HaHaHa. I’ve said it before and I guess I have to repeat myself. Some of you guys don’t have a clue about stealth and spout what little bits of information you have like the gospel. Edge alignment is just a small facet of the technology, its like the blind man holding the tail of an elephant and describing the elephant as snake-like. Do some research, read some technical papers, read a good book-Don’t just look at the pictures!!!
But back to the generations issue.
I’m just wondering where an upgrade would fit in. Take the Northrup F-5 for example, designed in the 50s,and by your definition 2nd generation. Where would the F-5e fit in? And where would the F-5g (F-20) fit in?
How about RSS (unstable) aircraft. Some 4th gen are, some aren’t, yet it’s a major feature which benefits delta and aft-tail aircraftby letting them use all horizontal surfaces for lift.

He’s not denying the existence of a ‘thing’, but of a concept, a definition which is subjectively different to different people, and is, therfore, of limited or no use in comparing different aircraft because it leads to arguments about generations (3,4,5,4.5 4.99,4++,etc.) rather than discussions about capabilities.
The Americans keep pointing the finger at Europeans, that their denial of generations is because their aircraft are inferior, but you could also say that even though some new American planes are inferior they can always say that it is a 5th gen to trump the argument. I am not a detractor of Lockheed-Martin, it is the leading aerospace company in the world, especially since it took over the Convair division of General Dynamics. I am also a big fan of the European planes and have been since the days of nbmr-3, afvg, mrca and up. These planes were designed to a mission, if the mission changes somewhat, it doesn’ make the plane less capable, just less well-suited.
Incidentally I am a Canadian who would like nothing more than for Canada to become part of U.S., but was born and lived for 9yrs, and still own property in Italy (dual citizenship).

Sferrin, I noticed that both your post and Erkokite’s post featured some ‘I think’ phrases. The point I’m trying to make, obviously unsuccessfully, is that a subjective opinion cannot be a definition because it lacks concensus. Even you two who agree on its use cannot agree on the definition.
And I can think of many exceptions to your rules, such as 2nd generation aircraft like the f-102/f-106 designed around a fire control system, this was sensor fusion in the fifties; and would you say there is no differece between an AMX/A-10/su-25 and 1st generation aircraft such as f-86/Ouragon/MiG-15? They are all swept wing, non-afterburning, subsonic and gun-armed.
There are many more but I don’t feel like typing, and sorry if I mixed up your generations, but you know , I really don’t believe in the concept.

Not my job to deal with your lack of intelligence if you cannot grasp my meaning after the second post.
Try…reading…again…slowly…

Just to be clear, why don’t the people who favour the usage of “generations” define exactly what constitutes a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th generation.
I propose that if you cannot get a clear, unanimous agreement on this convention/definition, its usage should be stopped as all it does is lead to confusion.
I guess that gives away my opinion on the subject.

Cola, you seem fond of quoting my points and saying they are wrong but you don’t explain why they are wrong. Don’t worry, I’m a big boy you won’t hurt my feelings, please tell me how my points are wrong. Several people have already told you what is wrong with your original post, nobody else, other than you, has suggested that I am.

I should think the inaccuracies would have been obvious.
Bypass air bypasses the core and as such has no bearing on turbine temperature although it does cool the afterburner casing.
The reference to the ramjet is out of place and does not contribute anything since a ramjet uses dynamic compression ( Due to foreward motion ) as opposed to static compression of turbomachinery.
I don’t recall others, I’d have to re-read the post.

There are two qualities to compare the two engines with as they contribute to efficiency and thrust.
Compression ratio is optimised for the mission, a higher compression will give a higher static thrust, but will lead to compressor heating at speed due to dynamic compression unlesss outfitted with multi-shock intakes to control flow to the compressor. Witness the low compression engines of the SR-71 as opposed to the tornado’s engines which are optimised for sonic speeds at S.L. not M3 at 100kft.
Turbine inlet temperature, since any engine is a heat pump, means that the hotter you can get the air the more thrust you will have for a given amount of fuel, ie more efficiency. This has a tendency to melt or stretch turbine blades, though, unless cooled properly.
I would say that Russian aerodynamics are certainly as good as American and they can get and cope with high compression just as well.
Their materials technology, however, to withstand the high turbine entry temperatures may not be as advanced. I could be wrong, so correct me please as that is how we all learn.
That would mean the American engine may be more advanced due to better materials used to fight high temperature stress/strain/creep in the turbine blades which invariably leads to failiure. What is the MTBF for the two engines?

You’re probably right about the carrier landings. I remember reading the pilot’s account of the folded wing take-off/sortie/landing, but I didn’t recall wether it was carrier or land-based. It never occurred to me that carrier deck crew would have noticed and the plane wouldn’t have taken off, although you’d think the pilot would do a circle check before take-off.
Its still pretty impressive though, have any other folding wing planes accidentally repeated this feat?