... and nothing else. It needs a total re-write to offer something, but it would still be completely superfluous anyways. (203.26.122.12 (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

• I'd agree, well somewhat. I think "fighter-bomber" is better-known term that's easier to understand. "Fighter-bomber" also describes how military aircraft evolved from being single-role to multipurpose platforms from WWII to the present day, so this would make for a much more legitimate rationale for having an article than something really ambiguous like "strike fighter". —Masterblooregard (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, for example an F-16 has RecceLite performing reconaissance even while on attack flights (sensors sweep the terrain for IED's). Strike fighters also have ECM, Link-16, some planes (ie EA-18G Growler) have EASA (electronically scanned array) which can also perform cyberattacks. Finally, strike aircraft can also drop buker busters, ... (= underground attack)

Agree delete. Hopelessly shallow and US biased. SaintAviator lets talk 07:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Efficiency

Perhaps it should be noted that modern strike-fighters aircraft are not more accurate than older ground-attack aircraft. ie a P-47 was just as accurate in destroying large structures as a modern F-16, and was equally efficient in theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.186.148 (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

References

Merge with multirole combat aircraft article

Why not merge this with the above mentioned article? Since all strike fighters basically a multimode fighter!!! 86.108.78.59 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Joint Strike Fighter

Why is there a section specifically about the F-35? It is one of many strike fighters and I do not think it needs its own section in this article considering that there are not any sections that are about any other strike fighter specifically. Sarrotrkux (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)