What is a nth Generation fighter?

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
Mary Shafer wrote:


I can also remember hearing people advocate the great simplification
of the all-up modern fighter to being a weapons carrier only. That
is, the AAMs would have all the integration and avionics and stuff and
these smart missiles would be carried and launched from relatively
unsophisticated (and inexpensive) platform aircraft.

Isn't that exactly what they've accomplished with
the F-16 and F/A-18 - both of which finally came
into their own only when smarter munitions became
available?

I would agree that what you write is true for the F/A-18E, but up to that
point the mean time between reported failures never dropped for the
platforms themselves before. (MTBUR)

(That is, missiles 'n things that no
longer required an expensive and high-tech weapons
control system to guide them? These days, hanging
a pod on the jet provides it with many non-native
capabilities.)

For sure, the case of the b-one finally going to work makes me wonder if it
is not "augmented", as well.

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
5th Generation (???) - MiG 1.42, Su-30 series or FA/22, F-35

Fourth.

Hmmm, okay Mary what would a 5th Generation fighter be? They are using
that
term fairly regularly when discussing the Su-30 family.

I hate to use Pravda as a source, but according to it the Russians are just
now envisioning a fifth generation fighter, so that would seem to nix that
definition for the Su-30...

english.pravda.ru/society/2002/07/16/32583.html

Of course other Russian sources do indicate that the Su-32 is what they term
a fifth generation aircraft...

www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/tass054.htm

Then we have LMCO and Saab claiming the F-16 (later blocks) and JAS-39 are
*both* fourth generation fighters...

www.awgnet.com/shownews/today/airfrm5.htm

And another source lumps the F-22, Gripen, and Rafael into the fourth
generation heap...

www.strategicstudies.org/stratpol/SP8-999e.htm

And, almost laughably, the Chinese have claimed parentage of a fourth
generation fighter 9as if they ever really made it much past the second
generation, by anybody's standards)...

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20...7_103384.shtml

What all this tells me is that (a) there is no standard convention for
determining what generation a fighter is, and (b) it is more of a marketing
ploy than anything else (witness Saab's past harping about allegedly having
the only fourth generation fighter in service).

Brooks



BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Then we have LMCO and Saab claiming the F-16 (later blocks) and JAS-39 are
*both* fourth generation fighters...

www.awgnet.com/shownews/today/airfrm5.htm


F-16 Block 60 starts to really push the 4th generation classification though.
It would probably fall under 4+ or 4.5



Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

"Ron" wrote in message
...
Then we have LMCO and Saab claiming the F-16 (later blocks) and JAS-39
are
*both* fourth generation fighters...

www.awgnet.com/shownews/today/airfrm5.htm


F-16 Block 60 starts to really push the 4th generation classification
though.
It would probably fall under 4+ or 4.5

You are missing my point. There is no single approved "generational model".
Some folks consider the new aircraft just coming online (F/A-22, Rafael,
Typhoon, etc.) to be fourth generation, which would place your F-16 Block 60
in the 3.5 generation range. I have no doubt that others would claim that
the F/A-22 is the lone fifth generation contender at present. It seems to be
a case of different strokes for different folks. I doubt the folks at DoD
care enough either way to specify/define what makes up the various
generations of fighter evolution. Why bother, when it is of little value and
is extremely subjective in nature? Trying to develop half-generation steps
just makes it even more cumbersome and subject to debate.

Brooks



Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

F-16 Block 60 starts to really push the 4th generation classification
though.
It would probably fall under 4+ or 4.5

You are missing my point. There is no single approved "generational model".
Some folks consider the new aircraft just coming online (F/A-22, Rafael,
Typhoon, etc.) to be fourth generation, which would place your F-16 Block 60
in the 3.5 generation range. I have no doubt that others would claim that
the F/A-22 is the lone fifth generation contender at present. It seems to be
a case of different strokes for different folks. I doubt the folks at DoD
care enough either way to specify/define what makes up the various
generations of fighter evolution. Why bother, when it is of little value and
is extremely subjective in nature? Trying to develop half-generation steps
just makes it even more cumbersome and subject to debate.


Yes but dont forget, people here debate for no reason at all than for just to
debate

I think the generation system I have heard used most, would put F-22, F-35 as
5th..


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Kevin Brooks wrote:


You are missing my point. There is no single approved "generational model".
Some folks consider the new aircraft just coming online (F/A-22, Rafael,
Typhoon, etc.) to be fourth generation, which would place your F-16 Block 60
in the 3.5 generation range. I have no doubt that others would claim that
the F/A-22 is the lone fifth generation contender at present. It seems to be
a case of different strokes for different folks. I doubt the folks at DoD
care enough either way to specify/define what makes up the various
generations of fighter evolution. Why bother, when it is of little value and
is extremely subjective in nature? Trying to develop half-generation steps
just makes it even more cumbersome and subject to debate.

I agree: most of "fighter generation" mularkey is nothing
more than defense industry hype.

