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.
