Talk:Fifth-generation fighter/Archive 1

Archive 1

redirect

I think this would be better as a redirect to Fighter_jets#Fifth-generation_jet_fighters_.282005_to_the_present.29. --71.231.159.136 (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. This topic deserves its own article. The best solution is to expand this article. --skylights76 (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

One element defines 5th gen

All fifth generation fighters use on board and off board sensor fusion to automatically identify and constantly track all friendly and enemy aircraft in all directions and no previous generation of fighters does so.

Extending this a bit, 5th gens are software defined aircraft. When you want to add a capability to a 4th (or 4.5th) gen fighter you attach a physical object to it like a targeting pod and this connects via a network bus to the displays in the cockpit. However stealth demands make it very difficult to add stuff on the outside of a stealth fighter. (NGJ in a "gun pod" being the only exception to date.)

The F-22 may gain advanced IR tracking capabilities in the future. If so this will be the result of changing the software in the fighter rather than sticking a sniper pod on it. Hcobb (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Su-35 does that, but isn't included due to lack of AESA. There are multiple criteria. NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

All of the fifth generation fighters use stealth and LPI sensors to engage in air to air combat. This bright line splits them off from everything else. Hcobb (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Worldview issues

This article appears to have been written from a U.S. perspective (a common problem with articles written about military hardware). All the examples given are of U.S. fighters. The introductory sentence states that fifth-generation fighters are those that are "in service from 2005", but this is clearly wrong because most countries are currently equipped with fighters that are not fifth-generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.56.99 (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree...for example, Eurofighter Typhoon is technically a 5th Generation fighter, although there seems to be an American bias against it. It features all but one feature on the 5th Generation feature list, just as the F-22 features all but one. Typhoon doesn't have VLO stealth and F-22 doesn't have Net enabled ops. If F-22 can get away without having one feature, then Typhoon can. F-35 shouldn't even be on the list as it doesn't meet Lockheed Martin's own description. It only actually matches 3 of the 9 defined features, which proves American bias, as Lockheed Martin call it 5th Gen. http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/ef_world_2-2010b_Low.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.22.216 (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The F-22 is indeed networked via BACN, while the Typhoon lacks: situational awareness, VLO, and LPI for both radar and comms. I have noted EF's checklist in the article already. Hcobb (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pointless to get roped into this discussion. The whole point of the whole "generations" talk is for the Americans to talk their innovations up and imply that a fighter cannot be "effective" unless is has the particular features they have devised.

This is not to say they aren't useful, it is merely to say that the obvious intention is to play down the capabilities of other types of aircraft. Unfortunately perhaps, those other types are indeed somewhat less advanced in some senses, but this cannot be used to gloss over the fact that there are always trade-offs. The Americans would like us to believe that F-35 vs Eurofighter is like F-16 vs Hawker hunter. This is of course utter claptrap. This article needs to be rewritten to encorporate a balanced view, and the fact that the "generations" parlance is American, and based on the assumption that American design philsophies are correct, and without any disadvantage to accompany their advantages. Princeofdelft (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be completely true if other nations werent attempting to produce similar aircraft. If America introduces a stealth fighter and no other nation attempts to emulate it then it is simply a modern aircraft with a "special feature" its stealth (like the mig-25's speed). But if other nations do attempt to emulate this, and stealth becomes one of the main focuses when developing a new fighter aircraft then America would have indeed changed the game and introduced a "new generation" of fighter. Its like everyone was playing follow the leader with the US, Europe, and Russia in front and the US decided to suddenly hook left. Everyone who was behind (China, India etc..) decided to hook left as well and now with the T-50 Russia looks to be back-tracking also. If any European nation produces a stealth fighter (we will ignore the fact that most of them are acquiring the stealth F-35) then your whole argument collapses. -Nem1yan (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

article

This is my first article and contribution; help with what I should do with it is appreciated. Quarkde (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Find and cite sources that properly document this subject. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Suggest deleting the history section, as (1) it doesn't talk about the subject at hand (which is fighters, not bombers), and (2) is the wrong take on the subject (B-2 and F-117 are ground attack aircraft, not air-to-air aircraft). Alternatively, you might include a section to the effect that the F-117 is often called a "fighter" but it really wasn't designed to be, as its systems were optimized for ground attack.Chrisweuve (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"5th generation fighters do not dogfight". Where does that come from? This whole article should be rewrited —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.163.91.19 (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The F-35 is also optimized for ground attack, but has a generation advantage on the F-117. (And the F-22 replaced the F-117.) Hcobb (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Lampyridae

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/dti/2010/12/01/DT_12_01_2010_p35-269100.xml&headline=Rivals Target JSF&next=10

One of EADS-Cassidian’s ancestor companies, Germany’s MBB, was well advanced with stealth research as today’s Typhoon was being defined in the 1980s, designing a stealth interceptor named Lampyridae.

Fifth gen or not? Hcobb (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is enough information for the aircraft to be included on this page. This page is about 5th gen aircraft and including this project does nothing to advance the article. Although I do believe it should be added to the list (since the J-XX and that HAL fighter were originally listed as 5th gen on the list of fighters page...) -Nem1yan (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Chengdu J-20

The article should state that China now has a fifth-generation jet fighter, the Chengdu J-20. It just had its first flight, and this information should be in the article. Gaandolf (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Combat ready

