>>>why won’t it be a 4th generation fighter ? Structurally its similar to a JF-17, all metallic and alloy.
-composites only decreases weight but adds more and more difficult maintenance. It does not relate to generation x or y. Chinese K8 has more composites yet it is less then the non composites PAF K8.
>>>if you re-design a fighter, have a higher MTOW, and for that you add composites then you’re in a way doing the same thing that adding some modern avionics does to a fighter. you’re “inserting” technology into that fighter. the M2k is a 3rd generation fighter airframe, uses titanium and aluminium alloys mostly. similar to a JF-17. But it will get the Mirage-2000-5 Mk2 upgrade that involves avionics developed for the -9 and Rafale. But structurally, it is still a 3rd gen fighter. So I cannot see how a JF-17 that is built similarly is a 4th gen fighter in this respect.
I have heard a lot of things but this does surely not make sense. Adding composites does not make it better. It does not represent a generation.
>>>Vikas, at the very start of this debate between us, I said that I don’t believe in the classification of some journos. They couldn’t know better if they were hit on the head by a composite panel or an aluminium panel (although someone who does would, they have very different weight and stiffness characteristics). I know about aircraft structures and hence I do not believe that the JF-17 is a 4th generation fighter when it comes to structures.
Again same and personal opinion. Just provide anything that explains that non composites is a lower tech.
>>>No a rigid classification system doesn’t matter, but the term “4th or 5th generation” is used to denote technology and capability. It doesn’t necessarily work that way, but thats the way it is made to sound.
Just explain the differences between gen 1 till gen 5… It is not difficult and you will see that you are terrrible wrong.
>>>I would much prefer to fly in a Bison rather than a JF-17. Not because its a tit for tat argument but because I know the Bison is mature and has capabilities that the JF-17 won’t have for some more time–> and I know that the Bison even brought down F-15Cs (which I would also much rather fly than a JF-17 any day) Does that bracket them in the same class ? One fighter that is due to be retired soon and another that is just entering service. What does that say to you about how mis-leading the term “generation” can be ?
Personal opinion and I think it is based in nationality rather then planes. Your Bison is decades old design which is souped up with some newer tech. Telling that it can beat F15 sounds unrealistic unless you limit F15 that much that it is nothing.
Sign In
