Talk:Fighter aircraft

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force

HAL TEJAS

I’ve removed the HAL Tejas for essentially the same reason I’ve removed the TD section: a full production version has not achieved initial operational capability (IOC) and only in-service aircraft can be counted as belonging to a “generation.” It should not be readded until a full production version has achieved IOC with a combat squadron, which is an event that will follow induction. This should also help alleviate the dispute over its proper generation.Askari Mark (Talk) 03:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the Tejas is a 4th-Gen – not a 4.5-Gen – design. The fact that it has suffered a prolonged development timespan does not “promote” it to a 4.5 Gen. This does not mean it’s antiquated or obsolete; most air forces will be flying 4th-Gen fighters for at least a couple more decades (and, of course, more advanced technologies can be retrofitted as desire and funding allow). I am very familiar with the capabilities of the Tejas – in fact, I wrote most of what currently stands in its WP article, removing fanboy and disparaging POVs – and I’ve yet to see anyone provide clear evidence of it being Gen 4.5. When the airplane becomes eligible for insertion here, then this should be reassessed, but please keep in mind that simply upgrading/retrofitting an aircraft with more modern equipment does not necessarily translate to a generational promotion; there has to be significant redesign as well. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Since an editor attempted to re-add the Tejas (as a 4.5 Gen fighter), saying that two squadrons are in service, let me point out that this is not true. The current plan is to stand up the first squadron in 2009-10 and a second squadron a year later. (See “Air Force To Deploy First LCA Tejas Squadron in Tamil Nadu By 2010” and “Tejas will join IAF by 2011: Antony”.)

As for the Tejas’ generation, I’ve yet to see reliable, independent aerospace source assert that it is 4.5. However, I can find numerous examples that say it is 4.0, among which are the following examples (emphasis added):

• Flightglobal (dated 6/10/08); “India reveals plan to develop indigenous medium fighter”:

The Indian air force has approached the Bangalore-based Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which designed and developed India's fourth-generation Tejas light combat aircraft, to prepare a detailed project report on the development of 20t medium combat aircraft (MCA) with stealth features.

• India Defence (dated 5/2/2007); “HAL's LCA Tejas Fighters Weaponization to Begin from April 2007”:

Dr Subramanyam is also hopeful of joint efforts by private companies across the globe to market this fourth generation fighter aircraft.

• International Aerospace (May-June 2007); “A Shot in the Arm for LCA Programme”:

In a major breakthrough for the Indian aeronautical sector, the first aircraft in the Limited Series Production (LSP) of India’s home grown, multi role, fourth generation Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas, has cleared the decks for the state owned aerospace major Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to take up the production of eight Tejas aircraft as part of LSP.

Let's please avoid further fanboyism here. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Whoever is deleting the HAL Tejas from the 4.5 generation list, Don't do that if you are really well informed about aircraft. It is now officially classified into 4.5 generation criteria. Yeah earlier it was supposed to be a 4th generation fighter when the program was launched in 1980's but the program being taking a long term. It has been re-designed according to 4.5 generation criteria with State-of-the-art avionics and other gears E.g:-fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system (FCS), multi-mode pulse-doppler radar, and afterburning turbofan engine and even AESA radar. Hence i request to the person who is deleting it from the page, to not to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.96.79 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The Tejas is not (yet) eligible for inclusion since a production-standard version has not entered squadron service (IOC, not “induction”). Please see the earlier discussion. Whether Tejas belongs in the Gen 4.0 or 4.5 section can be debated at that time. At the current time, the great majority of sources call it 4.0, which is what WP must then call it. By the time Tejas achieves IOC, the popular consensus may have changed, but that’s not for us to forecast. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Currently the Tejas does not have AESA radar, future variants probably will, but currently the Tejas is not even in service! So whoever is bumping the Tejas up to 4.5, please... well stop. Besides, most people do still consider the Tejas 4th gen. (````) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.50.156 (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the yet-to-be-IOCed-Tejas is not 4.5th gen. It's not even a full-fledged multirole fighter; it's more like an intercepter as it has nearly zero ground-striking capacity. Furthermore, Tejas's propulsion system ISN'T EVEN DECIDED ON YET. It's a hardcore 4th gen, and is better than the Mirage but by no means comparable to the 15/16/18E, Typhoon, Rafale or J-10B/11B which are somewhat STEALTHY, FAST, LOW ON MAINTENANCE, AND CAN ACTUALLY DELIVER ENOUGH PAYLOAD TO BE LABLED AS A MULTIROLE. "Light Combat Aircraft with carbon composites" = "We can't make Medium or Heavy Combat Aircrafts with higher-grade fibre composites." Being able to build one of world's lightest fighters is NOT SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF. Most here would agree that a J-10 can even take out a Tejas, no problem. Having a radar which can lock on 10 targets when you can't even engage 5 is OVERKILL. The Tejas does have some fancy gadgets but its design is solid 4th gen and its propulsion system ISN'T EVEN fully 4th. Drop it. If it makes you guys who always bump it to 4.5th feel any better, think of Tejas as a 4.24th gen fighter.--Ao333 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember WP:CIVIL, please. And regardless of whether Tejas is 4.0 or 4.5 generation, it still isn't in production or service, per the whole discussion above, so the tempest in a teapot is, it seems, rather moot anyway... - The Bushranger (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking from no authority whatsoever, the "generations" nonsense only really applies to cold war American and Soviet aircraft where there were clear equivalents for almost every plane. If we cannot agree on the classification of the Tejas, we should ignore it and use other examples in the article and avoid this urinating competition altogether. Assigning generations to new Chinese aircraft will have exactly the same problem, and there's a fair argument for scrapping the generations altogether as a US-centric bias to the article's coverage. SDY (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you in the sense that there is such a wide abundancy of fancy radar, avionic, and stealth technologies out there, it's nearly impossible to categorize them into generations. However, it is noteworthy that propulsion systems are still highly monopolized by the permanent security council members as they are the only ones capable of producing modern indigenous turbofans. US>RF>UK>FR>PRC will be the ranked order of aero and naval technologies for this decade. So please, do not present aircrafts that can't even fly without imported engines into a debate.

TO PEOPLES OF INDIA: AESA is the first and foremost important requirement demanded of 4.5th gen fighters as defined by the United States government: http://opencrs.com/document/RL33543/ As of 2010, plans and progress of the Israeli AESA upgrades for Tejas are still unclear. Please refrain from assigning Tejas to 4.5th gen UNTIL it is equiped with AESA. Only the US has AESA-equipped fighters in service.--Ao333 (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, please, remember it, you should. - The Bushranger (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

4.5 Generation

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

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

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

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

The US House of Rep. defined 4.5 Gen as:

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

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

Sixth-generation jet fighters (2020+)

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

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

Three quick points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example:

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

2nd and 3rd Geenration Jet Fighter Articles

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

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

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

Aircraft in development

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

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

List of fighter aircraft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Entry on JH-7

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

Delete the gen list please

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decoding MIG sales brochures

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

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

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

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

Fighter aircraft cost/effectiveness

Having been thinking about fighter aircrafts trough the centuries, I am amazed on the types of fighter aircrafts that are used today. To me, it seems that fighter aircrafts have become allot less cost/effective and allot less able to stay airborne (today they mostly simply rely on brute force, ie using their jet engines). I'm guessing that putting together the specifics of several fighter aircraft trough the centuries will confirm this.

For the graph-image (or table), I would propose the including of these aircraft:

• P51 Mustang
• F4 Phantom (or CF101 Voodoo)
• Joint Strike Fighter

Perhaps a similar image can also be made for bombers (ie B17, B52 and B2) and perhaps

Data they I wish to show is:

• Purchasing cost
• Operating cost (fuel, maintenance, ...)
• Flight range
• Attack range (machine guns/rockets)~
• Payload (guns + rockets + bombs)
• Weight
• Energy requirements/km

Note that for equal comparing, prices probably need to be recalculated; ie 1$ was worth more in the past, as opposed to now.

I'm hoping that the results will confirm my suspicions, and making + placing the graph/table here will perhaps put some pressure on returning to more "cost/effective" models (these could btw perhaps also be jet-propelled ones, ie Me 262-type aircraft, or similar models). Increasing the cost-effectiveness would also save us some tax.

PS Note that for reason of providing an honest comparisment, I'm not including the most cost-effective fighters in every category (ie the most cost-effective fighters/bombers would be eg foreign/less used aircraft as Spitfires, B24's, ...

Update

the graph would be best made by showing the airplane price in the vertical axis, and the fuel consumption, maximum speed and armement on the horizontal axis; the fighters can thus be lined up at the horizontal axis with 3 function graphs. This graph would thus be a bit simplified, but it the most info we can show in a single graph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.144.189 (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

81.245.91.8 (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be WP:OR in terms of an addition to this article or its own article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

However that does sound like a nice topic for a book. So why don't you write that instead? Hcobb (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is the argument of the Fighter Mafia, i.e. it has been done before. The original F-16 was in fact the product of that precise same line of thinking. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly, my line of thinking also incorporates comparing the method of propelling; ie jet-powered vs propeller-driven (the first one uses allot more energy, but as I see it, allot energy is wasted here in the form of heat); I thus think that an image or a seperate article seems useful.

KVDP (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Speeds are a nearly pointless comparison because they plateaued in the 70's from g forces limitations on the pilot and an aircraft may have an excellent maximum speed but still be a poor fighter though too large a gap will leave the slower fighter at a disadvantage nothing can overcome. Higher speeds result in more drag, and more power is needed to attain or maintain the extra speed. As long as they are in the same ballpark, effectiveness depends as much on the capabilities of aircraft as on the relative skills of the pilots. To give an idea of what I mean, the Brewster Buffalo fighter, flown by inexperienced US or British pilots against experienced Japanese pilots got thrashed, but the same aircraft in the hands of the experienced Finns were able to take on much better Russian aircraft (including lend-lease Spitfires) and win so often the Finns made plans to build more. That isn't to say we should spend all our money on training though.

The last generation of piston aero engines were vastly more complex than any jet engine, and required more man hours to make, and to get to work properly hence the reason they are no longer used. Compare the R-4360 or R-3350 with a PW100 of similar power. Aircraft are subject to far greater stresses than they were during WW2, and as a result cost more to design and to build. Structural techniques that worked using rivetted sheet metal were forced aside by large milled components (horrendously expensive in comparison) because it was the only alternative. Honeycombing structures added still more to the cost and even that has been replaced by the still more expensive and complex task of manufacturing large carbon fiber components embedded or coated with RAM. Numerous attempts were made to limit the size and costs of new aircraft but none of the results was ever usable except the Harrier - and that was entirely by accident as it was intended as a technology demonstrator for a fighter that never got built. It is undeniably an arms race - and one much harder to control than battleships or nukes ever was.

Price is a minefield as program costs cover far more than the aircraft - initial training, spares, simulators, buy ins for customer mods, and more that make comparing even similar programs difficult and these individual costs are rarely broken out for the public. Many items are fixed for the whole program regardless of the number of aircraft bought. Small production runs result in high per unit costs since fixed costs such as tooling up are spread out over fewer aircraft. We may never again (hopefully) see the sheer numbers of aircraft built as were during WW2, but those numbers provided a huge savings in the price of individual aircraft, while hiding the costs of all the failed programs that were run concurrently. For every aircraft type the US got into service during WW2, more than a dozen failed types were designed and built at taxpayer expense. Some entered large scale production before it was realized they represented a wasted effort. By ordering from 3, 4 5 or more companies and choosing the best, it makes the choice seem cheaper than it was - the program costs for the failures needs to be factored in as well.

Operational costs for current types are tracked but I've rarely seen them outside of correspondence about the replacement, and good luck on finding statistics for 1940's airplanes - maintenance costs may require a huge effort to unravel and are not negligible.

Keep in mind also that inflation rates are not precise - they are based on the average price of a number of domestic commodities such as milk and flour but those prices haven't kept up to the inflation in the prices of many other items, such as cars or houses.

A final factor to consider is that many WW2 aircraft were not built to last - no more than 100 missions was expected of a heavy bomber while modern aircraft are expected to remain in service for 30 or more years so construction has to be to a much higher standard. After the war was over, the RCAF surveyed its stocks of engines, and despite still needing them, disposed of large numbers because they failed to meet post-war tolerances and quality control minimums. What was allowable during one of the hardest fought wars in history was no longer adequate in peacetime. We place a much higher value on life and limb now than we did during either of the two wars (perhaps their greatest legacy) and safety costs money. Armour and ejection seats are no longer optional and are not free.

FWIW the CF-101 was to use nuclear tipped missiles against Russian bombers but had such poor maneuverability that it would have been unable to escape the blast from even one of its own missiles - perhaps an all time nadir in cost effectiveness. NiD.29 (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Images

I've trimmed things down in the jet "generations" sections to just three to a generation (with one exception, four for fourth generation, as the section was so long). Hopefully it's a bit less of a "vertical gallery" now. - The Bushranger (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think images of aircraft which are in use should take priority over images of aircraft which are still in development. Yattum (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection

As we have a bit of an edit war about images I have protected the page, can editors please come to a consensus about changing images or not, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Long Range at the expense of Armor Protection

The "cup is half empty" capitalizes on the lack of armor protection for the pilot. The "cup is half full" emphasizes the reason why the A6M lacked armor: It was designed for long range. From about 1940 thru 1943 the A6M had nearly double the flying range of an ME109 or British Spitfire. And more than any other single engine fighter until the advent of the P47s and P51s. Additionally, no pilot armor could withstand the impact of an American .50 Browning machine gun bullet! So long range was far more important than adding armor that would not stop a .50 caliber bullet anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.102.9.150 (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

When the A6M was designed none of its contemporaries carried armour either - the difference ultimately was that the Japanese took longer to add armour as well as self sealing fuel tanks - both of which were fitted to late model Zeros and all of the intended replacements. The Spitfire could have had its range increased to match the P-51 but this put the c of g dangerously past the aft limit, and so wasn't done but even the P-51 was near its aft limit when fully loaded. The A6M wasn't similarly handicapped. "No Pilot Armour..." seems doubtful to me (do you have a source other than derived from ww2 propagandha?). The armour didn't need to stop a direct hit from a .50 anyway - deflecting a ricochet, an angled shot or shrapnel could just as easily save the pilots life, and in many cases it wasn't the death of the pilot that won the fight but damage to the aircraft's controls, structure or its engine. In any case by 1945 German armour was heavy enough that 20mm cannons were still a better option.NiD.29 (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What's with The Military/History Channel Anyway?

Recently I watched a program about the A6M Zero on the "military" (or History) channel. I was really looking forward to learning more about that airplane. But was extremely let down by the program when they demonstrated a standard .30 caliber cartridge (.303, 30-06, 308, 7mm or 8mm, they are all generally .30 caliber bullets) penetrating (or not penetrating) WWII pilot protective armor. Nearly all American warplanes from the P40 Warhawks, Dauntless dive bombers, P38 Lightnings, Wildcats, Hellcats, even the B17 bombers all were armed with Browning .50 caliber machine guns, the Mustang was equipped with six of them, the Thunderbolt carried 8 fifties! Fifty calibers were even mounted on the Korean War F86 jets. Why didn't the History (or Military Channel) test the .50 caliber bullet against WWII pilot armor? That is what Americans used. Leave it to TV to broadcast mis-leading information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.21.110 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because the Japanese used .30 cal machine guns and the producers wanted to show how well protected our guys were? Your question isn't relevant to this page which is about problems regarding the wiki "fighter" page - there are forums for that sort of thing - I recommend http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/. NiD.29 (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Dedicated Ground attack aircraft

I have a problem with including dedicated ground attack aircraft in the fighter category. "Colloquially" means to me people with no knowledge of the subject and their opinions are not relevant to an encyclopedia article unless explicitly mentioned as such. The general press wouldn't know an A-10 from a 747 but I am sure that because the A-10 has one seat they have described it as a fighter at some point but that should not be the basis for including it on this page, which is supposed to dispel confusion - not create more. From dictionary.com = Military. an aircraft designed to seek out and destroy enemy aircraft in the air and to protect bomber aircraft. From The Free dictionary.com = A fast, maneuverable combat aircraft used to engage enemy aircraft. From Mirriam Webster = b : an airplane of high speed and maneuverability with armament designed to destroy enemy aircraft No mention of aircraft that are not used for this, or even capable of carrying out this task.

Numerous times aircraft that were not fighters have been designated as such - some like the F-117 for national security reasons, others like the F-111 for political/funding purposes (and this should be mentioned). I have no problem with types designated by the operator as fighters, but the opinions of people not in a position to make judgements are not relevant. Sounds like a fanboi made a bar bet and tried to support a failing argument by posting the claim. Perhaps someone has a reference supporting this (mis)use? (and prove me wrong) I would be willing accept the manufacturer (excepting sales hyperbole) or the purchasing or operating entity (who are qualified to describe it however they want). On a related note - there must be a better first picture - a formation shot is great, but using one having a non-fighter is a poor choice. NiD.29 (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

WWII Pacific theater

I've been thinking about how to improve this article, which at times seems to go all over the place, and decided to be bold and try my hand at reworking a section of it. I've tried to focus it by making the account strictly chronological, and by clearly explaining why Japanese fighters initially had the upper hand and how the Allies took it from them. I know that I haven't given many cites - sorry I just moved and a lot of my books are still in boxes. I will try to improve that. Let me know what you think, and if it looks good I may try my hand at improving other sections. 21:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinner145 (talk • contribs)

I've now given similar treatment to the introduction and the discussion on fighters in the European theater for WWII. Particularly, I thought a discussion of fighter combat on the Western Front was needed. Spinner145 (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up the 'technological developments' section of the fighter article. The main goal was to make it more focused by cutting some of the less essential details. I also added a brief discussion of advances in airframe design (Monocoque construction, swept wings, etc.) that were important evolutionary steps in fighter design during WWII. Next I plan to do an overall edit of the WWII section and the section on first generation jet fighters to try to improve the flow of these sections and to eliminate repetitions. Let me know if you have any suggestions. 21:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinner145 (talk • contribs)

File:PAFF-86s.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PAFF-86s.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 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) 17:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Mirage2000-5F 1-2 Cigognes.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mirage2000-5F 1-2 Cigognes.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 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. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mirage2000-5F 1-2 Cigognes.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)