No F-22s yet deployed to Libya, so in fact the Eurofighter has beaten it to be the first actual combat deployed 5th gen. There's a difference between training and the real thing, so I think the article needs to make clear that the F-22 is apparently not ready to be put to the real test, so can only be considered operational but not ready for deployment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.241.132 (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Typhoon isnt even touted by the manufacturer as being Fifth Gen and there is no air-combat in that region so its still only being used in patrol missions. The only [relatively] recent aircraft to be used in combat roles are the Superhornet and the Rafale. The Eurofighter's in Libya arent performing missions that are any more "real" than the bomber interceptions in Alaska or South Korean patrols that the F-22 has performed. -Nem1yan (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a ref for a South Korean based F-22 doing an interceptopn of a non-allied aircraft? Anyway the F-22s will be ready for combat next year for sure this time. They double promise. No kidding. Really. Read more at: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/03/why-no-f-22s-over-libya.html Hcobb (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a ref stating that F-22's were deployed to a combat zone whilst North Korea was threatening to nuke themselves the planet. I can also give you sources saying the F-22 is the only 5th gen in service and that dropping bombs was not part of the F-22's original purpose. The Typhoon does not have thrust-vectoring that is planned for it and the Rafale doesnt have its AESA radar so according to your theory they arent operational yet either correct?. Either way I'd be happy to discuss this on my talks page since the IP has been more or less addressed and I'm sure someone is going to start saying that WP is not a forum. -Nem1yan (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't care if you Americans want to go all "were #1" about the F-22, just as long as it is clearly stated that it is an opinion, and that there are counter opinions that do exist. 5th gen isn't even used by non-Americans, so there's no point in debating that really.

The Typhoons are flying over a war zone with people armed and shooting at aircraft, that is totally REAL and so your argument is wrong in that respect

There is no statement on the page saying "the F-22 is #1", and if the term 5th gen is only used by Americans why are you arguing that the Typhoon be included? Also UN forces have complete air-dominance in that region so I dont see what you are arguing about. Performing patrol missions in an uncontested no-fly-zone does not show that the Typhoon is more prepared than any other airframe. Also the Rafale and Superhornet are two aircraft that are highly comparable to the Typhoon and both have seen actually combat. So we could state that the Typhoon is third relatively new fighter to be deployed to a combat environment, that is if we leave out the Sukhoi's from the South Ossetia War. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah ... don't care what you think, just pointing out that Eurofighter is there, but F-22 not. Trying to stir debate as to whether there are problems with the F-22 if it can't be deployed to a hostile environment. If you think there's no risk whatsoever from constant AAA and MANPADS then why not give the F-22's a test run? We all know that the US wants to make the F-22 the king of export aircraft, if you think about it, would USAF pilots rather face aircraft they know all about, or European/Russian/Chinese unknowns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.241.111 (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"King of export aircraft"?? The F-22 was banned from being exported by US congress. I'm not going to go back and forth with someone who doesnt want to listen; and this isnt going to improve the article. You can edit the page but it will most likely be reverted. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Second Line of Defense

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=18277 Fifth Generation Aircraft and Disruptive Change

Include or not? Hcobb (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Arms companies fight over fighter moniker

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/09/us-aero-arms-summit-fighters-squabble-idUSTRE7887EJ20110909

I don't see anything new enough to justify adding this one. Anybody else? Hcobb (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

File:SukhoiT-50.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SukhoiT-50.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 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) 18:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved as reasonable.--regentspark (comment) 15:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Fifth generation jet fighter → Fifth-generation jet fighter – Correct title, consistent with the contents of the article. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Seems like it should be hyphenated to me, but none of the articles in Category:Generations of jet fighter are at the moment. If this article's moved, they all should be. A quick glance at google books shows that it's hyphenated about 50% of the time. Jenks24 (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support compound adjective.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me} 11:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Move it to Fifth-generation fighter-jet instead please. (And consider adding another hyphen also.) Hcobb (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

"Fighter-jet" is totally incorrect.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

And it's moved on a one to one vote! Hcobb (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a !vote, not a vote. --regentspark (comment) 23:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me that three editors were in favour of the move, and even you agreed that it should be "fifth-generation". Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Typhoon = 5th Generation fighter?

I just tried to find out, whether the Typhoon fits into the definition of a 5th generation fighter. According to this article, these are the criteria:

including all-aspect stealth even when armed: The radar cross section of the Typhoon is in the order of 0.05-0.1 m². This is lower in the order of at least one magnitude compared to legacy 4th generation fighters such as the F-15. Furthermore, the Typhoon is considerably smaller than the F-22, giving a stealth advantage over the F-22 in visual range combat.

Low Probability of Intercept Radar (LPIR): the Captor-E radar avialable for the Typhoon is an ASEA radar that is supposedly superior to the raptors Radar,

high-performance air frames: In terms of speed, acceleration and maneuverability, the Typhoon is on par with the F-22. Instead of thrust vectoring, a highly unstable design is used; you can also imploy the E230 engine include 3D-Thrust vectoring improving both thrust by 20% and maneuverability, i.e. far better than the present F-22;

advanced avionics features: the Typhoon has these features;

highly integrated computer systems capable of networking with other elements within the theater of war to achieve an advantage in situational awareness; this is called sensor fusion and Net Enabled Options. Both features have been part of the Typhoon from the get go. The networing is actually superior to the F-22.

So what sets the F-22 apart from a state of the art Typhoon? A lower radar cross section and higher super cruising speed (F-22=mach 1.8 vs. Typhoon=1.5 mach for supercruise). But the F-35 can't supercruise at all. Nevertheless, it is called a fifth generation fighter!? The F-35 does not have a high-performance air frame comparable to the Typhoon or F-22 and its stealth, i.e. radar cross section is only considerably reduced from the front, like the Typhoon. Zt3hnuio (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Development section error?

Is there and error on the F-35's image? "A F-35", I dunno, is that right?76.75.95.251 (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

JSF

Someone keeps removing the UK contribution to this project, it's called JOINT strike fighter for a reason. UK pays for some of the cost and according to the JSF page, BAE will manufacture sections, so it is not solely a US produced plane. There were 3 prototypes from US firms, but each option employ the knowledge of BAE who make Harriers and who retained the original knowledge of Hawker, for the design of the VSTOL version. Therefore stop contradicting such facts, and justify yourself here.

