Talk:Fourth-generation fighter/Archive 4

Supercruise
Claiming that the Typhoon will reach M 1.5 with external stores based on http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00089/2_Eurofighter_capabi_89302a.pdf (pg 53) and http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eurofighter.at%2Faustria%2Ftd_lu.asp&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=de&ie=UTF8 is absolutely false. The first citation is a marketing document by EADS aimed at trying to sell the Typhoon to the Norwegians. Nowhere in the document does it even state what the speed of super cruise is. All it says on Pg 53 is that it can super cruise with 6AMRAAM and 2 SRAAM. No speed, none in the document is giving to lend any credence that it can do M1.5 with that combat load. No one should be under any illusions at all that this is nothing but a marketing document by EADS. The second link is to the Austrian version of the Eurofighter publicity website. It never mentions that the Typhoon can supercruise at M1.5 with 6AMRAAM and 2SRAAM. All it says is super cruise up to M1.5 is possible. It's possible I can win the lottery too. Either it does or doesn't. In fact the Luftwaffe only says that supercruise is about M1.2 and the main Eurofighter publicity site never even mentions a speed. http://www.eurofighter.com/et_ap_pd_gi.asp?srcx=dev1--Downtrip (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 plus one metric tonne flight test equiment for the DA. The Eurofighter has this demonstrate offical.
 * The is same is valid for the magical Mach 1,7!;) Neither the weapons nor fuel load is mentioned.
 * The F-22 can maybe only achieve this magical Mach 1,7 with a nearly dry tank without any stores.
 * How fast can the F-22 supercruise with intern and extern stores?
 * Maybe only subsonic?! Clear unknown! The Airforce PR page says nothing about this.
 * American promotional departments are well-known as very unaccurate sources.
 * How long can the F-22 supercruise, with what kind of load and stores, which range? Which temperture, altitude?
 * Alaska by night is much colder (makes a higher PR-Supercruise Mach number) as a Signapore hot day Mach number.
 * The DA4 has supercruise offical demonstrated with external stores (drope tank and 6 rockets), with a two seater which is 700kg heavier as a one seater,
 * On which contest has the F-22 this PR magical Mach 1.7 demonstrated?
 * Nowhere! This is an non proven Airforce PR claim, the need more Raptors!
 * This Airforce PR site is highly unaccurate!
 * "F-22 wheight 19,700 pounds (8,935 kilograms)!"
 * Ouch!
 * The magic words are "Air superiority role" the minmum is 2 IR and 4 AMRAAM.
 * Without stores is that not "Air superiority role"!
 * That a series single seater EF be a faster supercruiser is as a DA4 Eurofighter should probably also the largest Bronx Troll (Downflip) be aware.--84.173.223.61 (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if you could stay on the topic of this section. Nowhere did Downflip mention the F-22, at all, in this inquiry, so your statements are easily registered as blatant personal attacks/trolling. If you have an issue governing the F-22, take it up in another discussion as you've succesfully dragged this one off-topic. 99.173.63.46 (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Performance Comparison
Once there was an excellent article about the comparison between the F-22, the Eurofighter, Rafale, Saab Gripen, F-18 and a Russian fighter. According to this study the F-22 achieved a ratio of 10.1:1, the Eurofighter of 4.5:1 etc. pp.

Where is this article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_21st_century_fighter_aircraft

If I type this in, I got redirected to this utterly useless page.

What happen to the other page?

Why always this deleting of valuable information?

Edit: The best page I could find about the DERA study:

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/tech.php

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.225.75.5 (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The DERA study was removed long ago because it was outdated, no one knew what the actual parameters of the study where and they DERA study was done before AESA, AMRAAM, Link 16 and a host of other factors thats why. Poke around the discussion pages and you will see more.--Downtrip (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong: The development of Link 16 began in 1975. Long before F-22 and Typhoon appeared and long before this DERA study prepared. In these tests the French Rafale used the Matra-BAe MICA while the other aircraft used the Raytheon-Hughes AMRAAM.

How many F-15 with AESA? 18 with V2 experimental RADAR and the V3 is only in Prototyp stage. Now zero series V3 deliverd, up to 48 in the year 2010! More is in time not funded.--HDP (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

All 224 F-15Es and 178 F-15Cs will be getting AESA radars which are in production now. the AMRAAM used in the DERA simulation was a very early model, not AIM-120C or D.Downtrip (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Link 16 was not included in the study because the planes they "evaluated" where not equipped with it at the time of the "study". The number of F-15s that have AESA is irrelevant. The entire force is being equipped with it. What did QuinetiQ know about AMRAAM? Did they use it int eh study.... Nope.....etc........ The reason you don;t find much mention about DERA anymore is that it is outdated and the methodology was flawed in order to justify the Typhoon being built for the UK.


 * Source please for the 224 + 178 = 402 AESAs! Source please that link-16 are not included! --HDP (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is but one source. Let me know if you need more. It's in English so read slow HDP. http://www.afa.org/magazine/march2007/0307force.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Downtrip (talk • contribs) 20:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The upgrades will begin maybe in the first quarter 2009! That was the AIR FORCE daydream, before the 2 Nov 2007 happened. Minus one Golden Eagle! Nine F-15 are yet total written off after inspection and 200 are still grounded because untercut longerons. "This isn't just about one pilot in one aircraft with one bad part," General Corley said. "I have a fleet that is 100 percent fatigued, and 40 percent of that has bad parts. The long-term future of the F-15 is in question." The F-15A/B/C/D is well beyond it's design operating hours of 4000h! This Oldtimers belong in museums and not in the air!--HDP (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

First, don't forget, DERA was looking at performance of not only F-22 and Su-35, but a well know by the time of study F-15, F-16, F-18, Rafale. Plus it is really interesting how future was looking in 1994. Second, don't forget, this is article about 4th generation fighters. And history of 4th generation is more then 30 years old! I see no reason why should we remove study, a really famous one and read by virtually anyone who was interested in military aviation. Outdated? I believe this is article that should give reader insights on history of development and performance of 4th generation aircraft. And anyone can see the date of study - it is there in very first sentence. Nothing prevent reader from skipping in case he not interested. But there is lots of people who will find this study interesting.  TestPilot  07:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

But DERA is 15 years old. They had no idea what weapons would be used, they had no clue about AESA. The upgraded F-15s, F-16s and F-18s of today are not the same as those simulated in DERA. DERA was also a british study. They don;t know all of the capabilities of the jets being simulated. Also adding it for historical reasons has no place here. This is an encylcopedia and the article is about fighter aircraft in general. Can you find another place where DERA is even mentioned anymore besides the EF website?Banofreep (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So now the text gets locked and no one has anything to say? DERA is OLD and irrelevant, no one has refuted this statement and I think DERA should be remove.Banofreep (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I’ve been thinking about an approach that might be able to employ the DERA Study and The Gray Threat constructively and usefully in this article. Both are flawed studies, so they shouldn’t be relied on to make meaningful comparisons, but as TestPilot notes, they are both attempts (and well-known in the industry) to predict the relative effectiveness of existing and developmental fighters.  As such, they offer some degree of insight into how much more effectively the next generation fighters would perform vis-à-vis those of the older generation.  Presented in this light – and with their weaknesses noted – this might be helpful to the article, not least as a compromise between those who want them in and those who want them out and yet still exclude the “fanboyism” that tends to be associated with their inclusion.  What would be ideal would be to have a current study to point to that would show how well those expectations were met, exceeded or fell short; unfortunately, there hasn’t been any such that I’m aware of.


 * Since we don’t have that, then we can selectively – by which I do not mean from a POV perspective – draw on some recent exercises’ results as a proxy. The main challenge with using exercise results is that they are all scripted.  The Cope Thunder exercises are an attempt to simulate “real-world” combat.  “Goodwill games” like Cope India are PR exercises that are also useful for gathering intelligence on the other side’s capabilities, tactics, electronic frequencies, etc.  That’s how you end up with such ridiculous conditions like India’s decision not to turn on their Sukhois’ radars while exercising at Nellis.  I don’t blame them – it shows they’re not stupid – but the one thing that won’t come of it is an accurate reflection of real-world capabilities.  So, adroitly and wisely handled, we could turn these problematic contributions into something more constructive. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sure you know it but I will state it again. Both studies are old and both studies where done to build support for manufacturing a new fighter. We do not or cannot say what the actual simulator conditions where and they had no knowledge or did not employ some of (for lack of a better term) the “advanced bolt ons” that have become available for legacy aircraft  that have made them much more capable today than they where 15 years ago. But that said feel free to take a crack at writing something. I will have an open mind.
 * As for exercise reports, I cannot see how in light of your comments you think they should be included in any way. There is far too much variable, fanboyism, propaganda, and as you say scripting.--Downtrip (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm no fan of either report. I analyzed both of them for my then employers when they came out. I wish I still had copies of those analyses, but suffice it to say they both were flawed. That said, however, they are part of the history of 4th/4.5/5th Gen fighters, and are useful inasmuch as (and only to the extent that) they capture something about what people were thinking about in terms of generational improvements in capabilities. Likewise, although all wargame exercises are a kind of "propaganda tool" to some degree or other, they do vary widely in their applicability as learning tools. Those exercises like Cope Thunder which are serious training exercises are much more valuable than the "see, we're all jolly good friends" sort. There is an old maxim that "You fight like you train" and the value of adversary training exercises over flying that just drills holes in the skies is quite evident. The higher-quality exercises have something worthwhile to convey, just as long as good judgment is used to weed out "gaming the game" tactics and artificial effects (e.g., the case where an F-22 was shot down by a regenerated "dead" plane that the F-22 pilot did not know was a new threat). Askari Mark (Talk) 15:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not know that this was a history of fighter aircraft entry, even still, the value of adding these studies to the entry is tenuous at best. Are you going to say that this was not the same thought process and situation that occurred when moving from “generation to generation” of fighters in prior times. For sure there may not have been sophisticated simulators, but don’t you think that comparative analysis was done between say the Mig-15, P-80 and F-86, or the Mig-17 and the F-100. Far be it of value I think it is all too easy for the casual reader or fan boy to not grasp the subtlety that these models, like all models are flawed. That both where done so long ago the planes analyzed are far different than those either actually flying, planned or soon to be upgraded today. Even if you manage to get the DERA part right what is to stop some fan boy three months from now from “expanding” upon it?--Downtrip (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the exercise reports, look what happened when I tried to interject some logic into it There are claims made whose citations lead to dead links, says something totally different or are taken out of context. So what do you say about training exercises. “Training exercises often occur between different airforces using different weapons and tactics. These are usually highly scripted affairs designed to train pilots using tactics and weapons they may not otherwise be familiar with.  Further, the full spectrum of tactics, weapons, and sensors available may not be employed for fear of giving away to much information on capabilities”? Somehow I think that bit of reality is going to get lost in the message.--Downtrip (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the risks; I was only proposing a compromise that could responsibly incorporate them. Deleting them obviously hasn't kept them from being readded. Anyhow, since none of the parties wanting them included has responded, it's rather a moot point. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So do you propose we delete the exercises and DERA or rewrite? I am willing to rewrite both if we agree that after you and I and anyone else who responds here in the next day or so go through it and we post it that it stays as is unless there is some very good reason later on to change it via consensus. That includes HDP, Freepsbane, Testpilot and anyone else who has been watching. Agreed Mark?--Downtrip (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I would suggest posting a "pre-release" version here first for comment. If we can get a generally accepted approach, great; if not, junk them. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I will post below for comment.--Downtrip (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rewriting is an excellent idea. And I see nothing wrong with with stressing that comparative analysis, including DERA one is flawed by design. But in the meantime - it still represent a bit of valuable and interesting information.  TestPilot  15:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that all references to the DERA report should be removed. It is obviously biased, was based on projected capabilities for some of the aircraft (if not most) and have been debunked by real exercised. Take the recent 4 on 4 between the Typhoon and Rafale in the United Arab Emirates that showed the Rafale spanking the Typhoon badly with a 4 to 0 score (see http://lemamouth.blogspot.com/2009/12/la-raf-nest-plus-ce-quelle-est.html, in French). The DERA report was speculative and I think that Wikipedia should stick to the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kino french (talk • contribs) 04:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Protected
The page is now protected until some kind of consensus can be reached. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

JF-17 Thunder
JF-17 Thunder has been repeatedly removed from this article. Senior members, please add JF-17 thunder back to the list along with 4.5th generation aircrafts. Pk-user (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌ - in the case of revert wars, admins aren't allowed to decide which version to keep - only to protect the page at the version it happens to have at the time. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * the list is entirely bad, the JF17 is less powerful than the J10. how can the JF17 demand to be on the list when J10 isn't? i think the article is completely misguided given that the non-operational indian HAL somehow makes "the list" when it's spec is also weaker than the J10. imo, the list should contain only fighters which have sources from not just the host countries, because the indian media keep bloating their vapourware that couldn't even fire missiles. ~_~" Akinkhoo (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Super Rhino Gun Kill on Raptor
Please modify the statement about the F/A-18F Super Hornet getting a gun kill (Legitmately) on the F-22A Raptor to include the fact that the Super Rhino had violated the Red Air ROE concerning safety in regards to distance and approach speed/vector on friendly aircraft.

http://op-for.com/2007/08/rivalries.html#comments -- unsigned comment by User:TornadoADV — TornadoADV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * ❌ - The value of having these anecdotes from exercises is one of the main points of contention here. Nothing further of this nature should be added until and unless there is a consensus that it's worth having this kind of information in this article at all. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

---Then I humbly suggest that the source of contention be removed to avoid issue in the first place concerning such things. Until such a time arrives that such ponderings can be supported by reputable soruces that focus on the subject at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TornadoADV (talk • contribs) 15:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the point; this article is currently frozen because contributors couldn't agree as to whether to include this kind of material or not. Any changes now must reflect a consensus here on the talk page first. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

mig 35
mig 35 has been featuring in the thrust vectoring engine list again and again, when it was not present in the original article.The thrust vectoring engine of mig 35 depends on customer specification and is not present in the actual model.I feel it must be changed from mig 35 to mig 29 ovt as the picture depicts. Daredevil555 (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Other aircraft
Why isn't the Sukhoi Su-35BM and the F-15 ACTIVE included in this article?--EZ1234 (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

HAL Tejas has NOT entered service
There have been numerous and repeated attempts to list the HAL Tejas as a "4.5 gen" aircraft that has entered service. Neither of these are correct. The aircraft is 4th generation (based on simple spec. comparison between it and other 4.5 aircraft) and it will not enter service until 2010. Please correct this in case of future vandalism. --H2d2 (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (based on simple spec. comparison between it and other 4.5 aircraft) I am sorry but you have got that wrong. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

JF-17 is a 3rd Generation Aircraft
The JF-17 is a 3rd generation aircraft, not fourth. Here are my references to back it up:

[1] From The News, Pakistan: "The JF-17 Thunder is a light combat aircraft, a single-engine fighter with all-weather capability, which Pakistan has developed with the help of the Chinese. It is a *THIRD-GENERATION* fighter that has been so designed that it can take on the fourth-generation fighter aircraft." [The News,Pakistan ^ | 2/8/2008 | Ali Abbas Rizvi ]

[2] From Global Security: "wlet dragon/FC-1 airplane had achieved the *THIRD GENERATION* fighter aircraft synthesis"

I've removed it accordingly. 128.189.137.17 (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be slightly confused about Chinese aircraft designations which is different for some reason from the rest of the world's. http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/default.asp What is considered '1st and 2nd generation' in the rest of the world is merged into '1st Generation' in China, therefore the 2nd generation in China is considered the 3rd generation in the rest of the world, 3rd is 4th etc. etc. Semi-Lobster (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this schema appears to be "something that was made up on the internet one day", as I've seen it nowhere else. The generation schema WP is following is that most broadly used worldwide. Yes, there are other definitions, but they are not widely accepted. While this one from Sinodefence may be an accurate description of evolutionary trends in China alone, its definitions of "generations" is decidedly different, so to use it as a basis for including a Chinese aircraft as synonymous to globally accepted "generations" would be a misleading comparison of "apples and oranges". Furthermore, attempting to correlate this unique approach to defining generations to that generally accepted is not addressed by this source, and thus constitutes original research (unless reliable, independent sources can be found for this). If Sinodefence's definition of Chinese design "generations" is broadly accepted as accurate, it would best fit in an article focused on Chinese fighter development (and would necessitate that article clarifying the differences between these and the "usual" generations). Since "3rd generation" is not a totally accurate description of the FC-1/JF-17, a compromise solution has recently been devised for the introduction to the JF-17 Thunder article, which you may wish to consult. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, there are rules and designations to follow in terms or what constitutes what. There are many Chinese website that address this issue of 'generations' but as of now, my grasp of Simplified Chinese is extremely poor so until an article apears in English, I gratefully acquiesce, until I can spare the time to mulch with my limited reading ability through my Chinese texts and websites until I can make heads or tails of the thousands of different Chinese characters I have forgotten over the years. Semi-Lobster (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Shenyang J-8 H/F
With the upgrades to the J-8II to the J-8H and the newly built J-8F variant of the J-8II which have full look-down/shoot-down radar with enhanced ground and naval strike capabilities and is fully BVR capable (PL-11 and PL-12), sources in the Chinese government have stated that the J-8H/F is a multi-role fighter designed as low cost supplement to existing 4th Generation fighters thereby making it a 4th generation fighter (all be it an early 4th generation fighter which is not on par with the J-10 or J-11). To make a comparison, the J-8H/F is similiar to the Panavia Tornado ADV and Mikoyan MiG-31, both dedicated interceptors but with ground attack and air superiority capabilities. So I was wondering if the J-8H/F could also be included inthe list of 4th generation fighters. Semi-Lobster (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see this brief description of what is meant by the term “generation” as it applies to jet fighters. Briefly, the term applies to a design approach, not a technology level, per se.  A “third-generation” fighter can be equipped with systems developed for “fifth-generation” fighters, but upgrades do not change the basic design approach for the underlying fighter.  The few exceptions generally embrace aircraft significantly redesigned to be more in line with later-generation design philosophies (e.g., the substantive redesign of the 4th-Gen F/A-18 Hornet into the Gen 4.5 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet). Askari Mark (Talk) 03:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah I apoligise for my tardy response, I was waiting for a reply so I could properly explain myself! As you previously mentioned, it is important to draw the line, especially in terms of 'design' which is the most interesting part of the 'J-8' saga. The J-8 began life as a twin engine interceptor supplement to the J-7 (MiG-21) in 1964. The first to prototypes flew in 1968 but due to the Cultural Revoultion in China though, massive instability gripped China's aviation industry and the J-8I was no introduced in 1981, over ten years since it was originally planned (during this time also the J-9 project was conceived and cancelled). The result was the J-8I, which was an total failure, it was such a complete and utter flop that only around fifty were ever built before production was stopped (the survivors were later partially upgraded to the J-8IE) and new ways of upgrading its performance were put into place. This led to a radical redesign by Shenyang to design an all weatherm multi-role, interceptor with ground attack capabilities which resulted in the J-8II in 1980. Although based on the original J-8I, the nose, air inlets, fuselage, engine, radar, were changed and the overall length were increased (compare the images of the J-8I to the J-8II in the J-8 article) and was formally introduced in 1988. The only problem was, the PLA demanded that the J-8II have full BVR capabilities with MRAAMs. The problem was that China at the time did not have the technical capability to build such a fire-control radar so the J-8IIB and D lacked BVR even though it was designed to use them and were only armed with PL-5 and PL-8 SRAAMs until a solution could be found. Realising an indigenous MRAAM could not be found in time, in mid 1980s China aquired the Italian Alenia Aspide semi-active MRAAM to be used by the J-8II and by 1989 had perfected a copy and by 1992, it was introduced into the PLAAF and tested as direct support from the Italian government was taboo after Tiananmen Square in 1989 so development slowed. There were several misteps along the way (the J-8C and J-8M projects) but eventually in 2001, a vastly improved variant of the KLJ-1 radar was developed and installed on the J-8H/F fighters that could fire semi-active and active MRAAMs, finally achieving the original PLA goals of the J-8II was designed to follow. For more indepth information here are two Sinodefence articles is one of the most highly regarded English language Chinese military sites available:

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j8ii.asp http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j8.asp (please note that I'm not using this as an argument for 'Generations' and its definitions but as an explanation of the development of the J-8 series of fighters from J-8I interceptor to the all weather, multi-role J-8II fighter). Semi-Lobster (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So has a decision been reached yet? I was hoping to provide information on the large overhaul of the original J-8I design from 1964 to the redesigned J-8II series of 1984 is 'significant' enough to merit its listing on the fourth generation fighter page. Another important aspect I want to stress is that the F-8II, while a large improvement over the J-8I was still considered 'stillborn' in terms of its original specification capabilities, most notably its deficient radar and weapons systems. The J-8H and J-8F are the penultimate goal of the original 1980s PLAAF requirements (allbeit introduced over 10 years later then originally planned), with full look-down/shoot-down, BVR, and ehanced multi-role capabilities that the J-8II airframe was supposed to achieve in the first place. Semi-Lobster (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Chengdu J-13
I was wondering if the experimental Chengdu J-13 project should be listed in the 'Cancelled Aircraft' section? I know it does not have a page (yet) but neither does ALR Piranha. The J-13 was an ambitious (some say, too amibtious) plan to creat an aircraft to replace the Chengdu J-7 series of light fighters. It was designed to be a high speed, high altitude interceptor fighter that at the same time was supposed to be able to match the MiG-29 and F-16 fighters. Issues over finding a powerful enough engine was the biggest problem. http://www.china-defense.com/aviation/chinese_fighter_development/chinese_fighter_development-6.html Semi-Lobster (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Panavia Tornado
The 4th generation list has the Panavia Tornado on the list, shouldn't the Panavia Tornado ADV be listed instead or perhaps both should be listed? The ADV is the dedicated fighter optimised variant of the Tornado afterall, although one can argue that the Tornado is capable enough to warrant its position on the list. Semi-Lobster (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, it is already shown that way in the article "Fighter aircraft". For consistency, I'm changing that in this atricle. Regards, DPdH (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

F-16 combat record
In the 'Combat performance' section, it states that the F-16 has had zero air-to-air losses but according to this New York Times article, a Pakistani F-16 was shot down by six Afghan aircraft in 1987. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE3DD143DF931A35756C0A961948260 Semi-Lobster (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Pakistan claims it was a friendly fire incident. See F-16_Fighting_Falcon Rmhermen (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

4th and 4.5 generation Technology Demonstrators
Shouldn't there be a section for technological demonstrators fromthe 4th and 4.5 generation? They don't really fit into the 'cancelled aircraft' section since they were only designed to display new technologies with some eventually leading to a new service fighter like the British Aerospace EAP or Rockwell-MBB X-31. Should there be a new section for them? Semi-Lobster (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

PZL-230 Skorpion
Should the PZL-230 Skorpion really be on the list for 4th generation fighter aircraft. From what I've read and even from ehat the article states, the PZL-230 Skorpion was to be an attack aircraft, not a fighter. Should it be removed? Semi-Lobster (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should be added to the Cancelled Aircraft list of 4th gen aircraft. It seems too advanced to be a 3rd gen jet. Hj108 (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The only problem is thats a 3rd generation or 4th generation fighter... its not fighter. It was an attack aircraft,and none of them exceeded 1000km/h. Semi-Lobster (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Dassault Super Mirage F8
I was wondering if we could have a debate about adding the Dassault Super Mirage F8 to the list of fourth generation cancelled aircraft section (with the link going to the Dassault Mirage G page). The F8 was the penultimate design of the Dassault Mirage G which was planned a variable geometry fighter but eventually was set to a fixed winged aircraft after the French Air Force concluded that variable geometry wings and the added weight and maintenace costs outweighted its benefits. The F8 was put forward by Dassault in the early 70s to meet France's 'Avion de combat futur' (ACF) program before the program's costs spiralled out of control and eventually led to the Dassault Mirage 2000. The F8 was designed as a single seat an agile multi-role fighter aircraft powered by twin SNECMA M53 turbofan engines, with a fixed leading edge sweep angle of 55° (which were found to be the best in trials on the Mirage G8), a Cyrano IV multi-purpose radar (BVR capable with look down shoot down capabilities on most models), a low-altitude nav/attack system, a laser rangefinder, Doppler radar and a bombing computer. The project was cancelled with the ACF program in the 1970s and the information gained from its development was used for the Mirage 2000 and Mirage 4000. So I was wondering if anyone else had an opinion on this aircraft? Semi-Lobster (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, the Dassault Mirage G should be in the list, it was developed in tandem with the Panavia Tornado originally before the AFVG project diverged with the Tornado becoming more of a strike aircraft rather than a replacement for the F-104 and the Mirage diverging from its role as a nuclear strike aircraft into a multirole fighter. They also both had similiar capabilities and equipment. Semi-Lobster (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-34
Fnlayson has recently removed the Sukhoi Su-34 from the list of 4.5th generation fighter aircraft, claiming that the aircraft in question is not a fighter aircraft. Most sources, both print and online refer to the Su-34 as a twin seat, heavy fighter-bomber. As we have other twin seat heavy fighter-bomber/strike fighters on the list such as the Dassault Mirage 2000N/2000D and the F-15E Strike Eagle I do not see why the Su-34 should be singled out for removal? Semi-Lobster (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So if I don't hear anything from fnlayson by the end of the week explaining his unexplained actions I will re-add the Sukhoi Su-34. Semi-Lobster (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But the Su-34 is designed to function as a fighter anyway, why shouldn't it be in the article? Its a big flanker much like the F-15E is a big F-15A. I agree with Semi-Lobster on this issue. Hj108 (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft listings
First up I wanted to mention the fact I've moved the J-10 and J-11B to the 4th gen list. I don't think they're 4.5 gen. I know design is an issue, but when people talk about generations they normally also talk about what's inside. You need to have both, surely. The J-8 isn't a 4th gen design, even if some planes are being upgraded.

Apart from that I see a massive problem with the article. Most of the aircraft listings are not cited, and indeed the article as a whole has few citations. The lists are also too long.

I would start by cropping all the cancelled aircraft and tech demonstrators. Then we need citations to confirm whether these aircraft are 4th gen or not. I would start from the bottom up, rather than try the hopeless task of getting citations for every one already here. If that's not possible then crop all the lists and just have a few examples. Currently it's an OR nightmare. It says something that the "review" tag seems itself to be horribly out of date. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why have you classed J-10 as 4th gen while leaving Gripen as 4.5 gen? What about Su-30MKK being 4.5 gen but J-11B being 4th gen? Hj108 (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Credible publications have labelled Gripen as being 4.5 gen. I haven't seen something like defenseindustry call the J-10 4.5 gen, though please correct me if it has.
 * As for the other, it should be clear that I wasn't reorganising the entire list. If you want to move the Su-30MKK, be my guest. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is 4+ the same as 4.5? Hj108 (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's another way of saying it, yes. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Last paragraphs
What on earth is going on with the last couple of paragraphs? They seem to have been chucked in at random, from an article that would be better suited to an ametuer defense blog. None of it is cited, quite a lot of it is out of date and most of it is conjecture and fortune-telling. This isn't the 'which fighter is going to beat which' article. I'm removing said paragraphs for being irrelevant, uncited and out of place in this article. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with SSL, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia.
 * Hj108 (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Last Month's Edits
I've been busy for a while so I haven't been keeping up with aviation articles but... last month John Smith&#39;s seems to have made a litany of rather drastic edits to the article with little to no discussion, or debate? Semi-Lobster (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No need for discussion or debate regarding the J-10 classification, I've added a good source for it.Hj108 (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I mean overall, I can understanding needing a source for every technology demonstrator and canceled aircraft for example. I thought the entire ideas was to have a more extensive table of aircraft listed than the main fighter aircraft aritlce to save space there? Semi-Lobster (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: No consensus to move. Ucucha 13:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Brief comment: I tried to change line ('42') as it is fundamentally in error: "...A European coalition GTDAR is developing an AESA radar for use on the Typhoon and Rafale...". In April 2002, the French weaponry procurement agency (DGA) awarded Thales a contract to develop an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar demonstrator based on the RBE2 radar system.  Thales has successfully completed their research and development have moved onto production of the RBE2-AA ASEA radar set for the Rafale.  Thales began delivery of the production model in August 2010.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.79.109 (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Fourth-generation jet fighter → Fourth generation jet fighter — Hyphen might be unnecessary. —username 1 (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei) → Yonsei (fourth generation Nikkei)
 * Fourth-generation programming language → Fourth generation programming language
 * Third-generation programming language → Third generation programming language
 * Second-generation programming language → Second generation programming language
 * First-generation programming language → First generation programming language


 * The hyphen is needed to disambiguate which order the components are compounded in. "Fourth generation jet fighter" could be taken as "the fourth of the 'generation jet fighters'". OK, only one interpretation "is sensible", but readers should not be made to stop and decide between possible interpretations. The hyphen makes it clear that "fourth" and "generation" are compounded first. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Versions European vs US/Russia
Here's how SAAB separate the generations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually China uses similiar naming system as European, hence the newest developing model is 4th in Chinese naming system (but 5th in USA labeling system.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.186.243.42 (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well it isn't that simple is it? That's the problem. It isn't just about chronological succession and it doesn't imply superiority (in one, or many or all) ways, but is used in marketing. The article needs to reflect the subjectivity of these measures, and the way in which they often reflect a categorisation of threats to what the categorising party possesses and thinks it can counter or otherwise, not an objective set of measures that cannot moreover become outmoded in time. Princeofdelft (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Class B Rating
I'm an outsider rating this article as I have taken on a few to get the list down. I'm trying to be kind here as it is obvious that there exist a wide range of views to be accomodated. Please try to remember that this is an encyclopedia article and to take a cold hard eye 3rd party view of anything that you write here. I'm an American and I promise you as an American I would hate to see that the F-18 was a markedly inferior platform but if it was, and this is just an example, I would write and support it as so. Please realise that there isn't a defense contractor on the face of the planet that will tell you the truth where there money is. Stay to the cold hard facts and don't make statements that can't be supported with cold hard fact. Tirronan 21:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The level of citation compared to the factual statements here are south side of "not good"
 * Comparisons against aircraft that are not in combat in a steril environment would be hard at best (An AWACS aircraft will make an F4 look great against an Mig 29 blind).
 * To many assumptions are made here without supporting fact as factual.


 * Tirronan, please note that maybe for someone from "North"America the expression south side might have some particular (negative?) meaning. For me who was born in SOUTH-America (and possibly to anyonne living/being born "south" of somewhere) it has a derogatory connotation. Will greatly appreciate if you can please be cautious in the expressions you use, as the english version of Wikipedia is not just a "Northern" version! Thanks and regards, DPdH (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I also have concerns about the language in this article. It seems to be very "U.S.-centric". This is a commmon problem with articles about military hardware. For example, the introduction talks about the "teen" series of fighters, but these are exclusively U.S. designations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.56.99 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have the same concerns and recently edited an unhelpful single word out. I have explained this below, (Objective Tone) after the edit was reverted, accompanied by a belligerent comment by Dodger67. Invite discussion below, on principle, not this particular case which is of limited importance. Princeofdelft (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

4.5th Generation to be defined by law
Unless the UN weighs in on this, can we use the American legal definition (to be signed tomorrow by BHO) internationally for the list of 4.5 Gen fighters?

I'm still looking for a ref for BVR shots using LPI plus datalink for bolts from the blue. Hcobb (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at the practical impact of 4.5th gen to be as follows. A 4.5th gen going head on spots a 4th gen first while a 5th gen spots a 4.5th gen first.


 * The reason for this is that the 4.5th gen and 5th gen have modern AESA radars with longer ranges and LPI. The 4.5th gen is around one meter RCS while 4th gen is going to be at least ten times that and a 5th gen is going to be at least one tenth that. Hcobb (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's ok to use whatever definitions one likes as long as one declares this giving the reader a chance to understand that the American "generations" talk is a way to refer to threats and allies from the point of view of their own perceptions and the decisions taken as to how to equip THEMselves, not some objective "factual" measure of outright superiority. Princeofdelft (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Objective Tone (Again)
It's a very small matter, and doesn't matter enough to have a "debate" over, much less an exchange of louder and louder contradictions, however I have removed the word "American" because it is incidental.

This was undone by Dodger67, who simply contradicted my rationale and accused me of hypocrisy. I contend that firstly, it is not valid to suggest that there is no known design or concept of any kind which possesses low observable characteristics a-la F-22/B2/F-117 per se, which isn't American, and secondly that offhand stating that they are adds an implicit bias that doesn't help. By listing examples, one can easily allow the reader to look into designs and see that they come from America, as well as being able to objectively evaluate new articles they read in the near-future on a case-by-case basis.

Using the label "American" isn't somehow hugely offensive to me or anything, but omitting it doesn't detract from the article at all, and avoids giving the article a shelf-life (that is, it'll be out of date as soon as anyone else has a plane or UAV that has the features being talked about.)

Given that there's very hard evidence that the Nazis already were working on a jet fighter that possessed certain low-observable characteristics;

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090625-hitlers-stealth-fighter-plane.html

it seems to me that the suggestion that only an American plane can, today, be "really" stealth is incorrect, and Dodger 67 should have to justify his/her in my view inflammatory rationale before reverting the article, as a matter of principle. I feel my intentions show good faith but I'm willing to listen if that's been taken the wrong way. I do wonder though whether this would be just as acceptable if the aircraft in question had happened to be say, from Albania.

Again, I don't really mind if it is put back, it's one word, but I an dissatisfied with the attitude and wanted to explain myself because this is a much wider problem than the one word, in my view. Cheers everyone, sorry in advance if this seems "highly strung". Call me an idealist maybe. Princeofdelft (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Listism
Asian listism is creeping back into this article, now that there is no longer a "list of" article to haggle over.

Can we cut the examples to two American, two Russian and two other aircraft? Hcobb (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Exercise Reports
Can we just remove the entire exercise reports section. It's just going to go in the same fanboyish F-15<Rafale<Eurofighter<Su-30MKI<F-15 circle. If information about about aircraft exercises must be included then it should be on individual aircraft articles and should include a non-biased POV. Given the fact that pilot training and technique weigh so heavily on the outcome of these exercises it really isn't even a contest of aircraft. -Nem1yan (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the archived discussion(#3). This topic was already the subject of discussion and the consensus was to keep the section. It's just as well sourced as most most of article and according to the consensus, just as relevant. If you dislike it that isn't a ground for removal; discuss and edit what seems to be deficient instead and clean it up, that was the overwhelming consensus.Freepsbane (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional Aircraft
Currently there are only 4th generation aircraft listed. I know we are all trying to avoid making the article too list-like but would adding active 4.5th generation aircraft be objectionable? The Su-35 is listed and it is very much an 4++ generation fighter (if we are to agree on a nebulous, semi-defined definition of a 4++ fighter jet) and so far there have been to objections or edits to it. Semi-Lobster (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering the exercise performance section includes so called 4.5th gen fighters in comparisons, I see no reason to exclude them from the list. -Nem1yan (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think so to since we've already mentioned them. But what about canceled aircraft or technology demonstrators? The article is 'Fourth Generation jet fighter', not 'Operational Fourth Generation jet fighter' afterall, something akin to the list in the First Generation jet fighter page. Semi-Lobster (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Engines
Does the characteristic of a fourth generation fighter jet include a turbofan engine instead of a turbojet engine ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.172.114 (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe turbofans were developed for 4th-gen aircraft but I'm not sure if the introduction of the engines matches the introduction of the aircraft. You'd need either a very good source or sources covering several early 4th-gen aircraft to add that statement. -Nem1yan (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Move. This seems to be uncontroversial. I'll also move the other articles in the category as proposed. Jafeluv (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Fourth generation jet fighter → Fourth-generation jet fighter – Correct name, as "fourth-generation" is a compound adjective, and consistent with the existing Fifth-generation jet fighter article. Malleus Fatuorum 18:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree that hyphenation is needed, but if the consensus is to move this article, could all the articles in Category:Generations of jet fighter also be moved? Jenks24 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support this and moves of the other generations of jet fighter per WP:HYPHEN, i.e., normal English practice. —  AjaxSmack   01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Eurofighter Typhoon - 5th Generation fighter
I believe that the Eurofighter Typhoon should be moved to the 5th Generation article (and defined as 5th Generation in other articles). The criteria defined by Lockheed Martin for a '5th Generation Fighter' shows that the Typhoon meets as many as the F-22 Raptor, and many more than the F-35 Lightning II. Eurofighter themselves class it as 5th Generation, so this should be seriously considered. My supporting documents are as follows:

http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/extpub/02_5thGenFighter.pdf

http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/ef_world_2-2011.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionwarrior82 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * When it gets AESA it may be a 4.5th gen.

BTW, what's up with "the F-35s will have built-in, PIRATE IRST sensors" in the current text? The F-35 has and will never have PIRATE, as it is a Ninja instead. Hcobb (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Global perspective
Several definition of generations exist, with no consensus on how they should be defined. Hence portraying the USA-manufaturer definitions as a standard is NPOV in addition to lacking a global perspective. /BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

SU-35 / SU - 34
What idiot ranked SU-34/35 as aircraft under development? Both aircraft are in operational use of Russian Air Force, SU-35 (22 aircraft) and Su-34 (31 aircraft). SU-34 is proven in combat in the war in Georgia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.93.243 (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Combat performance section
Now it includes a couple conflicts where no planes shot at each other. Do we want it to include only shotdowns or expand it to include every time 4th-gen planes fly over hostile ground (maybe dropped bombs, maybe dodged SA fire, maybe just went cruising)? Rmhermen (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent Table Changes
Recently, an unregistered contributor User:218.186.15.10 has made several, unilateral, sweeping edits to the tables on the fighter aircraft generation pages. What is the general consensus on these changes? Semi-Lobster (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

HAL Tejas =/= 4th generation fighter
Why are we allowing a photo of this fighter to be present in the 4th generation fighter page? India's own Air Marshall has labeled this fighter a "generation 3++" fighter, which in and of itself is already a clear and rather embarrassing admission of the true quality of this fighter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.122.59 (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"4.5th generation" ?
Why are we adding the "th" after "4.5"? It's not as if we are pronouncing it "four point fifth", (which would actually be written as "4.2"). It's silly, needless and doesn't make sense. It should simply be "4.5 generation". As in, between the "fourth (4th) generation" and "fifth  (5th) generation", is the "four point five (4.5) generation". Can we drop the "th"? - the WOLF  child  01:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

References? Original work?
Sections of this article seem poorly sourced, such as the whole section on Performance, which is 580 words of high-density information with exactly zero citations. Is this original research? I'd like to know where I can confirm the information presented. 97.98.13.107 (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Another coloumn can be added in the comparison table.
In this section "Fourth-generation jet fighters compared" another coloumn named "Per unit Cost" can be added. Sometimes 'cost' acts as an overall parameter to simply measure the overall worth of any item. Ahmedafifkhan (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fourth-generation jet fighter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130525192408/http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fileadmin/user_upload/redacteur/AUTRES_DOCS/Fox_three/Fox_Three_nr_8.pdf to http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fileadmin/user_upload/redacteur/AUTRES_DOCS/Fox_three/Fox_Three_nr_8.pdf
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5nDhCzUZj?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acig.org%2Fartman%2Fpublish%2Farticle_189.shtml to http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_189.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Fourth-generation jet fighter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819190411/http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb1996/0296grayt.asp to http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb1996/0296grayt.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090830143750/http://opencrs.com/document/RL33543/ to http://opencrs.com/document/RL33543
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011192605/http://www.corrdefense.org/CorrDefense%20Magazine/Spring%202007/feature.htm to http://www.corrdefense.org/CorrDefense%20Magazine/Spring%202007/feature.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327110114/http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00089/2_Eurofighter_capabi_89302a.pdf to http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00089/2_Eurofighter_capabi_89302a.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925163741/http://www.sci.fi/~fta/score.htm to http://www.sci.fi/~fta/score.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_189.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)