Fighter Generations

"Generation" is a crude way of expressing levels of sophistication and/or the
age of a particular aircraft design. It is not necessarily a good measure of
capability; historically, more "sophisticated" systems have often been proven to
be inferior to simpler ones in combat.

Very true.
 
pometablava said:
Time to relax, we're starting to go off topic. I'll be monitoring and I'll close the thread if posts go worse. Thank for your help

thank you. I've deleted some of my posts.
 
Harrier said:
"Generation" is a crude way of expressing levels of sophistication and/or the
age of a particular aircraft design. It is not necessarily a good measure of
capability; historically, more "sophisticated" systems have often been proven to
be inferior to simpler ones in combat.

Very true.
And now a marketing thing Gen 4.5+++ or something

Simplistically speaking

Gen 1 - Two wings
Gen 2 - One wing
Gen 3 - Jet engine
Gen 4 - Stealth
Gen 5 - Hypersonics/Laser weapons???
 
You're full of surprises today, M2048. Particularly as I have sunk a few beers occasionally with the author of one of your examples and the team that is cited several times in the other one.

Once again, however, we see how inconsistent the definitions are. Clearly the French would regard the M2000 as being an earlier generation than Rafale (and with good reason) and it's not usually regarded as Gen4. And the CBO doesn't even attempt a Gen1/Gen2 split.

It just reinforces the fact that post-1945 development of tactical combat aircraft has been complex and has encompassed more than one trend line. Which explains again why everyone heard Augustine wrong.
 
Oh well, as far as France goes...

Ouragan (subsonic straight wing)

Mystère IV / SMB-2 (transonic, no radar, some unreliable sidewinders)

Mirage III (first SARH - unreliable R-530 akin to AIM-7B - and all weather and mach 2 altogether)

Mirage F1 / Mirage 2000 (redundant ? hell yes. If you think RAF procurement in the 60's was dysfunctional, try the Armée de l'Air - and thanks Dassault for being clever than them)

Rafale

----------

Five generations ! B)

And well, going earlier : Bleriot XI, Nieuport XVII, SPAD XIII, Nieuport 29, Dewoitine D-510, MS-406 and Dewoitine D-520. :p

8 generations, total: 13 generations, meh.
 
Taxonomy's been mentioned...

I've never considered 'generations' as being a particularly apt term. (dons palaeontologist's hat) I've always viewed Soviet/Russian fighter development as analogous to gradualistic evolution (qv the many incremental variants of the Fishbed , Flogger and Flanker) whereas western fighters were more punctuated equilibrium (qv Century Series followed by the Teen Series followed by the Twenties). Maybe the F-4 was the gradualistic example from the US.

I'll get me coat.

Chris
 
MiG-15, Ouragan, F-86
MiG-17, Mystère IV
1. MiG-19, F-100...
2. MiG-21, Mirage III, F-104...
3. MiG-23, Mirage F1, F-4, F-5...
4. MiG-29, Mirage-2000, F-16, F-18C/D...
4+. MiG-29M, Rafale, EF-2000, F-18E/F...
 
LowObservable said:
Once again, however, we see how inconsistent the definitions are. Clearly the French would regard the M2000 as being an earlier generation than Rafale (and with good reason) and it's not usually regarded as Gen4. And the CBO doesn't even attempt a Gen1/Gen2 split.

CBO's source for the generational splits for Soviet/Western aircraft appears to come from Berman's "Soviet Air Power in Transition"
which does apparently attempt a Gen1/Gen2/Gen3/Gen4 split along qualitative/quantitive lines.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Soviet_air_power_in_transition.html?id=SkJQAQAAIAAJ

Which in turn cites earlier work...

On the fifth generation front, there's a 1986 paper by two AFRL researchers where they
envision the cockpit for a notional "fifth generation multi-role fighter" called "Manta."

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5004944
 
David Baker's bookazine on Fifth Generation Fighters is a useful touchstone for the jet era. We have a thread on it here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fifth-generation-fighters.30415/
He also covers their evolution through the previous generations.

I also did some research for the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fighter_generations
Note the table showing how different authorities have diced and sliced them. The jet "generations" thing was for a long time just just marketing-speak, meaning whatever the sales person wants it to mean. Only recently has a consensus been crystallising among historians, and that is still ongoing.

Another example of this is the "trapezoidal" fashion mentioned above. A trapezoidal wing is just a tapered wing, possibly lightly swept. The term has been hijacked by commentators focusing on low-aspect-ratio examples used on modern fighters. Yet the Bell X-1 had a similar wing way back when, as did a good few types subsequently, notably the F-104 Starfighter. Many of the modern examples are closer to cropped deltas with a forward-swept trailing edge than they are to the traditional trapezoid. It's just a convenient label, to be picked up or dropped according to circumstance.

What about earlier generations, prior to the jet? Even in WWI several generations have been discerned, from the early and barely flyable 90 hp birdcages to the synchronised machine guns and improved manoeuvrability of the mid-war 120 hp biplanes to the late-war 150+ hp machines with improved performance all round (though one can argue that the late-war types did not introduce fundamentally new technologies or capabilities). Other historians lump them all into the biplane generation extending from 1914 to around 1933; the postwar ones being marked principally by enclosed cockpits and better bad-weather capabilities. Similarly with WWII, where things like cannon, rockets, superchargers, R/T (voice) radio and radar wrought big changes. But I have never seen these formalised as "the" generations in the way that jets tend to be these days.
 
Given the F-111B pioneered many advanced features - swing wings, afterburning fan engines, look down radar and advanced missiles, would it have been too advanced to be considered 3rd gen or not quite 4th gen material?
 
I take the view that all this generations business is marketing bolleaux that has been adopted by the mainstream trying to explain aircraft roles and development. There is too much overlap across the 'generations'.
David Baker's bookazine on Fifth Generation Fighters is a useful touchstone for the jet era. We have a thread on it here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fifth-generation-fighters.30415/
He also covers their evolution through the previous generations.

I also did some research for the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fighter_generations
Note the table showing how different authorities have diced and sliced them. The jet "generations" thing was for a long time just just marketing-speak, meaning whatever the sales person wants it to mean. Only recently has a consensus been crystallising among historians, and that is still ongoing.

Another example of this is the "trapezoidal" fashion mentioned above. A trapezoidal wing is just a tapered wing, possibly lightly swept. The term has been hijacked by commentators focusing on low-aspect-ratio examples used on modern fighters. Yet the Bell X-1 had a similar wing way back when, as did a good few types subsequently, notably the F-104 Starfighter. Many of the modern examples are closer to cropped deltas with a forward-swept trailing edge than they are to the traditional trapezoid. It's just a convenient label, to be picked up or dropped according to circumstance.

What about earlier generations, prior to the jet? Even in WWI several generations have been discerned, from the early and barely flyable 90 hp birdcages to the synchronised machine guns and improved manoeuvrability of the mid-war 120 hp biplanes to the late-war 150+ hp machines with improved performance all round (though one can argue that the late-war types did not introduce fundamentally new technologies or capabilities). Other historians lump them all into the biplane generation extending from 1914 to around 1933; the postwar ones being marked principally by enclosed cockpits and better bad-weather capabilities. Similarly with WWII, where things like cannon, rockets, superchargers, R/T (voice) radio and radar wrought big changes. But I have never seen these formalised as "the" generations in the way that jets tend to be these days.
Gone a bit Uncle Colm on us here.

Chris
 
Last edited:
Maybe the only realistic indication of generations is which fighters ended up on bedroom walls fawned over by teenagers?
 
1) Its a jet fighter
2) Its a fast jet fighter
3) Its a fast jet fighter that can do something useful
4) Its a jet fighter that remembers turning is important
5) Its a jet fighter with Stealth / Supercruise / Sensor Fusion / Supermanoeuvrability (pick more than 1)
6) It doesn't have a tail
 
1) Its a jet fighter
2) Its a fast jet fighter
3) Its a fast jet fighter that can do something useful
4) Its a jet fighter that remembers turning is important
5) Its a jet fighter with Stealth / Supercruise / Sensor Fusion / Supermanoeuvrability (pick more than 1)
6) It doesn't have a tail

I'd go for:
6) It doesn't exist yet, but already costs more than all the others put together.
 
Maybe the only realistic indication of generations is which fighters ended up on bedroom walls fawned over by teenagers?
So in my case that would be an F-15, which is a 1st-4th generation fighter.

Chris
 
F-16, F-20 & Hawker Hurricane in my case.

More seriously:

1) subsonic, gun armament, day-only
2) supersonic*, missile armament, limited all-weather
3) Full all-weather & limited BVR capability
4) Look-down/shoot-down BVR & PGM capability
5) Stealth (internal weapons) & sensor fusion

* At least in dive

There are always going to be cases that tend to straddle generations near the borders.
 
Fighter generations list—As it should be:

1.) WWI biplanes and earlier
2.) WWII+ propeller planes
3.) Early in-line jets Sabres, early MiGs you rode like horses
4.) Advanced Jets with improved avionics (‘Nam to today)
5.) stealth capable advanced jets
6.)….spaceships
 
A small correction regarding the generations of aircraft. The adopted generations of aircraft begin with the first supersonic, that is, with the Super Sabre and MiG-19. In this list from the eighth generation


1st generation: development of the concept of the aircraft (1882 – 1905)
2nd generation: scouts (1905 – 1914)
3rd generation: the appearance of fighters and bombers (1914 – 1930)
4th generation: retractable landing gear, aerodynamics testing (1930 – 1940)
5th generation: perfect aerodynamics, closed lights (1940 – 1945)
6th generation: development of the concept of a jet aircraft (1940 – 1950)
7th generation: serial jet, swept wing (1950 – 1955)
8th generation: supersonic M=1.5, guided missiles, radar (1955 – 1960)
9th generation: supersonic M=2, triangular wing (1960 – 1965)
10th generation: M=3, variable wing geometry (1965 – 1970)
11 generation: operational overload 9 g (1970 – 1990)
12 generation: stealth technology, supercruise (1990 – 2015)
13 generation: unmanned aircraft (2015 – 2040)
14 generation: hypersonic aviation.
 
A small correction regarding the generations of aircraft. The adopted generations of aircraft begin with the first supersonic, that is, with the Super Sabre and MiG-19. In this list from the eighth generation


1st generation: development of the concept of the aircraft (1882 – 1905)
2nd generation: scouts (1905 – 1914)
3rd generation: the appearance of fighters and bombers (1914 – 1930)
4th generation: retractable landing gear, aerodynamics testing (1930 – 1940)
5th generation: perfect aerodynamics, closed lights (1940 – 1945)
6th generation: development of the concept of a jet aircraft (1940 – 1950)
7th generation: serial jet, swept wing (1950 – 1955)
8th generation: supersonic M=1.5, guided missiles, radar (1955 – 1960)
9th generation: supersonic M=2, triangular wing (1960 – 1965)
10th generation: M=3, variable wing geometry (1965 – 1970)
11 generation: operational overload 9 g (1970 – 1990)
12 generation: stealth technology, supercruise (1990 – 2015)
13 generation: unmanned aircraft (2015 – 2040)
14 generation: hypersonic aviation.
You just make that up?
 
BWAhAhaHaHaHAHAhaHAa!... ...So that's what the "Spacetime Modification Weapon" was all about. Enabling inter-dimensional military interventions into Alternate/Sci-Fi Universes, or either the artist commissioned at LM Art Dept has been playing too much EVE Online!:
View attachment 698293

NGAD is actually just a money laundering scheme by CCP, Boeing, and the USAF to conquer Cyber Space (EVE).

A small correction regarding the generations of aircraft. The adopted generations of aircraft begin with the first supersonic, that is, with the Super Sabre and MiG-19. In this list from the eighth generation


1st generation: development of the concept of the aircraft (1882 – 1905)
2nd generation: scouts (1905 – 1914)
3rd generation: the appearance of fighters and bombers (1914 – 1930)
4th generation: retractable landing gear, aerodynamics testing (1930 – 1940)
5th generation: perfect aerodynamics, closed lights (1940 – 1945)
6th generation: development of the concept of a jet aircraft (1940 – 1950)
7th generation: serial jet, swept wing (1950 – 1955)
8th generation: supersonic M=1.5, guided missiles, radar (1955 – 1960)
9th generation: supersonic M=2, triangular wing (1960 – 1965)
10th generation: M=3, variable wing geometry (1965 – 1970)
11 generation: operational overload 9 g (1970 – 1990)
12 generation: stealth technology, supercruise (1990 – 2015)
13 generation: unmanned aircraft (2015 – 2040)
14 generation: hypersonic aviation.
You just make that up?

"5th generation" is a literal marketing term invented by Lockheed in the 1990's. The indigenous USAF system is that F-22 is an 8th generation fighter. That modern militaries and DOD have adopted "5th generation" is indicative of a cognitive decline in military thinking and co-option by corporate outsourcing in the 1990's.
 
A small correction regarding the generations of aircraft. The adopted generations of aircraft begin with the first supersonic, that is, with the Super Sabre and MiG-19. In this list from the eighth generation


1st generation: development of the concept of the aircraft (1882 – 1905)
2nd generation: scouts (1905 – 1914)
3rd generation: the appearance of fighters and bombers (1914 – 1930)
4th generation: retractable landing gear, aerodynamics testing (1930 – 1940)
5th generation: perfect aerodynamics, closed lights (1940 – 1945)
6th generation: development of the concept of a jet aircraft (1940 – 1950)
7th generation: serial jet, swept wing (1950 – 1955)
8th generation: supersonic M=1.5, guided missiles, radar (1955 – 1960)
9th generation: supersonic M=2, triangular wing (1960 – 1965)
10th generation: M=3, variable wing geometry (1965 – 1970)
11 generation: operational overload 9 g (1970 – 1990)
12 generation: stealth technology, supercruise (1990 – 2015)
13 generation: unmanned aircraft (2015 – 2040)
14 generation: hypersonic aviation.
You just make that up?
Obviously made up. In the video, he (Pako)specifically refers to Fighter Jet Generations, not AIRCRAFT generations.
5th generation: perfect aerodynamics, closed lights (1940 – 1945)
No, not perfect, just like every stealth attempt that predated Hopeless Diamond/Have Blue was crude at best, and would be completely unsurvivable against modern radars, there's not a chance that Aerodynamics calculated with slide rulers from the 1940s could be considered "perfect" by today's standards.
13 generation: unmanned aircraft (2015 – 2040)
I don't think UAVs/UCAVs can be categorized as a generation of their own, despite their relative obscurity until recent decades, they have always been in continuous "service" in some way or another throughout the entirety of the 20th Century to this day.
14 generation: hypersonic aviation.
Hypersonic Commercial Manned aviation you mean? After the unfortunate failures that ISINGLASS, NASP, X-43B and Blackswift were, we're still a looong way before that becomes a reality. In any case, with the X-59 nearing first flight, Supersonic Low boom airliners are closer to reality than some yet unbuilt SR-72. Mach 10 Darkstar.
 
On the Internet?! :D
The division into generations in aviation is easy enough to understand. Look at the drastic changes in the design of the wing. Or engine designs. The jumps are obvious

I am sure that if you put an F-15 and F-22 or F-35 wing in front of you, you will easily attribute them to the right generation. It's not difficult. The presence of a radio-absorbing coating, radars in the edges of the wing, and so on

ca587681f25d0cb9c1a21c45edc79d81.jpg
51e2caa43101101ed47b790c1e0c63c8.jpg
 
Last edited:
Paralay's generational system, invented by him or not, is probably just as informed as Dr. R.P. Hallion's analytical system from the 1980's, which would classify the Typhoon and Rafale as 7th generation fighters, and the F-22 as an 8th generation aircraft. It's also probably about as relevant, which is to say it's very relevant in a technological sense, but it doesn't have several million dollars of marketing budget and AI-like-in-their-expression-of-human-creativity MBAs pushing it, so it probably won't catch on.

Not sure why people are getting this bent out of shape about him suggesting there are at least seven generations of tactical jet fighter extant, tbh. With such sweeping pronouncements you're going to be flattening the "landscape" of nuance anyway. Might as well make it a biggish number like 8 or 9 generations of jet aircraft instead of a piddly 4 or 5.

Seems more an issue with paralay's choice of words, than the actual suggestion that the generations of aircraft going beyond five, which is always going to be a minor nitpick (as if F-4 Phantom couldn't engage in multimission attack lol).

Since Lockheed itself took "fifth-generation" from somewhat obscure Russian writing, it stands to reason there might be a bit of issue with that, because the thinking behind it is somewhat opaque. Though the US military and its allied industrial agencies are no stranger to blindly copying Russian thinking on military matters, I guess.

IIRC there are even similar scales for tanks in Russian writing, which consider the AMX Leclerc and Challenger 2 to be the latest "generation" of tank after the penultimate generation of M1/Leopard 2, but they're not as notable because America has a much smaller and weaker tank industry than jet aviation industry I guess.
 
Last edited:
A generational scale invented by a leading aircraft manufacturer (primarily for marketing purposes) a and widely used/ discussed carries considerably more weight and legitimacy than a scale self-invented by a contributor on this website which literally no one uses or discuses.
And which in any case is clearly rather flawed (no mention of avionics, arbitrary dates unconnected to when actual aircraft entered service, etc.)
 