Regardless of "who" will eventually manufacture "what" The F-35 is being developed in the US by Lockheed Martin. The design also borrows very little to no influence from the Harrier. However it might be worth noting that it was heavily influenced by the Russian Yakovlev Yak-141, but I believe that is already stated in the X-35 article. Also please remember to sign your comments. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Go on, live in the American centred universe. Apparently 29% of you don't know who your Vice President is. I give up trying to argue with you even when it clearly states that BAE are going to make various parts. Actually, the VSTOL version is beset with problems and has already been dumped by our government, so you're right to say it has little to do with the Harrier design, because that aircraft worked and no other plane has yet to match it!

BAE employs far more Americans than Brits. The JSF is a software program, not a hardware program. Who makes the iPod? Is it Apple or Taiwan? Hcobb (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The JSF is not a fifth generation fighter-it lacks all aspect stealth, engine power, supercruise, maneuverability, and much more. It was designed to replicate the F-16's performance, and it has failed to do even that. It also may never come to operational status-the US government is finally realizing its faults. <www.pogo.org/resources/national-security/f-35-jsf-concurrency-quick-look-review-20111129.html> for the Quick Look assessment of progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.250.185.1 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Would a comparison table be OR?

The Americans, Russians, Chinese, and Eurofighter have all specified different sets of characteristics expected for a fifth generation fighter. For example, only the Americans exclude supercruise. Would it be terribly ORish to put together a table that attempts to line up the various different definitions? Hcobb (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Russian Baby Seal-iski

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_03_13/68341923/

Interesting article on a Russian fifth gen that would be F-35 sized, but I don't see that it moves the ball forwards enough to be worth mentioning. Hcobb (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Also is the Chinese J-60 solid enough to mention yet?

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/03/22/2012032201390.html

Hcobb (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

US PR page

may i say that this article doesn't meet to many wiki criterias for objectiv articles. this one seems to be written by a US army fanboy and is in parts even uncorrect or at least not complete. e.g. the typhoon mets more criterias of the self made US fifth generation definitions than the F 35 and still is more or less bashed on this "article" how is that the thypoon has at some situations more benefits in terms of visibility and enemy recon than the f 22 bu -without- a stealth system and still the "made up" definition insists on having one for beeing "better"? who is responsible for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.200.46.188 (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

critics

i have deleted this section. because its nonsense to post every comment someone of non importance has made about the critic of the detractor. the section is called "critics" and not "bash everyone who isn't with us"

"Richard A. Bitzinger of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, a former consultant for the American RAND think tank suggests that Western Europe's "failure" to develop a fifth-generation jet fighter may reduce these former leaders in the market to also-ran status as the world's attention shifts to the competition between the United States and Asian powers. Canadians Alex Wilner and Marco Wyss of the Center for Security Studies claim that Europe's failure to "keep up" with the F-35 may make the European jet fighter manufacturers close up shop." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.200.46.188 (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

References

To add to the commentator above, what about European stealth developments such as the BAE Systems Taranis, BAE Corax or the Dassault nEUROn?

talk

Stealth alone does not define a FGFA. By any reasonable definition we ought to exclude any aircraft with less sophisticated electronics than the Super Hornet. That would leave one fifth generation jet fighter program on Earth, LockMart's merged F-22/F-35 project. Hcobb (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Technology transfer

Ought not the "Technology transfer" issue be lifted from the J-20 article and moved here? After all the good old USA got the lift fan tech for the F-35B and the basic mathematics for stealth from the USSR. The F-22's thrust vectoring isn't all the original anyway, and the Nazis developed the axial flow jet engine tech that both sides of the Cold War copied. Hcobb (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As a Stealth Fighter with Super-cruise,

Query, is there any source at all that suggests that if only the F-117 had supercruise then it would have been a fifth generation fighter?

If not then we clearly cannot rely on our own judgement and must await the time and trouble of the lamestream press to apply the 5th gen fighter label. Hcobb (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't data/sensor fusion an important criteria too? Did F-117 have that? Just asking! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 02:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Gripen NG

There is a lot of confusion about the Gripen NG, most likely due to translation issues. Articles about "next-generation Gripens" have turned into "fifth-generation Gripens". Saab itself does not assert the E/F model as a fifth-generation aircraft. Ng.j (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But a number of sources explicitly say it is going to be a 5th gen plane. What do we do about that? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 02:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This whole article is extremely American PR. Fighters like the Eurofighter, the Dassault Rafale and Mig-31 "Foxhound" and the more modern than F-22 or F-35: MiG-35 "Fulgrum-F" are not listed here. In simulated fights or even maybe real (trainings fights) these planes were sometimes even better than the F-35 for example. The F-22 is not for export and is so expensive that the US Navy and Air Force need to replace their old fighters with the much cheaper F-35 (cheaper and worse of course).

The classification for 5. Generation (2010-2025) is completely wrong too... this is more the "coming 6. Generation". Well, English Wikipedia... German, French, Russian, Spanish, Portugese Wikipedia and so on are correct. I mean the F-22 is a very good fighter, extreme expensive, but therefore you don't need to make a wrong Fighter Jet Generation List :D Kilon22 (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

€dit: Of course I mean the MiG-31 "Foxhound" and there is no MiG-32. But the MiG-31 really is maybe a bit too old for 5. Generation but still a not so bad interceptor for his price.

Ordered by year of induction / Expected year of induction of the F-313 removed

Hey guys so I have the list ordered by year of (expected) induction. The aircraft are ordered by the ones which are expected to enter service the soonest. Aircraft which don't have a overall prospected year by which they should enter service are placed at the bottom of the list. I hope there aren't too many problems with that?

And as for the Iranian F-313, the provided source doesn't mention whatsoever about the year this aircraft is expected to enter service. The source is more of a gallery of photos of the F-313 in its hangar. Therefore, I have removed the expected years of induction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaveq (talk • contribs) 14:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the Iran fighter should be included here at all, as the refs don't say that it is a 5th generation aircraft. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 15:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the 313 a fighter? The Iranians seem to be positioning it as a single role attack aircraft in the vein of the F-117. If so it shouldn't be listed as a fighter at all. Hcobb (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add the Q313

• The Q313 does not belong on this page unless you can find reliable sources describing it as a fifth-generation jet fighter. Further edit-warring to include it may well result in the page being protected. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Iranian F-19 full size mockup

Any reason not to list the Qaher-313, if we're going to list the Indian programs that don't even have full size mockups yes? Hcobb (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you find sources that say that that Qaher-313 is a fifth-generation jet fighter? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 21:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, off-topic, do you have references for stating that the Iranian Qaher-313 is an F-19 copy? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 21:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Were else did they get the concept that drooped winglets were compilable with a stealth fighter design? Hcobb (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Do you have references stating that the Iranian Qaher-313 is an F-19 copy, or do you not have such references? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'l be happy to include the plane here if you can show me reliable refs. Iranian government-run media may not be a reliable source o his one, but even they do not claim it to be a 5th generation aircraft. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 14:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Claims that the Q-313 is a "F-19 copy" are original research. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought there is an Iran steath jet fighter...how about North Korea? The upgrading MiG-29 just like F-15 silent eagle?

But there is none...125.82.250.184 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you are looking for Qaher-313, but it is not a 5th gen plane. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 23:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest the J-18 to merge into this page

j-18 is a steath fighter.125.82.249.149 (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have references to support your claim? Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thanks, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 00:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, from phoenix TV of Hong Kong...219.151.153.124 (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a link, a transcript, audio, or video supporting this? Evidence and the honour system don't work well together.

If Iran has a steath jet fighter, how about Qatar and Saudi Arabia???

????219.151.153.124 (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As The Bushranger commented, the Q-313 doesn't qualify as a fifth-gen fighter. I tried to add it to the list with a source, but, in hindsight, the source didn't provide enough evidence backing up my claim. Julesmazur (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how about Japan, Germany, France, Russia and India...

As we can see F-22 and F-35 in US air force, J-20 and J-31 in China air force... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.151.153.124 (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What are you getting at? Should more fifth-gen fighters from those countries be added? If so, can you provide any sort of source supporting your claims? Julesmazur (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter costs 120 million dollars per aircraft...

F-22 price is 150 million dollars per aircraft, what can you see about this?222.181.96.150 (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that is off-topic here as the Eurofighter lacks stealth and the F-22 lacks multirole capabilities. Hence, neither one is a Fifth-generation jet fighter. Hcobb (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hcobb, do you have a source on generation listing for the Eurofighter? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/typhoon-rafale-no-match-for-chinas-mmrca Hcobb (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should have F-22B and F-22C like F-35A, F-35B and F-35C.125.82.249.130 (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Definition of 5th generation aircraft according to India

As per Fifth-Gen flavour at Aero India by SP's Aviation here, the DRDO, while designing the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft, defines fifth generation fighters as having stealth features, supercruise, super-maneouverability, thrust vectoring, advanced avionics based on integrated modular architecture, new generation display systems with touch panels, pilots associate to reduce pilot workload, advanced sensors like an AESA radar and infra-red search and track. Relevant to add in the article? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 22:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That list is internally redundant. Let me see if I can combine it up.

• Stealth.
• Advanced sensors
• advanced avionics (includes display systems and PA)
• super-maneouverability

So it seems to match to what the other listings have. Hcobb (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No i mean, since the lists are basically the same, so can we add that DRDO also considers these to be essential 5th gen characteristics, unlike those who oppose this list, as per the section Critics and alternate definitions? Plus, DRDO considers super-cruise to be a necessary 5th gen characteristic, which is not part of the list. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 01:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

So what make a difference between USA fifth generation jet fighter definition and India fifth generation jet fighter definition?125.82.253.92 (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Why the cost of Sukhoi PAK FA is so low?

It's only 1/3 of F-22 price219.151.158.16 (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The current cost is for a T-50 prototype, not a fighter aircraft, much less a fifth generation model. This article needs to make that clearer. Hcobb (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is the estimated price of the actual production aircruft T-50. Russian aircraft tradionally cheaper to make due to the much lower cost of labor, materials, and mostly all-inhouse production. For instance, the Rafale cost $82 mil. , Eurofighter Typhoon $90 mil., but a comparable SU-30MKI is $29 mil., SU-35 45 mil. Chelentano (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Why Japan don't unite with South Korea and Taiwan to develop a new fifth generation jet fighter?

Just like F-35 is a program of USA, UK etc.125.82.249.130 (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please remember, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 02:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You will find your answer to why these countries do not cooperate on defense at Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Hcobb (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Is 'supercruise' really an element of 5th generation?

The current article describes 5th gen. as featuring new technologies such as supercruise .. Supercruise is ancient technology and, as far as I can tell, not a feature on all 5th. gen fighters.

The EE Lightning was capable of supercruise back 50 years ago <http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/history.php> and several aircraft has been capable since including two civilian airliners (i.e. Concorde and the TU-144).

I also believe, but am unable to confirm or deny externally, that the F-35 is not capable of supercruise.

