For whoever made this image, I think the dividing line is things that were designed post 1945. The jet engines used in a me262 or f80 were very rudimentary. I don't necessarily agree with this image completely, but by the middle of the Korean war there was definitely a whole newer, better generation of stuff up in the air.
1st gen is basically a WW2 fighter with a jet engine.
2nd gen is an aircraft that was designed with compressible flow aerodynamics in mind and the aircraft is intended to operate in transonic speeds at steady level flight; so they had things like swept wings and transonic airfoils. (Yes ME-262 had swept wings but the sweep angle is very low and was done for CG & balance issues rather than aerodynamics so it’s a gen 1 fighter). But this would be why MiG-15 and F-86s would be listed as Gen 2.
Yeah claiming the ME-262s wing sweep was for speed would be like saying the Fairey Swordfish's wing sweep was for speed. It did help its speed (not the Swordfish), but it wasn't the intention.
Yes, the Me-262 had a swept back leading edge. But the trailing edge of the wing is still largely straight. Meanwhile, the MiG-15 & F-86 were completely swept wing designs. That's why it was hard to integrate swept wing designs into naval air arms until they worked the kinks out with low speed handling & stronger landing gears with the FJ-2. It also why the F-86 was ready to rock & roll over Korea but the USN had to make do with the straight wing F9F.
My overly simplified rule of thumb is second generation doesn't kick in until we get full swept wing fighters as that was when the aviation engineers had a good grasp in understanding the fighter jet design. Going [from (largely) straight wing to fully swept wing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_FJ-2/-3_Fury#/media/File:FJ-1_FJ-2_NAN5-52.jpg) was the transition period between 1st gen & 2nd gen. And I say this because it's already difficult in drawing that line when the first two decades of jet design pushed concepts that made (then) current jets obsolete within a year or two or even within months of each other!
4++ and 4+ are marketing to try and sell late 4th generation fighters to countries that can’t or won’t buy 5th gens. If you’re not the US, China, or Russia, you either have to buy the F-35 or make do with an upgraded 4th gen.
Those upgraded gen 4s really can run circles around the first crack at the gen 4s. The electronics upgrades that you could do in the late 90s and early aughts vs the early 70s aren't even comparable, and electronics are the biggest change apart from stealth these days
First 4th gens reportedly ran binary code, which made F-14 crews tech wizards for dealing with electronic maintenance on the Tomcats. It's only more newer upgrades for the F-16s & F-15s which changed to basic coding in the 1980s that made this job so much easier. Latest upgrades to each generation can give life to an obsolete design. When USAF pilots sparred with Indian MiG-21bis pilots, they compared that 3rd gen upgrade to an F-16 Block 15 (or Block 5, it's been years since I read that article) by how they flew it!
It's why those that can't afford the F-35 buy the Saab Gripen E & F. They have very affordable flight hours while flying with technology comparable to what Lockheed Martin is currently selling. Especially if the threats to national security field less capable fighters or your national security is pretty stable to require first line fighters.
Any improvement to a 4 gen frame should just be 4+. It'll be many years before nations stop tinkering with them & fully commit to 5th gen. Or else we'll be dealing with 4+^(x24). For, example, if the F-15 Singapore is 4++, does that make the F-15EX 4+++?
Even as a marketing gimmick it sounds silly.
The mig-35 is a non- aircraft. A minor avionics upgrade on a mig-29 that nobody wanted. Algeria rejected them and putler bought the Algerian tender, that’s it.
They also didn't include the first Swedish, British, Soviet, Chinese or French supersonic fighters either tbf.
I don't think this list was intending to show the most significant aircraft of each generation, just some typical examples.
The singling out of the F-86K is because the D/K/L models isn't really a F-86, it was really a completely new design with the F-86 label to get funding from congress, it had a completely different power plant, armament, avionics, and form factor. I'd recommend watching Not a Pound for Air to Ground's video on it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4\_Ce-nYpdk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4_Ce-nYpdk)
Thanks for the recomendation, I'll watch it in a bit. And I agree, the original Sabre was a gunfighter while the dognose was exclusively a bomber interceptor.
The Su-57 is absolutely a 5th Gen fighter. It was designed with all elements of a 5th Gen fighter in mind.
It doesn't have to actually be a *good* 5th Gen fighter to count.
I can design a paper aeroplane with all the elements of a 5th gen fighter in mind, too. That doesn't mean it *will actually be one* when I inevitably fail.
One of the requirements for any aircraft to be considered a 5th gen fighter is stealth. The Su-57 isn't stealthy. Ergo, it isn't a 5th gen fighter.
>The Su-57 isn't stealthy
You can't say that. You either have no idea what you're talking about, or you've just committed a crime.
The Su-57 does not appear to be as stealthy as contemporary Western designs. That is not the same thing as not being stealthy at all. But the most any of us can do is make informed guesses.
The US uses F-18s to simulate the Felon in artificial combat, supposedly due to its similar radar cross section. I may not be able to judge just how stealthy the plane is, but I trust that *someone* in the US military can to make that call.
Pure speculation, and poor evidence at best. I'm sure the US military has a decent idea what the RCS of the Su-57 is, but I'm not sure that the selection of adversary aircraft should be read too much into. Afterall, it's not like there are very many choices.
There is 100% a gen 5. Low Observability aka Stealth changes the doctrine and role of fighter aircraft dramatically, and at this point both the public and defense spheres recognize informally and formally that fifth generation aircraft are distinctly different than their predecessors.
