Talk:List of fighter aircraft/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Intellectual validity of uncritical reference to "generations"

Having mentioned this before (below) I now look much more closely and frankly I am appalled by the uncritical reporting of this nomenclature. Yes, of course it is commonly applied, but it has no actual objective weight.

How can Harrier be a third generation fighter, when it does not possess the "supersonic speed" demanded of second generation aircraft? How is this hierarchical system justified, given that it implies the "universal superiority" of low-observable aircraft? What are the rules about all this? What if an aeroplane were developed with some new IRST and no RADAR at all? (Yes... I am well aware this is very unlikely) the point in this is that the system of generations implies that design decisions made by US manufacturers are THE correct ones, and THE "most modern"... the suggestion is that any plane NOT incorporating these features is necessarily outdated.

This is extremely foolish, and should be noted in the article under "criticisms & inconsistencies". Princeofdelft (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WWI, Inter-War, and WWII Aircraft

What sets these categories apart from the fighter jet aircraft is the use of a time-scale. WWI fighters are from WWI, Inter-war fighters are from the Inter-war period and WWII fighter are from WWII. It may seem simple but it seems that it is not. For example, currently the Hawker Hurricane is in the WWII section. The Hawker Hurricane entered service in 1937 several years before 'the war'. Does that make it an inter-war fighter? Of course though this really depends on what we want to define as 'WWII', do we consider September 1st, 1939 the start of the war? Do we generally say 1939 as a whole? Or do we start from 1937, the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War that would set the stage for the global political climate that became WWII? As we all know, entering into WWII were a motley group of fighters, some nothing more than canvas and wood others with stressed metal construction, some with high powered engines, some with under-powered ones, enclosed cockpits, radios, retractable landing gear, cannons etc. etc. The Dewoitine D.510 for example was pretty advanced, metal condtruction, streamline design, cannon armament, good engine, but an open cockpit and large, non-retractable landing gear. I think there are just too many variables inthe aircraft themselves to properly set what is 'Inter-War' and what is 'WWII', it has to be done by date really. Is the PZL P.24 REALLY a 'WWII' aircraft? Or was it a very good inter-war fighter introduced in 1933 that fought in WWII? These are the things we must consider. Semi-Lobster (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

4.5th generation

Do NOT move any aircrafts into the 4.5th generation slot if it does not already have AESA equipped. Aircrafts with AESA in upgrade should be in the development slot. 4.5 generation definition by the US government: http://opencrs.com/document/RL33543/--Ao333 (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Page 14 and don't forget the other requirements either. "high capacity data-link; and enhanced avionics; and have the ability to deploy current and reasonably foreseeable advanced armaments." Hcobb (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As the grouping of aircraft by generation is not always backed up by reliable references and past the first and second generations is open to continual debate and argument suggest that the fighters are grouped into decades of first flight )1950s, 1960s etc) which can be reliable sourced. MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the United States Congress has provided a handy checklist of 4.5 features and some of the non-American fighters will qualify by 2010 with several others planned to be upgraded to that level afterwards. I went through the list and not only does the definition work worldwide, but all of the worldwide aircraft builders are working towards the definition. Hcobb (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your claims are doubtful. What technical reputation has the US Congress as aviation experts? Is the US Congress comparable with SAE, DIN, ISO? No! Make a low count T/R AESA a pimped Mig-29 alias Mig-35 to a 4.5++ or make the lack of s-curved inlets and 90° cateye alignment of it tail not more to a 4.5---? Generatios claims are somewhat for PR-deparments. --HDP (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifth generation status would require the 4.5th generation plus real all around stealth and automatic sensor fusion tracking of air and ground targets, but there's no magic level of stealth (or agility) required for 4.5th gen. Hcobb (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I find the application of these highly arbitrary criteria pretty disappointing. It seems to assume all aerospace projects are undertaken to match/copy American aircraft, with planes that put the emphasis on different characteristics not qualifying for acknowledgement. It is already pretty clear that this subject has been the victim of a lot of "hype" with different parties trying to achieve exactly the PR advantage referred to in earlier comments. Perhaps aircraft could be placed in groups of "contemporaries" with some balanced comments as to various views about their effectiveness and comparative strengths? The assumption that "full stealth" puts a plane irrevocably above another for example is ludicrous, because future developments could completely overturn this advantage. Rather a more balanced view of the level of technological development and mission capabilities would be more useful. Princeofdelft (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The people who build and buy jet fighters like and use the term generations. They use the American definitions in general, with the usual fuzz, fluff and lies. So until a better term (and series of definitions) comes into general use this is what we're stuck with. Hcobb (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is wrong to include the Su-30 planes as 4th generation I think that it is more a 4.5th generation plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.211.254.166 (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Argh... Hcobb, I appreciate that, and accept it as true if you say so (I don't know better) but the fact that a misleading term is willfully used surely doesn't mean an encyclopaedia should reinforce it? Though I, for what it's worth am persuaded by you argument for the inclusion of the term, I would then suggest that the appropriate doubt as to the motivation for and usefulness of the term be put on the article describing "5th generation" etc. What do people say about that? princeofdelft 21:54 12 Oct 2010 [CEST] —Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

7th generation?

Here is a list of seventh gen fighters. It does not include the ionized b-2 bomber or the expiremental x planes, the tr3b and such. This link is a work-in-progress. 6th-7th gen --Murriemir (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

IAI LAVI

israel 4 genuration is IAI LAVI. ADD IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.219.251 (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Added it to tech demo.Ao333 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

mig-21 bison

SOmeone ahd added it in 4th gen ac,why was it deleted?Zoravar (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's an upgrade of a second gen, a hardcore third gen fighter under the third gen section.Ao333 (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC) I beg to Differ (with unsigned)user above. All Platforms get up gradation and today vintage F-16A/B is upgraded to 4.5 Generation F-16E/F. Similarly 3rd Generation MIG-21 (it was never a 2nd Generation A/C), has Gone through many Upgrades and latest being Bison. Clearly, with below mentioned upgrades of MIG-21 Bison makes it a superior 4th Generation Fighter. Improvements on the baseline Mig-21 to make the bison :

>multifunctional coherent Doppler-pulse airborne radar "Kopyo" with slot antenna > onboard digital computer >helmet-mounted target designato >double screen (HUD and CRT) display system >stores management system >inertial navigation system >air data computer system, digital >short range radio navigation system >onboard radio command receiving equipment > new flare dispenser (26 mm 120 rounds) >new electric power supply system, controlling and recording system >Sextant's TOTEM RLG-INS with NSS-100P GPS embedded GPS receivers > El-Op HUD, infrared search and track system (IRST) from Russia's URALs optical-mechanical plant >two Sextant MFD-55 LCD displays >autopilot >radar warning receivers (RWR) >new liquid air cooling system >HOTAS controls

It has a mix of French, Israeli, Indian and Russian avionics equipment.(like the MKI). It is claimed that the fighters are equivalent to any 4th Generation fighter, with the ability to lock on to 8 different targets at once.

It's weaponry includes the not so commonly seen seeker module of the KAB-500Kr TV guided bomb, R-73and an R-77 BVRAAM carried underwing. The aircraft's sophisticated EW suite comprises of a DRDO Tarang RWR/RHAWS, "Tempest" internal Self-protection jammer (SPJ) and the conformal CMDS.

Other features include a SURA HMS, a semi-glass cockpit and a Sextant Totem-3000 Ring laser gyro nav. system with GPS, to mention a few. Note the conformal countermeasure dispensers, the new Tarang RWR's antennae on the tailfin and the single piece windshield.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) is now adding stealth modifications to an existing $340m programme to upgrade 125 of its MiG-21bis fighters to MiG-21-93 standard. Sources for Jane's Defence Weekly have revealed these secret events in a report published in today's edition of the magazine.

Extensive tests to demonstrate Russia's ability to upgrade Indian fighter aircraft with stealth capabilities took place in front of Indian defence ministry officials at the Sokol aircraft plant in Nizhniy Novgorod on 29th May 2000. The demonstration was highly successful and is understood to have resulted in the Russian government and RSK MIG urging the IAF to adopt the stealth modifications across its MiG-21-93 fleet.

The core of the demonstration saw two MiG-21bis--one upgraded with stealth technology and one without--being tracked by what is believed to be a Mig-31 in a controlled test of radar-absorbent materials (RAM) and coatings developed at the Moscow Institute of Applied and Theoretical Electrodynamics.

