What is a nth Generation fighter?

1st Generation (early jet fighter) - MiG-15,17,19 or F-84, F-86

(snip)

Surely the first generation of jet fighters would have been the Lockheed
P-80, Gloster Meteor, Me. 263 and others of the same vintage.


I'm sure you could lump those in there as well. There has to be some *formal*
convention where this is spelled out no?


BUFDRVR

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

In message , BUFDRVR
writes
Surely the first generation of jet fighters would have been the Lockheed
P-80, Gloster Meteor, Me. 263 and others of the same vintage.

I'm sure you could lump those in there as well. There has to be some *formal*
convention where this is spelled out no?

Isn't *he* the optimist!

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

I'm sure you could lump those in there as well. There has to be some
*formal*
convention where this is spelled out no?

Isn't *he* the optimist!

Wll, common sense would dictate, the way people (important people) throw these
terms around, that you would be able to open a book and read what attributes
make up a 3rd generation fighter. For example, I thought Look-Down/Shoot-Down
radar technology was an attribute of a 4th generation fighter?


BUFDRVR

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

In message , BUFDRVR
writes
I'm sure you could lump those in there as well. There has to be some
*formal*
convention where this is spelled out no?

Isn't *he* the optimist!

Wll, common sense would dictate, the way people (important people) throw these
terms around, that you would be able to open a book and read what attributes
make up a 3rd generation fighter. For example, I thought Look-Down/Shoot-Down
radar technology was an attribute of a 4th generation fighter?

The cynic in me says "the Marketing Department define it and the highest
generation is what they're trying to sell; the next generation down is
anything they can't underbid".

So, some US marketeers would have you believe that the only 4th or 5th
generation fighter is the F/A-22. Others would insist the F-35 counts
too. Eurofighter would claim that supercruise (also a contentious
definition), sensor fusion, networked capability et al is the definition
so they qualify, and then Dassault complain that the Rafale ought to be
in there too... then LockMart go back to muttering that only stealth
makes a top-generation fighter and the argument starts over again.

Does going supersonic count as a generation shift? That might or might
not take you from F-86/MiG-15/Hunter to F-100/MiG-19 territory. Third
generation got more significantly multirole and had some all-weather
capability as routine, rather than handing the mission over to aircraft
like Starfires (F-4s, MiG-23s).

Then you get into "what's the next step"? A F-15 is a clear step up on a
F-4 in ACM, but (in the -A and -C mods) is single-role: the F-4 is
all-weather, BVR and Mach 2, the Eagle is "same but better" except it
doesn't multirole. Does that qualify as a generation or an increment?

Similarly, is there really a generation between a F-86 and a F-100,
given that both were designed as guns-only dayfighters (and both could
carry Sidewinders once available... and the F-86 was developed into an
all-weather interceptor while the F-100 wasn't). Or for that matter, the
MiG-21/Lightning/F-104/Mirage crowd... which added speed but not much
other capability.




--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On 14 Dec 2003 22:18:58 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:

I'm sure you could lump those in there as well. There has to be some *formal*
convention where this is spelled out no?

I list them like this:

1st - canvas airframes
2nd - metal airframes
3rd - jet engines
4th - look-down/shoot-down radar
5th - low observables

My way gets you from the Sopwith Camel all the way to the Raptor.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

I list them like this:

1st - canvas airframes
2nd - metal airframes
3rd - jet engines
4th - look-down/shoot-down radar
5th - low observables

The problem with this list is a MiG-15 has jet engines, but its catagorized as
a first generation fighter. I think the naming convention *begins* with jet
engines.


BUFDRVR

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

On 15 Dec 2003 00:27:35 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:

The problem with this list is a MiG-15 has jet engines, but its
catagorized as a first generation fighter. I think the naming convention
*begins* with jet engines.

Why? Serious question, why not classify the aircraft that first took to
the skies to battle other aircraft?

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:34:36 -0500, Yeff wrote:

On 15 Dec 2003 00:27:35 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:

The problem with this list is a MiG-15 has jet engines, but its
catagorized as a first generation fighter. I think the naming convention
*begins* with jet engines.

Why? Serious question, why not classify the aircraft that first took to
the skies to battle other aircraft?

Well you easily could but they don't :-) I've seen it broken down
like that before though.

What I've generally heard though:

1st: Me262, Gloster Meteor, P-80, The very early Yaks and Migs.
2nd: F-86, Mig-15, F-94, F-84, F-89, Mig-17
3rd: Century series, F-4, Mig-23, Mig-25, Mirage III, Su-9, -11, -15
3+: Might include aircraft like the F-111, Su-24 (IMHO)
4th: F-teens, Mirage 2000, Tornado, Mig-29, Su-27
4+: The various Flanker mods, particularly the -30MKI and -35/37,
Japanese F-2, Block 60 F-16, "Super"Hornet, Gripen, the latest Eagles
with AESA.

5th: F-22, F-35, Typhoon, Rafale (although IMO it could be argued the
last two are 4+), S-37, Mig 1.44 (if they'd ever gotten around to
them).

"Yeff" wrote in message
...
On 14 Dec 2003 22:18:58 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:

I'm sure you could lump those in there as well. There has to be some
*formal*
convention where this is spelled out no?

I list them like this:

1st - canvas airframes

Nobody ever built canvas airframes, the WW1 era
aircraft used wood and wire airframes with doped linen
stretched across them

2nd - metal airframes
3rd - jet engines

So what was the DH Vampire, Generation 1 or 3 ?
It had a jet engine but not a metal airframe

4th - look-down/shoot-down radar

That lumps everything from the F-4 to F-15 into a
single generation

5th - low observables



Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
| "Yeff" wrote in message
| ...
| On 14 Dec 2003 22:18:58 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:
|
| I'm sure you could lump those in there as well. There has to be
some
| *formal*
| convention where this is spelled out no?
|
| I list them like this:
|
| 1st - canvas airframes
|
| Nobody ever built canvas airframes,

They did however build "inflatable canvas airframes" in the 1950's and
60's. Try a search on the ML Utility (RAF serials XK776, XK784 and
XK781) or the Goodyear GA-33/GA-447.