Why did heavy fighters disappear essentially right after WW2 /k/? Two (or more) jet engines would be great for a heavy fighter, so why didn't such a role see further development (dont tell me the Interceptor is a replacement, it simply isnt the same.)
>why did a flawed obsolete concept not see further development long after becoming flawed and obsolete?Honestly it's a mystery.
Same reason why medium/heavy tanks got absorbed by the main battle tank. Various types of fighters/fighter-bombers got absorbed by the multi-role combat aircraft. In WW2, heavy fighters were needed bc single-engine fighters didn't have enough range, ability to carry radar, enough ordinance, etc. - all of that was no longer a problem in post-WW2 fighter design. Compare the size of a modern jet fighter with a WW2 propeller fighter and you can easily figure out why
>>62497989They literally didn't disappear retard. Most jets are in the heavy side except for a few bi engine and single engine.
>Why were there no heavy fighters after WW2, and don't bring up these heavy fighters because i say so!
>>62497989TU128 is a bloody heavy fighter, the heaviest unless you count Sidewinders on a Nimrod.
>>62497989>thrust levels go from like 10 kN per engine to like 50+ kN per engine in a decade or two>recently you have engines that can push 100 kN WITHOUT AFTERBURNERYou know an F-15E is like three or four times the weight of a Mosquito, right anon?
>>62498069That Tu and the mig 35/25 are more like 'strategic' interceptors tho. The Su-27 is a (super) heavy fighter
>>62497989Arguably they didn't. Lots of modern fighters are two engine jets and are pretty massive in size. I'd argue that it's the terminology that has changed, not the fighters.>>62498024Flawed how?
>>62497989>Why did heavy fighters disappear essentially right after WW2 /k/?They didnt. F.ex the F-101 voodoo and its soviet counterparts existed. The F-14 and F15 and F-22 are modern twin engined heavy fighters.
>>62497989Arguably still applies nowadaysThe Tomcat is a heavy carrier fighter compared to the Hornet variants, though it's retired nowThe Su-33/J-15 can also be seen in the same class, comparing them to the MiG-29KAnd comparing the F-15 to the F-16. Heavy/light fighter differentiation
>>62497989An F-15 is bigger than any heavy fighter and carries more bomb weight than most WW2 bombers.Just because we stopped using the name "heavy fighter" doesn't mean they stopped existing.
>>62498095>Flawed how?The WW2 heavy fighter concept only worked in environments where no single engine fighters were present, where air superiority had already been achieved, or in the rare occasions where a particular heavy fighter design held a certain advantage over opposing single engine designs, ie P-38 vs Jap aerial scooters. The whole ethos of heavy fighters having a heavy armament is irrelevant in an era when every jet fighter (F-86 not withstanding) can carry a cannon armament and/or FFAR pods.
>>62498156>The whole ethos of heavy fighters having a heavy armament is irrelevantThe F-15ex is entering production because it can carry more missiles than other fighters, the missile truck concept is the heavy fighter by another name.
>>62498168no
>>62498174>a fighter that is heavy isn't a heavy fighter
>>62497989>dont tell me the Interceptor is a replacement, it simply isnt the sameIt fulfills the same basic role, just with better technology. It's a replacement in the same way that muskets were a replacement for crossbows.
>>62498156> certain advantage over opposing single engine designs, Single engine only had advantage when they're pure 'point defense' fighters, and they only had one engine because it's cheaper and you need a lot of those short range fighters. Most heavy fighters and single engine escorts weren't well optimized for dogfights.
>>62497989>Why did heavy fighters disappear essentially right after WW2 /k/?They really didn't. >light single engined fighter>heavy dual engined fighterhas been a pretty consistent force mix for both the USN and USAF throughout the post-war period, with the crazy clusterfuck mix of the 50s being a bit of an exception.
>>62498184BEHOLD, A HEAVY FIGHTER
>>62498198a "light" single-engine fighter like an F-16 or Gripen can do everything a heavy fighter used to do in WW2. The classification no longer applies.
>>62498205>no A2A capability>fighterNice try Diogenes, go back to your barrel.
>>62498024>>62498030>>62498092>>62498156>>62498168>>62498174The original role was air superiority, arguably all major Jet fighters cover this requirement , but I feel the role of heavy fighter is still unmaintained. A fighter with enhanced self-defence capabilities would be useful during war, but afterwards who could guess? A forward and rear facing radar could be placed to allow very good situational awareness. A rear guner could opperate semi-radar guided missiles. This would likely be feasible until the early 70's, afterwards, the only real thing that matters is the size of the AA missile launched (including the accuracy of it)...
>>62498223And if I strap AIM-174s to it and have it fire them over datalink? Still a fighter, right?
>>62498230It would become a multi-role bomber as the original design was a bomber.
>>62498224>A fighter with enhanced self-defence capabilities Literally all decent 4th gen and 5th gen have that.>EW, ECM>Radar>RWR, IR missile detectors>missile CM>some can use missiles to intercept missiles
>>62498205Goodluck during A to A warfare, you'll need it...
>>62498218It can't go as far without refuelling, can't loiter as long and carry as many missiles as a heavy fighter.The F-16 is absolutely and decisively in a lighter weight class than the F-15. Same with the MiG-29 vs Su-27. Or the F-18 vs F-14. It's just that the advantages and disadvantages conferred by weight changed somewhat (radar range, missile load and bvr kinematics vs close-in energy fighting performance, etc)
>>62498238AIM-9X. 360 degree engagement capability.>>62498235Now you're just plucking hairs. It carries more missiles than your missile truck heavy fighter, that makes it a better fighter, right? A super heavy fighter of sorts.
>>62498224The Russians are currently using the MiG-31 as a kind of heavy fighter vs the Sukhois. It can go real fast real high and lob missiles real far, but can't survive a close-in fight
>>62498249yes it's lighter, but it's not as much of a difference as in WW2in WW2 you needed twin-engine fighters to be able to carry radars, carry a relevant amount of bombs, be able to go any distance, etc.that no longer appliesa modern air force can do just fine with only single engine fighters
>>62498156The F-4 Phantom II is a two engine plane that did pretty well in Vietnam. It suffered in low altitude dogfights but did decently at high altitude. This was all while the USN was under significant restrictions for BVR combat with every target needing to be visually ID'd before engaging.
>>62498256>Now you're just plucking hairsSays the guy insisting that the F-15 isn't a heavy fighter despite being an air superiority fighter that is heavy compared to others in production at the same time.
>>62498270I wasn't saying it wasn't a heavy fighter, I was mocking you for implying heavy fighter is a viable classifier for something like an F-15EX in the first place. Again, if more missiles is more better, tell me how my FB-52 Stratofortress isn't more betterer than your F-15EX.
Can a current 'universal' jet fighter loiter without extensive extra fuel stores, can a modern fighter defend itself effectively against a modern A2A missile? A modern heavy fighter would optimally be able to perform as a primary and secondary fighter aircraft due to the proliferation of A2A missiles, as well as be able to defend itself against more modern threats (this doesn't mean being invulnerable or even resilient to upgraded fighters...).
>>62498276More missiles launched higher and faster is better, being limited to low and slow by using a B-52 greatly reduces range and POK while making defensive manuvers a joke.
>>62498249The F-16 with CFT can carry the same fuel per engine as the F-15
>>62498224>describing the job of a rear seater>but with a rear facing gun>a defensive measure proven to suck back in the piston engine era
>>62498288Full SM-6, air launched. FB-52H, bettererestest edition. Have fun getting within 300 nmi of it.
>>62497989>Why did heavy fighters disappear essentially right after WW2 /k/?>>62498024>flawed obsolete conceptEvery fighter is a heavy fighter nowadays.
>>62498029the f-15 is as big as a b-17 and it is STILL THE premiere air superiority fighter
>>62498309>f-15 is STILL THE premiere air superiority fighterno it's not.
>>62498156the mozzie infuraited the germans so much with its nigh impunity in murdering the luftwaffe and hitting targets that angry austrian man robbed the luftwaffe of a bunch of good veteran pilots and put them into a dedicatd 'hunt all the fucking mozzies' unit to get them. they failed. miserably. mosquitoes WERE air superiority heavy fighters. and their obscence fire concentration in the nose ripped luftwaffe apart in ammo conserving short bursts.
>>62498322ok. post the fighter that has a better combat record. we'll wait.
>>62498302>Every fighter is a heavy fighter nowadays.Most fighters are heavy, but not a heavy fighter as envisaged by the original concept. It's splitting hairs over an anachronistic definition, like arguing that cavalry tanks must be regarded as being some kind of horse.
>>62498279Logistics can keep any fighting force supplied.
>>62498299It didn't duck, the planes simply began to operate planes with missiles which outraged heavy fighters. Good luck intercepting a bomber solo if it has AA radar and an effective armament...
>>62498387>Good luck intercepting a bomber solo if it has AA radar and an effective armament...The bomber will undoubtedly be a less effective launch platform than a fighter and has much less ability to waste an enemy missile's energy, so the bomber will lose an engagement nine times out of ten.
>>62498323>mosquitoes WERE air superiority heavy fightersThey weren't, they were a multi-role platform. The only time really that the Mosquito acted in the pure air superiority role was over the Bay of Biscay in 43, where it mostly tangled with Ju-88s until it started facing Fw-190s with drop tanks and came off decidedly second best. The mossie is the exception that proves the rule: It was one of the better heavy fighters but was vastly more successful doing everything else but that.
>>62498444mozzie fb. which is a later development of the mosquito heavy fighter.
>>62498027>Compare the size of a modern jet fighter with a WW2 propeller fighter
>>62498301You're an idiot and since the other anon was too kind to say it: No, strapping missiles to a B-52 doesn't eliminate the ability to distinguish larger fighters from smaller fighters. If you weren't fucking retarded and had any idea what you were talking about you'd know that both the Americans and the Soviets made significant doctrinal distinctions between their tiny boy and fat fuck fighter aircraft. The terminology died off as others have said, though I'd argue the interceptor of the cold war and the modern understanding of the air superiority fighter are evolutions of the more successful heavy fighter concepts... Which reminds me that this entire thread is predicated on the falsehood that heavy fighters were a monolithic, mutually understood concept when that couldn't be further from the truth.
>>62498301>>62498288>>62498276>>62498270>>62498256>>62498235>>62498230>>62498223>>62498205>>62498184>>62498174>>62498168>>62498156Can we get back to the part where it's the terminology that changed, not the concept?
>>62498156>The WW2 heavy fighter concept only worked in environments where no single engine fighters were present,Dornier 335 would survive in such an environment since it is a pull-push design. This reduces the frontal area and concentrates mass along the roll axis.
>>62498156>or in the rare occasions where a particular heavy fighter design held a certain advantage over opposing single engine designs, ie P-38 vs Jap aerial scooters.The sole selling point of the P-38 was its ultra long range.
>>62498218>a "light" single-engine fighter like an F-16 or Gripen can do everything a heavy fighter used to do in WW2. The classification no longer applies.No they cant. You cant strap a khinzal or an antisatellite rocket to a small fighter. The Mig-31 can carry 1 khinzal. The F-15 could carry one big antisatellite rocket back in the late 1980s. Small fighters are gimped by low range and low carrying capability. JAS was designed to be as cheap as possible to operate, which means a single small engine (same as in the "light" F-18) so fuel costs are kept low. The FA-50 carries the same engine as early JAS models. That is how small it is.
>>62498855And it's centerline armament, good high altitude performance and being the first fighter to exceed 400mph
>>62497989Dude. The modern multirole fighter is basically a heavy fighter. A Flanker is as big and heavy as a B-17. Most modern 4th gen onwards can also do bombing missions. There are no more modern pure interceptors in service.
>>62500317Thanks for your post anon, no one else in this thread had hit upon all of those points half a dozen times already
All this bickering reminds me of how the lines between destroyers and cruisers have been blurred as ships got bigger, heavier, and carry even more armaments than ever. Wonder how long until a "destroyer" starts displacing the same or more than a ww1 era BB
>>62500317came here to post (essentially) this
the 1930s----WWII era twin piston engine fighters were conceived initially and mainly for either 1) long range escort or 2) fast climbing interceptora few, like for example Westland Welkin, were designed as high altitude interceptor fighter
>>62498340>hes still waiting lmao
pretty funny how fast the mod destroyed that one.
>>62498589Glad to know someone took the bait. You getting treatment for your autism?
>>62497989F-100, F-4, F-14, F-15, and F-22 all fill the role of heavy fighters, as do all other multirole aircraft.
>>62497989I don't know what else you'd call the F-22. Seriously, look at how big one of those are up close.
