Talk:4th generation jet fighter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:Aviation
 Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.See comments
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Talk page archive, October 2005 - March 2006

Contents

[edit] What the hell?

Who added that the J-10 has a 1.0:1 kill ratio against the Su-35?

J-10 data from comparsion table is incorrect as well. It isn't 300kg/m2. Can someone fix it please? people! stop vandalising the page!

[edit] PAK-FA

PAK-FA will have Indian involvement : Source 1, Source 2. This was decleared during the visit of Russian Defence minister to India, Sergei Ivanov in Jan 2007.

[edit] AfD

I've nominated this article for deletion. It is, and looks to remain, unencyclopedic, original research, and conjecture. The other military comparison articles merely compare specs in tabular format, leaving the reader to interpret. This article, however, interprets for the reader, and belongs in a magazine or blog. Sorry if this winds up ruining your pet project. ericg ✈ 06:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dunno that I'd delete the page but re "In the 1982 Lebanon War Syrian Air Force MiG-29s downed a number of Israeli F15s" WTF?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of 21st century fighter aircraft  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved, continuing edits

Okay, consensus on the AfD was that this page seriously needed editing, so no more defense of the status quo. Have moved it and rewritten the intro; will proceed to cull through the article as necessary. --Mmx1 23:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Good. Have fun dealing with the fanboys...--Robert Merkel 00:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Glad my AfD got something moving. I’ll back up any and all sensible edits (this article is watched, however unwise that may prove). ericg ✈ 00:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed claim

Removed:

All the reports I've found ( this is typical) say that the Isrealis shot down dozens of Syrian aircraft and lost none of their own. --Robert Merkel 04:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing...

The rewrite is actually pretty good, but you have removed such sourcing as was actually present (I know it wasn't great, but it was the best I could find). Are you intending to add sources back in? --Robert Merkel 06:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The only source I can think of that I removed was the F-22 hit piece (not trying to be biased, but how else do you call something title "DESCRIPTION OF OUR FAILING DEFENSE ACQUSITION SYSTEM ...A NATIONAL TRAGEDY — MILITARY AND ECONOMIC", which is widely referenced on the F-22 page. I'll throw it in on the links at the bottom; it needs some footer material. --Mmx1 06:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, comparing the diffs, I see them. Given the wide-ranging attacks and claims COL Riccioni makes, I don't think he's a real reliable source, and think it's more apropos as a perspective on the F-22 than as a comparison of the F-22 with other aircraft.
[1] is a dead link and the google cache is gone.
[2] I put on the LPI page.
[3]. I put in as links, even though ppl here tend to frown on Janes exerpt links. --Mmx1 06:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. What other sources are you using - even if they are books or paper magazines? If so, you should cite them too. --Robert Merkel 06:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
In writing this, I'm going off memory so it's hard to tell where a specific factoid came from. The paper sources are actually easier as I know what books I've read (not an avid reader of AWST, tend to read secondhand what other ppl find interesting in AWST). I don't make a habit of bookmarking the online defense articles I've come across so I don't have them at hand (but are obtainable; I come across them on a forum I frequent; not an aviation forum, but an unrelated hobby forum; just so happens to have a few retired crew chiefs, defense contractors, and pilots onboard). I can dig them up with some diligent use of the search. The performance section can largely be found in Robert Shaw's "Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering". The facts from the supercruise and thrust vectoring are pulled from the wiki articles on the subject. The avionics bit is hardest to cite as most come from online sources I'll have to dig up again. It'll be my next priority after rewriting the stealth section.
The maintenance section came from the para on the F-18 article (which I wrote), based on Orr Kelly's "Hornet".
I'm actually having a lot of trouble digging up a good primary source for the DERA data. The best I've found is [4]
Looking back over what I've written, here's a to-do list for me to cite. Everything else was pulled from the various articles on the aircraft and technologies involved.
  • F-22 supercruise speculation (actually left the wording vague as I have no sources on hand)
  • believed superiority of Israeli avionics
  • IRST and usage on Russian aircraft. This is a pretty big one.
  • speculation about F-22 "jamming" or "blinding" usage of radar
The prices badly need citing; I'm thinking of a table that outlines the past cost and also lines them up with an adjusted 2006 cost.
--Mmx1 07:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Cite everything. If you've read it, include it as a reference. This article shouldn't even have an external links section, just references. In addition to {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} and {{cite web}} make it easy to get right; helping matters further, cite.php allows you to cite works from the body of the text. ericg ✈ 16:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, working on it. Taking the first step of collecting the links from the past few months (collecting them at User:Mmx1) and inserting them in the appropriate articles. Feel free to drop by and steal the links. Most are press releases from defense firms, I'm trying to get a defenselink.mil or dod.mil link wherever possible. --Mmx1 17:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
"The only source I can think of that I removed was the F-22 hit piece (not trying to be biased, but how else do you call something title "DESCRIPTION OF OUR FAILING DEFENSE ACQUSITION SYSTEM ...A NATIONAL TRAGEDY — MILITARY AND ECONOMIC", which is widely referenced on the F-22 page."
This is the report written by Riccioni? Please consider adding it back in as Riccioni was one of the brains of the "fighter mafia" that opposed the F-15 and pushed the F-16 Fighting Falcon (see the mention there). As far as I can tell, history has mostly proved the fighter mafia right, so while Riccioni writing a hit piece against the F-22 (an even more expensive F-15) is not a surprise, it's not something to ignore either. Riccioni also claims to have co-fathered (along with John Boyd, inventor of Energy Maneuvering and fighter mafia godfather) the concept of supercruising, which is one of the most praised aspects of the F-22. Again, it's quite relevant that Riccioni criticizes the F-22 supercruise (based on the type's low fuel fraction). Riccioni certainly is not a neutral observer, but given his background, it would seem like a good idea to reference him here. --172.158.35.92 02:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combat claims...

