Fighter Generations

Why do you have the F-117 Nighthawk in there? I can understand the F-111 with the canceled naval variant but the Nighthawk?
 
John21 said:
Why do you have the F-117 Nighthawk in there? I can understand the F-111 with the canceled naval variant but the Nighthawk?
Click to expand...

I'd suppose due to the "F" designator.

A couple missing from the list: Northrop F-89 Scorpion and Lockheed F-94 Starfire ;)

Regards.
 
Chance Vought F7U Cutlass
Douglas F3D Skyknight
Thunderjet/Thunderstreak as separate entries, just like Panther/Cougar, Freedom Fighter/Tiger II?
 
The F11F, clean at combat weight, was supersonic in level flight. Just barely. It therefore belongs in the second generation.

The F4D, like the F3H, could only go supersonic in a dive. Douglas tried hard but couldn't make it happen. First generation.

The F5D, on the other hand (and not on your list) was supersonic in level flight. On the same engine as the F4D. Fineness ratio was the difference. Second generation.
 
Tailspin Turtle said:
The F11F, clean at combat weight, was supersonic in level flight. Just barely. It therefore belongs in the second generation.

The F4D, like the F3H, could only go supersonic in a dive. Douglas tried hard but couldn't make it happen. First generation.

The F5D, on the other hand (and not on your list) was supersonic in level flight. On the same engine as the F4D. Fineness ratio was the difference. Second generation.
Click to expand...
Duly noted. However, the F5D was never an operational fighter. -SP
 
You're missing two of the early ones: the McDonnell FH Phantom and the Vought F6U Pirate.

As stated, the F4D wasn't really supersonic, but the F11F was, and I'd be inclined to put the F-100 wherever the F11F goes, since they were both mildly supersonic, in the 825 MPH range.
 
gatoraptor said:
You're missing two of the early ones: the McDonnell FH Phantom and the Vought F6U Pirate.

As stated, the F4D wasn't really supersonic, but the F11F was, and I'd be inclined to put the F-100 wherever the F11F goes, since they were both mildly supersonic, in the 825 MPH range.
Click to expand...
Added - Thank you. -SP
 
Steve Pace said:
the F5D was never an operational fighter. -SP
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. It wasn't "operational" in the sense that it was never built in quantity and deployed, but please note that the "X" prefix was quickly dropped and therefore the handful of examples built and procured used an operational designation right away. They simply weren't considered experimental anymore, therefore they had become "operational" from a paperwork viewpoint.
 
NASA adopted them for their purposes - they never entered into USN squadron service. -SP
 
Yep. No different than the XF8U-3, YF-107, XB-70, YF-12A, etc. . .
 
But a generation could also be defined in advances in avionics, roles, even wars they fought in....
So there could be some blur in what exactly is a generation...
A airframe can span multiple generations due to upgrades...

Always a nice discussion :)

Cheers,

Rob
 
BAROBA said:
But a generation could also be defined in advances in avionics, roles, even wars they fought in....
So there could be some blur in what exactly is a generation...
A airframe can span multiple generations due to upgrades...

Always a nice discussion :)
Click to expand...

Yes, and we've had it before. That's why I gave the link to the other topic on the subject in the first page, hoping a mod might want to merge them (because after all, the criteria for fighter generations are international, otherwise it makes little sense if you can't tell which generation is facing which in combat).
 
WOW! Now I'm on page 5 of this thread and my thread has disappeared. MAGIC! -SP
 
Your thread starts from here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21753.msg264165.html#msg264165

Anyone wanting to comment should probably read all the various arguments and opinions from the last time we debated this topic before joining in.
 
Steve Pace said:
U.S. Operational Jet Fighter Generations
...
Sixth Generation
Fighter/Attack-XX (F/A-XX)
Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)
Click to expand...

Hmm... As far as I know there are no operational (US) 6th generation fighters yet, even prototypes aren´t born yet.
 
Dreamfighter said:
Steve Pace said:
U.S. Operational Jet Fighter Generations
...
Sixth Generation
Fighter/Attack-XX (F/A-XX)
Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)
Click to expand...

Hmm... As far as I know there are no operational (US) 6th generation fighters yet, even prototypes aren´t born yet.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right of course. I've deleted Sixth Generation from my list. -SP
 
I always had the 4th and 5th generations figured out but was never sure where the splits between the first three were. I'm glad I found this thread, which shows that there is really no agreement on that topic anyway.

I'm inclined to lean more toward's Cenciotti's analysis on the first page of the thread, except that I would move some of the mildly supersonic types like the F-100, F11F and MiG-19 into the 2nd generation; functionally they were no more advanced than many of the 2nd generation types. The F-102 was similar performance-wise but was more advanced functionally so I would put it in 3rd generation.
 
1st Gen: "It's a jet! It flies!"
2nd Gen: "It's a jet! It flies fast!"
3rd Gen: "It's a jet! It flies fast and is actually useful for something. Bit complicated though and sometimes unreliable."
4th Gen: "It's a jet! It's really awesome at manouvering, really complicated, but electronics have got much more reliable now so it works mostly".
5th Gen: "It's a jet! It's still pretty awesome at manouvering, and now mostly invisible to radar. Can possibly supercruise, and electronics are even more super whizzy".
 
:D
If i may, i would put :
1st gen: "What a piece of crap, but it flies faster than a prop' anyway...so"
2nd gen: "well, it's a bit more reliable and burn a bit less fuel now... Maybe it could actually help win some wars ?"
3nd gen : "Wooowoww, I go supersonic !! "
4th gen : "They put a PC in that supersonic jet, she do what ever i want, but gosh ... What a bi#~% when windows 98 crashes ! And that license cost me an arm."
5th gen : "Ok, it seems she can do everything, even coffee... For the price , that's the least. I make the maker very very rich, even though i can buy only ten."
6th gen : "How do you want me to win a war with the only two jets i can buy ??! i'll buy a hundred drones..."
 
For what it's worth:

The reason everyone trips over their feet defining Gen 1-3 is that the first use of "fifth-generation" (in the sense of "what comes after the MiG-29, Su-27 and Su-27 derivatives) was by the Russians. Even for the Russians, it was a retrospective taxonomy - that is, nobody called the 1970s agile fighters fourth-generation until the fifth was identified.

So for the Russians, it went:

1 - MiG-15/17/19
2 - MiG-21/Su-7/Su-9
3 - MiG-23/Su-17/Su-15
4 - MiG-29/Sus
5 - 1.42, Berkut, Su-57

Which is easy, because if your first jets were the Yak-23 and MiG-9 you'd want to forget about them too.

But if you're LockMart and you want to bring the historic P-80 into the picture, it's more difficult. Gen1 (P-80, straight wing jets) is easy, as are Gen 4 and Gen 5. But then you've got to pack everything from the F-86A to the F-4E into two generations, and this cannot be done, even by the esteemed Walter Boyne.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2015/C1GenerationGap.html

If you read this in detail, it says that the MiG-15 and MiG-17 are in different generations, but that the MiG-17 and F-4 are in the same generation.
 
1 generation: development of the concept of the aircraft (1882 - 1905)
2 generation: scouts (1905-1914)
3 generation: the appearance of fighter jets and bombers (1914 - 1930)
4 generation: retractable landing gear, aerodynamic development (1930 - 1940)
5 generation: perfect aerodynamics, closed lanterns (1940 - 1945)
6 generation: development of the concept of a jet aircraft (1940 - 1950)
7 generation: serial jet, swept wing (1950 - 1955)
8 generation: supersonic M = 1.5, guided missiles, radar (1955 - 1960)
9 generation: supersonic M = 2, triangular wing (1960 - 1965)
10 generation: M = 3, wing of variable geometry, vertical takeoff / landing (1965 - 1970)
11 generation: operational overload 9 g (1970 - 1990)
12 generation: technology "stealth", super-cruise (1990 - 2015)
13 generation: unmanned aircraft (2015 - 2020)
14 generation: hypersonic aviation.
 
The fifth generation is the fifth generation of supersonic aircraft!

1. MiG-19
2. MiG-21, Su-7, Su-9 / 11, Yak-27 / 28
3. MiG-23, MiG-25, Su-17, Su-24, Yak-38
4. MiG-29, MiG-31, Su-27, Su-25, Yak-141
5. MiG 1.42, S-37
5+ T-50
 
First generation: subsonic > MD-450 Ouragan / Meteor / P-80 / Mig-9 / J-29 Tunnan

Second generation: transonic / supersonic, no radar, no missiles > Mystère / SMB-2 / Hunter / F-86 / F-100 / Mig-15 / Mig-17 / Mig-19 / J-32

third generation: Mach 2, unreliable missiles Mirage III / F-104 / Lightning / Mig-21/ Drakken (Phantom was... different)

fourth generation: mach 2, reliable air to air missiles Mirage 2000 / F-16 / F-18 / Mig-29 / Viggen

fifth generation: some stealth, AESA > Rafale / Typhoon / Super Hornet

sixth generation: development starts now

Of course there is the LWF / heavy fighter split in the 70's but it doesn't change the generations...
 
