Read the forum code of contact
By: - 4th December 2013 at 06:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fighter-Bomber was the USAF's way to avoid designating an aircraft as an "attack" aircraft ("A" prefix). This was very important for the USAF in the 1950s, as they wanted to be seen as operating fighters and strategic bombers. Thus you had aircraft designed as primarily ground-attack aircraft (both close-support and long-range tactical strike) with only secondary fighter capabilities (F-100, F-105, F-111) being designated as fighters.
Multirole Fighter was the new fad in the 1970s & 80s for an aircraft designed to perform several different mission roles with equal emphasis... not favoring any one role over any other.
Strike Fighter is the new term for Fighter-Bomber, but indicates that the fighter capability is more emphasized than with the F/B.
I'd rate them as follows:
Fighter-Bomber = >66% strike/attack & <34% fighter
Strike Fighter = ~55% strike/attack & ~45% fighter
Multirole Fighter = 50% strike/attack & 50% fighter
By: - 4th December 2013 at 08:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Overall that's a decent analysis, but to nitpick I think it should be pointed out that the F-100 was designed as a clear weather day fighter. The fighter-bomber variants started somewhat with the F-100C, and more specifically with the F-100D.
Also, F-15's to my knowledge have never carried AGM-88 operationally.
Posts: 194
By: blackadam - 4th December 2013 at 04:38
What the difference between Fighter-Bomber & Multirole Fighter & Strike Fighter
F-111, Tornado IDS, JH-7A, Su-34 vs F-16C, MiG-29, Su-30M vs F-15E, F-35
I can see they are capable of multi-role, both Su-34 (kh-31A/P, R-73/77, Kh-59) F-16C (AGM-84/88, JSOW, AIM-9/120) and F-15E (JDAM, AGM-88, AIM-9/120) can be used against ground & sea targets or sky limit (dogfight limit).