Could you provide a citation for both of those, please? The sources I've read don't list any losses of Israeli F-15 or Pakistani F-16s. --Robert Merkel 12:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User interface

One thing that's often claimed about the new-generation American planes is that their superior electronics information will reduce the workload on pilots, for instance by more sophisticated sensor data processing doing the work of identifying targets for the pilot, and a much simpler "user interface" meaning pilots only need to concentrate on relevant information. --Robert Merkel 02:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

For instance, this. --Robert Merkel 02:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's more an ability of the computer to do post-processing on the data to refine it before it's presented to the user. My intent with "user interface" is to cover helmet mounted sights, another late 4th gen innovation. --Mmx1 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There is also counter-claims to this. The increase in the overall amount of systems available to pilots can increase their workload and often require more training. For example going from a primitive radar with a small amount of modes to a radar that can track 20+ targets and operate in numerous modes individually within its coverage is a fairly large jump in potential workload. The difference now is that the computers can assist the pilot priorities its targets. [j_hexen at yahoo dot com 22 June 2006]

[edit] A very useful, citable report...

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute did a report on the upcoming fighter replacement; it's free, it's online, they seem to know what they're talking about, it's quite comprehensive. http://www.aspi.org.au/15690bigdeal/index.html have a look].

Awesome. --Mmx1 13:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That report is fairly comprehensive but makes a number of mistakes. For example it confuses the different models of Sukhois, referring to the Su-30 and Su-32 as side by side seated aircraft. These models are the Su-32 and the Su-34. Meanwhile it refers to the Su-30 repeatedly in this section without correcting the mistake. The Su-30 has 2 crew in back and front positions. This indicates as is common in articles in Australia on air combat, a relative lack of knowledge on Russian aircraft and the threats and capabilities they represent. It also makes a significant point about the different generations of aircraft which is relevant to this article. It points out that the teen series of US aircraft are 3rd generation and the Mig-29, Su-27, Eurofighter etc. are 4th generation. This is still the most common form of thinking on this subject and while people tend to group the US teen series with the 4th generation Russian and Europian aircraft due to the large amounts of upgrades made in the US it is important to note that these aircraft are still technologically behind.[j_hexen at yahoo dot com, 22 June 2006]

[edit] Afghanistan dogfighting?

The link supporting the claims of combat losses in the Afghanistan conflict is actually a link to another Wikipedia article, which isn't itself sourced. I've asked on that article's talk page for a source to be provided. --Robert Merkel 23:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed until source is provided. --Robert Merkel 08:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the stuff on the new WVR missiles gone?

In the rewriting, the contention that the new-generation WVR missiles make dogfighting obsolete has disappeared. I actually managed to source this. It may not have been true when the 4th generation fighters appeared, but there's some people who think it's true now. So why was it removed? --Robert Merkel 07:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] infra-red search and track in Avionics section

Article mentions its use in F-22 and F-35. However fails to mention the PIRATE system on the Typhoon. See[5] 82.36.216.147 18:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The PIRATE system isn't fitted to currently extant Typhoons, though; it's not going to be fielded until the Tranche 3 advanced variant of the Typhoon around 2010. --JaceCady 16:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


The PIRATE IRST sensor will be available from Tranche 1 Block 5 aircraft onwards.

See:

Fliegerrevue Extra No.5

Program overview from Andrew Brookes International Institute for Strategic Studies [6]

Thales Press Release, 200 PIRATE units for Tranche 2 aircraft in addition to 116 Tranche 1 Pirate's. [7]

Aviation International News online[8]-- 213.157.1.129 11:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phased Array Radar and overall issues

The entire article makes no mention of the different generations in radar referring only to the US designed AESA radar. This is quite a flawed approach to an article on 4th generation fighter aircraft as no 4th generation fighter aircraft is equipped with an AESA radar. The most significant types of radars in the fourth generation are mechanically steered arrays, notably equipped in most US and European fighters and the more advanced Phased Array Radars equipped on many Russian aircraft. Phased Array radars differ only slightly from AESA radars and were first put on a fighter aircraft in 1975 with the deployment of the Mig-31. This article needs a major re-write, with a lot less emphasis on 5th generation systems such as AESA and the F-22A / F-35. It should explain both schools of though on fighter aircraft generations. Then it should go on to explain the developments exclusive or central to the 3rd and 4th generation. Examples would be BVR missiles, high off boresight WVR missiles, mechanically steered radar, phased array radar, thrust vectoring, helmet mounted sights, IRST and multi-role aircraft. Mention of 5th generation aircraft should be limited to explaining if one of the previously mentioned systems was considered central to the development of the next generation of fighter aircraft. For example; 'As part of its extensive program of enhancements to its 4th generation aircraft Russia developed engines with 'thrust vectoring' nozzles on the end. These nozzles can be turned in order to direct the energy of the engine, enabling the aircraft to maneouvre more effectively as well as perform maneouvres not possible beforehand. The traditional control surfaces of aircraft can only help an aircraft maneouvre when it is aimed roughly in the direction it is travelling. Thrust vectoring allows the pilot to change the direction the plane is facing more rapidly then the direction the plane is travelling, while still retaining some control. The Russians have since put these engines on a number of technology demonstrators and export aircraft including 2-dimensional thrust vectoring on the Su-37 and 3-dimensional thrust vectoring on the Su-30MKI and Su-30MKM. Due to this development and the changes it has made to air to air combat it will be considered an important part of 5th generation aircraft and as such the F-22A has been equipped with 2-dimensional thrust vectoring. [j_hexen at yahoo dot com, 22 June 2006]

The article was originally a conversion of a comparison of "modern" fighters; and the 5th generation info is parked here until there's enough material for its own article. The AESA is on the Super Hornet and a number of the other 4.5th generation aircaft, including both European competitors, and is being retrofitted to the F-16 and F-15, though I would argue that the newer upgrades qualify as 4.5th generation. Furthermore, the requirement for citation has stifled addition, as I haven't had the time to go back to the library and dig up some of the Brassey and Jane's books that detail these things. --Mmx1 02:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No European aircraft has an AESA radar as yet as these radars are still in development. The F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 are more correctly considered 3rd generation as the technology originally used in them was suffeciently behind that of Sukhoi and Mig. At most their upgraded counterparts can be considered 3.5th generation as none are upgraded with parts which overcome their airframes shortfalls. The Su-30MKI is considered 4.5th generation by many experts, as are the Su-35 and Su-37. However the claim made in this article that US aircraft can fall into this category is false. The F/A-18E/F could be considered 4th generation if it was in a superior aircraft to the other teen series US aircraft bu in all aspects it falls short of them and is in fact a cheap attempt by the US defence industry to sneak a failed airframe design past Congress.
Also ... why is it that this article is so Western centric? A huge amount of the emphasis is on Western developments in this realm with a brief mention of the USSR equipping aircraft with IRST capabilities. Is this due to ill-balanced sources? Why no mention of the last 20-30 years of Russian innovations which came completely unanswered by the West?
It's partly due to there being more information, particularly in English, about Western fighters. As to whether Russian innovations went completely unanswered by the west, it's virtually impossible to know because fourth generation fighters have never really faced off in quantity in a "fair fight" - the best Russian fighters against the best Western fighters. On the best-known occasions where Russian and Western equipment have faced off (Israel vs. Syria, U.S. and allies vs. Iraq, U.S. and allies vs. Serbia) the Western air forces slaughtered their opponents using Russian equipment, but in each case the Russian-equipped air forces weren't using the latest gear and had a lot of external factors arrayed against them. --Robert Merkel 07:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
First off ... Western Air Forces have failed to slaughter Russian equipped air forces despite ample opportunity to. Despite outnumbering the Iraqi Air force 100:1 and having complete airborne radar coverage in 1990/91 the US only managed to score a small handful of air to air kills. In fact more of the Iraqi air force survived versus being destroyed. The same goes for other conflicts, with US air power simply overwhelming their opponents rather then 'slaughtering' them. A slaughter would involve the USA promptly and quickly shooting an air force out of the sky.
Secondly ... I wasn't talking about engagements I was talking about innovations. During the development of 4th generation fighter aircraft the Russians fielded Phased Array radar, Off boresight missiles, Hand on Throttle and Stick Controls, Helmet Mounted Sights for WVR, Rear mounted Radars, Thrust vectoring, Thrust vectoring missiles, Rear firing missiles, Airframes capable of angles of attack in excess of 90 degrees, RAM coating, Helmet and cockpit HUD's and Fly By Wire. All of these innovations appeared first in Russian designed Fighter aircraft and despite spending so much time developing these pieces of technology Russia's 4th generation, upon release, outperformed every competitor. The F-22A still only manages to outperform that generation of Russian aircraft in Radar Cross section, supercruise and probability or Radar intercept despite costing 10x as much. From the introduction of the F-15 to the introduction of the F-22A the USA didn't introduce anything revolutionary to air to air combat and instead was playing a big game of catch up.
That's nice. Your dick's so much bigger than mine. Unfortunately, without citations, it's all speculation and heresay. The western innovations are well documented. Provide sources, and the Russian ones will too. But asserting things like the U.S. teen series is a generation behind their Russian counterparts is just silly and pointless posturing.--Mmx1 01:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
This is not about my ego, this is about fact, and my citation is one I found on this very page. I am Australian and therefore have just as much interest in the superiority of US manufactured aircraft as US citizens would. However at the same time I've spent extensive amounts of time researching this subject including a strategic studies / international studies degree and a lot of time spent speaking with people within the Australian Defence Force. In order to demonstrate my point about the generations of aircraft I will link you back to the article previously mentioned in this talk piece; http://www.aspi.org.au/15690bigdeal/index.html and ask that you read the first page. Here it states that as of the publishing of this report in 2004 the US teen series are considered 3rd generation and may be considered 4th generation in time. Of course this is assuming that the upgrade programs for these aircraft overcome their initial design flaws, increasing their performance and features to that of Russian 4th generation aircraft. As this has not yet happened, except for on a pair of NASA thrust vectoring test aircraft, this may never happen. I will look into getting some sources on each 4th generation feature incorporated into Russian aircraft sometime tomorrow as its getting late here. However so you know ... there will be a large amount of evidence and sources to back up what I say. [j_hexen at yahoo dot com, 23 June 2006]
Sources are always good. The Australian link is in disagreement over terminology with the primary source for the categorization used in this article [9], which assigns generations more finely only to jet fighters; and more specifically, the Australian 3 and 4th generations correspond to the latter's 4th and 4.5th generation, respectively. Neither have the Russian production aircraft been fitted with thrust vectoring, with the exception of the aftermarket modifications to the MKI variant.
Moreover, the various 30/33/35/37 are essentially the Russian equivalent of the C/D/E block upgrades to the F-15 - with later versions incorporating significant technology, avionics, and engine upgrades, that while not visually distinct, are much more potent vehicles. My personal gripe is that if the Sukhoi are to be considered distinct aircraft because of their separate designation, so should the C/D/E variants by virtue of the similar internal upgrades they've received.
Despite your claims of neutrality, your consistent harping on unnamed "design flaws" of the American planes while citing the purported advantages of features that have not even been deployed in the Russian Air Force is suspect. Should I start listing the virtues of the Israeli modifications to American F-16/15/4's? Both the Russians and Americans have chosen NOT to retrofit items like thrust vectoring because the cost/benefit just isn't there to redo a whole fleet as opposed to someone like India who's buying new. Present the sources and let the chips fall where they may. --Mmx1 01:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thrust Vectoring is the only development of Russian 4th generation aircraft not to be fielded among those that I mentioned so it is quite convenient of you to focus on that. The other 11 systems I mentioned found their way into deployment on Russian aircraft, mostly in the 1980's. Some, such as fly by wire were introduced in both the USA and USSR but the majority were exclusive to Russian aircraft. I will provide sources and a detailed write up on each later today.
Looking forward to it. Love to get more reading material. I bring up thrust vectoring because you keep doing so. So the rest:
  • Phased array radar. Must be something different from what it's called in western parlance, as in western parlance, it requires an array of radars; the physical separation gives it an advantage; one which is hard to achieve on a fighter. Note the uses in the article are all extremely large mounts. Google has turned up similar Russian usage, on fixed installations and cruisers, but no mention of fighters. The Israeli appear to be leading the way in putting phased array radars on AWACS (their Phalcon class), but nothing smaller.
  • Off boresight missiles, Helmet Mounted Sights for WVR, Thrust vectoring missiles. Fair enough, the Russians were first (though I think the Israelis beat them with the Python), but this is not specific to any particular airframe or a fair criticism or benefit of any particular one; they're modular add-ons (a headset and a missile) that are currently being fielded. Yes, it affects the system, but it's of tangential consequence to fighter design.
  • Rear mounted Radars, Rear firing missiles. Okay, another Russian first; of questionable utility except as a defensive measure, but feel free to insert with a proper source.
  • Hand on Throttle and Stick Controls, Helmet and cockpit HUD's and Fly By Wire. You claim that these were first fielded on the Russian SU-30 generation. Uh...the F-16 had these in 1975, what you call the 3rd generation (minus the helmet HUD), as did the rest of the teen series.
  • Thrust vectoring - we've addressed this - available as an add-on; neither the U.S. or Russia have retrofitted them.
  • RAM coating - everybody's had it and used it since the 1970's.
  • Airframes capable of angles of attack in excess of 90 degrees. Transitionary, not sustained. Described as some analysts as a "party trick". Sure, include with a link to Pugachev's_Cobra. The F-18 with its LERX's can do similar party tricks. --Mmx1 01:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Phased Array radar; http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-31.htm as stated by this website was; "the first electronically scanned phased array radar to enter service in the world." Second sentence second paragraph. Additionally the website states that the radar "is said to be the world's most powerful fighter radar." Eigth paragraph, second sentence. The Su-27M and numerous Su-30MK models are also equipped with Phased Array type radars. It is also significant to note that after the Mig-31's Phased Array radar went into service the B1b was equipped with one as well for use in ground targetting.
Off bore sight missiles. The Python4 was the first significantly off bore sight missile that entered service in Israel and upon release had larger capabilities then the R-73. However it was designed to counter this missiles emergence in states that neighbour Israel so therefore was not first. Source = http://www.defencetalk.com/missile_systems/air-to-air_missiles/python-4_aam.html and http://www.indiadefence.com/IAF-Isr%20AirEx.htm
The R-73 "is believed to be more capable than most Western-designed SRAAM in current service" http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/weapon/r73.asp However it should be noted that the AIM-9X is currently entering service and is possible superior. The important distinction here is that the R-73 was an important part of Soviet 4th generation fighter design and was an essential part of their advantage over 3rd generation aircraft. Weapons systems are designed in conjunction with airframes as a general rule. Often they are delivered before or after their counterparts but they are the most important part of the design process as they are the part that actually makes the aircraft effective.
Rearwards firing and thrust vectoring missiles; http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/R-73.gif The previously mentioned R-73 was the first to have both of these capabilities. This is not just a defensive ability as it prevents aircraft of previous generations from engaging R-73 equipped aircraft effectively. The only 2 logical approaches for a 3rd generation aircraft equipped with bore sight missiles is the front and the back. This immmediately gives the R-73 equipped aircraft the initiative as his opponent cannot effectively attack him without having a more capable missile fired back at him.
HOTAS, Fly By Wire and helmet displayed HUDS were on Mig-31's, Su-27's and Mig-29's. I should know, I've modelled the cockpits of all 3. However I will admit that they were on 3rd generation aircraft beforehand. That said ... the complete package / picture is more important then each individual item. Fly By Wire is not particularly useful when A - it makes F-16's fall out of the sky and B - Western airframes were not suffeciently capable of taking advantage of it.
Airframes capable of large angles of attack; this is indicative of a high level of maneouvreability and allows the aircraft to perform a large amount of maneouvres that would allow it to be successful in an air to air engagement. This article http://www.ausairpower.net/API-ASRAAM-Analysis.html goes so far as to say that the Su-27 and Su-30 are that much mroe maneouverable compared to the F/A-18, even in its areas of speciality (low speed maneouvering) as to put it at a severe disadvantage. Notably, the F/A-18 is considered more maneouvreable then the F-14, 15 and 16.
The allegations that the Su-27 families maneouvres are just show routines are completely unfounded and to mention them on a site such as this is showing a massive bias towards Western commentators. The Cobra for example allows the plane to outbrake an opponent (who is tailing you) and then to turn back down into a firing position on the opponents roof. No aircraft that is less maneouverable can escape a routine such as this. The Hook additionally can be used while both aircraft are circling each other while looking for an advantage. It virtually instantly puts the Su-27 in a firing position at the opposing aircraft which is left with only 2 options, evade the missiles or continue the circle to fire upon the dramatically slowed Su-27. However with the capability of the R-73 missile, coupled with a helmet mounted site, this is a battle winning maneouvre. Additionally ... the US government credited the Su-27 family with the ability to perform cobra's, making them disappear from mechanically steered radars. These types of radars can only track targets moving at significant speeds and the Cobra, when timed to coincide with the steered arrays sweep can make the Su-27 stationary for long enough to become 'invisible'. On top of this, the biggest criticism of these Russian maneouvres has come from commentators who have pointed out that Russian aircraft only perform these maneouvres with no equipment. To counter this claim an Su-30MK performed at the 1994 Farnborough airshow with 7 tonnes and all 12 pylons used. This claim was the entire basis of the allegations that the maneouvres were show routines and have obviously been completely debunked. Also consider it important to note that these maneouvres are possible without thrust vectoring. The Su-37 and Su-30MKI are capable of numerous more capable maneouvres and extensions of the Cobra and Hook which make them even more dangerous in WVR and BVR.
(restarting indents for readability). Interesting stuff on the phased array. Here's another useful link that describes recent radar advances. Feel free to incorporate into the article. [10]
  • R-73R as a defensive weapon. I fail to see how it's not defensive when its positioning makes it near imposible to utilize as an offensive weapon. Interesting capability and useful for strike packages; but virtually irrelevant in the BVR scheme.
  • "A - it makes F-16's fall out of the sky and B - Western airframes were not suffeciently capable of taking advantage of it." a) Like the Russians have never had that problem? b) all teen series are capable of taking more G's than the pilot can withstand; the 16 and 18 were specifically designed with negative stability to take advantage of fly-by-wire; so I don't know what you're talking about.
http://www.ausairpower.net/API-ASRAAM-Analysis.html Let's not mince words here. The link says "The Su-27/30 is of particular concern since it aerodynamically outclasses the F/A-18A+ in virtually every category, and challenges the Hornet in the area where it has traditionally excelled, which is tight low speed manoeuvring", so it's not clear who's superior at low speeds. Besides, the F/A-18's advantages over the 16 are in low-speed and high-AoA; the 16 still has the better turn radius and corner speed.
Moreover; the Russians have clearly put an emphasis on the WVR regime, which analysts repeated claim is going away. The reason the high-AoA maneuvers are referred to as "party tricks" is because they trade energy for a boresight. Sure, they give you one shot; but they also render the pilot effectively motionless and unable to maneuver or evade missiles. Interesting, yes. "battle-winning"? no. Not to mention that western pilots have had over 10 years to study and counter them because they have lots of airshow footage to work off of. Speculation on tactics is pointless; neither side is showing all their cards. Sure, mention it's pros and con's in the article; but stay away from POV statements like "battle-winning" --Mmx1 15:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Good idea restarting the divider things. I'm not used to Wikipedia's edit format yet. It would probably be a good idea to separate this part of the discussion into sections rather then having it under the Phased Array and overall issues section. There are many other serious issues being discussed here. Also ... again I don't have much time to comment but I'll mention some heresay to add to the argument. I was told that Soviet air to air tactics relied just as heavily upon BVR missiles as their Western counterparts. The 3 things that come to mind are:
When German was reunited they tested the capabilities of their Fulcrum-A's (Mig-29's) in a wide range of circumstances. They were surprised to find that the Mig-29 outclassed their aircraft at the time in BVR combat. Of course many Western systems have been upgraded since then, often as a direct result of what has been found out about Russian aircraft since the end of the Cold War but the same has occured in the East to perhaps an even larger extent.
Russian air to air tactics in one on one engagements involved firing 2 BVR missiles at the target as soon as physically possible, attempting to evade the radar and following in the BVR missiles to make a WVR kill. This indicates that they are simply realistic in understanding that BVR missiles are not a conclusive kill but are a useful tool in an engagement even if they don't win it on their own. This is also quite an interesting method as BVR missiles can be tracked with IRST devices passively, without revealing the Russian aircraft, meanwhile the missiles active seeker can track the opponent to WVR at worst. Additionally, approaching silently while your opponent has to 'baffle' BVR missiles gives you a chance to come in on someones blind spot with a pair of unavoidable R-73's.
During the Cold War NATO had repeated scares where numerous models of Russian aircraft would come to just outside an AWACS radar search range at high speeds and then pull away. This was repeated so regularly NATO came to believe it was a training exercise teaching the first stage of an approach. After the iron curtain came down it was found that the aircraft were within range of the AWACS for a BVR kill. The missiles they planned on using were not particularly agile at long range but it was usually groups of 8 or more aircraft, capable of firing 60+ missiles, easily enough to hit a lumbering target like a 707.
I did read many of these articles online and can find sources for them but for the moment I just don't have time. If you're interested in them I'm sure it won't be hard to find mention of them. Also ... I was trying to demonstrate that the Russians were more then happy to use BVR but established such capable WVR capabilities to in order to finish targets off.
The above story about Soviet fighters firing BVR missiles beyond the radar search range of an AWACS is... not at all plausible. AAMs with a range of something like 400 miles? Wherever you read the above information, please take what they say with a grain of salt. TomTheHand 17:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
They never built it, but the Russians did plan an ultra-long-range AAM to kill AWACS; see Novator KS-172 AAM-L. It apparently never made it out of prototype stage. --Robert Merkel 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I was not trying to say that it would be physically impossible to construct such a missile, but rather that the story above is impossible with aircraft and missiles that actually existed. The story states that after the Iron Curtain fell it was found that the Soviet fighters had the capability to carry eight missiles apiece each capable of shooting down an AWACS from beyond its detection range, hundreds of miles away. TomTheHand 01:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving India's Tejas to 4th Gen from 4.5 Gen

I have appropriated moved the Tejas to 4th generation from 4.5. The Tejas is a Light Combat Aircraft, designed primarily to replace the aging MiG21. According to the Strategy Page [11] this aircraft is smaller and lighter than the F-16 and Swedish Gripen and "has less capable electronics". By comparison the Chinese FC-1 beats the Tejas in every avionics and weapons systems comparison. So unless it can be proven that the Tejas, which has been in development since 1983, has some other unknown capabilities that put it in the 4.5 Generation fighter line-up, it should be listed along with the FC-1, if not dropped from the 4th generation list altogether. --H2d2 16:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


I agree, tejas was supposed to be on par with FC-1, i am moving it back to 4 from 4.5


I agree as well therefore, I'm moving Tejas from 4.5

  • No, the FC-1 does not beat Tejas in avionics. I think if the Gripen and J-10 can be placed in 4.5 generation, then so can LCA Tejas. Actually it does show characteristics of a 4th generation fighter like one of the highest percentage of composites amongst all fighters (except F-22 or F-35) and high-level blended wing & body. So I'm moving it back from 4th generation to 4.5 generation.

Now regarding JF-17, it has an all-metal body, is not statically unstable, and if I'm not wrong, it has digital flight control in one axis. So it is a 4th generation fighter. IAF


IAF, as discussed by our editors and by you the JF-17 Thunder if not better(Although I believe it is better), is perhaps equal to that of HAL Tejas if you add LCA to the 4.5th generation list you would also have to accept the JF-17 Thunder in the same list.

And your argument 2 days ago was (And I quote from)

All in all, the Tejas is comparable to the JF-17, and this comparison will go down in the history of military aviation as being one of the most interesting ones, alongside the ranks of MiG-19--F-86, MiG-29--F-16, Spitfire--Messerschmitt Bf109, and the F-15--Su-30. IAF

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:JF-17_Thunder"

Therefore I believe JF-17 Thunder belongs to the 4.5th Generation list as well. And please cite your sources as people above have taken actions with citable sources please read this before editing. Faraz


[edit] Removal of irrelevant views

"India's Tejas aircraft is being designed by HAL and is compared to the best light multirole combat aircrafts in fhe world[neutrality disputed][citations needed]" .

According to my research HAL Tejas by far cannot be compared with F-22 Raptor. Therefore, this sentence needs citations and is disputed. I will be removing this sentence. Please refrain from expressing your views on the subject in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Faraz (talk • contribs) 17:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

  • The sentence does not mention F-22 anywhere, and besides the F-22 is anything but a light-weight fighter. At 14,000 kg, the F-22 is surely not a light-weight fighter but a fighter in between F-18 (13,000kg) & Su-30MKI (18,000kg).

The LCA is THE smallest lightweight fighter in the world, which is true, However, adjectives like "the best" and "the foremost" must be avoided in the article. IAF


IAF, this sentence was removed from the paragraph which compares F-22 with other rumored 5th generation aircrafts. Faraz

OK, my mistake. I do not mean to be rude; I personally think JF-17 is a fine 4G fighter. But regarding JF-17's grouping, I still think that it comes under 4G but LCA is 4.5G although JF-17 & LCA are both matched in terms of weapons, specifications and most avionics. However what differentiates them can be found in the opening 2 paras of the article. It says that 4.5 generation fighters are those which also have features to incorporate some stealth like : Use of high % of composites, and a slightly modified shape to reduce radar signature. LCA has very high composites, and is the smallest and lightest in its class (but carries as much load as Gripen) to reduce radar signature. It has cranked and double-delta wing. Static unstability & Quadruplex FBW are already there.

So from the article's definition itself, LCA is a 4.5G aircraft.

In comparison, JF-17 is not known to have composites, is statically stable, and moreover it is a derivative of the 3.5G MiG-21's design. AVionics-wise, it has standard stuff. So I think 4G is appropriate for JF-17.

Now this DOES NOT mean that LCA can beat JF-17. What matters in the end is specifications, specifications and only specifications like a) Top speed b) Range c) max. altitude d) G-limit e) Maximum external war-load f) Avionics like radar range, IRST, HMS, HOTAS, night-vision, EW suite g) BVR weapons & A2G weapons. In all these respects, the JF-17 and LCA are matched neck to neck. IAF


Alright, now lets compare the two:

JF-17:

  • Program initiated in 1994.[12]
  • maiden flight on 3 September 2003.[13]
  • 5 prototypes.
  • 80-85% as capable as the latest American F-16 [14]
  • Entering service on 23 march 2007.
  • The JF-17 Thunder project has been completed in a record period of four years[15]
  • some features like advanced and futuristic avionics and cost effectiveness that give the JF-17 an edge over the LCA.[16]
  • DSI (Divertlesss Supersonic Intakes) making it stealthy; according to Lockheed Martin, DSI is more stealthy than other conventional air intakes as well as DSI also diverts turbulent boundary-layer airflow away from the engine inlet[17]

[18]


HAL Tejas / LCA

  • Program initiated in 1983.
  • maiden flight 4 January 2001. [19]
  • First prototype flew in November 2003.
  • 9 prototypes.
  • Over 500 test flights[20]
  • Planned induction 2010 or beyond.

It is pretty easy to determine which project had more success and which did not, and which aircraft is better. All in all, both fighters as agreed, are matched neck to neck but, I disagree with LCA being 4.5 generation Faraz

  • Faraz, that globalsec article has not been updated in years. Besides, the part about JF-17's avionics being better than the LCA has actually been based upon a statement by former ACM of the PAF, that JF-17's avionics are at least 5 years ahead of that of LcA {refer pakistanidefence.com}. globalsec simply quotes entire news items an promotional brochures without any care for copyright forget any proof-reading forget.

LCA's avionics are NOT 5 years behind that of the JF-17. LCA has the Israeli Litening targeting pod. Besides this, it will have :

  • A total of 29 computers including Mission Comp. all on MIL-STD-1553B bus.
  • HMDS
  • HOTAS
  • Full Quad-FBW (JF-17 in comparison is mechanical with flight control in only pitch-axis)
  • IRST
  • Night-Vision
  • 3x5'5 inch Multi-Function displays
  • Laser-designator pod/FLIR/IRST. These will be all-in-one inside the Litening pod (or SIVA podin the future).

From this list, it should be clear that the JF-17 has nothing in its avionics, that the LCA does not have.

Also, the JF-17 was completed in 4 years because it was already based on a tried-and-tested design--the MiG-21. The JF-17 also has had its share of design problems too that led to delays : Source

We can compare specs between JF-17 and LCA :

  • Top-Speed : M 1.8----M 1.8
  • External Load : 3,720kgs---4000kgs
  • G-limit : 8/-3.5-----9/-3.5
  • Drop tanks : 1x800lt. on centreline & 2x1100 lt. underwing----1x800lt. & 2x1,200 lt. in underwing.

The official website of PAC KAMRA does not say anything about DSI. It only says "Bifurcated side air inlet". Is it necessarily DSI ? Even LCA has got a conventional bifurcated Y-duct inlet (according to the official site) but nobody claims it as DSI-like something special.

According to the opening para of this article itself, composites increase stealth, which the LCA has plenty (more than Gripen & Eurofighter). Since the opening para says that composites are a feature of a 4.5G fighter, and if Gripen can find a place in the 4.5G section, why not LCA ? IAF


IAF, the DSI was installed in the 4th prototype of the JF-17 edition which had several upgrades and new avionics installed in to it, as I have provided many sources which confirm DSI status of JF-17 (refer back). I do believe that JF-17 with DSI is more stealthier than that of HAL Tejas. Regarding the avionics, as mentioned on JF-17 Thunder it has been regarded as 4.5th generation in most of the articles, sources mentioned above and on the article itself.

Avionics include:

  • Night vision
  • 3 display screens with multiple LCDs to replace them in future
  • HUD
  • HOTAS
  • LRU
  • ECCM
  • HMS
  • 360-degree field of view for the missile approach warning system with both infrared & ultraviolet spectrum detection
  • data link to exchange data from either a ground control center or an AWACS/AEW.
  • IRIST
  • FBW
  • electro-optical targeting pods such as the Chinese-built Blue Sky (planned future additions)

These avionics listed above stand firm against any other 4.5 generation aircraft. Therefore, the JF-17 thunder also qualifies as 4.5 generation

And if you add HAL Tejas in the 4.5th generation list, I believe that JF-17 stands firm as a 4.5 generation jet fighter as well. (Faraz 14:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

  • All that you've mentioned are very standard components that are present not only in the LCA, but ANY conventional modern fighter. All these are the bare basics. Anything less (like no ECM, no night vision) and the fighter will be useless.

LRU stands for Line-replaceable Units, which is not one particular component, but a general class of components that can be replaced easily as they are highly modular. ECCM is the set of Electronic Counter Measures like RWR, MAWs and jammers. These and LCD displays, night vision, RWRs, jammers are present even in the MiG-21s of the IAF.

Now regarding DSI, it definitely is not present in ordinary 4th generation planes. But that's just one feature. JF-17 with DSI is like a small town having Wall Street or London Bridge. So overall the JF-17 is a 4th generation plane, but only this one feature might be an exception.

This is because, in so many other characteristics it is still in the 20th century 1980s :- single FBW, basic MiG-21-derived frame, no composites, no instability, 8G maximum limit, T/W ratio less than 1.

Pakistani media even calls it a 3.5G fighter. China calls it a 3G fighter, because the Chinese designation is 1G behind the west (so in China, F-22 would be a 4G fighter). So even Chinese call the JF-17 as a 4G fighter. So its upto you ultimately.

Please do not be worried about placing the JF-17 as a match to the LCA in each & every department. Like I said earlier, their fighting capabilities are matched : its their PHYSICAL structurals that differentiates the JF-17 and LCA. IAF

Just wanted to mention that I viewed a lot of Indian defence articles over the internet and most articles claim that LCA/Tejas is a fourth generation aircraft and as Dr. PS Subramanyam, Director of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and Programme Director for LCA mentioned on Indian Defence - Source 1 Defence Industry Daily - Source 2 confirms the status of Tejas as 4th generation. Faraz 16:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll go with that one. Maybe someone has to convince Mr. Subramanyam

that too much humility will hamper the LCA's prospects in the export market ! Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

[edit] Fifth generation should be a separate article

It seems clear that the fifth generation info should be in a separate article. Profhobby 03:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sukhoi Su-30 (Russia and Israel)

WHAT?? Why Israel? Flayer 14:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel assisted Russia in avionics with the Su-30MKI that was delivered to India. The reasons for this are numerous but first and foremost is Israel feels the need to have a military balance with Muslim countries and cannot hope to sustain this in the future if none (including Pakistan) have other rivals to contend with. Helping India develop the second best fighter aircraft in the world helps Israel.

[edit] Saab 39 Gripen

According to: http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avgrpn.html http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/gripen/ http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/08/the-jas39-gripen-swedens-4th-generation-wild-card/index.php (more reliable perhaps)

..and my own good memory the JAS 39 Gripen may very well get a thrust vectoring system, which would make it one of the few fighters in the world having such a system. Maybe this should be noted in the article?

[edit] Michael Speicher

17 January An F/A-18C from Saratoga’s VFA-81 was shot down by an Iraqi surface-to-air missile. Pilot Lieutenant Commander Michael Speicher became the first American casualty of the Persian Gulf War. http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/PART12.PDF TestPilot 01:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That is the official US Navy line. Other reputable sources are less certain. For example, this CIA document says: "Postwar analysis suggests that LCDR Speicher's Hornet was downed by an Iraqi aircraft firing an air-to-air missile."[21] The report refers to a "forward part" of Speicher's aircraft experiencing a "catastrophic event". That is not consistent with a SAM hit, it seems to me.
On that basis I am going to revert. Grant65 | Talk 02:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
c.f. Air Combat International Group: "The team of ACIG.org researchers obtained exclusive materials describing the interception of an USN F/A-18 Hornet aircraft by an IrAF MiG-25PD at exactly the time and in place where the plane flown by Lt.Cdr. Speicher was shot down, in the early morning of 17 January 1991. Considering the available evidence, we are now convinced that Lt.Cdr. Speicher was shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25 "Foxbat", using a single R-40/AA-6 Acrid missile - despite explanations by other IrAF pilots we interviewed previously, that none of them would know about any Iraqi pilot to have scored an air-to-air kill against Coalition aircraft during this war."[22] Grant65 | Talk 02:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I see no assertion of professional qualifications for ACIG as FAS or Globalsecurity do. For all we know it's just a self-published source and certainly seems like so. Without any such assertion of reliability, we should rely only on the CIA document. --Mmx1 12:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] seriously!!!

The Article says "The first fighter kill of the F-16 took place on July 14 1981 during Operation Opera when an Israeli pilot downed a Syrian MiG-21" The route of the Operation was through Saudia, Jordan and Iraq it wasn't even close to Syria. can someone explaine

[edit] HAL Tejas

According to my research HAL Tejas will enter service in 2010, this 192.8.198.65 user has in numerous attempts tried to vandalise this article by adding HAL Tejas to the 4th generation jet fighter 'Entered Service' list therefore, I will be removing it from 'Entered service' in to 'Developmental'. Faraz

[edit] Original research issues

(copied and pasted from User talk:Deepak gupta)

Hello,

Please discuss before editing the article as mentioned by the refrences on both JF-17 Thunder and J-10 the Pakistan Air Force will procure these aircrafts in 2007.

and as mentioned on 4th generation jet fighter: (and I quote)

"Aircraft classified as fourth generation jet fighters are those in service approximately from 1980–2010"

These aircrafts will enter service way before 2010, 2007 to be exact. The J-10 according to my research will also be introduced in the Pakistan Air Force in late 2007.

Again, please discuss before editing these articles.

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Faraz (talk • contribs) 14:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC).


Well.. I should have discussed the matter before making changes. But here it goes:
  • Can you cite a credible source which says Pakistan was involved in the development of the J-10?
  • It is pure logic that "entered service" means aircraft which are already in service. According to numerous sorces like this, the entire JF-17 program might be in jeopardy.
  • No matter if an aircraft enters service in 2007 or 2010 or 2015, as long as it is currently not in service, it belongs to the "Developmental/Cancelled aircraft" section. Dude.. its common sense.
  • And please go through Wikipedia:Citation and Wikipedia:No original research. You need to cite your sources. Just saying that "according to my research" is not enough.
Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 16:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Alright, As mentioned on JF-17 Thunder the jet fighter will be procured/inducted by the Pakistan Air Force on 23 march 2007 I agree it should be kept under "Developmental", my sources like this confirm that the project is going as planned and I will be more than happy to provide more of these citations on this subject. Regarding J-10s, I have no citations or intent of saying that Pakistan was involved in the development of the aircraft but will be "operating" J-10s. Faraz (talk • contribs)

  • Faraz, nowhere has it been mentioned that PAF will acquire J-10 in 2007. IAF

[edit] Shafaq as 5th generation?!?!

As mentioned on Shafaq the fighter jet's maximum speed is 1 mach (1,150 km/h) and Max takeoff weight: 6900 kg, how can this be compared with F-22 raptor?

F-22 Raptor has a maximum speed of 2.42 mach and Max takeoff weight: 80,000 lb (36,288 kg)

Sorry to say but, I don't even see it as a 4th generation aircraft perhaps the article needs more citations and sources (as mentioned in the article it is a sub sonic fighter jet).

  • Shafaq does not deserve to be in ANY list, because we're discussing fighters, but Shafaq is a trainer. The T-50 Golden Eagle trainer also doesn't find mention in the entire list, so why should Shafaq ? I suggest that it be removed. IAF

[edit] Typhoon not 5th generation?

Why must a fifth generation aircraft be stealthy?

  • Typhoon is widely accepted as being the second most advanced jet in the world, behind the F/A-22 (Raptor) with which it shares features, for example only Typhoon and the Raptor have supercruise, alowing them to fly supersonic, with a weapons payload, at speeds greater than Mach 1 without the use of afterburners.
  • Typhoon is also designed with stealth in mind, for example the use of composite materials, reducing it's radar signiture. By defining fifth generation aircraft as those which look stealthy is questionable and would surely also mean that the F-117 (a third generation fighter) is arguably also a fifth generation fighter due to its stealthy features.
  • According to the "kill ratio" figures Typhoon is 4.5 times better than the fourth generation Su-35 which features thrust vectoring appartantly another example of fifth generation characteristics. Thrust vectoring may also be retro-fitted to Typhoon.

Could somebody please explain the reasons for Typhoon not being defined as a fifth generation jet (not all the aircraft in the article are fighters e.g. F-35) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sampeach3 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

  • I differ on your 2nd point regarding composites. The LCA has higher composites than Typhoon--95% by surface area & 45% by weight. The Typhoon's figures, according to the official website, are lesser than this. Supercruise is also said to have been attained by Gripen, however its not known whether it was achieved with weapon-loading or not.

And Gripen and LCA are 4th generation fighters.

So, the Typhoon qualifies as a 4.5 generation fighter, but surely not as a 5th generation one.

A 5th generation fighter must :

  • Be All-composite (unlike 4.5 fighters which are partially composite).
  • Have both TVC and supercruise (unlike Su-30MKI which has only TVC or Typhoon which has only supercruise).
  • Have internal bomb-bays.
  • Have other cool technology like plasma stealth in case of PAK-FA, or killer AESA like F-22 Raptor. IAF
    • Cute. All composite, internal bomb bays and all. -Fnlayson 16:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Generational" issues

Ash sul has asked me to help address some of the issues being raised over this article. I've been personally involved in the effort to determine the "discriminators" between the various "generations," so I believe I can offer some useful insights. I had looked at these "generational" articles last summer with an eye to working on them, but decided they were too big a project for me, as a WP newbie, to tackle at the time ... because they were — and remain — in such a mess. Overall, the article appears to remain in the same general condition outlined in June 2006 by j_hexen at yahoo dot com in his first paragraph under Phased Array Radar and overall issues, so there's no reason for anyone not to "be bold."

First off, from personal experience, let me say that the attempt to nail down "generations" by a set range of in-service years or even a particular year of introduction to service is problematical. While the generation concept captures something that is real, there is no single "official" definition of what distinguishes one generation from the next. It is, in essence, a way to capture an era of change in design philosophy as enabled by advances in the "state of the art" of key aerospace technologies. In fact, it is really used only in terms of jet fighters, a technology that quickly rendered propeller-driven fighters obsolete.

Since these generational definitions cannot be anything more than opinions (even if broadly accepted in a general way), I would echo what ericg wrote in a comment in the "Sourcing..." section above: "Cite everything. If you've read it, include it as a reference." It's quite a difficult subject to write an encyclopedic article on.

If the editors here would like, on Monday I can try to pull together some material I have at work to better describe these "generations." Yes, it's original research, but may provide at least a better framework for the editors here to resolve issues by. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Su-30MKI

Su-30MKI was jointly-developed by Russia's Sukhoi Corporation and India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited for the Indian Air Force therefore, I will be adding the Russian flag with the Indian. Faraz

[edit] Splitting article

Any interest in splitting out the 5th generation stuff from this article? -Fnlayson 19:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It really should be. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure. Where to put the 4.5 Gen stuff though? I could see it staying or maybe going to a 5th Gen article. -Fnlayson 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I would leave the 4.5 Gen in here. Many of these aircraft either are equipment evolutions of 4th-Gen aircraft or else started out as 4th-Gen designs, but were sufficiently long in the development process (thanks to the end of the Cold War) to begin incorporating early 5th-Gen technologies. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's my leaning but people seem keep changing the Gen for some of the recent international planes. -Fnlayson 03:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
sure. I'd support the seperation of 5th generation jet fighter to be a seperate article. Faraz
I think the changes follow from the use of firm IOC years to define "generations" and vague and contradictory definitions of what else constitutes "5th Gen". I had almost finished outlining a clearer summary of them, but it got locked up in my home computer when Windows XP cratered on me. As soon as my computer comes back from the shop, I'll post it. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defining Jet Fighter Generations

Since there has been a fair amount of edit-warring regarding what aircraft belong to what jet fighter "generation" (especially in this article), I've produced a "description", based on my professional experience, to serve as a guideline to help reduce, if not eliminate, the feuding. The problem is, there is no official definition and few published ones to go on — yet the terminology is so widely employed that it's hard not to treat in Wikipedia. While my contribution can only be treated as OR, my intent and hope is that it can serve as a guideline that editors can refer to in order to resolve disputes.

I would like to invite other knowledgeable editors to review and comment on what I've posted at Talk:Fighter aircraft#Defining Jet Fighter Generations so that we can have, as a guideline, something that is well-rounded and represents a consensus of our "in-house" experts. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../4/t/h/Talk%7E4th_generation_jet_fighter.html"