What is a 4th generation fighter aircraft?

[Magoo]

Ok. Will Gripen be a 5th gen fighter when the current investment is done?

If the Gripen-DK and Gripen-N come to fruition, they may come close to a true 5th gen capability, certainly in the sense of datalinks, sensor fusion/integration they will be up there with the F-22 and F-35. However, even with attention to details, conformal tanks and other changes, it will always be a Gripen airframe with its associated limitations.

How about 4.75 gen???

Magoo

 

[DarthAmerica]

For me, and I emphasise, FOR ME, the generations break down thus...

Magoo,

I accept that people have their own OPINIONS of what generations mean with regard to aircraft. Thats fine. My post was just an explaination of what it officially means and what the industry and military thinks, mostly. Sometimes words take on different meanings over time and we get jargon and such. But what it boils down to is technology denotes capabilities and can be retrofitted to any past generation within reason. Generations denote sequential temporal references from platform a to platform b. The mission requirements of the time dictate what technologies get put into any platform of any generation. This is why a Mig-21 can still be a credible threat in some cases after being retrofitted with more modern technologies. I mean a simple AN/APG-80, JHMS, Supercruise capable engine and advanced ECM RAM coating could make it much more formidable than a Vietnam era Mig-21. But the type is still just a souped up old Mig-21. People are confusing technologies with generations. This is why I provided the Official Boeing generational designation for its F/A-18E which is accepted throughout the industry. But if people want to come up with their own definitions so be it. Its just that no other definitions could stand up under any scrutiny and especially none on this thread.

 

[Magoo]

Magoo,
I accept that people have their own OPINIONS of what generations mean with regard to aircraft. Thats fine. My post was just an explaination of what it officially means and what the industry and military thinks, mostly.

Yep, and I wasn't disputing your post, merely adding to it and the 20-odd other posts in this thread. The "FOR ME" bit was just to emphasise that it was my own opinion, and wasn't based on anyone else's opinion or something I may have read in an unsubstantiated website somewhere.

Sometimes words take on different meanings over time and we get jargon and such. But what it boils down to is technology denotes capabilities and can be retrofitted to any past generation within reason. Generations denote sequential temporal references from platform a to platform b. The mission requirements of the time dictate what technologies get put into any platform of any generation. This is why a Mig-21 can still be a credible threat in some cases after being retrofitted with more modern technologies. I mean a simple AN/APG-80, JHMS, Supercruise capable engine and advanced ECM RAM coating could make it much more formidable than a Vietnam era Mig-21. But the type is still just a souped up old Mig-21. People are confusing technologies with generations. This is why I provided the Official Boeing generational designation for its F/A-18E which is accepted throughout the industry. But if people want to come up with their own definitions so be it. Its just that no other definitions could stand up under any scrutiny and especially none on this thread.

Couldn't agree more, and hence my closing paragraph which reads:

Obviously, not all aircraft I've mentioned have every capability I've used to qualify each generation, e.g. I wouldn't call a Tornado ADV ultra-manouevrable. In other areas, there are probably aircraft that cross over between one category and the next, e.g. F-16 Block 50, F-15K, Gripen-A, even F-4E in later upgrades, and there's probably places where you could have more half generations.

You used the MiG-21 as an example (I assume you mean like Romania's 'Lancer', China's F-7M, or India's 'Bison' upgrades, or perhaps something even further out there), whereas I used the F-4E (Turkey, Israel, Greece, Germany, Japan), but we're basically saying the same thing, aren't we?

Magoo

 

[DarthAmerica]

but we're basically saying the same thing, aren't we?

Magoo

Fundamentally, we are saying the same thing even though our definitions of what a 4th Generation fighter is differs somewhat. FOR ME, I prefer just to stick to pure facts rather than coining my own terms or creating my own definitions since someone has already been through the trouble...

Its just funny to me when I look at some of the technologies people interpret as a "generation". Most of all stealth. As if suddenly stealth just appeared on the battlefield...lol. All these technologies are spawned by operational requirements and are really in no way exclusive to any generation. Oh and the horror of terms like 4.5th Gen...LMAO. Thats not even gramatically or numerically correct yet people insist that its somehow an official designation. Oh well.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Its just funny to me when I look at some of the technologies people interpret as a "generation". Most of all stealth. As if suddenly stealth just appeared on the battlefield...lol. All these technologies are spawned by operational requirements and are really in no way exclusive to any generation. Oh and the horror of terms like 4.5th Gen...LMAO. Thats not even gramatically or numerically correct yet people insist that its somehow an official designation. Oh well.

and yet there are PManagers on the F-22 project and the YF-23 who refer to Gen 4.5 aircraft.

