Talk:Fourth-generation fighter/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Why are some of these aircraft considered "4.5 generation"?

This page is in a shameful state and reads more like a multinational cockfight than an accurate separation of aircraft into appropriate generations. IMHO the only planes that belong in the 4.5 generation category are the Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen and probably the F/A-18E/F. The J-10, J-11B, F-2, Su-34, Mig-29ME, all Su-30's, F-15E and F-16C/D Block 50/52 all belong in the 4th generation category. The Mig-35 and Su-35 are 4.5 generation but are still in development. The Tejas LCA is clearly only 4th generation technology despite Indian protestations to the contrary (and may not even be inducted into service), and the MCA is at most 4.5 generation, and is still in development. I thought all this was common knowledge but apparently not..... Meatwaggon (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The most official rule I've found is from the US House (perhaps soon to be US law). Has any other government defined what makes a 4.5th gen fighter? (And why do we need two lists of them?) Hcobb (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Saab 39 Gripen

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

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.198.59 (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael Speicher

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

That is the official US Navy line. Other reputable sources are less certain. For example, this CIA document says: "Postwar analysis suggests that LCDR Speicher's Hornet was downed by an Iraqi aircraft firing an air-to-air missile."[1] The report refers to a "forward part" of Speicher's aircraft experiencing a "catastrophic event". That is not consistent with a SAM hit, it seems to me.
On that basis I am going to revert. Grant65 | Talk 02:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
c.f. Air Combat International Group: "The team of ACIG.org researchers obtained exclusive materials describing the interception of an USN F/A-18 Hornet aircraft by an IrAF MiG-25PD at exactly the time and in place where the plane flown by Lt.Cdr. Speicher was shot down, in the early morning of 17 January 1991. Considering the available evidence, we are now convinced that Lt.Cdr. Speicher was shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25 "Foxbat", using a single R-40/AA-6 Acrid missile - despite explanations by other IrAF pilots we interviewed previously, that none of them would know about any Iraqi pilot to have scored an air-to-air kill against Coalition aircraft during this war."[2] Grant65 | Talk 02:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I see no assertion of professional qualifications for ACIG as FAS or Globalsecurity do. For all we know it's just a self-published source and certainly seems like so. Without any such assertion of reliability, we should rely only on the CIA document. --Mmx1 12:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol, Speicher F-18 was claimed originally downed by a SA-6 but it is still to confirm, while there are many indications that something other was happened. In every case it was at least a questioned point, and Acig is not so unreliable like you asserts. If nothing else, there weren't the guys that claimed the WMD of Saddam. CIA not speaks always the truth, and what really they knows surely is not available for wikipedians.--Stefanomencarelli 18:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

seriously!!!

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.70.253 (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

HAL Tejas

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

is it even a 4.5 gen fighter? it is too small and too slow to match any of the other 4.5 gen. i am gonna demand it removal from the list until solid backing on it's capability which has yet to be demostrated in real life. Akinkhoo (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
agreed espcially when people keep adding it to 4.5 with entries like "HAL Tejas 100.5 generation, with 400% dumposites", which god knows what it means. i thought india was an english speaking country

what is this?

HAL Tejas 100.5 generation, with 400% dumposites

under 4.5 gen fighter section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Original research issues

(copied and pasted from User talk:Deepak gupta)

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Again, please discuss before editing these articles.

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


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


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

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

Shafaq as 5th generation?!?!

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

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

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Faraz (talk • contribs) 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Shafaq does not deserve to be in ANY list, because we're discussing fighters, but Shafaq is a trainer. The T-50 Golden Eagle trainer also doesn't find mention in the entire list, so why should Shafaq ? I suggest that it be removed. IAF 10:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Typhoon not 5th generation?

Why must a fifth generation aircraft be stealthy?

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

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

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

And Gripen and LCA are 4th generation fighters.

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

A 5th generation fighter must :

  • Be All-composite (unlike 4.5 fighters which are partially composite).
  • Have both TVC and supercruise (unlike Su-30MKI which has only TVC or Typhoon which has only supercruise).
  • Have internal bomb-bays.
  • Have other cool technology like plasma stealth in case of PAK-FA, or killer AESA like F-22 Raptor. IAF
    • Cute. All composite, internal bomb bays and all. -Fnlayson 16:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • must have 5th generation avionics and radar which translates into a high number of targets that can be intercepted and destroyed simultaneously (like the Typhoon). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.36.137 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


I cannot see how you could set such requirements, because these limit freedom of the designers. If russkies built a fighter plane out of pure neodynium-ytterbium metal instead of carbon fibre, that would be just as exotic and 5th or even 6th generation as the F-22. Internal bays are unimportant now, the F-22 is already getting wing pylons because very little fits in the internal bays. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
No one technology necessarily marks a particular aircraft as being of one "generation" or another. You may want to refer to what I posted at Talk:Fighter aircraft#Defining Jet Fighter Generations to learn more about the topic. With regard to the discussion at hand, I have to disagree with several preceding comments. For one, "stealthiness" is a matter both of degree ("How LO - or VLO - can you go?"), but in spectrum (RF isn't the only kind of "signature" that needs reduction). Not having internal bomb bays really limits how much the RF signature can be reduced. The reason the F-22 has hardpoints on its wings is to carry fuel tanks and weapons when it doesn't have to be super-stealthy. Also, an "all-composite" airplane is pretty much just as foolish as an "all-titanium" airplane - either approach would drive costs through the roof. Sophisticate design practice requires balancing a lot of parameters all at once, such as material and fabrication costs, weight, structural load-carrying ability, sensitivity to non-linear stress, maintainability, etc. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"A 5th generation fighter must :

Be All-composite (unlike 4.5 fighters which are partially composite)."

According to this definition for 5th the F-22 is not 5th generation!

Killer AESA is nonsens! In addition the antenna of the AN/APG-77 can't focus enough.

The aft fuselage of the F-22 is mostly high strength titanium, as it has to hold the aircraft's F119 engines, and it must be able to withstand the high temperatures the engines create. The mid fuselage transitions from titanium (in the larger, load-bearing bulkheads) to forged aluminum bulkheads and aluminum frames. The forward fuselage contains a composite fuel tank (the F-1 tank behind the pilot's ejection seat) and is made of machined aluminum. The wings are made of composite spars and skins with titanium reinforcement. [3]--HDP 16:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Among the continual edit wars over what aircraft are in which “generation”, I’ve noticed that the Eurofighter Typhoon has yet again been moved from ‘4.5’ to ‘5’. I had thought the consensus had settled this. The anon. editor contributed a single reference: “International Air Power Review, Volume 20, page.45 (ISBN 1-880588-91-9)”; since I don’t have that source handy, I do not know whether it is used in context or out of it. In any case, I will be boldly restoring the Typhoon to Gen 4.5 – which is what most knowledgeable sources call it (if not simply “4th-generation”) – and adding three sources (of the great many that could be found) from respectable sources: EADS (yes, EADS), Greg Goebel’s Air Vectors, and Milavia’s Aircraft Directory. If anyone thinks more are needed, let me know. It’s easier to find them than sources calling it “5th-generation). If you’d like more information (and a few more sources), please see the relevant discussion on the Eurofighter Typhoon talk page.