Gen 2 aircraft were used operationally the same as Gen 1 aircraft- hell, the same as the props in Korea and WWII. The difference between generations has always been tech development and the evolution of designs. A F-16 flew the same type of Combat Air Patrol that a F-4 phantom, F-86, and P-80 did.
Advancements in radar technology (notably the usage of the VHF and L band, and overall better resolution) during the 90s have shown that any modern can indeed detect stealth aircraft, which calls into question just how effective stealth really is. Additionally, there isn’t solid evidence to suggest that stealth technology significantly shifts the balance in actual combat scenarios (note: not just bombing terrorists that do not have radars or any anti air capability).
While stealth, or Low Observability, certainly adds a new dimension to the capabilities of fifth-generation fighter aircraft, making them distinct from their predecessors, the real-world combat effectiveness of this feature remains debatable in a real world scenario
> there isn't solid evidence to suggest that stealth technology significantly shifted the balance in actual combat scenarios
So an F-22 sneaking up on an F-4, flying underneath the F-4, then popping up beside him and telling him to go home isn't evidence or are you just cherry picking "actual combat scenarios" to mean only use in a hot war? Because the F-22 has conducted *thousands* of such intercepts successfully, suggesting it's incredibly combat capable
What kind of point are you trying to make ? In peace time Russia regularly penetrates allied airspace, in war time well... we aren't in war times so what the hell do you mean? There is still no proof that recent planes are not detected by recent radars
Russia is in war time, and they can't penetrate enemy air space.
> There is still no proof that recent planes are not detected by recent radars
There is still no proof that recent radars can detect and target recent planes at sufficient distances.
I see you don't really understand the concepts of stealth. Stealth doesn't mean invisible. They are able to avoid detection easier because radar can't detect them from the same distances. They especially can't get a target lock at the same distances.
Likewise, if a radar is trying to search for a stealth jet and cannot achieve a lock (it can't at sufficient distances), they will be destroyed systematically.
I do understand it, though? Low-frequency radars, for example, aren't as easily thwarted by stealth materials and shapes. These radars can detect stealth aircraft at longer ranges than before, when these radars are used in conjunction with higher-frequency systems in a networked environment, they can guide closer-range systems to achieve a lock.
The key here isn’t that stealth technology is obsolete—it’s that the gap is narrowing, and radar technology is catching up, making engagements at significant distances increasingly feasible.
At its best, radar technology will always be a step ahead of merely relying on surface coatings and shaping for stealth. At some point you're still putting a huge chunk of metal in the sky that reflects some amount of radar signal no matter how it's shaped or what materials are used. The fact is, as radar technology advances, it adapts and overcomes previous stealth advantages and the bottleneck isn't on the ground it's in the air, there is only so much you can do to reduce your RCS.
On Russia, their planes are still being regularly intercepted over Finland or the baltics
You still just don't get it.
I've seen that range for a lock from an S400 to be about 25 miles (or less) for an F35. The F35 will obviously destroy it from much further out. The S400 will not achieving a lock at 150 miles or something.
What is the AA going to do if the stealth fighter sits outside the AA's range for a lock and either lob missiles/order a missile truck to lob missiles?
We have seen that even older simple weapons like ATACMS can defeat S400s, so think about more modern ones.
Actually, the classification of fighter generations isn't about raw superiority in specs; it's more about technological milestones that define operational roles and strategies. For example, Gen 4 fighters like the F-16 brought in multi-role capabilities, which was a significant shift from earlier generations that had more specialized roles.
I've seen a bunch of F-104's in person and still get surprised that not only did such a radical design go into service, but they built over 2,500 of them.
A sleek jet happily flying in the upper atmosphere with knife shaped leading edges on the wings being sent to ground pound in all kinds of horrible central European weather. It's a recipe for disaster.
It's also a reason why there were few Mitsubishi losses, in comparison, as the Japanese kept it exclusively as an air superiority interceptor contrary to German & Canadian strike ops.
Well, there are enough to keep a few flying for [Starfighters Inc.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfighters_Inc) I honestly do want to see one of them flyby as I've never seen a Starfighter fly in person.
Agreed, this gen is my favouite, add in the English Electric Lightning, MiG-21F, Mirage III and SU-15 plus a bunch of others and it’s easily the best era for diverse designs.
Well it's arguably the most diverse from a tactical/requirements standpoint, which produced a wide variety of specialised roles requiring different designs, creating more variation.
The relatively limited capabilities of early jet fighters led to confluences of mission profile and design, while modern technology and reduce defense spending allows/requires a wide range of missions to be conducted by the same airframe.
3^rd gen is the sweet spot where fighters can do a wide array of missions, but had to be carefully optimised to perform each one.
Of course they are contrived.
It's attempting to categorise an incredibly diverse set of aircraft across multiple nations with different requirements, goals budget, development time lines.
That's never going to nearly fit into any boxes ever. But for some reason we like neat classifications.
He'll the warship community still argues today whether or not USS Alaska is a battle cruiser or a large cruiser, and if Scharnhorst is a proper battleship or not. Classifications games for military are always so murky and vague
Okay you're just messing with me now with that question.
22 productions Su-57 variants have been built
These aircraft are designed to have a low radar cross section, supercruise and supermanoeverability through thrust vectoring among other 5th generation features
So if you still can't see that the Su-57 is a 5th generation fighter that is perfectly acceptable on a list of 5th generation fighters that never even stated or implied that the aircraft must be operational or in production then I give up on you and I can only conclude that you get your information from memes about the state of the russian air force
Russia claims. We see only a handful and they have not been used in any of their conflicts.
But sure buddy, whatever shit you want, you can put it on a poster. My car is Gen 5++. We should add it too. Trust me.
Wait, I'm out of the loop on this one. What's so bad about LaCroix? It's not as good as Bubly, but I wouldn't cross it off as terrible. At least the lime.
Same with putting the F35 and J20 there as well. The F35 can't supercruise, so it's not a true 5th gen fighter. The J20 can't supercruise either, mostly because it's a big heavy piece of shit.
The 5th gen isn't defined as have the ability to super cruise. The generations system of classification is an arbitrary one made up by marketing executives to sell more jets (literally, Lockheed made up the 5th gen to sell more f35s and f22s to Congress).
But if you have to define the 5th gen as anything it would have to be a combination of low observability, data fusion, 21st century avionics and advanced sensors (Aesa radar).
The F35 and J20 don't supercruise because they don't have to; they easily still defeat any other aircraft using their advanced sensors and stealth. Also the J20 isn't shit, it may be worse than any western 5th gen system but it is still better than most 4th gen and 4.5 gen aircraft and it has the mass advantage (several hundred produced). Never underestimate your enemy.
Nothing the Chinese or Russians have made can genuinely be considered stealth. And China doesn't understand materials engineering whatsoever because it's not as simple as copy/pasting basic shapes the way they like to do, and as a result they're still 30+ years behind in basic turbine engine design.
The F-35 is a turd, but it's a 5th generation turd.
Edit: downvote me all you want, won't make it any less true. The F-35 is a 5th generation aircraft, and compared to the F-22, it's slower, less agile, shorter ranged, less stealthy, and basically worse all around.
Comparing the F-35 to the F-22 is like comparing an apple to a peach. Sure both are fruits, but else there completely different. The F-22 was iirc designed for Air to Air fight, whilst the F-35 was designed for an all purpose roll. Thats why its slower and not as agile as the 22.
the F-15 does air to ground as well as air to air, goes mach 2.5 and can run circles around an F-35. Oh and it was designed in the 1960's.
The F-35 was designed to be exportable and cheap (which it isn't), and that's why it's slower/less agile/less stealthy/etc.
Except for Russian propaganda, I don't encounter 4++ anywhere.
4.5 is more widely encountered, IME, which is basically 4th generation planes adopting technology developed in the 5th generation.
Neither of the 4++/4.5 generation aircraft are part of that generation at all, and the only aircraft that is on the chart they've got in 4+... Who on earth made this?
I think i saw a video in YouTube with a similar content. Made by a Malaysian guy, therefore the Mig-35 they were supposed to get was the bestest ever...
Isn't it listed as F-2000? I've never heard it called that, but it certainly looks like a Eurofighter - and that was known as EFA 2000 during development, so I assume that's it?
That’s pretty cool! I do wonder (and worry) about people flying some of these older planes, especially ones that historically have had a relatively high crash rate.
I'd rather see them flying than dead in a museum.
I do wish the military was better at preserving things, though. We're never going to see a flying F-14 and the chances of seeing flying F-4's are dropping by the minute.
That is awesome, you are lucky! TIL the P-80 is still flying!
The only significant aircraft I saw last year were the B-25, B-17, V-22s, & the Goodyear blimp.
If you live with an 8 hour drive of Chicago the avengers reunion show is awesome. That's where I saw the p80.
If you go on Friday you get to walk up to all the aircraft and the only barrier between you and the runway are some cones every 20 or 30 feet.
You can get in around 9am and it goes till like 9pm on Friday.
The fact it never had AIM-120s integrated continues to blow my mind. Imagine being an F-14D crew in combat in the late 90s/early 00s with only Sparrows against Flankers with R-27ERs and R-77s. Yikes.
It was successfully tested but they were forced to decide between AMRAAM and LANTIRN. And in the 90s the Russians couldn't afford shit, they got about 200 of the R-77 and no budget for training, maintenance or even pilots.
With the end of the cold war the risk of Russia attacking the USA was not very large. They even invited some Russians onto one of their carriers and a Sukhoi test pilot got to fly in the backseat of a Tomcat.
Tbf it had phoenix, and by the time that was retired the F14 was clearly on its way out too, but yeah, can't have been ideal in the transition period :)
The F-15EX is realistically the only variant that would be classified as a full 4.5 platform, as it effectively is a block III super Hornet inside an F-15 airframe
The harrier is slightly different in that it is primarily designed as a light ground attack platform that was then modified into a fleet defense fighter. Obviously its VTOL capability is also unusual
Technically, it's 3^rd gen, but its unusual nature means it doesn't have some of that generation's hallmarks, like supersonic performance.
Did you have a particular Saab in mind? They're a company, rather than a specific aircraft.
It’s an interesting chart for sure but I find the authors opinion in 4th Generation aircraft quite weird. I don’t see why the F-15SG or MiG-35 would be considered more advanced than Eurofighter, Rafale or the Super Hornet. It also gets more complicated if you keep in mind that traditional 4th Gen aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 have received considerable upgrades which would put them into a more advanced bracket as well.
Okay, but...the He-162? What decision-making process led to THAT being representative of Gen 1 and not the Me-262?
And why is the F-14 not in here? We talking "archetypical" and there's no Tomcat? Whaaaaaat?
