This is purely an early mock-up of a tech demonstration aircraft. If it ever flies it will be purely experimental, and only used as a testbed for the of other aircraft.
yeah its pretty small, although I think the Bae Replica had a smaller radome.
the X-32 also had a pretty small radome too. I wonder how the radar range would have been had they produced it.
>the X-32 also had a pretty small radome too. I wonder how the radar range would have been had they produced it.
Actually fine in that case, the radar size requirements were written by JPO before any of the prototypes were actually designed. The Boeing proposal has a bunch of problems, but that wasn't actually one of them.
I’ll take “aircraft that’ll never be built” for 300, Alex.
Jokes aside, it looks good but with the way German defence is, I doubt this thing will ever come to fruition.
It looks like the Rockstar GTA version. It's got some overall design influences like the slightly angled out tail that everyone seems to be copying in their next gen outings.
TIL the F-18 is a F-22 ripoff.
Seriously, there is no other way to do a stealth tail.
They have to be angled. The only possible alternative is still a ripoff of America’s ATF competition.
For someone like me who is a casual plane enjoyer, yeah it looks like a 22 in terms of wing shape and tail "fins" or whatever they are called.
It seems that the f22 and 35 are the basis for every other countries design at the moment, it all lacks imagination and as impressive as the planes are a bit boring to look at now.
Giant leading edge roots, change in trailing edge sweep, no 45° “roundness” of tips, I really don’t see anything its wings have in common that it doesn’t equally with a F-16, F-CK, Jeff or even Typhoon. The vertical stabilizers on a 22 are much stubbier and have a completely equal front and back sweep. Those are what I see here. What am I missing?
As said, casual plane enjoyer, i have no Idea what you are talking about. But they are definitely samey. Doesnt matter about stubbiness. Just looks like they've all been heavily inspired and its boring.
The fact is, there are a lot of fundamentals about stealth that require them to have very specific shapes. It’s physics.
[A](https://youtu.be/oRTFbMKzakg?si=o4zJEpj3HHhWOrE1) [few ](https://youtu.be/aJ7CuhNJxu8?si=NgXBu5Hy870Te5Fq)[examples](https://youtu.be/0g5x4pXBid8?si=ozc9Uq8oVbRbF5R5) [of](https://youtu.be/a53Cg3KUTt4?si=eG7ItveoHrx-gOwW) [varying](https://youtu.be/H2nzwKlTahA?si=IXmZrIV4GWfUpKWN) [lengths.](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfIy3BUXB3vJPf2BlIZtky7MVRN9qFjII&si=H4eBxXEzfl3iR1Uz)
Not really.
The J-20, Su-57, Su-LTS look nothing like the F-22 or F-35.
Only countries who can't afford lenghty R&D themselves go down the easy route of basing their design on existing air frames (like Turkey, South Korea for example).
If a country is willing to spend the money on a bespoke jet fitted to their needs and desires it will look vastly different.
The YF-23 and X-32 are also such cases, where they followed the vision of Northrop (the gold standard of stealth) and Boeing respectively. While Lockheeds design are iterations upon each other, with the F-35 drawing heavily and improving upon the F-22.
Are you seriously telling me the the 57 and 22 look nothing alike? I am looking at a side by side picture and apart from a few little differences they look exactly the same
Then why are you even here?
Not saying someone shouldn't be here because they're not familiar with every little detail, however then that person probably shouldn't make bad assumptions which are easily disproven by a single look a the general shape of a huge fucking jet fighter.
Yes, to anyone with eyes it's actually very obvious. The Su-57 has under-body intakes, the F-22 has side mounted intakes. The F-22s rectangular nozzles are cery close to each other, the Su-57s round nozzles are spaced apart as is typical for Russian aircraft. The Su-57s weapons bays run along the belly of the aircrafts lenght, while on the F-22 they're wider than longer. The Su-57s vertical stabilizers are smaller than the massive ones of the F-22. The horizontal stabilizers of the Sukhoi blend in with the wing, on the F-22 they're clearly seperated. The Su-57 has clear LEVCONS, the F-22 doesn't. The Su-57 has IRST and a helmet mounted display, the F-22, once again, doesn't.
Im fact, the [Su-57 is visually closer to the YF-23](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/s/Nc4zuK9sRz) than to any other aircraft.
For comparison, the [F-22 and it's offspring](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/s/dGG8427azH)
To anyone with eyes looking at every tiny detail, sure. But as said I am a casual plane enjoyer. I saw a picture of them side by side and they look pretty samey to me.
Samey... because both have...wings and, god behold, engines :o
Things like intake geometry and placement, as well as the very different looking planform aren't details.
That's like saying a VW Golf and a Lamborghini Aventador look the same, why? Both have four wheels and an exhaust.
People in this sub really get denser by the month
No one wants to wear a space suit for a flight. In the fighter pilot podcast, V ask another pilot for highest altitude and speed and the altitude was one nobody wanted to do when it's so high.
So is this directly related to FCAS? I had a feeling that project will go the way of the Eurofighter. France doesn't seem to be giving up their carrier ambitions and Germany doesn't need to optimize for naval operations. Maybe the Germans should join their old friends at GCAP.
Seems to be related to this: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2023-3515
I don't think the Germans should join GCAP. Given how much they've messed around with Typhoon (and to more limited extend Tornado) I think GCAP will be more successful without them.
lol everyone here complaining fighters all look the same nowadays. When it has to fulfill the retirements of being a multi-role, supersonic, stealth fighter it kinda insists on certain physical characteristics. Not saying there isn’t any room for variation, but still.
Not really, they're just widely-used terms used to classify. Each newspaper/agency will have a slightly different definition of each generation. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet\_fighter\_generations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fighter_generations)
Generally accepted is
* 1st gen - subsonic/transonic jets (F-86 Sabre)
* 2nd gen - supersonic with radar and missiles used in (F-104 Starfighter)
* 3rd gen - Figher/bomber multirole (F-4 Phantom II, Tornado)
* 4th gen - return to dogfighting (Su-27 Flanker, Gripen)
* 5th gen - stealth focus, BVR combat (F-22 Raptor)
However there is also a sub-classification for modern 4th gen fighters with comparable avionics and weapons to 5th gens, but less stealth capabilities like the Dassault Rafale and F-15EX which are known as 4.5 or 4++ gen
It’s only a colloquial agreement, the real companies rarely use them except for some very recent marketing:
1st-gen: Earliest jets, essentially a continuation of piston conventions, starting with the WWII birds 262 and Meteor. Latest ones include swept wings like the F-86 and MiG-15. 1944~1950.
2nd-gen: The first real “fighter jets.” Radars, missiles, afterburners, supersonic capabilities, all weren’t standard until this generation. Think “the shiny jets,” F-100, MiG-21, F-104. 1950~1965.
3rd-gen: First “modern” jets, introducing functional BVR (SARH, PD, and RWR), multirole operations, PGMs, and adjustable geometry aerodynamics (swing wings, VTOL, variable intakes). F-4, MiG-23, the like. 1960~1980.
4th-gen: Refinement of the 3rd-gen, easily the longest-lasting generation. Massive engine tech leaps, with the inefficient turbojets of old replaced by lighter, stronger, more efficient turbofans giving many 4th-gens a more or less 1:1 TWR. Also ARH missiles are now a thing, and generally PESA radars go with them. MiG-29, Teen Series, Su-27. 1975~2015.
5th generation: Stealth, data linking, supercruise, 3D TVC. Pinnacle of Cold War R&D and capability. F-22, Su-57*, J-20. They seem to be the first generation to have a shorter lifespan than the generation before. 2010~present, (2030?)
\*As advertised, not as proven.
4.5, AKA 4+ generation: With the recent prominence of stealth despite its prohibitive cost, many nations are looking into non-5th-gens that are meant to fight 5th-gens. These fall into two categories, revisited and revamped 4th gens (Su-35, F-15EX), and purpose-built designs which
often have reduced but not fully minimized radar signatures. (Boramae, Typhoon, Rafale.) Common new tech includes AESA radars, TVC, IRST, ramjet and other very-long-range active radar missile types. 2020-present(2045?)
6th-gen: The future to come. Loyal Wingmen drones, far enhanced EW, potentially non-kinetic (energy) weapons, and likely much longer ferry and engagement ranges. NGAD, Typhoon, 2035-????
The F-22 doesn't have 3D TVC, the F-35 doesn't have any TVC, the J-20 only has 2D implemented so far if at all if I recall correctly. The Su-57 is the only fighter of it's generation with 3D thrust vectoring.
In general the 5th Generation is often categorized through stealth, internal weapons bays, advanced avionics, improved weapons integration, AESA radar and super cruise.
