Talk:Jet fighter generations

71.38.199.48 (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's your ref!
Got a ref of great authority for the six generations.

It's by this guy

Richard P. Hallion (PhD, University of Maryland), of the Secretary of the Air Force's Action Group, was selected as the Charles A. Lindbergh Visiting Professor of Aerospace History for 1990-91 at the Smithsonian Institution.

And his generations are:
 * Me 262
 * F-86
 * MiG-19
 * F-104
 * F-4
 * F-14

So the F-14 is officially a sixth generation jet fighter. Woot!

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj90/win90/1win90.htm

Hcobb (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! TJIC (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

sources reliability
This subject has always been difficult. Having reliable sources should help establish a clear and non objectionable classification. I have reviewed the ones present in the introduction : and in each generation description :

Richard P. Hallion in Air Power Journal is obviously a solid source, being notable enough to have his own article but at the end of the article there is the quote "The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author [...] They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University."

The Eurofighter World article is a marketing text ("in-house propaganda" :) ), and is a good example on how a WP:Primary source could be distorted. As would be Lockheed Martin for the F-35.

The Daniel Slane report to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission isn't focused on the subject and use the aerospaceweb reference discussed below as a source (with an error on the name of the author), which isn't a good sign of credibility.

Jim Winchester, while not being notable enough to have his bio in WP, is perhaps a good connoisseur of fighter jets, but this book is from a kid publisher, which undermines its credibility.

The Aerospaceweb is self-published by volunteers, as is The Aviationist  (even if they work in the field).

The RAAF Air Power Development Centre Bulletin Article could be reliable but again at the end there is "The views expressed [...] are not necessarily those of the RAAF".

To sum up : two disclaimers, a marketing propaganda, a reference who quotes self publishing, a kid publishing company and two self-published sources. Not very good sources, even if most of them are knowledgeable and have clear ideas of a good classification. Better sources would be welcome. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

how to make this encyclopedic
I worked pretty hard to make the concept more encyclopedic. Definitions can vary so much from one source to another. It's close to WP:OR in the X-generation articles when not listed aircrafts are included, it's too much US-centric (it's quasi century series-era, F-4-era, teen series-era), and sources are poor. A pretty good example of retrospective history : we try to make some sense of recent definitions, and WP:CIRCULAR. The worse part is it make some sense! There are obviously eras, and it help to compare between peers, but their boundaries are variable. The shift as defined by RAAF's bulletin as a when an innovation cannot be incorporated through upgrades is a neat idea. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This page is a serious disaster and needs to be overhauled, starting with the table. The first three columns are goof, but the next six columns are filled with garbage. Why are the fonts for the numbers so huge, you can see them from Mars.Also the choice of sources are highly questionable. User talk:nelsoc4) 10:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.199.48 (talk) Having a font size of Huge is inappropiate and begs the question "Is somebody trying to compensate?" I changed the font size of the gen numbers to normal. I also predict some pedantic with a borderline personality issue will go back in to change the font back to huge. Better sources need to be cited as at least one is very suspicous and more than a little invalid.71.38.199.48 (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC) -Charles Nelson (talk) 11:09, 18 July 202471.38.199.48 (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jet fighter generations. 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/20140322213100/http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/publications/Details/475/170-Five-Generations-of-Jet-Fighter-Aircraft.aspx to http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/publications/Details/475/170-Five-Generations-of-Jet-Fighter-Aircraft.aspx
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:j1FJhVmULd4J:www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/October%25202009/1009fighter.aspx+&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=fr with https://web.archive.org/web/20160303225547/http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/October%202009/1009fighter.aspx on https://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/October%202009/1009fighter.aspx

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) 03:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Recentism
I recall that the Chinese definition was based on an older American definition where F-14/F-15/F-16/F-18 are third generation aircraft. Google has yield some sources from early 2000s that agree with this definition (Jim Bussert classified Su-27 and MiG-29 as 3rd gen; Scramble and the Hellenic Air Force listed Mirage 2000 and F-16 as 3rd gen) Research is needed to discover sources that reflect the view at the time. -Mys_721tx (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits to lead and first section
Following dissatisfaction with this article expressed in this WikiProject discussion I recently made a number of edits to the article, principally to the lead and to the introductory paragraph of the first section. It ended up like this. has undone much of that, here is his aggregated diff. His edit comments are not justifiable. I did not delete any refs, just moved them down to the opening paragraph of the first section. It is not necessary to have references in the lead, as this should be a summary of the article that follows. Yet this was Marc's justification for undoing so much cleanup. He also restored many overt references to individual sources in contravention of wikipedia guidelines, instead of simply citing them as we are supposed to do. Could other editors take a look so we can gain some consensus as to the way ahead here? Do y'all need me to dig out those policies and/or guidelines? Thanks. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think your version is better, and closer to what we have so far agreed, although it probably needs a second paragraph to note the marketing origin of the terms. - Ahunt (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why put the marketing controversy in the lead? I am not aware that this is what this generation of aircraft is most notable for. I moved it to the body of the article, where it does need discussing. The article itself should be about the fighter generations, not primarily about the controversy, and as Hallion demonstrates the idea of fighter generations was already around by the time it all blew up. Indeed, I am sure it goes farther back than him. Having said that, simply moving that paragraph back to the lead would not be hard if that is what folks want. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I mentioned that it should be in then lede, because our discussion indicated that this whole subject was invented as a marketing gimmick. It's fundamental to the subject. - Ahunt (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hallion's 1990 analysis gives the lie to that claim, I cannot accept it is "fundamental" to anything except bickering. Just which parts of the subject are LM-speak and which were already established/establishing themselves? Also, talking of "marketing-speak" comes across as perjorative and a breach of WP:NPOV. Why should a leader in the field not contribute to the discussion and be mentioned here in civilised tones? Even if RS have overtly blamed LM for the whole thing in this way (though I have not spotted any myself), we must exercise that NPOV and point out that Hallion got there before both of them. And I'll bet you a pint of real ale that Hallion was not the first. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not quite as early as Hallion, being undated but apparently form ca. 2000 is: John W.R. Taylor and John F. Guilmartin; "Military Aircraft: The Jet Age", britannica.com (Retrieved 3 January 2021). It names four and adds one "new" which we can only count as a fifth, all preceding the current "fifth". Another nail in the "blame L-M" coffin. Given that the article also has Aerospaceweb condensing the list down and adding the putative fifth in 2004, ascribing the same to the Russians in the previous decade, I think we can safely say that, at worst, LM hitched their wagon to a train that was already rolling. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think we can rule out Frank Whittle or Willy Messerschmitt as the one who came up with it first. - Ahunt (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would have been either Henri Coanda or Hans von Ohain &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I kept your additions. I restored the lead parts you moved at the in end in Classification#Air Power Development Centre Bulletin classification because they explain what constitutes a generation change, the most important thing here. I agree the refs in lead are not necessary if the statement is supported in the body. You did not just "cleanup", you went beyond, so WP:BRD. Here is the diff showing I kept your additions with refs. What are the guidelines of He also restored many overt references to individual sources in contravention of wikipedia guidelines ? I applied WP:integrity to avoid WP:weasel as indicated in edit summaries..--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Marc. It's not just about additions, it's where stuff goes and how it is presented. There is too much presentism and unsupported POV-pushing, especially in the lead. See also WP:WHENNOTCITE and MOS:CITELEAD. But what is your "weasel" issue? I am unaware that I fell foul of that one.
 * Meanwhile, here's a bit more history: Steve Garber; Quest for Performance: The Evolution of Modern Aircraft, NASA SP-468, NASA History Office, Updated August 6, 2004 (Retrieved 3 January 2021). It does not mention "generations" beyond the first one, but covers each step advance as a separate web page. Chapter 11, Pages 2-6 cover the five generations up to the F-15/F-16/AV-8. These pages tally closely with Britannica's generations. The article lead really does have to abandon its presentism and give a more historical summary. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Good references are always welcome. wp:weasel words are when an assertion lacks an author : "Different authorities..." (which ones?), "... are now widely recognised..." (by who?), "Other schemes ... have been described". (by who?), "Some accounts..." (which ones?).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is why one must provide citations which support such general statements, to give the answers to all such questions. Per MOS:WEASEL, "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. ... [They] are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." The cites and/or subsequent content provide the necessary specifics to show that the statement is a substantiated generalisation and not just a vague claim. As far as I can tell, the only actual weasel claim in this article is that Lockheed-Martin's marketing department are responsible for the whole thing.
 * Giving a blow-by-blow account of who said what, even giving the details through quotations, is not what we do (unless the personality and/or quotation have some claim to significance). We are required to give a neutral description of the subject and to support it with citations. For more, see WP:INTEXT. The article has been grossly overdoing the in-text referencing and quoting. I can see why; it can be a useful way to build verifiable content from a muddle of biased media sources and fanboy scrapings thereof, but it is not a useful way to present that content to the reader and it is overdue a cleanup. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please respond to policy arguments before reverting edits wholesale without adequate explanation. Warring without adequate discussion is not good. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is reading a lot better in its present form. - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have just added some major content on the individual generations, I hope you still like the way it's going. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that is a good move as we can redirect some of the unreferenced articles, like First-generation jet fighter, Second-generation jet fighter and so on here. - Ahunt (talk)

FCAS
Can FCAS be listed as a 6th generation fighter? 197.234.165.147 (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean Future Combat Air System (UK)? - Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I mean the Franco-German project. 197.234.165.147 (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * FCAS is a combat system. Its fighter aircraft component is intended to derive from the BAe Systems Tempest project, which is already mentioned in the article as a sixth generation fighter. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the Franco-German project, so that’s not relevant. Thanks for trying to answer my question though. 197.234.165.147 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The same applies. The clue is in the "S" for "System". &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Tempest is since December 2022 part of the Anglo-Japanese-Italian Global Combat Air Programme, absorbing the Mitsubishi F-X. The Franco-German-Spanish project is something else, though the manned fighters at the centre of each programme (no one knows how the proposed 'drone wingmen' will work out) are likely to look and perform much the same. Sweden, with its remarkable tradition of highly capable indigenous jet fighters, has signed to take an interest in GCAP. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)