Fighter generations comparison chart

Jan 13 2011 - 16 Comments

The appearance of the new J-20 (unofficially dubbed “Black Eagle”) raised many questions about the Chinese stealth fighter. Some experts think it will be more capable than the F-22 while others (and I’m among these ones) think that the real problem for the US with the J-20 is not with the aircraft’s performances, equipment and capabilities (even if the US legacy fighters were designed 20 years earlier than current Chinese or Russian fighters of the same “class”); the problem is that China will probably build thousands of them.

Anyway, comparing the US and Chinese fighters, everybody referred to “fifth generation planes” bringing once again the concept of “fighter generation” under the spotlight.

Generations are a common way to classify jet fighters. Often, generations have been “assigned” to fighters in accordance with the timeframes encompassing the peak period of service entry for such aircraft.

The best definition I’ve found so far of fighter generations is the one contained in an article published in 2009 by Air Force Magazine, that proposes a generations break down based on capabilities:

Generation 1: Jet propulsion

Generation 2: Swept wings; range-only radar; infrared missiles

Generation 3: Supersonic speed; pulse radar; able to shoot at targets beyond visual range.

Generation 4: Pulse-doppler radar; high maneuverability; look-down, shoot-down missiles.

Generation 4+: High agility; sensor fusion; reduced signatures.

Generation 4++: Active electronically scanned arrays; continued reduced signatures or some “active” (waveform canceling) stealth; some supercruise.

Generation 5: All-aspect stealth with internal weapons, extreme agility, full-sensor fusion, integrated avionics, some or full supercruise.

Potential Generation 6: extreme stealth; efficient in all flight regimes (subsonic to multi-Mach); possible “morphing” capability; smart skins; highly networked; extremely sensitive sensors; optionally manned; directed energy weapons.

In order to give the readers an idea of the type of aircraft belonging to each generation I’ve prepared the following table with the help of Tom Cooper / ACIG.org and Ugo Crisponi / Aviatiographic.com, who provided the profiles.

As I’ve already commented on Twitter, what such a table should let you understand at a glance is that capabilities and appearance are inversely proportional: former generations aircraft look much better than more modern fighters…..

  • http://airforces.fr Recce 233 Savoie

    This post is fundamental – I’ve already seen good articles about jet fighter generations but this one is quite clear about it.

    Furthermore, it is capital to show how these fighters are filed in order to understand the stakes of military aviation history.

    Congratulations again for this excellent blog!

  • Bao Pham

    Sorry to disagree with you, but I think that the modern fighters are a lot sexier than the older generations. I absolutely love almost all of the fighters above the fourth generation.

    • http://cencio4.wordpress.com/ David Cenciotti

      Hello,
      I’m pretty sure that many agree with you, so don’t worry!
      The more I get older the more I tend to appreciate former generations design and look. Furthermore, if you think that the F-104 was (and still is) my favourite aircraft you’ll understand the reasons why in my opinion generation 3 is far sexier than 4, 4+, 4++ and 5 (the latter one being quite ugly).

      • Mark Brueschke

        Gen 3 and 4 are the best looking generation, while I’ve not seen an F-104 in person, I’ve seen T-38s, A-7s, F-16s, F-15s and F-22s in person almost daily and the Gen 3 and 4s look better.

        The F-22 has an unreal engine noise and is almost hard to focus on when it’s against a grey sky.

  • Weaponhead

    F-35 is missing any super-cruise and high agility (supermaneuverability)attributed to the Gen 5 definition. So isn’t it really Gen 4++?

    • http://cencio4.wordpress.com/ David Cenciotti

      Well,
      you have to consider those capabilities as being some of those attributed to a particular generation hence the F-35, although not being supermaneuverable, is an all-aspect stealth with internal weapons whose systems ensure full-sensor fusion (capabilities that are not in Gen 4++ series).

  • Kia

    PA FAK :D

    An interesting slip ;)

  • Mark Brueschke

    What would a comparable chart for bombers be? Gen 1 Turbojets and Turbofans? Gen 2 all jet engine, Gen 3, variable geometry, Gen 4 Stealthy, Gen 5 full stealth?

    So for the US
    Gen 1 B-50, B-36
    Gen 2 B-47, B-52
    Gen 3 F-111
    Gen 4 B-1B
    Gen 5 B-2A

    • http://cencio4.wordpress.com/ David Cenciotti

      That’s an interesting question. I’ve always thought to fighter generations, simply because they develop faster than bombers.
      Your chart makes sense to me.

    • UpLateAgain

      You should have included the F117, which was designated a fighter only because Congress was refusing to fund more bombers when it came out. It has no fighter capability whatsoever, and its mission profiles are inevitably that of a stealth bomber.

  • Νίκος mahairman

    Su-35S is in 4++ generation. You forgot to add it in the table above.

  • Koba

    I don’t know how old you are so I can’t say for sure, but I would postulate that the designs from the time each of us became an enthusiast are the most ascetically pleasing. For me this was the early eighties: The radical stripped down f-16, the clean, all business f-15, and the tantalising hints of the beautiful curves of the Su 27…sorry, getting carried away there.. I guess for most males this was at some point in adolesence, though I’ve learned to appreciate the beauty of the piston engine aircraft since….ahh…the older girls…

  • Peter Kolak

    IMO, Mig-35 is not better than EF-2000 or Rafale or Su-30MKI. Moreover, remember, that in terms of radar and missile possibilities, there is no big difference between old Mig-29 and Su-27 on one side and F-4E on other side. Roughly the PAK FA is just more stealthy Su-35 with missiles inside. But don´t accuse me of being anti-russian fighter fan. I love them. Fighter generation is somehow inexplicit term

  • Weaponhead

    When the F-22 came out the definition included supercruise and super-maneuverability. Lockheed then dumbed down their definition of 5th Gen’ when F-35 came around so that it would fall under the 5th generation umbrella. So the real definition is a meaningless bright line drawn by Lockeed’s marketing department which moves to suit their needs.

  • ACAA

    i thought F-4 is a Taiwanese band?

  • Picard578

    “As I’ve already commented on Twitter, what such a table should let you understand at a glance is that capabilities and appearance are inversely proportional: former generations aircraft look much better than more modern fighters…..”

    As far as air superiority goes, I don’t agree. Rafale is the best looking and is also the best air superiority fighter around. Ugliest looking aircraft in their respective generations (He-162, MiG-15, F-105, F-15, F-18E, F-35) are also the worst air superiority fighters in said generations. And it is only with 5th generation that fighters started to get uglier again.