This article needs a lot of work, so maybe we can move on to spending more time improving its text than feuding over which “slot” a fan can slip his favorite into. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"This article needs a lot of work" - lol, this article needs to say one thing, "there is no such thing as X generation fighter aircraft, its a marketing tool made up by Lockheed Martin, fighter aircrafts develop as we speak, but for a period of time several wiki admins fell for this PR stunt, and provided ammunition for American teenagers on chatrooms, that could now use WIKI to say American JSF and F-22 (made by lockheed martin) was better than anything else in the world, because they are "fifth" generation fighters, whereas Typhoon is only 4 or 4.5 generation". The incompetence of this thread is scary. It's like letting Fox News make an article on wiki claiming its the most unbiased News station in the world --Financialmodel (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a non-expert's opinion: difference in generations should be defined on something concrete. In any case, what you're using as defining a generation should be spelled out. IMO, purpose-designed stealth (F22) rather than added stealth (Eurofighter, F/A-18E, etc...) is a fundamental difference suitable as a generation mark. Then again, since most of the actual RCS are classified, it's hard to say if it is a fivefold difference or a fiftyfold difference. The "F"-117, which is subsonic, minimally armed, and aerodynamically unremarkable, performed some key strike missions in heavily defended Iraqi airspace. If the Eurofighter has enough stealth to operate in that environment, go ahead and call it 5th. External stores make this rather unlikely.


You americans really make me sick .. You can vandalize wiki as much as you like, you will not make with that the Typhoon a 4.5 generation fighter.. the Typhoon , at least in tranche 2 will have full AESA radar .it has "gadgets" and electronic systems diferent to the F-22 ,some superior like the DASS and the towed decoy.. it has "alleged" front stealth capacity wich is what matters to call a fighter 5th generation.. You dont decide what is 4.5 or 5th generation.. and your childness and stupidity editing constantly the wiki to deny facts really sickens me. Time will tell soon if Typhoon is a 5th generation fighter.. but even taking that "simulation" many like to cyte.. Typhoon scored second only to Raptor and with a great advantage over the third. GREW UP DAMN IT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.24.149.246 (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Typhoon will never be 5th generation until it gets stealth! Get over it you impotent freak! The greatness of the Typhoon will never compensate for you having only one testicle. Sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.0.116 (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fifth generation fighters have awareness dominance. The aircraft automatically tracks all threats and friendly forces around it, without being itself detected. The F-117 had stealth, but the aircraft did not automatically track the targets for the pilot. Even the F-22 won't get automatic situational awareness for a few more years.
So a fifth generation fighter has stealth, sensor fusion and stealthy data links. Hcobb (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Generational" issues

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

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

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

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

"Generation" is really meaningless except for marketing speak. However, it is a vague term that is often used, so an entry is unavoidable. I would suggest that the use of a strict, conservative definition would help reduce unnecessary controversy and edit war. It should be clear that 4.5 generation fighters have the following characteristics: AESA radar, TVC, or advanced datalink. Any fighter lacking all three should not even be considered to be on the list at all. In particular, I would agree to place a heavy emphasis on AESA. It should be a pre-requisite. Ch2000 20:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not totally "meaningless", just one of those things that people have a "warm fuzzy" about, but which is nearly impossible to succinctly define. You may want to peruse this definition: Defining Jet Fighter Generations. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Su-30MKI

Su-30MKI was jointly-developed by Russia's Sukhoi Corporation and India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited for the Indian Air Force therefore, I will be adding the Russian flag with the Indian. Faraz 14:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Splitting article

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

It really should be. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure. Where to put the 4.5 Gen stuff though? I could see it staying or maybe going to a 5th Gen article. -Fnlayson 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I would leave the 4.5 Gen in here. Many of these aircraft either are equipment evolutions of 4th-Gen aircraft or else started out as 4th-Gen designs, but were sufficiently long in the development process (thanks to the end of the Cold War) to begin incorporating early 5th-Gen technologies. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's my leaning but people seem keep changing the Gen for some of the recent international planes. -Fnlayson 03:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
sure. I'd support the seperation of 5th generation jet fighter to be a seperate article. Faraz
I think the changes follow from the use of firm IOC years to define "generations" and vague and contradictory definitions of what else constitutes "5th Gen". I had almost finished outlining a clearer summary of them, but it got locked up in my home computer when Windows XP cratered on me. As soon as my computer comes back from the shop, I'll post it. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I support splitting the article because the two generations are disticnct from one another Red1530 12:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. There is no reason why the 4.5G stuff can't go in both articles, if appropriate. Grant | Talk 04:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I also support splitting the article, and I'm surprised it hasn't been done already.--Skylights76 17:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Defining Jet Fighter Generations

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

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

Tornado in a fishbowl

I cannot see Tornado as a 4th gen aircraft. It was designed very 1960's and has miserable performance, during late design process it got nice big spanking from MiG-21BIS and MiG-23MF in computer simulations. It is a joke to classify Tornado in the same generation as the Gripen or the Rafale. Ridiculous! The article should be corrected, Tornado is 3rd gen., the swing-wing has been obsolete for 25 years now. 82.131.210.162 20:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

J-10 "generation"

Since there is a continued "back-and-forth" editing debate over what "generation" the J-10 and so-called "Super-10" may be, I would like to summarize here some observations I posted on the Chengdu Super-10 talk page.

First of all, most aviation sources I’ve read suggest the J-10A is equivalent in capability to the F-16C Blk. 30 – which would make it more of a 4th-gen aircraft. I doubt the J-10C “Super-10” is anything more than an advanced version of the current J-10A, which it is said will have a new "indigenous" engine, thrust-vectoring nozzles and possibly an AESA radar. (It might even be the carrier version reported to be in development, since TV would help reduce the landing distance needed.) This is consonant with the J-10C 'Super-10' being 4.5-gen. If you keep in mind the setbacks China is still recovering from, thanks to the "Cultural Revolution", this would be a sound expectation for the pace of advancement in China’s indigenous technological sophistication.

Association of the "Super-10" with "5th-gen" seems to arisen a few years ago from a misreading of scattered bits of rumor and misunderstood pieces of information. Most sources I've seen over the last year or so talk about the "Super-10" and Chinese "5th-gen fighters" separately. This makes sense in that it's hard to see how the basic J-10 could be evolved into anything beyond a 4.5-gen configuration.

From what little is "known" (using the term very loosely) about China's 5th-gen fighter programs is that Shenyang and Chengdu are each working on an “F-22-class” type, and that Chengdu may also be pursuing an “F-35-class” type design as well. I've yet to see any report of possible names for these programs, and the use of terms like "J-XX" or "XXJ" is premature. Given past Chinese practice, a J-series identification would probably not be assigned to any of these fifth-gen candidates until a much later stage in their development. What would more likely appear first would be “marketing names” emanating from the developing companies for these projects, but I strongly doubt that "Super-10" is related to any of them. At present, the best we can say about China's 5th-gen fighter programs is that there are multiple programs being pursued, the names of which are currently unknown. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


Yes, I do agree with you. All of the information we have so far is completely speculative and as we all know most projects of this nature are bound to be kept highly classified. The only reason I thought Super-10 is 5th generation, was when I discovered the Fisher report and regarding Pakistan, the ACM stated that the current specs of the J-10 were unacceptable and the PAF version was set to be an advance version. Thats why I added the 'hint' part to the Super-10 article but, feel free to remove it as I do understand it is speculative. Faraz 02:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The only aircrafts in generation 4,5 in this system of measuring generations should be the Eurocanards

There are some really strange aircraft in the 4,5 gen box F-15's Mig-29 and Su-27 versions. Those are 4th generation jets period the fact that their airframes and main systems where designed in the 70's means that they are weay behind on Radar Cross Section and aerodynamics that can't be changed without sacrifices in the design. The Eurocanards (Gripen Eurofighter & Rafale) where designed in the 80's when the advancement of technology had allowed for better aerodynamics and more advanced fly by wire controls, also these aircrafts incorporates a much more modular design then their predecessors making them easy to upgrade compared to 4th generation aircraft. The J-10 is a wild card though it it's a fully developed Lavi it would be a 4,5 generation, however the specifications of the aircraft is much kept in the dark due to the for of government currently in place in china which makes comparing this aircraft dificult. I would wait and see as this is potentially the first fully modern fighter that China has prodiuced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkwand (talk • contribs) 22:43, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Will all due respect, you obviously aren't familiar with the MiG-29 & Su-27 variants... You're saying that "the fact that their airframes and main systems where designed in the 70's means that they are way behind on Radar Cross Section and aerodynamics". First of all, RCS is not only affected by an airframe's design: significant drops in radar signature can be achieved by simply using composite materials, using different joining techniques, using less heat-producing engines, and altering the angles of the paneling... Furthermore, the consensus is that a 4.5th generation fighter should have "emphasis on signature reduction (primarily RF "stealth") and highly integrated systems and weapons [...] Stealth characteristics are focused primarily on frontal-aspect signature reduction techniques including radar-absorbent materials (RAM), coatings and limited shaping.", so whether RCS reduction was considered during the initial airframe design is not a factor!!! Secondly, the early MiG-29s & Su-27s were aerodynamically superior than most current 4.5th generation fighter aircraft: for example, a MiG-29 Fulcrum-A can cruise at Mach 2+ speeds whereas Gripens, Typhoons, and Rafales (your examples of so-called superior aerodynamic designs) can barely reach Mach 2... Even western pilots know that when it comes to visual range confrontation, the russian aircraft are superior due to their better aerodynamics & maneuverability. So both of your main arguments are, well, not really arguments...

Now if you were to do your research, you would realize the extent of the major changes that each subsequent MiG-29 & Su-27 variant has gone through (and there are many MANY variants of each, just go to their respective pages and you'll see). You'll also realize that all the recent technological advancements have been incorporated to many of these variants. For example, the MiG-29M OVT incorporats 5th generation thrust vectoring technology, the MiG-35 has the revolutionary OLS which no other fighter aircraft possesses, and the Su-35BM puts design emphasis on increased stealth (Reduced RCS)...

As for modular design, most professional designers in the aviation industry know that when it comes to being versatile and upgradeable, you can't do much better than the MiG-29 & MiG-27 platforms... These two combined have more variants than all American & European fighters produced in the last 10 years, combined!!! HyeProfile 21:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Best? That is all puffery and unqualified. This is not a fan page. Nicholas SL Smithchatter 03:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Puffery and unqualified? I don't appreciate personal attacks, nor do I tolerate them, especially when they are unwarranted and unsubstantiated. The subtitle states The only aircrafts in generation 4,5 in this system of measuring generations should be the Eurocanards, and you're accusing ME of puffery and of being unqualified? First of all, I clearly make a widely-recognized and well-substantiated statement that most professional designers in the aviation industry know that when it comes to being versatile and upgradeable, you can't do much better than the MiG-29 & MiG-27 platforms. I'm a profession aeronautical engineer working for a big airplane manufacturer in Canada, so not only does that make me qualified, but if anything I should be a so-called fan of our C/F-18s and would make the argument that they are 4.5 generation aircraft, yet I try to be non-biased and objective in my statements and I get accused of being a fan by people making even more rediculous statements... Furthermore, I quote directly from the so-called consensus statement of fighter generation determination, and none of it contains any specific mention of eurocanards as the sole form of 4.5 generation fighters...
Enough with all this our fighter is better than yours mentality. This is suppose to be an educational article for the average person who doesn't possess aeronautical knowledge. So enough with the POV statements!!!HyeProfile (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is 5th Generation aircraft on this list?

I don't understand why. It deserves to have it's own page, this should be about fourth generation. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be, which is part of why I'm proposing an extensive reorg of this and the Fighter aircraft articles. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Because this is the playground of American patriots. The whole principle of " X generation" for fighter jets, is a marketing tool, made up by Lockheed Martin, a US aerospace company. There is no such thing as "X generation fighter", its a meassure defined for marketing campains by Lockheed Martin, so you can make claims as such:

"The JSF is one of only two fifth generation aircraft. The other is the F-22 Raptor. Both aircraft are built by the US-based Lockheed Martin company."[4]

The game is to brand the Typhoon as a 4 or 4,5 generation fighter", while F-22 and JSF will be branded as only fifth generation aircrafts on this page. The fact that wiki even buy into this whole marketing trick, and let the patriots establish their own marketing playground, is questional in itself. It's spin, and wiki is taken hostage in this patiotic campain. Stop this patriotic vandalism on WIKI now. Its about time all users are identified by contry/region code. --Financialmodel (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi all. Raising this issue again, in this article there should be no details about "5th Generation" fighters. I agree with user Askari Mark, this info should be in a separate wikiarticle (if appropriate), or embedded in the "top-level" Fighter aircraft wikiarticle (I guess there is already something there). Cheers, DPdH (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Please see discussion on the WP:AIR talk page. Askari Mark (Talk) 14:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The languished proposal can now be found here. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow - I just realized that this is a terrible problem -- Fighter aircraft is greatly overlapped this article, which isn't actually about 4th generation fighters, but about 4th, 4.5th, and 5th generation fighters. This is absurd unless we 1) split Fourth generation jet fighter into two articles for 4th and 5th generations fighters, or 2) we make a generational page separate from Fighter aircraft about fighter generations, or 3) we nix Fourth generation jet fighter alltogether and add the information to the Fighter aircraft article. Am I missing a reason this has not been done yet? I haven't found a comprehensive conversation about this, other than the brief mention with which I agree at the Aircraft Archive.. -- Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, as you can see, I attempted to stimulate discussion about this, but was unsuccessful. Accordingly, I’m not sure about the reasons why these articles are the way they are aside from inertia and neglect. So far, the only consensus has been to separate 5th Gen from the 4th Gen article, and I’ve just recently agreed to take that on. However, IMHO the best approach is your number 2, as I proposed earlier. It is very difficult to find useful citations for the definition of jet fighter generations, and most of the edit warring is over whose favorite aircraft belongs where. As a result, the 4th Gen article is far too large and I feel the whole topic should be condensed to a more concise and readable size without so much of the POV debate fodder. Since the generations only apply to jet fighters, it should be a subtopic on that and a “generations” article an expansion of the history and meaning of this set of terms. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the creation of a Generations article instead of a generational split of articles. A single generations article would provide a much more concise, localized, and maintainable article. Consistency would be much better, and such a page would provide a smaller target for fanboys' vandalism. Are you committed to the 4th / 5th generation split? The lack of participation in your previous discussion indicates a lack of interest as to the article structure of this topic. The more favorable result of a generations article would probably lead to greater satisfaction of the entire community. Nicholas SL Smithchatter 03:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Am I committed to the 4/5 split? Only to the extent that the present article is untenable and that's the first step toward improving it – consistent with existing consensus. However, it only fixes this article. My personal preference would be to redo the whole thing as a "generations" article ... if consensus to rework this material accordingly can be generated. Askari Mark (Talk) 14:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the Generations article is a great idea. One thing that struck me is the comment "It is very difficult to find useful citations for the definition of jet fighter generations"...if the industry isn't referring to the aircraft in this manner, why are we in such detail? Seems to me that promotion of this almost artificial classification is the product of fandom and, as you said, the fans' favorite planes; much of it strikes me as OR analysis. Replacing these articles with a single article which outlines how others in the industry and the industry media classify the planes would be a much more encyclopedic approach. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The industry refers to it all the time; what's hard to find citations for is how the generations are defined. The definition arises from the same vague process by which consensus is often achieved on Wikipedia. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like at least we are in agreement about the direction to take - and that is won't be entirely easy. I envision a generations article as either citing generational definitions, the way industry refers to them, or simply detailing the development of fighter jet technology much as the Fighter Jet article's generation list does (effectively moving that list into a separate article and refining that, eliminating the 4th generation article and incorporating the information that is worthy.) What sort of consensus do you all think we should try to obtain before splitting out a Generations article and making this change? Nicholas SL Smithchatter 19:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[reindent] I've been looking at these two articles some more and your observation about fan wars has given me an idea about a first level of "triage" that would make both articles easier to work with – and to read – as well as contain the list wars into a more easily managed form. I also think it would a reasonable "bold" move that wouldn't offend consensus, really clean up the articles, and is more easily done over the next few busy weeks. I think we should take the lists of notable fighter types from both articles and move them to a new, unified "List of notable fighter aircraft". The current section headers would be copied over as well and a reference link would procede from the old location to the new one. That would reduce the messiness and leave us with a clearer idea of what should be done next. Readers who are interested could choose to use them to learn what these might be and thence explore the articles on the individual aircraft, while other readers would no longer have to scroll through them every few paragraphs to read the main article. This is what lists are best used for. I see that the possible choices for what to do next with the two articles would then be to poll editors on two possibilities: 1) Rework them as discussed above, or 2) merge them. Thoughts? Askari Mark (Talk) 23:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • How can you not see what going on here?????????????????????? Dont you know anything about this? This is the playground of American patriots. The whole principle of " X generation" for fighter jets, is a marketing tool, made up by Lockheed Martin, a US aerospace company. There is no such thing as "X generation fighter", its a meassure defined for marketing campains by Lockheed Martin, so you can make claims as such:

"The JSF is one of only two fifth generation aircraft. The other is the F-22 Raptor. Both aircraft are built by the US-based Lockheed Martin company."[5]

  • The game is to brand the Typhoon as a 4 or 4,5 generation fighter", while F-22 and JSF will be branded as only fifth generation aircrafts on this page. The fact that wiki even buy into this whole marketing trick, and let the patriots establish their own marketing playground, is questional in itself. It's spin, and wiki is taken hostage in this patiotic campain. Stop this patriotic vandalism on WIKI now. Its about time all users are identified by contry/region code. To watch you try to have a serious discussion about a LM marketing tool, is laughable .--Financialmodel (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Purported Typhoon vs. F-22 mock combat engagement

Since there are attempts to insert this rumor into this article, I recommend that the editors here follow the discussion on assessments of its veracity. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cope India 2005

There is a continuing edit war alternating between two very different (POV) versions of a paragraph in the “Exercise reports” section. I am pulling this paragraph out of the article for the time being, so that the editors at large can better work through the issues here on the talk page prior to the reinsertion of a balanced, non-POV version.


Version A

The results of an exercise in 2004 pitting USAF F-15 Eagles against Indian Air Force Su-30MKs, Mirage 2000s, MiG-29s and even the elderly MiG-21 have been widely publicised, with the Indians winning "90% of the mock combat missions"[1]. Another report[2][failed verification] claims that the kind of systemic factors mentioned in the previous section were heavily weighted against the F-15s. According to this report, the F-15s were outnumbered 3-to-1 in some engagements. There have also been claims that the rules of the exercise allowed the Indian side the use of a simulated AWACS providing location information, and allowed them to use the full fire-and-forget active radar of simulated BVR missiles. The F-15s are claimed to have not been permitted to simulate the full range of the AIM-120 missile (restricted to 32–40 km when the full range for the AIM-120C is over 105km), and had to track the missiles all the way to the target (such as the method used for the older AIM-7 Sparrow), without using the fire-and-forget mode of the AIM-120. None of the F-15s were equipped with the latest AESA radars, which are fitted to some, but not all, of the USAF’s F-15 fleet.


Version B

The results of an exercise in 2004 pitting USAF F-15 Eagles against Indian Air Force Su-30MKs, Mirage 2000s, MiG-29s and even the elderly MiG-21 have been widely publicized, with the Indians winning "90% of the mock combat missions"[3]. reports[4]. US F-15s Versus Indian Su-30s]. claims that the Indian Su-30MK obtained its high kill ratio through tactics that exploited the inherent maneuverability of the Flanker design to evade a lock by the Doppler radar used by the F-15 through maneuvers that placed the Su-30 at a low relative forward speed. Once within range the soviet designed Vympel R-73 was used to score the kill. The older second generation Mig-21 and third generation Mig-23 aircraft were able to score favorable kill ratios against the F-15s through superior numbers, and through the use of avionics “BISON” upgrades that gave the Migs fourth generation datalink capability. [5] The Indian aircraft used a combination of the Russian R-77, R-73 and R-27AE missiles all of who possess fire-and-forget BVR capability.


Critique

The first version is basically a whiny apologetic for the purported poor performance of US F-15s against a variety of Indians fighters in a mock combat exercise. It is full of weasel-worded “claims” that are not effectively documented; in fact, the first link is only a “puff piece” and the second link offered doesn’t work. The second version provides a detailed “analysis” of why the Russian-origin aircraft were “superior” – most of which is unsupported by the proffered sources and thus comprise original research. Both ignore the inconvenient fact that the “teams” in the engagement were mixed American-Indian groups, as well as that the CSM source’s quotes from both nations’ participants to the importance of pilot training over simple aircraft capabilities (and that it wasn’t a case of “winners” and “losers” so much as the value of the learning experience itself that was the most important outcome).

Now both versions obviously convey some aspects of “the truth” (however selectively), so by more judicious use of more and more reliable sources, we ought to be able to come up with a balanced, NPOV presentation of this exercise. So I am hoping we can work out a better one here. We might also consider a more first-order issue of just what purpose is served by an “Exercise reports” section in an article on “4th-generation fighters”; I’m not sure that the material shouldn’t be worked into the rest of the discussion. In any case, please add comments and suggestions (sans insults) below. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for the time you spent in reviewing the articles however I believe you may have missed a few important points. The analysis in the second paragraph claimed to be OR is actually a Paraphrase of what the analysts in the Aviation Week and Space Technology have written as the explanation of the results. And while you are correct in noting that the aircraft were mixed between the teams as the CSM pointed out the CSM also said “Yet, observers say that in a surprising number of encounters - particularly between the American F-16s and the Indian Sukhoi-30 MKIs - the Indian pilots came out the winners.” Additionally there was not just One exercise but two that the articles refer to the 2004 exercise had no mixed pairing and was the one where the infamous 9:1 kill ration occurred all the “analysis” can be attributed to the article covering the 2004 exercise. That said the paragraph could still use more refinement so please go ahead and help. Thank you Freepsbane 03:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Statements that clearly suport Version B can be found in the Aviation Week and Space Technology article some of the text used is quoted below.
"Su-30 "always" beats the F-15 involves the Sukhoi taking a shot with a BVR missile (like the AA-12 Adder) and then "turning into the clutter notch of the F-15's radar," the Air Force official said. Getting into the clutter notch where the Doppler radar is ineffective involves making a descending, right-angle turn to drop below the approaching F-15 while reducing the Su-30's relative forward speed close to zero. This is a 20-year-old air combat tactic, but the Russian fighter's maneuverability, ability to dump speed quickly and then rapidly regain acceleration allow it to execute the tactic with great effectiveness, observers said.
If the maneuver is flown correctly, the Su-30 is invisible to the F-15's Doppler radar--which depends on movement of its targets--until the U.S. fighter gets to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile. The AA-11 has a high-off-boresight capability and is used in combination with a helmet-mounted sight and a modern high-speed processor that rapidly spits out the target solution.
Positioned below the F-15, the Su-30 then uses its passive infrared sensor to frame the U.S. fighter against the sky with no background clutter. The Russian fighter then takes its second shot, this time with the IR missile, and accelerates out of danger." Freepsbane 20:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I did not overlook the points you mentioned. For instance, I wrote regarding Version B that “The second version provides a detailed “analysis” of why the Russian-origin aircraft were “superior” – most of which is unsupported by the proffered sources and thus comprise original research.” The AW&ST article cited does not talk about the Cope India exercises but rather covers a simulation from several years beforehand. Without proper reliable sources supporting the statements, they constitute OR. Even if Version B were 100% correct, the cited article is essentially irrelevant to describing specific events that happens years later. (Also, citations should provide links directly to the source – if available – and not to copyright-violations in an online forum.) Similarly, the lack of reference to the use of binational teams – and how differently/similarly the results came out compared to any IAF vs. USAF engagements – insinuates bias by its absence. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well then, let's mention that binational teams were used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.1.40 (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"In a suprising number of encounters" does not equal the majority of encounters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.1.40 (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Recommendations for improvements:

The entire "Exercise Reports" Section should be removed. Without knowing the actual conditions of the exercises and encounters no meaningful conclusions can be arrived at.Wikzilla 03:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that Wikzilla represents a impartial editor: he is currently long term blocked as we speak for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry [[6]] [7]. furthermore a check to his talk page shows that he has never tried to constructively solve a dispute and that the page has been protected by andministrators due to his removal of warnings. while I may be wrong I believe his edit warring of the page could be just trolling, his several blocks lend credence to that idea. Freepsbane 04:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC) BTW he literaly asked for the Block [8].Freepsbane 04:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

on the topic of military exercises, if the world's major air forces consider them valid for gauging aircrafts relative performance I don’t see why we couldn’t take note of war-games especially if they are important enough to make it in to a US senate hearing along with major US, Russian, Indian and British. News papers. The major hurdle is Objectivity; Pravda is naturally pro Russian however is no less valid as a source than the acepted the Christian Science Monitor due to its known American point of view(the infamous Forgery incident being one of its self admited mistakes. However by using multiple international news sources I believe we can gain a overall idea.Freepsbane 04:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikzilla may be a sockpuppet, but his statement has a good deal of validity to it. Politically sensitive exercises such as the Cope India's are rather more carefully "stage-managed" than most people are aware. They have both political and intelligence-gathering initiatives and neither side reveals all of their "best punches". It takes more "confidence-building" than one or a few such exercises; results from exercises performed by close allies are usually more revealing of full real-world capabilities. The one thing we can all be sure of, though, is that the most interesting insights are heavily classified and won't likely make it into the general media for years, if not decades.
As for Pravda and CSM, I was commenting on the writing style of the Pravda article, not the source per se. And frankly, the CSM has a global reputation for excellent investigational standards and generally unbiased reporting. A single example of mistakenly falling for bad info should not be extended to a general, across-the-board bias. The reliability of sources, for Wikipedia's purposes, falls in line with the journalistic professionalism and standards of the individual source and not the country in which it is published. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As of yet no other editors have contributed to improvement of the paragraph as a result using the listed news sources I have created A revised Paragraph that more clearly ties into its sources.Freepsbane 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Version C The results of an exercise in 2004 pitting USAF F-15 Eagles against Indian Air Force Su-30MKs, Mirage 2000s, MiG-29s and even the elderly MiG-21 have been widely publicized, with the Indians winning "90% of the mock combat missions"[6]. reports[7]. claims that the Indian Su-30MK obtained its high kill ratio through tactics that exploited the inherent maneuverability of the Flanker design to evade a lock by the Doppler radar used by the F-15 through maneuvers that placed the Su-30 at a low relative forward speed. Once within range the soviet designed Vympel R-73 was used to score the kill. The older second generation Mig-21 and third generation Mig-23 aircraft were able to score favorable kill ratios against the F-15s through superior numbers, and through the use of avionics “BISON” upgrades that gave the Migs fourth generation datalink capability. A second Cope India 2005 exercise was conducted with teams that used a combination of United States and Russian designed Air Craft and this lead reporters for the Christian Science Monitor to note that “both the Americans and the Indians won, and lost” however it was noted by its reporters. “that in a surprising number of encounters - particularly between the American F-16s and the Indian Sukhoi-30 MKIs - the Indian pilots came out the winners.” ,And "The Sukhoi is a ... better plane than the F-16," the exercise saw upgraded variants of the aircraft introduced Reportedly the United States Air Force was said to be “most impressed by the MiG-21 Bisons and the Su-30 MKIs”.[8] in the exercise The Indian aircraft used a combination of the Russian R-77, R-73 and R-27AE missiles all of who possess fire-and-forget BVR capability [9]. The exercise reports lead created political aftershocks and lead to several senators to call for a increase in the F-22 program due to the perceived inferiority of United States aircraft against late model Sukhoi aircraft. [10]. Freepsbane 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  • One major failing I find with this version is that it fails the "so-what" test. While it summarizes a number of reports regarding the exercise, what is the implication for "4th generation jet fighters" – the formal subject of this article? One of the criticisms I made earlier about the "Exercises" subsection is that it doesn't tie in to the article's subject. While interesting info, it's just a random collection of information that seems to have drifted in from some other article. What do reliable sources have to say on this aspect as opposed to comments about what happened at the airshow per se? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The above version is admitedly flawed, if any editor is wiling to revise it further i have no objections. Freepsbane 21:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


Exercise Reports Irrelevant

The exercise reports are irrelevant. Much more so than actual combat. We also do not know all of the circumstances of the exercises so they cannot be put in context. Therefore in the interest of accuracy I am removing the section.162.83.255.201 (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

And I have reverted your efforts. Please stop removing sourced content. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 06:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should do a better job then of checking "sources" then. Just a cursory check revealed the following about the first (they where 22, 23, and 24) three: 22 Article from the Russian state run paper Pravda with un sourced claims. 23 primary not found, secondary source, someones website where again, theri source is not found. 3rd paragraph, no sources at all. Christain Science Monitor citation, again no sources in the article but it does quote a person saying that the Indian "success" was all about their training and tactics, not the plane. So you may consider this"sourced" content but it is not once you scratch the surface.162.84.183.217 (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should better do self a better job! Pravda (Russian state) ist not Pravda.ru (privat)! That two different newspaper! The Pravda homepage is http://www.gazeta-pravda.ru !!!--90.186.44.161 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I did. Quoting directly from the Pravda online who we are web page

"In spite of the fact that the journalists of both these publications are still in touch with each other, we have different conceptions about news about Russia and the world. The newspaper Pravda analyzes events from the point of view of the Party's interests, whereas PRAVDA On-line takes a pro-Russian approach to forming its policy."

http://newsfromrussia.com/about/

In short, it's not fact, it is charitably called opinion. Also what about the other links and the other uncited claims.?141.157.255.160 (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

S-protected

Because of the persistent edit warring and removal of cited material, I've now s-protected this page. Discuss the situation here, get a consensus about what to do about this section, and when everyone is happy, then we can proceed. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Rather than a knee jerk s Protect why don;t you take the time as an admin to do your job correctly and take a look at all that has been said. Read up a bit you will see that this has been going on for several months with no resolution. Read on a bit further. Take a look at the links for yourself. Do they still exist? Are they from a reputable source? Are the claims even cited. Lastly, look at the article. Notice how it contradicts itself in regard to first saying you cannot tell from Combat record how well a jet will do and then we go right into Exercise Reports where we don;t know what the situation was, is often taken out of context, and also many times rumours.141.155.137.81 (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of an entire section of referenced material is simply not appropriate, and neither is edit warring. This is not at all a knee-jerk reaction at all. You are free to propose the removal of the section, but not continually remove it, especially when it is clear, given the number of different editors who have reverted you, that you don't have consensus on your side. Maybe you should not worry so much about me doing my job correctly, and pay more attention to doing your job correctly...if it has been going on with no resolution, as you admit, then your persistent removal of the material is definitely inappropriate. Since you like to lecture folks on what they should read up on, maybe you should take a moment and read up on WP:CONSENSUS, and note the flow chart. I'm not going to get into a discussion with you about the content, I'm only here to make sure that the process flows correctly, and to this point, that hasn't happened. If you really want to address the issues, I would strongly suggest that you start a new section with a proposal for the removal, and a carefully thought-out discussion for why. And then wait to see if others line up behind your or oppose you. You'd be surprised how well this process works. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Lets see, according to WP:CONSENSUS we have been stuck on the "Do you agree with revert" decision box for a while now. The deletion is reverted and we keep going back and forth, yet the only one that seems to be going to the talk page is me. Don't make me laughKneejerk. It takes two sides to reach consensus and all I have seen here is reverts and S protects. Very well Kneejerk, December 7th is marked on my calendar. How many times do you want to protect this entry?141.155.138.59 (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Su-35 Flanker.jpg

Image:Su-35 Flanker.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"X" Generation is a marketing tool from Lockheed Martin, why does wiki admins try to treat it as a science?

  • Dont you know anything about this? I dont know whether you are incompetent or in on the game, but this is the playground of American patriots. The whole principle of " X generation" for fighter jets, is a marketing tool, made up by Lockheed Martin, a US aerospace company. There is no such thing as "X generation fighter", its a meassure defined for marketing campains by Lockheed Martin, so you can make claims as such:

"The JSF is one of only two fifth generation aircraft. The other is the F-22 Raptor. Both aircraft are built by the US-based Lockheed Martin company."[9]

  • The game is to brand the Typhoon as a 4 or 4,5 generation fighter", while F-22 and JSF will be branded as only fifth generation aircrafts to support the sale of the JSF. And wiki is now an active supporter of this marketing campain. The fact that wiki even buy into this whole marketing trick, and let the patriots establish their own marketing playground, is questional in itself. It's spin, and wiki is taken hostage in this patiotic campain. Stop this patriotic vandalism on WIKI now. Its about time all users are identified by contry/region code. To watch you try to have a serious discussion about a LM marketing tool, is laughable, but also scary, because one start to question how you can work as quillified admins--Financialmodel (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You want to see how its used in marketing?

  • "LOCKHEED MARTIN HIGHLIGHTS RECENT F/A-22 RAPTOR SUCCESSES AS THIS 5TH GENERATION FIGHTER PREPARES FOR INITIAL OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY"[10]

starts: "Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT], builder of the world’s only 5th generation fighter aircraft flying today"

  • "LOCKHEED MARTIN F-35 TO BRING 5th GENERATION CAPABILITIES TO TURKISH AIR FORCE "[11]

How can wiki admins buy into this? You disappoint me.........

--Financialmodel (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A biased WIKI article with a lock on - how nice to continue to misinform --Financialmodel (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, instead of hysterically crying about purported American patriots/vandals and cabal-supporting admins, it would lead editors to take your points more seriously and concretely if you were to assume good faith and couch your arguments in something other than wildly sweeping personal attacks. The way you’re going, you’re likely to end up blocked as a single-purpose account solely interested in trolling.
I would also encourage you to research your facts and get them straight before you post them. The very title of this entry is demonstrably false. The term “fifth-generation” was around years before Lockheed’s marketeers took it up as their sales theme. (In fact, if they had made it up, Lockheed would probably have trademarked it, but it’s difficult to trademark a term already in popular usage.) It is a euphemism that grew up in defense aerospace circles in much the same way as other such terms. That’s why there is no precise definition. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

How is the Harrier II a 4th generation fighter?

To copy and paste my comment from the "Fighter aircraft" talk page...

"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."

Someone mentions the SeaHarrier and AV-8B+

"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. 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) 04:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed we should establish what criteria make a fighter belong to what generation. The example with the harrier and Mig21 shows the Difficulties of Aircraift Cladistics and taxonomy; the Mig 21 Bison a aircraft based on a design fifty years old but upgraded with modern avionics and weapons. Is it a 4th generation aircraft or a 2nd generation design.Freepsbane (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There is such guidance already. Please see Defining Jet Fighter Generations. From my experience, STOVL fighters don't fit neatly into the "design generations". It might be more fair to have separate "STOVL generations", but that would be original research since I'm unaware of anyone having developed a schema. As it is, I've typically seen the original Harrier listed as "3rd Gen" and the Harrier II as "4th Gen", but that seems more courtesy than difference. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but how are we going to classify these aircraft, where they are physically 2nd generation aircraft but electronically 4th generation? Arming an old man with a high-end sword and shield won't have the same effect as arming a young man with them. Not to mention, we can classify some variants of the Fishbed as 2nd generation, whereas we can classify others as 3rd, 4th or even 4.5th gen (avionics wise). There are limitations with the Fishbed design, some that can't be overcome by modern avionics. When the Fishbed was designed, a 1990s-2000s battlefield wasn't kept in mind. So will we classify aircraft based on avionics alone? Will we list every single fighter ant its variants according to generation? Will we have physical (not only electric: avionics) guidelines for generations (such as speed, maneuverability, TVC... etc)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.184.238 (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
As I've pointed out before, "generation" represents a design philosophy, and an aircraft belongs to that "generation" under which it was originally designed. Other technologies can be retrofitted and other improvements made, but you can't change the basic approach without totally redesigning it – in which case you might just as well start with a clean sheet. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep exercise reports?

Let's see if we can get at least the beginnings of a discussion, and maybe a consensus, on the Exercise Reports section. The IP editor who keeps changing IP addresses clearly wants the report gone, and has repeatedly deleted it, but hasn't really provided any solid reasons. As we already know his views, would anyone else care to make a reasoned case for keeping or deleting this whole section? (I'm abstaining, as I'm here to stop the edit war, not to comment on content.) AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the observation I made on Oct. 1 holds a key point to keep in mind (with respect to each mentioned exercise): What are the seminal insights, if any, provided by that material into the implications revealed by the outcomes of that exercise for "4th generation jet fighters" – the formal subject of this article? If it doesn't tie into the article's subject, however interesting the info may be, it belongs not here but (perhaps) in some other article on that exercise. If there's nothing notable with respect to 4th-gen fighters, then it needs to be excised from this article; if the remaining material cannot form a coherent sub-section, then the material should be integrated into whatever other sections it best fits.
Personally, I feel that the entire "Comparative analysis" section should go away. "Whose" analysis is it? It originated with a very POV editor. That's why it begins with an unsourced judgment, "It's misleading to ...." Other than the "Exercise reports" sub-section, what we have here is all that remains of a formerly more extensive, POV-laden, and otherwise problematical writing. The "Exercise reports" part has since been expanded, but without reference to the rest of the article; it has served principally as a place to post POV material, so there's nothing to be missed by its lost (after the worthwhile material has been mined and better integrated elsewhere in the article).
However, I think what needs to happen first is that the 5th-gen material needs to be moved to an article of its own. There's been plenty of consensus for this. I'd offered to do a total workover of all of the "generation-related" articles earlier, but only had one response. I think I'll take it on and try to work on a draft this weekend. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

<---KNOCK IT OFF Inappropriate language.---> Stop deleting sourced information. If the exercises section is given a chance, it will improve. This page is now on my watchlist, and without a reasonable consensus on deletion, any further attempts at deletion I will revert myself. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I too noticed this renewed IP edit war. The ironic thing is that a good case has been made above for removing the section, and the folks who keep reverting the removal haven't bothered to discuss why it should stay. However, screaming "KNOCK IT OFF" isn't really helpful. Remember, silence is equated with consensus, so if you aren't going to discuss the subject, and give a good case for keeping the material, you really don't have a leg to stand on for reverting the removal. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
From 141.157.252.153 which BILLCJ keeps deleting - "The issue is not that there are "sources" for rumors of things that are not usually talked about in a public forum. The issue here is relevance. In the section "Comparative Analysis" it says you cannot extrapolate comparisons based on combat history, but on the other hand we have a section on exercises which deals with simulated combat (rather than actual combat) that tells us this is how we can evaluate the capabilities of different aircraft. Logic would dictate that since we are talking about combat aircraft then combat history should have a much greater weight of relevance than exercises which are contrived and which are designed not to determine which plane is better but is designed to teach aircrew how to fight in their jets. Unfortunately the neophytes who edit this page have a hard time grasping this simple concept."Downtrip (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert, so take this with a grain of salt. Since most of the actual combat that a lot of these fighters have been involved in has been rather one-sided, the only actual data available in comparing them head to head is in exercises, and these are the only "controlled" experiments available to make an honest comparison.Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed the exercises are no less valid than the limited engagements that have occurred, if the United States military and Congress thinks them important enough to talk about then it belongs here.Freepsbane (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Freepsbane your lame attempt to get me banned by making false accusations about me is going to fail. Why don't you just admit that here just like the Eurofighter page the consensus (for a lot of very good reasons is to not include them. Grow up and stop resorting to sneaky underhanded ways of silencing people who you disagree with.Downtrip (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is nothing more than a farce; it has been shown by check user that the swarm of anon IP users that worked to delete it were merely your puppets. (Additionally it found it probable that you are Wikizilla a prolific sock user... you make me sound like Karl Rove on your post up there. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikzilla Freepsbane (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

70.18.12.85, 70.18.1.60, and one that I am not so sure about 141.157.252.153. All done inadvertently when I was not logged in because I had multiple screens up. I look at the last IP address a bit closer and I am not so sure that it was me. The fact remains, do a search on this discussion page. Show me the "swarm". Why don't you just give up stalking me so I can go back to editing and you can crawl back under your rock.Downtrip (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You used those IP accounts to bypass checkuser, if anybody needs to see the "swarm" just check the page history.Freepsbane (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


It's time to call for an official consensus on this section. The discussion should be limited to the merits of the exercise reports being retained. Relate all comments to the topic in question. No disruptive comments will be permitted.

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

Survey - Support votes

SupportThe military exercises are no less valid than the rest of the Comparative analysis sections or engagement history paragraphs that fillup half the page. The major militaries of the world certainly consider exercises worth their time for determining performance, so why shouldn’t Wikipedia do the same.Freepsbane (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Can you explain how {Comparative analysis} is not {Original research}? Bzuk (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
Most of the Comparative analysis and Design considerations are indeed nothing more than original research however the Exercise Reports are hardly original being composed of paraphrases and direct quotes of half a dozen different news and media outlets. Freepsbane (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore if we are to use the same standards the {Design considerations } and {Comparative analysis} that make up over half of this article are almost totally {Original research}, lacking any sources for nearly every paragraph. As of now if one were to look at the 4th gen article it would be noticeable that the {Exercise Reports}, section is the best sourced in the article by the logic of {Original research}, and {Reliable sources} will we also remove the Design considerations, and Comparative analysis.Freepsbane (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Support as per Freepsbane. Without actual combat info available, exercise reports are useful to have. The exercise section should note all the restrictions placed - no use of radar, for example, when the Indians and the RAF faced off with Sukhois and Tornados - but it should be there. If people can give the page a chance, I'd be quite happy to write in, for example, all the context that Air Forces Monthly provides on the Indian/RAF exercises. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Airforces Monthly is published by Key Publishing, a notoriously biased magazine.Downtrip (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
give some sources to back up your claims of "bias". Freepsbane (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Support I dont see why studies that our congress uses for policy arent good enougth for WP it seems to me that some people just dont like what they say.Wasteofhumanlife (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Even if some do not like it. --HDP (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Exercises are a way to estimate performance of fighter aircraft. Not a perfect way. But there no perfect way out there. Even actual combat performance statistics could not be viewed as ultimate benchmark. For example MiG-29 never managed to shoot down any modern fighter, but was shot down dozens times in recent conflicts by other fighters. TestPilot 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Support but only if disclaimer is added that it need not represent the fighter in full combat conditions. also, one of the side might be order to playdown it's ability to not reveal their strength to opposing observers. Akinkhoo (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Support, echoing the proviso that Akinkhoo has described above, I believe that the description of operational exercises should be clearly stated and that despite their outcomes, so many variables are at play and only provide a "snapshot" of the actual combat capabilities of the participating aircraft and systems. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC).

Support, with the limitations echoed by Akinkhoo. The detailed analysis of actual exercises, if performed objectively, are even more useful and relevant than theoretical engagement scenarios and traditional analysis.HyeProfile (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

Mildly Oppose Comparative reports are generally not useful since they have very little context regarding all the parameters of the exercise. I can be persuaded if other editors can make a valid case for retention.FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC).

Yeah, but the real problem is that there is no other good means of comparison. Looking at fighters specs sheets could be even more misleading. Real life combat performance? MiG-29 scored no single air to air combat win over any modern fighter - and 1000+ of them is in use outside Russia. It took part virtually in all major conflicts for last two decades. But... So, is it worst fighter plane out there? There is no information that is perfectly show capabilities. My point that we should give reader as much information as we can and do our best in explaining it. And let reader to decide, what is important and let him draw his own conclusions. Comparison is a whole point of this article. Some time ago it was even named "Comparison of ..." TestPilot 03:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, in a perfect world it could be kept, but I doubt anyone is able to write it out in a decent and neutral manner taking also the effect of doctrines into account. However, the same is also true for the combat performance section above it. The Gulf War and Kosovo War are not really valuable in comparing fighters. In both wars one side had a huge numerical advantage even more emphasized by the presence of AWACS-aircraft. - Dammit (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets from the Indefblocked User:Wikzilla Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/February_2008#User:Downtrip, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Downtrip, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wikzilla, have been very active in this thread both User:Banofreep & User:Ptgreen recently voted in this thread without prior contributions were shown by checkuser to be socks of Downtrip/Wikizilla who for some reason wishes to see a majority vote for oppose in this nonbinding poll. The fact that known Wikizilla sock IP addresses have been very active in your page has also drawn suspicion to yourself. [12]Freepsbane (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

OpposeAnecdotal stories you read about never give a full picture of the circumstances involved--Getitrightnow (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Getitrightnow is indefinitely blocked as a User:Wikzilla sockpuppet Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

--Thomthumb (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Oppose I don't think exercise reports are very factual.

Thomthumb is indefinitely blocked as a User:Wikzilla sockpuppet Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Exercise reports prove nothing and are often misleading. They are for fan boys.--)Newlyapart (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Newlyapart is indefinitely blocked as a User:Wikzilla sockpuppet Freepsbane (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This is supposed to be an enclyopedia, not a collection of anecdotal stories.--Narlything (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

User:Narlything is indefinitely blocked as a User:Wikzilla sockpuppet Freepsbane (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Call for a close to the Survey

I have been mildly interested in all the machinations of the survey campaigning but now that a number of admins have been active and also been scrupulous in their scrutiny of the voting, I will ask the dissenting editors for their opinion on establishing a consensus and ending this survey for opinion. Remember that a consensus is not a strict adherence to a majority vote but an acceptance by all parties in a decision. With this proviso in mind, I will now cast a vote for Support with the disclaimer that Akinkhoo has recommended. FWIW, the normal period for establishing a consensus on a disputed issue is a week but due to the extraordinary circumstances engendered in this survey, the deadline was extended to allow other participants to register their vote. Bzuk (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC).

Six agree vs. one oppose. This is as close to consensus as we can possibly get. And there was no change in count during last two weeks. Article is in poor condition and need lots of clean up/edits. It is in our best interest to unprotect it. TestPilot 16:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, let's unprotect it and exercise some judgment in at least cleaning up the non-contentious parts of the article. Nobody moves around the a/c between gens, nobody removes anything... Only language corrections and neutral edits...HyeProfile (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the heck are are the COPE exercise here?

Given the highly asymmetric nature of the exercises, all that can be concluded is that F-15s and F-16s operating without BVR capability, using no active missiles, and defending ground targets, can be defeated by a force outnumbering them 3:1 and using active missiles.

This hardly fits the article's intent.

(http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-cope-india-article02.html)

Djma12 (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why the Citations for the Generations

This is purely subjective. The citations already given are either out of date(1989 book), from a discussion forum (not even in English) or in the case of the Maxwell Air College paper, clearly biased in terms of trying to get more F-22s built. I think the citations should be removes as they are invalid.Downtrip (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Americans have their problems with math! Here is the answer:

    • Explain yourself, what do you mean Americans have problems with math? Is that some sad attempt at insulting me? You have no idea who I am nor where I am from or what I do. I do not know anything about you either but judging from your "contributions" I can tell that you are one arrogant, angry fool whoi has a problem with Americans. It has no place here so stuff itDowntrip (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Versions European vs US/Russia

Here's how SAAB separate the generations.

1st generation Includes early jet driven warplanes, such as the Vampire, MiG-15, F-86 and the J29.

2nd generation are jet fighter aircraft were weapons integration and avionic systems was being introduced. This generation involves the MiG-21, F-5 Freedom Fighter, F-4 Phantom, 32 Lansen and J35 Draken

3rd generation are supersonic fighter aircraft with an infrastructure based on separate digital systems, who takes great advantage of computers to achieve functionality. Aircrafts included in this generation are for example the MiG-29, Su-27, F-15, F-16, F-18, Mirage 2000 and the Viggen.

4th generation are supersonic aircrafts with a digitally constructed infrastructure, with fully integrated computerized systems, which uses a common computerbase with a standardized interface. This means that sensors, weapons, control surfaces, control organs, displays and so on can be used as information suppliers and information carriers; offering in theory an infinite number of combinations in which to create the systemfunctions desired. The only limit are the laws of physics and the human being. Included in this generation are, the F-22, F-35, the Rafale, the Eurofighter and the Gripen. The principle structure creates a very high development potential, and has the ability to fully take advantage of future advancements in sensors, weapons and computers and so on. The 4th gen fighter remains young over time. New system functions can be created when there is a need for it, depending on the tactical demands, and the technical development.

    • Nice definition of yours too bad it's only an opinion.Downtrip (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That is typical examples for the differences in the definition of jet fighter generations in Europe and the US/Russia.

In Europe aircraft like the F-16 or MiG-29 are classed as 3rd generation, while the same aircraft are classed a 4th generation in the US/Russia. Therefore their successors must belong to the 4th generation in Europe, but 5th generation in the US/Russia. That is the reason why Europeans refer the 4th generation to aircraft like Gripen, Rafale or Eurofighter. That means a European 4th is a US 5th!!! --90.186.43.72 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice conjecture but is there any verifiable and authoritative reference sources that back up these definitions? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC).
Yes, AFM class the F-15 as 3rd generation. AFM September 2004 "Eastern smile" p.41-p.43--90.186.155.216 (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That is how Gripen, the worlds’ first fourth-generation fighter aircraft in operational service, was put into the air. That make your F-15 and F-16 to a generation 3! Therefore find you only the version notice "latest version" at the European manufacturers websites! --90.186.196.233 (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a SAAB site that is making a claim that the Gripen is comparable to more sophisticated technology such as integrated into the F-22 and F-35, both of which have features not matched by any other current fighter technology. The stealth, supercruise, V/STOL and other elements are not taken into consideration. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC).
The Saab site is marketing nothing moreDowntrip (talk)

For a more logical, balanced discussion of the generations I would suggest - http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0182.shtml I would caution you that it is somewhat dated and does not take into account 4th gen planes with AESA radars, sensor fusion or integrated countermeasures suites as upgraded F-15s, and F-16s have. Bottom line, the line between 4th and 4.5 is quite subjective. The line between 4.5 and 5th is not. All aspect stealth, AESA, integrated electronics, Network centric systems for 5 gen.Downtrip (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[13]This prove nothing, equal to 0,0% relevance. That show only the American point of view of generations. Lockheed Martin marketing nothing more. The F-22 use not all aspect stealth, the F-22 is only stealht in the front quarter according to the definition of the USAF. Otherwise the wing can't far enough backward placed or the front fuselage must enlarged. Lockheed also can not conjure and must also Haack and Jones note! That is why the F-22 is shorter than the F-23. AESA necessarily. Why? Can AESA monopulse? Can AESA disappear like as a plasma antenna. A plasma antenna can switch of and disappear. AESA have some serious disadvantages, maximum pivoting range +-60°, decreasing resolution, decreasing amplification and decreasing concentration outside of the axis. Why not HMD and HMS. O, I forget the F-22 lack this. Or why not Supercruise? A afterburne plume ist not stealth, it's a great source of IR and is a great Radar-Reflector. O, I forget the F-35 lack this point. Why not mentioned FSS or SAR-Lupe. Downtrip you make cherry picking!--HDP (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

O, Downtrip have discoverd a contact mine and I now too. [http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress///Maxwell_papers/Text/Cate_MP30.pdf In a 1998 interview with Aviation Week and Space Technology, Gen Richard Hawley, commander of Air Combat Command, said, “the F-15 will not be able to operate effectively against upcoming threats such as four-and-ahalf- and fifth-generation fighters like the Eurofighter and Rafale and upgraded versions of the Sukhoi Su-27.] Selective omission used as justification for the claim 4.5. Only the American Wikipedia make a 4.5 out a 5! Oops, that contradicts the marketing department of Lockheed. [14] Fifth Generation Fighters (circa 2000 to ?) YF-22: 29 September 1990 F-22: 7 September 1997 Ops, the F-22 was designed in the mid-eighties and early nineties, some years before the Typhoon and is arcording to this a 4.5 or only a 4! You can see this in the very rudimentary AtG capabilities of the F-22!--HDP (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And yes, no one peer reviewed source is in this "Fourth generation jet fighter"lemma!--HDP (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Russian fighters superior, says Pentagon.
  2. ^ US F-15s Versus Indian Su-30s.[failed verification]
  3. ^ Russian fighters superior, says Pentagon.
  4. ^ Aviation Week and Space Technology,Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time' secondary archive
  5. ^ [15]
  6. ^ Russian fighters superior, says Pentagon.
  7. ^ Aviation Week and Space Technology,Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time' secondary archive
  8. ^ [16]
  9. ^ Aviation Week and Space Technology,Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time' secondary archive
  10. ^ .http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=1258&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationnow.com%2Favnow%2Fnews%2Fchannel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dnews%2FRAPT08035.xml
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fourth-generation_fighter/Archive_3&oldid=1090558520"