What is a nth Generation fighter?

[Tom Nealon]

Hi there,

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

Thanks!

[BUFDRVR]

>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


BUFDRVR

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

[John Carrier]

> 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

Good reply, but I don't think I'd classify Mig-25 as 4th generation. Its
avionics and relatively primitive aerodynamics (I know, mach 2.8 - 3.2
primitive aero? Well, the X-2 was quite primitive too) don't match the 4th
Gen aircraft.

R / John

[Mary Shafer]

On 14 Dec 2003 15:02:22 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

> 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.

I'd put these all in the first generation, at least in their original
incarnation.

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

Second generation here.

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

Third generation, some upgraded to fourth.

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

Fourth.

The system I'm accustomed to is based on the level of avionics and
flight control. First generation is the standard control system and
electro-mechanical FCS, with fairly basic avionics. Second generation
is more advanced integrated avionics, with analog feedback control
system, not just dampers. Third generation is integrated avionics.
LRUs, augmentation, HUD, fadec or equivalent. Fourth generation is
heavy augmentation (probably digital) and FBW, highly integrated
avionics that can used inputs from other sources, HMS, and so on.

I think this is biased in favor of the Western generations and it's
not really about the airframe, except perhaps low observables. It's
pretty much what was used contemporaneously (well, not with the first
generation, of course) in the business.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On 14 Dec 2003 15:02:22 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I'd put these all in the first generation, at least in their original
> incarnation.
>
> > 3rd Generation (advanced supersonic) - MiG-23 or F-4
>
> Second generation here.
>
> > 4th Generation ("next generation") - MiG-25, 29, 31, Su-27 or F-14,15,16
>
> Third generation, some upgraded to fourth.
>
> > 5th Generation (???) - MiG 1.42, Su-30 series or FA/22, F-35
>
> Fourth.
>
> The system I'm accustomed to is based on the level of avionics and
> flight control. First generation is the standard control system and
> electro-mechanical FCS, with fairly basic avionics. Second generation
> is more advanced integrated avionics, with analog feedback control
> system, not just dampers. Third generation is integrated avionics.
> LRUs, augmentation, HUD, fadec or equivalent. Fourth generation is
> heavy augmentation (probably digital) and FBW, highly integrated
> avionics that can used inputs from other sources, HMS, and so on.
>
> I think this is biased in favor of the Western generations and it's
> not really about the airframe, except perhaps low observables. It's
> pretty much what was used contemporaneously (well, not with the first
> generation, of course) in the business.

Then does that mean that the F-18E is fourth generation, while her analog
cousins are third?

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >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

I believe you'd want to move the Mig-19 to the next category--it was IIRC
"early supersonic" on the Soviet side, generally comparable to the F-100.

>
> 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

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?

Brooks


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

[Tom Nealon]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> >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
>
Thanks a lot!

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

[Howard Austin]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> >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

(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.

Howard Austin

[BUFDRVR]

>> 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"

[BUFDRVR]

>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?


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>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"

[BUFDRVR]

>> 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"

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[Paul J. Adam]

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 MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Yeff]

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

[Scott Ferrin]

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"

[BUFDRVR]

>>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"

[BUFDRVR]

>>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"

[BUFDRVR]

>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"

[John Carrier]

"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

[Yeff]

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

[Mary Shafer]

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[Peter Stickney]

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"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/200209/17/eng20020917_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"

[Ron]

>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

[Scott Ferrin]

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.

[Scott Ferrin]

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).

[Kevin Brooks]

"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
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"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

[Ron]

>> 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.
>

Yes but dont forget, people here debate for no reason at all than for just to
debate :)

I think the generation system I have heard used most, would put F-22, F-35 as
5th..


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Mary Shafer wrote:
>

> 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.

Isn't that exactly what they've accomplished with
the F-16 and F/A-18 - both of which finally came
into their own only when smarter munitions became
available? (That is, missiles 'n things that no
longer required an expensive and high-tech weapons
control system to guide them? These days, hanging
a pod on the jet provides it with many non-native
capabilities.)

- John T.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
...
> Mary Shafer wrote:
> >
>
> > 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.
>
> Isn't that exactly what they've accomplished with
> the F-16 and F/A-18 - both of which finally came
> into their own only when smarter munitions became
> available?

I would agree that what you write is true for the F/A-18E, but up to that
point the mean time between reported failures never dropped for the
platforms themselves before. (MTBUR)

> (That is, missiles 'n things that no
> longer required an expensive and high-tech weapons
> control system to guide them? These days, hanging
> a pod on the jet provides it with many non-native
> capabilities.)

For sure, the case of the b-one finally going to work makes me wonder if it
is not "augmented", as well.

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
>

> 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.

I agree: most of "fighter generation" mularkey is nothing
more than defense industry hype.

If I had to break (jet) fighters into "generations", it
might go something like this:

1 - Early fighters: Fast, manueverable, but not materially
more advanced than their piston-driven ancestors.
Usually single-engine, they might contain a simple
ranging radar. The last of the breed in the US would
be something like the unadorned F-100 or A-4.
2 - Dedicated fighters: Larger, often faster and more nimble
jets with highly-specialized avionics designed for the
aircraft's main purpose. American examples would be
things like most of the century series beginning with
the F-101, and continuing through the F-14. (yeah,
yeah, many of these were shoehorned into being very
respectable jacks-of-all-trades, like the F-105 and
F-4s - but that doesn't negate their design goals.
The YF-12 sits dead in this class, despite its cousins'
notable accomplishments in speed and early stealth.)
3 - T/W ratio >1 fighters: The premier American example is
the F-15 (and even the more versatile F-15E) - but gets
a little cloudy when the puny, almost systemless
lightweights are included: F-5, F-16, F/A-18 - which
really might more appropriately be called modern, but
truly generation-one aircraft.
4 - Stealthy/exotic wonders: Those that have - or will
have - extensive integration and sensor fusion; the
mystical "supercruise", and maybe even a few tag-
along 'droids to help out.

