Talk:Sixth-generation fighter

popular internet sites

You mean blogs, right? Hcobb (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"The newly developed Chinese Chengdu J-20 and the Russian Sukhoi PAK FA now providing the current American fifth generation jet fighters with comparable opponents, development of a sixth generation jet fighter may be more urgent for the US military.[3]" Not only is this a poorly worded compound sentence (putting "with" in front would create an acceptable gerund phrase), the referenced article doesn't say that at all. It doesn't mention the PAK FA at all, nor does it say that the US military has any plans to accelerate research on a sixth generation fighter. If anything, it suggests that the plan is continuing unchanged, and that by the time the J-20 is operational, the US will have already outclassed it. 130.76.96.150 (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP definitely has a point. The wording will have to be changed unless someone provides a more explicit source. Also the Next Generation Air Dominance article seems to suggest that the X-47B could possibly be a 6th gen fighter. -Nem1yan (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sixth generation jet fighter will be nuclear-powered?

So it can reach any part of the earth, or even the outer space... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.85.245.21 (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There might be some sudden breakthrough in nuclear fusion, but otherwise no chance. I could most likely find some ref that ties nuclear power to 6th gen, but just don't feel like it. BTW: The F-22 has already flown on solar powered fuel. Hcobb (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a suicidally bad idea. The exhaust from nuclear propulsion is radioactive has not seriously been considered since the Atoms For Peace propaganda campaign died off. ツ indolering ^(talk) 01:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

F-16A was a sixth generation jet fighter

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj90/win90/1win90.htm

Richard P. Hallion (PhD, University of Maryland), of the Secretary of the Air Force's Action Group, was selected as the Charles A. Lindbergh Visiting Professor of Aerospace History for 1990-91 at the Smithsonian Institution. Previous assignments include executive historian, Directorate of Advanced Programs, Air Force Systems Command, Andrews AFB, Maryland; curator, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution; and director. Special Staff Office, Aeronautical Systems Division, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. He was also the Harold Keith Johnson Visiting Professor for 1987-88 at the Military History Institute, US Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. The author of 13 books on aerospace and military topics, Dr Hallion is a previous contributor to the Airpower Journal.

So our choices are to either accept the claim that the F-16A was a sixth generation jet fighter, or to mark that source as unreliable and to taint all those places above as unreliable sources. So, which alternative do you'll want to go with? Hcobb (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The text says Arguably, there have been six generations of fighter aircraft since 1939, the "birth date" of the first jet airplane. - not that there has been. Its one person opinion from 1990 and a good source to shoot down all those disputes over which aircraft are 4th, 4.5 or 5th generation. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sixth gen dead

http://warnerrobinspatriot.com/bookmark/18014750-New-fighter-production-could-be-casualty-of-defense-drawdowns The nation's ability to develop a "generation six" fighter jet could be the first casualty of defense budget cuts.

I'm looking for a better source before adding. Hcobb (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Article claims 2025 to be the goal for deployment, both sources that it links to claim 2030

192.249.1.144 (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Over U.S. centricity

This article is massively centric on U.S. efforts in this area of development, whereas there is work being done elsewhere in the world. Granted, there is more citable material available for U.S. efforts, but the very structure of this article needs significant work. Compare the structure of Fifth-generation jet fighter. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan section

This article ought to be semi-protected or locked for a time. The Taiwan section, which I fixed for objectivity and better readability, read like a poorly edited PR release. Also, Taiwan does not have nuclear warheads like the previous edits had indicated. Missiles =/= warheads. For that reason alone, to avoid a Wikipedia article WWIII, this article should be protected/locked, before PRC and ROC spambots do a hundred misinformed or propaganda edits. 129.246.254.12 (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan is a technologically superior country that has the most advanced computer microchip technology and healthcare system in the world. They have successfully developed and tested nuclear weapons during the 1980s. In fact, if you analyze the data closely, you realize that every single long range missile designed by Taiwan including Hsiungfeng III hypersonic long range missiles, Yun Feng long range nuclear missile and satellite launch vehicle, Tien Ma Sky Horse long range nuclear missile, Hsiungfeng IIE subsonic missiles which is a Taiwanese equivalent of the US Tomahawk missile can carry nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Even the Taiwanese designed and built IDF jet fighter and their stealth warships are designed to carry nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Taiwan is also currently building new advanced submarines that would be able fire nuclear missiles. Taiwan, despite their small geographical size, is a technologically superior and militarily strong country. Additionally Taiwan has built conventional weapons of mass destruction such as the Wan Chien cruise missile cluster bomb which spreads out thousands of small exploding bombs from a high altitude to destroy a large surface area. This is the reason why China has not been able to conquer and invade Taiwan despite their repeated acts of hostility during the past 70 years and repeated refusal of the USA to sell Taiwan jet fighters and advanced weaponry. Obama and Trump have both refused to sell Taiwan F-16 fighter jets in order to appease communist China. Additionally there is no American military presence in Taiwan, the closest American military force is located in Japan so Taiwan only relies on themselves for their self reliant development of weapons since they know the USA is not willing to sell advanced weapons and jet fighters to them. Taiwan is estimated to have constructed at least over 100 nuclear warheads while China has anywhere between 3000 to 6000 nuclear warheads. The Taiwanese know that China has more nukes, so Taiwan’s military protects their country by creating an additional self defense deterrent of both chemical weapons and biological weapons to augment their modest nuclear weapons arsenal that can be carried on all Taiwanese medium range and long range cruise missiles, Taiwan is one of the few handful of advanced countries on planet Earth that maintain state of the art Level IV Biological Weapons research facilities for the defense of their country. Please read this:

1.) Taiwan enhancing biological weapons research
2.) Taiwan nuclear weapons
3.) Taiwan hypersonic nuclear missile
4.) Taiwan upgrading and extending range of their long range nuclear missile to strike China
5.) Taiwan is now the world’s most technologically advanced computer microchip maker
6.) Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (TSMC) dethrones Intel to be world’s most advance computer microchip maker
7.) Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation cements their global dominance as most technologically advanced computer microchip maker in the world
8.) Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation, a company few Americans know dethrones Intel as the most technologically advanced computer microchip maker in the world.
9.) Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation surpasses Samsung and Intel to become the most technologically advanced computer microchip maker in the world
10.) Taiwan is the most technologically advanced computer microchip maker in the world
11.) Taiwan has most advanced medical health care system in the world
12.) Taiwan one of the healthiest countries in the world
13.) What can Taiwan’s healthcare system teach America?
14.) Taiwan medical system ranked the best in the world
15.) Huffington Post Taiwan healthcare system
16.) The Baltimore Sun, USA could learn from Taiwan’s healthcare system
17.) Taiwan can help the world with their medical healthcare knowledge
18.) Taiwan’s medical miracle for international patients
19.) Taiwan’s advanced medical technology gives patients new hope
20.) Taiwan seeks to share their medical technology advancements
21.) An American gets medical care in Taiwan
22.) Taiwan ranked first in the world for best quality of life
23.) Taiwan begins construction of Taiwanese designed submarines

I don't care. Wikipedia doesn't, either. We only write information that is RELEVANT. Is some random fact about healthcare relevant to the topic of sixth-generation jet fighters? Of course not! Everyone knows that Taiwan is a developed country, or it can be inferred from its weapons development that it is. So why write it there? "State-of-the-art" is your opinion. WP:NPOV tells you not to. The description "the world's most technologically advanced" is subjective, and also superlatives are generally to be avoided. Taiwanese-designed computer microchips made only in Taiwan? The word "locally" sums it up in one word! Meanwhile, the source of the nuclear missile article is probably wrong. No other source online describes the missile as nuclear. Also, the weapon names are fine without the revision. Lastly, "to fight and counter the 6th generation jet fighters of China." Hmm. The same was said in the first phrase of the paragraph, "In response to the development of 6th generation stealth fighters by China." This is obviously a POV edit, and the editor who is making this revision should stop. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 16:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

A third opinion has been requested. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 19:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems that you haven’t taken the time to read any of the reference sources, multiple reliable reference sources all mention that Taiwan’s missiles are both carrying nuclear weapons and hypersonic, first one mentions Taiwan’s biological weapons development and the other three all mention Taiwan’s missiles are nuclear and hypersonic, please read them:

1.) Taiwan enhancing biological weapons research
2.) Taiwan nuclear weapons
3.) Taiwan hypersonic nuclear missile
4.) Taiwan upgrading and extending range of their long range nuclear missile to strike China

Biological weapons don't mean anything. This article is about JET FIGHTERS, so 1 is irrelevant. Meanwhile, 3 and 4 contain no mention of the missiles being nuclear, although they state that the missiles can carry nuclear warheads; the missiles themselves are not nuclear. 2 is probably wrong about the missile being nuclear, as no other reports on the incident confirm that the missile was nuclear. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 20:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Bro... please stop playing semantic games, the reference sources state very clearly that Taiwan’s missiles are nuclear missiles or missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. This is no different from the missiles of the USA or Russia where a missile is designed so that they can carry an assortment of different warheads ranging from conventional to biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. Even the American Tomahawk subsonic cruise can carry either a conventional or nuclear warhead depending on mission profile and requirements. The sources all state very clearly that Taiwan has nuclear missiles, but for good faith compromising perhaps we can agree on a common ground by referring to the missiles as “nuclear weapons capable” instead of just nuclear missiles.

Read User:Mfb/Taiwanese articles. You're a confirmed vandal and repeat block evader. This nonsense is over. 146.74.94.77 (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No, you’re the confirmed pro-communist Chinese KMT traitor vandal who is constantly plastering pro-communist China POV on Wikipedia and edit warring constantly. This nonsense is over, stop putting pro-communist Chinese propaganda here on Wikipedia!

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you could lose your Internet access, as we will be able to find and contact your ISP with our WHOIS and checkuser tools. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 00:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It appears that a similar (or same) editor is back editing the Taiwan section again, although there are no POV violations. Good work. Just keep an eye out. AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 00:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like he's back. AnUnnamedUser (insecure) (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

NGAD prototype has flown

The US DoD revealed today that the prototype for NGAD is already flying. https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1305895304995143680

99.74.177.187 (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Merging into parallel discussion as all participants here have commented there. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Sixth generation fighter → Sixth-generation fighter – Correct hyphenation as per MOS:HYPHEN. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Comment Per this archived WikiProject discussion, usage without the hyphen is more common. WP:COMMONNAME is Wikipedia policy, MOS:HYPHEN is only a guideline. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  [Update] But see also this parallel discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support but why did you have to do multiple independent RM discussions on the same question? See comments at Talk:Fifth generation fighter. Dicklyon (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Both terms appear to be used in sources, but one is grammatically incorrect, which is why MOS:HYPHEN exists. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fifth generation fighter which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan inclusion

Not sure its justified, the article cites the T5 Trainer but that isnt a fighter, its an unarmed trainer aircraft based on a modernisation of the 4th generation AIDC F-CK-1 fighter, reusing the same engine and airframe design but introducing composites and replacement avionics for the 30 year old obsolete parts that are no longer in production. There is some speculation that a light fighter could be built by arming the trainer but it would still be a 4.5 gen aircraft. There is no 5th or 6th generation fighter development programme. WatcherZero (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Indian so called "sixth-generation fighter program".

