Rafale demo at Le Bourget , 2009 , commented by the demo pilot himself Cpt. Cédric “Rut” Ruet .
During the display , he says himself that 3 figures (manoevers) could only be done with the Rafale because of 1) better FBW and 2) acceleration and thrust .
He even quote the Typhoon not being able to reproduce what Rafale does .

Cheers .

And those manoeuvers are which exactly?

Btw , Cédric Ruet only says that the “Square Dance” can hardly be done with the Typhoon , that the Rafale is the only one to start a straight vertical acceleration from 100 Knt and go looping (thanks the M88s) and is the only fighter to land after a low and hard looping .

You actually know what the square dance is? Hardly a special figure, a definitely not one which can’t be done by anyone else. The same is true for the loop directly from the high alpha pass.

I have to applaud to djcross who is the only guy here who brought up an reasonable explanation, in contrast to the usual suspects who just come up with “it is so believe me”. Another advantage for the tail plane might be that you can hide it to a certain extend behind the wing, that’s the reason you see the tail planes on the F-22 or PAK FA being directly in line with the wings. At the end of the day all surfaces produce reflections, even more so moveable ones, whether these are canards or tail planes doesn’t matter. The question is to what extend they reflect the signals. The fewer control surfaces, the better.

Yes they do. You wishing it were otherwise does not change that.

No they are not. You wishing it were otherwise does not change that.

Not true. You wishing it were otherwise does not change that.

Lol, oh not true, not true, oh not true, it is not true because I say oh not true.
Good god have you any arguments? Obviously not! Except for repeat claiming what I say is not true you haven’t brought up anything. Just shows what kind of troll you are.

No, supercruise is/was a characteristic SPECIFIC to the F-22, not to 5th generation fighters as a whole – just as Mach 2+ & large BVR radar were specific to the F-14/F-15 but not 4th generation fighters.

Yeah just your beloved LM itself states it as a 5th generation feature. Who is inventing stuff and wishes that things are the way you like huh?

FBW & class cockpit are not defining characteristics of 4th generation fighters.

Oh enlighten us what are the 4th gen features then! Manoeuvrability alone or what?

Yes you are. You are specifically trying to include &/or exclude generation defining characteristcs for the purpose of including &/or excluding specific fighters from the established generations.

Prove us that any European manufacturer or operator of the ECDs views them as being of the same generation as the teens or being just a half generation above! You’ll have a hard time I guess, but I already know that you’ll come up with your usual american crap only. Ignorance appears to have no meaning to you.

It was a nice time where you were banned, a pity it wasn’t permanent.

i’m finished with this nonsense, put up creditable links for your points and i’ll reply

Fine if you are finished with that (your) nonsense don’t post any more you would do all of us a great favour!

That one is debatable. They looked at fitting Phoenix to the F-15 and the only thing that kept F-15 from that capability was lack of a missile. Raises one interesting question though. I now wonder if the ASG-18/AIM-47 had multitarget capability. :confused:

The YF-12 was higher and faster. Does that mean it would be a higher generation that the Mig-31? For that matter so does the Mig-25. So would the Mig-31 be an X generation and the Mig-25 an X+1? Also, the XF8U-3 is thought to have had the potential to be nearly as fast as the Mig-31. Would that have made them the same generation?

Glass and FBW were around before the F/A-18, just not to the degree. And I’ve never heard of cockpit displays being used to determine generation. (Or do we, and christan the F-35 6th generation because it dispenses with the HUD and has a full flat panel dash? :diablo: )

So does that put them in the same generation? The YF-12A had DUAL IRSTs, does that put it in a later generation than the Mig and Sukhoi? (It also had higher speed, altitude)

Not anything that would be considered a NEW thing though. Stealth is a new development in fighters. A bigger piece of glass on the dash and better communications. . .not so much so. Hell the F-106 could be controlled by the ground. Does that make it a later generation than todays? (Because the whole “6th gen will be UCAVs” line of thought?)

It is surprising that you still seem to miss the point, while I have made it clear a couple of times now. It’s exactly the point that even aircraft of the same generation feature some unique capabilities and performances, that doesn’t put them into a different generation. And upgrading one type doesn’t automatically result in a new generation label either. The US doesn’t define 5th generation as stealth, it is one part of the features linked to that definition. Others include NCW capabilities, fully integrated avionics, sensor fusion etc. The point is a Eurofighter and Rafale for example offer very much the same things apart from all aspect stealth, though they include signature reduction measures, it’s a small form owed to the requirements. The F-35 doesn’t supercruise, why? Because it wasn’t required to do so.

I’ve never heard the F-104 mentioned as 2nd generation. It should be 3rd. (Mach 2 performance, guided missiles, radar, etc. especially the S model.)

I was of the impression that some of those definitions I have seen class them into different generations. In Europe both belong to the 2nd generation which makes sense (to class them into the same generation).

