What is a nth Generation fighter?

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:02:26 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:

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.

This seems reasonable, in that avionics have been one of the biggest
areas where aircraft technology has advanced.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:25:16 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:

Not sure how universaly accepted that is. I thought there was a lot of
hoopla a couple of years back about the JAS-39 being (at least claimed to
be) the "first" fourth generation fighter to enter service, with the F/A-22,
F-35, Rafael, and Eurofighter being lumped into that category as well?

Gripen, Rafale, and Typhoon should certainly belong to the same
generation, due to their similarities, especially all being
dynamically unstable and relying on the computer to fly the plane.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

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

I doubt if. People talk about "generations" of computers with the
same vagueness.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

"Brett" wrote in message
...

|
| 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.


Nope that was an inflatable wing with a gondola including the
cockpit and engine slung beneath and not even its most ardent
supporter called it a fighter.

Keith

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On 14 Dec 2003 22:13:18 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:
Good reply, but I don't think I'd classify Mig-25 as 4th generation.

I may have catagorized that one incorrectly, but I though it was
considered the
same generation as the F-15?

Wasn't the F-15 designed as a counter to the MiG-25?

That was one of the justifications, since the true nature of the Mig-25 ("Go
really fast, but don't go to far, and avoid anything resembling a
dogfight"--understandable given that the Foxbat was designed with the high
altitude/high speed XB-70 threat in mind) was apparently not known at the
time. But I believe the experiences of the US forces during Vietnam, not to
mention Israeli forces during the '67 War and later War of Attrition, versus
more agile MiG products (like the -21) had more influence upon the F-15's
evolution.

Brooks


--

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:25:16 GMT, Kevin Brooks
wrote:

Not sure how universaly accepted that is. I thought there was a lot of
hoopla a couple of years back about the JAS-39 being (at least claimed to
be) the "first" fourth generation fighter to enter service, with the
F/A-22,
F-35, Rafael, and Eurofighter being lumped into that category as well?

Gripen, Rafale, and Typhoon should certainly belong to the same
generation, due to their similarities, especially all being
dynamically unstable and relying on the computer to fly the plane.

Yep. The point however being that there appear to be two differing
conventions (very loosely used term in this case) for defining these
generations. One claims that the latest crop of products are fourth
generation, another claims that they (or some of them, like the F/A-22) are
fifth generation. Saab and Lockheed Martin seem to have settled on the four
generation model at present, from what I have read.

Brooks

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
|
| "Brett" wrote in message
| ...
|
| |
| | 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.
|
|
| Nope that was an inflatable wing with a gondola including the
| cockpit and engine slung beneath and not even its most ardent
| supporter called it a fighter.

I was responding to was your inaccurate comment that "Nobody ever built
canvas airframes" since the second part of your comment was not specific
to "fighters".

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"

Good reply, but I don't think I'd classify Mig-25 as 4th generation.

I may have catagorized that one incorrectly, but I though it was considered
the
same generation as the F-15?

Nope - just a faster member of (and contemporary of)
the F-4 graduating class.


Could I have confused it with the MiG-31?

Damn things look very familar....to me at least.


BUFDRVR

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

Wasn't the F-15 designed as a counter to the MiG-25?


Not sure, but until Belenko defected with one, the west thought they were very
superior to anything they were fielding.


BUFDRVR

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