Talk:Jet fighter generations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Stub-Class)
MILHIST 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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Here's your ref![edit]

Got a ref of great authority for the six generations.

It's by this guy

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.

And his generations are:

  • Me 262
  • F-86
  • MiG-19
  • F-104
  • F-4
  • F-14

So the F-14 is officially a sixth generation jet fighter. Woot!

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

Hcobb (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! TJIC (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

sources reliability[edit]

This subject has always been difficult. Having reliable sources should help establish a clear and non objectionable classification. I have reviewed the ones present in the introduction :

and in each generation description :

Richard P. Hallion in Air Power Journal is obviously a solid source, being notable enough to have his own article but at the end of the article there is the quote "The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author [...] They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University."

The Eurofighter World article is a marketing text ("in-house propaganda" :) [1]), and is a good example on how a WP:Primary source could be distorted. As would be Lockheed Martin for the F-35.[2]

The Daniel Slane report to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission isn't focused on the subject and use the aerospaceweb reference discussed below as a source (with an error on the name of the author), which isn't a good sign of credibility.

Jim Winchester, while not being notable enough to have his bio in WP, is perhaps a good connoisseur of fighter jets, but this book is from a kid publisher, which undermines its credibility.

The Aerospaceweb is self-published by volunteers [3], as is The Aviationist [4] (even if they work in the field).

The RAAF Air Power Development Centre Bulletin Article could be reliable but again at the end there is "The views expressed [...] are not necessarily those of the RAAF".

To sum up : two disclaimers, a marketing propaganda, a reference who quotes self publishing, a kid publishing company and two self-published sources. Not very good sources, even if most of them are knowledgeable and have clear ideas of a good classification. Better sources would be welcome. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

how to make this encyclopedic[edit]

I worked pretty hard to make the concept more encyclopedic. Definitions can vary so much from one source to another. It's close to WP:OR in the X-generation articles when not listed aircrafts are included, it's too much US-centric (it's quasi century series-era, F-4-era, teen series-era), and sources are poor. A pretty good example of retrospective history : we try to make some sense of recent definitions, and WP:CIRCULAR. The worse part is it make some sense! There are obviously eras, and it help to compare between peers, but their boundaries are variable. The shift as defined by RAAF's bulletin as a when an innovation cannot be incorporated through upgrades is a neat idea. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jet fighter generations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)