I think it is considered standard precision in military aviation, but it does indeed sound very precise to us normies.1-mil precision? That's very good.
This minus is very annoying, because some of the features of those aircraft are in advance of 5th gen, others don't match; since such planes don't stop to appear(and what does 6 gen minus means - 6 gen but with canards, or non-stealth with 6 gen electronics,or what?).Indians called TEBDF 5 minus gen...
Yeah, day here is more of description of operational environment.Don´t forget that Russia still had S400 in Ukraine a couple hundred days past the 2nd...![]()
This minus is very annoying, because some of the features of those aircraft are in advance of 5th gen, others don't match; since such planes don't stop to appear(and what does 6 gen minus means - 6 gen but with canards, or non-stealth with 6 gen electronics,or what?).
It's just giving too much attention to marketing or fan antics. Be it a planform-aligned, LO-looking (doesn't mean it actually is LO) fighter or not, KF-21 is clearly a 4.5th gen fighter. KAI calles it that way, ROKAF calls it that way, and its mission systems are designed that way, so that it operates like a proper 4.5th gen fighter.Generation, as a term, implies certain period of time, or certain technology. KF-21(or indeed TEDBF) are of course the worst offenders here, but Gripen E/F is also somewhere around, as is Tejas Mk.2. Too much incoherent, inconsistent minuses and pluses(4.5? 4.75? What next, 4.875?).
I want to disagree with that, because 4.5 has been defined in the past as "4th generation with modifications to reduce RCS" (prime examples being Rafale and Super Hornet).It's just giving too much attention to marketing or fan antics. Be it a planform-aligned, LO-looking (doesn't mean it actually is LO) fighter or not, KF-21 is clearly a 4.5th gen fighter. KAI calles it that way, ROKAF calls it that way, and its mission systems are designed that way, so that it operates like a proper 4.5th gen fighter.
I think that the taxonomy of fighter generations is one of the better defined "generations" out there, and we don't need any of these "4.5th gen +, ++, 4.75th gen, 5th gen -," so on and so forth, whatever bullshit.
In the case of the Rafale, this was done between the 1986 demonstrator and the 1991-1993 prototypes.because 4.5 has been defined in the past as "4th generation with modifications to reduce RCS" (prime examples being Rafale and Super Hornet).
And IIRC Rafale was introduced as "the first 4.5 generation fighter"In the case of the Rafale, this was done between the 1986 demonstrator and the 1991-1993 prototypes.
Except the Eurocanards were supposed to enter service in the 1980s, not the 2000s. As such, they should be seen as contemporaries to the F-15C/D.All eurocanards and their contemporaries with advanced aerodynamics sort of count, i.e. the stillborn 5th generation, as it was originally conceived.
True stealth left them without proper generation, but they're distinctive.
The trick is that reality has proven they weren't really stillborn. Fully functional air force doesn't work on stealth (1st day) aircraft alone, it just lacks sufficient sortie generation.
Their demonstrators flew in mid 1980s, I.e. after F-15C entered service .Except the Eurocanards were supposed to enter service in the 1980s, not the 2000s. As such, they should be seen as contemporaries to the F-15C/D.
Not even sure the EX deserves the ++, IMO.In terms of F-15 specifically, it got comparable reshuffle only just now, in F-15EX (full digital design with fbw). But still the original airframe at its core, so 4++ and not 4.5.
Not even sure the EX deserves the ++, IMO.
I was trying to say it's just 4thgen. Still a 4thgen airframe, stable and no attempt at stealth, even if it does have a fancy radar installed in it now.Yeah, I'd say the F-15F is gen 4.5.
In most cases(there is no established terminology anyway, and people mix them up all the time), pluses more often points toward upgraded aircraft of 4th generation. I.e. they don't contradict your point.I was trying to say it's just 4thgen. Still a 4thgen airframe, stable and no attempt at stealth, even if it does have a fancy radar installed in it now.
Standard F2 & F3 ?Typical AdAS Rafale, is 4.5 - even if it's the PESA one(which >half of them still is).
From first royale units to future F5, all technically would qualify as 4.5. I've never seen any substantiated division in-between(4.75, 5- rant, see above).Standard F2 & F3 ?
I think we should categorize them into '3-day' categories, so that the second day could be reserved for fighters that are in between generations (those that were developed much later than the first generation of stealth fighter jets), such as the Su-75, Kaan, AMCA, or KF-21B3.Yeah, day here is more of description of operational environment.
1st day can maintain controllable loss rate against active SAM network, and can operate continuously over suppresed environment. It is, however, unavoidably hampered by the requirements of this capability.
2nd day can maintain controllable loss rate over suppresed environment, and can operate continuosly outside of effective enemy SAM coverage.
There may be better term, just not five minus, pretty pretty please.
The way I see how days are portrayed in articles, I don't think it works. You either can allow fighter operate over SAMs ("1st day"), or you don't("2nd day").I think we should categorize them into '3-day' categories, so that the second day could be reserved for fighters that are in between generations (those that were developed much later than the first generation of stealth fighter jets), such as the Su-75, Kaan, AMCA, or KF-21B3.
However, this '3-day' categorization could be applicable to any scenario, not just the current '6th gen vs 5th gen vs 4th+' comparison
Having 4th-generation engines does not handicap a 5th-gen fighter in the primary aspect of its air-to-air missions, which is head-on BVR.It's also got 4th gen engines right now. IIRC there was an intention to make F414-sized supercruising engines.
