Fighter Generations

[Dreamfighter]

I don't think anyone is disputing that the F-22 (prototype first flight 1990, first production deliveries 2003) is a newer generation than the MiG-29 (first flight 1977, first production deliveries 1983) or that the ATF was intended to outperform the next generation of Soviet aircraft, not just the contemporary one.

Yes, I know.
I just want to point out it doesn't matter weither or not Mikoyan was the first to actually pronounce the words "fifth generation fighter" with regard to their 1.42, before that everyone else was already calling the previous generation of fighters "fourth generation" and the (Y)F-22 a new generational leap.

Also;
When MiG 1.42 = 5, then MiG-29 = 4.
And as (Y)F-22 = MiG-29 + 1 (or more), then (Y)F-22 = 5 (or more)

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Pushing it back again - Pravda in 1988 called the MiG-29 a fourth generation fighter.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

A quick search on Flight brought up this Jan 96 Rafale advert where they call it 4th Generation.

An article about Rafale and 4th generation-fighters, from 1989;


http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1989/1989%20-%201760.html?search=%22fourth%20generation%22

Yes. Note however the article is about the next generation Rafale versus EFA, Gripen etc. Therefore in "modern terms" this is about 4+ fighters. The French saw Mirage 2000 (and F-16) as 3rd generation and Rafale/EFA etc as 4th generation.


Today China also views F-15, F-16 as 3rd Generation fighters (like its J-10).


Like I said, its not some internationally agreed ISO standard.

 

[LowObservable]

Mystere 1st, Mirage III 2nd, M2000 3rd, Rafale 4th...

 

[Dreamfighter]

Note however the article is about the next generation Rafale versus EFA, Gripen etc. Therefore in "modern terms" this is about 4+ fighters.

Rafale and Typhoon were already regarded sometimes / by some as a kind of "4+ generation" 20 years ago...


A quote from Flight International, week of the 9th to 15th January 1991, article "An Integrated Future", pages 24 -30;

"The aircraft now under development mark various points in the transition from the current to the next generation of combat aircraft. Sweden's Gripen is closest to the current generation, with Rafale and EFA further down the road. The US Air force's ATF and the Navy's A-12 programmes are distitinctly next-generation."

the then "current generation" is regarded as the 4th generation by most people (outside China)
the then "next generation" is regarded as the 5th generation by most people (outside China)

The French saw Mirage 2000 (and F-16) as 3rd generation and Rafale/EFA etc as 4th generation.

Yes, but Flight International, the article about Rafale/EFA and it's author are not French.

 

[Dreamfighter]

Mystere 1st, Mirage III 2nd, M2000 3rd, Rafale 4th...

With Ouragan as 0.75 and Mirage F1 being 2.5

 

[Dreamfighter]

In Flight International's online archive:


* The oldest mentioning of "5th generation fighter" I could find is in an article from mid-July 1994, mainly in reference with the Russian 1.42;


http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1994/1994%20-%201638.html?search=%22fifth-generation%20fighter%22

Quote (from the top the 2nd column):
The aircraft is believed to be a twin-engine canard/delta wing aircraft to fill the Russian air force requirement for a fifth-generation multi-role fighter to rival the Lockheed-led F-22.



That seems to make sence because:

* The oldest mentioning of "4th generation fighter" (leaving the French Rafale aside) I could find is in an article from late spring 1990, again in reference to a Russian fighter, this time the Yak-41 Freestyle;


http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1990/1990%20-%201542.html?search=fourth-generation%20fighter

Quote (here too from the 2nd column):
This will have added significant impetus to programmes such as the Yak-41, with the aircraft having "entered its flight test program". Brooks expects the aircraft to have "... many combat capabilities similar to current Soviet fourth-generation fighters, including an advanced avionics suite and a lookdown/shootdown capability".

 

[Stargazer]

Mystere 1st, Mirage III 2nd, M2000 3rd, Rafale 4th...

BUT... Mystère already had swept wings... So was it 1+? :

 

[sferrin]

Mystere 1st, Mirage III 2nd, M2000 3rd, Rafale 4th...

BUT... Mystère already had swept wings... So was it 1+? :

Nobody's ever claimed that it was an exact science. That doesn't discredit it as a useful tool however. And, as you point out, there are oddballs. The F-84 and F-86 are obviously the same generation yet the former has a straight wing vs the swept of the latter. Does the F-84 jump a generation when it get's the swept wing? Is the F-100 Super Saber the same generation as the F-86 Saber? On could say the F-86 was at the beginning and the F-100 at the end of the 2nd generation. The real question I have though is why all the hair-splitting and attempts to completely discredit the concept? Is it that much of a threat? Really?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I think my point was that "6th generation" isn't an ISO standard defined by the US with a predefined set of attributes that we can say "aircraft x is NOT 6th generation". If the Russian's view the T-50 as 6th generation, because it is 15 years more recent in conception than the cancelled 1.42, that is a valid position for them- even if it doesn't meet US definitions of 5th or 6th generation.

 

[Stargazer]

The real question I have though is why all the hair-splitting and attempts to completely discredit the concept? Is it that much of a threat? Really?

I certainly cannot speak for others here, but I wish to say that as far as I'm concerned, it's quite the contrary. I believe it's a good thing to try and define these "generations" but in a sensible way, from a historical and technical, not marketing, viewpoint.

This is precisely what I meant when I wrote the following:

Although I tend to agree with you guys that it's a fairly recent invention mainly used as a political tool/marketing ploy by the Russians and Lockheed alike, I think there is no denying that there have existed "generations" of fighters (and bombers, and transports, etc.).

Instead of relying on some obviously biased definitions, why not try and list objectively all the features that appeared in the course of fighter development, date them, then decide which ones represented a true breakthrough? Those fighters which combined a sufficient number of new features when they appeared would mark the appearance of a new "generation". I think that's pretty much what Cenciotti tried to do, albeit imperfectly as there will always be people to argue over this or that — especially if patriotic notions of "we did it first" come into the logic...

 

[EricChase88]

Wasn't the MFI the MiG 1.42 which is a 4.5 gen plane abandoned for the PAK-FA which is more ambitous and true 5th gen?

 

[Sundog]

Wasn't the MFI the MiG 1.42 which is a 4.5 gen plane abandoned for the PAK-FA which is more ambitous and true 5th gen?

No, it was abandoned because Russia no longer had the money to continue it's development. When Russia finally had the money to develop a new fighter the MFI design was already ten to fifteen years old, so they began a new competition with new standards for which both MiG and Sukhoi competed and the Sukhoi design won.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Well, the Russians thought MFI was a 5th gen design at the time. They may have been unduly influenced by the fact that they viewed it as their 5th generation of fighters.

Presumably they hadn't realised that in 20 years time, the internet would disagree with them.

I don't believe T-50 will qualify for "true fifth generation according to the Bible of Saint Lockheed-Martin & the USAF" status because it doesn't meet the all-aspect VLO requirements.

The US remains convinced that stealth is the panacea for everything in fighter design. This stems from their desire to be able to dominate any opponent comprehensively. Presumably this comes at any cost, in maintenance, acquisition costs and more. Great, if you can afford it. Can everyone?

The Gripen E is supposed to require half the maintenance of an F-18 and one fifth the maintenance of an F-35. Its going to be reasonably affordable even when acquired in small numbers. Can you imagine how cheap it would get if Saab built 2000 or 3000 of them?

As for e.g. avionics - the F-22 avionics are incredibly complex and expensive and maintenance hungry, because of what they were trying to achieve with a 1990 technology base. Think how powerful your home PC was in 1990. The Gripen-E avionics, built on a modern technical base, will be a totally new generation, and will achieve excellent results for less money and complexity of design. Almost sounds like a new generation...

 

[sferrin]

Well, the Russians thought MFI was a 5th gen design at the time. They may have been unduly influenced by the fact that they viewed it as their 5th generation of fighters.

Presumably they hadn't realised that in 20 years time, the internet would disagree with them.

I don't believe T-50 will qualify for "true fifth generation according to the Bible of Saint Lockheed-Martin & the USAF" status because it doesn't meet the all-aspect VLO requirements.

I don't understand the amount of vitriol behind the concept of generations. Could somebody shed some light on this?

 

[Dreamfighter]

I don't believe T-50 will qualify for "true fifth generation according to the Bible of Saint Lockheed-Martin & the USAF" status because it doesn't meet the all-aspect VLO requirements.

Personally, I do consider Suchoi's T-50 (and Chengdu's J-20) as 5th generation fighter(s), though indeed it (they) doesn't (don't) incorporate as much stealth as the US fighters, weither that is because of lesser stealth-knowhow or because of pure choice.
As the US was the first country to come up with next (5th) generation prototypes, YF-22 and YF-23 which both featured extreme Stealth, high Supercruise and Supermaneouvrability (the 3 S's), and as besides the F-22 no other 5th generation fighter went through development for the next following 10 years, it is quite logical these 3 features were becoming seen as being essential for 5th generation.
Weither it is a good thing or not the US goes for a lot of stealth and Russia goes rather for extreme-maneouvrability, I'll leave that for others to discuss and for the future to determine.