A generational scale invented by a leading aircraft manufacturer (primarily for marketing purposes) a and widely used/ discussed carries considerably more weight and legitimacy than a scale self-invented by a contributor on this website which literally no one uses or discuses.
And which in any case is clearly rather flawed (no mention of avionics, arbitrary dates unconnected to when actual aircraft entered service, etc.)
Hence why we follow that scale. Even if Lockheed Martin didn't have some impartial and unbiased intentions when coining up the term "Fifth-Generation", it has stuck in any Generational scale ever since, and many other such scales have adjusted to it, making it standard.

I could just imagine if Lockheed Martin coined the F-22 as an "Eighth-Generation Fighter", assuming that paralay's generation scale was the global or at least the US standard, we'll be talking about Ninth-Generation Fighters by now. But in reality, talk about actual Ninth-Generation Fighters might instead happen in a hundred years or more, and when (possibly) the United States Space Force is now the premier service for having and harboring the most advanced of aviation and space technologies, and no longer the United States Air Force. That service might just be relegated as the "Coast Guard of the Skies" around that time. Maybe the Sky Guard or something.
 
Last edited:
A small correction regarding the generations of aircraft. The adopted generations of aircraft begin with the first supersonic, that is, with the Super Sabre and MiG-19. In this list from the eighth generation


1st generation: development of the concept of the aircraft (1882 – 1905)
2nd generation: scouts (1905 – 1914)
3rd generation: the appearance of fighters and bombers (1914 – 1930)
4th generation: retractable landing gear, aerodynamics testing (1930 – 1940)
5th generation: perfect aerodynamics, closed lights (1940 – 1945)
6th generation: development of the concept of a jet aircraft (1940 – 1950)
7th generation: serial jet, swept wing (1950 – 1955)
8th generation: supersonic M=1.5, guided missiles, radar (1955 – 1960)
9th generation: supersonic M=2, triangular wing (1960 – 1965)
10th generation: M=3, variable wing geometry (1965 – 1970)
11 generation: operational overload 9 g (1970 – 1990)
12 generation: stealth technology, supercruise (1990 – 2015)
13 generation: unmanned aircraft (2015 – 2040)
14 generation: hypersonic aviation.
You just make that up?
This is an objective reality

Hmm... maybe we should move this to another thread? Bar? Or maybe even aircraft design? I might set up a thread in the latter.
It'd be interesting to see what thresholds people propose (if we ignore the marketing).
 
A small correction regarding the generations of aircraft. The adopted generations of aircraft begin with the first supersonic, that is, with the Super Sabre and MiG-19. In this list from the eighth generation


1st generation: development of the concept of the aircraft (1882 – 1905)
2nd generation: scouts (1905 – 1914)
3rd generation: the appearance of fighters and bombers (1914 – 1930)
4th generation: retractable landing gear, aerodynamics testing (1930 – 1940)
5th generation: perfect aerodynamics, closed lights (1940 – 1945)
6th generation: development of the concept of a jet aircraft (1940 – 1950)
7th generation: serial jet, swept wing (1950 – 1955)
8th generation: supersonic M=1.5, guided missiles, radar (1955 – 1960)
9th generation: supersonic M=2, triangular wing (1960 – 1965)
10th generation: M=3, variable wing geometry (1965 – 1970)
11 generation: operational overload 9 g (1970 – 1990)
12 generation: stealth technology, supercruise (1990 – 2015)
13 generation: unmanned aircraft (2015 – 2040)
14 generation: hypersonic aviation.
You just make that up?
This is an objective reality

Hmm... maybe we should move this to another thread? Bar? Or maybe even aircraft design? I might set up a thread in the latter.
It'd be interesting to see what thresholds people propose (if we ignore the marketing).
It's not "marketing". See post right above yours.
 
No, the generations thing didn't come from Lockheed. Jesus, how many times do we need to rehash this?


You're right, they just came from weird Russian writings insipidly copied by Lockheed's marketing staff? What's the difference.

Do you want to source the claim that the Tomcat was a "4th generation aircraft" and find where it came from? Relying on hazy memory isn't a good look, but neither is relying on Western publications in the mid-1980's to be full of original thinking. They were not.

The '80's were a time when the West as a whole was busy copying Soviet thought on everything military. AirLand Battle was an Americanized version of Soviet operational thinking from Tuchachevsky's time, to replace the more realistic expectations forged in Vietnam, after all. Who's to say that "Tomcat is a 4th generation fighter" wasn't sourced from a Military Thought or Red Star monograph by COL V.P. Sidorovich, Red Army (he is a pseudonym of the collective psychic tulpa of the Red Army's General Staff, rest in peace), published in 1984 after all?