Fifth Gen - Designed stealthy. Super Hornet and F-15 and others have some stealth.
 
It seems odd to state dogmatically that the Russian taxonomy counts only supersonic aircraft, and then include the Yak-38 and Su-25.

Also, any generational split-up has to include a lot of outliers such as the MiG-25.

The real problem is that a generational construct is inevitably simplistic. There's a vast amount of overlap: for instance, the development of Gen5 started 32 years ago, but Gen4s will remain in production through the mid-2020s and beyond. Historically, you could call the F-104A Gen2 but the G can qualify as Gen3.

It also tends to blur a very important trend: the replacement of many different types by multi-role aircraft. In the 1950s you had all-weather fighters and light bombers; in the 1960s, strike aircraft were still a separate class, and even the teen-series aircraft were A2A-optimized. Most Western aircraft today are "strike fighters".

If you read BG Alex Grynkewich's long four-part essay in War On The Rocks, he is at pains to distance PCA planning from a Gen6 construct.
 
This applies not only to Soviet aircraft.
1. F-100
2. F-102, F-104, B-58
3. F-4, F-5, F-106, XB-70
4. F-111, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, B-1
5. F-117, F-22, F-35, B-2

Subsonic planes fall into this list because they are created in the same period of time.
I think you can divide aircraft into generations by studying the design of the wing.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fighter_generations
 
This link once again proves that journalists do not understand what they are talking about. As the Russian poet said: "mixed in a bunch, horses and people ..."
 
No, it just proves that "jet fighters generation" is a completely subjective concept, based either on, but more often a mix of :
- timeline.
- aeronautic design advances.
- country of origin of the plane(s).
- marketing from the manufacturer / propaganda from the government.
So it changes depending from the sources you get them. But not that much, it’s still useful. just a way the human mind likes to be confortable by putting each things in boxes.

Journalists just do what they are suppose to do, report infos they manage to get, sometime with errors, intended or not. Or without errors… (they get killed for that sometime too)…
Just like aircrafts makers sometime design the wrong plane …
 
That's a pure taxonomical question I see. That's why I posted the wikipedia link. I fully agree with galgot. Not relevant to me as I am humble fan. But if relevant for any collective (journalists, writers..), then an obvious solution should be an objective agreement between those involved.
 
LowObservable said:
For what it's worth:

The reason everyone trips over their feet defining Gen 1-3 is that the first use of "fifth-generation" (in the sense of "what comes after the MiG-29, Su-27 and Su-27 derivatives) was by the Russians. Even for the Russians, it was a retrospective taxonomy - that is, nobody called the 1970s agile fighters fourth-generation until the fifth was identified.
Click to expand...

"Soviet Military Power" was calling Flogger and Fencer "third-generation" in 1983/1984.

In 1986, the CIA said that the MiG-29 was "intended by the Soviets to be competitive with US fourth-generation fighters like the F-16"

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP97R00694R000800240001-6.pdf (page 12)

The CIA was calling Fulcrum, Flanker and Foxhound "fourth generation" in 1987.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP04T00907R000300630001-1.pdf (page 5).

Had a fifth generation of Soviet fighters really been identified by 1986-1987?

"Soviet Military Power 1988" talks about ASF and CAF as Fulcrum and Flanker follow-ons with improved maneuverability.
But I don't believe ASF and CAF were being described in next-generational terms until the 90's.
 
Well caught. And further evidence of the Russian roots of the taxonomy - since in 1986 only the CIA called the F-16 "Gen4" and then in the context of Soviet developments.
 
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
 
LowObservable said:
Well caught. And further evidence of the Russian roots of the taxonomy - since in 1986 only the CIA called the F-16 "Gen4" and then in the context of Soviet developments.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that.. (cover from Christopher Campbell's 1984 book)
 

Attachments

  • air-warfare-the-fourth-generation.jpg
    air-warfare-the-fourth-generation.jpg
    224.9 KB · Views: 117

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom