Combat aircraft generations

[The Old Mixer]

Maybe somebody on this forum can answer a question for me. I was watching "Dogfights of the Future" on The History Channel, and they made a big deal about using a numerical scheme for designating different generations of combat aircraft:

Generation 5 is the current top of the line, like the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter;

Generation 4 was Gulf War-era...F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, etc.;

Generation 3 was Vietnam era...the era of supersonic speeds and overreliance on crappy early missiles--F-4, F-8, F-105, etc.;

Generation 2 was Korean War era...subsonic jets like the F-86 and MiG-15;

...and Generation 1 was...all of World Wars I and II...!?!

Now assuming that this numbering scheme wasn't something that THC was pulling out of its collective ass...by what measure do you give each of those other eras its own generation, but lump together the early, wooden biplanes of WWI with the far faster, more refined, and more heavily-armed metal-skinned monoplanes of WWII? Not to mention the advent of carrier aviation in WWII, and the use of radar and radios. Both wars were pre-jet-age, that's about it. I'd say the fighters and bombers of WWII were at least as far beyond their WWI counterparts as, say, the Gulf War aircraft were beyond those of the Vietnam War.

My guess--they started the numbering scheme in the Korean War era, when they saw it in terms of the contemporary jet fighters vs. everything else that came before.

 

[M'Sharak]

I believe the generation classification scheme to which you're referring is applied to jet fighters only.

See here for explanations of what constitutes each class, and of categories for earlier craft.

 

[The Old Mixer]

^Seems like THC was misusing that scheme, then...similar enough, except for the first two generations. On THC, no generation between the early subsonic jets and Vietnam was specified; and they lumped together all of the piston-engine aircraft as the first generation. Glad to see that was apparently a mistake.

 

[M'Sharak]

It wouldn't surprise me to find that there are different versions of the scheme which do not agree with each other on all points -- interservice variances in opinion according to application, differing schools of thought among historians of military aircraft and of flight in general, and what-have-you. As soon as lines start getting drawn to separate this from that from the other, someone will argue that the line really should be drawn there instead of here.

 

[Daedalus12]

Generation 6 will be a fleet of UAVs.

 

[The Old Mixer]

^Maybe. They covered UAV's in the special, but made a big deal about how you could never replace human judgment. But 30 years from now...?

It wouldn't surprise me to find that there are different versions of the scheme which do not agree with each other on all points -- interservice variances in opinion according to application, differing schools of thought among historians of military aircraft and of flight in general, and what-have-you. As soon as lines start getting drawn to separate this from that from the other, someone will argue that the line really should be drawn there instead of here.

Wherever you draw your lines, I just can't see lumping in WWI biplanes with anything that came after. WWI aircraft had become as outmoded as cavalry in WWII. You can only put those two generations together if your scheme is very broad and simple: 1) Piston engines; 2) Jets.

 

[Romulan_spy]

Generation 5 is the current top of the line, like the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter;

Generation 4 was Gulf War-era...F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, etc.;

Generation 3 was Vietnam era...the era of supersonic speeds and overreliance on crappy early missiles--F-4, F-8, F-105, etc.;

Generation 2 was Korean War era...subsonic jets like the F-86 and MiG-15;

...and Generation 1 was...all of World Wars I and II...!?!

I'd split WWI and WWII fighters into 2 separate generations. WWII fighters could be Generation 1 and WWI fighters would be generation 0. I think this makes sense since WWI fighters represent an early experiment in a new idea but WWII fighters were the first real fighter planes.

 

[The Old Mixer]

^I completely agree...pretty much all aircraft in WWI were prototypes. They were inventing aerial combat as they went along.

 

[Timo]

...Of course, people back then no doubt thought differently, as the aircraft matured massively as a tool of war during those four years, and each of the "experimental" designs was produced in staggering quantity.

And in hindsight, what is listed as generations 2-5 above will probably look like one big undifferentiated clump a few decades from now. In practice, the "generations" are merely a marketing trick by those who desperately want to imply that F-22 offers some added value over F-15 and thus should be bought to replace the still nicely serving earlier planes. In technological terms or terms of history writing, the jet generations do not really correspond to significant milestones or turning points.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[USS KG5]

I'd split WWI and WWII fighters into 2 separate generations. WWII fighters could be Generation 1 and WWI fighters would be generation 0. I think this makes sense since WWI fighters represent an early experiment in a new idea but WWII fighters were the first real fighter planes.

I would agree with your splitting of WW1 and WW2 fighters into two generations (though I would argue that there is a generational jump during WW2 from a certain POV).

But WW1 all experiments, no proper fighters? Sorry chum but that is piffle - the fighter was born in WW1, it was developed and tens of thousands were built, aircraft such as the Sopwith Camel, SE5, Fokker DR1, Albatros etc were capable combat aircraft of their time - well capable of hunting and killing their enemies, they did it thousands of times.

The fighter tactics developed in WW1, or at least the basic rules, apply to this day - gain height and use it, never stop looking wth eyeball mk1 when you are near the enemy, see first shoot first etc.

The great fighters of WW1 were hunters and killers as much as the Spitfire, P-51, Sabre, Phantom, Mig-21 or F-15 were/are. They form an excellent and defined first generation along with their post-war colleagues, one that transitions easily into the second with the arrival of the sleek Hurricane, BF-109 and Spitfire.

 

[USS KG5]

And in hindsight, what is listed as generations 2-5 above will probably look like one big undifferentiated clump a few decades from now.

I agree - though I suspect that there would be a generally considered divide when electronic systems overcame performance as the key tool in combat, the F-22 is an amazing fighter but its real killer app is the integration of its computer systems and its sheer hi tech - the best the Russians have would be almost as hot in a turning fight.

In practice, the "generations" are merely a marketing trick by those who desperately want to imply that F-22 offers some added value over F-15 and thus should be bought to replace the still nicely serving earlier planes.

Arguably true - it is hard to put an advantage on the F-22 as a Weapons system when they cost so much more than their potential adversaries, it is no good being able to win at 5 to 1 if you are outnumbered 10 to 1 because you cant afford enough planes.

We can be argued to still be in Gen 4.

In technological terms or terms of history writing, the jet generations do not really correspond to significant milestones or turning points.

Not PRECISELY no - but there are certain characteristics - if we just talk jets then: -

Gen 1 - Post-War subsonic Jets that fought in Korea, everything up to the transonic designs like the Hawker Hunter and early supersonics.

Gen 2 - the Mach 2 capable fighters of the Vietnam War, typified by the Phantom and the Mig-21, with more advanced avionics. Typically missile armed and in the USA not natural dogfighters. Speed and missiles take over from dogfighting and guns.

Gen 3 - The teens and the post-Vietnam lessons. Agility is back in the game for the USA, advanced avionics and fly-by-wire the new innovations. The most advanced examples feature very advanced computers, the F-18E/F possibly the last true design, arguably the Typhoon is in here too.

Gen 4 - The Stealthy F-22? Or is it really still Gen 3???

 

[Timo]

Your comparison of the highly dissimilar MiG-21 and F-4 really brings forward the point that the Gen 2 thing is a bit of an artifact of the US viewpoint. From the Russian point of view, agility never went out of fashion (the hyperagile MiG-21 is a linear development of the earlier gun-armed MiGs, and MiG-23 was defined as one initially, too), whereas a separate Russian niche for extreme range missile interceptors had always existed, and a niche for extreme speed interceptors against strategic bombers had also recently emerged.

The US also had that anti-bomber niche, which IMHO should really be Gen 2. After the early turbojet subsounders that only had tactical use, there would come this hugely important generation of planes that had the job of flying fast and straight and launching rockets or missiles against bomber formations, and being patently incapable of anything else. The Vietnam planes would be a mongrel of the high speed innovations and the tactical support demands, and as such a major doctrinal-technological change.

The Wikipedia version of the generations also prompts the interpretation that "fighters" ceased to exist by the sixties. After that point, few players could afford dedicated air-to-air machines, and even the most deliberate attempts at that, like F-15, ultimately turned into "tactical aircraft" rather than true "fighters". Speaking of the earlier and later machines in the same terms of generations is very misleading, then.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[USS KG5]

Your comparison of the highly dissimilar MiG-21 and F-4 really brings forward the point that the Gen 2 thing is a bit of an artifact of the US viewpoint.

Oh agreed totally - the Russians have always made agile fighters, even going bak to the low-level dogfighters of WW2 like the Yak-3 and even before with the I-16.

The US also had that anti-bomber niche, which IMHO should really be Gen 2. After the early turbojet subsounders that only had tactical use, there would come this hugely important generation of planes that had the job of flying fast and straight and launching rockets or missiles against bomber formations, and being patently incapable of anything else.

Arguably a trait continued in the Tornado F2/3 - hardly a natural dogfighter but had very long-range, ideal for North Sea patrols with missiles.

The Vietnam planes would be a mongrel of the high speed innovations and the tactical support demands, and as such a major doctrinal-technological change.

One thing the Generations system certainly shows is that peactime and wartime are very different for military technology. Vietnam was largely fought by planes designed before, and the USAF and USN obviously came as they were. Lessons learned at the start of the war ("Phantoms need a gun") were certainly being fixed by the end, but when the lessons learned by this period were being applied you got the F-15 and F-16 - and the 3rd generation of jets.

The Wikipedia version of the generations also prompts the interpretation that "fighters" ceased to exist by the sixties. After that point, few players could afford dedicated air-to-air machines, and even the most deliberate attempts at that, like F-15, ultimately turned into "tactical aircraft" rather than true "fighters".

The role "air superiority fighter" still exists for the USAF, although other major players like the RAF cannot really afford it. The F-22 is too expensive to fly into low-level flak and get shot down, so can only really stay high and patrol.

Basically it would make a pretty rubbish strike aircraft IMHO.

Speaking of the earlier and later machines in the same terms of generations is very misleading, then.

They are very broad generalisations designed to show big leaps in overall technology, and as you have said really only make sense when you are talking about American fighters, in which case you could say that the stereotypical examples of each generation would be: -

1st - the F-80 and F-86
2nd - The F-104 and F-4
3rd - The F14,15,16 and 18
4th - the F-22

But the lines are very blurred.