It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fighter Aircraft Generations: A Reference...

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I disagree Waynos, I think tech has to play a part. Its much more than a mere generational linkage. It also allows an easier comparison across countries and time frames. However, as we have seen in this forum, all of us armchair pilots are wedded to our positions (Im the worst of the bunch) and I doubt there will be much change in it.




posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Thats true Fred, I'm pretty immovable myself mo0st of the time


However that view is supported by the sources I have checked, as I said, going back over the years.

Anyhow, the main thrust of the argument is really that you can't just say that the 'Acme Russkieshooter' can't be 4th gen because its not as good as the 'Scruggs Wonderjet' or whatever, a generation is what it is, not what we think it ought to be.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   
hmmm, is clear that whe are disscusing about the technologic level, also an plane of an generation above dont mean that is better, for example, an f16 will give an pretty kickass to an mig25 at low level, but near 6-10km of heigh, the foxbat is an killer and the f16 an dead duck (the same for the f15,but that is an 3.5 generation plane), depends on the tactics.

the f15, and tornado are 3.5 technologic generations, the typhoon is an 4.5 generation plane, the f16,mig29,su27,f18 and mirage 2000 are 4th generation (lift vortex aerodynamics, sustentation bodies,unstable design etc..) there are very interesting cases like the use again of the tailess delta airframe (by the unstable body),and the f17, that was designed for an 9gs load but later limited to 7.5gs in the redesigned f18

[edit on 6-3-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Edited because I changed my mind about this post, it just kept the argument going round in circles and we are never going to agree so I will bite my tongue.

[edit on 6-3-2005 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
fioewfiorewjhfkljskld

[edit on 6-3-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
^^^^
Spas attack/Keyboard Seizure !!
!!911!!


Mayday...



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Waynos, I completely agree to you, but what would you classifiy a F/A-18 and a SU-30M? 5th gen or 4.5?

Siberian, are you gonna be ok?



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
It is difficult, and thats why we argue over it so much but I would say that the first 4th gen fighter was the F-14 and the last new one was the F-18A, after all they are only separated by 7 years (1972-79), in the west and the Su27/MiG 29 in the USSR. Planes like the Super Hornet and Su-30 tread a tightrope between being 'enhanced 4th gen' and 'early 5th gen', I just disagree with having half a generation, its a contradiction in terms isn't it?

I think marking something out as early or late works better, ie, though they were of the same generation there is a world of difference between the Meteor and Hunter in capability, I wouldn't call the Hunter '1.5 gen' but I think 'late 1st gen' makes more sense. Anyone agree with that or am I talking rubbish again



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
well waynos, we disagreed, i think that you take for an comparative parameter the service or first flight date (with that logic mig21 and f4s are in the same generation), but im putting the tecnologic level, in that way the f15-14-tornado are late 3th generation planes.

su30 and f18E arent "early 5th generation" are 4th generation airframes upgrated with new engines electronics and combat sistems, maybe 4.5 generation planes.

but there is not problem if we disagreed



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I think the typhoon is a 5th generation plane. Why well it has supercruise, very advanced avionics and some stealthyness. Not all the countries have money for a very stealthy aircraft like the F22. So the F22 should be taken as the most advanced 5th generation aircraft. I guess the same counts for the rafale not to sure about the griphen through.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Like you say its not a problem if we disagree, and I do like to get caught up in endless discussions


I would disagree with your point about the MiG 21 and F-4 being in the same genration though, I have no problem seeing the F-4 as the beginning of the 3rd gen series while the MiG 21 belongs to the back end of the 2nd gen.

I don't think its purely about dates, as I believe the F-4 ushered in a new generation of 'weapons system' fighters which was the third generation after the supersonic but still largely gun armed second gen, I believe this generation lasted until the end of the sixties when the F-14 and F-15 brought about another leap in capability, the 4th gen. Don't worry, I know you disagree with that last bit



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
My opinion is that this entire "generation" scheme is nothing more than a marketing gimic. When reading through aviation publications, it's common to see manufacturers talking about how their new product outclasses all the other fourth generation fighters, or how their upgrade can turn your second generation fighter into a fourth generation fighter, etc. It's only a buzzword designed to fool potential customers into thinking they're getting more for their money.

As we quoted in our article on this subject, there's nothing official about this scheme in any way.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Manufacturers have always called their new plane the next generation, implying that it is better than anything preceeding it.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
(it bears acknowledgement that Aerospaceweb says that the Typhoon and the Raphale are arguably somewhere between 4.5 and 5th generation.)


Just for clarification, that's not really what the author was trying to say. He was only suggesting that those two fighters could probably be classified as fifth generation more easily than others in the same category. We added those words mainly to avoid angry complaints from Eurofighter and Rafale fans who might feel slighted as opposed to any particular technical reason. Again, it's all just a matter of opinion anyway.


