What is a nth Generation fighter?

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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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

"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.

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

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).

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).