Talk:Fighter aircraft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.See comments | ||||||
|
|||||||
[edit] Early Discussions
Umm... Question. Why is the Eurofighter under 5th gen? Isn't it a 4.5 gen plane?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.143.77.86 (talk • contribs). Because people keep inserting their POV in the article to boost their favorite airplane. --Mmx1 13:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
This may be a language problem: Is 'Jet Fighter' a subdivision or an entire different thing?
- Not in my opinion, I'll delete that "see also" link --Robert Merkel
WWII-'class' planes started to appear earlier, would it make sense to make the division in 1936? --Yooden
- Probably -- Robert Merkel
Furthermore, Jet fighters appeared at the end of WWII (Messerschmidt, Gloster Meteor) --Arco Scheepen
There's even the rocket-powered fighters: Me 163, Bachem Natter, and even a Japanese version. The latter two never successfully flew even in testing, the first saw limited combat use. --Belltower
Unsure how to designate ground-based versus naval-based versions of the same aircraft. The A/F-18 comes to mind. Anyone know more about this? -- RjLesch
From the main page:
superior manoeuverability and flight characteristics of the Spitfire over the Messerschmitt? Me 109 crucial in the Battle Of Britain
I'm not sure this is a correct statement. The Spitfire was a little bit better than the 109, but I don't really think that made much of a difference. The key issue in the Battle of Britain was the range of the fighters. Since the German aircraft had to cross the channel, fight, and leave enough fuel to cross back, they didn't end up spending much time on target. Consequently, the German bombers spent significant portions of time unprotected. And history showed that unescorted bombers suffer greatly to fighter attack. - ansible
OK, I've been doing some more reading, and it seems the Me 109 was indeed a dog compared to a Spit. But I don't think that was the main issue during the Battle of Britain - ansible
Spitfires were not much involved in the Battle of Britain. They were fairly new and only available in small numbers, and in any case, RAF strategy involved putting the Spitfires further north to make them safe from bombing raids, saving them for the real invasion if it happened. Most of the British fighters in the Battle of Britain were Hurricanes, which were not necessarily any better than Me109s. Later in the war when Spitfires did see active service against Me109s, they did get very good results.
- Spitfire, Hurricane and 109 were roughly equal in combat capacity in 1940. Any source which says they were more than just a little different is highly suspect. There were periods later in the war when Spitfires were superior to German fighters, periods when the reverse held true. Hurricane development more-or-less stopped after 1940 when Hawker concentrated on the new Typhoon and Tempest designs. The major differences between the three BofB fighters were (a) the Hurricane was easier to build and repair, and (b) the Spitfire was easier to fly closer to its limits. The myth of the Spitfire's manouverability is just that: a myth. It was, in fact, less manouverable than the Hurricane (and possibly than the 109 - I have to look that up and can't find Quill or Henshaw right now). In the hands of experts, the Spitfire and the 109 were an even match, but in the hands of the average pilot the Spitfire could turn faster. Tannin
My table proposal to replace the long list. We could replace ", " with <br&gr;, or use * again within the table cells
[edit] 1939-1945
Many of these fighters would do over 400 m.p.h. in level flight, and were fast enough in a dive that they started encountering the effects of getting too close to the speed of sound, occasionally even to the point of breaking up in flight. Dive brakes were developed late in WW II to minimize these problems and restore control to the pilots.
[edit] 1945-1952
The first generation of production jet fighter planes had performance problems near sonic speed (similar to that of the latest piston engined fighters) until aeronautical engineer Richard Whitcomb discovered the "area rule" in 1952. Subsequent designs featured a "bottle-shaped" fuselage that improved performance. This would be an important distinction between early jet fighters (F-86, etc.) and later ones, like the F-5.
On Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft I have started a proposal for how lists of aircraft could be rationalised on wikipedia. If you're interested, let's discuss it there -- Cabalamat 03:09, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
[edit] 1967-present
I divided up 1952-present into fighters introduced before and after 1967, which was roughly the time when multi-role fighters and modern air superiority types began appear. I also got rid of the Yugoslavian ground-attack planes as they are generally not considered true fighters. I did keep "fighter-bombers," though. -Gooberliberation 21:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Where are Soviet I-16 and Japanese A5M? --squadfifteen 3/10/05
-If they're missing, go add them. 68.122.227.9 12:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
"New technology" swing wing? It was invented by the Germans in WW2.... --squadfifteen 3/10/05
-The "Swing Wing" projects of WW2 were ground-adjustable only. While there were early VG-wing designs like the Grumman F10F and Bell X-5(redesigned Messerschmitt P.1101), the technology was briefly abandoned and there were no production swing-wings until the F-111 of the late 1960s. 68.122.227.9 12:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] F-117
Though the F-117 is designated a fighter, with the F-, it doesn't carry weapons for air-to-air combat, so it contradicts the information in this article. It would be best to at least include a note about that, if not remove it completely.
[edit] Redefined "Present"
I've decided to make the cutoff of "1967-Present" at 1990. While some new jets have had loooong development periods dating back to the early 80s, they really came out in the 90s.
Btw, has the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet been tested in combat yet? If anyone knows, feel free to add that. Gooberliberation 09:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] entire article
The entire article needs to be rewritten. There are both factual and grammatical errors that make the article almost painful to read.
Jim62sch 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
-I've been taking hacks at it, dividing it into categories and all(although my writing mightve making it worse, I admit). Anyways, I concede that the page really needs help, especially in the first few paragraphs. Its now tagged for cleanup.
Gooberliberation 13:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Are there height requirements to be a jet fighter pilot?
- Yes. Here are the requirements to enter the Royal Australian Air Force - other air forces would almost certainly have similar requirements, but the exact measurements might vary. --Robert Merkel 13:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
Have overhauled the article. I think we can take off the cleaup tag.
I'm pretty tired; I'll continue this at another point. the article seems fine now, needs some work in 3rd generation and later. (source: [[1]]). --Mmx1
[edit] Heading system
I have bumped the fighter generations up by one level (from === === to == ==). This is because I believe that each generation is comparable in notablility to the three prop generations explained earlier in the article. I have insterted <h1>Jet/Prop-powered fighters<h1> above the two sections. Because of the way the coding works, my additions will not appear in the table of contents, or include an 'edit' link.
I have also organised the 'notable aircraft' more consistently. Ingoolemo talk 01:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Categorization and Notation
Regarding some of the changes made to the 4th and 5th generation, there should be some consistency over whether avionics upgrades constitute distinct variants. The way I see it, the designations for Su 27/30/33/35 and Mig-29/35 are equivalent, AFAIK, to the F-15A/C/E/K/I designations for export/upgraded versions or the F-16 Block 10 - 62 (and upgraded F-16I version). Since it's not clear that the numerical designations represent versions of the same aircraft, I'll accept a SU-30/33/35 designation, but we don't have to give every version a separate line - lets try to keep this list tight and concise. Or will the A/C/E/K/I versions get a separate line too?
-
- More specifically, the SU-30 is somewhat akin to the C upgrade to the A version; I don't see much about the 35 except that it's related to the 33, and the 33 is is Naval variant. They (and the MIG-35) all really are upgrades of 4th generation aircraft, and if they're to be included separately as 4.5, why not the F-15C/I, F-16C/I/Block62, (Israel has upgraded theirs with avionics reportedly much superior to the American models - similarly to the SU-30 MKI). --Mmx1 00:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] future
I think there should be a section that has about science fiction fighters (eg Star Wars), but only as a small thing stating that it is unsure whether fighter aircraft will transfer into space, and maybe something like common characteristics of 'starfighters' eg laserguns, sheilds, etc. Just an idea though. Dustin ॐ
- There's already an article about starfighter - keeping the cruft in articles like that would be preferable. Joffeloff 15:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 5th/6th generation
[edit] future
I recently read a document by the dutch government about the replacement of the 4th generation F-16's with 6th generation F-35's. Is this an error of some sort or are they counting the 4.5th generation as 5th? Also a good source backing up the whole generations story and what defines them would be nice. - Dammit 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- There is no official definition of generations of fighter aircraft. The generation division come mainly from aircraft community, and is based on some sort of consensus and serve primarily for convenience of comparison of different designs. As to F-16/F-35. F-16 block 50/52 and later ones are definitely a 4.5th generation. F-35 - barely 5th one. TestPilot 17:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No citations?