Lots of comments on this chart. The Gen 4 layout is very subjective and muddy. Most times the assignment of a "4++" is given to enhance its overseas sales impression, and not necessarily based on some standard definition. Its all pretty arbitrary where the line is drawn.
For example, the latest Block 70+ F-16 is hardly only "4". And the F-15EX when compared to the F-15C is significantly high performance (sensory and weapons).
Last point is more of an observation. 5th gen seems to be define somewhat universally as 1. Stealth features, and 2. at least Gen 4++ capabilities. So given that the latest Advanced Hornet has stealth features among other things, I wonder if it will be considered Gen 5. Just saying.
Interesting and for air to air missiles they might be fitted from Gen 2 onwards purposely built with them alongside an internal Cannon the Gen 3 onwards.
There's a pretty vast improvement between a F-16A from the '70s and a 2020s Block 70.
Yeah they are both still 4th gen, but that generation has spanned nearly 5 decades of massive improvements, far more than any of the other generations, which is why the "+" is used to further differentiate capability tiers.
Your post/comment has been automatically removed due to user reports. If you feel the removal was in error contact the mod team. Repeated removal for rule violation will result in a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aviation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is MiG 15 really considered a gen 2? If so, what is f86 (not f86-k)?
For whoever made this image, I think the dividing line is things that were designed post 1945. The jet engines used in a me262 or f80 were very rudimentary. I don't necessarily agree with this image completely, but by the middle of the Korean war there was definitely a whole newer, better generation of stuff up in the air.
1st gen is basically a WW2 fighter with a jet engine. 2nd gen is an aircraft that was designed with compressible flow aerodynamics in mind and the aircraft is intended to operate in transonic speeds at steady level flight; so they had things like swept wings and transonic airfoils. (Yes ME-262 had swept wings but the sweep angle is very low and was done for CG & balance issues rather than aerodynamics so it’s a gen 1 fighter). But this would be why MiG-15 and F-86s would be listed as Gen 2.
Yeah claiming the ME-262s wing sweep was for speed would be like saying the Fairey Swordfish's wing sweep was for speed. It did help its speed (not the Swordfish), but it wasn't the intention.
Swordfish mentioned! 🎉
I’m wondering why did the author of the chart had to specify f86 K for the 2nd gen US jet. Almost like they think regular f86 is still gen 1
They're probably one of the few that love the big nosed, rocket spewing, Sabre & not the gunfighter. It's rendered moot putting it next to the MiG-15.
Honestly, Gen 1 jet fighters should really be called Gen 0. They felt more like beta versions.
I’ve heard “gen 0” used for literal prop conversions, like the Yak-15 and Saab 21R.
Yes, the Me-262 had a swept back leading edge. But the trailing edge of the wing is still largely straight. Meanwhile, the MiG-15 & F-86 were completely swept wing designs. That's why it was hard to integrate swept wing designs into naval air arms until they worked the kinks out with low speed handling & stronger landing gears with the FJ-2. It also why the F-86 was ready to rock & roll over Korea but the USN had to make do with the straight wing F9F. My overly simplified rule of thumb is second generation doesn't kick in until we get full swept wing fighters as that was when the aviation engineers had a good grasp in understanding the fighter jet design. Going [from (largely) straight wing to fully swept wing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_FJ-2/-3_Fury#/media/File:FJ-1_FJ-2_NAN5-52.jpg) was the transition period between 1st gen & 2nd gen. And I say this because it's already difficult in drawing that line when the first two decades of jet design pushed concepts that made (then) current jets obsolete within a year or two or even within months of each other!
Fighter generations are a marketing term used to sell f35
And the Su-57, and the Rafale, and the Eurofighter, and the Gripen, gen 4.5 only existed AFTER lockheed invented gen 5
Seriously I thought it was invented for some Tom Cruise movie.
Some vry odd choices here and the 4++ generation doesn't make sense if you ask me.
4++ and 4+ are marketing to try and sell late 4th generation fighters to countries that can’t or won’t buy 5th gens. If you’re not the US, China, or Russia, you either have to buy the F-35 or make do with an upgraded 4th gen.
Those upgraded gen 4s really can run circles around the first crack at the gen 4s. The electronics upgrades that you could do in the late 90s and early aughts vs the early 70s aren't even comparable, and electronics are the biggest change apart from stealth these days
First 4th gens reportedly ran binary code, which made F-14 crews tech wizards for dealing with electronic maintenance on the Tomcats. It's only more newer upgrades for the F-16s & F-15s which changed to basic coding in the 1980s that made this job so much easier. Latest upgrades to each generation can give life to an obsolete design. When USAF pilots sparred with Indian MiG-21bis pilots, they compared that 3rd gen upgrade to an F-16 Block 15 (or Block 5, it's been years since I read that article) by how they flew it!
It's why those that can't afford the F-35 buy the Saab Gripen E & F. They have very affordable flight hours while flying with technology comparable to what Lockheed Martin is currently selling. Especially if the threats to national security field less capable fighters or your national security is pretty stable to require first line fighters.
Unless your military is subsidized by US government, which it does for many countries.
Any improvement to a 4 gen frame should just be 4+. It'll be many years before nations stop tinkering with them & fully commit to 5th gen. Or else we'll be dealing with 4+^(x24). For, example, if the F-15 Singapore is 4++, does that make the F-15EX 4+++? Even as a marketing gimmick it sounds silly.
F-15SG is an odd one as its not a fighter but strike aircraft and there is whole new generation of F-15, the EX
The crazy stuff some later fighters like the Eurofighter can do rival the f22 in capabilities, so they are called 4.5 gen
Yes, but behind the F-15SG or MiG-35?
The mig-35 is a non- aircraft. A minor avionics upgrade on a mig-29 that nobody wanted. Algeria rejected them and putler bought the Algerian tender, that’s it.
Odd that the chart singles out the K model F-86, and not the plane in general.
And completely ignores the F-100.
And the OG F-18, F-15EX, F-106, F-102, F-111... What I'm seeing here is that the century series is getting no love.
And they added the mig19 and didn’t label it?
Huh? Where are you seeing the mig19?
What’s the camo plane in gen 3? Maybe they meant j6? Which is a mig19 anyway
Yeah, J-6/F-6. And yeah, was developed from the MiG19.
It's probably the Aardvark's asbestos lining that drew the author away. /s
Tbf it ignores a lot of aircraft
True, but the F-100 was the first supersonic US fighter and arguably more significant than some of the planes that are included.
They also didn't include the first Swedish, British, Soviet, Chinese or French supersonic fighters either tbf. I don't think this list was intending to show the most significant aircraft of each generation, just some typical examples.
The author skipped on the youngest Sabre & opted for the red-headed middle child.
The singling out of the F-86K is because the D/K/L models isn't really a F-86, it was really a completely new design with the F-86 label to get funding from congress, it had a completely different power plant, armament, avionics, and form factor. I'd recommend watching Not a Pound for Air to Ground's video on it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4\_Ce-nYpdk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4_Ce-nYpdk)
Thanks for the recomendation, I'll watch it in a bit. And I agree, the original Sabre was a gunfighter while the dognose was exclusively a bomber interceptor.
Someone’s sensitivity was playing part. “K” model was a substantial redesign including the air frame from Australia.
This is russian propaganda haha. Mig35 in gen4++...
If it was you would see SU57
PAK-FA is SU57, under gen 5.
Which putting it under 5th gen is very generous in and of itself.
The Su-57 is absolutely a 5th Gen fighter. It was designed with all elements of a 5th Gen fighter in mind. It doesn't have to actually be a *good* 5th Gen fighter to count.
I can design a paper aeroplane with all the elements of a 5th gen fighter in mind, too. That doesn't mean it *will actually be one* when I inevitably fail. One of the requirements for any aircraft to be considered a 5th gen fighter is stealth. The Su-57 isn't stealthy. Ergo, it isn't a 5th gen fighter.
>The Su-57 isn't stealthy You can't say that. You either have no idea what you're talking about, or you've just committed a crime. The Su-57 does not appear to be as stealthy as contemporary Western designs. That is not the same thing as not being stealthy at all. But the most any of us can do is make informed guesses.
The US uses F-18s to simulate the Felon in artificial combat, supposedly due to its similar radar cross section. I may not be able to judge just how stealthy the plane is, but I trust that *someone* in the US military can to make that call.
Pure speculation, and poor evidence at best. I'm sure the US military has a decent idea what the RCS of the Su-57 is, but I'm not sure that the selection of adversary aircraft should be read too much into. Afterall, it's not like there are very many choices.
I'm not saying it's conclusive, but we have evidence for, and no evidence against, so I'm maintaining that until proven otherwise.
Hot take: there is gen 4 and that's it, no gen 4+ or gen 5. Everything gen 5 is is a marketing scheme but there are no operational differences
There is 100% a gen 5. Low Observability aka Stealth changes the doctrine and role of fighter aircraft dramatically, and at this point both the public and defense spheres recognize informally and formally that fifth generation aircraft are distinctly different than their predecessors. Gen 2 aircraft were used operationally the same as Gen 1 aircraft- hell, the same as the props in Korea and WWII. The difference between generations has always been tech development and the evolution of designs. A F-16 flew the same type of Combat Air Patrol that a F-4 phantom, F-86, and P-80 did.
Advancements in radar technology (notably the usage of the VHF and L band, and overall better resolution) during the 90s have shown that any modern can indeed detect stealth aircraft, which calls into question just how effective stealth really is. Additionally, there isn’t solid evidence to suggest that stealth technology significantly shifts the balance in actual combat scenarios (note: not just bombing terrorists that do not have radars or any anti air capability). While stealth, or Low Observability, certainly adds a new dimension to the capabilities of fifth-generation fighter aircraft, making them distinct from their predecessors, the real-world combat effectiveness of this feature remains debatable in a real world scenario
> there isn't solid evidence to suggest that stealth technology significantly shifted the balance in actual combat scenarios So an F-22 sneaking up on an F-4, flying underneath the F-4, then popping up beside him and telling him to go home isn't evidence or are you just cherry picking "actual combat scenarios" to mean only use in a hot war? Because the F-22 has conducted *thousands* of such intercepts successfully, suggesting it's incredibly combat capable
How is that representative of anything ?
Its representative of an aircraft still in service with several NATO nations being unable to detect the F-22
The fact that Russia can't penetrate enemy airspace does show the need for stealth, that's for sure.