Though many may put forward supercruise as a defining feature I believe I have shown that it is not. Thus I propose that it should be removed from the definition?.

kimdino (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

F-35 is not capable of supercruise. More infos: http://www.ausairpower.net/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.163.91.19 (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Supercruise marks an aircraft as being part of the Gen 4.5 "kinetics" school when fighters had to point at their targets. Ah, the good old days. Hcobb (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was new tech developed in the 1980s and incorporated on the Advanced Tactical Fighter program. Stealth, and supercruise are the 2 main technologies introduced there that are largely considered 5th gen technologies. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

5th Generation Jet Fighters are supersonic, but that's not unique to 5th Generation. What defines a fighter generation is what the pilot does and 5th Generation pilots depend on the SAIRST of their aircraft to keep things sorted out for them. Hcobb (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? 4th, 3rd and 2nd generation fighters were all supersonic as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And the F-22 is not as fast as the MIG-25's top speed. Does that move the F-22 to a previous generation? The extreme kinetics of the 4.5 Gen fighters with things like thrust vectoring, supercruise, canards, etc. was simply a last gasp of the old school of dogfighting where you needed to get your nose in their tail. Hopelessly outdated now of course. Hcobb (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just like the military thought the cannon was no longer needed on fighters in the early 1960s. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And these cycles are a sign of generational change. There is a line being drawn between the F-35 and all those fighters that came before it. That line is the start of the fifth generation. Hcobb (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Supercruise IS one of the defining features on a 5th Generation fighter, according to Lockheed Martin. The Lightning could do it decades ago, but there were a lot of features it didn't have. 5th Generation isn't just defined by one feature, but a whole list. The Official Lockheed Martin list is as follows: VLO Stealth, Supercruise, Sustained Supersonic Ops, Extreme Agility, High T/W & Low W/S, High Altitude Ops (>50,000FT), Effective fighter missile loadout, Integrated Sensor Fusion and Net enabled Ops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.22.216 (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

not really, but 5.5 generation jet fighter must be...219.151.153.124 (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Most of fifth generation jet fighter can achieve supercruise, you are different?219.151.153.124 (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think F-22 and F-35 are a good match, China j-20 and J-31, and even J-18 are also a good match, F-35 is better in electronic warfare, F-22 is good in air dominance! 219.151.153.124 (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It would have to be "usable" supercruise - experimental flight where the jet is trashed afterwards, or if the supersonic cruise is only achieved by stripping all payloads and some parts, or if the jet can only do it flying a special way, would not count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.175.234 (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Help for the math impaired

If you're counting up a total of internal and external weapons then the F-35 gets 16.

First you have six external weapons:

http://defensetech.org/2012/02/21/pics-of-the-week-f-35-with-weapons/

Then you add two AMRAAMs and 8 SDBs:

http://www.afa.org/professionaldevelopment/issuebriefs/F-22_v_F-35_Comparison.pdf

So if you add six plus two plus eight, you get 16. No? Hcobb (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright. How do you get 16 weapons for F-22? Chelentano (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, who is the AFA.ORG? They don't even have a web site. The Google Document does not look like a reliable source to me. Chelentano (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, even according to this Google doc, you can't get both two AMRAAMs and 8 SDBs internally Chelentano (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hcobb, please don't use multiple sources and your own interpretations on what they mean together to synthesize a new, original position. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/fighter/f22.html Two 600 gallon fuel tanks, four missiles: This configuration is used after air dominance in a battle area has been secured, and extra loiter time and firepower is required for Combat Air Patrol (CAP). The external fuel tanks, held by a BRU-47/A rack are carried on the inboard stations, while a pylon fitted with two LAU-128/A rail launchers is fitted to each of the outboard stations.

So that is four external weapons plus eight SDBs, 2 Sidewinders and 2 AMRAAM for a total of 16. QED. Hcobb (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

What part of "stop synthesizing multiple sources together" do you not understand? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing about "eight SDBs" in the article. In fact it is very clear there that F-22 can carry 6 OR 4 missles in the Center bay. 6 (center bay) + 2 (side bay) = 8. Chelentano (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"The only currently combat-ready fifth-generation fighters, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors, entered service with the U.S. Air Force in 2005.[2][3][4]"

This says the Navy now has another fifth-generation jet fighter. So, that line from the first paragraph is outdated. 24.164.1.172 (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

http://wtkr.com/2013/06/23/navy-receives-first-carrier-version-of-the-f-35-joint-strike-fighter/

And your ref says "combat ready" exactly zero times. Keep trying. Hcobb (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleting the charts?

Most of the performance figures are classified, so frankly, the data in the tables are all speculative and pretty useless. Not to mention blatant errors, i.e. F-22's first flight is 1997, not 1990, as that's for the YF-22. 169.232.220.170 (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of the data comes from Wikipedia articles. Do you want to delete those Wikipedia articles too? Deleting is easy but contributing is a bit harder. As for 1990, that is an error, I agree, though I would not call it "blatant". Everyone knows that YF-22 was a prototype for the F-22. As for the "classified" performance figures, it is completely acceptable and within the rules of Wikipedia to publish unofficial estimate data, as long as it comes from reliable sources (Wikipedia:Verifiability). Chelentano (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No reliable source gave the 200 m/s climb rate. In fact, it's listed as uncited. 169.232.220.170 (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

T-50 max speed

Time to inject some factual information. It's a known fact that in Dec. 2004, the PAK-FA max speed requirement was lowered from Mach 2.15 to Mach 2 by Sukhoi's request to then RuAF Commander Vladimir Mikhailov. There has been no indication that it has since increased, so Mach 2 (about 2135 km/h) is probably the most correct and reliable max speed figure at the moment.

http://paralay.net/pakfa/pakfa.html

Also, same general also set the requirement for 6 internal hardpoints, as shown in another interview. I'll go dig for the source. T-50's capabilities here are so exaggerated it's not even funny.

SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• The specs numbers suppose to match numbers on PAK_FA#Specifications page. Also if you provide new specs please provide a citation. Chelentano (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Here is a more reputable source than Paralay, and again, it shows the PAK-FA max speed requirement to be Mach 2, down from Mach 2.15. http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2006/01/18/99775.html I'll put this on PAK_FA#Specifications page. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That is a very old article: January 2006 Chelentano (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
      • It's the best we got so far. When new official figures come up a few years later, we can change it accordingly. Right now, this is as reliable as it gets. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

J-31

The SAC project remains unclaimed by PLAAF / PLAN. It would be more appropriate to use the "Project 31001" designation than the official (J) series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.175.234 (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Supercruise

Is there actually a reliable source stating that the F-35 cannot supercruise? If not then some of the statements in this article may need to be reworded. -Nem1yan (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Add the same fnording ref from LockMart team to this article also then... Hcobb (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The new upgrading engine can make F-35 supercruise...219.151.153.124 (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a ref for that? Hcobb (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The F-35 can acheive limited supercruise for 150 miles without the use of after burners at Mach 1.2 http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.45.19.38 (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I think so. the engine is under development see General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136, this engine is more powerful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.252.172 (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Definition 5th Generation fighter "highly" unclear!?

Final remark: Lots of unclear terms are being used to define 5th generation. 1. Low radar cross section! How low does it have to be in order to be called stealth? 2. Low probability if intercept radar: How low does the probability have to be in order to be called low? High performance air frame: How high does the performance have to be in order to be called high? Advanced avionics features, but how advanced do they have to be? Highly integrated computer systems, but how high must the level of integration be? If you want, you can move these "high" and "low" criteria up and down the ladder such that they fit your desire....

In my opinion, 5th generation is a buzz word invented by Lockheed Martin in order to insinuate that their airplanes are far superior to the competition. But, when you look at their performance as air-superiority fighters, then the F-22 is neck-and-neck with the Typhoon, with a slight edge in beyond visual range combat due to the lower radar cross section. Within visual range, the Typhoon is arguable superior to the F-22. However, the F-35 is inferior to the Typhoon as an air superiority fighter by a large margin.Zt3hnuio (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

So now let me demonstrate how the F-35 is made to fit the 5th generation criteria and simultaneously the Typhoon is made not to fit these criteria:

1. Low Probability of Intercept Radar (LPIR): Arguably, the captor-E ASEA radar of the Typhoon is superior to the F-35's radar due to it longer range and greater field of view. The "low probability" requirement is therefore lowered such that the F-35 jumps over the bar.

2. "high-performance air frames": In terms of top speed, acceleration, climb rate, turn rate the Typhoon outclasses the F-35. Therefore, the "high" in "high performance" must be lowered such that they fit the F-35.

3. In terms of sensor fusion and Net Enabled Options and advance avionics nothing really set the two planes apart. So they both meet the criteria.

4. "including all-aspect stealth even when armed": This is the only criteria, where the F-35 has an advantage over the Typhoon. So the requirements for low observability is rased such that only the F-35 meets the criteria, whereas the Typhoon doesn't

Voila: The F-35 is a 5th generation jet fighter, whereas the Typhoon isn't. Consequently, the F-35 is vastly superior to the Typhoon. But, you could easily fudge the numbers in the opposite direction, such that the Typhoon is 5th generation, whereas the F-35 isn't. Therefore, the Typhoon is vastly superior to the F-35. In my opinion it's a mistake to put all of your eggs in one basket, namely "stealth". A good fighter plane must provide the best overall mix of capabilities, excelling in one aspect but failing in others won't give you a winner. A balanced approach is the right way to go.Zt3hnuio (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The entire thing boils down to Situational awareness dominance (SAD). If a fighter has it over 4.5th gens then it is 5th gen and if it doesn't it isn't. A 4.5th gen will usually see a 4th gen before it itself is seen and will be seen by a 5th gen before it sees it. Since the EF is not yet flying with AESA, it has not yet reached 4.5th gen. Hcobb (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

So Rafale is a fifth generation fighter? Because if the F-35 uses its own radar, it will get detected by SPECTRA. If it doesn't, then it is down to IRST, in which case Rafale's supercruise ability and lower IR signature mean that, again, it will detect the F-35 before the F-35 detects it. Both Rafale and the F-35 have 360 degree situational awareness with IR and radar warning sensors. And yes, AESA radars can be detected by modern radar warners (they are only LPI against older-generation radar warners). 93.142.184.162 (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

1. You are dodging the question: How high do you rate these criteria 2. You are introducing an additional measure "situational awarenes" without defining what it means. By the way, all current Typhoons will be fitted with the E-Captor. In addition they have Pirate, which the F-22 doesn't have. That improves "Situational awarenes". Again, the criteria are merely being moved up and down the ladder, with one goal: Defining your own fighter as belonging to a different "generation". This is not serious but seriously biased. Zt3hnuio (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"A 4.5th gen will usually see a 4th gen before it itself is seen and will be seen by a 5th gen before it sees it. " Well, but the Typhoon has a high probability of seeing the F-22 first. How is that! In stealth mode the Typhoon merely uses passive sensors, PIRATE and Radar warning reception. As soon as the F-22 turns on it's radar or comes within the range of the infrared sensor pirate, it is very likely that it will be detected by the Typhoon. The F-22 doesn't have an infrared radar detector and is seriously handicapped in this mode of combat. Therefore, the F-22 is a 4th generation fighter, whereas the Typhoon is a fifth generation fighter, right? ;-) Zt3hnuio (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Last but not least, "situational awareness" has been introduces as the sole criteria, all other criteria have been dropped. So parameters are being introduced and dropped as you like. The definition of 5th generation changes whenever a fighter is upgraded or a new fighter is produced, with a single goal: Define your own fighter to belong into a different "generation", no matter what! Zt3hnuio (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

AESA radars have improved range and LPI. From an effective range they just do not trip the "fuzz busters" carried by current aircraft. A 4.5th will spot a 4th by radar detection or by LPI radar. A 5th will detect a 4.5th with LPI radar far beyond IRST range. Hcobb (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The next buss word "low probabilty of intercept" =LPI. How low does it have to be in order to be "low"? How do you know that they do not "trip" the radar warning receivers? Answer: They most definitely will "trip" them ;-) RWR don't even have to be particularly smart. The signal strength on the side of the tracked aircraft is at least 4-times stronger than the signal strength measured by the LPI radar. So the probability of turning on the RWR is higher than the probability of detecting the enemy aircraft. Therefore, the Typhoon operating in stealth mode - with active radar turned off - has a higher probability of detecting the F-22 using his active radar first than the other way around. Zt3hnuio (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, the typhoon's rwr can identify so called LPI emissions. http://www.elt-roma.com/en/prodotti/ew/elt750.php http://www.elt-roma.com/en/gruppo/company.php "Detection of emitters with LPI characteristics" Last but not least, all the techniques used for hiding your signal such as frequency hopping,... can also be implemented with mechanically scanning radars. By the way, what about the "high-performance air frames"? No mention so far from you! This goes to show that the definition of "fifth generation fighter" changes according to you whims and desires.Zt3hnuio (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Earliest use of the term

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/al-41-engine-problems-are-over-says-lyulka-saturn-25271/ 2 Aug 1995

That's the earliest use of 5th gen fighter I've found, but it seems to have been common by that point. Hcobb (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing PAK FA rate of climb

I believe we ought to remove the 350 m/s climb figure for the PAK FA, because the only source to claim it is Carlo Kopp of AirPowerAustralia, who has absolutely NO inside information, and it's purely his (and APA's) guess based on pictures a month after the first flight, and that's to suit his agenda of getting F-22 for RAAF. In other words, it is not a reputable source or figure at all. In contrast just about every other figure on here came from respected and reputable sources. 164.67.21.80 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hardware upgrade done by software upgrade "in the future" ?

"The F-22A was physically delivered without synthetic aperture radar (SAR) or situational awareness infra-red search and track. It will gain SAR later through software upgrades" How exacetly will they implement the hardware upgrade ? Hardly by software upgrade. This sentence in the article does not make sense! 50.9.97.53 (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

T-50 does not have rear-facing radar, and L-band arrays are IFF

I'm going to borrow this from the PAK FA article.

The main avionics systems are the Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) and the 101KS Atoll electro-optical system. The Sh121 consists of the N036 Byelka radar system and L402 Himalayas electronic countermeasures system. Developed by Tikhomirov NIIP Institute, the N036 consists of the main nose-mounted N036-1-01 X band Active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, or Active Phased Array Radar (Russian: Активная фазированная антенная решётка, Aktivnaya Fazirovannaya Antennaya Reshotka, Russian: АФАР, AFAR) in Russian nomenclature, with 1,552 T/R modules and two side-looking N036B-1-01 X-band AESA radars with 358 T/R modules embedded in the cheeks of the forward fuselage for increased angular coverage. The suite also has two N036L-1-01 L-band arrays on the wing's leading edge extensions that are not only used to handle the N036Sh Pokosnik (Reaper) friend-or-foe identification system but also for electronic warfare purposes. Computer processing of the X- and L-band signals by the N036UVS computer and processor enable the system’s information to be significantly enhanced.

So please, don't list that as radar on the chart. 75.82.181.255 (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

References

US American Aircrafts dominate here...

Hi,

5. Generation is listed (2010-2025) and 6. Generation (proposed).

The F-22 and F-35 are listed here, both were already ready for use before 2010? Aircrafts like the Eurofighter Typhoon (which made good results in simulated flights) and other European and of course Asian/Russian fighters are in the 4. Generation... this is wrong. The 5. Generation is not from 2010, but however even if the American airplanes would have to be listed in the 4. Generation than! Kilon22 (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that three out of the four listed flight test programs are in Asia I fail to see any American bias. Hcobb (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not wrong at all, as the whole "x:th generation" bullcrap is US-marketing definitions, specifically set up to promote US-aircraft as leading. BP OMowe (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fifth-generation jet fighter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150621081337/http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20130617/SHOWSCOUT02/306170017/Lack-European-Consensus-Future-Fighters-UAVs-Hurts-Industry to http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20130617/SHOWSCOUT02/306170017/Lack-European-Consensus-Future-Fighters-UAVs-Hurts-Industry

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fifth-generation jet fighter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100126025452/http://space.tv.cctv.com:80/video/VIDE1257691556223886 to http://space.tv.cctv.com/video/VIDE1257691556223886

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Iranian 5th Generation Fighter?

Why does Iran have a section over a proposed 5th Generation Fighter in which all the sources say is a fake?24.192.250.124 (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, no idea why that is there. I looked at the sources in your delete, and it doesn't even say it's a 5th generation aircraft or airworthy. It should really be deleted immediately.70.210.75.92 (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

STRONGLY AGREE. This would imply Original Research to say it's 5th Gen, and no reliable source says that it is. Also of note is that this has been brought up, and deleted in this talk page before. 2600:1007:B111:E672:CC5:5BD9:50BC:D06B (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I have again removed the Iran section from the article. Just looking over this talk page, there have been repeated calls for not including it, and no evidence presented that it is actually a 5th Gen aircraft. Before adding it again, that part of the issue must be addressed. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

MiG-1.44

Does anybody have a source for the number of prototypes built (2)? I have never seen a second one mentioned anywhere. I do believe only one was ever built. 192.222.134.89 (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Classification

I raised the classification for the article as it is far past "Start-class". Otr500 (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Fix Pakistan Fifth generation fighter references

Kindly fix these links of Pakistan's fifth generation fighter refrences many of them were not WP(RS). I removed all of them but resulted in damaging the other links Sorry Mayank Prasoon (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Now all the links are fixed as of now and information updated based on reliable sources WP:RS in the Pakistan Section,So no correction required Mayank Prasoon (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Please do not ever spam statements throughout multiple sections, as you did on this talk page. They have been removed. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay sorry for that Mayank Prasoon (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

RAF

Article currently has a photo captioned RAF Sukhoi Su-57 flying at the 2011 MAKS air show where you'll notice RAF links to Russian Air Force.