Originally posted by intelgurl
... possibly the MiG MFI and Sukhoi Su-47, should either of them ever see production.


This statement is a bit misleading as well. We only referred to technologies coming out of these two projects that might eventually lead to a Russian "equivalent" to the F-22 or F-35. Both of these projects have only been used as experimental technology demonstrators. It's too early at this point to determine exactly what "fifth generation" fighter Russia will end up buidling or when. The country's efforts seem to be focused on upgrading its existing MiG-29 and Su-27/Su-30 fleets for the time being.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Very nice IntelGurl


As Waynos has pointed out, there are two positions when defining fighter generations.

I lean towards the technological aspect of things. For me, I don't care WHEN something came out - I care about the technology it uses to advance the industry. No one would call a muzzle loader that came out today as a "next generation" rifle, just as I would not call a fighter that only had guns a 5th generation fighter.

The way I see it, the Raptor is the second to last generation manned fighter. Most likely we will see one more generation of manned fighter, then they will switch over to unmanned. After that, we will probably see a few generations of fighters and then there will be a technological breakthrough akin to the jet engine replacing the prop.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by aerospaceweb

Originally posted by intelgurl
(it bears acknowledgement that Aerospaceweb says that the Typhoon and the Raphale are arguably somewhere between 4.5 and 5th generation.)

Just for clarification...

As always Aerospaceweb, you have helped to further clarify that which was unclear.
Like you, I realize that fighter generations are a marketing ploy, but we hear and read so much about it , especially in the strongly nationalist discussions we seem to get into here on ATS - it's just something that was needed here as a rough guide.
Thanks to both your organization and the Rand Corp for much of the information posted here - great work!
(Other referenced works; Rand Corp. paper entitled "The Cutting Edge: Half a Century of Fighter Aircraft R&D" and the AFA's article entitled "Foreign Fighters Get Better" by John A. Tirpak)

PS: Aerospaceweb, We've missed your input around here... Welcome back!



[edit on 10-3-2005 by intelgurl]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I didn't know that the F-18 and Su 30 were in the same gen..
I would put the Su 27 and F-18 in the same gen



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   

I didn't know that the F-18 and Su 30 were in the same gen..
I would put the Su 27 and F-18 in the same gen


but what is the Su 30 but a development of the Su-27? It is surely more capable but aren't new generations defined by something entirely new?

[edit on 10-3-2005 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   
So we would consider the F-16 and the F-15 in one generation then??



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Yes, why not? they are of the same technological vintage, F-16 was merely the result of an attempt to address the ever larger and expensive fighters exemplified by the F-15, it didn't move the game on, just made it more affordable. I don't understand why this is difficult to grasp.

Apart from obvious differences in specification and overall ability all new fighters since the F-14 onwards could be seen to be of a technological ilk, until FBW controlled, unstable canard, composite structured and stealth aircraft began to appear. This quantum change is best represented by the F-22, visibly a clear leap forward over everything that preceded it, although in truth the only area it is markedly in advance of such as Rafale/Typhoon etc (in design terms) is its all out full on stealth. This is the reason, imho, that the others are said to be 4.5 gen, whereas this is just one aspect of the 'fifth' generation, albeit a very important one.

In a way I suppose you could say that the Typhoon and Rafale belong to the same generation as the Raptor in the same way that the Hurricane belonged to the same generation as the Spitfire and Bf109, deservedly, even if it was lacking in a specific area. In the case of the Hurricane this was because it was still built in the same way as biplanes had been rather than in the stressed skin, all metal manner of its rivals.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   


My opinion is that this entire "generation" scheme is nothing more than a marketing gimic


no, your wrong about that, is clear that the generation definitions show us the tendencies and diferences between the planes, machines, nuclear reactors, ships, materials, technologies, societies etc...., now , the manipulation of the clasification like that "f15,14 are 4th generation planes" yes that is truly an marketing gimic



So we would consider the F-16 and the F-15 in one generation then??


Nooooo,no,no,no,no,no and no, both machines have diferents design concepts and technologies, the aerodynamics concepts of the falcon (the first 4th generation plane) are completely diferent compared with the f15, in fact the eagle maybe is inspired -not a copy- in the mig25 -an very underrated plane by the cold war media propaganda and the nationalisms-, and that is more clear if you see the firsts mc donald douglas designs for the fx proyect (an bigger f4 or an smaller f111), is bizarre the afirmation that the typhoon is in the same generation of the f22, the european plane is designed under the 4th generation concepts , yes it have some RAM and an limited supercruiser capacity but you only can compare that plane with the f18es supercruiser or RAMed conventional planes ,the typhoon is definitively better, the best and more advanced (maybe the most expensive) 4th generation but isnt an 5th generation plane.

nothing personal Waynos, but i dont ageed with your arguments, but as i said thats not a problem




new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join