The indigenous American one published by R.P. Hallion is eight. I guess that number was too high for most generals and journalists to remember. There may be earlier ones, but I don't think anyone in the '80's was thinking in terms of "generations" of aircraft, rather they thought of aircraft as individual systems bringing unique and distinct capabilities, because the people in charge knew the combat systems somewhat intimately?

Generational thinking is just a thought mnemonic intended to teach average or slightly above average IQ conscript soldiers and officers how to think about weapon systems, without burdening their already overloaded brains with the merits and demerits of individual weapon systems of the enemy forces, by handily cherry picking certain factors. At least that was the case for considering the French AMX Leclerc to be more significant a departure than the American M1 tank.

You'd see it used in something like this:

"The map (figure 4.0) displays the dispositions of your platoon. The enemy (BLUE) possesses one 4th-generation main battle tank, supported by two batteries of 2nd-generation howitzers, a pair of 107-mm mortars, and a mechanized infantry platoon with 3rd-generation anti-tank missiles in a defensive position. We (RED) possess a company of T-80B supported by a regimental artillery group of a battery of 2S3 Acacia and two batteries of 2S1 Carnations, and a battery of Hailstorm multiple rocket launchers. Supporting the attack is a company of motor rifles and a platoon of assault sappers with flamethrowers. Discern the COFM differences between the two forces based on the diagrams 4.1a through 4.1c and find the result on the table (adapted from COL V.P. Sidorovich's Generational Elements of Modern Weapon Systems, Red Star Vol. 60, Issue 25, June 1984.) on page 247 of your textbook. Then, determine the amount of munitions expended, the proper sequence of firing, and necessary replacement times of the gun batteries during movement to support the RED assault detachment in its attack on the BLUE defensive position based on the artillery indices section in the previous chapter. Nomograms will be provided. Show your work."

This isn't hard stuff or some super science, it's just obscure because a lot of people in the Western world weren't ready for treating military affairs like they treat aviation or civil engineering affairs.

It necessarily is going to lose nuance of stuff like Tomcat or F-4 because it's not intended for consumption by people who actually operate weapon systems or plan for their use. It's intended for consumption by, in the Soviet thought system, the lower level officers and NCOs who will never make it to the general staff or warrant officer rank but still need to know roughly what hierarchy a Leopard 1 sits at against a T-80. These are people who see "Leopard 1" and don't realize what it is, just that it has Leopard in its name, and they think the enemy has a very powerful tank called a Leopard, or possibly a Tiger or Panther or something, that could defeat the T-80.

When they learn that the Leopard 1 is a 2nd-generation main battle tank and the T-80 is a 3rd generation main battle tank, they lose their fear of the Leopard 1 and properly hierarchically rank the Leopard 1 as lower than the T-80. They may not even know what a Leopard 1 is or its name, just that this silhouette is correlated with 2nd-generation main battle tank, and that they need to identify it as such.

This is common stuff in armies that rely on large numbers of people because you're often getting average people who aren't very curious. It's not really a conscript-volunteer division so much as a subsuming-selective division. Whether Rolf Hilmes coined the generation of tanks or the Soviets did first, I don't know, but no one uses Hilmes's definitions so it probably wasn't very important, even if it might have been better.

The same would be true of aircraft presumably, and I suspect that generations of aircraft originated in the Soviet Union as a method of describing aspects of combat systems to air defense intercept controllers, who would otherwise need to memorize massive reams of information. Instead, they can memorize a chart perhaps with a dozen entries at most and consult their warrant officer if they need clarification.

1. High subsonic (1943-50): Me 262, Meteor, P-80, Vampire, Yak-15, MiG-9, Saab J-21, F-84 straightwing, F9F straightwing, Ouragan, Venom. Little aerodynamic difference from the last generation of propeller-driven fighters. First- and second-generation turbojets; wood, fabric, and all-metal construction; optical gunsights; straight wing and straight tail. Mechanical control systems. Primitive ejection seats. Mach 0.75-0.85.

2. Transonic (1947-55): F-86, F-84 sweptwing, F9F sweptwing, MiG-15/17, Hunter, Mystère TV. Second-generation turbojets; radar gunsights; swept wings; generally have adjustable horizontal stabilizers. Early hydromechanical flight control systems. Mach 0.90-1.05.

3. Early supersonic (1953-60): MiG-19, F-100, F-8. Swept wings, all-moving tails, radar gunsights, introduction of air-to-air missile armament. Third-generation turbojet engines. Early stability augmentation technology. Generally adaptable for both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. Mach 1.3.

4. Supersonic (limited purpose) (1955-70): F-104, early model MiG-21, EE (BAC) Lightning, early model Mirage III. Supersonic aerodynamics, especially area ruling; fourth-generation turbojets; radar for search and fire control. Overreliance on -air-to-air missiles based on unrealistic expectations. Mach 2.0.

5. Supersonic (multirole) (1958-80): F-105, F-4, late-model MiG-21, late-model Mirage III, F-5, F-111, Mirage V, Su-24, MiG-23/27, Jaguar, Mirage Fl, Kfir. Refined supersonic aerodynamic design, including canards and variable geometry wings; fourth- and fifth-generation engines; stability augmentation; mixed-gun air-to-air missile (AAM) armament; terrain-following radar for low-level high-speed flight; radar search and fire control; infrared sensors; heads up displays (HUD); laser ranging and targeting; wide range of air-to-surface missiles, bombs, and rockets, including precision-guided munitions. Mach 1.4-2.5.

6. Supersonic multirole, high efficiency (1974-present): F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, Mirage 2000, Tornado, MiG-29, Su-27. Combined the characteristics of the fifth-generation fighters with advances in propulsion, radar (multiple target track-while-scan, look-down/shoot-down), sensor, and electronic flight control technology to generate highly maneuverable, highly agile aircraft that can be swing-roled for air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. Fifth- or sixth-generation gas-turbine engines; engine thrust-to-weight ratios in excess of one; ability to attain supersonic speeds without afterburning; sustained high-G flight, and controllability below 70 knots at angles of attack exceeding 70 degrees. High degree of energy efficiency. Mix of cannonand missile armament, coupled with diverse air-to-ground weaponry. Mach 1.8-2.5.

Much easier. Should probably be cleaned up before being committed to the Air Defense Radar Operator's Handbook though.

So yes, paralay probably just made that list up on the spot. It's not terribly different from R.P. Hallion's jet aircraft generations, though, and any layman non-pilot could do the same, like R.P. Hallion did. Or whatever Russian guy came up with the four generations of jet aircraft.

tl;dr It doesn't really matter where Lockheed stole it from, "generational" stuff is a Sovietism, because relying on aviation almanacs is too slow or something for the typical ADIZ defender in the '80's. Whether it's the military grade school equivalent of knowing actual combat systems or a marketing term is irrelevant.

Ideally you keep some measure of relevance in being objective. Objective would be like R.P. Hallion's technological eras or the Soviet 1st through 5th generation tank scale (the Soviets peaked at 3rd gen). Subjective is that you usually just forget all that and define the entire scale by the last entry (your new airplane) like Lockheed's marketers did. It's not the difference between "arbitrary" and "not arbitrary" because, by definition, the entire list is going to be a collection of arbitrary divisions.

Complaining about it being arbitrary or a neologism misses the point of a generational scale by a country mile. It's a literal codex intended for non-experts and non-interested people to be able to do their jobs at the end of the day. This is the case for 70% of Soviet military thinking. The remaining 30% is actual stuff done by the General Staff to address the real world political-military problems of the Soviet and, later, formerly Soviet states.

The fact that Western generals and military leaders talk about generations of equipment in such exalted terms as they do today has genuinely deadly and dire implications for the future of the American military. That's not a huge secret or anything, though.
 
Last edited:
How would a super stealthy with skin embedded multi-spectral sensors, onboard super computer, two XA-100 engines, ultra-long range AAMs internally carried with a self defense laser calling itself the F-15ZXUltra (this is obviously made up) fit?

Does a new generation designation always require a unique airframe/aerodynamics configuration as well?
 
First generation: transonic gun fighters. Fairly simple radio communication. Radar aided fire correction. Gyroscopic sights.

Second generation: transonic-supersonic fighters with guns and missiles and potential for all weather/time use. Communication and navigation thru radio stations and relays. Gyroscopic sights connected to complex analog bomb aiming systems.

Third generation: supersonic fighters primarily focused on missilery and the beginnings of sophisticated radar. Use of novel airframes for shorter takeoff and landing. Communication/navigation systems from the ground and in some cases the air as well. Ability to navigate in poor weather through almost all flight regimes. The beginnings of greater situational awareness built into the fighter interface. Some fighters have moved from gyroscopic sights to heads up displays. Some now have digital aiming systems for ground and air attack.

Fourth generation: supersonic fighters with sophisticated radar and EO systems capable of seeing targets in all flight regimes. Communication/navigation systems with realtime data sharing location and information transfer to nearby fighters, AWACS, space and ground support. Higher thrust up to parity with aircraft's own weight allows for better takeoff and landing without complex/novel airframe moving parts. Sophisticated interface with the fighter and technology to aid in greater situational awareness. Digital displays, hotas, complex HUD, etc...

Fifth generation: supersonic fighters that have low detection signatures with complex active and passive detection suites. High thrust with some ability of cruising at supersonic speeds beyond the transonic envelope for extended periods of time. Complex IFF and communication systems to share data with other ground, space and air assets. Realtime networking of the battlespace whereby friend and for is clearly seen by all. Helmet mounted display and cueing system. Large high def interactive displays, etc...

Not totally sure of everything the so-called sixth generation will bring. The knowledge of these fighter generations is inherently limited by present day understanding of things and most of us only have open sources of info. I know some here who post work in our military industrial complex so they would know much more. Of course they will be keeping a tight lip on whatever they do know ;-).

Edit: Had to add some extra stuff.
 
Last edited:
First generation: transonic gun fighters. Fairly simple radio communication. Radar aided fire correction. Gyroscopic sights.

Second generation: transonic-supersonic fighters with guns and missiles and potential for all weather/time use. Communication and navigation thru radio stations and relays. Gyroscopic sights connected to complex analog bomb aiming systems.

Third generation: supersonic fighters primarily focused on missilery and the beginnings of sophisticated radar. Use of novel airframes for shorter takeoff and landing. Communication/navigation systems from the ground and in some cases the air as well. Ability to navigate in poor weather through almost all flight regimes. The beginnings of greater situational awareness built into the fighter interface. Some fighters have moved from gyroscopic sights to heads up displays. Some now have digital aiming systems for ground and air attack.

Fourth generation: supersonic fighters with sophisticated radar and EO systems capable of seeing targets in all flight regimes. Communication/navigation systems with realtime data sharing location and information transfer to nearby fighters, AWACS, space and ground support. Higher thrust up to parity with aircraft's own weight allows for better takeoff and landing without complex/novel airframe moving parts. Sophisticated interface with the fighter and technology to aid in greater situational awareness. Digital displays, hotas, complex HUD, etc...

Fifth generation: supersonic fighters that have low detection signatures with complex active and passive detection suites. High thrust with some ability of cruising at supersonic speeds beyond the transonic envelope for extended periods of time. Complex IFF and communication systems to share data with other ground, space and air assets. Realtime networking of the battlespace whereby friend and for is clearly seen by all. Helmet mounted display and cueing system. Large high def interactive displays, etc...

Not totally sure of everything the so-called sixth generation will bring. The knowledge of these fighter generations is inherently limited by present day understanding of things and most of us only have open sources of info. I know some here who post work in our military industrial complex so they would know much more. Of course they will be keeping a tight lip on whatever they do know ;-).

Edit: Had to add some extra stuff.
The Sixth-Generation Fighters does have a few common speculated capabilities that they might offer in the future, such as:

-Highly Advanced Multi-Spectrum Sensors and Avionics, granting much greater awareness of their surroundings.
-Greater Stealth Capabilities and Features such as much stealthier airframe shapes and more advanced RAM coatings.
-Capability to fire both current, legacy missile weapons, and advanced upcoming missile weapons, possibly hypersonic missile weaponry as well.
-The ability to control Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles through Manned-Unmanned Teaming technologies, which can make a single Sixth Generation Fighter with a complement of such UCAV units equivalent to a squadron.

But other than those, I do agree with you that most, if not all of what we know about the Sixth-Generation Fighters are still shrouded in mystery and of course, classified to the public. I would dare say that we didn't even scratch the surface of what the Sixth-Generation Fighters really are, we have barely began to think of scratching the surface of that information, so to speak.

Perun has far more information and insight into what Sixth-Generation Fighters are, and what Sixth-Generation Fighters might be capable of, at least as we know it in the Public Sphere:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPrWm6fWuaM&t=1988s
 
Stealth will be truly all aspect (hence the dorito shape) and across multiple radar spectrums.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom