Talk:Fighter aircraft/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

It could have been comparable to F-22 Raptor. If it was a stealth aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.96.6 (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2008 (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

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.

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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.

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

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)

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)

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)

5th/6th generation

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)

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)

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).

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 4^th generation fighters, but about 4^th, 4.5^th, and 5^th generation fighters. This is absurd unless we 1) split Fourth generation jet fighter into two articles for 4^th and 5^th 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 4^th and 5^th generation pages seems as though it would attract vandalism like a magnet. Have you committed to the 4/5^th 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 Smith^chatter 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 Smith^chatter 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:

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.
Tactics
Technology - tho this is probably better covered in history, still could be covered separately to some degree
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 Smith^chatter 08:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I honestly think that there is nothing really wrong with the "generation" idea, as a general concept, if we don't get bogged down in meaningless waffle about what belongs to what generation. It forms a useful way of looking at the broad changes in the size, shape and function of fighters over time. You can't do this without mentioning the names of particular fighter types really - so to an extent this article WILL be a "list of fighter aircraft", however you might organise it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My problem is mostly with the early generations. I created a first generation jet fighter article, and in writing it I found myself describing two distinct groups of aircraft: WWII-era prop designs with jet engines like the Me-262, and Korean War era aircraft broadly similar to the MiG-15 with swept wings, transonic stability (Mach 1 in a dive), and early missile armament. Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Many people would actually class the ME 262 and the early marks of the Meteor (and other jets of similar vintage) with WWII aircraft anyway. Still and all - does it necessarily make a great deal of difference? As I said - any kind of division (time/conflict/function/"generation") is going to have grey edges, and (perforce) have to cover various disparate things. The most important thing is that the subject matter itself remains the main point - and not the way it is organised, --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Chart Picture

Why isn't the Eurofighter Typhoon included in the chart picture as a United Kingdom aircraft? If because of it being a multi-national aircraft then why is the Panavia Tornado shown? If it's because it's a new aircraft then why are such likes as the MIG 35 shown which is even newer? 89.168.179.28 (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, really. I re-captioned it as "examples" because it's extremely non-comprehensive. Actually, I have another problem with it: look at the MiG 35 in the chart, and then look at the MiG 35 article. The Fulcrum is a "wing and tailplane" planform, but the chart makes it look like a "wing and canard" planform. I think someone confused it with Mikoyan Project 1.44 when making the chart, actually. Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

5th Gen is all about quiet awareness. It's an aircraft design that shares information between combat platforms without revealing itself to hostile forces. A 4.5 gen fighter is a network warrior. A 5th gen is a member of a quiet network. So if the aircraft is not stealthy then it's not 5th gen and if it can't carry weapons without blowing stealth then it's not 5th gen and if it can't operate its radar or radio without giving itself and its buddies away then it's not 5th gen. Any questions? Hcobb (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Making this article less of a list

Since the article currently addresses aircraft by generation, maybe it would be better to have just an "example" of an aircraft from each generation. In many cases, as has been shown with the 'phoon, what generation an aircraft belongs to is unclear. In many cases, though, the generation is relatively obvious, and these aircraft can be used for the purpose of discussion of the attributes of a fighter of that generation. I'd propose just using examples in the text and avoiding the lists or making the lists into a separate article.

In this way, we could avoid mentioning aircraft that are of uncertain generation and keep the focus on the narrative instead of what aircraft belongs in what section. For example, the Me-262 and F-86 are obviously first generation, the English Electric Lightning obviously second, the Mirage III clearly third, the Su-27 clearly fourth, the Su-30MKI obviously 4.5th, and the Raptor obviously fifth.

This way, we can avoid having the obvious problem with the Typhoon. It also focuses the article on actually describing the developments and less about "my plane is better than yours". SDY (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Generation" classification

I think it needs to be acceped that the generational classification is used here as a useful way of organising the article, but that it has little or no real value apart from this role. Quibbles about which generation a particular type belongs to - and decriptions of alternate generational classifications are not very relevant to this already rather long article - however interesting they may be in their own right. (IMHO, anyway).--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not just mention the "generations" in this article (which should be generic, not specific), and go into further detain on the "fighter generations" issue on a separate (specific) article? As a bonus, the potentially controversial content (eg: agreeing what defines a "Generation" and which aircraft are include in what generation) would be moved out of this one, and its length would also be reduced. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That has actually been proposed by myself and others. IMHO, it would even be preferable to some of the separate "generation" articles that have been forked off. Such a split, though, would require a major rework, and this year the focus has been cleaning up what had been an atrocious mess a year ago. The past few months, the focus has been getting this article "cleaned up" for WP 0.7 – a DVD-based edition of Wikipedia that was to have already gone on sale, but is running behind schedule. We've just about completed a major rewrite and expansion of the article, but it still has far to go, especially in the area of adding source citations. If you'd like to help with that, your assistance would be greatly appreciated! Askari Mark (Talk) 03:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've nearly finished reading/assessing the whole article (which IMHO is a good one, albeit lenghty!). I've identified 2 possible "quick" contributions I can make at this point:

Reorganize a bit the layout to make it clearer (add tables for aircraft; consistency checks; align pics "right");
Put place-markers where I feel there should be a source citation (and if I have access to the source, actually adding it).

If you (or anyone else!) feel that this offer is good enough without making other contributor's work messy, then I'll do what I'm proposing. Does it sound good?
Cheers, DPdH (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since this discussion is likely to be missed inasmuch as it’s in an old thread, I hope you won’t mind my refactoring it into a new section below. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is continually edit-warred over and since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it's practically impossible to avoid having folks edit to their opinion. BTW, I would point out that each of the attributes you point out for Gen 4.5 actually did appear in 4th Gen aircraft (although, of course, what was "modern" for Gen 4 isn't quite the same as for Gen 4.5). What would help to "anchor" it one way or the other would be to have one or more citations from reliable, highly respected aviation sources not directly or indirectly involved with the development of the Tejas. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds like a plan. Perhaps something from Janes... BTW, where did the LCA go? 128.189.137.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC).

F-35

I was disappointed that someone changed the article to state the F-35 as US only. This is like stating the Eurofighter as British only because they originally came up with the prototype. Any country who participates in an aircraft's development should be correctly stated as so. Usergreatpower (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Generation aircraft lists

I've had a couple of types of changes I've been adding that Flayer has objected to and reverted which I'd like to get broader feedback on.

First, in a few places I've found it advisable to add a brief note. Flayer prefers that the lists be straight lists and nothing else (other than, apparently, flags and country names). One example of this has been my note that the Ju 88 variants listed are night fighters, so that it is clear why bomber types are included in a list of fighters. It's not automatically apparent from just clicking through to the Ju 88 article.

The second issue deals with whether a long-lived general aircraft type “can’t appear twice” even when it has undergone extensive redesign during its production history. Currently, the issue is over whether the early MiG-21F day fighter can be 2nd-Gen, while the later MiG-21MF/bis multirole fighters are 3rd-Gen. It is so treated by some analysts. If doing so is verboten, then we have a major problem with the Gen 4.5 list. For instance, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet would need to come out (even though everybody calls it a Gen 4.5), as well as most other aircraft currently listed as Gen 4.5, such as the MiG-29M/35, Su-30/35/37 (including Su-30MKK/MKI), J-11B, F-15E Strike Eagle (and all later derivatives), F-16C/D Block 52 (and all later derivatives), and perhaps others. I would like to develop a consensus on this before I begin work on rewriting the Gen 4.5 section.

Another issue I haven't gotten to yet is the Technology Demonstrators subsection. Technically, "generations" apply to fielded fighters; I've never seen TDs referred to this way. There is a question in my mind as to whether the whole subsection should be removed as irrelevant to 5th-Gen fighters. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I appreciate your contribution!

I fixed the link so now it points to the exact Ju 88 variants you mean. If we show the way to add comments, it would never stop. Anyone would immediately add a comment in our lists, so we better keep the lists straight.

Actually, aircraft "can" appear twice or more if we mention the exact version. I have no problem with MiG-21F as a 2nd-Gen, MiG-21MF/bis as a 3rd-Gen, and an imaginary MiG-21XYZ/whatever as a 4th-Gen, even if the links lead to the same article. So there is also no problem with F-18 and others.

Generally, I agree that the whole TD subsection should be removed. I have been thinking of an article comprising all fighter aircraft that never completed or never entered serial production for any reason. Such article could also have generations and could include technology demonstrators Flayer (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Flayer, I’ve been meaning to commend you on the extensive work that you (along with Ramif47 and a few others) have done on this article. It was in horrid shape at the beginning of the year, so I can appreciate just how far it has come along. I certainly understand where you’re coming from regarding the addition of comments, but I’m not sure that a very limited number of clarifications would by themselves open Pandora’s door, if you will, to a flood of descriptive fancruft comments that couldn’t be ruled out on that basis.

As for the “appears twice” formulation, I’m not dead set on it. As I pointed out earlier, some analysts treat it so, but not all do. While the “appears twice” formulation is probably the more accurate for the MiG-21, it could also be used by some people to justify adding upgraded aircraft to the lists of later generations. That’s why I’m looking for broader consensus. In fact, I’m still debating removal of the F-15E and F-16 from the Gen 4.5 list. While the F-16 has certainly undergone a more extensive degree of evolution than the MiG-21 (and the F-15E much less so), perhaps only AESA-equipped variants should be eligible for Gen 4.5. With the F-15E, though, this was only a retrofit, while the Falcon became a new model, the F-16E/F, with a number of other notable modifications as well. I’ve yet to find there’s a consensus among analysts (as opposed to marketers) whether they’re 4th or 4.5; more tend to refer to them as the former than as the latter.

An article on TDs and “might-have-beens” sounds quite intriguing. I’m not sure the TDs can be reliably pegged to generations, but they often tested approaches that, if successful, became fundamental “must-haves” for future fighters. It’s long been my position that even the failures have value in that they showed us where not to go. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Personally I may agree with some (small and minimalistic) comments, but is it that necessary? Obviously, it is true and objective that the listed Ju 88 variants are night fighters, but is also true that F-16 is a multirole fighter, and the F-15E/I is a strike-fighter, and the F-22 is an air-superiority stealth fighter. Would we ad all these comments? I think we should avoid comments when it is possible.

As for "appears twice", I hope we can maintain the article without removing Gen 4.5 variants, and without unjustified adding of upgraded aircraft to the lists of later generations. Flayer (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Dassault Mirage III

I'm not convinced, that Dassault Mirage III belongs to the 2nd generation. It was introduced in the early 1960s, it differs much from Étendard IV and Super Mystère toward newer fighters, it looks more like 3rd generation.

Does IAI Nesher belong to the same generation as Mirage III, or as Dassault Mirage 5? Obviously as Mirage 5. Does Mirage 5 belong to the same generation as Mirage III? It seems to me, that Mirage 5 belongs to 3rd generation even strongly than Mirage III. Mirage 5 first flew in 1967 (late 60s!), having quite similar characteristics as most 3rd generation fighters. Is it a fighter at all? It was designed to be a strike fighter, with enhanced air-to-ground capabilities, bu still it was made upon an airframe of Mirage III, maintaining its air-to-air capabilities. It seems to me, that it is no less fighter than Sukhoi Su-32/34 'Fullback'. By the way, IAI Nesher certainly was a fighter.

I suggest placing Dassault Mirage III, Dassault Mirage 5, and IAI Nesher in third generation list. Or at least Dassault Mirage 5 and IAI Nesher. Flayer (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Mirage III first flew in 1956 and entered service in 1961, which are well within the 2nd Gen timeframe. The Mirage 5 was simply an attack variant of the standard Mirage IIIE. The principle difference was removal of some avionics systems to open up room for increased fuel carriage; externally, they’re very similar. The Mirage 50 was essentially a re-engined Mirage 5 with more up-to-date avionics retrofitted, along with a new radar. These changes are insufficient to advance the Mirage 5/50 to a new generation; in fact, there’s more difference between ENAER’s Pantera modification and the Mirage 50 than there was between the Mirage III and the 50. Indeed, a key reason sales of the Mirage 50 were so dismal was because the basic Mirage III design was obsolete. It is not uncommon for people to speak of the “Mirage III/5/50 series” because of the intimacy of their lineage. That was essentially the way I was trying to list it, but my annotation was removed. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, OK. We shall list Mirage 5. Flayer (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Listing it as the Mirage III/5 is fine by me. Personally, though, I see little need to list all minor derivative and copies. "Generations" are, after all, design generations and it's the basic airplane that's the important thing to capture in an article like this. I'm not sure, for instance, that all the Chinese J-series up through the J-7 (plus the J-11) should be included; they are essentially reverse-engineered MiGs (and a Sukhoi). It doesn't hurt anything, though, and some readers don't know about this. As long as the variants added don't encourage cruft growth in the lists or transgress their origin's design generation, it hurts nothing. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 01:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good. We already have J-5, J-6, J-7, J-8, J-10, J-12 and some minor derivatives. Anything else? Do you think we should ad Nanchang Q-5 as a strike-fighter, based on a MiG-19 fighter? It retains some air-to-air capabilities... I only hope it wouldn't lead us to SEPECAT Jaguar, F-1 and other ground-attack aircraft based on ground-attack airframe. Flayer (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't understand you properly. I think we should keep what we have now. Flayer (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

AIDC IDF C/D

With two fighters already delivered to the ROCA (Republic of China Air Force), and significant upgrades to avionics, electronics and capability would that fit the criteria of being in the 4.5 generation fighter plane or does it still count as a 4th generation fighter plane. kliu1 (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, upgrading fighters doesn't in of itself advance the "generation" of a fighter. These generations are "design generations" and upgrades are intended to keep existing fighters relevant in modern combat by retrofitting more modern technologies onto the airplane. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Technology demonstrators

I have removed the TD section from the article as it's not relevant here; however, I'm posting the code here for the convenience of anyone who would like to use it elsewhere. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Technology demonstrators

*  Japan
** Mitsubishi ATD-X (maiden flight expected in 2014)
*  Russia
** Sukhoi Su-47 'Firkin' (maiden flight achieved in 1997)
** Mikoyan Project 1.44 'Flatpack' (maiden flight achieved in 2000)
*  United States
** Lockheed Martin YF-22 Lightning II (maiden flight achieved in 1990)
** Northrop YF-23 Black Widow II (maiden flight achieved in 1990)
** Boeing Bird of Prey (maiden flight achieved in 1996)
** McDonnell Douglas X-36 (maiden flight achieved in 1997)
** Lockheed Martin X-35 (maiden flight achieved in 2000)
** Boeing X-32 JSF (X-32A achieved maiden in 2000, X-32B achieved maiden in 2001)

There are only 2 fifth-generation fighters in production now. And that is most recent generation of fighters. Fighter aircraft's technology demonstrators do show readers how they were and are involving. And totally relevant to the article subject. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 06:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Partnership football"

One thing we need to nail down is what nation(s) to list for nationalities on programs like F-35, PAK-FA and FGFA. The key question is what we’re listing: prime manufacturers or participants. In consortia like those for the Panavia Tornado and the Eurofighter Typhoon, who to list is clear – they’re all primes and partners. With the F-35, Lockheed Martin is the clear prime, but there are two ways to look at the rest. Major development and production partners are BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman. The other countries are partners in the sense that they contributed development funding support and some expertise and they will have sub-contractor manufacturing roles; however, Alenia will also have a licensed assembly facility for Italian and Dutch F-35s. (Note that there were production lines for the F-16 in Belgium, the Netherlands, Turkey and South Korea, but they aren’t included.)

With PAK-FA, the Russians froze the design before the co-development agreement was signed (and the final contract is still being negotiated), so neither India nor Brazil will have an important design role in the aircraft; they’re mainly supplying cash for “productionizing” it. FGFA is the evolving contract formula to include India as some sort of post-hoc development partner, mainly by giving India the lead responsibility for the two-seat variant. Details regarding technology transfer and workshares are still being negotiated. I’ve not yet seen much on Brazil’s role, but I suspect it will mainly involve funding and licensed-production of Brazilian aircraft and perhaps some sub-assembly work as well.

So, should the list of nations include a) primes alone; b) nations with key roles in the aircraft’s design and development, e.g., primes and major partners (like the LM/Boeing F-22); c) nations with production lines, or d) any nation with a role in design and development, financing, and/or notable subcontractor responsibility for subassemblies? Thoughts? Askari Mark (Talk) 18:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I give my voice for 3 nations for Panavia Tornado, 4 nations for Eurofighter Typhoon, 2 nations for F-35 (by the way, Elbit Systems of Israel developed the futuristic helmet for F-35) - US and UK, and 3 nations for PAK FA / FGFA (founding is a major role for it, and maybe Brazil’s role will be more then that, we don't know yet.) Flayer (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

We may also do something like this:

Russia / India / partners
- Sukhoi PAK FA / FGFA (maiden flight expected in 2009^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4])
United States / United Kingdom / partners
- Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (maiden flight achieved in 2006)

Flayer (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the Panavia Tornado, it's true that the IDS (Interdictor/Strike) version was a trinational development, used by the Air Forces of the participant sountries (UK, Germany, Italy). However, the ADV (Air Defense/Interceptor) version was developed by British Aerospace in response to a RAF operational requirement (see: p.139-144, "Air War At Night", by Robert Jackson. Howell Press Inc., Charlottesville, VA, 2000. ISBN 1-57427-116-4). Hence, it's pretty much a british version of an international aircraft.
As such I'm removing the flags of Germany and Italy, to highlight this fact. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please also note that I do agree with the rest of what's said in this section (only disagree related to the Tornado ADV). 8) Cheers, DPdH (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the the flags of Germany and Italy, as stated above. Regards, DPdH (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

JF-17 is a 3rd Generation Aircraft

Okay, so I was wondering about the JF-17's classification as a 4th generation aircraft. I don't agree, I think it's third, and here are my references to back it up:

