The F-16 was a sixth generation jet fighter

Feel free to discuss anything here - as long as it is F-16 related.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

hcobb

Banned

  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 15:31
  • Location: North California

Unread post15 Jan 2012, 04:37

No, really.

First, here's my source:

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.

Can't argue with a source like that, right?

And here's what he had to say about the generations:
1. High subsonic (1943-50): ...
2. Transonic (1947-55): ...
3. Early supersonic (1953-60): ...
4. Supersonic (limited purpose) (1955-70): ...
5. Supersonic (multirole) (1958-80): ...
6. Supersonic multirole, high efficiency (1974-present): F-14, F-15, F-16, ...


So we've already developed a "sixth generation jet fighter" some time ago.

Finally the URL, hosted by an organization that has had some scandals over the years, but I have no reason to suggest that they've altered this document:

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchroni ... 1win90.htm
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post15 Jan 2012, 19:24

So I guess we can bring back our F-4s. 5th-generation fun!! :lol: :lol:

This is...interesting.
Offline

hcobb

Banned

  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 15:31
  • Location: North California

Unread post15 Jan 2012, 20:13

The real lesson is the rule of seven.

http://www.digital-web.com/news/2004/09/rule_of_seven/

The result is that we look back into history and compress it down to fewer than eight ages, even if we have to disregard the thinking of those previous times.

Hence there shall never be an eighth generation fighter, we'll just keep repacking the previous generations to fit.
Offline

outlaw162

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post16 Jan 2012, 02:42

Rev 1:

0. Kevin Bacon
1. High subsonic (1943-50): ...
2. Transonic (1947-55): ...
3. Early supersonic (1953-60): ...
4. Supersonic (limited purpose) (1955-70): ...
5. Supersonic (multirole) (1958-80): ...
6. Supersonic multirole, high efficiency (1974-present): F-14, F-15, F-16, ...
Offline

hcobb

Banned

  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 15:31
  • Location: North California

Unread post16 Jan 2012, 15:12

Well no wonder he claims that the F-16 is a sixth and a half then.

(Think about it...)

That's because for the most part its been kept away from bad actors.
Offline

shrimpman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2011, 13:40
  • Location: Dublin

Unread post17 Jan 2012, 14:28

What generation fighter would be Chuck Norris then? He clearly outclasses everything mentioned above.
Offline

Lightndattic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 539
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2005, 12:43
  • Location: Dallas, Texas

Unread post17 Jan 2012, 17:22

That's one person's opinion as to how the generations should be layed out as shown by use and performance, not how aircraft of one generation were replaced by the next. Look at generations 3 4 and 5 on that page. They start in 1953, 1955, and 1958. That's not a whole new generation, those are siblings, if anything. Those could be considered 3 (first supersonic fighters), 3+ (multisonic fighters), 3++ (multi-sonic, first multi-use) to relate to how the 4th gen aircraft of today are described.

Early fighters with centrifugal jets and straight wings were replaced by axial flow jet, swept wing fighters. That's 1st to 2nd generation. Those swept wing fighters were replaced by supersonic fighters. Those supersonic fighters were replaced with multirole fighters. And so on to the 5th gen stealth designed fighters.

Return to General F-16 forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests