Evolution of Fighter Jets | Koala Explains: Fighter Generations and their Differences 

You forgot about the T-60 :(

@@datbeast109 T-60? That is a WWII Tank

Koala, you contradicted yourself when you showed the F-35B Lightning II landing using thrust vectoring, you stated it didn't have thrust vectoring

It only has vertical thrust vectoring

@@theroyalaustralian this is quite old, but from the context I've gather I assume he was talking about russian jets. I may have been talking about the russian S-70 UAV or the concept T-60 6th gen concept for russia

At that point it’s just gundams lol

Don't forget the nuclear reactor engines and magic G-force absorbing crystals EDIT: For clarification, I ( and probably the OP) were talking about Macross. Look it up, it's great.

Eva’s inevitable

That's some Anime Mobile Gundam Amorphous Transformation.

Get back in 2021 bro where jets still leak

basically X-wings

Hyped for laser-biplanes in the next patch

Su-57 actually went into active combat service in the middle east in 2020

FC 31 is Shenyang bureau's own programme. It didn't get state funds

*laughs in airborne warships and airborne fortresses with the ability to carry ICBMs, cruise missiles and/or fighters*

I smell Belkan shenanigans.

*belka has entered the chat* *grunder has entered the chat*

@@just_a_firefly3354 lol

@@IshijimaKairo *laughs in destroying flying fortress with a typical Gen 4 fighter*

I’m guessing drones, to be honest. That’s the real change that‘a coming.

Belka did nothin wrong…

@@Justanotherconsumer Pilots won't be replaced anytime soon, eventually yes but not soon

Star wars us near us

Imagine the stealth+drone+laser combo

In all honesty, that’ll be interesting to see, as the AC130 generation that is adding it for the purpose of burning thru and killing engines or other purposes, but I do think lasers as an Active Defense System is and will be interesting to see

Belka wants to: KNOW YOUR LOCATION

@@ClingyCrab Ah yes, finally

me wondering how the fuck are they able to do that XD

@@admirald4nk558 it's big

@@admirald4nk558 chonk

Um... ok? How's that relevant to my comment?

@@SuicidalRevolver um well maybe he was saying that because its a bomber, they traditionally have a lot more room than attack or fighter aircraft. But wtf do I know about this guys meaning

Ohh some radar engineer with secret information here

I’d hope that for a next or current gen design if a new power source was developed in this decade. Certain contemporary designs would work just fine in but it’s the configuration I’m concerned with. Some could do with downscaling especially if energy weapons systems are implemented alongside a “fusion” sort of engine so less physical firepower is needed and less room for the system is needed as the logistics of short-term, external and ground-based liquid fuel storage is no longer an issue (unless there is liquid but it just burns slow) which all adds up to enough speed and fuel to travel from LA to Athens in an hour, tops, and then back without a problem (theoretically). The argument against such speeds is the stability, maneuverability (a future engine might allow more control to mitigate this) fuel consumption (solved with the theoretical engines) detection and speed of the aircraft vs a SAM (both mitigated by general advancement and the massive increase in speed). VTOL capability is getting better so that’s a good sign for all kinds of future flight. All-in-all, the staple of *every* generation is that the overall cost of advancement has helped outpace maintenance costs (a necessity with the DOD) as planes (and other platforms) become smaller (sometimes), more durable and more efficient and the Air branches don’t have to keep the less desirable models for as long or as many craft, even the new ones. The technology also extends out from the government to private sale to actual civilian purposes, eventually. For space flight to factor into all of this we’d need a severe advancement in engineering to achieve a self-contained plane with a pilot trained and equipped for such an environment with such a powerful and complicated craft made for single stage launch let alone straight takeoff if that’s even possible especially with such a small craft as well as the craft being configured for actual space, which is very different from atmospheric flight. There’s a reason the shuttle program was never really favored.

That may be 7th gen. 8th gen might be moving through dimensions.

I highly doubt that, you don't build aircraft like spacecraft, for the very good reason you have no medium to go through, and utilize in space.

@@benjaminparent4115 No, but in order to build a craft capable of transferring from atmospheric to space-flight and vice-versa you would need to build an actual aircraft.

@@TheLampMan-JaE Yeah but it will either not be a good aircraft, or not be a good spacecraft, space and atmospheric flight are very different you do not not move the same in pace and in the atmosphere, you can't even use the same propulsion, it might seems counter intuitive because frankly speaking the barrier between space and atmosphere is not well defined but hose are vastly different medium, it kind of like trying to make a car that is a submarine, you could but it will either suck or just have very limited capacity in one medium compared to the other. On top of that to need such vehicel well you kind of have the need for it and on top of that have it be more usefull than simply having 2 different vehicle,. And having to have two way to propulse, being able to reach orbital speed, on top of having to carry way more fuel and depending from your technology even oxydizer, and large quantity oxygen if you use pilot, is going to give a lot of downside to an aircraft, enough downside in my opinion they are always going to be heavily outperformed by a pure aircraft.

It has happened in the past, for example the MiG-19 and F-100 (gen 2) were in development before Italy had designed the Fiat G.91 (gen 1), and the JF-17 Thunder (gen 4) was only designed after the first fifth gen fighters began to fly.

U can also add f36 king snake that is being worked on to replace f16 to that list. F36 is going to be a 4th Gen fighter. That is being developed at the same time as 6th Gen jets. This is to have fighters that will be cheap to use and easily maintenance

@@DrRajReddy f-36 is just a concept, its not being made

@@DrRajReddy that was a theorycraft article in Pop Mechanics - not happening.

The JF-17, FA-50, HAL Tejas and KF-21 Boramae are examples of that.

It’s a flaky concept to begin with. To be honest I’d prefer to see the Me-262 (first attempts, basically prop plane with jets) and MiG-15 (transonic missile-armed swept wing, etc…) as different generations.

I think these aircraft generations make sense from a historical perspective, because it's reasonable to categorize historical aircraft based on older, proven technologies. However, this categorization becomes problematic when applied to aircraft currently/not yet in service, because its still unclear what the defining capabilities of current/future aircraft will be.

Avro arrow lol

@@graff5138 was not that great lol

@@overtoast1105 no delta wings without it meaning no super sonic stability

@@graff5138 what

@@overtoast1105 it was the first delta is what he is saying

its called megatron. if starscream was 5th gen, cybertronian jets are 6th gen

They flew a testbed if I remember right,it’s essentially all the tech that R&D has made slapped onto an airframe. What they flew probably wasn’t a early fighter model, just a demonstrator of what the tech can do.

It means it's sick af

That means we have 12 of em already

BELKAN WITCHCRAFT

The F35 is already supposed to last into the 2080s. 60 years of service 100 year service life fighters would be a stretch though. The f35 is only lasting that long cux its built with lots of space for improvement, and it's a multirole aircraft which focuses on attack. Doesn't take too much to lob a bomb on a specific piece of land. The F22 is probably gonna be retired by the 2040s. Sad. However, air superiority is a more difficult requirement for an airframe.

It would probably be less likely of the same jets being used for 100 years and more the same design and with all the replacement parts you get into the whole astronaut ship theology thing

@@amistrophy looks like the f22's retirement is accelerating a lot more rapidly

@@davidvarnes7708 honestly in modern warfare, maneuverability is a overrated. Stealth, range, cruising speed, ECM, ECCM, advanced radars and sensors, BVR capability and other elements matter more. Not to mention maintainability, upgradability, and repairability for future proofing planes. Being able to manuever is more of an added benefit really.

@@amistrophy The F-35 was supposed to do a lot of things it probably won't do. Given its ongoing maintenance problems I'd be surprised if the current airframes last 30 years, much less 60 years! As for it still being widely in service 50 years now, it will depend on how warfare evolves over the next few decades. If there are few conflicts involving the USA (and their NATO allies) the JSF is unlikely to see much combat, so could remain in service for as long as the F-15 and F-16 have, but if it does see regular deployment then this will shorten the operational lifetime of existing airframes. Wars also accelerate the development of new military technologies, which could make the F-35 obsolete earlier than expected. Indeed, it's already likely to be surpeceded by 6th gen models from 2040s onwards, but the USA could switch to mainly exporting it instead, as they're currently doing with the F-16.

Gen 9: space capable with oxygen and hydrogen fuel for rocket boostets and lasers that can fire in all directions

@@HowIsAsh I genuinely think everything about Infinite Warfare's campaign is amazing. There are videos for all the graphic design elements for the ships and vehicles (wish there were some for weapons, uniforms and such), and you can see how much time and effort went into it. They did their best to have it all make sense in the setting, and they did a really good job. The Jackal and Raven are now two of my favorite sci-fi ships of all time, not to mention the Retribution.

Sounds like Star Citizen lol

@@mr.t-7243 Gen 10 Just Elite Dangerous

Literally any macross fighter lol

Haha, yeah I was at an airshow, there was an A-10, F-16, F-35, and a P-51 (for some reason). The F-35 was WAY louder than any of the other aircraft.

So are you australian

@@spartanx9293 No, I'm American.

@@troutwarrior6735 then why are f/a 18s flying near you

@@spartanx9293 There's a marine corps air station near where I live. Usually there are f18s stationed there, but recently a squadron of f-35s was placed there.

True. Start of the 5th gen might be end of distinct looking airframes

Really only 3rd and 4th gen had unique airframes then, since 1st gen was mostly flying cans, Me-262 clones or Mig-19 clones; and 2nd gen fighters also shared a lot of features, perhaps most notably the giant central air intake so many of them had.

You mean China and Russia try to make cheap copies of us jets that don’t work well and are pieces of crap

Kinda like modern tanks, but for different reasons

Well,looks is not the militarys first priority. They want to make it capableand better,not neceserally good looking. But i agree, 4th gen ead the best

*megalith starts fading in*

@@aiden4474 Thanks I hate obscure references

i thought that too lol

I see them as a change in design objectives, which is what makes 2nd-3rd very fuzzy indeed.

This is probably the best way to view this, and probably any conversation involving generational improvements

Cost I think. 4.5 is the safest bet to not blow up the budget. The design is already a typical low observable design so this ease the transition from 4.5 to a full fledged 5th gen.

Yes. Agree.

Ok....?

This is something we'd be all too happy to cover at some point in the near future! Stay tuned

Gen 4 era is the pinnacle of fighter design. So many iconic designs born that time, unlike the 5th gen era where the requirements for deflecting those radar waves elsewhere had created nearly identical design.

Know what you mean. Child of the 80's here and have kit models of most of those gen 4's

4th gen aircrafts fix most of 2th gen's issue about ranges while still retaining most of its predecessor's strong points (maneuverability and multi-purpose). 5th gen jets have to sacrifice a lot in terms of cost, weaponry and performance since stealth is still a novelty concept outside of the US

Except that isnt really true.

Facts

I watch tg maverick everyday. Cures my depression

@mandellorian First of all, I don't think that we have got to be uncivilized here. After that - you probably don't even know what I am talking about... but well. I don't say, that they haven't got any clue about something - but they need time to develop. This is natural. The European needed about 20 years to develop their AESA radar - and it is still not deployed. So it is nothing against China. But everything about time and budget.

The US defines the rules of the generation for the manufacturers that follow its lead. But Russia and China have different definition for generation for their fighters so without comparison J20 maybe a 2nd generation for China(as they probably haven't developed anything comparable to F15/14/16/18 etc) while comparable to US 5th generation.

This means so much to read, thank you buddy! We're growing quickly! Working on some new content and collaborations with other military channels, so here's hoping for more new viewers!

The issue isn't missile capabilities, its radar coverage and IFF issues. Its more an issue of worrying about firing on friendlies than not being able to fire missiles.

Late, but I heard this possibility from LongShot. What if stealth becomes so advanced, you can't detect the bandit before the merge? Basically, the cycle repeats; dogfights, BVR, back to dogfights. It's interesting.

The twin tail design allows for better rudder control without resorting to one massive tail. In the case of the F-14 say, it was also just easier and more convenient to manufacture, but what also plays into it is the fact that more modern onboard flight computers were better able to handle and make use of such factors. Seeing two or even three vertical stabilisers on bigger aircraft like the B-24 or Avro Lancaster, the Constellation, or even smaller, lower performance aircraft was quite common, but on high end fighter jets, the difference in control was too much for pilots to handle until the computers caught up

thats one of the biggest reasons why i love your content - you take your time to explain so many things, plus your voice fits it so well^^ thanks koala!

But mainly because it looks twice as cool! 😝

Or , in the case of current reality, drones just complete missions.

Doesn't make much sense for drones to carry fuel as they'd need to burn that fuel to keep up in the first place

@@KaitouKaiju What I mean, is replace the air refueling airplane with a drone, although on second thought, it needs to be big, so it may as well have crew.

@@1MaklakThis already exists. It’s called the Mq25 Stingray made by Boeing. Being tested right now as a carrier based refueler.

The JA-37 interceptor was the one with datalinks, and came after the F-14A which had early datalink capabilities to cue it's AIM-54s.

Comedy really isn't your thing

@@slowery43 L

😂​@@slowery43

Some, and to some degree, but the stealth capabilities of the Rafale or Gripen for instance are nowhere near those of the F-22 or F-35. Reportedly the Su-57 is somewhere in between, and this creates the same blurred line that you see between other generations. The main definitive trait then becomes not so much the stealth itself, but the mission capability while RETAINING stealth, or in other words; internal weapons bays. As such the South Korean KF-21 Boramae, despite having a heavily reduced radar cross section and obviously sharing design influence with aircraft like the Raptor and Lightning, isn't considered a 5th gen fighter because it lacks internal weapons bays, at least for now. It's likely that South Korea produces a later block or variant of the KF-21 which includes internal weapons bays, and that variant will cross the line and become a 5th gen aircraft the same way variants of the MiG-21 stepped over into the third.

???

Or maybe it is just a transition between 4th gen and 5th gen ?

@@TheKenji2221 .... If you are going to wipe out the borders between the generations, you shouldnt have a generational system.... So no

@@ietsbram Dude. During the whole video they said the line between generations was already blurry enough to put jets between 2 gens. So I'm not "wiping out" anything, I'm just stating facts. Plus the "generational system" is just mostly marketing and political bs. From a strategic point of view you don't care if your fancy new F-35 is the top notch 5th gen with all the shinnies and bs. All you want to know is what it can and can't do and that stops there. They don't care about giving fancy gens to their fighters other than for communicating with the public. You can compare fighter gens with music categories (metal, rock, blues, etc...) They have some defining characteristics to identify musics and put them in boxes. But some musics are between two or more categories. It's all the same

@@TheKenji2221 just no

They look the same cause the chi-coms stole the tech from us lol.

The irony of this comment being about copying homework but is copied from another comment lol

The entire plane? How?

@@AzzySunfire by cameras mounted at the body of the jet in all directions

@@AzzySunfire yes the entire plane

lol all you need is an external camera. NO HELMET can actuallly see through solid objects !!!!!! Stop daydreaming !

@@dantheman3022 the night vision camera mounted on the top of the helmet can see through the canopy just fine and the last time I checked the canopy is neither a plasma, gas or liquid. Also unless we have made some very recent leaps and strides in cybernetics you're still going to need to display strapped to your head (such it being a part of your helmet) that can display the correct camera feeds relative to the orientation of your head.

True, didn't mention that one - was just giving a couple of examples. In truth I forgot about the HARV at the time

@@ArmorCast why didn't you talk about russian thrust vectoring?

@@lazukk3735 because thrust vectoring is thrust vectoring, no matter what country? The US, Russia, UK, and more have all dabbled in 3D and 2D thrust vectoring.

@@BrapBrapDorito very much different in the west and the east, and the US turned their attention to stealth while Russia focused on manoeuverabilty

We're starting to run out of cool names so let's just reuse the old ones. The spaceplane that drops kinetic kill rods can be the Meteor.

Gripen will be a real interesting one - I'll put it on the list :D

There is only one way to build a stealth plane because the laws of physics are true in the US, China, Russia and Europe all the same.

Su-27 doesn’t, but Su-35 and some Su-30 variants do. MiG-35 I’m not 100% on, but MiG-29M2 does

Wouldnt aiming a lazer be like using a gun but without compesating for speed and heading?

@@EdyAlbertoMSGT3 No. Lasers do damage by imparting thermal energy on the target, as you probably know, so they need a constant line of fire on the same point on the enemy craft to do damage effectively, which requires a very fast and precise turret. With a gun, you can just fire in a line along the path of the target and hope they run into it. In a dogfight scenario, guns are effective no matter how you approach the fight, but lasers would almost require the fighters to be in either a rolling scissor or two-circle rate fight to keep on target.

Dat SEO tho

They can be angled upward by a couple of degrees, like a lot of fourth gen fighters' guns are, but they can't be moved mid flight

Modern fighters have computers on board to help keep them stable enough to fly anyway

Don't forget Skyships Eng👍

What I'm referring to is the F-35B's VTOL thrust vectoring, which it can only do specifically for takeoffs and landings, but not in regular flight

Cool, no one asked

I question this "fact". I need an actual measure of temperature using the same IR cameras, because all footage of Rafale being "colder" were using a less sensitive IR camera. IF (and that's a big if!) It's colder than the F-22, that's because it's underpowered. It puts out a total of 34,000 pounds of thrust. The legacy F/A-18C has more thrust. 1 of the F-22's engines put out 35,000 pounds of thrust. 5th generation fighters like F-22 and F-35 still have far more advanced IR reduction, but the increased thrust requirements of actual 5th gen jets means an inherent increase in heat. The Rafale is not a stealth fighter. External carriage of weapons means its LO characteristics are too mild to be considered "stealth" by any metric. Rafale is overhyped to hell and back. It is not VLO by any metric. Look at it's flat AESA arrangement. This is horrible for RCS reduction and it's all because it's nose is too small.

Definitely not colder than F-22. It doesn’t even have rectangular exhaust nozzle.

@@EEEEEEE354 You can easily find IR footages of these 2 planes. The F-22 body is overall hotter than the Rafale. Especially around the weapons bays. Take it or leave it. I sincerely don't care

@@TheKenji2221 I have easily found IR footage of these 2 planes. What I'm saying is you are wrong because they use 2 different types of IR cameras. The F-22 is not hotter overall. So yeah, I'll leave it, because your statement is nonsense.

@@EEEEEEE354 I didn't see your nickname. No need to waste my time with you. Especially if you are defending an equally overhyped plane like the F-22. Enjoy your life

It's also not a fighter, so it doesn't really get put into these categories at all. Same with the F-117, or Su-25