[1] From The News, Pakistan: "The JF-17 Thunder is a light combat aircraft, a single-engine fighter with all-weather capability, which Pakistan has developed with the help of the Chinese. It is a *THIRD-GENERATION* fighter that has been so designed that it can take on the fourth-generation fighter aircraft." [The News,Pakistan ^ | 2/8/2008 | Ali Abbas Rizvi ]

[2] From Global Security: "wlet dragon/FC-1 airplane had achieved the *THIRD GENERATION* fighter aircraft synthesis" [3]

I've moved it to the 3rd generation category accordingly. 128.189.137.17 (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for offering sources and not just changing text without them! I wish more anons would have the courtesy to do so. I’ve done some follow-up research. Most reliable sources are saying the JF-17 is a third-generation fighter designed to be able to challenge early fourth-generation fighters (principally through having a high climb rate). Oddly, most of the sources I’ve come across saying it is 4th-Gen are Indian. Accordingly, I’m relisting it as 3rd-gen and adding the sources offered. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan newspaper as definative proof of what to classify it. Lol. Its fourth generation. Global security? where does it give generation. Also the idea of fc 1 has evolved from a suped up F 7 to a fourth gen fighter. There are many sources sources to say different. Who cares combat will prove it. 90.205.111.102 (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Jealousbhindian

HELLADS on Lockheed Martin aircraft since 2005

Please keep this addition. The fact that HEL exists for solely sixth generation aircraft is false.

Unique for Lockheed Martin 5th generation aircraft such as the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II is the fact General Atomics have picked Lockheed Martin to be the test bed for it's High Energy Laser Area Defense System since 2005. A HEL for fifth generation aircraft instead of sixth generation. This means a working HELLADS has been implemented on Lockheed Martin aircraft with beta firmware install into the test F-22's integrated processing unit and integrated operating system (Fly by Wire). [4] Renegadeviking (Talk) 19:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The basic thrust of this has been kept, but relocated to a more appropriate place, and unsubstantiated portions have been removed. Your original draft contains assertions not supported by your source. Specifically, it does not support the assertion that "a working HELLADS has been implemented on Lockheed Martin aircraft with beta firmware install into the test F-22's integrated processing unit and integrated operating system (Fly by Wire)." While that is indeed a hoped-for result, if the program is successful, such a success has not yet been reported to my knowledge. To be included, that would require separate verification through a different reliable source. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Needed clean-up work

(Refactored to new thread for greater visibility and broader discussion. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Hi, I've nearly finished reading/assessing the whole article (which IMHO is a good one, albeit lenghty!). I've identified 2 possible "quick" contributions I can make at this point:

Reorganize a bit the layout to make it clearer (add tables for aircraft; consistency checks; align pics "right");
Put place-markers where I feel there should be a source citation (and if I have access to the source, actually adding it).

If you (or anyone else!) feel that this offer is good enough without making other contributor's work messy, then I'll do what I'm proposing. Does it sound good?
Cheers, DPdH (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you’re coming to this article with fresh eyes, I think tagging where you feel sources need to be cited is a good idea. I would, though, advise against tagging individual aircraft entries in particular sections as that will look atrocious; generally, we need to add them in these cases only where challenged and most are non-controversial.

The “look” of the article does indeed need a thorough going over. IMO, the two worst aspects are the flat lists of aircraft and long columns of right-justified images. Issues needing discussion among the editors here include:

I think tables instead of flat lists might improve the appearance a good deal, particularly in decreasing the large expanses of white space. Possibilities include the one made for WWI notable aircraft and perhaps something along the line of a two-column format as was done for the interwar period (although that was done to place two different sublists side-by-side).
There is also a related issue raised by the WWI table of whether we should include extra information like IOCs; this has been done only for this one instance, and consistency would suggest doing it for all or for none.
I’m not at all sure what to do about the images. While I think some right-left alternation in the general text would break things up a bit, the “lists” of images are problematic. The first thought that comes to mind is to move them to a gallery; those are unpopular in Wikipedia, but this might be one of those rare instances where a good case can be made for employing them. Recent attempts at tinkering with placement of individual pics in these columns of images has proven problematic in that what works well for one browser may create a mess for those using another browser. Thoughts, suggestions and recommendations from others with more experience than me with image techniques would be welcome.

These are my thoughts; please contribute yours. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, will work (slowly, as I have scarce spare time) along these guidelines. Will comment your suggestions later (eg: IMHO we need to include IOC whenever known, this could be a good indication of "period/generation"). Any other comment on layout improvements, much appreciated. Regards, DPdH (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't worry about speed. Since we've entered the long holiday period, everything tends to slow down. I will have little free time to perform Wikiwork myself until after Christmas. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Two questions: "Notability" & "TD"s

Which is the criteria used to include a plane in a Notable Fighters... list/table? Maybe that it was used operationally and not merely being a prototype? That seems to be a bit narrow to me, and leaves some notable fighter prototypes (eg: the "Pulqui II") out (I'm speaking about prototupes clearly designed as fighters, not generic "TD"s).
What should be done with paragraphs/sections/lists dealing with "Technology Demonstrators"? Unless they're clearly related to a fighter aircraft being developed, IMHO they should be left off. But AFAIK there is no consensus on this.

Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability: As best I can tell, in practice, "notable" means "any fighter notable enough to have its own article" – that is, in effect, any fighter someone wants to add. The more fundamental issue is that an aircraft be predominantly a fighter (which is why we keep bouncing out aircraft like the F-15E, which was primarily intended for long-range strike) and that it have actually achieved its IOC (which is why the LCA keeps getting removed). Prototypes (like the Pulqui I) are not production-standard aircraft, but more proof-of-concept birds, which makes them more like TDs – and obviously they don't achieve IOC (or even enter combat service unless they are subsequently brought up to production standard). That's not to say they're not notable, but generally they are usually best addressed in the basic aircraft article.

TDs: See the thread I've created below to thresh out that very issue. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should we include current speculations about future SIXTH generation fighters?

First, only two 5th generation aircrafts in production now. F-22 and F-35. We are at the very dawn of 5th gen development/introduction. Most major players like Russia, China, India, Europe are still in research phase or in development phase. And it is still not clear what the final shape 5th generation will be. Just like developers of early 4th generation aircrafts did not thought about glass cockpit.

Second, we don't know when it is going to happen. It took more then 30 years to go from first 4th gen aircraft to first 5th generation fighter(F-22, year 2005). Reason for that - huge development cost of innovation. You can safely assume that first sixth gen will take even longer to build. What the world will look like in 2050? No one really know for sure. Thirty years ago there was no Internet, cellphones, digital photography and Soviet Union was around.

Third, we don't even know if 6th generation jet fighters will ever be created. With widespread use of BVR (beyond visual range) technologies even within 5th generation aircrafts and rise of UAV, manned fighters might eventually be replaced by advanced drones. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 08:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Six cents (not inflation, just three times two):

Advanced drones will still be fighter aircraft, the "flying stuff that attacks other flying stuff" role (the core definition of a fighter) is unlikely to go away.
I think policy allows inclusion of speculations have been raised about what the "next step" in design will be and that some of those speculators may call it a "sixth generation," but not include substantial details like specific features or operational requirements.
I don't think that reporting speculation about future generations is a useful addition to the article even if it is allowed by policy. SDY (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comments make sense to me. However, if serious sources are already talking about a "6th Gen" being considered, at least a hint should be included so the article can make a casual reader aware of current ideas of future evolution of fighters. Maybe a totally new article can be created to deal with this topic (which might also include all references to technology demosntrators currently present in this article), and be linked from this one? Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there is quite obviously some disagreement about what WP:CRYSTAL says, I would recommend all commenting editors read what it actually says before commenting further:

Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analysis. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims. (Emphasis in bold added.)

I think we can all agree that if sixth-generation aircraft were already here, it would merit an article, just as First generation jet fighter and Fourth generation jet fighter do now, so hopefully we can dispense with that qualification without further debate.

The second qualification is most germane to the issue here. Note that it does NOT say that we CANNOT present what qualified experts say “about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur”; it simply requires that they be properly referenced. Furthermore, it is clear that since these authoritative and reliable sources do not know what the actual outcome will be, so they are “speculating” – and it is incumbent upon us to make that clear to readers. That said, there’s a great deal of difference between the speculations by experts in the field and those in blogs or generated by a few boys bellied up to the bar on Friday night.