>>62497989heavy fighters were bad. they have a lot of parasitic and form drag. Very poor roll rates for obvious reasons.they only exist because of engine limitations and long range requirements.with Jets the form ceases to exist because a single or dual turbine jet has the same general shape.
>>62500546In peacetime a Corvette or small boat with decent seakeeping can do cruiser missions to patrol, anti piracy and show flag. In fact that is literally what was happening before WW2.In modern times it becomes a joke because USN domination, Russian incompetence and who knows with China. the whole convoy escort, destroyer, cruiser and fleet stuff either doesn't apply anymore or will be completely different in the world of long range antiship missiles
>>62498205Hot>>62498230Erect>>62498256CompletionI get dispersed and distributed forces but come on missle truck fetish.
>>62498387>Good luck intercepting a bomber solo if it has AA radar and an effective armament...What effective armament? Off-bore axis missile targeting didn't become a thing till the mid-70's and it's not as though Tu-95's or B-52's were really able to use such missiles.
>>62497989>Two (or more) jet engines would be great for a heavy fighterthe premier air superiority fighters today have two jet engines WTF are you smoking
>>62497989For much the same reason that you don't see many half-tracks in production today; the circumstances that made them sensible things to build no longer apply. Half-tracks were a workaround to account for the fact that at that point being able to drive a car/truck was a specialist skill, rather than something you could reasonably expect the majority of your soldiers to be able to do. So they built something with more or less the same off-road performance as a tracked vehicle, but that drove/controlled almost exactly like a truck. For heavy fighters they were needed in the 1940's because single engine fighters weren't able to both carry the weapons and ammunition you'd want on your bomber-hunters, and didn't have the speed/range/endurance to do the job effectively either. Once guided missiles (even the hilariously unreliable 1st gen designs) entered production, and we switched to jet engines, and suddenly single seat fighters could do all of that without too much hassle - making heavy fighters unnecessary. After the introduction of ICBMs as the main 'nuke delivery system' there wouldn't have been much need for dedicated bomber-hunters either. >tl;dr, as technological capabilities, doctrine, and circumstances change so do the pieces of kit that were designed to do the old job with old tech.
>>62508267>Half-tracks were a workaround to account for the fact that at that point being able to drive a car/truck was a specialist skill, rather than something you could reasonably expect the majority of your soldiers to be able to do. So they built something with more or less the same off-road performance as a tracked vehicle, but that drove/controlled almost exactly like a truck.partially incorrect. Half-tracks are basically modified trucks in construction and have very good off road performance at for the relatively bad horsepower/weight that was available at the time. Half tracks don't exist anymore because wheeled off road vehicles have much better tires and better power that the rear track is unnecessary.in modern times you either use an off-road capable AWD truck or a speciality track vehicle.
>>62497989>Why did heavy fighters disappear essentially right after WW2Day heavy fighters were moribund since Spanish Civil War because of prop aerodynamics, the only way to make it work would be push-pull config like on Do 335 but that introduces it's own set of problems. Night fighters held on longer because of radar size constraints, but by the end of the war they could fit radars on Hellcats.>Two (or more) jet engines would be great for a heavy fighterYou mean like most modern fighter jets that aren't light fighters? In Russian terminology they're even called "heavy fighters".>>62498224>but I feel the role of heavy fighter is still unmaintainedWDYM? Are you seriously asking for a rear gunner? Most successful heavy fighters of WW2 (P-38, Mosquito, He 219) didn't have those because they're useless (for a plane that's supposed to be used in a fighter capacity). And having two radar operators on a fighter is just insane.
>>62509282>being able to drive a car/truck was a specialist skill, rather than something you could reasonably expect the majority of your soldiers to be able to do. Teaching somebody to drive a truck took a couple of weeks at most (for some podunk Styrian village boy who never saw a car in his life). The issue was a) trucks at the time were painfully shit on rough/broken terrain; b) teaching somebody to drive a fully-tracked period vehicle took *months* because of the very complicated control scheme. The half-track, with its truck-like controls, but partly-tracked drive, was an adequate compromise.
>>62509393skid steering is not difficult, it is more like horse reigns than a steering wheel. Only the US had a population familiar with driving motor vehicles. honestly I don't care because Russians didn't train conscriptovitch in 1938 and they still don't train them in 2024.