As of July 2021, Neither any 6th generation fighter program announced by India yet nor name of any future 6th generation fighter anounced as "HAL AMCA MK2/Mark2". So please do not add these information untill officially anounced by Indian authorities. The reality is Indian 5th generation HAL AMCA is still in prototype development process as of 2021. India planed to add some 6th generation technologies in later variant/variants of 5th generation HAL AMCA but Indian official did not claim this will be a 6th generation fighter.Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Echo1Charlie Discuss here. Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Fnlayson,User:Ahunt Please help to solve this.Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa: greetings

• "What is IAF's road map toward upcoming technologies like loyal wingman, 6th generation fighter with onboard DEW, UCAV optionally manned fighter and so on?

We have a clear roadmap. The planning process is already underway for combat systems like optionally manned sixth generation fighter, smart wingman..." -Source (https://www.onmanorama.com/news/india/2020/10/08/indigenisation-is-essential-for-true-strategic-development--iaf-.html)

• "On future requirements, he highlighted efforts to develop an indigenous combat system with sixth generation technologies, and mentioned plans to develop directed energy weapons, optionally manned combat platforms, swarm drones and hypersonic weapons." Source (https://web.archive.org/web/20150416063307/http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-to-wait-another-two-years-for-french-rafale-jets-manohar-parrikar/articleshow/46892750.cms)

both of these statements are by the Chief of the Air Staff of IAF, he's acknowledging the existence of 6th generation programme -Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa: Also it's childish to insist that project name has to be acknowledged, these are top secret project in all countries, it has to be noted that even US acknowledged the existence of their first stealth fighter after years of service -Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Echo1Charlie No 6th generation fighter program anounced by any Indian official. He never mentioned any 6th generation fighter program too.Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Then who is COAS? a private employee? what does he meant by this "We have a clear roadmap. The planning process is already underway for combat systems like optionally manned sixth generation fighter" --development of a sixth generation warship? -Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any arguments @Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa:? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Also your hatred is clear by your edit summary starting with "First made a 5th generation fighter..." @Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa:, it doesn't matter you can develop a 6th gen only after developing a 5th gen, eg European and British 6th gen programme. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The sentence is "Several countries have announced the development of a sixth-generation aircraft program, including Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Sweden, Germany, Spain, Russia and China." If you want to add India here first you need to provide the program name. India is still developing the 5th generation prototype. This is too early to add without a proper announcement. Do you have any knowledge about your aircraft industry capability to develop a 5th generation fighter let alone a 6th generation fighter. What's wrong with you? You can read this too https://theprint.in/opinion/air-chief-rakesh-bhadauria-indigenous-amca-iaf-lca-tejas-aircraft/303718/ Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

That's what I want to ask you, " What's wrong with you?" what on earth you expect a country to reveal too much about their top defence project? -Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Also it has to be noted that the development of 6th generation fighter is acknowledged by the IAF COAS, not some HAL or DRDO employ on anonymity! -Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Even this talk section title shows what drives you @Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa: —Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are you rush to add this without any proper announcement? If India announces a sixth generation fighter program I will add it here. This is not going to be a program of near future. HAL and DARDO first need to start the serial production of 5th generation HAL AMCA.Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Echo1Charlie Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Dude let me break it for you

1. Does India have a sixth generation fighter programme? - Yes
2. Is it announced? - Yes
3. Who announced its existence? - Chief of Air staff (COAS) Indian Air Force
4. Is COAS an Indian official? - Yes
5. Is it mandatory that development of 6th generation can be pursued only after development of 5th generation, at least after the first flight of 5th gen prototype or serial production? -No
6. Is there any such 6th generation programmes, which bypassed development of 5th generation? -Yes, British and European 6th generation programmes

—Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Echo1Charlie Neither COAS of Indian Air Force mentioned any new 6th fighter after HAL AMCA nor he mentioned HAL AMCA will be developed into a 6th generation fighter. As I told before, India planed to add some 6th generation technologies in later variant/variants of 5th generation HAL AMCA but Indian official did not claim this will be a 6th generation fighter. Maybe India will tagged those variants as 5.5 generation fighters. If COAS anounced HAL AMCA will be developed into a 6th generation fighter or anounced a new 6th generation fighter program I will add this information here. Other details are already added in this article (National programs section).Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you read and comprehend English?? -Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Echo1Charlie My last message to you here. I have my personal works to do. Why India would run 5th and 6th generation fighter program at a same time? You are the man who is responsible for spreading rumors in Indian miliitary fan community. The mixture of truth and falsehood has taken shape in your nature. Time will prove that I was right. Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I hope that warning served its purpose. BTW Thanks for your contributions :) Have a nice day —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Echo1Charlie 3RR rule is not the reason. You have done this manually too (this is a protest).Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You sure about that buddy? ;) -Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I respect your feeling and your protest, What should I do? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hai @WatcherZero: Greetings here's the reason for its inclusion

1. Source 1 https://www.onmanorama.com/news/india/2020/10/08/indigenisation-is-essential-for-true-strategic-development--iaf-.html

We have clear road map. The "planning process is already underway" for combat systems like optionally manned sixth generation technologies- IAF COAS source 1

1. Source 2 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/indian-air-force-demonstrated-its-operational-capability-air-chief-marshal-bhadauria/articleshow/78548361.cms

On future requirements, he (IAF COAS) highlighted efforts to develop an indigenous combat system with sixth generation technologies - source 2

It's NOT about integrating 6th generation technologies on existing platforms, but development of a combat system with 6th generation technologies. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-working-on-5th-gen-fighter-some-6th-gen-capabilities-will-be-incorporated-in-it-iaf-chief/articleshow/80425351.cms

Times of India 23 Jan 2021 "India is working on a 5th-gen fighter, some 6th-gen capabilities will be incorporated in it: IAF Chief" "Our present vision is to incorporate all the latest technologies and sensors in our fifth generation aircraft Bhadauria said" "We started work on fifth-generation aircraft a little late so technologies and sensors contemporary to that period of development will be added into fifth generation fighters" WatcherZero (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Expert's opinion needed, @Fnlayson:, @Ahunt: What do you think? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by 2A02:810A:133F:DAD8:5850:3309:584B:E035 (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Future Combat Air System will no longer be a 6th generation fighter jet, Spiegel reports.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Air_System#cite_note-22 — Preceding 14:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810A:133F:DAD8:5850:3309:584B:E035 (talk)

The article is from June last year and part of the spat between Airbus and Dassault over leadership of the program with Airbus (Germany) saying that Dassault (France) just want to use the joint funds to develop a sixth gen successor to the Rafale incorporating mostly French technology and arent giving Germany enough of a role in setting the project priorities and sharing lucrative development work, while France was saying the Germans were just trying to get hold of their existing and future patents and limit arms sales. This argument is still continuing to this day with it being argued the UAE Rafale order gives Dassault enough revenue that they dont need German funds to develop their companies next aircraft anymore, they have enough capital to do it alone now. As this isnt a new allegation and not really an argument over generation but balance between French and German workshare in it I would suggest that the section is reinstated until such time as the project is formally dissolved. WatcherZero (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

B-21 Raider?

The bomber is advertised as the “first sixth generation aircraft in the world”, however it is by no means a fighter (as of current info), so I’m not entirely sure what to make of it in regards to this page. Maybe a wait until it actually enters service? Or at the very least, until its first flight. Heyimastopsign (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC) WatcherZero (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Its indeed a bomber not a fighter, inability to break the sound barrier, limited if any air combat ability. WatcherZero (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Optionally manned

I have no expertise in this field, but "optionally manned" strikes me as very odd. Autopilot might get good enough that it could just take over for the pilot in an emergency or something, but why would anyone bother with the cost of human rating a drone? A pilot in a fighter jet paired with drones makes sense, as jamming can limit the distance from which a drone can be remotely operated. But keeping the human alive/conscious is expensive and incurs a lot of engineering trade-offs. For any given use case I can think of a drone would cost less, be more capable, and take up less space than a fighter jet with an empty cockpit. ツ indolering ^(talk) 01:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)