What is a nth Generation fighter?

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 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.

I thought they were calling it the four-and-a-half-th generation or
fourth-generation plus. I know that some third-generation fighters
were touted as really being "half a generation more advanced"
(although not for any good reason that I remember).

Maybe they won't have guns.

To be honest, I don't know what's left in this evolutionary sequence.
Maybe remotely piloted? Having the pilot literally plug in the
airplane, with some sort of "think it, fly it" or "think it, fire it"
system? Artificial intelligence, with the pilot as supervisor? None
of these sound very practical to me. Maybe the piloted fighter with
the flock of "assistant" semi-autonomous vehicles.

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.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
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.

I thought they were calling it the four-and-a-half-th generation or
fourth-generation plus. I know that some third-generation fighters
were touted as really being "half a generation more advanced"
(although not for any good reason that I remember).

Maybe they won't have guns.

To be honest, I don't know what's left in this evolutionary sequence.
Maybe remotely piloted? Having the pilot literally plug in the
airplane, with some sort of "think it, fly it" or "think it, fire it"
system? Artificial intelligence, with the pilot as supervisor? None
of these sound very practical to me. Maybe the piloted fighter with
the flock of "assistant" semi-autonomous vehicles.

I think the flock with a maned master bird is the next step.

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.

The problem with that is that a "recallable cruise missile" is a Treaty
violation.

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) writes:
Could anyone tell me examples of 1st..5th? generation fighters and
other planes and what seperates them? (Apart from time)


Good question, and one I asked an intel officer shortly after becoming mission
qualified in the BUFF. Here's the way he layed it out:

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

2nd Generation (early supersonic)- MiG-21 or Century Series

3rd Generation (advanced supersonic) - MiG-23 or F-4

4th Generation ("next generation") - MiG-25, 29, 31, Su-27 or F-14,15,16

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

It's just my opinion, mind you, but I categorize things a littke
differently.

For jets:
1st Generation - Low Transonic. usually straight wings, underpowered,
and severe Mach limits. Example would be:
Me 262, Meteor, Vampire, Venom, Attacker, Sea Hawk, F-80, plank-winged
F-84s, F-94A,B, T-33, T-37, Ouragan, MiG-9.

2nd Generation - Generally swept wing, still underpowered, better high
mach performance. Usually with powered controls and, at usually, flying
tails. Examples:
F-86, swept-wing F-84s, MiG-15, MiG-17, Hunter, Javelin, the various
Mysteres. the SAAB Lansen

3rd Generation - Century Series sorts of stuff. Generally supersonic,
fully powered, and somewhat adaptive controls, with aircraft systems
taking a major role in navigation and weapons delivery, as apposed to
calibrated eyeballs and TLAR aiming. More power, but more flight
limits than the 2nd Generation jets. Examples:
F-100 -F-106, F11F, F8U, the F-4 series, the F-5 series, Lightning,
Super Mystere, Mirage III/V, MiG-19, MiG-21, MiG-23, Mig-25, the
CF-105, the Draken, possibly the Viggen.
This ones' kind of fuzzy. I
suppose that some could be bunched with the 2nd Gen - the F-100,
MiG-19, and SMB.2, for example, since from a weapons and systems
standpoint they aren't much different, and the rest as Bisonic
(However you want to take that) aircraft with an emphasis on onboard
systems and not-so-carefree handling.

4th Generation - The Teenfighters and their equivalents. Not much in
the way of performance limits, compared to the Bisonics (Fly by wire,
& all that), and much better Human Factors stuff in the cockpits,
making the systems work better for the crew. Maintenance is usually
better, too.
The F-14-18. of course, the Mirage 2000, the Eurofighter, the Rafale,
the Gripen, the MiG-29, and the Su-27, and various flavors thereof.

Again, this gets fuzzy.

5th generation - Stealty Stuff with sensor fusion, and perfoemance
that changes just how the airplane ends up getting used. The F-22, so
far, and I'm sure the Russians have some ideas, if only somebody could
find some money. Of course, where things fall kind of depend on how
you bend the line - You could, I suppose, lump the Eurofighter,
Rafale, and Gripen in there.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"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

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:58:34 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote:

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.

I thought they were calling it the four-and-a-half-th generation or
fourth-generation plus. I know that some third-generation fighters
were touted as really being "half a generation more advanced"
(although not for any good reason that I remember).

Maybe they won't have guns.

To be honest, I don't know what's left in this evolutionary sequence.
Maybe remotely piloted? Having the pilot literally plug in the
airplane, with some sort of "think it, fly it" or "think it, fire it"
system? Artificial intelligence, with the pilot as supervisor? None
of these sound very practical to me. Maybe the piloted fighter with
the flock of "assistant" semi-autonomous vehicles.


Just my two cents but if we follow the trend my guess would be a
fighter with two 60k engines, an airframe somewhat larger than the
F-22, more wing area, and the ability to make brief excursions up to
Mach 3. Mach 2 supercruise wouldn't surprise me and on the UCAV
front, the ability to carry and control 4 Minions or their equivalent.
A distrbuted AESA with clusters of modules on several areas of the
airframe or the "smart-skin" thing they talked about several years
back. An all around IRST like on the F-35. I don't know, until they
get those communications links 100% foolproof or give the UCAV enough
brains to fight effectively in a dogfight on it's own, I don't see the
fighter plane disappearing. It would be nice if they came up with a
combined cycle engine that could operate up to Mach 6 like Rascal's
F100s supposedly will but it uses LOX to cool things down and add O2
at high speeds/altitudes so I'm not holding my breath. I am skeptical
about the thought controlled interface unless they can get it to the
point where it can act FAST. For example when playing racquetball or
boxing or anything really that requires good hand/eye coordination,
you don't really think about what you are doing, you just do it. You
practice over and over and over so when you're in competition you act
and react almost without thought. From what I've seen on the good old
Discovery channel (yeah I know) they aren't even close to that.




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.

That would *seem* to be the most expensive way to do it. Wouldn't you
just be throwing away your avionics with every shot? I could see
using the IIR seeker on -9X so you don't have to have a built-in IRST
but I'd think you'd have to rework it some. In Gulf War I A-10 pilots
were told not to use Mavericks for this very thing (though they
generally did anyway) because of wear and tear on the seeker.

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).

"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

"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