Can anyone find who put up most of the original info in the article? There is quite a bit of info here yet not a single citation. If someone put up info in the first place, they need to come back and take responsibilty for citing their info.Gotmesomepants 16:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What about iran?
I think Iran also did their fighter aircraft? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.12.136.186 (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] A-10?
The A-10 in the first picture on this page is a ground attack aircraft, not a fighter. Its referenced as an attack aircraft, but a better picture should be found.
[edit] Defining Jet Fighter Generations
While the concept of jet fighter "generations" captures something very "real," it also is something as nebulous as smoke. First of all, there is no single "official" definition of what distinguishes one generation from the next. This makes it quite a difficult subject to write an encyclopedic article on. As someone who has been personally involved in the effort to determine the "discriminators" between the various "generations," I believe I can offer some useful insights … although I can only offer them as a reference point, since they constitute "original research." Nevertheless, I hope that it may provide at least a better framework for the editors here to resolve issues by.
First off, from personal experience, let me say that the attempt to nail down "generations" by a set range of in-service years or even a particular year of introduction to service is problematical. What the generation concept captures is, in essence, a way to describe an era of change in design philosophy as enabled by advances in the "state of the art" of key aerospace technologies. In fact, it is used only in terms of jet fighters – a technology that quickly rendered propeller-driven fighters obsolete.
Technically, for the purposes of Wikipedia, there needs to be a primary source identified and cited for the definitions; without this, there will always be disagreement over which aircraft go in which "bucket." Unfortunately and despite widespread usage of this nomenclature, it’s difficult to find any. I cannot recall seeing any in many years. Since these generational definitions cannot be anything more than opinions (even if broadly accepted in a general way), I would echo what ericg wrote in a comment in the Talk:4th generation jet fighter# Sourcing...: "Cite everything. If you've read it, include it as a reference." That’s the best we can do.
Here is a summary of material I have used to attempt to describe jet fighter design generations (with rough timelines when those design approaches were a dominant feature of the “state of the art”):
- 1st Generation Fighters (early 1940s to mid-1950s): Comprised of the initial, subsonic jet fighter designs introduced late in World War II and in the early post-war period with capabilities beyond their propeller-driven predecessors in terms of range, avionics, and maneuver envelope. Guns were still the principal armament, although infra-red (IR) air-to-air missiles (AAMs) were introduced.
- 2nd Generation Fighters (mid-1950s to mid-1960s): First introduced in the late 1950s, these fighters were primarily designed for operations in a nuclear warfare environment. Fighters of this generation are not particularly maneuverable as they were designed primarily for high-altitude interception, not dogfighting. They typically had limited range and little, if any, avionics for conventional ground attack. IR AAMs became a standard weapon, radar-guided missiles (RF AAMs) were introduced, and fighters were often designed as “missileers,” sometimes even (initially) lacking guns. Ground-attack aircraft began to be equipped with TV-guided air-to-surface missiles (ASMs) and datalinks.
- 3rd Generation Fighters (mid-1960s to mid-1970s): First introduced in the mid-to-late 1960s, they had significantly greater range than their second-generation counterparts, and traditional ground attack capabilities were once again emphasized. In fact, ground attack aircraft of this generation were often specialized for their mission with increased payload and improved avionics, including terrain avoidance systems; furthermore, these planes carried the first truly effective avionics for enhanced ground attack, and electro-optical (E-O) ASMs became standard weapons. AAMs were the standard weapons for air superiority fighters, which employed more sophisticated radars and medium-range RF AAMs to achieve greater “stand-off” ranges, and laser-guided bombs (LGBs) became widespread an effort to improve precision attack capabilities. Engines became smokeless.
