Talk:Fifth-generation fighter

redirect

I think this would be better as a redirect to Fighter_jets#Fifth-generation_jet_fighters_.282005_to_the_present.29. --71.231.159.136 (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. This topic deserves its own article. The best solution is to expand this article. --skylights76 (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

article

This is my first article and contribution; help with what I should do with it is appreciated. Quarkde (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Find and cite sources that properly document this subject. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Suggest deleting the history section, as (1) it doesn't talk about the subject at hand (which is fighters, not bombers), and (2) is the wrong take on the subject (B-2 and F-117 are ground attack aircraft, not air-to-air aircraft). Alternatively, you might include a section to the effect that the F-117 is often called a "fighter" but it really wasn't designed to be, as its systems were optimized for ground attack.Chrisweuve (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"5th generation fighters do not dogfight". Where does that come from? This whole article should be rewrited —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.163.91.19 (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The F-35 is also optimized for ground attack, but has a generation advantage on the F-117. (And the F-22 replaced the F-117.) Hcobb (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Is 'supercruise' really an element of 5th generation?

The current article describes 5th gen. as featuring new technologies such as supercruise .. Supercruise is ancient technology and, as far as I can tell, not a feature on all 5th. gen fighters.

The EE Lightning was capable of supercruise back 50 years ago <http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/history.php> and several aircraft has been capable since including two civilian airliners (i.e. Concorde and the TU-144).

I also believe, but am unable to confirm or deny externally, that the F-35 is not capable of supercruise.

Though many may put forward supercruise as a defining feature I believe I have shown that it is not. Thus I propose that it should be removed from the definition?.

kimdino (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

F-35 is not capable of supercruise. More infos: http://www.ausairpower.net/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.163.91.19 (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Supercruise marks an aircraft as being part of the Gen 4.5 "kinetics" school when fighters had to point at their targets. Ah, the good old days. Hcobb (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was new tech developed in the 1980s and incorporated on the Advanced Tactical Fighter program. Stealth, and supercruise are the 2 main technologies introduced there that are largely considered 5th gen technologies. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

5th Generation Jet Fighters are supersonic, but that's not unique to 5th Generation. What defines a fighter generation is what the pilot does and 5th Generation pilots depend on the SAIRST of their aircraft to keep things sorted out for them. Hcobb (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? 4th, 3rd and 2nd generation fighters were all supersonic as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And the F-22 is not as fast as the MIG-25's top speed. Does that move the F-22 to a previous generation? The extreme kinetics of the 4.5 Gen fighters with things like thrust vectoring, supercruise, canards, etc. was simply a last gasp of the old school of dogfighting where you needed to get your nose in their tail. Hopelessly outdated now of course. Hcobb (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just like the military thought the cannon was no longer needed on fighters in the early 1960s. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And these cycles are a sign of generational change. There is a line being drawn between the F-35 and all those fighters that came before it. That line is the start of the fifth generation. Hcobb (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Supercruise IS one of the defining features on a 5th Generation fighter, according to Lockheed Martin. The Lightning could do it decades ago, but there were a lot of features it didn't have. 5th Generation isn't just defined by one feature, but a whole list. The Official Lockheed Martin list is as follows: VLO Stealth, Supercruise, Sustained Supersonic Ops, Extreme Agility, High T/W & Low W/S, High Altitude Ops (>50,000FT), Effective fighter missile loadout, Integrated Sensor Fusion and Net enabled Ops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.22.216 (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Typhoon = 5th Generation fighter?

I just tried to find out, whether the Typhoon fits into the definition of a 5th generation fighter. According to this article, these are the criteria:

including all-aspect stealth even when armed: The radar cross section of the Typhoon is in the order of 0.05-0.1 m². This is lower in the order of at least one magnitude compared to legacy 4th generation fighters such as the F-15. Furthermore, the Typhoon is considerably smaller than the F-22, giving a stealth advantage over the F-22 in visual range combat.

