Let's look at what you wrote earlier.
A fighter in the 4.5th gen is somewhat in between 4th and 5 th gen.
In order to be fully 4th gen you needed to have certain features.
In order to be 5 th gen you needed to be have certain features.
No disagreement there.
4.5th generation comes in where some planes adopt advanced features of the 5th gen aircraft while some don't.
Like supercruise, AESA radars and thrust vectoring.
This is not exactly true. If you are going by wikipedia definitions then its fine. Thrust vectoring is not a 5th gen attribute. It was available on a very early 3rd generation aircraft. You will find exceptions to the case for all of the three things mentioned here and others when you look at the line up of the current 4.5 gen aircraft. Secondly, 5th generation aircraft do not have to have all of the features mentioned. TV, Supercruise may not be needed.
Typhoon has all of the above, which a 4 th gen plane certainly doesn't have. But it doesn't have the stealth features hence it cannot be a 5th gen.
Typhoon does not have an AESA radar. It does not have thrust vectoring and it has a very limited supercruise.
The new Typhoon is coming with a newer radar that is AESA and the PD radar it has is way better than the one on JF-17 which houses the smaller version of the j-10 radar. There is a reason why PAF wants French avionics.
PAF wants the French avionics because of the weapons that can be integrated with it. The radar is not the main concern but due to the integration aspects (costs etc.), it makes sense to have French avionics with French weapons.
The issue on hand is that JF-17 is a 4th gen. aircraft. Others you mention are delayed 4th gen. aircraft that are 4.5 gen now and incorporate some enhancements in mostly their avionics that set them apart in terms of price and in performance. There is no exceptional generational difference between a 4th gen. aircraft and a 4.5 generation aircraft.
You yourself in your post claimed that JF-17 and j-10 are in the same class as other 4-4.5th gen aircraft. That's a wide assumption to make.
No its not. They both have fully glassed cockpits. They both offer advanced ECM/ECCM suites, they both have the potential for AESA upgrades. The flight controls may not be fully digital, but that alone is not a dis-qualifier for comparison.
4th gen aircraft are all of the current crop of fighters with PD radars, glassed cockpits and a combination of digital and non-digital controls. These aircraft are fully capable of offering performance with avionics and weapons that compare with those offered by 4.5 gen. aircraft. This is the reason that makers of 4th generation aircraft continue to push 4.5 gen versions (avionics and weapons) to customers. Gripen-NG, blk-60 (and in the future blk-52 AESA enhancement), F/A-18 SH, Mirage-2000-9 are all 4th generation plays to basically tie the customers over so they can go to 5th without having to opt for something like a Typhoon or Rafale. This is the reason the latter two are finding it so hard to penetrate the market in a big way.
4.5 generation aircraft are essentially a modification of the 4th gen to keep them relevant in a time when 5th gen aircraft are being introduced. The two programs that supposedly define the 4.5 generation (Typhoon and Rafale) were always planned to be 4th generation aircraft but due to delays in the program, they have hit the market when 5th generation aircraft are almost widely available. As a result, the makers have had to market the aircraft as a niche, a stop-gap before getting into 5th generation aircraft and thus with pricey upgrades, and a need to differentiate, you have what they claim to be a 4.5 gen. category.
At least define what class means?
Define what Generation means?
Hopefully I did that above in terms of the 4/4.5 gen joke.
7 hard points vs 11 on J-10 certainly shows they are not the same class. Maybe same generation, developed around the same time. With similar structures and avionics
Plus the MTOW of j-10 is more than jf-17. again not the same class.
There is a reason why the price of j-10 is so steep.
Do not mix up generation with class (even though I agree that aircraft are built to purpose and would differ even within the same generation). That is not what I said in my post. My point is about generational difference. Beyond the marketing, the gaps are not as large as one may think them to be.
Good stuff!
Last edited: