Talk:Fourth-generation fighter/Archive 1

message: Someone, please add such information.  
Kinda table: 
F-16 4500
F-15 1500
Su-27 600(do not copy these numbers - it is gues)
That would be grait addition to article. TestPilot 15:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total number of fighter aircraft produced(in service?) to date(by make) 

message: Has anyone ever seen any type of comparison or comprehensive analysis of anything in Britannica?  This article has a lot of good info, but I have a hard time seeing how it belongs in an encyclopedia.  It's not a bad article, but it is misplaced. ✈ James C. July 5, 2005 20:42 (UTC)
:Would you consider information on the merits and weaknesses of the respective fighters to be appropriate material for the articles on each fighter?  That's why I contributed to the page; to save having the same discussion thrashed out a dozen times, to probably a dozen different conclusions (as French contributors sing the praises of the Rafale, Poms the Eurofighter, and so on...), and that's why I think it's appropriate.  As an article in itself it's slightly odd; if you view it as something people who read information about the various fighters and want to know if that plane is the "best" going around, it makes a bit more sense.  --Robert Merkel 6 July 2005 11:12 (UTC)
::Comparisons are excellent and useful adjuncts to main articles.  Our purpose here is to inform laymen, and comparative analysis is a natural question that people immediately come up with, as in "Who would run faster, Superman or the Flash?"  By the way, Britannica isn't actually the standard we try and measure up to.  Tempshill 17:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precedents 

message: even given the speculative nature of this article, it would still be interesting to see some comparison info on the russian SU-37 fighter aircraft
:Nobody's committed to development or ordering any yet; who knows whether they will, or what form the final aircraft will take?  Interesting that they continue to work on thrust vectoring and the like at a time when some people are claiming maneverability is no longer useful.  --Robert Merkel 02:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SU-37 

message: Removed:
:Most experts agree that the results of this study are questionable and seem tailored to further the export chances of certain fighters such as the Eurofighter Typhoon against it's primary rival- the Dassault Rafale.
If "most experts" really said that it shouldn't be hard to find an actual reference saying it, rather than referring to nebulous "most experts".  --Robert Merkel 13:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced commentary 

message: I think edits made by 192.88.165.35, 12:02, 28 December 2005 (Altered RCS calculation) should be reverted. IMO. Since that is not a vandalism, asking your opinion first. TestPilot 04:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting edit of  192.88.165.35 

message: Please be aware that this article should avoid self-references. That is, it should never refer to itself (as it does in several instances).--cj | talk 13:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoid self-references

message: The combat performance section is shoddy - produced by someone with an American Fighter bias, with no factual references, and no real numbers.
E.g
1. "During the Gulf War, USAF F-15s shot down 5 Iraqi MiG-29s"
How many F15s? 2,5,10,20 etc...
2. "On January 17, 1993, a USAF F-16 shot down a MiG-29 in Iraqi no-fly zone. (Some sources claim it was a MiG-23.)"
Again how many? What are these sources that are spoken of?
It goes on etc etc....
I think this section should be shot down, unless somebody who knows something about these missions is able to add facts, moreover able to add non American fighters (E.g a list of a number of missions where Mirage, Tornado etc has been in action).
Thoughts?
:These are the facts. There is no bias because these are the only known instances of air-to-air combat involving opposing pairs of these very modern aircraft. I can add some of the sources though. As for 2. "a" means one, that is one F-16 shot down one Mig-29. For 1., it is pretty unlikely that there were multiple F-15 simultaneously shooting the same airplane. I suppose it is theoretically possible, but... Rmhermen 22:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor stats

message: Why is there no section on the Tornado F3, you have used the Typhoon as the UK's fighter, but it is not yet operational, so would a section on the F3 not be of more use?
:This article is about planes that were in production in the 2000's. The last Tornado appears to have been built in 1998. Rmhermen 20:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tornado F3 

message: This article contains some very useful information... but doesn't explain what it means.
So is a low wing loading or a high wing loading number more desirable? It doesn't seem to say...
"Conversely, on the basis of published thrust-to-weight ratios and wing loading the F-35 is likely to be little more manoeuverable than the F-16." very useful... except the F-16 isn't included in the table so we don't know what this means... same goes for this statement: "Ricconi [1] (PDF) claims that the F-22's wing loading and thrust-weight ratios are actually little better than the F-15C."
:This article does use a lot of technical vocabulary. Life would be easier if we could just look at planes and say "This plane is manoeuverable, this one isn't" but we can't, its not practical. Thrust to weight, wing loading and delta wings all affect agility, but in different circumstances. In answer to your question about wing loading, Wikipedia has a useful article on wing loading, but wing loading is usually reflective of how much weight the plane can take off with (I assume this is not applicable for VTOL, where thrust to weight would be more accurate) and how much speed is needed. Low wing loading, big wings, less speed required to take off, more prone to weather (and I would assume radar detection). High wing loading, small wings, more speed required, less prone to weather, however greater speeds are possible, partially due to drag (preferable in modern fighters). Of course, bigger wings also bring more weight, see power-to-weight ratio for a problem with weight. --The1exile 16:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wing loading and details 

message: Have thought a bit about the whole intro and how to make the article encyclopedic and concluded that a "comparison of" simply isn't encyclopedic. Proposal:
Change to article simply to "Fighter Aircraft of the 2000's" and make it a survey article like 1920s. Discuss common trends such as multimission and stealth, and have the meat of the article consist of the the existing comparisons. Tie it to a Category "Fighter Aircraft of the 2000's. 
I actually feel that rather than splitting into decades, that the history of fighters needs to be split into eras (WWI and before, WWII and before, early jets, modern jets, and postmodern(2000s, maybe Information age?) fighters). Need citable source on that, though. Musn't forget to not stray into OR.
--Mmx1 01:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but we might need some extra sectons in there. For example, jet propulsion didn't immediately hit it off straight after WWII, so you might need an article covering the propellor driven arcraft post WWII. --The1exile 22:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: This article is really suffering. We have no web pages to link to, information being changed that should be possible to cite, and all in all an article that although the content is interesting the claims are impossible to be confirmed. Can we rework this to include citations, and stop changing the info unless it can be confirmed? For example, 194.185.231.68 has changed some prices of the JSF and F-22 considerably, the F-22 has more than doubled its cost. I don't want to see things changed without good reason first. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 22:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and OR; this article really need fixing 

message: Just passing through, but I noticed a comment earlier proposing the article be titled "4th and 5th generation combat aircrafts" or something like that. Aircrafts is not actually a word; the plural of aircraft is aircraft, and I'd hate to see that error repeated in articles or titles. :) Nobody wants an encyclopedia that can't be taken seriously! ericg ✈ 04:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a note on grammar