What is a nth Generation fighter?

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?

Well, everytime someone argues in favor of more FA-22s, they argue about the
proliferation of Russian *5th Generation* fighters such as the Su-30
family.....or am I (a "second generation" bomber guy) not hearing too well?


BUFDRVR

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

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"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
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?

Well, everytime someone argues in favor of more FA-22s, they argue about
the
proliferation of Russian *5th Generation* fighters such as the Su-30
family.....or am I (a "second generation" bomber guy) not hearing too
well?

I fear the F/A-22 and Su-30 ram fanatics' spew bears little resemblence to
anything real. The Su-30 is a wet dream and the F/A-22 doesn't look like a
good bet either. As a marketing ploy, I can see how calling the airplanes a
new generation would have value.

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

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

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

I've heard 4th+ for them for the most part but haven't seen any
Flanker called a 5th generation. Not disputing you, just throwing in
my two cents.



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

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"

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"

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"

"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?

An earlier design. Much cruder in many respects (vacuum tube pulse radar).
Kind of the ultimate go-fast jet, when we thought go-fast was critical.
Designed as a B-70 killer and a design dead-end (no question the Eagle was
no dead-end).

The US jet I think of that most closely approximates it is the F-8U3 (lets
discount the F-103, F-108, and YF-12 .... stillborn concepts and all much
more sophisticated in aerodynamic concept). Very fast (mach 2.8 if they
solved canopy heating), relatively unsophisticated ... albeit large ...
radar. Of course, its maneuverability was quite good compared to its peers.
Good fuel fraction (range and endurance). Limited multi-role capability
(probably would have been great at recce), limited growth potential.

We bought the Phantom. Less performance in almost every key parameter, but
a far more capable multirole airplane that served in multiple capacities for
two decades (more?). The F-8 was a Corvette compared to the F-4 F-150 ...
but the old F-150 was, ultimately, a better all-around airplane.

R / John