Low Probability of Intercept Radar (LPIR): the Captor-E radar avialable for the Typhoon is an ASEA radar that is supposedly superior to the raptors Radar,

high-performance air frames: In terms of speed, acceleration and maneuverability, the Typhoon is on par with the F-22. Instead of thrust vectoring, a highly unstable design is used; you can also imploy the E230 engine include 3D-Thrust vectoring improving both thrust by 20% and maneuverability, i.e. far better than the present F-22;

advanced avionics features: the Typhoon has these features;

highly integrated computer systems capable of networking with other elements within the theater of war to achieve an advantage in situational awareness; this is called sensor fusion and Net Enabled Options. Both features have been part of the Typhoon from the get go. The networing is actually superior to the F-22.

So what sets the F-22 apart from a state of the art Typhoon? A lower radar cross section and higher super cruising speed (F-22=mach 1.8 vs. Typhoon=1.5 mach for supercruise). But the F-35 can't supercruise at all. Nevertheless, it is called a fifth generation fighter!? The F-35 does not have a high-performance air frame comparable to the Typhoon or F-22 and its stealth, i.e. radar cross section is only considerably reduced from the front, like the Typhoon.

Definition 5th Generation fighter "highly" unclear!?

Final remark: Lots of unclear terms are being used to define 5th generation. 1. Low radar cross section! How low does it have to be in order to be called stealth? 2. Low probability if intercept radar: How low does the probability have to be in order to be called low? High performance air frame: How high does the performance have to be in order to be called high? Advanced avionics features, but how advanced do they have to be? Highly integrated computer systems, but how high must the level of integration be? If you want, you can move these "high" and "low" criteria up and down the ladder such that they fit your desire....

In my opinion, 5th generation is a buzz word invented by Lockheed Martin in order to insinuate that their airplanes are far superior to the competition. But, when you look at their performance as air-superiority fighters, then the F-22 is neck-and-neck with the Typhoon, with a slight edge in beyond visual range combat due to the lower radar cross section. Within visual range, the Typhoon is arguable superior to the F-22. However, the F-35 is inferior to the Typhoon as an air superiority fighter by a large margin.Zt3hnuio (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

So now let me demonstrate how the F-35 is made to fit the 5th generation criteria and simultaneously the Typhoon is made not to fit these criteria:

1. Low Probability of Intercept Radar (LPIR): Arguably, the captor-E ASEA radar of the Typhoon is superior to the F-35's radar due to it longer range and greater field of view. The "low probability" requirement is therefore lowered such that the F-35 jumps over the bar.

2. "high-performance air frames": In terms of top speed, acceleration, climb rate, turn rate the Typhoon outclasses the F-35. Therefore, the "high" in "high performance" must be lowered such that they fit the F-35.

3. In terms of sensor fusion and Net Enabled Options and advance avionics nothing really set the two planes apart. So they both meet the criteria.

4. "including all-aspect stealth even when armed": This is the only criteria, where the F-35 has an advantage over the Typhoon. So the requirements for low observability is rased such that only the F-35 meets the criteria, whereas the Typhoon doesn't

Voila: The F-35 is a 5th generation jet fighter, whereas the Typhoon isn't. Consequently, the F-35 is vastly superior to the Typhoon. But, you could easily fudge the numbers in the opposite direction, such that the Typhoon is 5th generation, whereas the F-35 isn't. Therefore, the Typhoon is vastly superior to the F-35. In my opinion it's a mistake to put all of your eggs in one basket, namely "stealth". A good fighter plane must provide the best overall mix of capabilities, excelling in one aspect but failing in others won't give you a winner. A balanced approach is the right way to go.Zt3hnuio (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The entire thing boils down to Situational awareness dominance (SAD). If a fighter has it over 4.5th gens then it is 5th gen and if it doesn't it isn't. A 4.5th gen will usually see a 4th gen before it itself is seen and will be seen by a 5th gen before it sees it. Since the EF is not yet flying with AESA, it has not yet reached 4.5th gen. Hcobb (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

1. You are dodging the question: How high do you rate these criteria 2. You are introducing an additional measure "situational awarenes" without defining what it means. By the way, all current Typhoons will be fitted with the E-Captor. In addition they have Pirate, which the F-22 doesn't have. That improves "Situational awarenes". Again, the criteria are merely being moved up and down the ladder, with one goal: Defining your own fighter as belonging to a different "generation". This is not serious but seriously biased. Zt3hnuio (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"A 4.5th gen will usually see a 4th gen before it itself is seen and will be seen by a 5th gen before it sees it. " Well, but the Typhoon has a high probability of seeing the F-22 first. How is that! In stealth mode the Typhoon merely uses passive sensors, PIRATE and Radar warning reception. As soon as the F-22 turns on it's radar or comes within the range of the infrared sensor pirate, it is very likely that it will be detected by the Typhoon. The F-22 doesn't have an infrared radar detector and is seriously handicapped in this mode of combat. Therefore, the F-22 is a 4th generation fighter, whereas the Typhoon is a fifth generation fighter, right? ;-) Zt3hnuio (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Last but not least, "situational awareness" has been introduces as the sole criteria, all other criteria have been dropped. So parameters are being introduced and dropped as you like. The definition of 5th generation changes whenever a fighter is upgraded or a new fighter is produced, with a single goal: Define your own fighter to belong into a different "generation", no matter what! Zt3hnuio (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

AESA radars have improved range and LPI. From an effective range they just do not trip the "fuzz busters" carried by current aircraft. A 4.5th will spot a 4th by radar detection or by LPI radar. A 5th will detect a 4.5th with LPI radar far beyond IRST range. Hcobb (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The next buss word "low probabilty of intercept" =LPI. How low does it have to be in order to be "low"? How do you know that they do not "trip" the radar warning receivers? Answer: They most definitely will "trip" them ;-) RWR don't even have to be particularly smart. The signal strength on the side of the tracked aircraft is at least 4-times stronger than the signal strength measured by the LPI radar. So the probability of turning on the RWR is higher than the probability of detecting the enemy aircraft. Therefore, the Typhoon operating in stealth mode - with active radar turned off - has a higher probability of detecting the F-22 using his active radar first than the other way around. Zt3hnuio (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, the typhoon's rwr can identify so called LPI emissions. http://www.elt-roma.com/en/prodotti/ew/elt750.php http://www.elt-roma.com/en/gruppo/company.php "Detection of emitters with LPI characteristics" Last but not least, all the techniques used for hiding your signal such as frequency hopping,... can also be implemented with mechanically scanning radars. By the way, what about the "high-performance air frames"? No mention so far from you! This goes to show that the definition of "fifth generation fighter" changes according to you whims and desires.Zt3hnuio (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

One element defines 5th gen

All fifth generation fighters use on board and off board sensor fusion to automatically identify and constantly track all friendly and enemy aircraft in all directions and no previous generation of fighters does so.

Extending this a bit, 5th gens are software defined aircraft. When you want to add a capability to a 4th (or 4.5th) gen fighter you attach a physical object to it like a targeting pod and this connects via a network bus to the displays in the cockpit. However stealth demands make it very difficult to add stuff on the outside of a stealth fighter. (NGJ in a "gun pod" being the only exception to date.)

The F-22 may gain advanced IR tracking capabilities in the future. If so this will be the result of changing the software in the fighter rather than sticking a sniper pod on it. Hcobb (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Su-35 does that, but isn't included due to lack of AESA. There are multiple criteria. NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

All of the fifth generation fighters use stealth and LPI sensors to engage in air to air combat. This bright line splits them off from everything else. Hcobb (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Worldview issues

This article appears to have been written from a U.S. perspective (a common problem with articles written about military hardware). All the examples given are of U.S. fighters. The introductory sentence states that fifth-generation fighters are those that are "in service from 2005", but this is clearly wrong because most countries are currently equipped with fighters that are not fifth-generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.56.99 (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree...for example, Eurofighter Typhoon is technically a 5th Generation fighter, although there seems to be an American bias against it. It features all but one feature on the 5th Generation feature list, just as the F-22 features all but one. Typhoon doesn't have VLO stealth and F-22 doesn't have Net enabled ops. If F-22 can get away without having one feature, then Typhoon can. F-35 shouldn't even be on the list as it doesn't meet Lockheed Martin's own description. It only actually matches 3 of the 9 defined features, which proves American bias, as Lockheed Martin call it 5th Gen. http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/ef_world_2-2010b_Low.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.22.216 (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The F-22 is indeed networked via BACN, while the Typhoon lacks: situational awareness, VLO, and LPI for both radar and comms. I have noted EF's checklist in the article already. Hcobb (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pointless to get roped into this discussion. The whole point of the whole "generations" talk is for the Americans to talk their innovations up and imply that a fighter cannot be "effective" unless is has the particular features they have devised.

This is not to say they aren't useful, it is merely to say that the obvious intention is to play down the capabilities of other types of aircraft. Unfortunately perhaps, those other types are indeed somewhat less advanced in some senses, but this cannot be used to gloss over the fact that there are always trade-offs. The Americans would like us to believe that F-35 vs Eurofighter is like F-16 vs Hawker hunter. This is of course utter claptrap. This article needs to be rewritten to encorporate a balanced view, and the fact that the "generations" parlance is American, and based on the assumption that American design philsophies are correct, and without any disadvantage to accompany their advantages. Princeofdelft (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be completely true if other nations werent attempting to produce similar aircraft. If America introduces a stealth fighter and no other nation attempts to emulate it then it is simply a modern aircraft with a "special feature" its stealth (like the mig-25's speed). But if other nations do attempt to emulate this, and stealth becomes one of the main focuses when developing a new fighter aircraft then America would have indeed changed the game and introduced a "new generation" of fighter. Its like everyone was playing follow the leader with the US, Europe, and Russia in front and the US decided to suddenly hook left. Everyone who was behind (China, India etc..) decided to hook left as well and now with the T-50 Russia looks to be back-tracking also. If any European nation produces a stealth fighter (we will ignore the fact that most of them are acquiring the stealth F-35) then your whole argument collapses. -Nem1yan (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Supercruise

Is there actually a reliable source stating that the F-35 cannot supercruise? If not then some of the statements in this article may need to be reworded. -Nem1yan (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Add the same fnording ref from LockMart team to this article also then... Hcobb (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Lampyridae

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/dti/2010/12/01/DT_12_01_2010_p35-269100.xml&headline=Rivals Target JSF&next=10

One of EADS-Cassidian’s ancestor companies, Germany’s MBB, was well advanced with stealth research as today’s Typhoon was being defined in the 1980s, designing a stealth interceptor named Lampyridae.

Fifth gen or not? Hcobb (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is enough information for the aircraft to be included on this page. This page is about 5th gen aircraft and including this project does nothing to advance the article. Although I do believe it should be added to the list (since the J-XX and that HAL fighter were originally listed as 5th gen on the list of fighters page...) -Nem1yan (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Chengdu J-20

The article should state that China now has a fifth-generation jet fighter, the Chengdu J-20. It just had its first flight, and this information should be in the article. Gaandolf (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Combat ready

No F-22s yet deployed to Libya, so in fact the Eurofighter has beaten it to be the first actual combat deployed 5th gen. There's a difference between training and the real thing, so I think the article needs to make clear that the F-22 is apparently not ready to be put to the real test, so can only be considered operational but not ready for deployment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.241.132 (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Typhoon isnt even touted by the manufacturer as being Fifth Gen and there is no air-combat in that region so its still only being used in patrol missions. The only [relatively] recent aircraft to be used in combat roles are the Superhornet and the Rafale. The Eurofighter's in Libya arent performing missions that are any more "real" than the bomber interceptions in Alaska or South Korean patrols that the F-22 has performed. -Nem1yan (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a ref for a South Korean based F-22 doing an interceptopn of a non-allied aircraft? Anyway the F-22s will be ready for combat next year for sure this time. They double promise. No kidding. Really. Read more at: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/03/why-no-f-22s-over-libya.html Hcobb (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a ref stating that F-22's were deployed to a combat zone whilst North Korea was threatening to nuke themselves the planet. I can also give you sources saying the F-22 is the only 5th gen in service and that dropping bombs was not part of the F-22's original purpose. The Typhoon does not have thrust-vectoring that is planned for it and the Rafale doesnt have its AESA radar so according to your theory they arent operational yet either correct?. Either way I'd be happy to discuss this on my talks page since the IP has been more or less addressed and I'm sure someone is going to start saying that WP is not a forum. -Nem1yan (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't care if you Americans want to go all "were #1" about the F-22, just as long as it is clearly stated that it is an opinion, and that there are counter opinions that do exist. 5th gen isn't even used by non-Americans, so there's no point in debating that really.

The Typhoons are flying over a war zone with people armed and shooting at aircraft, that is totally REAL and so your argument is wrong in that respect

There is no statement on the page saying "the F-22 is #1", and if the term 5th gen is only used by Americans why are you arguing that the Typhoon be included? Also UN forces have complete air-dominance in that region so I dont see what you are arguing about. Performing patrol missions in an uncontested no-fly-zone does not show that the Typhoon is more prepared than any other airframe. Also the Rafale and Superhornet are two aircraft that are highly comparable to the Typhoon and both have seen actually combat. So we could state that the Typhoon is third relatively new fighter to be deployed to a combat environment, that is if we leave out the Sukhoi's from the South Ossetia War. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah ... don't care what you think, just pointing out that Eurofighter is there, but F-22 not. Trying to stir debate as to whether there are problems with the F-22 if it can't be deployed to a hostile environment. If you think there's no risk whatsoever from constant AAA and MANPADS then why not give the F-22's a test run? We all know that the US wants to make the F-22 the king of export aircraft, if you think about it, would USAF pilots rather face aircraft they know all about, or European/Russian/Chinese unknowns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.241.111 (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"King of export aircraft"?? The F-22 was banned from being exported by US congress. I'm not going to go back and forth with someone who doesnt want to listen; and this isnt going to improve the article. You can edit the page but it will most likely be reverted. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

JSF

Someone keeps removing the UK contribution to this project, it's called JOINT strike fighter for a reason. UK pays for some of the cost and according to the JSF page, BAE will manufacture sections, so it is not solely a US produced plane. There were 3 prototypes from US firms, but each option employ the knowledge of BAE who make Harriers and who retained the original knowledge of Hawker, for the design of the VSTOL version. Therefore stop contradicting such facts, and justify yourself here.

Regardless of "who" will eventually manufacture "what" The F-35 is being developed in the US by Lockheed Martin. The design also borrows very little to no influence from the Harrier. However it might be worth noting that it was heavily influenced by the Russian Yakovlev Yak-141, but I believe that is already stated in the X-35 article. Also please remember to sign your comments. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Go on, live in the American centred universe. Apparently 29% of you don't know who your Vice President is. I give up trying to argue with you even when it clearly states that BAE are going to make various parts. Actually, the VSTOL version is beset with problems and has already been dumped by our government, so you're right to say it has little to do with the Harrier design, because that aircraft worked and no other plane has yet to match it!

BAE employs far more Americans than Brits. The JSF is a software program, not a hardware program. Who makes the iPod? Is it Apple or Taiwan? Hcobb (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Second Line of Defense

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=18277 Fifth Generation Aircraft and Disruptive Change

Include or not? Hcobb (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Arms companies fight over fighter moniker

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/09/us-aero-arms-summit-fighters-squabble-idUSTRE7887EJ20110909

I don't see anything new enough to justify adding this one. Anybody else? Hcobb (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

File:SukhoiT-50.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SukhoiT-50.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved as reasonable.--regentspark (comment) 15:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Fifth generation jet fighter → Fifth-generation jet fighter – Correct title, consistent with the contents of the article. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Seems like it should be hyphenated to me, but none of the articles in Category:Generations of jet fighter are at the moment. If this article's moved, they all should be. A quick glance at google books shows that it's hyphenated about 50% of the time. Jenks24 (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support compound adjective.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me} 11:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Move it to Fifth-generation fighter-jet instead please. (And consider adding another hyphen also.) Hcobb (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

"Fighter-jet" is totally incorrect.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 15:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)}

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

And it's moved on a one to one vote! Hcobb (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a !vote, not a vote. --regentspark (comment) 23:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me that three editors were in favour of the move, and even you agreed that it should be "fifth-generation". Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)