Fighter Generations

[Gripen]

Why do European countries, Russia and the US consider the generations of aircraft different?

Here's how SAAB separate the generations.

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

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

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

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

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

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


The USA considers the only 2 5th Generation fighters to be typically American made F-22 and -35. Marketing tool? Confuses me..

[Elias]

Considering that Boeing recently announced that it plans to develop a sixth generation fighter I would say that each country "sets" its own rules in terms of aircraft generations that in some ways could be used a marketing tool. Of course this is purely a guess...

[tigershark]

Hello Elias
Welcome aboard!

I think the level of tech built into the aircraft decides which generation falls under there are cross over platforms.   For example I think a Mirage 2000-5mk2/3/9 and a late model C/D Hornet are 4th generation but A/B models and Mirage 2000-C isn't.     

[Webmaster]

Yup, it depends on the country. I suppose that's making it so difficult to set one mix of properties to classify them. There's no agreed set of abilities/technology that a next generation fighter must possess. Plus all the marketing talk. That sixth gen. of Boeing is either meant that it will be replacement for the F-22/F-35 or has a breakthrough new technology or capability. Probably "unmanned" will be the determining factor for the next generation. But seems only Boeing knows.

As a general one (non-country/airforce/manufacturer specific), I think the most common way to categorize them into generation is either by new capability, or just by timeframe. Now with the latter, you run into problems, as some countries developing aircraft are or were lagging behind and are now catching up. Considering capabilities you run into the problem that advances in technology does not match fighter development, so you get this mix of technologies/capabilities that distinguish it from the previous generation. From this arises the need to classify some aircraft as 4.5 or 4+ or 4++, because they have some capabilities of the next generation, but not all, especially when you have a design from the previous generation upgraded with current technology. Plus then you get this technology that really presents a true advantage, that has been introduced by one country way sooner than the next, in-flight refuelling, datalinks, stealth for example...

I tried to approach it from different angles:

Generation	New Technology	New Capability	Role Advance
1	Jet engine	Improved power/speed	Fighter
2	Radar	Supersonic	Interceptor
3	Computer	BVR engagement	Multi-purpose
4	Digitalized systems	Super manoeuvrability, networked	Multi-role (swing-role)
5	Stealth, AESA, Fully-integrated systems	Supercruise, fully-integrated in network	"Combi-role"?
6	Nanotech?	Operator-controlled (unmanned)	Sync-Role??

Try to categorize the fighters, you'll see that you can't get 100% satisfactory results, though.

[Gripen]

If you go buy age, just age, like lets say the era that the plane had its maiden flight..


If you set it out as

1949-59= First Gen
1960-69= Second
1970-79= Third
1980-89= Fourth
1990-2010= Fifth
2011-...= Sixth etc etc

Then the Typhoon and the Raptor would BOTH be fifth generations (YF-22 would just be a fifth, maiden flight was 29/9/90)

The Gripen and Rafale would be both 4th generation (SAAB 9/12/88) (Rafale 4/7/86)

Mig 29 and SU-27 would be both 3rd generation (Mig 6/10/77) (SU 20/5/77)

SAAB Viggen would be 2nd generation(8/2/67)

Dassault Mirage III would be 1st generation (17/11/57)

Then you could have the same genation but instead of maiden flight, would have operational year

Or technology

Weapon advancement (machine guns + rockets, too smart bombs + guided missile's etc)

They need to have a internationally recognized way of identifying what generation the plane is.

[Webmaster]

But, there's already a problem with your list, as from 1989 onwards you say the generation timeframe is all of a sudden 2x longer. So, you actually have consciously or not already been influenced by the marketing generations. Secondly, you now have a generation gap between the Rafale and Typhoon, which is not true. And like I said, there's the problem of countries lagging/catching up development.

If you want to do it with time, you'd have to do it the same as with humans, taking into account major events  which accelerate 'birth' and developments which alter the age at which they are replaced and time they need to 'mature'. It's quite difficult but not impossible. You'll still have inter-generation planes though and differences over the world.

Argh, nvm.

Technology may be the best determining factor.

[alyster]

According to Wikipedia (which I know is not quoteable) Mig-17 is classified as first generation and Mig-19 is classified as second generation. I find it bit difficult to understand what's the major differences between their generations. Mig-17s later versions carried all sorts of stuff from radars to missiles. Also Mig-15 had an interceptor version with all sorts of cool gadgets. Starting to think about it Me-262B carried a radar and rockets and Me-262 is deffenetly first generation. Already the early US and Soviet jet fighters were trans sonic so speed isn't such a factor either.  First supersonic planes weren't that much faster from them and they both had no worries with the critical mach number anymore.

Also the crossline between second and third generations seems bit blurry. Not to mention we could fit MiG-21 to both groups the second generation already had many of the third generation's staff. First air-to-air missiles, quideing systems improved avionics etc.

So the technical classification is quite hard also. But new generation has to be something that its predecessor would be totally obsolete. Draken compared to Viggen was obsolete, therefor Viggen is a new generation in Swedis aviation. Perhaps because of that the generations differ abit around the world.

Also little wierd things with Gripen's classification: 1st generation started in 1944. Otherwhise many jet fighters would be generation zero. And what will we fly in 6th generation in 3 years if most of the world hasn't even reached generation 5.  Russia is most probably forced to skip a generation then.

[Cobra2]

Wow nice information Gripen, I wondered what the generations actually meant 

[Webmaster]

I think when generizing aircraft most often only the first/basic design is considered, and therefore it proves pretty useless to use as a comparison metric. Like we discovered many times on this forum, comparison of aircraft types is highly subject to which versions you are comparing.

We want it to be a single comparison measure for quality/advancement in fighters for all over the world?

I don't think it could be done properly and we shouldn't use it like that.

By the way, what generation of computer are you using? What generation of car do you drive? What generation of bicycle do you own? Do you care?

[alyster]

I think when generizing aircraft most often only the first/basic design is considered

Well some planes like F-35 are already from the begining designed with several versions.

But your right that they don't matter.

[Raptor]

I think tech level, reliability, etc...

Basically, Webby has the best defenition. We can build a fighter out of wood and canvas now and put it in operational service. Then it would be "5th Gen" which is hilarious. 

[BigsWick]

I've always thought of the F-4 and MiG-21 as 3rd generation aircraft, mainly because they are mach 2 + planes that have a BVR engagement capability. I would probably put the F-5 in this group too.

I'd classify aircraft like the F-8, F-100 and MiG-19 as second gen. They were supersonic, something I don't believe any versions of the MiG-17 ever achieved- but were originally armed with guns/cannon. Missiles were added later.

Thrust vectorting, stealth, and supercruise seem to be the principle defining characteristics of 5th generation aircraft.