>>1484935>How is an interceptor not a type of fighter?Because it is, an interceptor is merely a specialized type of fighter. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interceptor_aircraftThe MiG-25 was a fighter specialized to intercept and destroy high speed bombers (B-58, B-70, etc) in all weather conditions. The designers achieved this by sacrificing aspects normally desirable for engaging other fighters, such as wing loading, maneuverability, an internal gun, G structural limit, cockpit visibility, and so on, to create an extremely fast high performance interceptor with a powerful radar (for its time!). Somewhat similar examples are the EE Lightning, F-104, F-106, F-4, Tu-128, Su-15, and so on. You will see some of these and other aircraft seemingly interchangeably described as fighters and interceptors, as in this thread, but I reiterate that an interceptor is simply a type of fighter, and in addition the definition of both words have evolved over time.
As technology progressed, it became possible for agile fighter aircraft to possess good enough performance and sensors to also fulfill the role as interceptors. Examples of this are the F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27, F-22 and so on.
Of course, this isn't to say that the classic dedicated interceptors aren't capable of engaging fighters, but this usually demands an extraordinary amount of expertise, tactics, and plain luck, while this just isn't the case for the fighter, or is at least less demanding. The MiG-25's air combat record is the best example, the cover of pic related is all that needs to be said.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I also forgot that there's two general classes of interceptors, though what I said mainly applies to the heavy all-weather class since that's what started this discussion and has a better distinction.