However RAF (disambiguation) makes no mention of this meaning of RAF, and RAF links to the article on the Royal Air Force of the United Kingdom. Andrewa (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I have never seen the term RAF used in English to mean the Russian Air Force. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Nor previously had I! If nobody objects here, I'll remove the pipe from the link so it reads Russian Air Force. Andrewa (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Qaher-313-stealth-fighter-jet-IAIO.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Article title

I know these aircraft simply as "Fifth-generation fighters" and this appears to be the most common term, which we should adopt here per our policy on WP:COMMONNAME (270 hits at FlightGlobal). Even the phrase "Fifth-generation fighter jet" appears to be more common (4 hits) than the current title of "Fifth-generation jet fighter" (zero hits at flightglobal). Does anybody object to moving the article accordingly? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent modifications

[1] Short description was cut down to a shorter one as jusy as class of modern jet fighters than putting on entire definition (yet asserting to restore) and a table was introduced in lead of national programs section for insight summary as subsections were just subjective paragraphs.

PS Ahunt, I would put "Since start of 21st century" or "Since early 21st century" as more appropriate as "As of 2021" is objectively an year while the "fifth-generation" itself is an uncertain or loosely defined period in this case. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't the change to the short description that was the main issue, although it introduced a grammar error (there is no such word as "aircrafts" in English). The main issue was the table. Other editors have removed it before., so you need to make a case here to put it back in once again, see WP:BRD. - Ahunt (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I would add that Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs) also reverted my further improvements to the short description without giving any reason. The bad grammar has been noted, Even the suggestions made just above are lacking a "the", there is no way such ungrammatical copyedits can be improvements. Also, I had removed the table following discussions here and elsewhere, because it adds nothing to the main material on national programs and the classification is too new and fluid to verify any summary list as meaningful. That main description should not be "subjective" as suggested, but objective and supported by citations; any statement that appears subjective may be flagged with say Template:dubious or Template:Citation needed or similar, not supplemented with more uncited subsections. Moreover Aman.kumar.goel added an aircraft type whose main article describes it as 4.5G, so that too was untenable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:43, 3 February 2021 (Usee

I don't see any major issues with grammar except word "aircrafts" which I honestly didn't know about. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:26, 3 February 2021 (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: Moved both Fifth generation fighter → Fifth-generation fighter, Sixth generation fighter → Sixth-generation fighter. No such user (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

---

• Fifth generation fighter → Fifth-generation fighter
• Sixth generation fighter → Sixth-generation fighter

(Note: Fourth generation fighter is under a similar requested move. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC))

– Correct hyphenation as per MOS:HYPHEN. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Refactored in accordance with guidelines into a multiple move request to prevent discussion forking. SITH (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

  Commonname is not in question here; this is a styling question. Dicklyon (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Does the WikiProject discussion directly address the hyphen? I only see one passing mention of it. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It specifically mentions usage on FlightGlobal, where the hyphen is only occasionally sometimes used. It also mentions RS such as David Baker; Fifth Generation Fighters, Mortons, 2018 also avoids the hyphen. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC) [Updated 10:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)]

[Update] But its discussion is wrong. Mea culpa. Here are some stats on FlightGlobal search hits: "fifth generation fighter" 42, "fifth-generation fighter" 270, "fourth generation fighter" 15, "fourth- generation fighter" 55. The hyphen wins out. So Baker is the only RS cited there which would justify the current lack of hyphen. I am pulling my vote and shutting up before I create any more confusion, my apologies all. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - the preponderance of refs should prevail. - Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The Google Ngrams seem to indicate that the hyphenated adjective form is more prevalent in sources.[2][3]. Not to mention that not having the hyphen is grammatically incorrect, which is why MOS:HYPHEN exists. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Interesting to see that the ngrams suggest that among early sources the two-word form dominated but since ca. 2010 the hyphenated form has come to the fore. If RS can be produced to support that analysis then I would have no problem in changing my vote. However we would need to be sure that scrapings from earlier, hyphenated Wikipedia page titles have not overly biased the ngrams. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  [Update] This article was created in 2009, apparently with the hyphen. This was shortly before the ngrams record the rise of the hyphen. This rather suggests that the Internet may be infested with Wikipedia scrapings and the ngrams are biased accordingly. We cannot be sure, and therefore we cannot take them as reliable indicators. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support unless this article is about the fifth in a line of generation fighters, as the current title suggests. Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - The article was only moved to Fifth generation fighter after a discussion on a wikiproject talkpage. In that discussion the fact that the move would be controversial was acknowledged multiple times, yet no posting to this talkpage and no RM. Primergrey (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This article should have never been moved without a formal RM discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Primergrey (talk) 03:27, 8 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.

Limits of stealth section removal

Just wanted to start a quick chat with anyone that would be keen to jump in regarding removing this section of the page. I made some changes to improve the NPOV of it, but I question if a section criticising a definitional element should really be in this article, and certainly not in the Characteristics section.

Looking at the pages for previous generations, none of them include this kind of content, and I tend to agree that it doesn't really belong on this page, instead the sections covering it on the Stealth aircraft page if a much better location for it.

Keen to hear other peoples opinions before going ahead with anything to major. The Australian Red Man (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

J-20 IRST

The IRST housing is only transparent in the frontal arc, which would suggest it doesn’t have a full IRST coverage. Why does the avionics table claims it as such? Is there a source? Banfy (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox and sources

@Ahunt and Aman.kumar.goel: I am seriously doubting the need for infobox for this article. This item is not confined to a particular origin. See Fourth-generation fighter.

Salute and Carnegie absolutely fail WP:RS. We should avoid using them here. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

1. When asked to gain a consensus prior to deleting items, please don't then delete it and then start a talk page discussion to see if it should be deleted or not.

2. The infobox acts as a summary of the article and is not limited to one originating nation. I think it helps orient readers and thus is helpful.

3. You said Salute and Carnegie absolutely fail WP:RS. We should avoid using them here. but you have not explained why you think that. These are Indian sources criticizing an Indian aircraft programme. - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Can anybody add the French language page to this Article?

There are Chinese, Russian, Japanese and Korean pages, please link the french page too.(http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avion_de_chasse_de_cinqui%C3%A8me_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9ration) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.253.153 (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)