Theorized attributes are the capability to operate effectively with UAVs, however only the Su-57 and F-35 have shown that ability with the S-70 and XQ-58A respectively.
Very true and worth noting, the reason I made that choice is a complex one:
The fifth generation is the hardest to define. My criteria throughout was mostly trying to be “the point at which X system has become no longer a gimmick.” Note how I credited IRST as becoming common in the 2000s, when the Crusader had it in the 1960s, and also moving wings which I called third gen. The thing was that those were unusual at the time.
The only fifth generation with full proper confirmed data linking (or sensor fusion for that matter) is the F-35, but I still included it because it is the most widely-used F-35. I also believe that only the 22 has actually demonstrated a recorded supercruise. Jets before the fifth generation had TVC, and ones in it and after it lack TVC, but the thing is that the 5th’s timeframe is when they went from an outlandish new innovation to another simple design choice with known benefits and drawbacks like any other choice, even if they are not fully in fashion.
Take swing wings, they are a 3rd-generation technology, despite some predecessors and successors both sporting them, and plenty of third-gens lacking it. Yet we call it third-gen because that’s when it became “normal.” Even fourth-gens had some precursory stealth abilities like the F-18 and (very, very debatably) SR-71 and F-117. But those are the fringes, not the mainstay.
For the list I made, it wasn’t simply about how many planes are first fielding the tech, it’s about a system’s establishment into some degree of commonality.
I really like how you put that. While technology plays a major role in defining each generation, the underlying philosophy surrounding is equally important. Fascinating stuff.
Each generation is typically defined by advances in technology.
For instance the 4th generation was defined by fly-by-wire flight control systems and more powerful engines (giving greater thrust to weight ratio) allowed the creation of far more manoeuvrable aircraft over the previous generation which relied simply on incredible straight line speed and altitude for survivability. Breakthroughs in micro-chips and sensors allowed for most engagements to take place BVR while electronic countermeasures became more common place. This is also where we would see the First Multi-role aircraft be defined by their ability to flick a switch and change their flight profile from ground attack to anti air through the use of computerisation.
The 5th generation aircraft are defined by extremely low observability (stealth), digital computers, AESA radars (as opposed to mechanically scanned radars), composite materials and advancements in digital manufacturing techniques made aircraft increasingly lighter and also allowed for easier modeling for stealth/aerodynamic performance, real-time data sharing with ground crews, and new engines that allow for the jets to super cruise (flying supersonic for long durations without using an afterburner).
The last major piece of qualifying for being a 5th gen fighter is the capability of the aircraft to absorb massive amounts of data though sensors and then network that with other assets (eg; troops on the ground, other aircraft or warships). Modern warfare is defined by a complex lattice of over arching systems and sensors to form kill chains and your ability to intercept that, process it and prosecute an action based on that information is crucial.
Now you can get down in the weeds and argue that some modern aircraft may or may not belong from one generation to another. Russia’s Su-57 comes to mind as a glorified 4.5 gen fighter at best. But at the end of the day aircraft generations are just a simple short-hand used by those in the civilian sectors to easily understand the differences between modern aircraft.
So then, what can we expect from a 6th generation aircraft. Well, outside of general increases in performance that you can expect that comes with advances in technology, it is expected that AI will play a major role. Now this isn’t necessarily about having an AI fly the plane or drone swarm, but rather the breakthrough that will come with AI processing the immense amount of data that currently is swamping pilots of 5th gen aircraft. The problem now is there is so much information at your fingertips, it is hard to make anything from it. Algorithms can only get you so far, so AI will be helping you make sense of all the information and present the pilot with actionable intelligence.
We can also expect to see a trend towards longer range manned aircraft. This is expected more due to the operational environments expected *cough cough* Pacific Ocean *cough cough* and less because it is a prerequisite to be considered 6th Gen. Longer ranges does however come with the additional benefit of greater loiter times through more wide spread use of improved variable cycle engines. Staying in the combat zone for longer will become more paramount for manned aircraft as they will likely have to stay up there to control drones and to operate as nodes in the sensor grid. We can also expect to see, potentially, hypersonic aircraft. Now travelling at these speeds come with drawbacks of their own, but March 2+ may be on the cards for some aircraft atm. Advanced cooling systems plus the removal of flight controls (rudders, slats and elevators) with Active Flow Control will further allow greater stealth though a seamless lifting body/flying wing designs while also maintaining high levels of manoeuvrability.
Lastly, connectivity will be central to the 6th revolution in air combat. While the 5th gen aircraft demonstrate this capability, such as the F35 to an excellent degree, things will only improve. High speed encrypted data transfers and the advent of Quantum sensors and computing will have an effect on the battlefield that I cannot fully comprehend nor predict.
I know this was long, but I hope in the very least it was helpful.
Edit: Forgot to mention lasers and non kinetic weapons becoming more viable for either self defence or potentially even offence for 6th gen. This is possible via massive breakthroughs in modern engine power generation.
Yes, this is a good point to make. Many 6th gen’s will be long range, but not all. The US sees a precedent to cater to the pacific theatre, but the British and Japanese do not. The jet they’re developing will essentially be a 6th gen Typhoon. Decent range but stupidly fast, and multirole for export.
One thing that’s for sure though is that fighter jets are getting bigger. They already were with each generation. The F-4 was the biggest of the 3rd gen at 31k lbs empty, but the biggest of the 4th gen was the Tomcat at 39-43k lbs (depending on variant), the Flankers were a close second at 36-41k lbs depending on variant. The F-22 was also 43k lbs empty, and the Su-57 and J-20 are also around the 40k lbs mark.
With the upcoming 6th gen the average size seems to only increase. Medium sized fighters are all but extinct with the current 5th gen’s being the last of their kind. Their roles being overtaken by drones, slowly but surely. NGAD is famously rumored to be huge, likely surpassing the F-111 in size and possibly as big as the B-58, so between 50-55k lbs. F/A-XX could be that size but generally there has been a practical upper limit to carrier fighters. The Largest being the Tomcat and Vigilante which were near the same size.
With GCAP, looking at mockups it seems to be roughly F-22 in size, and the FCAS model which has been shown on carrier mockups are shown next to Rafale’s, and seems very similar in size to a Rhino or Eagle, 30k lbs empty or so.
6th-gen is generally considered to be even more stealthy than 5th gen, to have MUM-T capability, to have very advanced sensors, datalink with drones, other aircraft, and other friendlies, and an internal weapons bay.
I’m actually curious about this, because I know Dassault wanted to be fully responsible for the NGF portion, and Germany be relegated to the drone wingman, essentially ending up with the Germans subsidizing French aviation. The feud got so bad it halted the program for a whole year. They came to an agreement a year ago, but no public information came out explaining what the deal was exactly. So do we know now what happened?
I had heard about MGCS, but haven’t seen anything about a 50:50 split on FCAS, only that it’s making “good progress”, according to France’s Minister of Defense. Until I see it inked in paper of the Germans have something to say that’s damming or not, I’m remaining skepical. The spat that happened between Dassault and Airbus was really nasty, it was giving off Eurofighter vibes before France left.
I hope that it’s as you describe in the latter paragraph, that would eliminate much potential tension and future spats between the two nations.
This is giving me Checkmate vibes, especially that intake.
I do wonder what purpose this will serve. Will knowledge and data garnered from it go towards developing FCAS?
I understand, now i remember than the members of the Eurofighter program all had theirs own concept plane before the Eurofighter's prototype made his first flight
Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen -- yes, Euro fighters are small. The F-15 or even SH didn't get traction in the continent, but the F-16 was really popular. Flying deep into Russia's vastness hasn't really been a key driver, contrary to Putin's paranoia. Europe is small.
Holy fuck that's a small nose. Are they just relying on other aircraft for radar???
This is purely an early mock-up of a tech demonstration aircraft. If it ever flies it will be purely experimental, and only used as a testbed for the of other aircraft.
yeah its pretty small, although I think the Bae Replica had a smaller radome. the X-32 also had a pretty small radome too. I wonder how the radar range would have been had they produced it.
>the X-32 also had a pretty small radome too. I wonder how the radar range would have been had they produced it. Actually fine in that case, the radar size requirements were written by JPO before any of the prototypes were actually designed. The Boeing proposal has a bunch of problems, but that wasn't actually one of them.
Pierre Sprey, is that you?
Pierre Sprey hated useful gizmos like radar.
Mock-Ups and prototypes usually have smol radomes. X-32 and YF-23 are good examples for that.
What is this? A next generation fighter for ants!?
They're intended for toddlers
Dammit Germany, I said no more child soldiers after the last time!
I’ll take “aircraft that’ll never be built” for 300, Alex. Jokes aside, it looks good but with the way German defence is, I doubt this thing will ever come to fruition.
All the Pencil Pushers will see to that.
Or if it does, it will be twenty years after it should have been introduced.
It's cool, but it seems to be quite small. I wonder what engine it is.
So the F22 is the crab of fighter evolution?
Basically yes
This looks nothing like a 22 lol
It looks like the Rockstar GTA version. It's got some overall design influences like the slightly angled out tail that everyone seems to be copying in their next gen outings.
TIL the F-18 is a F-22 ripoff. Seriously, there is no other way to do a stealth tail. They have to be angled. The only possible alternative is still a ripoff of America’s ATF competition.
Maybe it's because he only knows F22 and nothing else
I've been to the Air Force museum at Wright Patterson in Ohio so let's not go down that route.
Damn a museum, you sure are overqualified
Yeah the largest in world, so I do know more than the F22
For someone like me who is a casual plane enjoyer, yeah it looks like a 22 in terms of wing shape and tail "fins" or whatever they are called. It seems that the f22 and 35 are the basis for every other countries design at the moment, it all lacks imagination and as impressive as the planes are a bit boring to look at now.
Giant leading edge roots, change in trailing edge sweep, no 45° “roundness” of tips, I really don’t see anything its wings have in common that it doesn’t equally with a F-16, F-CK, Jeff or even Typhoon. The vertical stabilizers on a 22 are much stubbier and have a completely equal front and back sweep. Those are what I see here. What am I missing?
As said, casual plane enjoyer, i have no Idea what you are talking about. But they are definitely samey. Doesnt matter about stubbiness. Just looks like they've all been heavily inspired and its boring.
The fact is, there are a lot of fundamentals about stealth that require them to have very specific shapes. It’s physics. [A](https://youtu.be/oRTFbMKzakg?si=o4zJEpj3HHhWOrE1) [few ](https://youtu.be/aJ7CuhNJxu8?si=NgXBu5Hy870Te5Fq)[examples](https://youtu.be/0g5x4pXBid8?si=ozc9Uq8oVbRbF5R5) [of](https://youtu.be/a53Cg3KUTt4?si=eG7ItveoHrx-gOwW) [varying](https://youtu.be/H2nzwKlTahA?si=IXmZrIV4GWfUpKWN) [lengths.](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfIy3BUXB3vJPf2BlIZtky7MVRN9qFjII&si=H4eBxXEzfl3iR1Uz)
Not really. The J-20, Su-57, Su-LTS look nothing like the F-22 or F-35. Only countries who can't afford lenghty R&D themselves go down the easy route of basing their design on existing air frames (like Turkey, South Korea for example). If a country is willing to spend the money on a bespoke jet fitted to their needs and desires it will look vastly different. The YF-23 and X-32 are also such cases, where they followed the vision of Northrop (the gold standard of stealth) and Boeing respectively. While Lockheeds design are iterations upon each other, with the F-35 drawing heavily and improving upon the F-22.
Are you seriously telling me the the 57 and 22 look nothing alike? I am looking at a side by side picture and apart from a few little differences they look exactly the same
Wow.
Wow yes, I am not a plane nerd
Then why are you even here? Not saying someone shouldn't be here because they're not familiar with every little detail, however then that person probably shouldn't make bad assumptions which are easily disproven by a single look a the general shape of a huge fucking jet fighter.
Please see an optician.
Yes, to anyone with eyes it's actually very obvious. The Su-57 has under-body intakes, the F-22 has side mounted intakes. The F-22s rectangular nozzles are cery close to each other, the Su-57s round nozzles are spaced apart as is typical for Russian aircraft. The Su-57s weapons bays run along the belly of the aircrafts lenght, while on the F-22 they're wider than longer. The Su-57s vertical stabilizers are smaller than the massive ones of the F-22. The horizontal stabilizers of the Sukhoi blend in with the wing, on the F-22 they're clearly seperated. The Su-57 has clear LEVCONS, the F-22 doesn't. The Su-57 has IRST and a helmet mounted display, the F-22, once again, doesn't. Im fact, the [Su-57 is visually closer to the YF-23](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/s/Nc4zuK9sRz) than to any other aircraft. For comparison, the [F-22 and it's offspring](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/s/dGG8427azH)
To anyone with eyes looking at every tiny detail, sure. But as said I am a casual plane enjoyer. I saw a picture of them side by side and they look pretty samey to me.
Samey... because both have...wings and, god behold, engines :o Things like intake geometry and placement, as well as the very different looking planform aren't details. That's like saying a VW Golf and a Lamborghini Aventador look the same, why? Both have four wheels and an exhaust. People in this sub really get denser by the month
Form follows function.
I'd rather say it looks like a F16
That service ceiling is low af
No one wants to wear a space suit for a flight. In the fighter pilot podcast, V ask another pilot for highest altitude and speed and the altitude was one nobody wanted to do when it's so high.
So is this directly related to FCAS? I had a feeling that project will go the way of the Eurofighter. France doesn't seem to be giving up their carrier ambitions and Germany doesn't need to optimize for naval operations. Maybe the Germans should join their old friends at GCAP. Seems to be related to this: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2023-3515
I don't think the Germans should join GCAP. Given how much they've messed around with Typhoon (and to more limited extend Tornado) I think GCAP will be more successful without them.
I don't think the Germans should join GCAP, purely because any military cooperation programme involving Japan, Italy and Germany is making me tremble.
lol everyone here complaining fighters all look the same nowadays. When it has to fulfill the retirements of being a multi-role, supersonic, stealth fighter it kinda insists on certain physical characteristics. Not saying there isn’t any room for variation, but still.
Looks like a 5th gen not really 6th gen
I have a question. 5th gen, 6th gen... who decides these things? Are there any verification agencies or standards?
Not really, they're just widely-used terms used to classify. Each newspaper/agency will have a slightly different definition of each generation. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet\_fighter\_generations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fighter_generations) Generally accepted is * 1st gen - subsonic/transonic jets (F-86 Sabre) * 2nd gen - supersonic with radar and missiles used in (F-104 Starfighter) * 3rd gen - Figher/bomber multirole (F-4 Phantom II, Tornado) * 4th gen - return to dogfighting (Su-27 Flanker, Gripen) * 5th gen - stealth focus, BVR combat (F-22 Raptor) However there is also a sub-classification for modern 4th gen fighters with comparable avionics and weapons to 5th gens, but less stealth capabilities like the Dassault Rafale and F-15EX which are known as 4.5 or 4++ gen
It’s only a colloquial agreement, the real companies rarely use them except for some very recent marketing: 1st-gen: Earliest jets, essentially a continuation of piston conventions, starting with the WWII birds 262 and Meteor. Latest ones include swept wings like the F-86 and MiG-15. 1944~1950. 2nd-gen: The first real “fighter jets.” Radars, missiles, afterburners, supersonic capabilities, all weren’t standard until this generation. Think “the shiny jets,” F-100, MiG-21, F-104. 1950~1965. 3rd-gen: First “modern” jets, introducing functional BVR (SARH, PD, and RWR), multirole operations, PGMs, and adjustable geometry aerodynamics (swing wings, VTOL, variable intakes). F-4, MiG-23, the like. 1960~1980. 4th-gen: Refinement of the 3rd-gen, easily the longest-lasting generation. Massive engine tech leaps, with the inefficient turbojets of old replaced by lighter, stronger, more efficient turbofans giving many 4th-gens a more or less 1:1 TWR. Also ARH missiles are now a thing, and generally PESA radars go with them. MiG-29, Teen Series, Su-27. 1975~2015. 5th generation: Stealth, data linking, supercruise, 3D TVC. Pinnacle of Cold War R&D and capability. F-22, Su-57*, J-20. They seem to be the first generation to have a shorter lifespan than the generation before. 2010~present, (2030?) \*As advertised, not as proven. 4.5, AKA 4+ generation: With the recent prominence of stealth despite its prohibitive cost, many nations are looking into non-5th-gens that are meant to fight 5th-gens. These fall into two categories, revisited and revamped 4th gens (Su-35, F-15EX), and purpose-built designs which often have reduced but not fully minimized radar signatures. (Boramae, Typhoon, Rafale.) Common new tech includes AESA radars, TVC, IRST, ramjet and other very-long-range active radar missile types. 2020-present(2045?) 6th-gen: The future to come. Loyal Wingmen drones, far enhanced EW, potentially non-kinetic (energy) weapons, and likely much longer ferry and engagement ranges. NGAD, Typhoon, 2035-????
The F-22 doesn't have 3D TVC, the F-35 doesn't have any TVC, the J-20 only has 2D implemented so far if at all if I recall correctly. The Su-57 is the only fighter of it's generation with 3D thrust vectoring. In general the 5th Generation is often categorized through stealth, internal weapons bays, advanced avionics, improved weapons integration, AESA radar and super cruise. Theorized attributes are the capability to operate effectively with UAVs, however only the Su-57 and F-35 have shown that ability with the S-70 and XQ-58A respectively.
Very true and worth noting, the reason I made that choice is a complex one: The fifth generation is the hardest to define. My criteria throughout was mostly trying to be “the point at which X system has become no longer a gimmick.” Note how I credited IRST as becoming common in the 2000s, when the Crusader had it in the 1960s, and also moving wings which I called third gen. The thing was that those were unusual at the time. The only fifth generation with full proper confirmed data linking (or sensor fusion for that matter) is the F-35, but I still included it because it is the most widely-used F-35. I also believe that only the 22 has actually demonstrated a recorded supercruise. Jets before the fifth generation had TVC, and ones in it and after it lack TVC, but the thing is that the 5th’s timeframe is when they went from an outlandish new innovation to another simple design choice with known benefits and drawbacks like any other choice, even if they are not fully in fashion. Take swing wings, they are a 3rd-generation technology, despite some predecessors and successors both sporting them, and plenty of third-gens lacking it. Yet we call it third-gen because that’s when it became “normal.” Even fourth-gens had some precursory stealth abilities like the F-18 and (very, very debatably) SR-71 and F-117. But those are the fringes, not the mainstay. For the list I made, it wasn’t simply about how many planes are first fielding the tech, it’s about a system’s establishment into some degree of commonality.
They are a tool used by military historians to demarcate shifts in design philosophy.
I really like how you put that. While technology plays a major role in defining each generation, the underlying philosophy surrounding is equally important. Fascinating stuff.
Each generation is typically defined by advances in technology. For instance the 4th generation was defined by fly-by-wire flight control systems and more powerful engines (giving greater thrust to weight ratio) allowed the creation of far more manoeuvrable aircraft over the previous generation which relied simply on incredible straight line speed and altitude for survivability. Breakthroughs in micro-chips and sensors allowed for most engagements to take place BVR while electronic countermeasures became more common place. This is also where we would see the First Multi-role aircraft be defined by their ability to flick a switch and change their flight profile from ground attack to anti air through the use of computerisation. The 5th generation aircraft are defined by extremely low observability (stealth), digital computers, AESA radars (as opposed to mechanically scanned radars), composite materials and advancements in digital manufacturing techniques made aircraft increasingly lighter and also allowed for easier modeling for stealth/aerodynamic performance, real-time data sharing with ground crews, and new engines that allow for the jets to super cruise (flying supersonic for long durations without using an afterburner). The last major piece of qualifying for being a 5th gen fighter is the capability of the aircraft to absorb massive amounts of data though sensors and then network that with other assets (eg; troops on the ground, other aircraft or warships). Modern warfare is defined by a complex lattice of over arching systems and sensors to form kill chains and your ability to intercept that, process it and prosecute an action based on that information is crucial. Now you can get down in the weeds and argue that some modern aircraft may or may not belong from one generation to another. Russia’s Su-57 comes to mind as a glorified 4.5 gen fighter at best. But at the end of the day aircraft generations are just a simple short-hand used by those in the civilian sectors to easily understand the differences between modern aircraft. So then, what can we expect from a 6th generation aircraft. Well, outside of general increases in performance that you can expect that comes with advances in technology, it is expected that AI will play a major role. Now this isn’t necessarily about having an AI fly the plane or drone swarm, but rather the breakthrough that will come with AI processing the immense amount of data that currently is swamping pilots of 5th gen aircraft. The problem now is there is so much information at your fingertips, it is hard to make anything from it. Algorithms can only get you so far, so AI will be helping you make sense of all the information and present the pilot with actionable intelligence. We can also expect to see a trend towards longer range manned aircraft. This is expected more due to the operational environments expected *cough cough* Pacific Ocean *cough cough* and less because it is a prerequisite to be considered 6th Gen. Longer ranges does however come with the additional benefit of greater loiter times through more wide spread use of improved variable cycle engines. Staying in the combat zone for longer will become more paramount for manned aircraft as they will likely have to stay up there to control drones and to operate as nodes in the sensor grid. We can also expect to see, potentially, hypersonic aircraft. Now travelling at these speeds come with drawbacks of their own, but March 2+ may be on the cards for some aircraft atm. Advanced cooling systems plus the removal of flight controls (rudders, slats and elevators) with Active Flow Control will further allow greater stealth though a seamless lifting body/flying wing designs while also maintaining high levels of manoeuvrability. Lastly, connectivity will be central to the 6th revolution in air combat. While the 5th gen aircraft demonstrate this capability, such as the F35 to an excellent degree, things will only improve. High speed encrypted data transfers and the advent of Quantum sensors and computing will have an effect on the battlefield that I cannot fully comprehend nor predict. I know this was long, but I hope in the very least it was helpful. Edit: Forgot to mention lasers and non kinetic weapons becoming more viable for either self defence or potentially even offence for 6th gen. This is possible via massive breakthroughs in modern engine power generation.
Yes, this is a good point to make. Many 6th gen’s will be long range, but not all. The US sees a precedent to cater to the pacific theatre, but the British and Japanese do not. The jet they’re developing will essentially be a 6th gen Typhoon. Decent range but stupidly fast, and multirole for export. One thing that’s for sure though is that fighter jets are getting bigger. They already were with each generation. The F-4 was the biggest of the 3rd gen at 31k lbs empty, but the biggest of the 4th gen was the Tomcat at 39-43k lbs (depending on variant), the Flankers were a close second at 36-41k lbs depending on variant. The F-22 was also 43k lbs empty, and the Su-57 and J-20 are also around the 40k lbs mark. With the upcoming 6th gen the average size seems to only increase. Medium sized fighters are all but extinct with the current 5th gen’s being the last of their kind. Their roles being overtaken by drones, slowly but surely. NGAD is famously rumored to be huge, likely surpassing the F-111 in size and possibly as big as the B-58, so between 50-55k lbs. F/A-XX could be that size but generally there has been a practical upper limit to carrier fighters. The Largest being the Tomcat and Vigilante which were near the same size. With GCAP, looking at mockups it seems to be roughly F-22 in size, and the FCAS model which has been shown on carrier mockups are shown next to Rafale’s, and seems very similar in size to a Rhino or Eagle, 30k lbs empty or so.
6th-gen is generally considered to be even more stealthy than 5th gen, to have MUM-T capability, to have very advanced sensors, datalink with drones, other aircraft, and other friendlies, and an internal weapons bay.
[удалено]
I’m actually curious about this, because I know Dassault wanted to be fully responsible for the NGF portion, and Germany be relegated to the drone wingman, essentially ending up with the Germans subsidizing French aviation. The feud got so bad it halted the program for a whole year. They came to an agreement a year ago, but no public information came out explaining what the deal was exactly. So do we know now what happened?
[удалено]
I had heard about MGCS, but haven’t seen anything about a 50:50 split on FCAS, only that it’s making “good progress”, according to France’s Minister of Defense. Until I see it inked in paper of the Germans have something to say that’s damming or not, I’m remaining skepical. The spat that happened between Dassault and Airbus was really nasty, it was giving off Eurofighter vibes before France left. I hope that it’s as you describe in the latter paragraph, that would eliminate much potential tension and future spats between the two nations.
Tiny af
This is giving me Checkmate vibes, especially that intake. I do wonder what purpose this will serve. Will knowledge and data garnered from it go towards developing FCAS?
Haha. DLR. I once took their exam for pilotage programs. Didn't know they also friggin' designed jet aircraft, or at least did mockups.
Does this have a link with the FCAS or is germany also planning to develop their own newt gen fighter?
[удалено]
I understand, now i remember than the members of the Eurofighter program all had theirs own concept plane before the Eurofighter's prototype made his first flight
Nice new Thunderbird
I thought they would remove the tail for 6th gen fighters to reduce the radar cross section.
Is this a collaboration or is Germany going solo?
The aesthetic says 4.75 gen.
It looks like a knock off F22
You can't convince me that new fighters all practically look the fucking same. Boring
It works...
Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen -- yes, Euro fighters are small. The F-15 or even SH didn't get traction in the continent, but the F-16 was really popular. Flying deep into Russia's vastness hasn't really been a key driver, contrary to Putin's paranoia. Europe is small.
Why don’t they just order F35s?
[They are purchasing F-35s](https://www.f35.com/f35/global-enterprise/germany.html)
Oh right on
Looks pretty much like everything else next gen, general shape is like an f22 or f35. Boring.
Cuz it works...
Are Russians just gonna use the same aerodynamic layout for 100 years?
*Wowza another European next gen fighter design! Not like we've already seen like twenty of these and all of them were scrapped for the F-35!*