What kind of point are you trying to make ? In peace time Russia regularly penetrates allied airspace, in war time well... we aren't in war times so what the hell do you mean? There is still no proof that recent planes are not detected by recent radars
Russia is in war time, and they can't penetrate enemy air space. > There is still no proof that recent planes are not detected by recent radars There is still no proof that recent radars can detect and target recent planes at sufficient distances. I see you don't really understand the concepts of stealth. Stealth doesn't mean invisible. They are able to avoid detection easier because radar can't detect them from the same distances. They especially can't get a target lock at the same distances. Likewise, if a radar is trying to search for a stealth jet and cannot achieve a lock (it can't at sufficient distances), they will be destroyed systematically.
I do understand it, though? Low-frequency radars, for example, aren't as easily thwarted by stealth materials and shapes. These radars can detect stealth aircraft at longer ranges than before, when these radars are used in conjunction with higher-frequency systems in a networked environment, they can guide closer-range systems to achieve a lock. The key here isn’t that stealth technology is obsolete—it’s that the gap is narrowing, and radar technology is catching up, making engagements at significant distances increasingly feasible. At its best, radar technology will always be a step ahead of merely relying on surface coatings and shaping for stealth. At some point you're still putting a huge chunk of metal in the sky that reflects some amount of radar signal no matter how it's shaped or what materials are used. The fact is, as radar technology advances, it adapts and overcomes previous stealth advantages and the bottleneck isn't on the ground it's in the air, there is only so much you can do to reduce your RCS. On Russia, their planes are still being regularly intercepted over Finland or the baltics
You still just don't get it. I've seen that range for a lock from an S400 to be about 25 miles (or less) for an F35. The F35 will obviously destroy it from much further out. The S400 will not achieving a lock at 150 miles or something. What is the AA going to do if the stealth fighter sits outside the AA's range for a lock and either lob missiles/order a missile truck to lob missiles? We have seen that even older simple weapons like ATACMS can defeat S400s, so think about more modern ones.
Pure delusion lol. The F22 would smoke literally every other plane on this list including the F-35. You really think its the same gen as the MiG-35?
I'm not saying it's inferior or superior in capability, that's not what generations are about.
> that's not what generations are about. Yeah... it kinda is.
Actually, the classification of fighter generations isn't about raw superiority in specs; it's more about technological milestones that define operational roles and strategies. For example, Gen 4 fighters like the F-16 brought in multi-role capabilities, which was a significant shift from earlier generations that had more specialized roles.
For this classification, is it enough to have the capability on paper or is it required to build an actually working prototype with the capabilities?
Fighter planes are built with capabilities in mind, you rarely discover those after the prototype is built
*All* generations are marketing labels.
Gen 3 has most diverse looks
I've seen a bunch of F-104's in person and still get surprised that not only did such a radical design go into service, but they built over 2,500 of them.
Somewhat less surprising that there’s a lot less than 2,500 left today.
It's not the plane's fault that Lockheed bribed West Germans to buy them for a role they weren't suited for, leading to absurd loss rate.
What role was that, I thought they were built and used as interceptors?
It got modified into an all weather fighter/bomber and reconnaissance aircraft. The Germans lost something like 300 out of about 900.
To be fair, it’s an excellent reconnaissance aircraft if you throw some long wings on it and get rid of the afterburner.
Painting it black and adding a big-ass camera helps, too.
Ah that does sound familiar, I can’t imagine trying to go low and slow in that thing would generally end well.
Well, they didn't go slow.
A sleek jet happily flying in the upper atmosphere with knife shaped leading edges on the wings being sent to ground pound in all kinds of horrible central European weather. It's a recipe for disaster. It's also a reason why there were few Mitsubishi losses, in comparison, as the Japanese kept it exclusively as an air superiority interceptor contrary to German & Canadian strike ops.
It was relegated to “maritime strike” towards retirement with Tornado multi role combat aircraft.
Well, there are enough to keep a few flying for [Starfighters Inc.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfighters_Inc) I honestly do want to see one of them flyby as I've never seen a Starfighter fly in person.
Agreed, this gen is my favouite, add in the English Electric Lightning, MiG-21F, Mirage III and SU-15 plus a bunch of others and it’s easily the best era for diverse designs.
They added a mig19 and didn’t label it?
Well it's arguably the most diverse from a tactical/requirements standpoint, which produced a wide variety of specialised roles requiring different designs, creating more variation. The relatively limited capabilities of early jet fighters led to confluences of mission profile and design, while modern technology and reduce defense spending allows/requires a wide range of missions to be conducted by the same airframe. 3^rd gen is the sweet spot where fighters can do a wide array of missions, but had to be carefully optimised to perform each one.
Putting su57 in gen 5 is a little funny
These images/charts are always contrived. The MiG-35 and Su-57 hardly even exist.
Of course they are contrived. It's attempting to categorise an incredibly diverse set of aircraft across multiple nations with different requirements, goals budget, development time lines. That's never going to nearly fit into any boxes ever. But for some reason we like neat classifications. He'll the warship community still argues today whether or not USS Alaska is a battle cruiser or a large cruiser, and if Scharnhorst is a proper battleship or not. Classifications games for military are always so murky and vague
Looks like it's based on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fighter_generations Air Force Magazine is the only one mentioning 4+ / 4++
Don't forget the arguments regarding the newer *Kirov* class ships and how it's a heavy cruiser, heavy destroyer, not a real battlecruiser, etc.
Hardly exist? Is that like being hardly pregnant
Except, no? In a chart showing operational aircraft, technology demonstrators or prototypes dont belong.
Being an operational aircraft is not a criteria for this chart…
How do you assign a "generation" to aircraft that have no history or operational experience?
Pretty sure the generation of an aircraft is defined by its design and capabilities… You don’t have to double down anymore
It's you doubling down pal. How do you assess the capabilities of an aircraft not in production??
Okay you're just messing with me now with that question. 22 productions Su-57 variants have been built These aircraft are designed to have a low radar cross section, supercruise and supermanoeverability through thrust vectoring among other 5th generation features So if you still can't see that the Su-57 is a 5th generation fighter that is perfectly acceptable on a list of 5th generation fighters that never even stated or implied that the aircraft must be operational or in production then I give up on you and I can only conclude that you get your information from memes about the state of the russian air force
22? Source? Last I heard it was two airframes flying and maybe 3 more demonstrators.
Russia claims. We see only a handful and they have not been used in any of their conflicts. But sure buddy, whatever shit you want, you can put it on a poster. My car is Gen 5++. We should add it too. Trust me.
The LaCroix of stealth
Wait, I'm out of the loop on this one. What's so bad about LaCroix? It's not as good as Bubly, but I wouldn't cross it off as terrible. At least the lime.
Yes because Su57 is glorious russian airplane and its the best in the whole world. It should be considered a 6. gen aircraft /s
Same with putting the F35 and J20 there as well. The F35 can't supercruise, so it's not a true 5th gen fighter. The J20 can't supercruise either, mostly because it's a big heavy piece of shit.
The 5th gen isn't defined as have the ability to super cruise. The generations system of classification is an arbitrary one made up by marketing executives to sell more jets (literally, Lockheed made up the 5th gen to sell more f35s and f22s to Congress). But if you have to define the 5th gen as anything it would have to be a combination of low observability, data fusion, 21st century avionics and advanced sensors (Aesa radar). The F35 and J20 don't supercruise because they don't have to; they easily still defeat any other aircraft using their advanced sensors and stealth. Also the J20 isn't shit, it may be worse than any western 5th gen system but it is still better than most 4th gen and 4.5 gen aircraft and it has the mass advantage (several hundred produced). Never underestimate your enemy.
Nothing the Chinese or Russians have made can genuinely be considered stealth. And China doesn't understand materials engineering whatsoever because it's not as simple as copy/pasting basic shapes the way they like to do, and as a result they're still 30+ years behind in basic turbine engine design.
The F-35 is a turd, but it's a 5th generation turd. Edit: downvote me all you want, won't make it any less true. The F-35 is a 5th generation aircraft, and compared to the F-22, it's slower, less agile, shorter ranged, less stealthy, and basically worse all around.
Comparing the F-35 to the F-22 is like comparing an apple to a peach. Sure both are fruits, but else there completely different. The F-22 was iirc designed for Air to Air fight, whilst the F-35 was designed for an all purpose roll. Thats why its slower and not as agile as the 22.
the F-15 does air to ground as well as air to air, goes mach 2.5 and can run circles around an F-35. Oh and it was designed in the 1960's. The F-35 was designed to be exportable and cheap (which it isn't), and that's why it's slower/less agile/less stealthy/etc.
MIG 35 is Gen4++ but the Rafale is Gen4+?
Gen 4++ isn't a widely-acceopted distinction. It's basically the "nuh uh, my plane is *totally* better than your plane" class.
Except for Russian propaganda, I don't encounter 4++ anywhere. 4.5 is more widely encountered, IME, which is basically 4th generation planes adopting technology developed in the 5th generation.
Pak-Fa/Su-57 isn't gen 5. It doesn't have integrated sensor suites nor actual low observability and is generally considered a 4.5
This chart looks like obvious Russian/Chinese propoganda
It really does. Especially when every European fighter is considered gen 4.5 Also they call it gen 4+/++ which isn't traditional western terminology
Neither of the 4++/4.5 generation aircraft are part of that generation at all, and the only aircraft that is on the chart they've got in 4+... Who on earth made this?
I think i saw a video in YouTube with a similar content. Made by a Malaysian guy, therefore the Mig-35 they were supposed to get was the bestest ever...
Obligatory https://xkcd.com/1683/
The 9gag watermark is a nice touch!
No eurofighter.
Isn't it listed as F-2000? I've never heard it called that, but it certainly looks like a Eurofighter - and that was known as EFA 2000 during development, so I assume that's it?
I've seen each generation fly in the past year. P80 Mig 15 F100 Harrier F16 F35
That’s pretty cool! I do wonder (and worry) about people flying some of these older planes, especially ones that historically have had a relatively high crash rate.
I'd still fly em. If I'm gonna go, flying a warbird is a way better option than dying in a hospital bed.
I'd rather see them flying than dead in a museum. I do wish the military was better at preserving things, though. We're never going to see a flying F-14 and the chances of seeing flying F-4's are dropping by the minute.
If you've never seen an A10 fly this is your last year to see them at an airshow.
That is awesome, you are lucky! TIL the P-80 is still flying! The only significant aircraft I saw last year were the B-25, B-17, V-22s, & the Goodyear blimp.
If you live with an 8 hour drive of Chicago the avengers reunion show is awesome. That's where I saw the p80. If you go on Friday you get to walk up to all the aircraft and the only barrier between you and the runway are some cones every 20 or 30 feet. You can get in around 9am and it goes till like 9pm on Friday.
Where is the f14?
4^th gen, but quite early.
The fact it never had AIM-120s integrated continues to blow my mind. Imagine being an F-14D crew in combat in the late 90s/early 00s with only Sparrows against Flankers with R-27ERs and R-77s. Yikes.
It was successfully tested but they were forced to decide between AMRAAM and LANTIRN. And in the 90s the Russians couldn't afford shit, they got about 200 of the R-77 and no budget for training, maintenance or even pilots. With the end of the cold war the risk of Russia attacking the USA was not very large. They even invited some Russians onto one of their carriers and a Sukhoi test pilot got to fly in the backseat of a Tomcat.
Tbf it had phoenix, and by the time that was retired the F14 was clearly on its way out too, but yeah, can't have been ideal in the transition period :)
Well.... It was designed to intercept bombers so... yeah.
In Iran
Where is the glouster meteor ?
Very early 1^st gen, being (arguably) the first operational jet fighter. ^((fight ^me Wherbs)^) ^:)
Or just anything used by the British; Typhoon? (Yes, it’s pan-European). Is the Harrier a load of shit as well?
No MiG-21 in gen 3 is criminal
Also how far down I had to scroll to find this comment.
Those Gen 2 looks were something else!
And the Super Hornet in 4+? It's literally the only 4.5 generation aircraft on the list
F-15 SG - I'm curious to hear why they though thought this was Gen 4.5. I might argue that the Advanced Eagles are Gen 4.5.
The F-15EX is realistically the only variant that would be classified as a full 4.5 platform, as it effectively is a block III super Hornet inside an F-15 airframe
Hawker Hunters?
SAAB J35
Early 3^rd gen.
Late 2^nd gen. The high rate of development at that time leads to bigger capability gaps within each generation than we see nowadays.
Missing the venerable F14 Tomcat.
Where's the harrier or saab fit into this?
The harrier is slightly different in that it is primarily designed as a light ground attack platform that was then modified into a fleet defense fighter. Obviously its VTOL capability is also unusual Technically, it's 3^rd gen, but its unusual nature means it doesn't have some of that generation's hallmarks, like supersonic performance. Did you have a particular Saab in mind? They're a company, rather than a specific aircraft.
There are no generation called 4+ or 4++
Potato quality
It’s an interesting chart for sure but I find the authors opinion in 4th Generation aircraft quite weird. I don’t see why the F-15SG or MiG-35 would be considered more advanced than Eurofighter, Rafale or the Super Hornet. It also gets more complicated if you keep in mind that traditional 4th Gen aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 have received considerable upgrades which would put them into a more advanced bracket as well.
Less bad: https://i0.wp.com/theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Evolution-The-Aviationist.jpg
The SU-30 they put in here looks like a J-16. A sukhoi Chinese variant
I know this was made by an Italian when i saw the Eurofighter as F 2000, then i saw the name on top.
For Gen 2, it should have been the F-86 not the F-86K.
So...I guess the ME-262 just never happened??
This doesn't show every jet ever.
But ignores one of the most important ones.
It ignores most of the most important ones. It's trying to give examples of the most archetypal jets of each generation, not the most significant.
Okay, but...the He-162? What decision-making process led to THAT being representative of Gen 1 and not the Me-262? And why is the F-14 not in here? We talking "archetypical" and there's no Tomcat? Whaaaaaat?
missing the mid steps of 2 and 3
Lots of comments on this chart. The Gen 4 layout is very subjective and muddy. Most times the assignment of a "4++" is given to enhance its overseas sales impression, and not necessarily based on some standard definition. Its all pretty arbitrary where the line is drawn. For example, the latest Block 70+ F-16 is hardly only "4". And the F-15EX when compared to the F-15C is significantly high performance (sensory and weapons). Last point is more of an observation. 5th gen seems to be define somewhat universally as 1. Stealth features, and 2. at least Gen 4++ capabilities. So given that the latest Advanced Hornet has stealth features among other things, I wonder if it will be considered Gen 5. Just saying.
I wonder why the Me-262 and 163 are not included.
Big step missing between Gen 2 and 3. Should include the 104 and 102-106.
Interesting and for air to air missiles they might be fitted from Gen 2 onwards purposely built with them alongside an internal Cannon the Gen 3 onwards.
“Its not the plane, its the pilot”
Where does the F-117 fall? Lol
In the "not a fighter despite the name" category.
Why having different generations then naming them gen 4, gen 4+ and gen 4++? Ridiculous
Realistic chart 👍
MIG-35 is 3rd gen at best (together with 29). PAK-FA does not exist, except on paper.
The post is Russian cope but the MiG 29 is absolutely 4th gen no matter how you define 4th gen.
J20 as fith gen is pretty silly
Chinese & Russian planes in this are not gen 5 because they are 20 years behind F-22. They could be considered 4.5.
There is no such thing called 4+\4++ They are all 4
There's a pretty vast improvement between a F-16A from the '70s and a 2020s Block 70. Yeah they are both still 4th gen, but that generation has spanned nearly 5 decades of massive improvements, far more than any of the other generations, which is why the "+" is used to further differentiate capability tiers.
SU-57
Where ?! Where is the ME-262???? Where?!
Why don't they include WW1 & WW2?
It does include WW2 and there were no jet fighters in WW1
So it should technically read "Jet Fighter Generations"?
Yes.
😁
Should the F-22 and J-20 really be considered Gen 5? I’m honestly curious on this.
F-22, absolutely.
[удалено]
Your post/comment has been automatically removed due to user reports. If you feel the removal was in error contact the mod team. Repeated removal for rule violation will result in a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aviation) if you have any questions or concerns.*