What is a nth Generation fighter?

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

"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

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

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" 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

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).

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"

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...

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.