During its flight the radar signature of the upgraded Mig-21bis was shown to be between 10 and 15 times weaker than the regular MiG-21bis. Surly, with these Upgrades not even a School Kid can have a doubt about Bison being a 4th generation A/c Hitman009 (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Without an airframe change you will not get to 4th gen maneuverability. Hcobb (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Current/605-Bison.html According to this article they made the Bison an upgraded airframe for more stealthiness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.122.1 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Every 4.5th generation fighter is first a 4th generation fighter and no 4th generation fighter is limited to 3Gs. Hcobb (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap, how can anyone even argue about the Bison? The soviet design was popular but retired 2 decades ago. Fourth gen aircraft are still largely in service. Just because India and China (under the name of J-7) haven't retired their fleets of third gen dogfighters, it doesn't make them anymore fourth. Ao333 (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

PAK FA RCS

It is really amazing that some people already know the Radar Cross Section of an aircraft that is so classified no one has its pictures even its in development for more than 10 years!!

Second the sourse is a real BS. No military aircraft in the world has 20 sq meter RCS. Even AWACSs have 3 sqm. and with improvements in RAM paints, all current 4.5 generation fighters have less than 1 sqm cross section. You want proof? Search google for radar detection range formula. If 20sq meter was true, a Fighter could have been detected and tracked by an F-4's radar from over approx. 161 kilometers.

Addendum: Everyone seems to be so well versed in terms of microwave physics to be able to state rcs figures with such cock sure confidence, this is an encyclopaedia not a pissing contest. Please refrain from such actions they are juvenile and counter productive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.7.124 (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please edit the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.161.46.91 (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the source is everything but reliable - it is quoting unnamed Russian MOD official which states something that is considered to be state secret who knows when and who knows where. And seriously, Su-30MKI has 20 square meters RCS? Who wrote that, not even Su-27 have that big RCS. Not to mention that PAK FA is still an unfinished prototype which lacks even RAM painting but here we already have highly classified statement about it´s RCS (besides 0.5 RCS is everything but stealthy). Seriously people, god/evolution/Astar Sheran gave us the brain for some purpose - using it from time to time won´t hurt us. --EllsworthSK (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

PAK FA and FGFA

Although FGFA is PAK FA derivative, there are two different programs. PAK FA is completely Russian development and must be moved to "Russia" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venet (talk • contribs) 14:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Done--Ao333 (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

J-XX

The J-XX is an effort to develop a new fifth generation fighter, that plane only exists on paper, we don´t know its characteristics, we don´t know if it will enter in service (it´s only a project) we even don´t know if it will be fifth generation or not. Then, how is it considered a fifth generation aircraft and included in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr nonono (talk • contribs) 17:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you even looked into the J-xx? Chinese officials and developers have explicitly stated that the "fourth generation aircraft which is what westerners may call fifth generation" will enter service within 7-9 years. Furthermore, the WS-15 turbofan which may be used to power these stealth fighters is enjoying great success. I think what you meant was the H-8 stealth bomber.

How do you know that it will be fifth generation? do you know its characteristics? how does it look? do you have any information? no, you are considering its fifth generation only because some chinese officials believe that the fighter they will develop will be fifth generation. The figthter is not build, and there aren´t any prototipes, like in the PAK FA or the F-35. Then, how can you include an aircraft which is even not designed in this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr nonono (talk • contribs) 20:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that the Medium Combat Aircraft will be fifth generation? Do you know its characteristics? How does it look? (if you're talking wind tunnel models, then the Chinese have many more...) Do you have any information? No, you are considering it fifth generation only because some Indian official believes it to be. The design isn't even halfway complete, the engine is still conceptual, and there aren't any prototypes, like in the PAK FA or the F-35. Seriously, Jane's, GS, Gates, and even Putin confirmed this. The United States expected a handful of these planes to go into FOC by 2025 which they pushed to 2020 after the last strategic meeting. The Chinese expect a prototype by 2012 and didn't want the T-50 because they think they can come up with something not neccessarily better, but fighters which can rival it.

The J-XX is a program, not a plane (same with the Indian fighter). At this moment, the chinese fighter is conceptual, chinese themselves don´t know how the fighter would look (for now it only exists on paper). Sources say that chinese will need help from other countries to develop a fifth generation fighter (from Russia, US or Europe). And we don´t certainly know if the final plane will be 5th generation (it may end in a 4.5 generation fighter), so it is not correct to directly consider the J-XX a fifth generation fighter and add it to the list, same with the Indian plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr nonono (talk • contribs) 18:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The LFMS is an unconfirmed program, not a plane. At this point, the Russian fighter is conceptual, Russians themselves don't know how it would look (it only exists on paper and media). I don't speak Russian, so I don't know what you're talking about, but most western sources indicate earlier IOC dates for the J-XX like 2018, but then again, I'm not indian. And we certainly don't know if the final LFMS is going to be 5th generation (it may end up as a 4.5th generation). I just don't see your point. You want to take J-XX, MCA, and LFMS off?

At this moment, the J-XX can not be directly considered fifth generation (I said why) so it is not correct to add it to the fifth generation list. I want to create a new section named `possible future fifth gen fighters´ (not certain) and add the J-XX and others in that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr nonono (talk • contribs) 16:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The J-XX was confirmed by Chinese, RF, EU and US governments and will even enter service soon. I just don't see how it is a merely a "possibility." Now, the MCA and LFMS are "possible future fifth gen" because India has a conceptual engine and has just begun the design (prone to cancellation). The LFMS isn't confirmed by any governments or defense agencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.22.89 (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, just answer one question. Does it have canards? Please provide a wiki-quality ref with your answer. Hcobb (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Great part of the J-XX is conceptual, sources say that chinese will need help from other countries (see J-XX), and it may end in a 4.5 gen fifther, not fifth, (we don´t certainly know). That´s why it can´t be included in the list. (it´s simple speculation) --Mr nonono (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hcobb: google J-XX and tell me if there are any 1:1 models done. Please provide a wiki-quality ref with your mocking, preferably not something 2-3 years old.

Mr.nonono: Put it this way. Chinese officials said it's going to be fifth and the US+RF governments said it's going to be fifth. I just don't see how it's a "simple" speculation. It's a complicated and confirmed project. And BTW, a huge quantity of PAK's radar and avionics will require foreign aid. Indian aircrafts have Israeli radar and avionics, American engines and FCS, making only the frame made in India. Nonetheless, that does not make the PAK any less fifth generation and the Tejas any less fourth. The thing is, Russia does not have the technological superiority it had 50 years ago. Seriously, I don't know what you have against the Chinese; you're attracting India with your BEST technology... What's the next thing you have that the Chinese/Indians don't?--Ao333 (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

First, the PAK FA is completely russian designed, and russian made, except some indian materials, see PAK FA (but that´s another issue). Just compare the J-XX and the PAK FA articles, (PAK FA talks about a nearly complete fighter, while the J-XX talks about a not designed yet plane, whit lot of speculation). Both russians and americans have a long history and tradition in making new fighters, and are very capable of producing new planes. The chinese are not so advanced as russia and america, and they have more difficulties to develope a new plane by themselves (see J-XX) they will need foreign help to make their future plane fifth generation. The issue, is that we don´t know if it will be fifth generation, at this moment we have too little information, and it´s too soon to add it to the list--Mr nonono (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, listen. PAK FA is designed by Russia, and the composites are manfactured by the Russian Corp: NAPO. However, Russia does not have ANY working AESA radar thus, none of its planes in development (Su-35BM+MIG-35+PAK FA) even satisfy the 4.5th generation requirement, let alone, 5th. The T-50 flew with PESA and 117S (comparable to the Chinese WS-10A which were mass produced 3 years ago) instead of the AL-41 which hasn't even reached pre-production yet. Russian electronics technology is so behind now, the EU even has 2 companies with matured AESA technology and the T-50 flew with fouth-gen avionics. PAK FA's peformance is so low, the US congress has decided to cease purchase of the F-22. The prototype's maiden flight showed so little success, Brazil turned down the offer for these stealth fighters and the US congress strategic meeting postponed their estimate for PAK FA's IOC date to after 2015, only five years before their expected date for Chinese stealth fighters. I seriously don't know what you have against the Chinese, but as things are going now, the T-50 is not exactly a fifth generation aircraft. Yes, Russia has been making planes long before the Chinese but their economy is so backward now, it asked India to help fund its most advanced project. Chinese officials have explicitly decleared that the new stealth fighters will be 5th generation. Both your government and the US government have confirmed it. I just don't see how you, I or anyone on WP can have more information regarding this project than government intelligence agencies who are sure of the existence of Chinese 5th gen fighters.--Ao333 (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever read the PAK FA article? at this moment, Russia has developed two AESA radars, the ZHUK-E now used by the MIG-35, and a new, more advanced, that will be used by the PAK FA. The PAK FA won´t be equipped with the old AL-41, but with a new generation engine that actually was used by the prototype that flew in february. Russians have also developed new electronics specifically for the PAK FA, and they are studying to add plasma stealth to the aircraft (currently in investigation). Americans don´t ceased to purchase the F-22 because of the PAK FA, but because it´s too expensive. The J-XX is not even designed, and the chinese don´t developed any fifth generation components (like engines, electronics or radars), and you are calling it fifth generation. Your pint of view is totally biased, and you don´t know much about the PAK FA, please read more.--Mr nonono (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that the T-50 itself is not a stealth aicraft as it lacks stealth coatings and has several no-nos attached to it. Also it is not currently flying with an AESA radar (planned to have five of them). I suspect that the Russians are going to paste on a stealth coating at some point and then they'll run into the same issues that have caused so many maintenance headaches for the F-117, B-2 and F-22. So while their intention is to build a 5th generation fighter, they may wind up with a fighter that is only stealthy under showroom conditions and is operationally 4.5th generation. The Chinese seem to be falling even further behind the Russian/Indian team and may wind up buying PAK-FAs in the future in the hopes of copying them as J-XXs. Hcobb (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Don´t forget that it was a prototype for flight testing (don´t confuse it with the final aircraft) the radars and stealth devices are almost developed, but they are no attached to the prototype because now it is not necesary, they have to test the airframe and the engines first.--Mr nonono (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The PAK FA was awaited for over a DECADE. I may have been following it before you entered middle school. Speculation of the PAK FA was so widespread, the US government pushed Raptor's IOC date from 2007 to 2005 (FOC in 2007) in fear of an advanced Russian fighter. But, the congress ceased purchase of the F-22 later on, since T-50's test flight was so disappointing the congress descripted it as "failing our expectation." Gates was condemned for overestimating Russian stealth capabilities, which cost the US reserve, greatly. Do you keep track of strategic meetings? I understand RF meetings can be secretive but the US ones are fairly public. The ZHUK-EA is still a prototype on display. Phazotron has a detrimental problem of even mounting the radar onto Mig-35, let alone developing an "advanced AESA." The AL-41 is not old. If you took the time to learn about turbofans, you will realize that AL-41 IS the "secret" engine which has YET to fly with PAK. As of of now, (2 months from the maiden flight) The PAK FA is still flying with 117s and PESAs. Don't use WP articles to back your claims. Read REAL news articles, closely. Plasma stealth? That tale is still in concept-evaluation stage. How did they learn to add them on before making them? The J-XX hasn't even been designed? Are you serious? Do you even know about Russia's proposal of the T-50 to China and India? China refused the offer because it already HAD the majority of the T-50 design and knew it has the indigenous technology to produce a PAK equivalent by 2020; India, however, estimated that it did not have the means to, so a joint program was the fastest way for India to gain access to fifth gen fighters. The Chinese don't develop 5th gen components? LOL, it's not the 1950s anymore. Russian planes have Chinese electronics. русский electronics are the last thing you should be proud of. Engines? PAK is still flying with 117s (slightly better than Chinese WS-10A). Prove to me that PAK FA is fifth generation. Give me its RAM coating class; its AL-41 engine specs; its "advanced" AESA specs or even its NAME. As far as I can tell. The prototype is 4.5th generation. Don't go off telling me "this official said this, or this article said that" because I can say the samething for J-XX and MCA. By the way, start a poll before changing WP standards like what you just did with the fifth gen section. And no, I have nothing against Russians, unlike what you have against the Chinese. I just happened to live through the heights of the Cold War and certainly am not a communist fan.--Ao333 (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I´l say it again, it was a prototype for flight testing, and actually it don´t flied with the 117s, it flied with a completely new next generation engine (3d thrust vectoring) as stated by NPO Saturn, it won´t use the AL-41 or it´s variants, as it was initially planned. The ZHUK-AE is already used by the mig-35 (see MIG-35), and ready for combat, and the new AESA radar for the PAK FA is almost finished. Stealth aircraft are not really invisible to radars, or that is what russians think, so they´l make an aircraft difficult to detect by radar, but not fully stealth like the F-22, because that implies sacrifying agility, russians want to surpass the F-22 not by stealth, but by better weapons, agility, engines (3d) and radars. Don´t forget that there are other things that make a figther fifth generation, apart from stealth. For example, the F-35 does not supercruise, but is still considered fifth generation. It is not correct to name the PAK FA 4.5 generation because it is not so stealthy as the F-22, albeit being more agile and having better engines, and soon, similar if not superior radars. Russians use chinese electronics?, are you talking seriously? if chinese have better electronics and technology, why they buy russian old planes and devices (Su-27, S-300) and make cheap copies for their army? (J-11, etc). The chinese don´t participated in the PAK FA because they will gain less than Russia and India, not because they can make a better fighter. Your point of view is completely biased, what do you have against russians? From what I know, some sources say that the chinese bought the design of the MIG 1.4 failed project, a fourth generation fighter, and want to redesign it into fifth generation, but, as sources say, they can´t do it by themselves, and will need some russian, american or european technologies (simply because they can´t develope new radars, engines and stuff in a few years)--Mr nonono (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

PAK FA flew with 117S; the engine has an AL-41 design but uses a 31 core. The secret engine NPO's talking about IS the Al-41, which has "YET" to fly. No, MIG-35 is delayed because of ZHUK-AE problems. No, there is no "new" AESA. Where are you getting these information from? Better agility? Are you serious? Russian turbofan tech is 15 years behind US. We've been flying the F119 for a decade already, and it's still superior to every Russian engine in existence. Better weapons? How can you have better weapons when Russian laser pods are US copies? Better radars? ZHUK-AE is Russia's first proper fighter AESA. American AESAs have been flying for over a decade. The F-35 cannot supercruise because it is designed as an interceptor, not a striker. Exporting supercruise engines which can travel long distances = selling sensitive military technology that can allow Russia/China to fly their fighters to US. LOL, I guess you didn't know, but a large quanitity of Russian military electronics are made in China with Japanese technology. No, your source about 1.4 is wrong. No, I did not say that the Chinese can make a better fighter, but an equivalent in the same decade. And no, the Chinese actually have more AESA technology than you think, just read into their new destroyers. No, they're making a new indigenous 18-ton thrust engine -- WS-15. Russia seems pretty worried about it too.--Ao333 (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

PAK FA don´t flew whit 117S, it flew with a completely new engine http://www.npo-saturn.ru/?act=gm_look&id=1264762617 which generates larger thrust and a complex automation sistem (possibly an AL-41 upgrade). There is a new AESA radar in developement (almost finished), http://sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=3143 the ZHUK-AE problems were solved and mass production began in 2010. Yes, the PAK FA has better agility, it depends less in stealth design than the raptor and russians made it more agile (the raptor sacrificed some agility because of stealth) and the PAK FA is equipped with better 3d thrust vectoring engines (raptor has 2d thrust vectoring). Better weapons? I talk about missiles, russian missile technology is far better than US, they always made more powerful, faster and more agile missiles, (ICBM, S-400, etc). Russian laser pods are not necesary copies, and not necesary worse, they made similar indigenous pods to compete with americans, (not like the chinese, they buy or steal all russian weapons and devices they can and make cheap copies of it) if you consider them copies then the US engines are copies too (russians made thrust vectoring engines first). Russian electronics are made in China? it depends on what electronics are you talking about, maybe some computers and other devices, but serious things like russian new radars, engines or missiles are made in Russia, (ALMAZ-ANTEI, Pazhotron, etc). I know about the new chinese engine, it´s an effort to develope a thrust vectoring engine for the J-XX, but chinese have little experience in making such engines (all chinese engines are russian or are russian copies), but chinese hope that russians will give them some technology or sell them a PAK FA in the future (probably to copy it) but russians are actually furious with china because they want to buy-steal russian military technology and copy it (look what happened with the SU-33 and the russian carrier). I´m pretty sure that russians won´t help them with their new fighter. And russians are not especially worried about the chinese fighter, PAK FA producers call it copycat and say that it won´t be as good as the raptor or the PAK FA.--Mr nonono (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, PAK FA flew with 117S and if you are to convince people on the English sector of a multilingual encyclopedia otherwise, you need to provide English sources. As well, your Sukhoi page did not say anything about a new AESA; all it said was, "The 5th generation fighter is equipped with... as well as advanced phased-array antenna radar." Phazotron is still having problems with ZHUK-AE, hence why Mikoyan has not announced an IOC date for MIG-35 while they even had one for the PAK FA. Are you serious about 3D vectoring on stealth aircraft? The F-22 is not designed to dogfight, but carry out strategic air superiority missions. 3D vectoring engines are A LOT less stealthy since they do not allow convergent/divergent tail pipe designs, and usually have lower thrust to compensate for flight stability and that in turn REDUCES agility. That's why Lockheed incorporated the tech into 4.5th gen aircrafts but dismissed it for fifth. Better weapons? You need targeting pods to carry out precision striking. What good will a missile do if it has a circular error range of over 300 meters? And no, after the Soviet Union realized that it had a huge missile precision problem back in the 80s, numerous cases of Russian espionage occured in the EU; do you even read the news? And no, you're mistaken. The United States is the only country in the world capable of producing single-core chips with processing powers above that of 486. Russia is way behind in electronics than even China, which uses much Japanese technology, though Russia can make better antennas. And no, China is not "hoping" for Russia to sell the PAK FA. That ended with China's refusal of the T-50 offer. Russia explicitly stated that if China does not invest in the T-50, Russia will not share/sell any PAK FA technologies to China, including assembled products. Varyag and Su-33 weren't Russian. They were Soviet/Ukraine. Russia's surface naval technology is entirely in Ukraine, hence the reason why Russian ships (not subs) are aging and China's blue water projection increasing. And yes, I agree with you that the J-XX will be less capable than the raptor and PAK FA, but it will not be any less 5th gen.--Ao333 (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Raptor's unique 2D nozzles are much more stealthy than anything the Russians have, China is likely to purchase the PAK-FA for J-XX and can you'll take the followups to news://rec.aviation.military please?

The pak fa flew with completely new engines http://www.rian.ru/defense_safety/20100129/206858518.html (sources in other language are acepted) if you don´t understand russian, just look in PAK FA, wikipedia article. The pak fa will carry an AESA radar, which is in developement, it is confirmed by russian officials and by SUKHOI workers (sources in russian too). The ZHUK-AE problems were solved and since 2010 it entered in mass production. The F-22 don´t carries 3d tv principaly because of stealth (which really don´t works), the new engines of the pak fa have 3d tv and bigger thrust than the f-22 ones (at least 175KN, probably more, exact specifications of the new engine are secret) so the pak fa, because of it´s airframe (less stealth) and the bigger thrust of it´s 3d tv engines, is more agile than the f-22. Russian missile guidance sistems are not as good as the american, but they work perfectly, and the missile itself is better. Russian electronics are worse than the american, yes, (computers,etc) but russia always did good radars, and similar devices (comparable, if not superior, to the americans) and russian aircraft electronics are not bad. China wanted to buy and copy a russian su-33 for their carrier program, but russians refused to sell them (because of what happened with the J-11) so the chinese bought an old prototype from Ukraine. It is thought that the chinese future carriers are based on the varyag, but it is not confirmed. Currently the russian navy is aging (because most ports and industries now are in Ukraine) but they are actually solving the problem (by constructing new ports and ships). China ctually is facing big problems with the J-XX (engines, design, etc) and will require foreign help --Mr nonono (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Su 30 MKI a 4.5 Generation Aircraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30MKI#Cockpit_and_ergonomics According to one of the articles posted in Wikipedia, it has PESA Radar which is competing with AESA radar system thus it is a 4.5 Gen Aircraft... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.122.1 (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

First, never use wiki articles but REAL news article to back your claims. Second, AESA has inherited anti-jamming ability, unrivaled by any PESA. Furthermore, read the definition of 4.5th generation, AESA is mandatory regardless of the PESA's peformance in question. India even said AESA was critical for MKI and expressed great interest in an upgrade, although the discussion is going no where as the Russians aren't going to just upgrade the SU-30s without India investing more in other Russian arms.--Ao333 (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is one of the Articles confirming that Indian Defense Minister has Stated in "The Indian Parliament", that India is Going for AESA for its SU-30 MKIs. I hope this development makes SU-30 a 4.5 Generation Fighter as compared to Typhoon, Rafael et al (where their AESA radars are also getting developed)Thanks.http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/10/11/06.xml&headline=India%20Eyes%20Su-30%20AESA%20Upgrade .Tutu1234 (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Su-30MKI's only remaining requirement is an AESA radar. And the radar is available so the only remaining question is when will India buy it. So until then it's still technically fourth gen, but it should get moved up soon. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read the article it clearly suggests that AESA will be introduced by 2012, sooner than majority of other Aircrafts in the development phase, so I think it should move up the list,even FGFA deal has been finalized for USD 30 Billion! Thanks. Tutu1234 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Defense Minister A.K. Antony recently told the Indian parliament about a PROPOSAL to upgrade the Indian air force’s Su-30 fleet. The upgrade is be carried out by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Russia’s Irkutsk, the original equipment manufacturer, starting in 2012." unfortunately that one word means that it isnt a done deal. While I personally believe the aircraft will be upgraded this article doesnt guarantee it. If you find a more definite source then it should be added -Nem1yan (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, here are other links suggesting the total Cost quoted in the Indian Parliament by The Defense Minister, this MLU has been on the cards for a long time, and there is no doubt it has been finalized with the Russians, only point of deviation could be escalation of cost and nothing else, up-gradation is on its way. Tutu1234 (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

MiG-29K

The modernized MiG-29k is equipped with ZHUK-AE AESA radar (instead of PESA) so it is 4.5 generation. Serial production of the ZHUK-AE started in 2010 http://www.izvestia.ru/news/news228697 (in russian) and russia has offered the MiG-29k equipped with ZHUK-AE to India.--Mr nonono (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern but globalsecurity.org has not confirmed the upgrade of Mig-29k. India wants the same upgrade for SU-30MKI but Russia wants India to buy more (29Ks) before exporting the new AESAs. The deal should be settled by the end of this year (7-8 months).Ao333 (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

4.5 Generation fighters

No credible source has managed to confirm the rumors that the J-10B or J-11B actually have an AESA radar. Sources only listed the AESA radar as a possible upgrade for the fighters but did not actually confirm the rumor. As such, these aircraft cannot be considered 4.5 Generation fighters and so I've put them back in the fourth generation category. The same goes for the HAL Tejas. Until a Mark II variant is confirmed and there exists credible information that the Mark II will be equipped with an AESA, it should not be in the 4.5 Generation category. I've kept the Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen on the list as there are confirmed plans to upgrade these aircraft to a 4.5 Generation standard along with firm dates. Vedant (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

where is the harrier?

there seem to be many planes missing from this list, like the av8b harrier. can someone add this? or is it not a "pure" enough fighter to go on this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivier Doorenbos (talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gryffoon, 23 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the article it is written that the Su 47 is a fourth generation aircraft, however, in reality it is a 4.5 generation aircraft like its concurrent the MIG 1.44 So please move, the Su 47 from the "4th generation aircraft" section to "4.5 generation" section

Here you can see that the Mikoyan Bureau with their MIG 1.44 (which is a 4.5 generation) lost in the concurrence with Sukhoi Bureau with their Su 47 for the MFI project. the MFI project is a preparation for the 5th genreation aircrafts for Russia. So ti is complitely illogical to find Su 4è in the 4th genreation aircraft wheres MiG 1.44 is in the 4.5 one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su_47 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIG_1.44 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su_47#See_also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIG_1.44#See_also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_Project_LFI#MFI

They are both 4.5 generation aircraft because they integrate last technologies, trust vectoring and stealthy technologies :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.5th_generation_fighter_aircraft#.22Fourth_and_half.22_generation

Gryffoon (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the radar on the Su-47? I have seen no AESA ref for this aircraft. (Also why not remove all unarmed prototypes from the list because without weapons they won't be air to air fighters.) Hcobb (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.~`~~

List_of_fighter_aircraft#Fourth_generation_jet_fighters

CAC/PAC FC-1/JF-17 does not have complete fly-by-wire (FBW) system .And does not have relaxed static stability" (RSS) .Then why FC-1 is consider a fourth gen fighter aircraft.The Fourth generation jet fighter defining point is fly-by-wire,like 4.5 is defined on AESA radar. YF-16 was the world’s first aircraft intentionally designed to be slightly aerodynamically unstable. This technique, called "relaxed static stability" (RSS), was incorporated to further enhance the aircraft’s maneuver performance. Most aircraft are designed with positive static stability, which induces an aircraft to return to its original attitude following a disturbance. However, positive static stability hampers maneuverability, as the tendency to remain in its current attitude opposes the pilot’s effort to maneuver; on the other hand, an aircraft with negative static stability will, in the absence of control input, readily deviate from level and controlled flight. Therefore, an aircraft with negative static stability will be more maneuverable than one that is positively stable. When supersonic, a negatively stable aircraft actually exhibits a more positive-trending (and in the 4th gen aircraft case, a net positive) static stability due to aerodynamic forces shifting aft between subsonic and supersonic flight. At subsonic speeds, however, the fighter is constantly on the verge of going out of control.[5][6]To counter this tendency to depart from controlled flight—and avoid the need for constant minute trimming inputs by the pilot—the 4th gen aircraft has a quadruplex (four-channel) fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system (FLCS). The flight control computer (FLCC), which is the key component of the FLCS, accepts the pilot’s input from the stick and rudder controls, and manipulates the control surfaces in such a way as to produce the desired result without inducing a loss of control. The FLCC also takes thousands of measurements per second of the aircraft’s attitude, and automatically makes corrections to counter deviations from the flight path that were not input by the pilot, coordinated turn is also obtained in such a way that it updates itself by thousands of instructions and produces the required control deflection that comes from dynamics of 4th gen aircraft, thereby allowing for stable flight. [7] --59.94.130.215 (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

why Mitsubishi F-2 is not consider 4.5 gen aircraft

It got Mitsubishi Active Electronically Scanned Array radar system including J/APG-1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.133.43 (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Vedant (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove Mitsubishi F-2 from 4th gen aircraft list .It is already present in 4.5 gen list.--59.94.133.28 (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Does it meet the entire definition of the USA checklist for 4.5th gen? What's it's weapon loadout? What type of data link does it use? Hcobb (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

