5th generation fighters barely exist as a generation

>>28279123
>Hey Bob. We got this gen of fighters done. Wanna work on future generations?
>"Nah, fuck it. Let's go home and have a beer. Nobody's gonna bother making next-gen fighters for at least sixty years!"

Tell me you don't believe this...

>>28279231

We can't even get consensus on whether the F-35 is worth it.

>>28279272
It is.

You're never going to get "consensus" about anything, now stop being a fucking faggot, analyze the available evidence, and form an opinion.

If you can't do that, shut the fuck up.

Consensus. Fucking people these days.

>>28279313

Why make the 6th generation already?

Who exactly is the big threat to us to justify the expenditure?

File: 1450674939264.jpg (14KB, 284x279px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 284x279px

>according to Wikipedia
While 6th gen fighters may have been conceptualized, I highly doubt anyone is actually engaging in active discussion about them.

>>28279338
>Why should we stop getting better?
shiggy diggy doo

>>28279351

What's the hurry? Barely anyone else has fifth-generation fighters, let alone ones worth a damn.

>>28279364
Well, given that takes decades for an aerospace program to go from paper requirements to IOC, we want to be producing 6th gen around the time the Chinese roll out their first 5th gen.

>>28279383

China?

China can't make anything it hasn't stolen, lol.

>>28279364
>chinks and ruskies finally shit out a small run of 5th gen fighters
>we're already giving our poorer NATO allies F35 hand me downs
>already have the F c==3 6th gen air superiority fighter in production
>commie tears intensify

before lockheed-martin's PR people started using it as a buzzword, there was no such thing as "generation" aircraft.

there was no 3rd Generation. or 4th. the F15/16/18, the F104, etc? None of them were ever referred to as "'X'th generation.".

Every time you obsess over the idea of a "5th Generation" aircraft, you are, in effect, being an unpaid marketing assistant for Lockheed.