Concerning the elsewhere much debated F-35/JSF, I consider that one too as a 5th generation fighter. From the outset - and the outset goes back to conceptual thinking in the early 90s, even prior to the ASTOVL & JAST efforts, it was intended as a non-supercruising strike aircraft with good self-defence capabilities.
Though it (momentarily) seems to lack one or two of the three S's - maybe an updated F135 or a future new engine and/or some external redesign (*) could (if budgets allow) change at least the supercruise-issue in the future - it still is a new (5th) generational aircraft.


(*): Around 1990, the ATF program was already facing budget constraints and there was talk about cancelling the program. Therefore and to have alternatives, there were (as everyone surely knows) some studies about advanced F-15 concepts. One of those was an F-15 concept based on the F-15E airframe with front-quarter stealth (more or less comparable to the Super Hornet) but also with F-119 or F-120 engines and a redesigned wing with larger span to give it considerable supercruise (though probably not as much as the ATFs). Btw, this was not the F-15U, that one was a somewhat later concept.

The Gripen-E avionics, built on a modern technical base, will be a totally new generation, and will achieve excellent results for less money and complexity of design. Almost sounds like a new generation...

Indeed, almost.... :-\ I certainly would classify the Gripen-E as being 4+(+) generation.
If they had gone with the other, more radical and stealthy concept for Gripen NG, then it would have been true 5th generation too, imho.

 

[J.A.W.]

'The Guinness History of Air Warfare' (1976) by D.Brown, C.Shores & K.Macksey,
- on page 200 has the heading..

'The new generation of jet bombers'.

& goes on...

... 'which began appearing in the 1950s were designed to outfly rather than outfight the latest jet fighters.'

 

[Dreamfighter]

designed to outfly rather than outfight the latest jet fighters

Somewhat similarly, the conceptual thinking behind the JSF-program was that while highly agile 4th-generation multirole/strike fighters were designed to outmaneouvre incoming air-threats, the next-generation of strikefighters would have more range and avoid the fight as much as possible and concentrate on striking groundtargets. Good enough self-defence capability would be incorporated though, for in case the fight should not be avoidable.
(I'm not gonna discuss weither this conceptual thinking is right or not, and I'm going to :-X now about JSF, I certainly don't want this thread to evolve into another controversial F-35 discussion.)

 

[Stargazer]

If we draw a parallel with computers, we can say that each new generation is basically defined by the generation of microchip that's in it.
Within a given "generation" of computers, there will be the basic configurations and the boosted ones, but they will all belong to the same generation.
When the 386 and 486 chips replaced the old 8086 in the early 1990s, they came in the SX (restrained version) or DX (fully capable chip) variants. Then came the Pentiums, but even then there were low end and high end ones, and despite the Marks I, II etc. variants, Pentium represented a generation on its own, until something else came along. Within any given computer generation you can have tremendous difference in capability and performance depending on which software and hardware addons you use for sound, graphics and so forth, but all the computers that are on the market on any given year are of the same generation.

All of this to say that it seems perfectly logical to me that the F-35 and F-22 belong to the same generation of fighters. Of course, the former will never be able to perform all that the latter can, but in terms of design philosophy and avionics suite they are related. And just like you can only go so far in upgrading a $300 computer (however much you may spend on it, it will never match an $800 type), an F-35 will never be able to perform like an F-22 — otherwise they wouldn't offer it for export, knowing full well that someone out there would attempt to do the upgrades! But for me they're still they the same generation of fighters.

 

[Magoodotcom]

The T-50 and J-20 should fall into the 5th gen category as they both have internal bays, (presumably) a degree of sensor fusion and LPI sensors, and have designed in low observable shaping...although possibly not 'all-aspect'.

 

[tiikki]

If we draw a parallel with computers, we can say that each new generation is basically defined by the generation of microchip that's in it.
Within a given "generation" of computers, there will be the basic configurations and the boosted ones, but they will all belong to the same generation.
When the 386 and 486 chips replaced the old 8086 in the early 1990s, they came in the SX (restrained version) or DX (fully capable chip) variants. Then came the Pentiums, but even then there were low end and high end ones, and despite the Marks I, II etc. variants, Pentium represented a generation on its own, until something else came along. Within any given computer generation you can have tremendous difference in capability and performance depending on which software and hardware addons you use for sound, graphics and so forth, but all the computers that are on the market on any given year are of the same generation.

Computing analog is good and it proves the point that it is all about marketing for single series of stuff. x86 series (and clones) has their own generations, but there are multiple other architectures too (like ARMs used in almost all mobile devices, or supercomputer hardware). The original 8086 was not even the first microprocessor, thus using it as a basis for computer generations is totally absurd even when forgetting the original mechanical and electromechanical computers...

