| Author |
Message |
|
hcobb
|
Posted: Jan 15, 2012 - 04:37 AM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Jul 27, 2009 - 04:31 PM
Posts: 222
Location: North California
Status: Offline
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: May 26, 2013 - 12:01 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
southernphantom
|
Posted: Jan 15, 2012 - 07:24 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Aug 06, 2011 - 06:18 PM
Posts: 747
Location: Somewhere in Dixie
Status: Offline
|
So I guess we can bring back our F-4s. 5th-generation fun!!
This is...interesting. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
hcobb
|
Posted: Jan 15, 2012 - 08:13 PM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Jul 27, 2009 - 04:31 PM
Posts: 222
Location: North California
Status: Offline
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
outlaw162
|
Posted: Jan 16, 2012 - 02:42 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Feb 28, 2008 - 02:33 AM
Posts: 968
Status: Offline
|
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, ... |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
hcobb
|
Posted: Jan 16, 2012 - 03:12 PM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Jul 27, 2009 - 04:31 PM
Posts: 222
Location: North California
Status: Offline
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
shrimpman
|
Posted: Jan 17, 2012 - 02:28 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Mar 02, 2011 - 01:40 PM
Posts: 46
Location: Dublin
Status: Offline
|
| What generation fighter would be Chuck Norris then? He clearly outclasses everything mentioned above. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Lightndattic
|
Posted: Jan 17, 2012 - 05:22 PM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Oct 06, 2005 - 01:43 PM
Posts: 494
Location: Dallas, Texas
Status: Offline
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|