Talk:Fifth-generation fighter

Comparison Charts

@Steelpillow Hey, you probably new on this page. The Comparison Tables (specification ) were maintained on this page for 9 years (2014-2023). I've been editing this page for about 10 years. People put a lot of work in to it. Someone recently deleted tables without consensus or discussion. So I just restored them. Chelentano (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The costs were removed almost a year ago, on 29 January. Only now do you decide to revert it. The Aviation/Aircraft WikiProject consensus is that aircraft costs are not generally comparable, as they have no common baseline and they change over time. This was decided in the context of civil airliners, but applies equally here. Your nine years' misguided effort were deleted for a reason. If you want them back, the burden is on you to verify the significance of such a comparison here, by citing reliable sources as to its significance.

Also, the standard layout for general information includes data commonly asked for and included per WP:AVILIST, but which your table omits. This information should be included by default, unless we establish a local consensus here that this table is an exception. I do not see that it is a special case. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, @Steelpillow, we can remove costs as long as costs are removed from the respective pages for each jet. I think they are.

Regarding the document WP:AVILIST and "standard layout" mention:

• The documents is NOT about 'standards'. The word 'standard' is not mentioned there even once. It is a guide/guideline document, and specifically it is a style guide. Standards vs. Guidelines differences:
  • Standards: provide rules, mandatory for execution, they are specific & detailed, with measurable criteria, enforced by contracts and regulations.
  • Guidelines: provide recommendations, voluntary for execution, general & broad, offer general framework with room for interpretation, not enforced.
• Quote from the document: This is an essay on style on style - the guide is mainly about style and markup used to render the style. The data is given as an example for a particular case of different aircraft types. We only cover one type in this article.
• Quote: This guideline is not exhaustive or absolute - this means that the guideline does not list every possible situation that it applies to. There may be other relevant factors or considerations that are not explicitly mentioned in the guideline. There could be circumstances where it is appropriate to deviate from the guideline.
• Quote: This guideline is not intended for anything other than tabulated lists of aircraft types. - so this guideline document is not applicable to this page at all, since this page is NOT about different aircraft 'types'. This page is about one single specific type: 5th Gen Fighter Jet. The suggested data is not applicable in this case. The Aviation guideline document is misinterpreted leading to this misguided effort: [View the illustration here:] They all fighter jets, what's the point for these redundant columns! We replaced unique data with the redundant data!

That said, I know the 4-table presentation can be improved, by transposing columns/rows and combining 4 tables into 1, making it more compact. I could work with you on that if you interested. Good weekend! Chelentano (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Steelpillow, please take a look. I propose to replace 4 tables with this one.

Of course it would not be an image. It would be coded using Wikipedia markup.

Any comments?

Chelentano (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts. This list is effectively the specifications for the various types pulled together in a single table. Although this is not practicable for more populous classes of aircraft, it is here. There are surely readers who will find it useful and informative. My best suggestion would be, go for it, see if anybody objects/reverts, and if they do then seek a more solid consensus on this talk page. I don't know if it is possible to make wikitables sortable on rows rather than columns, but if so then that would be helpful. (By the way, you misinterpret the list guideline in various ways, but those do not matter right now). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @Steelpillow, thanks for your feedback.

• I reformatted the 4 table into 1 by transposing the columns/rows.
• There is no horizontal row sorting. We loose sorting, but sorting is not that useful for only 7 jets. The trade in advantage is that the table is much more compact and there is no redundant labels.
• Also, I propose that specifications in this table to be derived solely from the respective Wikipedia page for each fighter jet, but not from external sources. Therefore no citations required in this table since they suppose to be present in an original Wikipedia article. There is a note for that.

Click this sandbox link >>

What do you think? Chelentano (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I like it. I have been doing the same thing too long and need a good prod with a sharp stick now and then. My only criticism would be that policy/guidelines still require citations where other editors demand them, because it saves the inconvenience of clicking through to another article. Here, I think that adding the cite after the given factoid in the cell is the best way forward; I agree that a Notes column or row would be inappropriate. I'd go for it, and see how it gets received. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank for your feedback. Per your suggestion, I brought back the citations and we can add more. Also I added the Citation row to make it less cluttered: I guess it's trade off to avoid clutter. - Best, Chelentano (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think it looks pretty good. I am not sure about the citation row, it's a but unusual. Be interesting to see if it stands the test of time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The idea is the same as on F-22 page: all citations grouped in one place to avoid redundancy and clutter. But, I am not too certain about this as. well. We can move citations back to cells.

Chelentano (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Do want to add the 5th generation minus category?

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/why-5th-generation-‘minus’-fighters-are-future-179708 47.198.108.186 (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we don't have that many "minus" fighters to justify the whole new category. But we can add a sentence or two to the article. Thanks for asking. Chelentano (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Other sources have used labels such as 4++. We have to wait for enough reliable sources to treat it as an accepted class, so that we can too. One public soundbite does not make the grade. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed! Chelentano (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

change name

TAI TF-X Kaan > TAI TF-KAAN 188.132.139.29 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

KAAN

<severe civility violation/personal attacks removed -- ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)>

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built on reliable sources, and not some crazy cagefight between nationalists. I would advise you to respect Wikipedia's policy to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors, and not to make accusations either on talk pages or in edit comments, as here. If you fail to behave with respect, sanctions may be taken against your user account. If you wish to make a substantive edit to this article, I would strongly suggest that you make only a small edit at a time, and be prepared to discuss it sensibly if it gets reverted; see WP:BRD for more about how this works. Learn the Wikipedia way, and we can build a better encyclopedia together. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I have redacted the personal attack from that editor. I've also removed more nationalist attacks from the anon IP. Y'all need to stop making this page an ethnic/religious/nationalist background immediately, that is not a request. If you cannot be civil, you will be blocked from editing. Consider this a blanket warning to *all* editors of this article and associated talk page. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Gaslji (talk · contribs) has been blocked from editing for 72 hours for personal attacks. I was very clear about the warning above. Do not turn this article or talk page into your personal battleground for whatever culture war you're fighting. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox type

Infobox type is intended for aircraft of a particular design, it is not intended for whole classes of aircraft. Please do not restore it here without a clear consensus that this abnormal use is justified. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Consensus should be used to deviate from the default. This article used to have an infobox. 4th generation article also has an infobox. I'm going to revert this edit. Please discuss below and reach consensus before acting on your own again. I personally think that this article looks more organized and comprehensible with the little infobox.SoapDispenser94 (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Please respect WP:CIVIL, I have redacted your personal rudeness. The infobox is not designed for this purpose and should be removed from all three of these generic articles, i.e. this one, Fourth-generation fighter and Sixth-generation fighter. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox is okay, but adding more than one country in 'National Origin' is illogical. How can a product have 'origin' in different countries in different timelines? If a country's name is adding there, it should be the US. It was the first country to come up with a fifth generation fighter. The concept of fifth generation 'origin'ated there. FoxtAl (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

So, FoxtAl hopefully you are starting to see why that infobox should be removed. From your own argument, the fields are not adapted to the information you want to show. And of course, the field names won't change (since the infobox is used in thousand of individual aircraft articles). If people are obsessed about having an infobox here, they are welcome to create a new one, but using one that is not designed for the task makes no sense. --McSly (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

"but using one that is not designed for the task makes no sense" - that's exactly what I said. FoxtAl (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

imho national origin could be changed to 'developed by' or 'current developers' SoapDispenser94 (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Except that it is not possible. That infobox is a template used in more than 12 thousand articles ([1]), so any change to it would be for those articles as well. I'm sure SoapDispenser94 that you are starting to see why using an infobox for something it wasn't designed for is not a very good idea. --McSly (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That's right. This is the wrong infobox for the job. It has too many unsuitable fields being filled in because people can, and for no other reason. It should go. What any proposed replacement might include is a quite different issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, it has become a battleground for PoV nationalism. FWIW the default is to use an infobox only where it is designed to go, and that is not here. There is also 2 to 1 majority here for its removal. It has to go. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It should stay Orange-Puppy-2221 (talk) 10:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not the intended use of the infobox, if an infobox is needed, then a different one should used, There are hundreds of infoboxes so maybe a generic one among them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It should still use countries though as it would be easier to see in one place.

Not just delete that section, change the infobox but keep the current structure => best Orange-Puppy-2221 (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I changed it can you check Orange-Puppy-2221 (talk) 14:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It's even worse. The United States is not a manufacturer, Lockheed Martin is. This is obviously the problem of trying to fit a circle in a square shape, it simply doesn't work. So again, FoxtAl, Orange-Puppy-2221, SoapDispenser94 could you explain why you want to keep that infobox that is clearly ill-suited for the task?

They are pushing their PoV, abusively where they have no rational case to make. Time to escalate to a wider forum? (BTW @McSly:, you forgot to sign that last one). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm neither in favour of retaining that infobox nor removing it. What I stated was the illogic of adding more than one country in the "National origin" parameter. I still hold my view that a product can not originate in different countries in different timelines. If someone wants to have their country name listed, please modify the parameter appropriately rather than confusing the reader. FoxtAl (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2024

Muhammet7655 (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

}} {{Infobox aircraft type | type = Fighter aircraft

| national origin =

• United States
• China
• Russia
• Türkiye

| manufacturer = | design group = | designer = | builder = | first flight = 1990 (YF-23) | introduction = | introduced = 2005 (F-22 Raptor) | retired = | status = In service | primary user = | more users = | produced = | number built = | developed from = Fourth-generation fighter | variants with their own articles = | developed into = Sixth-generation fighter

 Not done – I know what you are going to say, but if it is related to the infobox, I cannot restore it without gaining consensus, @Muhammet7655. Otherwise, empty edit request. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 17:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Removal of National Origin section due to Turkophobia and Vandalism

Collapsing this section due to more nationalism and personal attacks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

<redacted personal attacks -- ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)> There was no newd to change the nationa part until Turkey has produced one. And suddenly, some guys thought that it is no longer necessary. This is a blatant example of nationalisticly motivated banal vandalism. Removing it won’t change anything. E3.akpinar (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Surely we should only include production vehicles, KAAN while it may be good has flown once with engines not intended for service. If that is enough then things like the X-2 Shinshin would also count? Better to have it consistent, and add KAAN to a "prototype not yet in service" sort of list with Japan and things like the FC-31. It feels like Turkey is being added to this list purely for nationalist means rather than for useful dissemination of information. 2603:7000:DA03:3626:E167:21B8:9B0F:77F9 (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) <redacted personal attacks -- ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)>

KAAN will start serial production in 2025 General Manager of TAI says:

TAI has definite arguements to get in serial production. TAI general manager Temel Kotil said "We will start the production of 20 KAANs in 2025. We will deliver it in 2028." [2]https://twitter.com/gdhdefence/status/1760981019610735020 YusufEren386641 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

KAAN is a 5+ gen fighter" TAI official sources say

"Turkish Fighter-KAAN , the 5+ Generation Multirole Fighter Aircraft, provides significant capabilities in both Air to Surface and Air to Air combat requirements. Turkish Aerospace’s survivable, strong and agile platform Turkish Fighter is a fully aware warrior, with intelligent and strong combat capabilities." [3] YusufEren386641 (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

changed it to Manufacturer

infobox problem is solved Orange-Puppy-2221 (talk) 14:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Development Concerns

@RXFire1: Your content is removed due to the following reasons. 1. Why is it biased and deliberately misleading? According to Rahul - " it (India) lacks the depth of research and design expertise required to build a successful stealth fighter. " - What design expertise did S.Korea have? Turkey have? Yet they came up with flying prototypes, right? Isn't that argument sound flawed? If we count Hurjet and FA-50, look India have designed Tejas, HJT-36, HTT-40 (flying), AMCA, TEDBF, Tejas MK2 (underdevelopment). So how can a policy expert come such conclusion? So this source [4] is clearly biased. Shantanu Roy-Chaudhury in his article here [5] observes that "Feasibility of the AMCA project, however, has been questioned as India does not have a robust industrial defence base." - India's premier aerospace company Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is building aircraft since decades. Prominent examples are Sukhoi Su-30MKI, Dornier 228, HAL Tejas etc. Almost 80 percent of the fleet of the defence forces is either supplied by HAL or serviced and supported by HAL. In all, the company has manufactured over 4,100 aircraft and over 5,000 engines while overhauling 11,000 aircraft and 33,000 engines across its 20 production divisions and 11 research and design centres spread across the country, see here .[6] In addition, Indian private sector aviation firms such as Tata Advanced Systems are producing fuselage to wings for lwading Aviation manufacturers like Boeing defence, Airbus etc. "Currently, Airbus’ procurement of components and services from India stands at about $750 million every year, which will rise to $1.5 billion in the next few years"[7][8] Aircraft maker Boeing plans to double sourcing from India from the current value of $1 billion a year to $2 billion from over 200 suppliers, according to Darren Hulst, vice-president and global head of marketing, Boeing Commercial Airplanes.[9] In addition, TASL delivered 250th made-in-India AH-64 Apache fuselages,[10] and are preparing to built 40 EADS CASA C-295s [11] How is this possible if India doesn't have robust industrial base? So it's pretty much clear both of thesetheir observations are flawed, definitely sourcesNOT areWP:TRUTH but biased and intentionally misleading at the same time. Echo1Charlie (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a more immediate reason for its removal. While the bias is perhaps debatable, the fact that this is an overview articles means that we should not go too deep into the background of each individual project. Such claims, biased or unbiased, are not really about the plane as an example of the class but about other aspects of it; if they belong anywhere, is is in the article on the plane and not here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

5+ generation

There is no such thing as a 5+ generation fighter described in reliable sources, it is just marketing puff by some companies. As such it has no place in a general article like this one. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.tusas.com/en/products/aircraft/indigenous-development/tf Read the official site. And see with your eyes. Gajlsi (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean. A company website for a product, not a reputable independent source for a class of aircraft. Not acceptable, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

L-Band Radar

Is that even a thing? Not aware of any such radar especially on an airborne platform. 72.69.210.72 (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Turkey

@TzCher: @Orange-Puppy-2221: Please discuss the dispute here rather than continuing to edit war. I've not studied the topic closely – why are we not including Turkey if there's a section on them (which appears to be adequately sourced)? — Czello ^(music) 12:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

As things stand, the infobox includes only countries that have one or more operational fifth-gen fighters in service. Turkey's fighter, like India, Sweden and Japan, is only at the development / prototype stage. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

If the consensus (and again, this isn't my normal area of editing) is to only include them in the infobox when operational, and if it is not yet operational, then this seems open-and-shut. — Czello ^(music) 13:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Orange-Puppy-2221 (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It is the prototype stage. And Turkiye will produce more prototypes next year so stop changing the list. It is ridiculous. 4kanthugz (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If it's a prototype it's not actively in operation. — Czello ^(music) 08:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand how military aviation works? Do you have knowledge of the fifth-generation fighters to say that? Is this topic your area of expertise? 4kanthugz (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. Is it in active operation? Do you have sources supporting this? — Czello ^(music) 10:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

In military aviation in the case of emergency, they can use prototypes in active operations. We should add Japan and Korea too they build fifth-generation fighters as Turkiye did. 4kanthugz (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Turkey will not get preferential treatment. Turkey will be added in 2030-2033, if and when these machines enter service, exactly as was done for the US, China and Russia. Moreover, you will not push your unsourced POV agenda unilaterally. If you want to do that, create your own encyclopedia website and write whatever you want in it. But here we adhere to the rules, we use sources and we stick to the consensus. TzCher (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Turkey's fifth-generation fighter will be delivered between 2030 and 2033, as per the Turkish Ministry of Defense. All the other countries which actually do have such fighters were added to the infobox after the delivery and entry into service of fully operational aircraft. A prototype with a 13-minute flight is not fully operational. In 2030, when Turkey actually produces such equipment, user @Orange-Puppy-2221 is welcomed to update the infobox. TzCher (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know about it, sorry, it seems fine to me Orange-Puppy-2221 (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

I propose to set up talk page archiving for this page - before this post it had 74 sections, which is a lot. I propose archiving at 1 year, but with a rule that at least 9 sections remain on the talk page. Does anyone object?-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Include list of countries that operate Generation 5 aircraft?

While all the nations that currently produce gen 5 aircraft are listed, they arent the only ones that use these types of aircraft, as many are sent to other countries. A list of these countries would be helpful. Thanks Icantthinkofaname1 (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

One of the primary sources "Baker 2018" does not seem to exist.

"Baker 2018" is provided as a reference for quite a lot of the claims on the page, however there is no link to this reference. A google search doesn't turn up any obvious books. I think if we can't either find this "Baker 2018" book we will have to remove the statements that rely on it, or find alternative sources that support those statements. Liger404 (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Here you go [12]. --McSly (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah ok that book, I have that book. So in wikipedia do we just quote the book and its accepted as true? Normally I have worked with bed links, but this book is not free. Liger404 (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see this Baker 2018 user Chelentano (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not a user, it's the author of the work McSly posted above, who by the looks of it appears to be this David Baker.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand that it's a book. I even think I might have the book, Its Called "Fifth Generation Fighters, by David Baker". But there references we have here don't lead to anything. They aren't usable. I will see if I can fix this tonight, I think I have this book, so I can at least post a reference to the book website? Liger404 (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're saying, but to be clear references are not required to link to a web source to be valid. They can, and often should, and it's even better if they include a page number; but it's not something we'd remove statements relying on it as a source unless there's a reason to believe the source is either unreliable (not at issue in this case) or being misrepresented (in which case, it should either be fixed or at a minimum get a maintenance template). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I have the exact book, so I will check it says what they claim. But I do think we should change the reference from a rather abstract "Baker 2018" to the actual name of the book "Fifth Generation fighters". The entire point of the reference section is that readers can read more detail and fact check, which was exactly what I was trying to do with this mysterious "Baker 2018" which turns up nothing on Google. I don't think we need to take the statements out, as we do seem to have found the book and it is a real book and a quality book. Liger404 (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Its not a user its reference 1. A and B. It looks like we might be able to just fix the reference so it links to the book, and perhaps change it from "Baker 2018" to "Fifth Generation fighters" which is the title of the book. Liger404 (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Note that the references were to the 2018 paperback book by Baker, not the 2021 hardback book by the same author. -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)