Well let’s call it “class” then. Do you think the Typhoon or Rafale are in the same class as either the F-22 or F-35? That is to say do you think going head-to-head one on one they’d win at least 50% average? Do you think either could attack any ground target, no matter how it’s defended, equally as well as the F-22 or F-35?

As I said at the end it doesn’t really matter which generation label you apply, because it doesn’t change a tad about their capabilities and that’s what counts at the end of the day.
The Rafale or Typhoon are certainly not the in the same class as the F-22, they weren’t designed to be. As the F-16 is not in the class of the F-14 etc. Different requirements, different designs with subsequently different performances and capabilities.

The first three generations were made of aluminum. What they’re made of means nothing. Name one unique feature of a specific 4th generation aircraft that stood it apart from the other 4th generation aircraft. Something significant not crap like “uh, the Mig-29 had FOD control doors”.

Numerous. The F-14 for example was the only western fighter with a long range, multitarget engagement capability.
The MiG-31 was the only fighter capable to operate at significantly higher speeds and also altitudes.
The F/A-18 was the only fighter with a real glass cockpit and multirole capabilities and the first and only to feature a digital FBW system.
MiG-29s and Su-27s featured IRST, HMS+HOBS AAM and datalinks whereas no western fighter featured them. And yes I know about the very early IR sensors onboard the F-102 etc. and the HMS trials with F-4s.

Sure aircraft has been upgraded and many received this or that capability afterwards, but there were some significant differences in capabilities and performances, often for many years or even decades.

There are easily one to two technology generations between the baseline models of the teens/teenskis in different areas. The Rafale’s and Typhoon’s technologies in various areas are another two to three technology cycles ahead.

No one ever bothered to class a MiG-21 Bison/Lancer or F-4F as 4th generation fighters just because they even surpass early variants of the teens/teenskis in some areas.

No one asks why an F-104 is rated as 2nd generation, while the F-4 is rated as 3rd generation, whereas these aircraft lie less than 5 years apart and use a quite similar technology base, they even share the very same engine.

But suddenly 2-3 technology cycles are not enough to justify a separate generation label. That’s the irrational way of thinking that annoys me and most people usually avoid to even answer these questions and those who make a reply try to drag the discussion into another direction. The generation label means nothing in the end when it comes to individual capabilities and performances, because these don’t change whether you call aircraft A generation X or Y.

BS. Most (you can deny it all you want) know the clear definitions & how useful they are.

BS yourself troll, there is no such thing as a clear and sole valid definition. There are multiple definitions varying with the air forces and manufacturers and that’s the point you ignorant chaps don’t get. For you there is only one definition and that’s the one of your beloved home country.

I have not personally definded ANY fighter generation – others have already done that.

Certainly not, but you just accept one definition and is the one which suits your agenda.

AND (as much as you wich to deny) it the very characteristics that place a given fighter in a ‘higher’/newer generation DO make them superior to ‘lower’/older generation fighters.

Mostly true, though not necessarily on all accounts.

Yes there ARE definitions of the fighter generations and supercruise IS NOT among those that define 5th generation fighters (despite those who wish to deny it).

That ‘someone’ who wants the F-22 & F-35 in a differerent category is the US military & the requirements the F-22 & F-35 were designed & built to CLEARLY do put them in a different category than previous fighters (thus the justification of a new generation). The definitions have NOT shifted, that is just a game those who don’t like the definitions play to avoid admitting they are wrong.

You still keep denying the obvious, not to say lying on purpose to make your point. The links I have posted list supercruise and extrem agility as features of the 5th generation fighter, newer generalised definitions exclude those features as the F-35 has become a reality and wouldn’t fit the bill if you would include them in the generalised definition.

And the only people with “there own ideas” are those who (for what ever reasons) have some problem with the established definitions & play the game of ‘there are no definitions so everyone is free to make up theri own & do to suit their own purposes’.

Wrong again, it’s your own fault that you never look beyond east and west coast of your country. If you would actually take a broader look you would realise that there ever were differences in the definitions. That’s the reason why the Luftwaffe describes the F-4 as a 2nd generation fighter and the MiG-29 as a 3rd generation fighter for example, whereas the very same aircraft are classed as 3rd and 4th generation for example in the US.

I am not kidding anybody.

All you are doing it referencing descriptions of the F-22 (your 2nd one even EMPHISIZES that fact with “This 5TH generation fighter”) but the F-22 is NOT what defines 5th generation fighters just as the F-22’s level of stealth does not define VLO. You are doing just as I said & accepting the BS APA premis that the F-22 IS what defines 5th generation fighters & thus any fighter that does not have EVERY characteristic of the F-22 is not a 5th generation fighter.

The F-22 was actually the first of its generation in the US, therefore it is something like a reference, though a to close definition is not sustainable and that’s the reason you don’t see everything such as supercruise being included in the general 5th generation definition as there is another 5th generation fighter now in form of the F-35. The definitions were never that strict as you try to paint or avoid on purpose and that’s the weird part about you. Here in Europe a Rafale or Eurofighter or Gripen are seen as a FULL generation ahead of aircraft like the Viggen, Tornado or Mirage 2000 which are the true counterparts to the teens/teenskis generation wise, as they were designed at the same time on a similar technology base. Of course there are differences and not every single platform provides the very same capabilities and performances. It’s actually what people tried to explain you (unsuccessfully so far) a thousand times before. The definitions are just loosely guidelines and not “must have all of this” criteria.

And try a google (or other search engine) search or heaven forbid try a trip the the library (or book store)…

Stick to your own advise and try to read something not from the US, maybe you then understand that there isn’t just one point of view and that its not the “upset people” who invent such stuff, but that this is the reality little pcfem and co don’t grasp.

Fedaykin:

Generations were very useful for quite a long time but that was a time when aircraft types were completely replaced rather than upgraded for decades. Back then there were certain things that made it pretty clear. For instance a Mach 2 aircraft with a pulse-doppler radar and guided missiles is certainly a cut above a subsonic guns-only fighter with a ranging radar. Is an organization required to tell you that aircraft A possesses supersonic performance, guided missiles, and a pulse-doppler radar whilst aircraft B does not? One would hope not. It’s no different than the “Baby Boomers”, Generation X, and the “Why?” generation. Was there a worldwide proclamation as to who fit in what? No. Would you think JFK were a member of the X Generation and persist on argueing it when people told you otherwise? Of course not, that would be ludicrous. This is no different. Obviously not everybody fits into a clear cut category just as there are aircraft the blur the line (such as the F-111B would have). Not really a 3rd OR a 4th generation aircraft. Some say the F-14 was barely a 4th gen but it is generally considered one of the first of the 4th generation (if not THE first of the 4th generation).

In a nut shell:

1st generation: Straight winged, cannon armed, no (or very limited) radar. (Of course someone will leap on the Me262 with it’s swept wing but nobody claimed this was a science.) Aircraft: XP-59, P-80, Me262, Yak-15, Gloster Meteor, etc.

2nd generation: Swept wing, transonic performance, afterburners, but still had cannon armament and limited (if any) radar. Aircraft: F-100, Mig-19, Dassault Ouragan.

3rd generation: Guided missiles, pulse doppler radar, Mach 2 performance. Aircraft: Mig-23, F-4 Phantom, Mirage F1

4th generation: Look-down, shoot-down radar, renewed ephasis on manuevrability, afterburning turbofans, greater emphasis on cockpit visiblity. Aircraft: F-teens, Flanker, Fulcrum, Mirage 2000.

5th generation: Sensor fusion, stealth. Aircraft: F-22, F-35, and (possibly) PAK-FA. On the face of it PAK-FA should have been a no-brainer but that giant RCS back end makes it less than clear. Maybe it’s an F-111B (not that I think it’s a failure, but that it’s not clear cut). Maybe they’ll fix the back end in the production aircraft.

Note that these are additive for the most part. You wouldn’t call a straight-winged, subsonic, radarless, stealth aircraft a 5th generation stealth fighter (call it a friggin’ platypus or something). Also, these aren’t perfect. Most would consider the Tornado a 4th generation aircraft but high manueverability was never a strong design criteria in it’s case. So what is one common theme in all this? In general, it’s the leaps in specific areas that seperate the generations. Just as Mach 2 performance and guided missiles seperated 3rd generation aircraft from 2nd generation, stealth seperates 5th generation from the 4th generation. And just as slapping an AIM-9 on an F-86 doesn’t change it to a 3rd generation aircraft, slapping a radar blocker and some edge-alignment on a Hornet doesn’t change it to a 5th generation aircraft. Anybody here consider an AIM-120-toting F-4 to be in the same generation as a Typhoon? Why not? Things to consider.

Your own listing shows that a clear cut is often not possible. The problem with that 5th generation definition nowadays is that some smarties in the US closely defined it around the very specific technologies and capabilities of the F-22. Supercruise was in fact one of the defining capabilities, as are integrated avionics, NCW, AESA, supermanoeuvrability and stealth. These are things repeatedly claimed by LM as 5th gen features. You’ll find that there are quite some aircraft which feature most of them, though not all or not to the very same extend. Does it make them a “below 5th generation” design? Just take a look at the very different technologies and capabilities of the aircraft which are considered as 4th generation. You’ll see that there are quite some differences. The F-14 and MiG-29 lacked FBW for example, the F-15 and Su-27 didn’t have a full FBW only FCS, while other types like the F-16 or F/A-18 have full FBW systems. The Hornet was actually the only fighter with a real glass cockpit in its basic layout. The Hornet was Viper where also the first to be truly multirole capable…
As you can see from the few examples above, there are a lot of differences, yet all those types are considered to be of the very same generation. Funny enough that the lack of one or two features (or just the level) is now seen as enough to disqualify this or that platform. Hell I see even those dumb ignorants claiming the PAK FA is at best 4.5 gen, because it likely lacks the same level of stealth as the F-22 or F-35… Sorry but how pathetic must someone be?