F-2 weapon loadout:20 mm JM61A1 cannon, plus maximum weapon load of 8,085 kg:

• AAMs: AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-7 Sparrow, Mitsubishi AAM-3, Mitsubishi AAM-4 (from FY2010)
• air-to-ground weapons include: ASM-1 and ASM-2 anti-ship missiles, various free-fall bombs with GCS-1 IIR seeker heads, JDAM

F-2 uses F-16 multi-channel VHF/UHF/HF/Data communications, satellite communication and tactical data link systems (such as the NATO-standard Link 16) which are supplied by US companies under the arrangement of 60/40 split of manufacturing between Japan and USA.--59.94.133.246 (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hal tejas is 4.5th generation jet fighters "In Development"

The modernized Hal tejas will be equipped with AESA radar (instead of EL/M-2032) so it is 4.5 generation.

link http://www.indianexpress.com/news/israel-eu-in-contention-to-codevelop-radars-for-tejas/646059/2 AESA radar:= The development of an AESA radar for the Tejas is expected to begin pending the selection of an developmental partner.The contenders for the the contract are the European Consortium EADS and the Israeli company Elta.The initial contract will see the co-development of 10 prototypes. high capacity data-link, enhanced avionics:= The Tejas has a night vision goggles (NVG)-compatible "glass cockpit" that is dominated by an indigenous head-up display (HUD), three 5 in x 5 in multi-function displays, two Smart Standby Display Units (SSDU), and a "get-you-home" panel (providing the pilot with essential flight information in case of an emergency[57]). The CSIO-developed HUD, Elbit-furnished DASH helmet-mounted display and sight (HMDS), and hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) controls reduce pilot workload and increase situation awareness by allowing the pilot to access navigation and weapon-aiming information with minimal need to spend time "head down" in the cockpit. The MFDs provide information on the engine, hydraulics, electrical, flight control, and environmental control systems on a need-to-know basis, along with basic flight and tactical information. Dual redundant display processors produce computer-generated imagery on these displays. The pilot interacts with the complex avionics systems through a simple multifunction keyboard and function and sensor selection panels. The LCA also has secure and jam-resistant communication systems such as the IFF transponder/interrogator, VHF/UHF radios, and air-to-air/air-to-ground datalinks. The ADA Systems Directorate's Integrated Digital Avionics Suite (IDAS) integrates the flight controls, environmental controls, aircraft utilities systems management, stores management system (SMS), etc. on three 1553B buses by a centralized 32-bit, high-throughput mission computer. the ability to deploy reasonably foreseeable weapons:=

   * Missiles:

   * Air-to-air missiles:
         o Python 5
         o Derby
         o Astra BVRAAM
         o Vympel R-77 (NATO reporting name: AA-12 Adder)
         o Vympel R-73 (NATO reporting name: AA-11 Archer)
   * Air-to-surface missiles:
         o Kh-59ME TV guided standoff Missile
         o Kh-59MK Laser guided standoff Missile
         o Anti-ship missile
         o Kh-35
         o Kh-31
   * Bombs:
   * KAB-1500L laser guided bombs
   * FAB-500T dumb bombs
   * OFAB-250-270 dumb bombs
   * OFAB-100-120 dumb bombs
   * RBK-500 cluster bombs

--59.94.131.175 (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to listing the HAL Tejas when the AESA program has been finalized and development work has actually started. Right now, the formal development process hasn't started yet. Thus, I think it's premature to list the Tejas as a 4.5 gen aircraft given that not even a prototype AESA has been built much less actual flight testing.Vedant (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No mention of F-15SG Strike Eagle which has AN/APG-63(V)3 radar, a ASEA ie F-15SG is a 4.5 gen aircraft.

Singapore's F-15SG aircraft:-4.5 gen aircraft.

1. The APG-63(V)3 radar is a more modern variant of the APG-63(V)2, applying the same AESA technology utilized in Raytheon's APG-79. The (V)3 is designed for retrofit into F-15C/D and deployed in Singapore's new F-15SG aircraft. Raytheon delivered the first prototype APG-63(V)3 system in June 2006.[1] The company started work on an initial production order in October 2007.[2]
2. The F-15SG variant has many advanced features not found on F-15E, such as an AAS-42 IRST (Infrared Search and Track), JHMCS (Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System), and advanced AN/APG-63(V)3 AESA radar. In addition, the F-15SG can launch many advanced weapons such as AGM-84K SLAM-ER ATA and AGM-84H Harpoon. The F-15SG will be powered by two General Electric F110-GE-129 29,400 lbf (131 kN) thrust engines, representing an increase from that of the baseline F-15E.
3. Various weapons and hardware are included in this package such as AIM-120C, and AIM-9X missiles; GBU-38 JDAM, and AGM-154 JSOW air-to-surface weapons; Night Vision Goggles and Link 16 terminals.

Add F-15SG in 4.5 gen lists as it has all character . --59.94.146.247 (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do, as soon as the aircraft warrants it's own article. At the moment all we have is a generic F-15E article, which is already covered. Hcobb (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mig LMFS not cancelled

No information I have found actually states that the jet has been cancelled. The latest facts concerning the jet say that Mig decided to work on the project even though Sukhoi had already won a contract, and that Mig was also interested in partnering with India to develop the fighter.

Even though most of the information on the project has gone cold there is still no information saying that is has been canceled. --Nem1yan (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The MIG LMFS was a stealth aircraft aimed to fulfill the role of Russia´s next-generation light weight fighter (similar to the role of the mig-29). Although it´s developement was on an advanced stage, I recently heard that the Russian military refused the proposal, stating that it´s role will be performed by the Su-35s. However, cancelled or not, it should be listed here, I don´t understand what problem the people has to include it on the list.--Mr nonono (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Not that I am against this, but if we include the MIG LMFS then dozens of other cancelled aircraft projects should also be added (IIRC there used to be cancelled aircraft in the old 4th generation aircraft page before this current page was created). Currently the only aircraft that are listed but were never operated by any air force have been technology demonstrators that have had at least one test flight. Semi-Lobster (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You were right. I found myself unable to confirm that it was cancelled (only some russian officials´statements, but nothing official from MiG), althought there have not been news for a while. At this moment, nobody knows if it is a developement, a technology demostrator or a cancelled project. It´s better to wait until some information arrives.--Mr nonono (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As of the "cancelled aircraft" section, I was not aware of that problem, but my point was to add those that where developed enough to be considered "aircrafts", rather than just "projects".--Mr nonono (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This IS supposed to be a definitive list of every fighter aircraft... ever after all. I don't see why we shouldn't include cancelled aircraft projects as long as they were serious projects. A good example would probably be the Argentinean FMA SAIA 90, which was a very real project with a great deal of money poured into it, yet never reached the construction phase. Semi-Lobster (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Fighter-Bombers/Strike Fighters

I would like to know, beyond the nation of origin's own designation, if we have a definitive answer to the question of which aircraft are considered 'fighters' and which are considered another form of combat aircraft for this page. For example, the American F-15E Strike Eagle is listed, and other older fighter bombers such as the Su-17/22, Mitsubishi F-1 or the Fiat G.91 etc. are all listed, but the Sukhoi Su-34, or the Xian JH-7, or the Mirage 2000N/D and several other 'fighter-bombers' and 'strike fighters' are not present. Semi-Lobster (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well since nobody has responded for or against the addition of more aircraft for the past several days I will begin adding fighter-aircraft and strike fighters. Any objections can be discussed on the talk page. Semi-Lobster (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of the Xian JH-7, the US government designates it as as 'strike fighter', it therefore should be considered a fighter along with other strike fighters such as the F-15E. http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2010hearings/written_testimonies/10_05_20_wrt/10_05_20_fisher_statement.php Semi-Lobster (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

American Aircraft Exceptionality?

Why is it that American aircraft have a link to both the aircraft itself AND its manufacturer while all other aircraft from other countries do not? It seems kind of pointless to me. Semi-Lobster (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

American fighters dont have the manufacturer's name in their name (that sounds confusing). The Rafale page is listed as the Dassault Rafale, the Mig-35 page is the Mikoyan MiG-35, the F-22's page is simply F-22 Raptor. The US used a different system to name it's fighters and the Wiki pages dont show the manufacturer like other jets, but it should still be included. (Sorry if that sounds confusing, i cant really explain it well) --Nem1yan (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually American aircraft do infact have the manufacturers name on their pages, ALL American aircraft listed on on this page are technically broken links with redirects. There is no page 'just for the F-16 Fighting Falcon there is only a page for 'General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon'; same goes for McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, there is no page for McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II that is just a redirect to; there is no F-8 Crusader page, that redirects to Vought F-8 Crusader; F-86 Sabre is not a real page North American F-86 Sabre IS a page. Even if it US aircraft designating policy is to never include the manufacturers, for those confusing wiki-standard, the links should be at least fixed. Semi-Lobster (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

BAE Hawk 200???

I have several books on fighter aircraft and many refer to the BAE Hawk 200 as a fighter aircraft. While derived from a training aircraft and very small, the Hawk 200 (which began development from the original Hawk trainer in the 80s) is a single seat, multi-role, air superiority, combat aircraft. It is equipped with an internal 25mm Aden Cannon and is equipped with an X-Band AN/APG-66H radar, an advanced variant of the F-16As APG-66 radar which is compatible with AIM-9L sidewinders, AGM-65 Mavericks, and AIM-120 missiles. The airframe has been redesigned to house a single pilot, with the forward fuselage changed to accommodate this. Should the BAE Hawk 200 be added to the list of fighter aircraft and, if so, in which generation would such an aircraft belong? Semi-Lobster (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kiki099696, 3 October 2010

Collapsing very long version of the entire article.

This is a list of fighter aircraft, sorted by design principles of the era they were produced in. This method of categorization is largely based on the notion that there is a "fifth generation" of fighter aircraft. Fifth generation jet fighters The following aircraft are state of the art. In Service United States Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor (187 aircraft planned) In Development People's Republic of China J-XX (multiple programmes; introduction planned for 2018) India Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (under evaluation; induction planned for 2025) Russia Sukhoi PAK FA (prototype's maiden flight on January 29, 2010; introduction planned for 2013) T-50K (Naval derivative of Sukhoi PAK FA, introduction planned planned for 2016 Mikoyan LMFS Russia/India Sukhoi/HAL FGFA (derivative of Sukhoi PAK FA; PAK FA's prototype maiden flight on January 29, 2010; introduction planned for 2018) United States/United Kingdom Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (maiden flight on 15th December 2006; introduction planned for 2013) Technology demonstrators Japan Mitsubishi ATD-X (maiden flight expected in 2014) United States Lockheed YF-22 (maiden flight in 1990) Northrop YF-23 Black Widow II (maiden flight in 1990) Boeing Bird of Prey (maiden flight achieved in 1996) Boeing X-32 JSF (X-32A maiden flight in 2000, X-32B in 2001) Lockheed Martin X-35 (maiden flight in 2000) 4.5th generation jet fighters The United States government defines 4.5th generation as aircraft that have AESA radar, high capacity data-link, enhanced avionics and the ability to deploy reasonably forseeable future weapons. Japan/United States Mitsubishi F-2 United States Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 60 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle In Development France Dassault Rafale (Thales RBE2 AESA planned for 2012) Russia Mikoyan MiG-35 (introduction planned for 2013–2014) Sukhoi Su-35BM Sweden Saab 39 Gripen (Italian SELEX Galileo AESA in development) United Kingdom/Germany/Italy/Spain Eurofighter Typhoon (Captor-E AESA in development) United States Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle Technology demonstrators Russia Mikoyan Project 1.44 'Flatpack' (maiden flight in 2000) Fourth generation jet fighters Fourth generation fighters had a renewed focus on maneuverability. People's Republic of China Chengdu J-10 Shenyang J-11 Xian JH-7 People's Republic of China/Pakistan CAC/PAC FC-1/JF-17 Republic of China/United States AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo France Dassault Mirage 2000/N/D Russia/India Sukhoi Su-30MKI Soviet Union - Russia Mikoyan MiG-29/29M Mikoyan MiG-29K (navy) Mikoyan MiG-31 Sukhoi Su-27/30/35 Sukhoi Su-33 (navy) Sukhoi Su-34 United Kingdom/Germany/Italy Panavia Tornado ADV United States Grumman F-14 Tomcat (navy) McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F-15 Eagle General Dynamics/Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet (navy) In Development People's Republic of China Shenyang J-15 (Maiden flight on 31 August 2009) (Navy) India HAL Tejas (Maiden flight on 4 January 2001) South Korea KAI FA-50 (maiden flight expected in 2012) Technology demonstrators France Dassault Mirage 4000 (maiden flight on 9 March 1979) Israel IAI Lavi (maiden flight on 31 December 1986) Soviet Union - Russia Yakovlev Yak-141 (maiden flight on 9 March 1987) (navy) Sukhoi Su-47 (maiden flight on 25 September 1997) United Kingdom British Aerospace EAP (maiden flight on 8 August 1986) United States Northrop YF-17 Cobra (maiden flight on 9 June 1974) Northrop Grumman F-20 Tigershark (maiden flight on 30 August 1982) Third generation jet fighters Third generation aircraft were based on the incorrect assumption that air to air missiles would replace dogfighting. People's Republic of China Chengdu J-7E/G Shenyang J-8 France Dassault Mirage F1 Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard (navy) Iran HESA Azarakhsh HESA Saeqeh Israel IAI Kfir Italy/United States Aeritalia F-104S Japan Mitsubishi F-1 South Africa Atlas Cheetah Soviet Union Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21bis Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 Sukhoi Su-15 Sukhoi Su-17 Tupolev Tu-28 Yakovlev Yak-38 (navy) Sweden Saab 37 Viggen United Kingdom British Aerospace Sea Harrier (navy) United Kingdom/United States BAE Harrier II (navy) United States McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Northrop F-5 Technology Demonstrators Canada Avro CF-105 Arrow (maiden flight on 25 March 1958) People's Republic of China Nanchang J-12 (maiden flight on 26 December 1970) Egypt HA-300 (maiden flight on 7 March 1964) France Dassault Balzac V (maiden flight on 13 October 1962) Dassault Mirage IIIV (maiden flight on 12 February 1965) Dassault Mirage F2 (maiden flight on 12 June 1966) Dassault Mirage G (maiden flight on 18 November 1967) West Germany VFW VAK 191B (maiden flight on 20 September 1971) Soviet Union Mikoyan-Gurevich Ye-8 (maiden flight on 17 April 1962) Yakovlev Yak-36 (maiden flight on 9 January 1963) United States General Dynamics/Grumman F-111B (maiden flight on 18 May 1965) (navy) Lockheed YF-12 (maiden flight on 7 August 1963) Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III (maiden flight on 2 June 1958) (navy) Second generation jet fighters Missile armament and supersonic speed are required of this generation. People's Republic of China Shenyang J-6 Chengdu J-7 France Dassault Étendard IV Dassault Super Mystère Dassault Mirage III/Dassault Mirage 5 India HAL HF-24 Marut Israel IAI Nesher Soviet Union Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-19 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 Sukhoi Su-7 Sukhoi Su-9/Sukhoi Su-11 Sweden Saab 32 Lansen Saab 35 Draken United Kingdom De Havilland Sea Vixen (navy) English Electric Lightning Gloster Javelin Hawker Hunter Supermarine Scimitar (navy) Supermarine Swift United States North American Aviation FJ-4 Fury (navy) Douglas Aircraft Company F4D Skyray (navy) Chance Vought F-8 Crusader (navy) Grumman F-11 Tiger (navy) North American Aviation F-100 Super Sabre McDonnell Aircraft F-101 Voodoo Convair F-102 Delta Dagger Lockheed Corporation F-104 Starfighter Republic Aviation Company F-105 Thunderchief Convair F-106 Delta Dart Technology Demonstrators France Breguet 1001 Taon (maiden flight on 26 July 1957) Italy Aerfer Sagittario 2 (maiden flight on 19 May 1956) Soviet Union Lavochkin La-250 (maiden flight on July 1956) Mikoyan-Gurevich I-75 (maiden flight on 28 April 1958) Mikoyan-Gurevich Ye-152 (maiden flight on 16 May 1961) Sukhoi P-1 (maiden flight on 12 July 1957) Sukhoi T-3 (maiden flight on 26 May 1956) United States Douglas F5D Skylancer (maiden flight on 21 April 1956) (navy) Lockheed XF-104 (maiden flight on 4 March 1954) North American F-107 (maiden flight on 10 September 1956) First generation jet fighters Jet engines are required of this generation. Canada Avro CF-100 Canuck People's Republic of China Shenyang J-2 Shenyang J-5 France Dassault Ouragan Dassault Mystère Dassault Mystère IV Sud Aviation S.O. 4050 Vautour II India HAL Ajeet Italy Fiat G.91 Nazi Germany Messerschmitt Me 262 Heinkel He 162 Soviet Union Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-9 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15/17 Lavochkin La-15 Yakovlev Yak-15/17 Yakovlev Yak-23 Yakovlev Yak-25 Sweden Saab 21R Saab 29 Tunnan United Kingdom de Havilland Vampire de Havilland Venom/Sea Venom (navy) Folland Gnat Hawker Sea Hawk (navy) Gloster Meteor Supermarine Attacker (navy) United States Bell Aircraft P-59 Airacomet Lockheed Corporation P-80 Shooting Star Republic Aviation Company F-84 Thunderjet/F-84F Thunderstreak North American Aviation F-86 Sabre/F-86D Northrop Corporation F-89 Scorpion Lockheed Corporation F-94 Starfire Douglas Aircraft Company F3D Skyknight (navy) Grumman F9F Panther/F9F Cougar (navy) McDonnell Aircraft FH Phantom (navy) McDonnell Aircraft F2H Banshee (navy) McDonnell Aircraft F3H Demon (navy) North American Aviation FJ-1 Fury/FJ-2/FJ-3 (navy) Vought F6U Pirate (navy) Vought F7U Cutlass (navy) Technology demonstrators Argentina FMA I.Ae. 27 Pulqui I (maiden flight on 9 August 1947) FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II (maiden flight on 27 June 1950) Canada Avro CF-103 Canuck II France SNCASO SO.9000 Trident (maiden flight on 2 March 1953) SNCASE SE-212 Durandal (maiden flight on 20 April 1956) Nazi Germany Heinkel He 280 (maiden flight on 2 April 1941) Horten Ho 229 (maiden flight on 2 February 1945) Soviet Union Alekseyev I-21/121 (maiden flight on Autumn 1947) Lavochkin Aircraft 150/152 (maiden flight on 11 September 1946/5 December 1946) Lavochkin Aircraft 168 (maiden flight on 22 April 1948) Lavochkin Aircraft 190 (maiden flight on 21 February 1951) Lavochkin Aircraft 200 (maiden flight on 9 September 1949) Sukhoi Su-15 (1949) (maiden flight on 11 January 1949) Sukhoi Su-9 (1946)/11 (1947) (maiden flight on 13 November 1946/28 May 1947) Yakovlev Yak-25 (1947)/30 (1948)/50 (1949) (maiden flight on 2 November 1947/4 September 1948/15 July 1949) Switzerland EFW N-20 (maiden flight on 8 April 1952) FFA P-16 (maiden flight on 25 April 1955) United Kingdom Gloster E.1/44 (maiden flight on 9 March 1948) Saunders-Roe SR.A/1 (maiden flight on 16 July 1947) United States Northrop XP-79 (maiden flight on 12 September 1945) Bell XP-83 (maiden flight on 25 February 1945) McDonnell XF-85 Goblin (maiden flight on 23 August 1948) Curtiss-Wright XF-87 Blackhawk (maiden flight on 5 March 1948) Lockheed XF-90 (maiden flight on 3 June 1949) Republic XF-91 Thunderceptor (maiden flight on 9 May 1949) Convair XF-92 (maiden flight on 1 April 1948) North American YF-93 (maiden flight on 24 January 1950) Grumman XF10F Jaguar (maiden flight on 19 May 1952) (navy) Post-World War II Piston-engine and hybrid propulsion fighters Czechoslovakia Avia S-199 Soviet Union Lavochkin La-9 Lavochkin La-11 Spanish State Hispano Aviación HA-1112 United States FR Fireball Yugoslavia Ikarbus Ikarus S-49 World War II Australia CAC Boomerang France Bloch MB.150 Dewoitine D.520 Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 Finland VL Myrsky Italy Macchi C.200 Macchi C.202 Macchi C.205 Fiat G.55 Fiat G.50 Freccia Reggiane Re 2000 Reggiane Re 2001 Reggiane Re 2005 Japan Kawanishi N1K-J Nakajima Ki-43 Nakajima Ki-44 Nakajima Ki-84 Kawasaki Ki-61 Kawasaki Ki-100 Kawasaki Ki-102 A6M Zero (navy) Mitsubishi J2M Nazi Germany Messerschmitt Bf 109 Messerschmitt Bf 110 Messerschmitt Me 210 Messerschmitt Me 262 Dornier Do 335 Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Heinkel He 100 Heinkel He 112 Junkers Ju 88 Messerschmitt Me 163 Poland PZL P.24 Kingdom of Romania IAR-80 Soviet Union Yakovlev Yak-1 Yakovlev Yak-3 Yakovlev Yak-7 Yakovlev Yak-9 Lavochkin LaGG-3 Lavochkin La-5 Lavochkin La-7 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3 Sweden Saab 21 FFVS J 22 United Kingdom Supermarine Spitfire Hawker Hurricane Hawker Typhoon Hawker Tempest De Havilland Mosquito Boulton Paul Defiant Hawker Sea Fury United States Grumman F4F Wildcat Grumman F6F Hellcat Grumman F7F Tigercat Grumman F8F Bearcat Vought F4U Corsair Curtiss-Wright P-36 Hawk Lockheed Corporation P-38 Lightning Bell P-39 Airacobra Curtiss-Wright P-40 Warhawk Republic Aviation Company P-47 Thunderbolt North American Aviation P-51 Mustang Northrop P-61 Black Widow Bell Aircraft P-63 Kingcobra Vultee Aircraft P-66 Vanguard Douglas Aircraft Company P-70 Havoc Kingdom of Yugoslavia Rogozarski IK-3 Interwar period Biplanes Czechoslovakia Avia B-534 Italy Fiat CR.42 Japan Kawasaki Ki-10 Kawasaki Type 92 Mitsubishi 1MF Nakajima A1N Nakajima A2N Nakajima A4N Sweden Svenska Aero Jaktfalken United Kingdom Bristol Bulldog Gloster Gladiator Hawker Fury United States Boeing PW-9 (navy) Grumman FF (navy) Boeing F2B (navy) Grumman F2F (navy) Grumman F3F (navy) Boeing F3B (navy) Boeing F4B (navy) Orenco D Thomas-Morse MB-3 Boeing PW-9 P-1 Hawk P-2 Hawk P-3 Hawk P-5 Hawk P-6 Hawk P-11 Hawk Boeing P-12 Berliner-Joyce P-16 Monoplanes Japan Mitsubishi A5M Nakajima Ki-27 Nakajima Type 91 Netherlands Fokker D.XXI Poland PZL P.11 PZL P.7 Soviet Union Polikarpov I-16 United Kingdom Hawker Hurricane United States P-26 Peashooter Consolidated P-30 Seversky P-35 P-43 Lancer Brewster Buffalo (navy) Kingdom of Yugoslavia Ikarbus Ikarus IK-2 Pre/World War I France Nieuport 11 Nieuport 17 SPAD S.XIII Nieuport 28 German Empire Fokker Eindecker Albatros D.III Fokker Dr.I Fokker D.VII United Kingdom Airco DH-2 Sopwith Camel Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5 Sopwith Snipe Vickers F.B.5 See also Category:Lists of military aircraft

SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 20:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A Little Standardization Please

I'm Alphabetizing the list. I'm starting with the later model fighters so if there are any complaints I would appreciate hearing them sooner rather than later. -Nem1yan (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete this page please.

Please delete this page and replace it with an automatically maintained category page. Hcobb (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed reformat of article

Per the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fighter aircraft, there appears to be a consensus that the current organization of this article is not ideal. My opinion is that the information in this article would be better suited for a table (especially, a sortable table). I have mocked up a version of what I'm thinking about at User:Snottywong/sandbox. It includes some of the oldest and newest aircraft in this article, to get an idea how the sorting would work. I grabbed most of the information from the infoboxes of the various aircraft articles. I'd love to have some interested editors take a look at it, comment on it, and even feel free to modify it. If we can agree that this is a better organizational format than sorting by "generation", then I'd also be looking for some volunteers to help convert the article to this format, as it will be a fairly time-consuming project. Perhaps when we're all done we can turn this into a FL. SnottyWong ^squeal 21:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good direction to consider. People would be able to sort the list how they want with the press of a button! Also I think the last thing we all want is a big, ugly list. I for one like this table format. Semi-Lobster (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with tables. I'd lilke to help. Marcus Qwertyus 14:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Great. I think we're safe to start working on the table (although if there are any objections to this format, please speak up ASAP). I've moved the table from my sandbox to User:Snottywong/List of fighter aircraft and posted some brief instructions on the talk page. If you're interested in helping out, please go to the talk page and volunteer to take a section of the aircraft list. I think it would make sense to break up the work by "generation". SnottyWong ^confabulate 16:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Default sort will be RCS least to most? Hcobb (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not give the Su-30MKI people another reason to attack the page... The difference between mach 2.0 and mach 1.9 causes enough problems as it is. -Nem1yan (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So first flight descending? Hcobb (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• What's RCS? SnottyWong ^express 20:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

RCS is Radar Cross Section, so the stealthier the plane the higher it would rank on the list (but since the list is sortable by numerous categories that shouldnt be a problem). There is still a problem though. Putting all those aircraft in one list will create... well a VERY long list. Turning it into a sortable table is a good idea but we are still going to need to stick to a similar format; ie a several smaller list which include similar aircraft. But of course that brings us back to the original problem of not being able to agree on what defines "similar". -Nem1yan (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

How about this for a list then?

