It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by waynos
I disagree, I don't think that the 'generations' specifically relate to the tech incorporated in the aircraft, but rather are a guide to what you should expect to see in a given type depending on when it appeared.
For instance, to take the F-15 as a case in point.
following a linear path and obviously not including every type to enter service as it would be ridiculous;
The F-86 represents the first gen, these were replaced by the second gen F-100, these were replaced by the third gen F-4, therefore the F-15 which replaced the F-4 is 4th gen, making the Raptor 5th gen. Thats all there is to it really, and it is why talk of the Typhoon et al being 4.5 gen is fudged and wrong.
For instance, following the British line in the same way as I have just done above;
Meteor = 1st gen, Hunter 2nd gen, Lightning, 3rd gen, Tornado, 4th gen, Typhoon 5th gen.
OK, it is less capable than the Raptor overall but it IS the UK's 5th gen fighter, as it is quite literally the fifth generation to go into service. One generation follows another, the subsequent leap in capability is what we expect as a consequence of this (otherwise the new plane wouldn't be worth building). As I said in my earlier post, when the aviation press first referred to 'the first generation of jet fighters' which started the whole thing off, they were talking literally, not in a sense of of performance, this is a meaning we have since, incorrectly, applied to the terminology.
No doubt many disagree with me but this is the historical perspective of the term and I have referred back to publications from the fifties sixties and seventies to back it up. Moving further forward through the publications it appears that it was in fact with the F-22 Raptor itself that the 'generation' was first used as a definition of technology and capability so it is only now that we have corrupted the term, making some observers feel 'forced' to invent the '4.5' definition for non stealthy fighters of the same vintage.
I found this fascinating to discover as I have never reall ythought abouit it too deeply before this thread started.
.. then what gen do you suppose the F-15 is in ?
also im not in a debate about "french 4th gene" or "american 3th gene" or "rusian 2th gene", is about worlds aerospace combat technology generations.
Originally posted by grunt2
mig25,f15,mig23, f14 ,tornado etc... have similar aerodynamics concepts, and are completely diferent with the f16,f18,mig29, su27 ,mirage2000 and the eurocanards aerodynamics concepts and performance, thats very clear.
[edit on 12-3-2005 by grunt2]