If I had to break (jet) fighters into "generations", it
might go something like this:

1 - Early fighters: Fast, manueverable, but not materially
more advanced than their piston-driven ancestors.
Usually single-engine, they might contain a simple
ranging radar. The last of the breed in the US would
be something like the unadorned F-100 or A-4.
2 - Dedicated fighters: Larger, often faster and more nimble
jets with highly-specialized avionics designed for the
aircraft's main purpose. American examples would be
things like most of the century series beginning with
the F-101, and continuing through the F-14. (yeah,
yeah, many of these were shoehorned into being very
respectable jacks-of-all-trades, like the F-105 and
F-4s - but that doesn't negate their design goals.
The YF-12 sits dead in this class, despite its cousins'
notable accomplishments in speed and early stealth.)
3 - T/W ratio 1 fighters: The premier American example is
the F-15 (and even the more versatile F-15E) - but gets
a little cloudy when the puny, almost systemless
lightweights are included: F-5, F-16, F/A-18 - which
really might more appropriately be called modern, but
truly generation-one aircraft.
4 - Stealthy/exotic wonders: Those that have - or will
have - extensive integration and sensor fusion; the
mystical "supercruise", and maybe even a few tag-
along 'droids to help out.

I wouldn't get to generation five until the pilot's seat
is in a trailer on the ground somewhere, or the mission
parameters are data linked to the autonomous, unpiloted
vehicle before takeoff.

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:


You are missing my point. There is no single approved "generational
model".
Some folks consider the new aircraft just coming online (F/A-22, Rafael,
Typhoon, etc.) to be fourth generation, which would place your F-16
Block 60
in the 3.5 generation range. I have no doubt that others would claim
that
the F/A-22 is the lone fifth generation contender at present. It seems
to be
a case of different strokes for different folks. I doubt the folks at
DoD
care enough either way to specify/define what makes up the various
generations of fighter evolution. Why bother, when it is of little value
and
is extremely subjective in nature? Trying to develop half-generation
steps
just makes it even more cumbersome and subject to debate.

I agree: most of "fighter generation" mularkey is nothing
more than defense industry hype.

If I had to break (jet) fighters into "generations", it
might go something like this:

1 - Early fighters: Fast, manueverable, but not materially
more advanced than their piston-driven ancestors.
Usually single-engine, they might contain a simple
ranging radar. The last of the breed in the US would
be something like the unadorned F-100 or A-4.
2 - Dedicated fighters: Larger, often faster and more nimble
jets with highly-specialized avionics designed for the
aircraft's main purpose. American examples would be
things like most of the century series beginning with
the F-101, and continuing through the F-14. (yeah,
yeah, many of these were shoehorned into being very
respectable jacks-of-all-trades, like the F-105 and
F-4s - but that doesn't negate their design goals.
The YF-12 sits dead in this class, despite its cousins'
notable accomplishments in speed and early stealth.)
3 - T/W ratio 1 fighters: The premier American example is
the F-15 (and even the more versatile F-15E) - but gets
a little cloudy when the puny, almost systemless
lightweights are included: F-5, F-16, F/A-18 - which
really might more appropriately be called modern, but
truly generation-one aircraft.
4 - Stealthy/exotic wonders: Those that have - or will
have - extensive integration and sensor fusion; the
mystical "supercruise", and maybe even a few tag-
along 'droids to help out.

I wouldn't get to generation five until the pilot's seat
is in a trailer on the ground somewhere, or the mission
parameters are data linked to the autonomous, unpiloted
vehicle before takeoff.

I'd generally agree with that analysis. But a nitpick--did the F-5 have a
T/W ratio greater than one, even in its F-5E guise? And the F-16 has had so
many systems hung on it, or included in it (witness especially the "big
spine" D models of late), resulting in its significant weight growth since
it was truly a LWF, that I would be afraid of dismissing it too lightly (no
pun intended). In my own mind the generations would be arranged almost by
decade:

1st Gen - Late 40's/early 50's, when avionics were still relatively simple.
2nd Gen- Late 50's/throughout the sixties, when fighters began becoming
complex systems.
3rd Gen- Seventies and eighties, where microprocessors started seriously
impacting the fighter and complex avionics really took off.
4th Gen- The current drop of major contenders.
5th Gen--Like you, the yet-to-be-seen, in which the direction development
will embark on is unknown, but very likely to focus on UCAV's or even
primitive autonomous UCAV's.

Brooks

Why bother, when it is of little value and
is extremely subjective in nature?

Which I was unaware of prior to this thread. The clear cut way it was explained
to me led me to believe there was a formal catagorization process.

Trying to develop half-generation steps
just makes it even more cumbersome and subject to debate.

To date, I've never heard anyone use the terminology "4th plus" or "4.5", but
hey I'm a bomber guy what the hell do I know?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On 16 Dec 2003 01:07:51 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Why bother, when it is of little value and
is extremely subjective in nature?

Which I was unaware of prior to this thread. The clear cut way it was explained
to me led me to believe there was a formal catagorization process.

Trying to develop half-generation steps
just makes it even more cumbersome and subject to debate.

To date, I've never heard anyone use the terminology "4th plus" or "4.5", but
hey I'm a bomber guy what the hell do I know?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"


Wouldn't the BUFF be considered a 2nd generation bomber? ;-)

On 14 Dec 2003 22:11:39 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

5th Generation (???) - MiG 1.42, Su-30 series or FA/22, F-35

Fourth.

Hmmm, okay Mary what would a 5th Generation fighter be? They are using that
term fairly regularly when discussing the Su-30 family.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

IMHO it would be the F-22 and F-35. The first generation to integrate true stealth,
super cruise (F-22) a new generation of electronics, etc.

Al Minyard