Redirect -> Category:Fighter aircraft

Gets the entire list in one line. Hcobb (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of the page becoming just a link to the category page. Having a list of fighter aircraft all on one page is a very useful resource to have. Having to navigate through category link after category link is very counter-productive. Besides other languages have a dedicated list of fighter aircraft anyway, its a good resource to have and I am against folding this entire page into a category when Snottywong has a much more elegant and practical solution by using a table. 05:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semi-Lobster (talk • contribs)

@HCobb: Having lists and categories about the same topics is encouraged, see WP:CLN. Also, sorting the list by radar cross section (or even including that stat in the table) seems ludicrous. Half of the aircraft in the list were in service before radar was ubiquitous, so their RCS has likely never been calculated. I'll assume your suggestion was a joke. @Nem1yan: Turning the list into a table doesn't make it any longer. We're already working with a long list; the table at least condenses the list into a smaller area and provides more information. I don't see any compelling reason for having to break the info up into multiple tables. Putting it all into one table will allow you to sort the entire list by whatever parameter you like, and it also prevents us from having to divide the planes into arbitrary categories. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 05:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If you were to sort the list by country, how long would it take to find the F-22, or the Typhoon? Or say you wanted to see WWII fighters - it would be much more difficult with one long table. The generation concept was solid up until the 5th gen (Since and edgy-lookin' design is the only criteria and it doesnt necessarily reflect the overall capability of the aircraft). Personally I dont see the need to do away with the generation concept when most aviation articles, journals, and sources all use it. Im not saying that it isnt flawed, but the purpose of an encyclopedia is to compile information, not change it. -Nem1yan (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Nem1yan, tables can instantly sorted with table buttons, you would be able to instantly sort the table by maiden flight, or retirement, or we can add a table by engine type (Radial, Rotary, Turboprop, Turbojet, Turbofan, Rocket etc. etc.)Semi-Lobster (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to find the F-22, then sort by name and scroll down to the F's. If you want to find the WWII fighters, sort by introduction date and scroll down to the 1940's. I think the comments on this talk page and the recent AfD show that there's a pretty clear consensus for not organizing by generation. SnottyWong ^babble 13:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* perhaps you all will see my point when you see exactly how long the list is going to be. That amount of scrolling just seems rather tedious to me. -Nem1yan (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just interested in getting the data into the table. If we find out afterwards that it would be better to break the table up into sections or split it into multiple articles, then that will be a trivial task. SnottyWong ^speak 18:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• The progress on converting the list into tabular format is coming along well. There are some discussions on User talk:Snottywong/List of fighter aircraft, feel free to weigh in if you have an opinion on how the table will look. SnottyWong ^yak 17:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Good job so far Snottywong, there is a general movement from just straight list pages on wikipedia to organizable tables and I believe this list should also adhere to that. I was thinking though that perhaps other sections could be added to the table such as engine type would be useful. I would also like to suggest though that flags used for countries be era appropriate, for example Italian fighter aircraft built in the 1930s should use the flag for the Kingdom of Italy rather than the Republic of Italy. Semi-Lobster (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Italy  Done. Marcus Qwertyus 18:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think canceled would be a better term that abandoned, also the Mig-35 could probably fit in the "in development" category. At least until someone decides to order it, and if that never happens it can just be canceled. Nice work though. -Nem1yan (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There is some talk of getting rid of the status column altogether, and I'm starting to agree. Unless we can actually fit all of these aircraft into a small number (i.e. less than 4 or 5) of status categories, then the column is not going to be that useful. It is also the column that will probably be the most prone to not being updated/maintained. Many of the articles don't use the status field of the standard infobox. Any thoughts? SnottyWong ^comment 19:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Some projects are technology demonstrators and wouldn't fall under the canceled category. Keep the status field for now. Marcus Qwertyus 19:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. We can always either delete or reform the column later. SnottyWong ^talk 23:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

New table

I (along with Marcus Qwertyus) have converted this article into table form. I have replaced the content of this article with the table. I've tried to clean up the table as much as possible, but there are likely to be a few errors still lurking. If you see any errors, please feel free to fix them. If you have any complaints about the format of the table, or suggestions to improve it, please address them here. There are also a lot of blank fields in the table. If you have any of the missing information, please add it to the table. If you have any relevant references, please add them as well. Thanks! SnottyWong ^soliloquize 19:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you're looking for a way to help this article, see the new to do list at the top of the page. SnottyWong ^converse 22:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Referencing

Why is not the fact that the aircraft article has the information referenced sufficient? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought about that too, and I'm not 100% sure that references are required. Since this is kind of a "navigational aid" type of list, most of the articles it links to will have sources to verify the information in the list. I asked some people's opinions, and they thought that we'd probably have to pull the references from the individual articles and duplicate them here (if we wanted to elevate this to FL). Unless there is some other source out there which has collected this information into a list and we could just reference that single source? Maybe we should find a regular FL reviewer and get their opinion. SnottyWong ^spout 14:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

It seems "Abandoned" and "Prototype" are being used semi-interchangably in the list. I'd like to propose that the following terms be used: "Abandoned" if the design was, well, abandoned before flying, and "Prototype" if it took to the air but didn't see production - although "Cancelled" could be even more appropriate there, since "Prototype" could also = "In Development"... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is some ambiguity in the status column that needs to be addressed. I think I'll leave it to the aircraft experts (you guys) to figure out the most meaningful terms to use. My opinion is that we should strive to use only a small number of different statuses, so that sorting on the status column remains useful. SnottyWong ^spout 17:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd propose the following then: 'In Service', 'Retired', 'In Development', 'Cancelled', and 'Abandoned'. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Canceled and Abandoned work very well because at the end of the day, thats what happened. For example the Dassault Mirage 4000 would be 'canceled' because the aircraft never went into production even though there was a working demonstration model that flew. Another example would be the Rockwell XFV-12 which had a prototype.... but was physically unable to actually fly. Abandoned would be to be like the Chengdu J-9 or FMA SAIA 90 which was worked on quiet extensively but never reached the actual pre-production stage. Semi-Lobster (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you define the difference between Canceled and Abandoned a bit better? I'm not seeing a clear delineation. It seems like both Canceled and Abandoned describe aircraft that never made it to the production stage. Can we say that the difference is that canceled aircraft experienced at least one successful flight, whereas abandoned aircraft never had one aircraft that got off the ground? If we end up adopting this strategy, then I assume all of the aircraft currently labeled as Prototype will be reassigned to either In Development, Canceled, or Abandoned? Also, some of the ones labeled Retired will probably need to be changed to Canceled or Abandoned, because I remember labeling several of them Retired when they were really never in service. SnottyWong ^gab 21:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, because prototype is not a "status" per se. Perhaps we should add "never (entered service)" as well to cover where planes (prototypes) were built but never entered service, and unbuilt or 0 to number of aircraft, as well as never to first flight rather than leave them blank. eg

Aircraft	first flight	from	to	number	status	what it means
Alpha A	never			0	cancelled	= paper project
Beta B	never			2	cancelled	= prototype built but not flown
Delta D	1978			1	cancelled	= prototpye built and flown

Would this add to clarity? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps aircraft that never flew should be in a seperate table. Otherwise it might look odd when you sort by first flight date...but yeah, my idea was that 'cancelled' = it flew, 'abandoned' = napkinwaffe. Although adding an additional explanitory column like Graeme suggests might work too. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The last column wasn't a suggested addition to the table but what the other columns "added up" to.GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, gotcha. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a separate table on for aircraft that never flew would work best. The idea of a table is that you can sort it by the data available in the table, but if theres no information, then... you get nothing. Semi-Lobster (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

A separate table within this article of those projects would make sense. You would just need the article link, the nation, project start year, project cancellation year. It would also give a place to put the Operational Requirement F.155 article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)