- 4th Generation Fighters (mid-1970s to late-1980s): First introduced in the late 1970s, primary improvements were highly advanced avionics for air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, significantly increased maneuverability, more effective munitions, and further specialization of systems for various combat roles. Fly-by-wire (FBW) flight controls and pulse-Doppler radars were introduced, and “multirole” fighters became increasingly predominant. Heads-up displays (HUDs) and electronic countermeasures (ECM) became essential equipment. Infrared search-and-track (IRST) sensors became widespread for air-to-ground weapons delivery, and appeared for air-to-air combat as well. All-aspect IR AAM became standard air superiority weapons.
- Generation 4.5 Fighters (early-1990s to mid-2000s): First introduced in the late 1990s, and still being produced and evolved, the primary characteristics of this sub-generation are the extensive application of advanced avionics and materials, with emphasis on signature reduction (primarily RF "stealth") and highly integrated systems and weapons. These fighters have been designed to operate in an integrated battlefield environment and are principally multirole aircraft. Key technologies introduced include beyond-visual-range (BVR) AAMs, Global Positioning System (GPS)-guided weapons, solid-state phased-array radars, helmet-mounted sights, improved datalinks, and Full Authority Digital Electronics Control (FADEC). Stealth characteristics are focused primarily on frontal-aspect signature reduction techniques including radar-absorbent materials (RAM), coatings and limited shaping.
- (Generation 4.5 is something of a fluke. It is due to, on the one hand, the sharply decreased R&D and procurement investment following the end of the Cold War, and, on the other hand, to the not-unrelated extended service lives of 4th-generation aircraft which saw further technological evolution of their capabilities.)
- 5th Generation Fighters (mid-2000s): First introduced with the F-22 in late 2005, such fighters are characterized by their being designed from the start to operate in a net-centric combat environment, and to feature extremely low, all-aspect, multi-spectral signatures employing advanced materials and shaping techniques. They have multifunction active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radars characterized by high-bandwidth, low-probability of intercept (LPI) data transmission capabilities. Supercruise may or may not be featured. Possible weapons may one day be expanded to include high-energy lasers (HELs) or high-power microwave (HPM) device-armed missiles.
Note that it is not necessary for a particular aircraft to have all of the indicated technologies to fit in a particular “generation”; nor, for that matter, will adding any amount of “next-generation” technologies to an older-generation fighter advance it to the next generation. What matters most is that many or most of these particular capabilities, features and technologies were “designed in” as integral elements of the original design of the aircraft. This is perhaps easiest to understand in terms of shaping to reduce RF signatures: While radar-absorbing materials and coatings can be added to older aircraft, the special benefits of shaping and reduced-signature structural elements must be designed in from the start.
If you have specific questions, post them here and I’ll do my best to answer them. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Very useful insights on generational issues, I agree with most of what you have described. It's not easy to define "generations" in terms of fighter jets but your definition best suits this article and the other one as well. Faraz 15:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks, Faraz. Any generational definition indeed can never be firmer than jello. Coincidentally, I received today a copy of the the F-35 SPO's attempt to define them. I'd post it here, but I don't know how to do that; maybe they'll upload it to their website. In any case, I don't see that it's really very helpful as it's rather superficial and several points are rather debatable. It basically defines the generations as follows:
- 1st Gen (1940s): First jets, subsonic, guns, bombs, rockets.
- 2nd Gen (1950s): Supersonic, first radar, missiles, guns.
- 3rd Gen (1960s): Multi-role, supersonic, radar, missiles.
- 4th Gen (1970s): Adv. avionics, guided weapons, agility & speed.
- "Gen IV+": Fighters with AESA.
- 5th Gen (2005+): Stealth, fighter performance, internal payload, info fusion, net-centric ops, sustainable, deployable.
- That's the "substance" of it. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Faraz. Any generational definition indeed can never be firmer than jello. Coincidentally, I received today a copy of the the F-35 SPO's attempt to define them. I'd post it here, but I don't know how to do that; maybe they'll upload it to their website. In any case, I don't see that it's really very helpful as it's rather superficial and several points are rather debatable. It basically defines the generations as follows:
-
