Leveraging capability: A study of the interoperability of fourth- and fifth-generation NATO fighter aircraft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many respects, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is the future of NATO airpower. The United States Military plans to procure 2,456 aircraft. Seven additional NATO allies plan to purchase a combined total of 478, and it is likely that other members will add to this tally. As only the second fifth-generation type to enter service, the F-35 provides a step-change in capability over existing fourth-generation ‘legacy’ aircraft. The F-35 should be viewed by the NATO allies as an opportunity to advance the fighter capability of the entire alliance. Adoption of a standardized gateway platform, combined with the development of CONOPS tactics that leverage the strengths of the F-35 as well as the frequent kinematic and weapons-load advantages of legacy platforms, will permit members of the alliance to develop a highly integrated, full-spectrum aerial fighter capability. Interoperability of fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft at the technical and tactical levels should be a first-order NATO focus.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".