Talk:Fighter aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Early Discussions

Umm... Question. Why is the Eurofighter under 5th gen? Isn't it a 4.5 gen plane?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.77.86 (talk • contribs) Because people keep inserting their POV in the article to boost their favorite airplane. --Mmx1 13:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it there any reason the typhoon is not 5th gen? It can supercruise, has advanced avioncs - is it certainly comparable to the F-22 in technological advances, is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.44.1.200 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This may be a language problem: Is 'Jet Fighter' a subdivision or an entire different thing?

Not in my opinion, I'll delete that "see also" link --Robert Merkel

WWII-'class' planes started to appear earlier, would it make sense to make the division in 1936? --Yooden

Probably -- Robert Merkel

Furthermore, Jet fighters appeared at the end of WWII (Messerschmidt, Gloster Meteor) --Arco Scheepen

There's even the rocket-powered fighters: Me 163, Bachem Natter, and even a Japanese version. The latter two never successfully flew even in testing, the first saw limited combat use. --Belltower

Unsure how to designate ground-based versus naval-based versions of the same aircraft. The A/F-18 comes to mind. Anyone know more about this? -- RjLesch

From the main page:

superior manoeuverability and flight characteristics of the Spitfire over the Messerschmitt? Me 109 crucial in the Battle Of Britain

I'm not sure this is a correct statement. The Spitfire was a little bit better than the 109, but I don't really think that made much of a difference. The key issue in the Battle of Britain was the range of the fighters. Since the German aircraft had to cross the channel, fight, and leave enough fuel to cross back, they didn't end up spending much time on target. Consequently, the German bombers spent significant portions of time unprotected. And history showed that unescorted bombers suffer greatly to fighter attack. - ansible

OK, I've been doing some more reading, and it seems the Me 109 was indeed a dog compared to a Spit. But I don't think that was the main issue during the Battle of Britain - ansible

Spitfires were not much involved in the Battle of Britain. They were fairly new and only available in small numbers, and in any case, RAF strategy involved putting the Spitfires further north to make them safe from bombing raids, saving them for the real invasion if it happened. Most of the British fighters in the Battle of Britain were Hurricanes, which were not necessarily any better than Me109s. Later in the war when Spitfires did see active service against Me109s, they did get very good results.

This remark is VERY inaccurate! The Spitfires were held back during the Battle of France, but they were well and truly involved in the Battle of Britain - although they were still outnumbered by Hurricanes.
Spitfire, Hurricane and 109 were roughly equal in combat capacity in 1940. Any source which says they were more than just a little different is highly suspect. There were periods later in the war when Spitfires were superior to German fighters, periods when the reverse held true. Hurricane development more-or-less stopped after 1940 when Hawker concentrated on the new Typhoon and Tempest designs. The major differences between the three BofB fighters were (a) the Hurricane was easier to build and repair, and (b) the Spitfire was easier to fly closer to its limits. The myth of the Spitfire's manouverability is just that: a myth. It was, in fact, less manouverable than the Hurricane (and possibly than the 109 - I have to look that up and can't find Quill or Henshaw right now). In the hands of experts, the Spitfire and the 109 were an even match, but in the hands of the average pilot the Spitfire could turn faster. Tannin
I've seen that one in recent accounts - however the great German Ace Adolf Galland, comparing the 109 and the Spitfire described the Spitfire as able to turn faster (in his book The first and the last). If a Spitfire could turn inside HIM then I think that is pretty conclusive. On the other hand the 109 did have a faster roll rate, perhaps an even more important aspect of manouverability. The Hurricane I was the main version in the BoB and was MUCH slower than either the Spitfire I or the 109E, especially over 15,000 ft. The much improved Hurricane II, which closed the gap to a large extent had only just started to reach the squadrons by the end of the battle - and was soon completely outclassed by the 109F (not to mention the Spitfire V). Hurricane development didn't really stop after 1940 - the Hurricane IIa (the last "pure fighter" Hurricane) was actually the fastest operational version - later marks were fighter bombers and were developed in a different direction. Interestingly, although the Spitfire was actually a little faster in level flight than the 109 at most altitudes - pilots of both sides described the 109 as the faster of the two, probably because it climbed a little quicker, and dived faster, especially in the vital first few seconds of a dive.

Soundofmusicals 04:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My table proposal to replace the long list. We could replace ", " with <br&gr;, or use * again within the table cells

Country 1939-1945 1945-1952 1952-present
Britain Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Hurricane, Hawker Typhoon, Hawker Tempest, de Havilland Mosquito, Gloster Meteor de Havilland Vampire, Hawker Hunter Hawker Siddeley Harrier
France  

Dassault MD 450 , Dassualt Mystere IVB , Dassault MD 550 Mirage I

Dassault Mirage III , Dassault Super Étendard , Dassault Mirage F1 , Dassault Mirage 2000
Germany

Messerschmitt Bf 109 , Messerschmitt Bf 110 , Focke-Wulf 190 , Messerschmitt Me 163 , Messerschmitt Me 262 , Heinkel He 162

See also List of aircraft of the WW2 Luftwaffe
    
Italy Macchi C202, Macchi C205    
Europe     Panavia Tornado, Eurofighter, English Electric Lightning
Japan Mitsubishi Zero    
Russia/USSR

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3 , Yakolev Yak-9

MiG-15 , MiG-17 , MiG-19 , MiG-21 Fishbed

MiG-23 Flogger , MiG-25 Foxbat , MiG-29 Fulcrum , Sukhoi Su-27
U.S.

Vought F4U Corsair , Grumman F6F Hellcat , Lockheed P-38 Lightning , Bell P-39 Airacobra , Curtiss P-40 , Republic P-47 Thunderbolt , North American P-51 Mustang

Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star , Republic F-84 Thunderjet , North American F-86 Sabrejet , North American F-100 Super Sabre , Grumman F9F Panther , Grumman Cougar , Lockheed F-104 Starfighter

F-4 Phantom II , F-5 Freedom Fighter , F-14 Tomcat , F-15 Eagle , F-16 Fighting Falcon , F-117 Nighthawk , F/A-18 Hornet
Sweden

Saab J21

Saab 29 Tunnan , Saab 32 Lansen , Saab 35 Draken

Saab 37 Viggen & 39 Gripen
Canada     Avro CF-100, Avro Arrow
Yugoslawia     Soko J-1 Jastreb, Soko J-22 Orao

[edit] 1939-1945

Many of these fighters would do over 400 m.p.h. in level flight, and were fast enough in a dive that they started encountering the effects of getting too close to the speed of sound, occasionally even to the point of breaking up in flight. Dive brakes were developed late in WW II to minimize these problems and restore control to the pilots.

[edit] 1945-1952

The first generation of production jet fighter planes had performance problems near sonic speed (similar to that of the latest piston engined fighters) until aeronautical engineer Richard Whitcomb rediscovered the "area rule" in 1952. Subsequent designs featured a "bottle-shaped" fuselage that improved performance. This would be an important distinction between early jet fighters (F-86, etc.) and later ones, like the F-5.

On Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft I have started a proposal for how lists of aircraft could be rationalised on wikipedia. If you're interested, let's discuss it there -- Cabalamat 03:09, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] 1967-present

I divided up 1952-present into fighters introduced before and after 1967, which was roughly the time when multi-role fighters and modern air superiority types began appear. I also got rid of the Yugoslavian ground-attack planes as they are generally not considered true fighters. I did keep "fighter-bombers," though. -Gooberliberation 21:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Where are Soviet I-16 and Japanese A5M? --squadfifteen 3/10/05

-If they're missing, go add them. 68.122.227.9 12:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

"New technology" swing wing? It was invented by the Germans in WW2.... --squadfifteen 3/10/05

-The "Swing Wing" projects of WW2 were ground-adjustable only. While there were early VG-wing designs like the Grumman F10F and Bell X-5(redesigned Messerschmitt P.1101), the technology was briefly abandoned and there were no production swing-wings until the F-111 of the late 1960s. 68.122.227.9 12:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] F-117

Though the F-117 is designated a fighter, with the F-, it doesn't carry weapons for air-to-air combat, so it contradicts the information in this article. It would be best to at least include a note about that, if not remove it completely.

[edit] Redefined "Present"

I've decided to make the cutoff of "1967-Present" at 1990. While some new jets have had loooong development periods dating back to the early 80s, they really came out in the 90s.

Btw, has the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet been tested in combat yet? If anyone knows, feel free to add that. Gooberliberation 09:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] entire article

The entire article needs to be rewritten. There are both factual and grammatical errors that make the article almost painful to read.

Jim62sch 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

-I've been taking hacks at it, dividing it into categories and all(although my writing mightve making it worse, I admit). Anyways, I concede that the page really needs help, especially in the first few paragraphs. Its now tagged for cleanup.

Gooberliberation 13:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are there height requirements to be a jet fighter pilot?

Yes. Here are the requirements to enter the Royal Australian Air Force - other air forces would almost certainly have similar requirements, but the exact measurements might vary. --Robert Merkel 13:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are some.
It usually depends on the Air Force´s Policy and the aircraft limitations.
For the first you should inquire your Aire Force. As to the second, both cockpit and ejection seat can impose some limitations to the pilot dimensions, specially in height and weight, to ensure a safe ejection. In my experience the most probable scenarios are: little and skinny pilots not reaching the minimum weight, and very tall pilots. Women usually encounter more problems because the anthropometric data used to develop both cockpits and ejection seats has primarily been taken from males, since women have been able to fly much later in the history of the Services, and the male to female ratio is greatly offset to the males.
Alfonso Lopez Soriano.Spanish F-18/EF2000 pilot.

[edit] Cleanup

Have overhauled the article. I think we can take off the cleaup tag.

I'm pretty tired; I'll continue this at another point. the article seems fine now, needs some work in 3rd generation and later. (source: [[1]]). --Mmx1

[edit] Heading system

I have bumped the fighter generations up by one level (from === === to == ==). This is because I believe that each generation is comparable in notablility to the three prop generations explained earlier in the article. I have insterted <h1>Jet/Prop-powered fighters<h1> above the two sections. Because of the way the coding works, my additions will not appear in the table of contents, or include an 'edit' link.

I have also organised the 'notable aircraft' more consistently. Ingoolemo talk 01:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization and Notation

Regarding some of the changes made to the 4th and 5th generation, there should be some consistency over whether avionics upgrades constitute distinct variants. The way I see it, the designations for Su 27/30/33/35 and Mig-29/35 are equivalent, AFAIK, to the F-15A/C/E/K/I designations for export/upgraded versions or the F-16 Block 10 - 62 (and upgraded F-16I version). Since it's not clear that the numerical designations represent versions of the same aircraft, I'll accept a SU-30/33/35 designation, but we don't have to give every version a separate line - lets try to keep this list tight and concise. Or will the A/C/E/K/I versions get a separate line too?

    • More specifically, the SU-30 is somewhat akin to the C upgrade to the A version; I don't see much about the 35 except that it's related to the 33, and the 33 is is Naval variant. They (and the MIG-35) all really are upgrades of 4th generation aircraft, and if they're to be included separately as 4.5, why not the F-15C/I, F-16C/I/Block62, (Israel has upgraded theirs with avionics reportedly much superior to the American models - similarly to the SU-30 MKI). --Mmx1 00:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Surely by the def in the article the Eurofighter is 5th generation? Guinnog 22:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Not according to [2]. It has moderate low-observable features like the Superhornet and no thrust vectoring. --Mmx1 00:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] future

I think there should be a section that has about science fiction fighters (eg Star Wars), but only as a small thing stating that it is unsure whether fighter aircraft will transfer into space, and maybe something like common characteristics of 'starfighters' eg laserguns, sheilds, etc. Just an idea though. Dustin ॐ

There's already an article about starfighter - keeping the cruft in articles like that would be preferable. Joffeloff 15:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 5th/6th generation

[edit] future

I recently read a document by the dutch government about the replacement of the 4th generation F-16's with 6th generation F-35's. Is this an error of some sort or are they counting the 4.5th generation as 5th? Also a good source backing up the whole generations story and what defines them would be nice. - Dammit 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no official definition of generations of fighter aircraft. The generation division come mainly from aircraft community, and is based on some sort of consensus and serve primarily for convenience of comparison of different designs. As to F-16/F-35. F-16 block 50/52 and later ones are definitely a 4.5th generation. F-35 - barely 5th one. TestPilot 17:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No citations?

Can anyone find who put up most of the original info in the article? There is quite a bit of info here yet not a single citation. If someone put up info in the first place, they need to come back and take responsibilty for citing their info.Gotmesomepants 16:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about iran?

I think Iran also did their fighter aircraft? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.12.136.186 (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] A-10?

The A-10 in the first picture on this page is a ground attack aircraft, not a fighter. Its referenced as an attack aircraft, but a better picture should be found.

[edit] Defining Jet Fighter Generations

While the concept of jet fighter "generations" captures something very "real," it also is something as nebulous as smoke. First of all, there is no single "official" definition of what distinguishes one generation from the next. This makes it quite a difficult subject to write an encyclopedic article on. As someone who has been personally involved in the effort to determine the "discriminators" between the various "generations," I believe I can offer some useful insights … although I can only offer them as a reference point, since they constitute "original research." Nevertheless, I hope that it may provide at least a better framework for the editors here to resolve issues by.

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. What the generation concept captures is, in essence, a way to describe 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 used only in terms of jet fighters – a technology that quickly rendered propeller-driven fighters obsolete.

Technically, for the purposes of Wikipedia, there needs to be a primary source identified and cited for the definitions; without this, there will always be disagreement over which aircraft go in which "bucket." Unfortunately and despite widespread usage of this nomenclature, it’s difficult to find any. I cannot recall seeing any in many years. 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 Talk:4th generation jet fighter# Sourcing...: "Cite everything. If you've read it, include it as a reference." That’s the best we can do.

Here is a summary of material I have used to attempt to describe jet fighter design generations (with rough timelines when those design approaches were a dominant feature of the “state of the art”):

  • 1st Generation Fighters (early 1940s to mid-1950s): Comprised of the initial, subsonic jet fighter designs introduced late in World War II and in the early post-war period with capabilities beyond their propeller-driven predecessors in terms of range, avionics, and maneuver envelope. Guns were still the principal armament, although infra-red (IR) air-to-air missiles (AAMs) were introduced.
  • 2nd Generation Fighters (mid-1950s to mid-1960s): First introduced in the late 1950s, these fighters were primarily designed for operations in a nuclear warfare environment. Fighters of this generation are not particularly maneuverable as they were designed primarily for high-altitude interception, not dogfighting. They typically had limited range and little, if any, avionics for conventional ground attack. IR AAMs became a standard weapon, radar-guided missiles (RF AAMs) were introduced, and fighters were often designed as “missileers,” sometimes even (initially) lacking guns. Ground-attack aircraft began to be equipped with TV-guided air-to-surface missiles (ASMs) and datalinks.
  • 3rd Generation Fighters (mid-1960s to mid-1970s): First introduced in the mid-to-late 1960s, they had significantly greater range than their second-generation counterparts, and traditional ground attack capabilities were once again emphasized. In fact, ground attack aircraft of this generation were often specialized for their mission with increased payload and improved avionics, including terrain avoidance systems; furthermore, these planes carried the first truly effective avionics for enhanced ground attack, and electro-optical (E-O) ASMs became standard weapons. AAMs were the standard weapons for air superiority fighters, which employed more sophisticated radars and medium-range RF AAMs to achieve greater “stand-off” ranges, and laser-guided bombs (LGBs) became widespread an effort to improve precision attack capabilities. Engines became smokeless.
  • 4th Generation Fighters (mid-1970s to late-1980s): First introduced in the late 1970s, primary improvements were highly advanced avionics for air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, significantly increased maneuverability, more effective munitions, and further specialization of systems for various combat roles. Fly-by-wire (FBW) flight controls and pulse-Doppler radars were introduced, and “multirole” fighters became increasingly predominant. Heads-up displays (HUDs) and electronic countermeasures (ECM) became essential equipment. Infrared search-and-track (IRST) sensors became widespread for air-to-ground weapons delivery, and appeared for air-to-air combat as well. All-aspect IR AAM became standard air superiority weapons.
  • Generation 4.5 Fighters (early-1990s to mid-2000s): First introduced in the late 1990s, and still being produced and evolved, the primary characteristics of this sub-generation are the extensive application of advanced avionics and materials, with emphasis on signature reduction (primarily RF "stealth") and highly integrated systems and weapons. These fighters have been designed to operate in an integrated battlefield environment and are principally multirole aircraft. Key technologies introduced include beyond-visual-range (BVR) AAMs, Global Positioning System (GPS)-guided weapons, solid-state phased-array radars, helmet-mounted sights, improved datalinks, and Full Authority Digital Electronics Control (FADEC). Stealth characteristics are focused primarily on frontal-aspect signature reduction techniques including radar-absorbent materials (RAM), coatings and limited shaping.
(Generation 4.5 is something of a fluke. It is due to, on the one hand, the sharply decreased R&D and procurement investment following the end of the Cold War, and, on the other hand, to the not-unrelated extended service lives of 4th-generation aircraft which saw further technological evolution of their capabilities.)
  • 5th Generation Fighters (mid-2000s): First introduced with the F-22 in late 2005, such fighters are characterized by their being designed from the start to operate in a net-centric combat environment, and to feature extremely low, all-aspect, multi-spectral signatures employing advanced materials and shaping techniques. They have multifunction active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radars characterized by high-bandwidth, low-probability of intercept (LPI) data transmission capabilities. Supercruise may or may not be featured. Possible weapons may one day be expanded to include high-energy lasers (HELs) or high-power microwave (HPM) device-armed missiles.

Note that it is not necessary for a particular aircraft to have all of the indicated technologies to fit in a particular “generation”; nor, for that matter, will adding any amount of “next-generation” technologies to an older-generation fighter advance it to the next generation. What matters most is that many or most of these particular capabilities, features and technologies were “designed in” as integral elements of the original design of the aircraft. This is perhaps easiest to understand in terms of shaping to reduce RF signatures: While radar-absorbing materials and coatings can be added to older aircraft, the special benefits of shaping and reduced-signature structural elements must be designed in from the start.

If you have specific questions, post them here and I’ll do my best to answer them. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Very useful insights on generational issues, I agree with most of what you have described. It's not easy to define "generations" in terms of fighter jets but your definition best suits this article and the other one as well. Faraz 15:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Faraz. Any generational definition indeed can never be firmer than jello. Coincidentally, I received today a copy of the the F-35 SPO's attempt to define them. I'd post it here, but I don't know how to do that; maybe they'll upload it to their website. In any case, I don't see that it's really very helpful as it's rather superficial and several points are rather debatable. It basically defines the generations as follows:
  • 1st Gen (1940s): First jets, subsonic, guns, bombs, rockets.
  • 2nd Gen (1950s): Supersonic, first radar, missiles, guns.
  • 3rd Gen (1960s): Multi-role, supersonic, radar, missiles.
  • 4th Gen (1970s): Adv. avionics, guided weapons, agility & speed.
  • "Gen IV+": Fighters with AESA.
  • 5th Gen (2005+): Stealth, fighter performance, internal payload, info fusion, net-centric ops, sustainable, deployable.
That's the "substance" of it. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What was behind the shift from 1st generation to 2nd and 3rd generations in terms of external airframes? Like at the start of the jet age the F-86 and MiG-15 practically looked like clones of each other in regards to wings and air intakes. Both aircraft spawned successors that looked fairly similar in overall design, until it seems like these just disappeared overnight and were replaced with the more modern-looking F-4 Phantom and MiG-23. - Masterblooregard 16:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The 1st generation was mostly focused on designing useful jet engines to power fighters laid out essentially along subsonic fighter lines. Post-war designs in the second half of the 1940s were heavily influenced by a few German design houses whose scientists were “renditioned” by the various Allied nations. As these aircraft pushed into the transonic regime, new design laws had to be developed. Once a successful approach was developed, like area-ruling, it was quickly imitated – remember that until it was actually done, there were many skeptics who asserted that supersonic flight could not be achieved. There were actually a great many experimental designs pursued to try to discover what did work – and work better – in the transonic and supersonic flight regimes as the aerodynamic laws for them were found to be quite different from the “traditional” ones for subsonic flight. There were a lot more wind tunnels operating then than now, and there was no lack of work for them. Along with optimizing aerodynamic, structural and control laws for these new flight regimes, there were also related challenges in air-launched ordnance in areas such as weapons separation and reliable, long-range sensors. During that time, most fighters were also single-roled. Interceptor-optimized designs are going to look more alike than they resemble ground-attack designs. Once the “basics” of these new operating challenges were moderately “mastered” and multi-role aircraft became appreciated as a cost-effective middle ground to large numbers of specialized aircraft, there was more room for “creative design”. The evolving capabilities of surface-to-air missiles also dictated to some degree the preferred operational parameters. Effective low-altitude SAMs and AAA can be avoided by flying at high altitudes; however, once very effective long-range, high-altitude SAMs in integrated air defense command and control networks began to appear, for a while it became preferable to pursue high-speed, low-altitude penetrators. All of this occurs a dynamic, evolving operational environment, yet whenever two designs seek to achieve relatively similar capabilities, they will usually tend to resemble each other on the outside, however much they do not internally. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F-111

The General Dynamics F-111 listed as a third generation fighter? Surely as a strike aircraft, the F-111 should be removed? Chwyatt 11:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German Fokker WWI Aircraft labeled 'Dutch'

I'm wondering how accurate it is to have in the WWI section the Fokker series labeled as 'Dutch'. While Anthony Fokker was a dutchman his planes were purchased and used exclusively by the German Forces(Central Powers). Since Holland was neutral during this war it seems unfair to put a dutch flag next to the Fokker lineup (particularly as it implies Holland was an aviation powerhouse, which it wasn't). Dmhaglund 12:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Having done some more research I have gone ahead and switched the labels to GERMANY, as Fokker was actually a German business until 1919 (though headed by a Dutchman).

Dmhaglund 12:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian Fighters

The Saeqeh is currently listed as a fourth generation fighter, and the Shafaq as a 4.5 generation fighter... Both these claims are extremely preposterous, and as far as known information goes, it's untrue. The saeqeh is a modification of the F-5 with two tails, but with (presumably) downgraded avionics, engines, flight control systems, IFF... you name it. It's more fitting to call this a 3rd generation aircraft instead of parring it up with the likes of the F-14, F-15, F-16 and the F/A-18 series of aircraft. As for the Shafaq, it's doubtful as if it's even a fighter at all. As a subsonic aircraft with a single non-afterburning engine, the Shafaq is no more than trainer, much like the Yak-130 or the T-50, or possible a light attack aircraft, probably inferior in this category when compared to the A-50 or even early variants of the Su-25. Given its horrible specs (at least as a fighter), it cannot be classified as a viable fighter in its current state. This isn't the 1950s, a sub-sonic, semi-stealthy fighter definitely won't cut it, and it's definitely a BIG stretch to call it a fourth generation... anything. Maybe they'll come up with a variant of the shafaq with twin afterburning engines, but as of now, it cannot be considered a fighter. The Saegeh is more or less compatrable to the F-5, and the Shafaq more of a trainer/light attacker. If you find this edit to be unfitting, please respond in this post, but as for now, I find that classifying the Saeqeh as a 4th generation fighter and the Shafaq as a 4.5th fighter preposterous. (123) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.227.187.246 (talk) 20:21, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HUGE chart

Why did you remove?--125.174.189.200 12:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Because at 800x600, it is WAY TOO BIG for 650px. We don't normally set the image size for thumbed pics, but I don't think it would be very readable or useful at the smaller resolutions. I won't object if you can get a consensus to include it at that size. - BillCJ 15:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I don’t mind a large image like this as a helpful illustration of a broad subject, but I have several problems with this particular chart. First, the title is totally wrong. It’s just a list of many (but not nearly all) modern jet fighters by most (but not all) of the major developing countries; among other things, it curiously lacks any mention of British aircraft and includes the Japanese ATD-X – whatever that is! Moreover, the history of fighters did not begin in the 1950s. On my screen, I notice that many of the shaded silhouette images of fighters are distorted. If you look at the F-15E, F/A-18E/F, and Su-33 in particular, you’ll notice overly long noses. Such a large image as this may need additional editing to clean up its visual presentation. Last and not least, I’m unclear whether this has been uploaded to Commons by its originator. It appears to have been created for inclusion in a printed publication, which might complicate the transmission of copyright holding.
Overall, I think a better approach would be to have smaller charts in each section highlighting the more noteworthy aircraft (including what we would now call “technology demonstrators”) of the period and their point of introduction on the timeline. This would be a useful visual aid on the technological developments being described in the article. The chart would include those aircraft being discussed as well as perhaps a few other “notables”. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The image was improved and up-loaded. F/A-18E/F, F-15E, Su-27, and Su-33 were shortened, and the character was enlarged. Moreover, ATD-X of Japan was removed, and the fighter of Britain was added. It improved before.How about a new image?--125.174.189.200 05:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul of Fighter aircraft and 4th generation jet fighter articles?

Please see discussion on the WP:AIR talk page. Askari Mark (Talk) 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The languished proposal can now be found here. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow - I just realized that this is a terrible problem -- Fighter aircraft is greatly overlapped by Fourth generation jet fighter, which isn't actually about 4th generation fighters, but about 4th, 4.5th, and 5th generation fighters. This is absurd unless we 1) split Fourth generation jet fighter into two articles for 4th and 5th generations fighters, or 2) we make a generational page separate from Fighter aircraft about fighter generations, or 3) we nix Fourth generation jet fighter alltogether and add the information to the Fighter aircraft article. Am I missing a reason this has not been done yet? I haven't found a comprehensive conversation about this, other than the brief mention with which I agree at the Aircraft Archive.. -- Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, as you can see, I attempted to stimulate discussion about this, but was unsuccessful. Accordingly, I’m not sure about the reasons why these articles are the way they are aside from inertia and neglect. So far, the only consensus has been to separate 5th Gen from the 4th Gen article, and I’ve just recently agreed to take that on. However, IMHO the best approach is your number 2, as I proposed earlier. It is very difficult to find useful citations for the definition of jet fighter generations, and most of the edit warring is over whose favorite aircraft belongs where. As a result, the 4th Gen article is far too large and I feel the whole topic should be condensed to a more concise and readable size without so much of the POV debate fodder. Since the generations only apply to jet fighters, it should be a subtopic on that and a “generations” article an expansion of the history and meaning of this set of terms. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. I don't know why fighter jets are subject to such zealous fanboyism, but the creation of a 4th and 5th generation pages seems as though it would attract vandalism like a magnet. Have you committed to the 4/5th generation article split? A Generations article would certainly better enforce the agreed upon fighter generation definitions; it would at least provide a smaller target which would be more easily monitored. It is likely that few people were interested enough in the article structure of this topic to comment; so, I bet modification as per the second option above would please the majority of the community. I'd be willing to smith an article for review, but I'll have little free time until the middle of December. Do you have time to take on such a project now? Nicholas SL Smithchatter 02:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
My free time is a bit iffy until after Christmas, but I'm intimately familiar with the subject. It's fairly easy for me to write – the challenge will be in the search for citation sources. (Of course, as long as this article has been this way, there's no tremendous pressure for a quick turnaround.) Askari Mark (Talk) 18:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good - I'll help out any way I can - after finals I'll get on research for fighter jet generational classifications to strengthen the article - I have a feeling a lot of them will be from quotes or news sources. We'll see. I can't imagine it'll materially differ from the definitions above. Nicholas SL Smithchatter 23:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(De-indent) I've stayed out of the discussion for while, but given the lapse in discussion, I thought I'd try to pick it up again. I agree with the concept of a generations article, and believe AskariMark can do a good job with it. I'd like to add in at this point that there is a lot about fighters that isn't covered here on the main page. It focuses maily on history, especially that of the jets, with the breakdown in generations. That ought to be left to the Generations article, with the history here being somewhat more basic.

Several area about fighters as a whole are lacking here:

  1. Definitions of types of fighter aircraft, such as day fighters, night, all-weather, fighter-bombers, strike fighters, Air superiority, point defence, fleet defense fighters, escort fighters (a specific type in the 40s and 50s, more of a role at other times), and so on. Some terms are tied to specific time periods, but still ought to be covered separate from the history.
  2. Tactics
  3. Technology - tho this is probably better covered in history, still could be covered separately to some degree
  4. A brief survey of weapons types (guns, rockets, missiles)

I'm sure there are other areas that can be covered. THis doesn't need to be an exhastive article, but there are areas that coverage can be expaned to. - BillCJ (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

okay - Wphew... I've finished with finals and I'm ready to help out on an article re-write. I imagine an administrator might be best able to make the initial changes to these articles to give us the framework to work within (I'm worried about making changes myself because there are a great deal of very interested wikipedians who care about what happens on this page - I'm not worried about objections to the page move/creation; I'm worried about some mis-classification which might anger a fighter fan here and there). I think the best way to do this, however, is to just get started... Nicholas SL Smithchatter 08:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Endurance

This below is the list of air reports about fighter and jet aircrafts:

  • RID, 8/1993. AMX-T (turbofan with high bypass, 5,000kgs, no AB), with 2080 kg fuel (2,600 l), 65' flight, consumption was 1540 kg or 23,6 kg-29,5 l./min. Dimostrative flight (acrobacy, accelleration etc.)
  • RID, 1/2001: Mirage 2000-5B (turbofan with low bypass, 10,000 kgs, AB), 3,930 l. fuel (3,144kg), 70' flight, cons. 2500kg-3125 l., this meant: around 35,7kg/44,65l./min. (acrobacy, accelleration etc.)
  • RID, 1/1995: TF-104G, (turbojet, 7,200 kgs), 3,043 kg/3,600l. fuel, 55 min flight, no known fuel situation at landing. (acrobacy, accelleration etc.)
  • RID, 6/1993: Saab SK 37 (turbofan 12,000 kg, high bypass), 80% unternal fuel, flight 26 min. (acrobacy, accelleration etc.). 20% fuel remained (60% of the total consumed, 3000 l?).Avg cons.: around 120 l./min..

Another one performed with 107% fuel, low level attack, 40 min.

  • JP-4, 12/1992: Mig-29UB, 3,000 l. fuel, flight around 40 minuts. Fule consumption unknow, but surely not more than 75 l/min. (acrobacy, accelleration etc.)

So there are some reportage about fuel consumption of fighters. Not too bad Mirage 2000 except in low level flights, not too bad either MiG-29, while Saab 37 could really drink the fuel at alarming rate.--Stefanomencarelli 13:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How is the Harrier II a 4th generation fighter?

The Harrier II is a strike craft to my knowledge, with only limited air to air capabilities. It may be a 4th generation aircraft, but it's no 4th generation fighter.

E.G. Both the A-10 and Su-25 can carry several IR guided AAMs for self defense, much like the harrier, but these aircraft definitely wouldn't be considered fighters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.184.238 (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

On the Harrir GR models, AV-8A/S, and AV-8B Day- and Night-Attack versions, you;re correct. But the Sea Harrier FRS.1, and FA2 are fighters, and the AV-8B Harrier II Plus can definetely fill that role, and does so with the Italian and Spanish Navies. - BillCJ (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but a 4th generation fighter? What I mean is, apart from a plane's weapons suite, there are other things to be considered before classifying a plane as 4th generation. The AV-8B+ can arm 4 AIM-120 missiles, if I remember correctly. But I don't think one can classify a fighter's generation based on missile alone. Take the MiG-21 Bison for example. Sure, it can arm the "legendary" R-77 missile, but can we classify it in the same league as a F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29 and Su-27 (all of which are capable of mounting the roughly analogous AIM-120 or R-77)? Hardly. Sure, if we're talking about a BVR fight, a F/A-18 may be matched by an AV-8B+ in that aspect, but if we're moving into a WVR engagement (if Vietman told us anything, it still matters), I would have a hard time swallowing a statement that an AV-8B+ would match a Hornet in this situation. Maybe one might think "Oh, the AV-8B+ is a modern aircraft developed in the 1990s, much like the F/A-18E" and claim that the time of development may be an important weight in determining a fighter's generation, but again, would you consider the Iranian Azarakhsh (which is clearly a reverse-engineered/modified F-5) and the F-22 to be on the same level, just because it was developed within the 1990s-2000s? From what I can see, the community has categorized the fighters based on the generally accepted performance envelopes of each generation, unless I'm unaware of a certain specifications guideline the community uses to classify aircraft. Maybe one can state the specialized fighter variants (as opposed to the entire line of Harrier aircraft) within the article, but I doubt that one can justify lumping the teen fighters and the harrier into one group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.184.238 (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
E.G.- Arming a B-52 with AIM-120s doesn't make it a fighter, other factors come into play as well. Or... I guess for a more relevant analogy, some F-4s can fire AIM-120s. Does that make them 4th gen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.184.238 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questioning the Generations

What is really the difference between the 2nd and 3rd generation? As I see it, 1st generation is obvious (even a 0.5th generation for mixed propulsion aircraft might be appropriate, though none entered service), 2nd generation is defined by routine supersonic flight and focus on missile armament, 3rd generation is just "better?", 4th generation restored the focus on ACM and on multi-role designs, and 5th generation is defined by stealth.

Reading through, I see four generations in US designs: 1(P80-F86). Design has jet engines. 2(F100-F111). Design uses missiles, speed instead of agility. 3(F14-F/A18E). Focus on agility. 4(F22-present). Stealth.

A change in generations should be about a shift in design that forces a change in doctrine, not better airplanes. Just my opinion. The MiG-21 may be a more adaptable design than the Electric Lightning, but they were initially designed for similar tasks: use of air to air missiles for interception. They should be in the same generation.

Just my .02 on the Eurofighter debate: it looks like a late 4th generation to me: the focus is on speed and maneuverability, it wasn't built as a stealth aircraft from the ground up. The JSF is clearly 5th gen, so supercruise doesn't seem to be very defining. Modernizations of the 3rd generation F-4 (Kurnass 2000) can supercruise, and even the 2nd generation Electric Lightning could do it without combat loads.

Stealth changes the rules of the game entirely: as I understand it, it doesn't matter if the Eurofighter could beat the F22 in a dogfight if the F22 doesn't choose to engage it.

Hard and fast rules aren't really going to fly, though, since even though the Yak-38 isn't supersonic it's clearly not a 1st generation fighter.

I'm not making any changes to the article, I'm no expert. Just some opinions.150.148.0.27 (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right, "generations" are indeed a "design philosophy", although the realm of the possible is shaped by the latest available (or nearly available) technology. A more extensive description is available above. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I'm going to go ahead and remove this.
Mullhawk (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to repeat that junk here, so I've removed it, even though we don't usually edit the comments of others. No need to preserve that kind of crap! In this case, the vandal changed the text, not just added words, so you should have reverted, not deleted. Also, there was actually alot more vandalism than just what you changed, so I had to go back several edit sessions to get it all. It takes a while to learn all this, so don't worry about not knowing how to do it yet. You did good spotting for us, and that's a big help. - BillCJ (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries about edititng my post. I'm still pretty new to wikipedia but i think it'd been there for a long while seeing as the the history said the page had been reverted several times. I'll figure all this out eventually.
Mullhawk (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weight vs Rate of fire

BOTH these are legitimate terms - one means the total mass of the shells delivered by (say) the gun(s) of a fighter in a given time - the other to the number of rounds fired. A small calibre weapon with a higher rate of fire may well have a lower weight of fire than a slower firing gun firing a larger calibre round.

I mention this as someone edited "weight" to "rate" inappropriately (I have corrected this). Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PAK FA pictures

There are some speculative pictures about the PAK FA showing up on the page that are given as "user made" and therefore legitimate to include. WP:NOR forbids this, maybe? "Original synthesis" might be a better term than "original research", but particularly for a plane whose final planform hasn't been confirmed, any user art should probably state why it's from a reliable source and isn't just rampant speculation.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 5th Gen

The text explaining the newest gen has a few elements that are not unique to it.

Super cruise > no.

highly integrated avionics > The euro fighter is as integrated and modular as the F22 (maybe not on the same scale,but not all 4th gen fighters are equal either).

'Advance' radar > really vague term.

composites > no,the "4.5" has plenty of this.

Really the only thing that really differentiates the 4.5 and 5 are the stealth from the ground up design and the trust vectoring.

How far you integrate stealth is also more of a design issue.Less stealthy features means a cleaner aircraft aerodynamically.

--Technosphere83 (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A "second generation" Fighter Aircraft article?

I've done a fair amount of scouring the web to try and find a reliable source that uses a set of jet fighter generations that is consistent. The definition of "second generation" is probably the flakiest, with some sources (including our current setup) considering the MiG-15 a first generation fighter, and others talking about a similar aircraft (the FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II) as a "2nd generation fighter". Some other proposals for structuring this article:

"War centric"

  • World War I fighters
  • World War II fighters
  • Fighter aircraft of the Korean War (including things like the F-82 and other prop-powered aircraft of the early jet era)
  • Fighter aircraft of the Vietnam War
  • Fighter aircraft of the Falklands War
  • Fighter aircraft of the Gulf Wars
Should include the Iran-Iraq wars, not just Desert Storm etc...

This is a very US-centric setup, and there are some other notable 20th century wars, but they're mostly civil wars (Chinese Civil War) or other conflicts where air superiority was not heavily contested and the "pure fighter" role wasn't very important. The Falklands was not a major war, but air power played a substantial role in it. This setup focuses on how the aircraft were used, not so much what they are.

"Role centric"

  • Multi-role fighters (Most modern fighter aircraft fall in this role)
  • Air superiority fighters (The "true fighter" role, including escort fighters)
  • Armed scouts (Mostly WWI aircraft that had guns but were not designed for fighting, but the S in the JAS Gripen is for reconnaisance, so might be worth mentioning there.)
  • Interceptors (Battle of Britain and German air defense, AAM-centric designs now called "2nd and 3rd generation", YF-12 and MiG-25, etc...)
  • Fighter-bombers ("Strike Fighter" and the blurred line between a true fighter and an attack aircraft, i.e. the reporting names that lump attack aircraft with fighters)

This would be more of a "summary article" that directs a user to the various subtypes of fighter aircraft. The subarticles are in various states of disrepair.

Just some ideas on how to get away from the bridle of the "generations" which are possibly WP:OR and a source of a lot of unproductive arguments. Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment that the WW I "armed (single seater) scouts" really WERE single seat fighters. As a contemporary pilot remarked "I wouldn't know what to do if I was asked to 'scout' something". I appreciate your effort to get away from the ambiguities of "generations" - but there are going to be just as many "grey areas" with either of your ideas - some aircraft had a major role in more than one war, many served in more than one role. I'm sure the "unproductive arguments" would continue! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm also trying to pull this article away from being a "list of fighter aircraft" and into an actual discussion of how they're used, why they matter in combat, etc... Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)