I'm not referring to 5th vs. 4.5th gen, though. What I’m thinking about is much broader in scope, covering 5.5th gen and beyond.The way I see how days are portrayed in articles, I don't think it works. You either can allow fighter operate over SAMs ("1st day"), or you don't("2nd day").
If your stealth is old or substandard, then you don't get intermediate aircraft (as it will be still just as constrained by maintenance and bays, but still won't be able to perform offensive stand in), you're simply getting downsides of both.
I.e. aircraft is either, broadly speaking, survivable enough, or it isn't, and should give air force other advantages(sortie rate and payload capacity).
Otherwise, both categories can go obsolete all the same.
I get your point, but those to me seem just other 1st day aircraft.I'm not referring to 5th vs. 4.5th gen, though. What I’m thinking about is much broader in scope, covering 5.5th gen and beyond.
It's just giving too much attention to marketing or fan antics. Be it a planform-aligned, LO-looking (doesn't mean it actually is LO) fighter or not, KF-21 is clearly a 4.5th gen fighter. KAI calles it that way, ROKAF calls it that way, and its mission systems are designed that way, so that it operates like a proper 4.5th gen fighter.
I think that the taxonomy of fighter generations is one of the better defined "generations" out there, and we don't need any of these "4.5th gen +, ++, 4.75th gen, 5th gen -," so on and so forth, whatever bullshit.
I prefer using base airframe design as the Generational designator. So if it's generally VLO airframe design (and long range), I'd call that 6th Generation ish. VLO without long range is arguably 6th Gen if the aircraft is a fighter, since the B-2 is VLO and is firmly 5th Generation.This minus is very annoying, because some of the features of those aircraft are in advance of 5th gen, others don't match; since such planes don't stop to appear(and what does 6 gen minus means - 6 gen but with canards, or non-stealth with 6 gen electronics,or what?).
SHAR is arguably 4th. Designed in the 1960s, entered service in the (late) 1970s, by design has a T:W ratio of >1 at takeoff. Being limited to all-aspect IR missiles was not as big a deal, as the USAF testing showed comparing SARH missile-armed fighters like F-15 to All-aspect IR armed fighters like F-5s (standing in for MiG-21s etc). The required closing range for SARH missiles enabled double kills for the IR fighters.Or which generation of fighter was Sea Harrier mk.2?
Disagree here, as part of the definition of 5th generation was being able to supercruise.Having 4th-generation engines does not handicap a 5th-gen fighter in the primary aspect of its air-to-air missions, which is head-on BVR.
This is what these fighters have been primarily designed for, and it’s one of the key design aspects that separates a 6th-gen from a 5th-gen. The key factor in this primary, head-on BVR engagement between two 5th-gen fighters is the sensors (though still quite important, RAM would be of lesser significance than sensors in this case).
Possibly. Depends on whether being able to supercruise would change the terms of the engagement any.Or, let’s say the current production KF-21 actually comes with an IWB and conformal sensors, or the tech demo Kaan prototype gets equipped with all of its intended sensors. Would they perform worse in a head-on BVR fight compared to their subsequent, re-engined versions(everything else staying the same)?
I've usually seen the 4.5 generation being described as applying LO treatments or limited shaping (like the Rafale and Super Hornet inlets) to reduce RCS. And if reducing your X-band detection range by 25% can get you into a shooting situation before your opponent can shoot at you, that's worth doing all by itself.Imo, which fairly enough isn't an authority on the matter, people should just stick to commonly defined 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th. These .5 and ++ in my opinion are nothing more than trying to upsell improved avionics/radar on a legacy airframe by attempting to convey it as something cutting edge. So something like a Gripen E or MiG-35 is still fundamentally just a 4th generation fighter jet. Now if they'd be stealth, have IWBs and possibly supercruise, then they could be considered straight up 5th generation. I think these in-between are always just kind of redundant and born out of the notion that a "regular 4th gen" is outdated or otherwise negatively afflicted, when in fact it just means pre-stealth.
Obviously the discussions can be endless about generations being a marketing thing etc. however with how widespread their usage is among enthusiasts and to a degree even professionals, I think we're long past that.
Luckily KAI doesn't claim the KF-21 is a 5th generation fighter until the IWBs are introduced, which is in line with established criteria and actually honest marketing.
FA2 added the radar to enable AMRAAM usage in 1988.
But didn't have radar AAM capabilites as an aircraft, even if the Blue Fox radar could guide them.The FA Mk 2's predecessor, the FRS Mk 1, was also equipped with the Ferranti Blue Fox radar.
That originally was that 5th gen (before 1981) was supposed to be.I've usually seen the 4.5 generation being described as applying LO treatments or limited shaping (like the Rafale and Super Hornet inlets) to reduce RCS. And if reducing your X-band detection range by 25% can get you into a shooting situation before your opponent can shoot at you, that's worth doing all by itself.
Originally, It was to be able to freely fight while maintaining supersonic speed(4S). "Super cruise" as we have it is just a leftover from the more lofty original goal. Just wasn't achieved for multiple reasons, stealth likely being one of the major ones.Disagree here, as part of the definition of 5th generation was being able to supercruise.