Difference Fighter-Bomber & Multirole Fighter & Strike Fighter !

Member for

6 years 4 months

Posts: 194

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).
Original post

Member for

14 years 4 months

Posts: 3,614

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
Profile picture for user PhantomII

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 7,989

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.