What is a nth Generation fighter?

On 16 Dec 2003 01:10:01 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?

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.

Best way to remember is on the 31 the afterburner nozzles extend
beyond the tail surfaces.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:30:15 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"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

Yeah, at the time it was assumed the Mig-25 was a multirole aircraft
that could dogfight too. Combined with the fact that they thought the
Mig-23 designation went with the Mig-25 airframe it gave them quite a
scare. (They thought the Mig-25 was going to be built in the numbers
planned for the Mig-23). The existence of the Mig-25 *did* influence
the requirements for the F-14 and F-15. The FX program was initially
intended to produce something along the lines of an F/A-18 but when
they started looking at the Mig-25 they bumped up the requirements
considerably.

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? ;-)

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
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? ;-)

Yeah, and now flown by fifth generation crews...

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
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.

That very well may be. They are extremely close in external appearance, with
most of the improvments for the -31 being "under the hood".

Brooks


BUFDRVR

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

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:48:55 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
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? ;-)

Yeah, and now flown by fifth generation crews...



I wonder if there are BUFF pilots out there flying the same aircraft
their grandfather did. I'd heard of pilots flying the very same F-4s
their dads did.

On 15 Dec 2003 00:17:29 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Hmmm, okay Mary what would a 5th Generation fighter be? They are using that
term fairly regularly when discussing the Su-30 family.
I've heard 4th+ for them for the most part but haven't seen any
Flanker called a 5th generation.

Hmm, I haven't heard the term; "4th+". I haven't had the time to do a Google
search, but there must be some kind of standard on what equates to a 3rd
generation fighter, 4th generation etc, etc.


BUFDRVR

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

Well, some people call the latest iteration of the F-16 as "fourth generation.".
I did a google, but all that came up was either "sales brochures" of sites
that have an (obviously) biased view. The way things are going in this discussion
I expect Airbus to referred to the A-380 as a "tenth generation" passenger jet.
The next 7X7 will undoubtedly be "eleventh generation".

Seriously, the things that make a fighter effective and unknown regarding
Russia's "new" aircraft, and even the F-35 is unknown to the public in such
areas of sortie rate, actual level of stealth, avionics performance, etc.

I suppose the final determination is up to the observer. If you want to call
a F-104 a "sixth generation fighter", then it is. At least to you.

Al Minyard

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

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

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On 14 Dec 2003 22:11:39 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:
Hmmm, okay Mary what would a 5th Generation fighter be? They are using that
term fairly regularly when discussing the Su-30 family.

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.

See my other post. Supercruise is 5th generation if you're selling
F-22s, unless you're looking at Typhoon in which case supercruise is
irrelevant and stealth is crucial... and, again, many of those 'new
generation electronics' are common to both platforms.

--
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