The sourced section I introduced follows those rules closely. Specifically,

I made it clear up front that it’s speculation; if you don’t consider what is possible, then you won’t invest in its development to see whether it works, and ipso facto, there is no progress.
Every statement is verifiable. Much of it isn’t new; a decade ago, Congress passed a non-binding “sense of the Congress” resolution that the USAF’s combat fleet should be unmanned by 2010. Even TP acknowledges this (although he appears to miss the point that “unmanned drones” can be fighters too). Moreover, the sources (USAF, USN, DARPA) provided discuss actual programs underway to advance the development of the technologies mentioned to potentially make them available, and actual efforts have already begun to define the services’ requirements for “next-generation” or “sixth-generation” fighters. These are already established facts – which TP says above that he doesn’t mind seeing left, yet summarily deletes with everything else. In any case, none of this is speculation on my part.
The timelines reported are taken directly from official statements. Yes, the development of a new fighter can take decades, but this is business as usual. As soon as a new fighter enters production, conceptual design of its replacement has already begun. However, the initial phases of development of an advanced technology don’t march in lockstep, time-wise, and work on most of the mentioned technologies has been ongoing for years (decades in the case of hypersonics); the impact of a new fighter development program can, though, increase the pace of development by driving higher investment priorities. (Personal professional experience, not OR.) Again, the text supplied makes no suggestion of whether or when a particular technology might prove sufficiently mature.
At no point is there any statement about what capabilities a sixth-generation fighter will (or will not) have. Some technologies may not pan out; others might not be realizable until a “seventh generation” is developed. To try to assert that these fighters will, for instance, be armed with tactical lasers is the essence of what WP:CRYSTAL proscribes, not what experts are predicting might be available at the time. If I’m wrong on this, I submit that all of the material in Global warming related to predictions of trends and impacts need to be completely excised; the fact that this article has achieved FA status suggests I’m not far off the mark in my interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL.

As I stated in good faith prior to this RfC being filed, I have decided to not reintroduce the section until I have more extensively sourced the statements, so I’m quite content to see how this RfC unfolds. In fact, I will probably be unable to make further comments or contributions here for the remainder of the month, due to real-life exigencies. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no point in including sixth generation fighters unless a company says they are developing one becuase there might not even be a sixth generation fighter there are hardly any 5th generation fighters--Kangaroo2 (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

TD or not TD ... that is the question

Since Test Pilot continues to reintroduce a section on Technology Demonstrators without explanation, I think it is incumbent upon him to describe exactly what purpose it is supposed to serve and – most especially – how he proposes that it should be integrated into this article. Right now, with no context for non-cognoscenti, it’s as apropos to this article as a picture of Dumbo the flying elephant’s famous strafing scene.

As I have stated before, but will summarize here for convenience, I can think of more reasons not to include TDs than to include them:

First and foremost, while TDs have an obvious role in developing and testing new technologies for fighters, this article is about fighters, not technology demonstrators (a topic which could certainly do with an article of its own).
I cannot recall any authoritative source that applies fighter generation labels to TDs. In fact, they’re rarely intended to be representative of a production article, and most are incapable of acting in a combat role. To impute jet fighter generations to TDs without such citations makes their inclusion a matter of WP:OR and WP:SYN.
If we’re going to add lists of TDs used to support the development for 5th (and, in the case of the extant list), also 4.5 Gen fighters, then they should be worked into the text – and the same should also be done for all of the other generations of jet fighters as well as the various eras of non-jet fighters. The result, of course, as I have pointed out earlier, would be an article at least twice as long as and probably much longer than it currently is. The value of such an expansion is questionable and certainly begs WP:UNDUE.
“Fighter aircraft” is a summary article. It is impossible and unwise to include here everything that could possibly be said about fighters, their development, and employment. That is why more detailed articles have already been split off for more extensive development of specific jet fighter generation articles. Those articles are IMO a much better place to focus on further details of the key R&D programs that influenced technology development and maturation for the respective generation. I’ve already suggested that the current TD list better belongs in the Fourth generation jet fighter article. Test Pilot says it doesn’t – without explanation – which begs the question why he put it there as well. Obviously he feels they are “5th generation”, and that’s the only “daughter article” that addresses 5th generation jet fighters (at present); obviously, if he doesn’t like it there, he’s free to start a separate article specifically on “Fifth generation jet fighters” – there is, in fact, a consensus on the 4th Gen Talk page there for doing so, only no one yet has.

I could offer more, but I think this covers the fundamental issues TP needs to thoughtfully and convincingly address, since he seems to be the only one who insists this list must be in this article.

Again, as I mentioned in the 6th Gen RfC, this is all I have to say on this issue for the remainder of the month. Between a funeral late this week and Thanksgiving travel the next week, I’ll be on a much-needed Wikibreak. I can live with whatever the other editors here decide. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that, for the sake of simplicity (brevity?), details about TDs (and also about fighter prototypes that hadn't seen operational service or went into series production, eg: the argentinian Pulqui II) should be included in a specific wikiarticle. Which should be linked to this article, in appropriate places. What I cannot imagine is which structure that article should have... maybe similar to this one, to keep consistency? Regards, DPdH (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Question here is about 5th generation technology demonstrator links, not article/section. No details - just links for to inspire visitor to read about current and past development program. Like ATD-X for example. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 10:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

First, Askari Mark is a lier. He was one who deleted section without any explanation. I have explained my point here on talk page in Technology Demonstration section. AM never bother to reply and next thing created this section with words "Test Pilot continues to reintroduce a section on Technology Demonstrators without explanation".

Here is the section that AM trying to delete:

====Technology demonstrators====

Japan
- Mitsubishi ATD-X (maiden flight expected in 2014)
Russia
- Sukhoi Su-47 'Firkin' (maiden flight achieved in 1997)
- Mikoyan Project 1.44 'Flatpack' (maiden flight achieved in 2000)
United States
- Lockheed Martin YF-22 Lightning II (maiden flight achieved in 1990)
- Northrop YF-23 Black Widow II (maiden flight achieved in 1990)
- Boeing Bird of Prey (maiden flight achieved in 1996)
- McDonnell Douglas X-36 (maiden flight achieved in 1997)
- Lockheed Martin X-35 (maiden flight achieved in 2000)
- Boeing X-32 JSF (X-32A achieved maiden in 2000, X-32B achieved maiden in 2001)

My reason for inclusion of LIST(no descriptiom, just links with dates) - first, there only two 5th generation fighter aircrafts in production as of now. Most projects/countries are still in development phase.

Second, due to complexity of 5th Generation fighters it is a first time technology demonstrators was such a crucial part of development efforts.

Third, this is just a list with links, to inspire visitor to research topic of the section further. There is no good reason as to why to delete list. 5th generation list section even with Technology demonstrators still smaller compare to other generations. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 10:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of these, such as the X-36, are pure research aircraft (i.e. not fighters), and others, such as the X-32, are rejected prototypes (i.e. not particularly notable). The ATD-X hasn't been built yet and inclusion is a bit of a WP:CRYSTAL issue. None of these meet my expectations of "notable fighter aircraft." SDY (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

First, TP, I strongly object to being called a “liar”; I may be mistaken, but I don’t lie. Do not ever call me that again TP, or you will be the subject of an RfC. Contrariwise, I did explain my reason for removing it – and even copied the removed material to preserve it. That you apparently could not be bothered to look for it until 06:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC) does not make me a liar. If you had read it, and disagreed with it, then you could have asked for clarification and discussion. As it is, nobody else has had a problem with it. Since your latest reinsertion of the TD section – at 02:14, 18 November 2008 – has a revision note of “Removing unexplained deletion per talk page”, nearly a day afterwards, means you had read it – so don’t call the kettle black. The reason I had not responded to your note on the TD thread is because I missed it. It’s been a stale thread and my attention was focused on the more current issue. Since the TD issue is something you were slipping in “under the radar” of the 6th Gen changes (with never a separate explanation of why it was being added), there was no reason for me to look for it. Perhaps if you had reinserted the TD separately, with an appropriate note, you wouldn’t have had to embarrass yourself calling me a liar.

Returning to the discussion at hand, I do not see any substantive responses to the several points I have made. This article is about fighters, not TDs; that TDs can have a role in the development of fighters is undisputed. However, you offer a list that doesn’t even make clear that they are relevant to 5th Gen at all. They are not mentioned in the text at all, and a reader lacking a serious background in military aviation could be excused for thinking that these applied to all jet fighter generations. If they are to be integrated into the text, then you need to offer two clear explanations of “how” that should be accomplished and how the same is to be accomplished for all of the other generations and periods – all without transgressing WP:UNDUE. There is also the unanswered question of whether it’s really a desirable feature for this summary article when, as I have pointed out repeatedly, there are better options which would allow them to be more robustly addressed. As it currently stands, it’s a “flying Dumbo” list whose location implies that the included aircraft are all, in of themselves, "5th generation jet fighters". To that extent, it is WP:OR and WP:SYN. Technologies are not “5th gen jet fighters” and no single one of them even qualifies a particular aircraft to be counted as one.

I would like to see some thoughtful, substantive responses to the objections I (and others) have given above. If they’re strong enough to convince the majority of the editors here of your position, fine, I can live with that – even if I’m not among those that concur. But offer solid, convincing, perhaps even unassailable reasons, not insults. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is the "Sea Harrier" not mentioned in this article?

Hi All, I've just noticed that this article makes no reference whartsoever to the only VTOL fighter (OK, "multirole" fighter) that has achieved IOC: the BAE Sea Harrier (I'm unsure the Yakovlev Yak-38 can be considered a "fighter"). The rationale for including the SHAR can be seen clearly after reading the wikiarticle about it. Technically and operationally can be considered a true "jet fighter" (just remember its use in the Falklands War).
I intend to rectify this omission by adding it to the list of 3rd generation "notable" fighters, and also adding a brief paragraph in that section. Will do this in the next few days, unless there is reasonabey fundamented opposition.
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Like the Russian equivalent, the Harrier in all incarnations isn't much of a fighter either, but it was conscripted into that role because the British didn't have any other aircraft capable of fitting it. The Yak-38 could be equipped with AA-8's, so it is technically just as much of a "fighter," but A-10's carry AIM-9's, so that's not much of a distinction. The Harriers are a special case because they were actually used in combat for that role, and are probably worth mentioning in the text and not as just another line on the list, since they weren't exactly designed for the fighter role (hence the A and GR designations), but I guess the original request for a "Light Tactical Support Fighter" says it all. They don't meet any of the usual expectations for a 3rd generation fighter, so they're really more "contemporaneous" rather than "of the same design principle." Singling out the Sea Harrier seems odd, but I guess it is the only one (that I'm aware of) that saw combat in that role. SDY (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Notability" for listing in this article

I'm looking at the "post world war II" section and for the most part I'm not seeing aircraft I would consider particularly notable. The Fireball and such are interesting technologically, but not particularly important in the "big picture" of history (they're no Spitfire, that's for sure).

Informally, I'd like to have a list of "expectations" for what gets listed and what does not. Again, I have my axe to grind that this article is quickly turning into a List of fighter aircraft, but...

I would propose that any fighter that does not meet one of the following be left out of the article:

1) Was used by at least three different customers (nations or branches of service) 2) or was used operationally by any customer for a long time (i.e. at least 15 years) 3) or had a large production run (i.e. 500+ planes) 4) or was used in at least one war (e.g. the SHAR question above)

Note that "all of the above" would in many ways be a better criterion to use, but generally these criteria go hand in hand (war-proven designs tend to get around). Prototypes and technology demonstrators should be mentioned in the text when they are helpful to make an example, but they should not be listed. SDY (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Mitsubishi F-1

Recently I added the Mitsubishi F-1 to the list of 3rd generation fighters. Of course it was removed and I know I should have waited for a discussion here first before doing something so drastic. Let us first establish that the Mitsubishi F-1 is indeed a fighter, on hand right this minute, the 'Encyclopedia of World Aircraft' (ISBN:1-85605-705) desrcibes the F-1 as a 'single-seat close-support and anti-ship attack fighter'. globalsecurity.org classifies it as a 'support fighter' and milavia.net classifies it as a 'multi-role light fighter', additionally, the Wikipedia pages in English and Japanese classifies the F-1 as a fighter. As to its generation classification, I assume thats the bone of contention as to place the the F-1 in either the 3rd or 4th genation of fighter aircraft. In the Japanese language Wikipedia, the F-1 is categorised as a 4th generation fighter and the Mitsubishi F-2 as a 4.5 generation fighter but there is no reference given (and the English language wikipedia places the F-2 in the 4th generation category). I believe this is the time to discuss the proper designation of the F-1 fighter so that we may gain a consensus on the issue. Semi-Lobster (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Close-support fighters", "anti-ship attack fighters" and any other semi-fighters have their own article: Ground-attack aircraft. Nanchang Q-5, Mitsubishi F-1, SEPECAT Jaguar, Soko J-22 Orao, Mikoyan MiG-27 and so on are nor fighters. Flayer (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

We simply cannot lump the Nanchang Q-5, SEPECAT Jaguar, Soko J-22 Orao and Mikoyan MiG-27 attack aircraft with every single fighter-bomber aircraft simply because they are equipped with a few SRAAMs, a fighter is a fighter by its design as much as its role. There is no such designation as a 'semi-fighter', the line between a fighter with attack capabilities and an attack aircraft with anti-aircraft capabilities is very well defined and one cannot lump the Mitsubishi F-1 with aircraft designed as an attack aircraft. For example, the Q-5 is described by www.sinodefense.com and all Chinese defense sites and books refer to it as solely as an attack aircraft, it is not a 'semi-fighter' as you have previously mentioned soley for the fact that it carries the PL-5 SRAAM, neither is the SEPCAT Jaguar. The Jaguar is reffered to as a tactical attack and reconnaissance aircraft at http://www.military-today.com/. One cannot argue that it is a fighter-bomber or 'semi-fighter' because for 10 years, from 1973 to 1983 the the Jaguar was not even armed with any AAMs at all until the Jaguar GR.Mk.1A, its main role is as an attacker with secondary, defensive SRAAMs added only after 10 years of service without them. The Mitsubishi F-1 on the otherhand was developed on parallel from the T-2 advanced fighter trainer (which was inspired but not developed from the Jaguar) for the role as a single seat fighter with additional inertial navigation system, radar warning avionics and EW systems and currently assigned to the fighter unit at Misawa (F-1s in Tsuiki have been retired) on defensive anti-shipping roles in a 'strike fighter' configuration similiar to the JSDF F-4EJ Kai. http://mil.s2.xrea.com/F-1.htm states that the Japanese definition of a 'Close-support fighter' is a fighter aircraft (area-denial) with additional anti-warship abilities. Semi-Lobster (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We can exclude all the ground-attack aircraft, close-support aircraft e.t.c, because they are not designed for combat with other fighters - it is not their primary role. Fighter-bombers are allowed, because they retain the airframe of fighters. Mitsubishi F-1, Nanchang Q-5, SEPECAT Jaguar, Soko J-22 Orao, G-4 Super Galeb, IAR-93, AMX, Mikoyan MiG-27, Sukhoi Su-25, Hawker Siddeley Harrier and BAE Harrier II are naturally excluded, no matter how many AAMs they carry. Flayer (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You haven't made any new arguments at all, I was pointing out that the aircraft you previously mention are ground attack aircraft with limited AA capabilities for self-defense and with an overall design emphasis on a structure and layout to maximize payload capacity while on the otherhand the Mitsubishi F-1 was designed for an equal emphasis on aircraft interception with anti-ship capabilities as well given the nature of its role. In terms of layout, design and mission, the Mitsubishi F-1 is similiar to the Sukhoi Su-17 and Xian JH-7A. You seem to be confused over the uniquely Japanese use of the term 'Close support fighter', but the use simply means a fighter with suppport capabilities. The very same designation is used for the Mitsubishi F-2 by Japan and the F-2 is certainly a figter aircraft (http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/支援戦闘機). If you do not believe F-1 to be a fighter, provide sources that state otherwise.Semi-Lobster (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

To further expand on the unique and politically charged origins of the Japanese term 'support fighter' '支援戦闘機' http://kikuchi.mook.to/AIRPLANE/f-1/index.htm explains that the term 'fighter-bomber' was deemed too 'offensive' for Japan and its 'Renunciation of war' in Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. Therefore 'support fighter' is not at all analogous with the English term 'close support aircraft' but merely a 'fighter-bomber', with 'support fighter' being a literal translation of the term. The term '支援戦闘機' is also used for the previously mentioned F-2 and the F-4EJ Kai fighters as well. Semi-Lobster (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sooooooo.... any consensus, new opinions or arguements on this yet? Or should I go ahead and just re-add the F-1? Semi-Lobster (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather leave it off from the standpoint that it's not particularly notable. Not very many (77 according to the article) have been built, it isn't exceptional in any form of performance or other attribute, and I'm not aware that any have been used in actual combat, major accident, et cetera. If this were a list of fighter aircraft you could make a strong argument for including it, but as far as I can tell the intent for the article is to provide some high profile examples, not a thorough list. SDY (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course I understand, we just cant add every single fighter ever, the list would become ridiculous which is why for example there is a more indepth 4th generation fighter page, just so this can be addressed but based on precedent. In my opinion, in terms of importance I think the Mitsubishi F-1 has been very notable. It may have been a relatively small production run, but it was Japan's FIRST indigenously developed jet fighter aircraft and the first Japanese developed fighter aircraft since WWII which to me seems rather important and indictive of Japan's renewed economic growth during the 1980s. In addition the production of 77 aircraft is still larger than the Atlas Cheetah for example (70 in total) which is a (heavily) modified Dassault Mirage III or the Sukhoi Su-33 which is a variant of the Su-27, has never seen action and only a handful have ever been built. BTW thanks for responding, I thought I was beginning to have a conversion with myself! Semi-Lobster (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

My personal bias would be to cut back the lists rather than increasing them, a separate list of fighter aircraft (currently a redirect) would take a lot of the cruft out of this article and let it focus on actual narrative rather than lists. I proposed some "list inclusion" criteria above. The F-1 is important for Japanese military history but not for a history of fighter aircraft. The "notables" should be limited (in my opinion) to things like the Zero (iconic), MiG 21 (broadly used), the Me 262 (revolutionary), and the F-22 (a sense of current technology); the article would "feel" incomplete without at least a nod to some specific aircraft, but the Skyray and the Lansen and the F-2 are just clutter. SDY (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you're probably on to something. I think the Fourth Generation fighter page has really helped clear up things and added some much needed depth. If it is something that could be agreed on by the whole 'community' than perhaps there could be a seperate page for each generation of fighter jet linked from the main fighter aircraft page(and perhaps prop fighters as well). Until then though there isn't really any sort of guidline as to this specific page other for the sake of completeness. It is in my opinion that until seperate pages are created for Third, Second and First generation fighter jets then I don't really think the addition of one aircraft will really cause a lot of problem until such action is undertaken. Especially given that pretty much every single jet fighter is already on the list. The days of where nearly every country could create their own fighter like in WWII are long gone. Perhaps to at least organise the clutter, rather than listing aircraft vertically, it could be done horizontally like with the inter-war aircraft to at least make the page 'shorter'. To stay on topic though, is it agreed that the Mitsubishi F-1 is indeed, a fighter aircraft? Semi-Lobster (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably go for an "operational use" definition for whether something is a fighter: was the F-1 ever used operationally in an air to air role? If not used operationally, were the pilots given more than cursory training for air to air combat? If they were used in a Red Flag (USAF) or similar exercise, that would be great evidence. In general, though, the discussion above about the SHAR is relevant: that was a fighter because it was used as a fighter, regardless of design. Just for the record, First Generation Fighter Aircraft exists. Second and third do not, I made the first but got frustrated by lack of sources giving any sort of line for those middle generations. The current first article has some statements in it that are possibly WP:OR and I'm not too comfortable with it. SDY (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

While I agree operational use is an important way to gauge the capablity of an aircraft, there are so many problems that line of reasoning would open up. Of course the F-1 has never seen operational use, many aircraft have never seen operational use but are still obviously fighters, the F-2, J-10, AIDC F-CK-1, Saab 35 etc. etc. while many aircraft that were obviously NOT fighters like the Junkers Ju 87, Ilyushin Il-2 and even the humble CAC Wirray were used in a 'fighter' role when needed even if they were not designed to. As for the F-1 themselves, the F-1 generally replaced the F-86F and have since been replaced by the F-4EJ Kai from other 'Hikotai' who themselves had recieved F-15Js as the limited production run of the F-1 made them difficult to operate without spares as the number of available F-1s shrank. As for fighter generation pages, I agree, its very dicey for the 2nd and 3rd generation of fighter jets when it comes to categorisation. I think though it could be possible to write such a page with enough consultation, but the difficulty is certainly much higher then writing the 1st and 4th generation fighter page, especially since the idea of aircraft generations is relatively new. Your 1st generation fighter page though is pretty darn well written IMO given the limited use of categorisation during the period. Even the F-1 is an example of the difficulty in categorising fighters. The Japanese wikipedi for example, because of its development period of the 70s and 80s, have it listed as a 4th generation fighter while in terms of capabilities, it can also be seen as a late 3rd generation fighter.Semi-Lobster (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

So... anything new? I know the page is considered 'long' but adding one more aircraft isn't going to do any harm, nor, given our discussion, cause any problems with precedent later on. Or does this still need more discussion? When we finally get a 2nd and 3rd generation page, we can shorten this one but adding the Mitsubishi F-1 won't cause a flood of additions. Afterall... we've covered pretty much every single jet fighter ever. Semi-Lobster (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Welll... I guess nobody is opposed to the idea then? Well I guess if nobody responds in the next few days I may try re-adding it and see how it goes from there. Semi-Lobster (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC) With the removal of the Panavia Tornado and all its developer nations and the replacement with the Tornado ADV, the article saves a few kilobytes and now will not be significantly longer with the F-1 added. I am assigning it to the Third generation given its era, role and capabilities are very much comprable to the F-4 (which eventually replaced it due the diffculty in maintaining the F-1 because of the shrinking supply of spare parts) Semi-Lobster (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

4 or 4.5 Gen

Is HAL Tejas 4th or 4.5 Gen? When the Hal project began it was charectarized as a 4th generation fighter but many changes were made to the design from time to time.

It is a generation 4.5 fighter because (1) the body is made of carbon composites (not present in 4th generation aircraft) (2) glass cockpit usage, and (3) modern avonics

As 24 have been built, I have included it into the 4.5 Gen Jets Enthusiast10 (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

-Goodness, not this again... Right now it's not 4th gen, future variants equipped with AESA will definetly be, but currently (and let me say that the LCA is not in full production yet) it is not. So whoever keeps changing the Tejas to 4.5 please please stop. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.50.156 (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dont tell me the J11 doesn't have AESA so why are we all cribing so much. The thing it is not is service. Yes it doesn't have FOC but FOC takes years. There are 24 jets that have been built more than Su-32, JF-17 or even Su-35. So it should be added Enthusiast10 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Shenyang J-8H/F

I know we all agree this article is getting rather... large but after some debate and discussion on the talk page, the Shenyang J-8H/F, one of the commonly fielded aircraft in the PLAAF, has been added to the fourth generation jet fighter page. Perhaps in order to harmonise the two pages, the J-8H/F can be added to the fighter page. I understand of course if you think this would be 'the straw that broke the camels back' when it comes to this somewhat cumbersome article but I think it would certainly help flesh things out. This is just a suggestion and if its not added, thats fine to since, as I already stated, we have a seperate, more indepth Fourh generation fighter jet page already. Semi-Lobster (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There is now a real List of fighter aircraft created from this article as a first step towards making this article less of a list. SDY (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Good work SDY... although I predict this list of every single fighter aircraft EVER will become EXTREMELY LONG, dwarfing this existing article by leaps and bounds, especially in terms of prop powered aircraft. Semi-Lobster (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed list cuts

Since we now have a true list article to work with, how about removing some of the less important planes from this article's overburdened lists?

WWI: Nieuport 28 (only notable as first for Americans, not overall notable for the conflict)

Interwar: Jaktfalken (not particularly successful or widely used), F4FB (aka P-12, also not particularly successful), Fokker DXXI *or* F2A (both were only really notable for Finland in WWII, not a major front and probably only need one), IK-2 (very few were built), Hawker Hurricane (covered in the WWII section)

WWII: Backwards here, retaining only the A6M Zero, Ki 43, the Bf-109, Fw-190, Me-210, the La-5, Yak-9, MiG-3, the Spitfire, Hurricane, the F4U, F6F, P-38, P-47, and P-51.

Post-WWII: Cut the whole list. The Fireball is fun to discuss because it was such a spectacularly bad name for an airplane, but it should be discussed as an evolutionary dead end for designs, nothing more. Most of the rest of the list are licensed copies and not original aircraft.

First Generation: Mystère (the IV rapidly replaced it), Shenyang J-5 (just a copy of the MiG-17), Saab 21R (like the Mystère, it was just replaced too fast to be notable), La-15 (loser to the MiG-15), Yak-15/17/23 (ditto to the La-15), Supermarine Attacker, FJ Fury-2/3/4 (combine with F-86), F3D (a small player in Korea), F7U (interesting design, but dismal and forgotten)

More later, but just a taste of what, in my opinion, should be left solely in the list article. SDY (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. We shouldn't remove anything. Flayer (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It may just be a MoS guideline, but this article makes a mockery of WP:Embedded list. The lists of aircraft do little to further a reader's understanding of the topic. Examples are good, especially since the groupings are fuzzy at best, but this article should, in my mind, provide a history of the development and changing roles of fighters. It should not be a directory to the various articles (which is what a list is for). SDY (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Individual "Generation" Articles?

Should we have individual articles about each generation of fighter aircraft? There are two examples: First generation jet fighter, and Fourth generation jet fighter. Should there be an article for each? I think that there should be because otherwise the Fighter aircraft article would be much too long. Quarkde (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I wrote up a "First Gen" article on the plan of writing one for each, but second and third generation are so flakily defined that I'm not comfortable writing them with the expectation that citations can be found. Finding high-quality references on the generation stuff is depressingly difficult. So much of the classification is either fanwank, jingoism, or marketing that objective and reliable sources are extremely hard to come by. I think it'd be worth writing out separate articles, but I'm not comfortable doing it without sources. SDY (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

4.5 Generation

What are the criteria for 4.5 gen? Obviously, Rafale, MiG-35, Su-35, Grippen, Typhoon, F-16 block 60 and Super hornet belong to 4.5 gen, but what about the rest fighters currently listed there? What is the difference between them and, let's say, F-2, F-16 block 50/52+ and F-15E/I/K ? Flayer (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The key is to look at what (and when) they were designed to be. Retrofitting one or a few Gen 4.5 technologies usually does not “promote” the aircraft; however, if the aircraft is significantly redesigned to integrate these techs – such as the MiG-29M/35 and F/A-18E/F – then it can be. Adding CFTs is actually a way to avoid redesigning a fighter to do the new things you want it to do.

The F-15E and F-2 have been moved to the 4th Gen section; the F-16 Blk. 50/52 is effectively already there. The F-15I/K are basically upgraded F-15E (although the K has a different engine fit); the SG at least has an AESA radar, but other than that, it is essentially the same as the F-15K (insofar as publicly released information conveys). Such incremental staging of improvements hardly constitutes a generational or even a half-generational “leap”.

Please keep in mind that Gen 4.5 fighters are still being developed. The MiG-35 and Su-35 are well-known examples. This is likely to continue in parallel with 5th Gen, since the expense of developing VLO technologies is such that they are likely to remain export items from the few nations that can afford it (the US, Russia/India, European consortia, and China). Askari Mark (Talk) 02:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The US House of Rep. defined 4.5 Gen as:

http://opencrs.com/document/RL33543 4.5 Generation Fighter Aircraft Defined- In this section, the term `4.5 generation fighter aircraft’ means current fighter aircraft, including the F-15, F-16, and F-18 [sic: F/A-18], that— (1) have advanced capabilities, including— (A) AESA radar;26 (B) high capacity data-link; and (C) enhanced avionics; and (2) have the ability to deploy current and reasonably foreseeable advanced armaments.

Which seems to mostly fit with our current definition. Hcobb (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sixth-generation jet fighters (2020+)

That section is a pure speculation about future developments. Wikipedia not in position to guess about future. As such, I will remove section. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 05:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Relevant official policy: Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not. "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent and fact-based speculations are welcome. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 06:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Three quick points:

Removing large amounts of text is not “minor”, least of all when it is sourced.
Second, read the sources. Discussion of what may constitute “6th gen” has been ongoing for some time now, and very recently both the USAF and USN have begun exploring concepts for future fighters. The technologies being explored are from DoD, DARPA and other reliable sources – which I plan to add more citations on as I have time.
The TD section has nothing to do with 6th Gen – since “generations” have more to do with design approaches for aircraft which actually entered service than test platforms for individual technologies – and in the current form adds nothing to the article.

Askari Mark (Talk) 16:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed section because of Wikipedia policies - this is not place to put speculation and original research. And section itself said speculation has already begun. The very first words. It not belong here. Please don't put it back unless Wikipedia change it format/criteria for inclusion. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 21:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with it, in my mind, is that it is talking about what might be, rather than what will be. WP:CRYSTAL allows for predictions on events that are very likely to occur (the president-elect becoming president, for example), but this is very open speculation with a lot of "it depends" and "maybe." Actual projects would be fine, but this is just reporting what other people are thinking about. Having sources does not automatically make it acceptable, it still has to be within the purview of an encyclopedia as defined by WP:NOT. That there will be a sixth generation is likely or certain (i.e. acceptable for the article). That reliable sources have begun speculating about it can be verified (acceptable since it describes events which have already taken place). What may and may not be included in those designs is speculative and forbidden under WP:CRYSTAL. SDY (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand WP:CRYSTAL quite well. What I wrote is not my OR or synthesis, but reporting of what is already being pursued – as described by the sources. Discussion of what is being contemplated for "6th gen" and what technologies are being pursued. The sources for this "speculation" include DARPA, the USAF and the USN ... normally pretty reliable sources on what they plan to do. I have no problem with folks editing the material to make it sound less "speculative", but I do find it annoying to have someone delete a section en masse because they choose to make a summary judgment without bothering to read the cited sources. To preclude edit-warring, though, I'm going to withhold the section for now until I can more thoroughly source it.

I am, however, going to re-remove the TD section. There has been no rationale given for its re-inclusion here – and none for its inclusion here in the first place. Furthermore, it lacks any context – "jet fighter generations" have never been assigned to TDs, so I'm going to call WP:OR on this myself. I've given some of my reasons for removing it earlier, but I'll add some more. If we're to begin adding TD sub-sections, then they need to be included for every one of the jet generations – and the non-jet periods as well. This opens the article up to lists of prototypes and such that have the prospect of being longer than the lists of fighters that actually made it into service – and it's quite a stretch to call some of these TDs "fighters" in the first place. There is, IMO, a place for TDs and that is in the more detailed articles, like Fourth generation jet fighter. Because the topic is much narrower, it would be quite the appropriate place to discuss the roles of these TDs in developing the technologies that subsequently became key elements of that generation's designs. However, in this article, there is insufficient room to do much with that and doubling (or more) the size of this already long article isn't going to make it more readable. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that technology demonstrators don't belong here, but I would also like to can the lists altogether and just have the article discuss the evolving technologies with appropriate examples. That doesn't appear to be a popular stand. SDY (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If TD's do not belong here, why a list of them has been added since yesterday? Should it be removed? Cheers, DPdH (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi All. My apologies, but I have to disagree with the summary removal of the section "Sixth-generation jet fighters". IMHO, it is neither "original research" nor "pure speculation", but the contributor to this article is just summarizing what has already been published in verifiable sources. I believe that it's not in the spirit of wikipedia to "summary execute" entire sections, without reaching consensus (as after all, laws an rules are always open to some degree of interpretation based on circumstances).
As such, I request that the section is re-established and that any necesary editing to make it less "speculative" is done as required. I also suggest that if any controversy remains about this issue, is channelled thru the conflict resolution processes that Wikipedia already has. Thanks & Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

First all sources about 6th generation at the moment are speculating. We don't know when it is going to happens, and we don't even know if it going to happen at all. It took more then 30 year to go from first 4th gen to first 5th generation fighter. Reason for that - huge development cost of innovation. You can safely assume that first sixth gen will take even longer to build. What will be the world in around 2050? No one really know for sure. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 07:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Some sort of section for 6th gen seems appropriate, since there is sourced information, but "it has been considered" and "this is what a sixth generation fighter will include" are two very different things. I don't think WP:CRYSTAL would allow for a full paragraph of speculations, however well sourced, but saying that speculations exist isn't a problem. Careful wording and restraint on the details is probably a good idea. SDY (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"it has been considered that sixth gen will" - exact wording of original research. Even section itself claiming that it is based on speculations: "speculation has already begun"... My point is that we should stick with Wikipedia policies. And this case is fully covered by WP:CRYSTAL. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 08:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur in complying with WP policies, however by not even mentioning that requisites for a new figther generation are being currently considered (and citing verifiable sources) we're actually preventing the casual reader to be aware of this fact. Please, let's not be dogmatic. Careful wording would remove "speculation" from the proposed section. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than a section that speaks broadly about a subject that doesn't exist as of yet, why not offer a paragraph about what each company says their sixth gens will have?

For example:

Boeing's roadmap for a sixth generation fighter indicates availability in 2024 with a 1000+ mile range, improved stealth against low frequency radars, increased networked awareness and a large internal bombload. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/6THG013008.xml&headline=Boeing%20Plans%20Sixth%20Generation%20Fighter%20With%20Block%203%20Super%20Hornet&channel=defense Hcobb (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

2nd and 3rd Geenration Jet Fighter Articles

Everybody says we need seperate articles for these 2 aircraft generations but nobody has had any clear idea where to start and end the articles so I say we roll up our sleeves and discuss how such articles should be structured and which aircraft goes in which generation. Being able to expand on the advances gained in the 2nd and 3rd generation of fighter aircraft development would lift an enormous burden off the main fighter aircraft article and we would be able to go more indepth than we could with having to make them just small sub-sections of the main fighter aircraft article. Semi-Lobster (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd try my hand at it if I could find some real sources, but most of the stuff I find through google is forums and blogs and fan sites that don't really meet our reliable source criteria. I have a vague impression of what's second and what's third, but the line between 1 and 2 is fuzzy (Is the F-8 2nd gen? Is the dog sabre?), and the line between 2 and 3 is almost non-existent (e.g. where does the F-101 go?). The F-14 is probably the link between 3rd and 4th generation, but how do we apply that line to non-US/non-Soviet aircraft? SDY (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well actual books rather then 'stuff on the internet' is probably the best source to use. Its a big undertaking for sure but its more of a matter of gathering sources for the main body of the article. Fro the list, 1st and 2nd generation aircraft differences are small but based on what wikipedia already has, placing aircraft shouldn't be too hard because the majority of aircraft have already been placed in a generation through wiki debates. For your example, the F-8 is a second generation fighter according to wikipedia, it has an early homing missile armament, innovative wing design with a focus on aerodynmaics and the general time frame it was designed and that it replaced the first generation F-7 Cutlass fighter. Semi-Lobster (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft in development

I noticed the F-16Xl isn't on the list according to F-16XL as of 2007 the F-16XL was still in the test stages and I have heard anything about the project being scrapped or the F=16X having come into service m w (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Phthinosuchusisanancestor

The F-16XL is a technology demonstrator at this point, not a combat aircraft. - SidewinderX (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

List of fighter aircraft

We already have a List of fighter aircraft article. This article has too many aircraft listed as "notable". Each section needs no more than one or two. Does anybody agree? Hj108 (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been proposing this for a while, but no one seems to be all that interested in the idea. I actually created the list with the express purpose of trying to make this article more consistent with the MoS's expectation for embedded lists. SDY (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets just go ahead and delete the lists in each section. The really notable aircraft are already mentioned in the text and shown in the pictures anyway. How do we direct readers to the List of fighters article? Add a link under each section, perhaps using the main article {{main| tags? Or just leave the link in the See also section? Hj108 (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No need for separate articles with lists. Flayer (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Large lists don't go in articles unless it is a List article, see the Wikipedia:Embedded_list policy.Hj108 (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The lists have been removed, pictures of aircraft NOT mentioned in the actual text have been removed as they are clearly not notable, layout of pictures tweaked. I really think this is the best way to go about this, the article is so much cleaner and more readable.