DARPA also make internal references to Gen 4.5 aircraft. ONR have also produced docs referring to Gen 4.5 aircraft.

It's your opinion (and Boeings) - but that doesn't make it so. and in Boeings case. (to paraphrase EW3) Marketing Marketing Marketing.

 

[Big-E]

What makes the operationally deployed F-18E 5th generation?

It's not, it's 4.5.

 

[DarthAmerica]

It's your opinion (and Boeings) - but that doesn't make it so. and in Boeings case. (to paraphrase EW3) Marketing Marketing Marketing.

Actually its a proven fact that Super Hornets are 5th Gen. What aircraft is it replacing? Case closed. A correct and unbaised answer will reveal the answer. I really could care less what generation other than to have the facts correct. I know the difference between technologies and generations and combinations thereof. So if anyone wants to disagree thats on them. I'd just advise them not to try to prove it to anybody because its an unassailable arguement. Also any alleged documents that refer to 4th Gens as "4.5th gen" dont suprise me one bit with all the misunderstanding out there. Thats why I said 99% dont understand and again I am correct. Anybody who really wants to know what 4.5 Gen is only needs to read the following. The gramarically incorrect jargon term "4.5th Gen" simply refers to either late model 4th Gen fighters or 4th Gen fighters with enhancements that significantly increase their capabilities.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Actually its a proven fact that Super Hornets are 5th Gen. What aircraft is it replacing? Case closed.

I'm not going to go through this again.

Its your opinion - fine - it is not everyone elses.

If you don't like it then move on. I'm not prepared to have anyone ramming their own opinions down anyone elses throat.

We've been through this before - and you've been through this on other sites. It's not going to happen here.

Any further backchat or persistent arguing will see posts edited or deleted.

and there's no point in sending PM's to Web as we're all in accordance.

This post is frozen for a few days.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Open for Business again

Open again for business. If it goes belly up again it will be closed for good.

 

[Markus40]

Actually, having read through the posts its interesting getting different perspectives on what aircraft have as far as "generations" are concerned. I have never come across anyone in the military or read military literature that suggests aircraft are 3.5 or 4.5 generation. I stand corrected if its untrue. I would believe that it would be 1st,2nd,3rd,4th, 5th generation aircraft.

Open again for business. If it goes belly up again it will be closed for good.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Actually, having read through the posts its interesting getting different perspectives on what aircraft have as far as "generations" are concerned. I have never come across anyone in the military or read military literature that suggests aircraft are 3.5 or 4.5 generation. I stand corrected if its untrue. I would believe that it would be 1st,2nd,3rd,4th, 5th generation aircraft.

In the last 18 months alone there have been 5 conferences held in Europe (some being NATO sponsored) that have dealt specifically with Stealth aircraft and stealth UCAV's. The last being in London cirica May 2006.

The last conference included sessions run by 13 different nations on their own programmes. Every one of those session leaders denoted merged capabilities as being subset growth identifiers. Specifically - once you get to Gen 4 the development does split off into .5 iterations.

This was also supported by a session run in Brussels about refurb and development programmes run by companies such as BAE, Sagem and Thales where they have identified emerging markets where countries do not want to invest in full tier new builds and elect to go for an iterative improvement to stave off spiralling costs on new platforms that cost considerably more but field maybe a 20% gain in capability.

The classic examples are the Mig21, M2K and Su-30 series.

So, the entire NATO cohort and certainly the Russians think that military sub definitions are relevant.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Actually, having read through the posts its interesting getting different perspectives on what aircraft have as far as "generations" are concerned. I have never come across anyone in the military or read military literature that suggests aircraft are 3.5 or 4.5 generation. I stand corrected if its untrue. I would believe that it would be 1st,2nd,3rd,4th, 5th generation aircraft.

You would be correct. Its true that some have "their own definitions" and jargon to describe things. From an industry, accuracy, historical, grammar and military perspective its 1-5 generations using integers. I've had a chance to bounce this off of a lot of really experienced people just to get a peer review of this topic and to a man all agree. Its also undestood that when people talk 4.5gen or such its meant as a temporal reference and only as jargon/slang. The so called 4.5 gen platforms are those that are based on 4th gen designs but for what ever reason appeared and matured after the more established 4th gen platforms were all ready setting the standard and operational. The only thing it has to do with technology or capability is that the later arrival means technologies that would have been cost or technologically prohibitive may be incorporated. We see this in platforms like the F-16 Blk 60, CLEARLY 4th Gen, which has an AESA for instance. A feature common to 5th Gens. Its also been back fitted to F-15C's. Nobody calls the F-15C 4.5th Gen though. Similarly, the F/A-18C is one of the most versitile platforms in the world. Far more capable than some of the so called 4.5 Gens as a multirole platform. But is the F/A-18C 4.5 Gen? Of course not.