I wouldn't get to generation five until the pilot's seat
is in a trailer on the ground somewhere, or the mission
parameters are data linked to the autonomous, unpiloted
vehicle before takeoff.

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

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.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree: most of "fighter generation" mularkey is nothing
> more than defense industry hype.
>
> If I had to break (jet) fighters into "generations", it
> might go something like this:
>
> 1 - Early fighters: Fast, manueverable, but not materially
> more advanced than their piston-driven ancestors.
> Usually single-engine, they might contain a simple
> ranging radar. The last of the breed in the US would
> be something like the unadorned F-100 or A-4.
> 2 - Dedicated fighters: Larger, often faster and more nimble
> jets with highly-specialized avionics designed for the
> aircraft's main purpose. American examples would be
> things like most of the century series beginning with
> the F-101, and continuing through the F-14. (yeah,
> yeah, many of these were shoehorned into being very
> respectable jacks-of-all-trades, like the F-105 and
> F-4s - but that doesn't negate their design goals.
> The YF-12 sits dead in this class, despite its cousins'
> notable accomplishments in speed and early stealth.)
> 3 - T/W ratio >1 fighters: The premier American example is
> the F-15 (and even the more versatile F-15E) - but gets
> a little cloudy when the puny, almost systemless
> lightweights are included: F-5, F-16, F/A-18 - which
> really might more appropriately be called modern, but
> truly generation-one aircraft.
> 4 - Stealthy/exotic wonders: Those that have - or will
> have - extensive integration and sensor fusion; the
> mystical "supercruise", and maybe even a few tag-
> along 'droids to help out.
>
> I wouldn't get to generation five until the pilot's seat
> is in a trailer on the ground somewhere, or the mission
> parameters are data linked to the autonomous, unpiloted
> vehicle before takeoff.

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.

Brooks

[Brett]

"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.

[Ron]

>> 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.
>

I would agree with that assessment. Mig-31 would be defintely 4th Gen though.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[phil hunt]

On 14 Dec 2003 15:02:22 GMT, BUFDRVR > wrote:
>>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

I'd say 1st was Me 262 or Meteor. MiG-15 or Sabre are 2nd IMO.

>2nd Generation (early supersonic)- MiG-21 or Century Series
>
>3rd Generation (advanced supersonic) - MiG-23 or F-4

I'd put the F-4 alongside the MiG-21 or Mirage IV.

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

I'd put MiG-29, Su-27, F-14,15,16 together. Dunno about MiG-25.

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

F/A-22 (stupid name IMO, it should be F-22), F-35, Typhoon, Rafale,
later Flankers such as Su-30, Gripen.

--
"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).

[phil hunt]

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?

--
"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).

[phil hunt]

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).

[phil hunt]

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).

[phil hunt]

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).

[Keith Willshaw]

"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

[Kevin Brooks]

"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

>
> --

[Kevin 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

[Brett]

"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".

[BUFDRVR]

>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"

[BUFDRVR]

>> >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"

[BUFDRVR]

>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"

[Scott Ferrin]

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.

[Scott Ferrin]

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.

[Scott Ferrin]

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? ;-)

[Kevin Brooks]

"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... :)

[Kevin Brooks]

"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"

[Scott Ferrin]

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.

[Alan Minyard]

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

[Alan 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

[Paul J. Adam]

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 MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

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 MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[BUFDRVR]

>Wouldn't the BUFF be considered a 2nd generation bomber? ;-)
>

Apparently that depends ;)


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>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.

For the 50th Anniversary of the B-52 in Wichita in the Spring of 2002 they were
able to assemble two (or maybe three?) groups of grandfathers, fathers and sons
who had all crewed the B-52. I remember seeing e-mail asking for info on such
unique people in the Summer of 2000 and wondered if any existed. There are
numerous storys about father-son BUFF crewmembers. We even had two in my
squadron at one time. One radar nav whose son was a BUFF pilot and an ol' BUFF
pilot whose son was a radar nav. Kind of interesting.


BUFDRVR

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Alan Minyard" > 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.
> >
> >
> >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.

Well, perhaps the F-35 and a flock of mindless bots. :)

[John Mullen]

Scott Ferrin wrote:
> 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.

U/C is different too.

John

[Scott Ferrin]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:23:47 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>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.


Just my opinion but it *seems* like "generation" is a combination of
timeframe, sensors, avionics, and a few goodies the previous
generation didn't have. Internal weapons carriage isn't one but an
AESA radar and whatever the hell sharing of information is called as
in the Gripen and F-22 (don't know of others that have it, that was
just and example). IRST and helmet mounted sights, while they would
be found on a 5th generation fighter, don't necessarily make a plane a
"5th" generation because they are found on earilier aircraft. Stealth
is a 5th but "stealthy" is generally found on those considered "4th+"
or "4th and a half". Just my two cents.