Fighter jets have been broken into “generations” since the '90s, to help chart and categorize where different planes fit within the history of military aviation. The generations refer not just to the technology of the fighter, but the common doctrines and assumptions of military planners at the time. Yes there were maneuverable generation 3 planes, but they were designed primarily to go fast because going fast was how you avoided getting shot down, generation 4 focused more on the maneuverability and less on top speed, because technology changes in Radar and SAM systems made Mach 2.5 dashes through enemy territory harder.
The demarcation between generations varies depending on who you’re talking to, but it’s typically 1) straight wing
2) transonic
3) supersonic
4) high maneuverability
5) stealth/super cruise
6) stealth+UAV+datalink
These are obviously inexact classifications. You could probably insert a generation somewhere between World War I and World War II (perhaps when biplanes became redundant, manufacturing moved to metal instead of fabric and canvas, or mounting radar on the planes). And I’m not convinced that we’re ready for a new generation of fighter jets, I think generation 6 in general is just marketing by Lockheed Martin. But, if you’re a military aviation nerd, it makes it easier to talk about the relative capabilities and design choices of a MiG 15 versus an f-14.
So for example most of the planes in World War I and World War II were generation 1. Generation 2 would have been the ME-262, the Saber, and the MiG 15 for example. Generation 3 would be the “century series” of American planes, generation 4 are planes like the F-16 or Su-27, Gen 5 would be Russia’s Felon, Chinas J-20 or the F-22.
America’s upcoming fighter programs, including NGAD, are going to be Gen 6. But whereas we have seen only very preliminary mock-ups for America’s new generation of fighters, China has flown two different prototypes already. Generation 6 is supposed to be highly stealth, highly maneuverable, highly fuel efficient, able to use onboard sensors to construct very detailed maps of the battlefield, coordinate UAVs, and act as a control hub for 4th and 5th generation fighters. I think this is all marketing fluff, if they want to call these fighters Gen 6 that’s okay, but I personally don’t see that much of a difference between the NGAD, what China is flying, and what we’ve already seen from Turkey and everyone else hopping on the Gen5 bandwagon.
As a pokémon fan, I need to point out that Gen 3 is best.
the capabilities of these 6th gen fighters is mostly speculation right now. The most interesting thing is that the Chengdu 6th gen fighter (J-36?) supposedly has 3 engines.
I don’t like the looks of 5th-6th gen fighters, the stealth shaping to me makes them look like early polygon graphics heh.
Flankers and delta canards still the coolest looking planes for me
The three engines is very interesting, one military aviation YouTuber I respect (millennium7, slightly chuddy but fair) suggest that one engine is designed for high speed and the other two for lower speed.
I think the f-35 is boring looking, but Russia’s Felon fighter looks butch as hell and I am here for it. I do agree with you in general, most of these 5th and 6th gen fighters look like something from a PS1 Ace Combat game brought to life.
I’ve always been a little bit of an aviation nerd, so it’s nice to geek out over a fighter that’s not going to be used to kill brown children.
My future prediction is AA missiles will have a variety of sensors that they switch between to home in on wifi (then traDAR or visual if signal goes out) and maybe loiter above the battlefield to intercept upwards facing signals.
Also they’d have low RCS, which we’ve started to see on cruise missiles.
The line between drone and loiter missile is fuzzy. Given the focus the USA puts on its air forces (high capital investment, low manpower requirement), I’m on the side of the missiles
I think the performance of the Resistance over the last year has proven, you don’t need a Navy or an Air Force, you just need enough missiles.
In the last year we’ve had our first ballistic missile attack on a ship at sea, loitering antiair munitions taking out drones, loitering air to ground drones making mass mechanized formations a relic of the past, on every side of every conflict.
I struggle for the right word, but it’s almost a “democratization” of military power. Anti-second amendment people are right that an AR-15 is not going to stop a tank. But a cheap commercial drone rigged with explosives and a front-facing camera, will.
China the first country to fly a 6th Gen fighter, beating out Murica. Not just one, but two on the same day. Lots of coping from Westoids.
Not to mention the hypersonic missiles that america still doesn’t have
What does 6th generation mean?
Fighter jets have been broken into “generations” since the '90s, to help chart and categorize where different planes fit within the history of military aviation. The generations refer not just to the technology of the fighter, but the common doctrines and assumptions of military planners at the time. Yes there were maneuverable generation 3 planes, but they were designed primarily to go fast because going fast was how you avoided getting shot down, generation 4 focused more on the maneuverability and less on top speed, because technology changes in Radar and SAM systems made Mach 2.5 dashes through enemy territory harder.
The demarcation between generations varies depending on who you’re talking to, but it’s typically 1) straight wing 2) transonic 3) supersonic 4) high maneuverability 5) stealth/super cruise 6) stealth+UAV+datalink
These are obviously inexact classifications. You could probably insert a generation somewhere between World War I and World War II (perhaps when biplanes became redundant, manufacturing moved to metal instead of fabric and canvas, or mounting radar on the planes). And I’m not convinced that we’re ready for a new generation of fighter jets, I think generation 6 in general is just marketing by Lockheed Martin. But, if you’re a military aviation nerd, it makes it easier to talk about the relative capabilities and design choices of a MiG 15 versus an f-14.
So for example most of the planes in World War I and World War II were generation 1. Generation 2 would have been the ME-262, the Saber, and the MiG 15 for example. Generation 3 would be the “century series” of American planes, generation 4 are planes like the F-16 or Su-27, Gen 5 would be Russia’s Felon, Chinas J-20 or the F-22.
America’s upcoming fighter programs, including NGAD, are going to be Gen 6. But whereas we have seen only very preliminary mock-ups for America’s new generation of fighters, China has flown two different prototypes already. Generation 6 is supposed to be highly stealth, highly maneuverable, highly fuel efficient, able to use onboard sensors to construct very detailed maps of the battlefield, coordinate UAVs, and act as a control hub for 4th and 5th generation fighters. I think this is all marketing fluff, if they want to call these fighters Gen 6 that’s okay, but I personally don’t see that much of a difference between the NGAD, what China is flying, and what we’ve already seen from Turkey and everyone else hopping on the Gen5 bandwagon.
As a pokémon fan, I need to point out that Gen 3 is best.
the capabilities of these 6th gen fighters is mostly speculation right now. The most interesting thing is that the Chengdu 6th gen fighter (J-36?) supposedly has 3 engines.
I don’t like the looks of 5th-6th gen fighters, the stealth shaping to me makes them look like early polygon graphics heh.
Flankers and delta canards still the coolest looking planes for me
The three engines is very interesting, one military aviation YouTuber I respect (millennium7, slightly chuddy but fair) suggest that one engine is designed for high speed and the other two for lower speed.
I think the f-35 is boring looking, but Russia’s Felon fighter looks butch as hell and I am here for it. I do agree with you in general, most of these 5th and 6th gen fighters look like something from a PS1 Ace Combat game brought to life.
I’ve always been a little bit of an aviation nerd, so it’s nice to geek out over a fighter that’s not going to be used to kill brown children.
Tiny fighter sized AWACS, I guess.
My future prediction is AA missiles will have a variety of sensors that they switch between to home in on wifi (then traDAR or visual if signal goes out) and maybe loiter above the battlefield to intercept upwards facing signals.
Also they’d have low RCS, which we’ve started to see on cruise missiles.
The first loitering air-to-air drone that successfully took down a target drone happened in Gaza pretty early in the conflict, as far as I’m aware.
The line between drone and loiter missile is fuzzy. Given the focus the USA puts on its air forces (high capital investment, low manpower requirement), I’m on the side of the missiles
I think the performance of the Resistance over the last year has proven, you don’t need a Navy or an Air Force, you just need enough missiles.
In the last year we’ve had our first ballistic missile attack on a ship at sea, loitering antiair munitions taking out drones, loitering air to ground drones making mass mechanized formations a relic of the past, on every side of every conflict.
I struggle for the right word, but it’s almost a “democratization” of military power. Anti-second amendment people are right that an AR-15 is not going to stop a tank. But a cheap commercial drone rigged with explosives and a front-facing camera, will.