Also the fact that people have mentioned 4.5 gen in conferences is really proof of anything other than the fact that humans were present. In typical human fashion, jargon/slang has entered the vocabulary. I cant remember how many times I've heard Kevlar helmits refered to as K-Pot. Or Armor refered to as "Heavys". In short the military is full of jargon and slang. The F-16 doesnt even use its real name. But its still the Fighting Falcon.

Getting back toward the original question though. A 4th Generation aircraft is simply the 4th in a series of successive platforms designed to perform some role. For example F-86, F-100s, F-4, F-15(4th Gen), F-22. If the F-22 had been developed as a successor to the F-86 then I'd argue just as strong a case that its 2nd Gen. If it works different someplace else so be it but I havent been there.

 

[swerve]

Actually its a proven fact that Super Hornets are 5th Gen. What aircraft is it replacing? Case closed.

So when an upgraded MiG-21 replaces a MiG-29 (it has happened!), that moves that particular upgrade of MiG-21 up three generations, leapfrogging MiG-23 & MiG-29? No, that definition is silly.

In the real world, it is not always the case that there is a neat, tidy, replacement of one platform by another. The same platform can be the nth in one sequence, & the n+1th in another. One type can do more than one role, be replaced by a new type in one of those roles, but carry on in another role until replaced by another new type - or by a re-roled old type. Life is messy, and doesn't change itself to accomodate our desire for tidiness.

This whole generations thing is artificial. It's an attempt to impose a degree of order which does not exist onto a fluid & complicated matrix of capabilities. To insist that artificiality has such reality, such solidity, that any attempt (by fudging the generations via fractions) to make it a little closer to the world outside the construct is invalid because it breaks the rules of the construct is to put the cart before the horse. Reality is definitive: attempts to define it are derivative. The latter cannot override the former.

 

[Markus40]

Its an interesting topic. I havent paid to much attention to this until now, and i hope i have a better understanding of it. Sounds to me that there are some fast jet variants that are 3.5, 4.5, 5.5 etc generation aircraft, perhaps based upon there technological advancements, and having it labeled on the same variant or type of aircraft like the F16 A/B - F16K version that the Israelis have got now. Then there are the others variants that are simply 3rd,4th, 5th generation but are of the same progressive nature as the others ive mentioned. But different variants. How they interpret that, well it seems murky. Maybe the engineers and scientists who put together the advance platforms we see at the Skunk works will appreciate this more than i will.

You would be correct. Its true that some have "their own definitions" and jargon to describe things. From an industry, accuracy, historical, grammar and military perspective its 1-5 generations using integers. I've had a chance to bounce this off of a lot of really experienced people just to get a peer review of this topic and to a man all agree. Its also undestood that when people talk 4.5gen or such its meant as a temporal reference and only as jargon/slang. The so called 4.5 gen platforms are those that are based on 4th gen designs but for what ever reason appeared and matured after the more established 4th gen platforms were all ready setting the standard and operational. The only thing it has to do with technology or capability is that the later arrival means technologies that would have been cost or technologically prohibitive may be incorporated. We see this in platforms like the F-16 Blk 60, CLEARLY 4th Gen, which has an AESA for instance. A feature common to 5th Gens. Its also been back fitted to F-15C's. Nobody calls the F-15C 4.5th Gen though. Similarly, the F/A-18C is one of the most versitile platforms in the world. Far more capable than some of the so called 4.5 Gens as a multirole platform. But is the F/A-18C 4.5 Gen? Of course not.

Also the fact that people have mentioned 4.5 gen in conferences is really proof of anything other than the fact that humans were present. In typical human fashion, jargon/slang has entered the vocabulary. I cant remember how many times I've heard Kevlar helmits refered to as K-Pot. Or Armor refered to as "Heavys". In short the military is full of jargon and slang. The F-16 doesnt even use its real name. But its still the Fighting Falcon.

Getting back toward the original question though. A 4th Generation aircraft is simply the 4th in a series of successive platforms designed to perform some role. For example F-86, F-100s, F-4, F-15(4th Gen), F-22. If the F-22 had been developed as a successor to the F-86 then I'd argue just as strong a case that its 2nd Gen. If it works different someplace else so be it but I havent been there.

 

[Markus40]

So, the entire NATO cohort and certainly the Russians think that military sub definitions are relevant.

Maybe i guess, and this could be due to their respect for western technology, and perhaps their lack of intelligence networking in the design and operation features of some of our 5th generational aircraft.

In the last 18 months alone there have been 5 conferences held in Europe (some being NATO sponsored) that have dealt specifically with Stealth aircraft and stealth UCAV's. The last being in London cirica May 2006.