 

[Stargazer]

The original 8086 was not even the first microprocessor, thus using it as a basis for computer generations is totally absurd even when forgetting the original mechanical and electromechanical computers...

I used it as an example (the earliest I could remember from my own experience) and never claimed it was "generation one"!

 

[Reaper]

I think this classification is not that bad:

The 6th generation fighter John A. Tirpak Airforce Magazine

Fighter Generations
The definition of fighter generations has long been subject to debate. However,
most agree that the generations break down along these broad lines:

Generation 1: Jet propulsion (F-80, German Me 262).

Generation 2: Swept wings; range-only radar; infrared missiles (F-86, MiG-15).

Generation 3: Supersonic speed; pulse radar; able to shoot at targets beyond
visual range (“Century Series” fighters such as F-105; F-4; MiG-17; MiG-21).

Generation 4: Pulse-doppler radar; high maneuverability; look-down, shootdown
missiles (F-15, F-16, Mirage 2000, MiG-29).

Generation 4+: High agility; sensor fusion; reduced signatures (Eurofighter
Typhoon, Su-30, advanced versions of F-16 and F/A-18, Rafale).

Generation 4++: Active electronically scanned arrays; continued reduced
signatures or some “active” (waveform canceling) stealth; some supercruise
(Su-35, F-15SE).

Generation 5: All-aspect stealth with internal weapons, extreme agility,
full-sensor fusion, integrated avionics, some or full supercruise (F-22, F-35).

Potential Generation 6: extreme stealth; efficient in all flight regimes
(subsonic to multi-Mach); possible “morphing” capability; smart skins;
highly networked; extremely sensitive sensors; optionally manned; directed
energy weapons.

AIR FORCE Magazine 40 / October 2009

 

[GTX]

I'd agree - it pretty much matches the David Cenciotti one I posted back on page 1 of this thread (at Reply#2).

 

[Machdiamond]

"Efficient in all flight regimes" just sounds like snake oil and I know for a fact that jet engines cannot burn it. If you want to be efficient somewhere, you have to pay the price somewhere else. This is just the way it works and the beauty of it all for those who appreciate the trade.

 

[Sundog]

"Efficient in all flight regimes" just sounds like snake oil and I know for a fact that jet engines cannot burn it. If you want to be efficient somewhere, you have to pay the price somewhere else. This is just the way it works and the beauty of it all for those who appreciate the trade.

So true. Granted, the new engines are supposed to be variable bypass, but even then you still have optimization limits. Of course, panacea proclamations are how weapons systems are sold now. It does everything better than today and at a lower cost than yesterday! Trust us.

 

[tiikki]

I think this classification is not that bad:

The 6th generation fighter John A. Tirpak Airforce Magazine

Fighter Generations
The definition of fighter generations has long been subject to debate. However,
most agree that the generations break down along these broad lines:

Generation 1: Jet propulsion (F-80, German Me 262).

Generation 2: Swept wings; range-only radar; infrared missiles (F-86, MiG-15).

Generation 3: Supersonic speed; pulse radar; able to shoot at targets beyond
visual range (“Century Series” fighters such as F-105; F-4; MiG-17; MiG-21).

Generation 4: Pulse-doppler radar; high maneuverability; look-down, shootdown
missiles (F-15, F-16, Mirage 2000, MiG-29).

Generation 4+: High agility; sensor fusion; reduced signatures (Eurofighter
Typhoon, Su-30, advanced versions of F-16 and F/A-18, Rafale).

Generation 4++: Active electronically scanned arrays; continued reduced
signatures or some “active” (waveform canceling) stealth; some supercruise
(Su-35, F-15SE).

Generation 5: All-aspect stealth with internal weapons, extreme agility,
full-sensor fusion, integrated avionics, some or full supercruise (F-22, F-35).

Potential Generation 6: extreme stealth; efficient in all flight regimes
(subsonic to multi-Mach); possible “morphing” capability; smart skins;
highly networked; extremely sensitive sensors; optionally manned; directed
energy weapons.

AIR FORCE Magazine 40 / October 2009

So First World War era F.E.2 and Hawker Sea Fury both are same Generation 0?
Is the Harrier Generation 1 or 2? It doesn't have radar, but it has IR-missiles and it is sub sonic.
F-117 must have been Gen 1 as it doesn't have radar.

How come century series and those MiG:s are Gen 3 as they didn't have real BVR (~20 nautical miles) capability (some upgrade system like MiG-21-93 could give it)?
First 20+nm ranged missiles were built on early 1970's.

Early F-16's without AMRAAM/Sparrow capability must have been Gen 2 as they had only IR-missiles...

And so on...

Generations are total BS if applied to anything else than clear line of parrent-child relations. And even in this case usually there is little else common between members of same generations than that they have common ancestor at same number of generations above.

 

[LowObservable]

The third generation in that sequence is a hot mess. Basically the result of trying to fit history into a preconceived framework.

 

[J.A.W.]

The third generation in that sequence is a hot mess. Basically the result of trying to fit history into a preconceived framework.

Too true, it is a slippery subject to categorise in such a rigid way, & as noted, there are many outliers.

Here's one more, the EE/BAC Lightning was 'supercruise' capable ~1/2 a century ago..

 

[Reaper]

I agree: generations are generally more a feeling than exact science.

 

[Stargazer]

I agree: generations are generally more a feeling than exact science.

BUT... i think this is especially true when it comes to the all-encompassing "fighter" category, which includes anything from subsonic ground attack planes to supersonic high altitude interceptors. The concept would make a lot more sense if applied to specific missions, not such a fit-all misnomer as "fighter".

 

[sferrin]

The third generation in that sequence is a hot mess. Basically the result of trying to fit history into a preconceived framework.

Proably more was happening during that time frame than any since. Consider the YF-12A would be considered 3rd generation as well.

 

[LowObservable]

Then you have the Tornado F3, F-111B and JA37 - PD radar/LDSD but not "Gen 4" in anyone's book.


Not to mention most F-104 variants (before the F-104S), MiG-21, Lightning and many others that are truly supersonic but not BVR-capable.

 

[marauder2048]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVAuA7Zlbr8&t=5m50s

(for some reason I can't get the embedded version to start at time index 5min, 50 sec)

Not earth-shattering, but for many english speaking audiences probably a very early introduction to the concept of "fighter generations"

 

[J.A.W.]

Well, there have been references relating to 'generations' of jets published since the`70s (posted on this thread),

& when the P-26, I-16, Hurricane, Bf 109 et al - arrived in the 30's - it was likely remarked upon then too..

 

[Steve Pace]

U.S. Operational Jet Fighter Generations
Compiled by Steve Pace

First Generation (subsonic)
Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star
Republic F-84 Thunderjet
North American F-86 Sabre
Northrop F-89 Scorpion
Lockheed F-94 Starfire
McDonnell FH Phantom
North American FJ (F-1) Fury
Chance Vought F6U Pirate
Grumman F9F Panther
Grumman F9F (F-9) Cougar
Grumman F11F (F-11) Tiger
McDonnell F2H (F-2) Banshee
McDonnell F3H (F-3) Demon
Douglas F3D (F-10) Skyknight
Chance Vought F7U Cutlass
Douglas F4D (F-6) Skyray
Second Generation (supersonic)
North American F-100 Super Sabre
McDonnell F-101 Voodoo
Convair F-102 Delta Dagger
Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter
Northrop F-5 Tiger II
Chance Vought F8U (F-8) Crusader
Third Generation (doublesonic)
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
Republic F-105 Thunderchief
Convair F-106 Delta Dart
McDonnell F4H (F-4) Phantom II
Fourth Generation
Northrop Grumman F-14 Tomcat
McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle
General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet
Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
Fifth Generation
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

 

[Stargazer]

Although your list deals strictly with U.S. types, I believe it would best belong in this topic:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21753.0

 

[sublight_]

U.S. Operational Jet Fighter Generations
Compiled by Steve Pace

First Generation (subsonic)
Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star
Republic F-84 Thunderjet
North American F-86 Sabre
North American FJ Fury
Grumman F9F Panther
Grumman F9F Cougar
Grumman F11F Tiger
McDonnell F2H Banshee
McDonnell F3H Demon
Second Generation (supersonic)
North American F-100 Super Sabre
McDonnell F-101 Voodoo
Convair F-102 Delta Dagger
Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter
Douglas F4D Skyray
Chance Vought F-8 Crusader
Third Generation (doublesonic)
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
Republic F-105 Thunderchief
Convair F-106 Delta Dart
McDonnell F-4 Phantom II
Fourth Generation
General Dynamics F-111
Northrop Grumman F-14 Tomcat
McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle
General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk
Fifth Generation
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
Sixth Generation
Fighter/Attack-XX (F/A-XX)
Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)

WHERE is the Hornet?

 

[Steve Pace]

Whoops - missed that one - thanks! It's there now. -SP

 

[SpudmanWP]

um... "Super" Hornet