Hj108 (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Entry on JH-7

Is the JH-7 a fighter? While certainly some variation of a fighter/bomber, The article for the JH-7 describes its primary role as a strike aircraft though with some limited air to air capability. There was a similar issue once on this page with the F-111, frequently quoted as being comparable in role to the JH-7. If we are being consistant, then the JH-7 shouldn't be listed here. 151.207.246.4 (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete the gen list please

None of the gen lists have any good references that agree with the aircraft listed so let's toss them out and simply put in the one American fighter that's most often named as being in that generation. So it's F-16 for 4th, F/A-18E for 4.5 and F-22A for 5. This is one of the worst cases of WP:OR I've seen so far. Hcobb (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, we need to remove the lists from this article altogether, we already have a List of fighter aircraft article, lists aren't needed in this one too. Hj108 (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Support removing lists, not needed as this is only overview article. I would also suggest getting rid of the generations, nobody can really agree which is what and is used by the fanboys to say mine is bigger/better than yours. Suggest that all that is needed is discussion by decade, 1950s, 1960s etc. MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I support removing the aircraft lists also. Pointing to sections in List of fighter aircraft looks like a fine replacement to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How about forbidding the use of the word "generation" in fighter articles and replacing it with an article on the timeline of fighter developments which lists the first operational all-metal fighter, the first operational supersonic fighter, the first fighter with AESA radar, the first fighter with LPI comm links, the first fighter with SAIRST, etc. Hcobb (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The generations thing is very hard to address, because it is a helpful framework to view the changing thought process of jet fighter design. It's a "pop culture" concept, unfortunately, and not anything rigorous. For an entry-level reader it's useful, but I agree that any formal treatment of the subject should ignore it completely. For the record, I strongly endorse the removal of the lists, I created the list of fighter aircraft with the objective of removing or castrating the embedded lists in this article. SDY (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As I already mentioned I dont like the use of generations once you get past second generation it becomes more guesswork then reliable referenced. On some aircraft articles the declaration of the types generation has been removed to stop fanboy wars. It is meaningless to most readers. Perhaps as well as a chronological assessment it might be worth looking at advancement in capability and technology as suggested by Hcobb. MilborneOne (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A compromise might be to classify, as the generations do, by design principles rather than by "it has this widget." I agree that actually assigning aircraft to generations is a game that Wikipedia should not play, especially for the 4th/4.5th/5th boondoggle. SDY (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to be able to paste non-judgmental labels on fighters. For example I could call the F-22 "Eagle-like", the Eurofighter "Falcon-like" and the F-35 "Owl-like" and get general agreement on the classifications, but it would be totally WP:OR. (The fun part is that there are Eagle and Falcon fighters that share in the distinctions of the F-22 and Eurofighter.)

So until the experts in the field catch up (by catch up I mean stop getting paid by the contractors...), all we can do is list by year of operational service and leave the gadget and feature listings to each aircraft page to handle on its own. Hcobb (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I’ve been away from this article since my major overhaul late last year – mostly due to real-life demands, but partly due to burn-out over the contentiousness this article draws. Since constructive work has resumed, I’ll try to be more available. First of all, I LIKE the idea of 'not' having the lists because they lead to fanboyish introduction of everybody’s favorite airplane (however little-known) and endless debates over what “generation” a certain aircraft “should” be in. I’m glad to see that an earlier recommendation of mine to migrate them to a separate list has been implemented. It is my firm conviction that this article cannot become GA, much less FA, with those lists in it. I would further point out that the “vertical gallery” needs to be culled, with many, if not most, of these images migrated to the List of fighter aircraft.

As to the “jet fighter generation” structure, as I’ve mentioned earlier, it’s only one of two possible approaches, each of which has benefits and drawbacks (which I’ve discussed here and elsewhere). The main drawback of the generation approach is that it’s nebulous, having no authoritative – and therefore readily sourceable – definitions of what separates one from the other; rather, it is a consensus-derived nomenclature perceived by the aerospace and defense community (broadly defined). I attempted in my rewrites and expansions of each generation to provide a description of what characteristics are generally accepted as “normative” (and they are not purely defined by their service entry dates or the introduction of specific singular technologies). It is not the technologies that convey the status of a particular “generation”, but the design philosophy which guided and encouraged the development and introduction of those technologies characteristic of that generation. (This is why, in part, just adding AESA doesn’t “promote” an airplane to Gen 4.5 status.)

Taking a chronological approach, avoids the pitfalls of the hard-to-accurately describe generations, but it misses something, too. The concept of generations captures something real, albeit hard to define, that constitutes a “mini-revolution” in design approaches. Technological advances do not appear randomly, in a vacuum. A “winning” concept spreads rapidly through the global design community and becomes a fundamental “must have” capability for that and future generations. The chronological approach also ignores the fact that “jet fighter generations” still needs to be addressed, simply because it exists in widespread usage. While it need not be the organizing principle here, it does need to be appropriately addressed here (even if made into a separate article, which I do not recommend). I will point out, though, that any attempt to use them in parallel, as it were will result in something like what we now have, if not something more awkward.

Another issue which needs to be addressed is one that continually reappears here. This article endeavors to cover only “pure fighters”. This assumes a very precise definition generally prevails in its usage, which is actually not the case. Not only do we include multirole combat aircraft – to wit, “fighter-bombers” – as fighters in this article, but general parlance also extends to calling many non-bomber dedicated ground-attack aircraft as “fighters”. As a more problematical example, the F-15E was originally conceived to be a dedicated strike aircraft, but not long afterwards, a full air-to-air capability was reintroduced. Accordingly, from a pure “original design approach” perspective (at the point at which it was introduced into service), it is not a fighter, but upon retrofitting, it arguably is – hence the back-and-forth of its inclusion. The F-105 was long called a fighter (as well as fighter-bomber), as was the F-111, which has a fighter designation, but really only a strike role. It is not uncommon to hear the A-10 referred to as a “fighter plane” as well. This begs the question of whether the Ground-attack aircraft and Strike fighter articles shouldn’t be merged into this one; if not, then the multirole fighter-bomber aircraft treated here also need to be fully discussed in those two articles as well. I have taken this particular issue to WT:AIR, since its scope exceeds the purview of this article (at present). Askari Mark (Talk) 22:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Decoding MIG sales brochures

Here's how to translate MIG-speak into actual fighter generations.

For example take: http://www.migavia.ru/eng/news/?id=33&tid=4&page=1 "The centerpiece of RAC «МiG» exposition at the air show is the MiG-35 multifunctional fighter of the generation «4++» equipped with the new-generation onboard avionics suite. The MiG-35 became the first fighter in Europe to boast the AESA radar. Space technologies-based optronic systems and the unique self-defense suite also distinguish the aircraft from its most modern counterparts." ... "RAC «MiG» exhibits the МiG-29SМТ, one of the basic versions of the MiG-29 family fighters’ large-scale upgrade, representing the multifunctional generation «4+» fighter with the open-architecture avionics and expandable high-precision weapons’ arsenal. RAC «МiG» serially produces and delivers the MiG-29SMT to the customers since 2004; it also retrofits earlier delivered fighters to the MiG-29SМТ configuration. The details on other MiG-29 family fighters’ upgrading options can be obtained at the RAC «МiG» booth."

So "4++" is 4.5 generation while "4+" is an upgrade to western 4th generation level. And now you know. Hcobb (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

But the two very big corner reflectors called tail (RCS magnifier )and non s-curved inlet make your MiG-35 to a 4-- and not to a 4++! Then is the MIG-35 AESA more a hybrid between PESA and AESA and one generation behind in technologie compare to the west. etc. etc.--HDP (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fighter aircraft/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Top= "core topic"

Last edited at 22:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

^ Russia's fifth generation combat aircraft to fly by late 2008-Ivanov
^ Russia to build fifth-generation fighter prototype soon
^ http://livefist.blogspot.com/2007/10/indo-russian-5th-generation-fighter.html
^ http://livefist.blogspot.com/2008/09/hals-baweja-two-different-prototypes-of.html

[1] Russia's fifth generation combat aircraft to fly by late 2008-Ivanov

[2] Russia to build fifth-generation fighter prototype soon

[3] ttp://livefist.blogspot.com/2007/10/indo-russian-5th-generation-fighter.html

[4] ttp://livefist.blogspot.com/2008/09/hals-baweja-two-different-prototypes-of.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]