The last conference included sessions run by 13 different nations on their own programmes. Every one of those session leaders denoted merged capabilities as being subset growth identifiers. Specifically - once you get to Gen 4 the development does split off into .5 iterations.

This was also supported by a session run in Brussels about refurb and development programmes run by companies such as BAE, Sagem and Thales where they have identified emerging markets where countries do not want to invest in full tier new builds and elect to go for an iterative improvement to stave off spiralling costs on new platforms that cost considerably more but field maybe a 20% gain in capability.

The classic examples are the Mig21, M2K and Su-30 series.

So, the entire NATO cohort and certainly the Russians think that military sub definitions are relevant.

 

[gf0012-aust]

So, the entire NATO cohort and certainly the Russians think that military sub definitions are relevant.

yes - and they are relevant. when you are merging and blending contemp technologies into older platforms there is some sense in defining their capability. but, to actually use generations definition as a form of empirical measurement is a fools game - and has little relevance except when defining capability and performance as a potential static absolute.

Also the fact that people have mentioned 4.5 gen in conferences is really proof of anything other than the fact that humans were present.

A bit more respect is probably warranted - especially when the session leaders are actually the ones who develop the technology for a lot of these flying "wunderkind". The people at these briefings aren't prone to using slang when running such sessions to their peers - and indeed its in front of mil officers who's role is to build and define capability for their airforces in the near future. I've never ever been to any briefing/session in Europe, Sth East Asia or the US in the last 10 years where session leaders used "slang". It's tardy and reeks of unprofessional and cavalier familiarity to an open and usually highly credentialed group. I should add, that session leaders have to get their papers and speeches cleared - so any use of slang would be cut out before they were given permission to open their mouths in public.

Maybe i guess, and this could be due to their respect for western technology, and perhaps their lack of intelligence networking in the design and operation features of some of our 5th generational aircraft.

there is only 1 x 5th deployed 5th generation platform in service. apart from the comedic attempt by Boeing to classify the Shornet as a 5th generation. platform (which reinforces how marketing hacks are a dangerous and a disingenuous breed better locked in their own virtual world rather than foisted onto the public stage where they then cause Internet carnage)

 

[gf0012-aust]

This whole generations thing is artificial. It's an attempt to impose a degree of order which does not exist onto a fluid & complicated matrix of capabilities. To insist that artificiality has such reality, such solidity, that any attempt (by fudging the generations via fractions) to make it a little closer to the world outside the construct is invalid because it breaks the rules of the construct is to put the cart before the horse. Reality is definitive: attempts to define it are derivative. The latter cannot override the former.

there are two issues here. One is an attempt to compartmentalise iterative development into a form of definition absolutes, - its not intended as a benchmarking definition per se, but for establishing development curves and fitment cycles at the legacy platform level. Where this has been necessary is in future planning of airforce structures and of technology development. eg Forecast Int'l type scenarios.

the other is "welcome to the world of aviation marketing".

 

[DarthAmerica]

A bit more respect is probably warranted - especially when the session leaders are actually the ones who develop the technology for a lot of these flying "wunderkind". The people at these briefings aren't prone to using slang when running such sessions to their peers - and indeed its in front of mil officers who's role is to build and define capability for their airforces in the near future. I've never ever been to any briefing/session in Europe, Sth East Asia or the US in the last 10 years where session leaders used "slang". It's tardy and reeks of unprofessional and cavalier familiarity to an open and usually highly credentialed group. I should add, that session leaders have to get their papers and speeches cleared - so any use of slang would be cut out before they were given permission to open their mouths in public.

Having delt with people like this for a very long time across a variety of industries I can say that slang, jargon and coined words are actually quite common. I've been to enough of these types or similar collections of credentialed individuals to say that with the utmost confidence. Heck you can read speaches all the way up to POTUS and find slang, jargon and coined words. Its American culture and increasingly others are doing it as well.

there is only 1 x 5th deployed 5th generation platform in service. apart from the comedic attempt by Boeing to classify the Shornet as a 5th generation. platform (which reinforces how marketing hacks are a dangerous and a disingenuous breed better locked in their own virtual world rather than foisted onto the public stage where they then cause Internet carnage)

Well if you want to simply ignore the reality of Boeings platform being 5th Gen for whatever reason so be it. To me thats bias unless you have some way to support it. Again thats just how I and others I know would regard the quote above and you are entitled to your own view.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sigh, some people are really slow learners.

So much for getting the message across.

I've never heard anyone use slang at a professional event.

and please don't continue to post about your exposure to the industry - you've done this on other forums, you've sent other Mods PM's on other forums touting your experience - and you've been completely oblivious that some of those mods are actually aviation engineers or work specifically in those disciplines.

Mods on various sites do talk to each other.