Talk:List of military aircraft of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

January 2003

The "F-56 Maverick" is completely mystifying. Neither Google nor my own reference material list anything like this. Stan Shebs 19:34, 30 January 2003 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to be the F-149. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannin (talk • contribs) 23:08, 30 January 2003 (UTC)

Following naming conventions (and the fact that the main US article is at United States and not United States of America) I am moving this article. --Jiang 21:58, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

September 2003

On Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft I have started a proposal for how lists of aircraft could be rationalised on wikipedia. If you're interested, let's discuss it there -- Cabalamat 03:21, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

April 2004

Greyengine5's addition of modern (i.e. in service) aircraft is useful, BUT covers only air force aircraft...what about army, navy and marines? This article covers the aircraft of all the US armed forces. B 03:05, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

I was going to try and add the other branches with tabs, though this is certianly better for this page. Greyengine5 19:08, 16 April 2004 (UTC)

ASW

Isn't this redundant with the 'patrol' and 'search' aircraft? Ingoolemo ^talk 03:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily - ASW-specific aircraft might be torpedo-armed, for instance, or have submarine-specific sensors. Stan 12:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

New format

I have done an extensive expansion of the format. Much of it is unoccupied, but for those who see this page and its empty sections, the sections can be filled in from the external link. Ingoolemo ^talk 21:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Would you please make it clear which aircraft are currently in use. The blending of history with each section makes this very unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.198.226 (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That's kind of the point. Some of these designation sections (i.e. B for Bomber) date back to the 1920's, and current aircraft happen to be given designations based on that numbering system. The article focuses on the designation system itself, and isn't meant to be a guide as to which airplanes are in current use and which aren't. Technically, the F-4 is currently in use, albeit as AMRAAM chow. McNeight 01:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

So foreign users don't count? E.g. F-4 is still very much in active service in a number of countries. Are we talking aircraft MADE in the United States or aircraft SERVING with United States armed forces? Emt147 05:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Serving. Thus B-57 aka Canberra, etc. Personally I would stay away from trying to describe "currently in use" here, would be easier to have a separate list. Stan 06:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. The list is for aircraft with designations assigned by the US armed forces, and is only meant as a list of designations. If you want more specific information about aircraft "in service" (of which the B-57 is still one, although technically with NASA), that belongs somewhere else. McNeight 19:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The organisation does need an overhaul. I'm still working on that, but there are so many damn planes it's really tiring to do them. (The list is only about half full so far!) Ingoolemo ^talk 02:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Length

This list is preposterously long--I suggest it be split in some reasonable way. Chris 21:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a preposterously long list, nothing you can do about that. The only feasible way to split it up is to break the list into pre-1962 Army and Navy lists, and a post-1962 unified list. --Thatguy96 17:56, 14 January 2006

In addition to being long, it appears inaccurate in the breakdown of the designations.[1] (Born2flie 18:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC))

Attack Helicopters as Attack

This is contrary to the US designation system (all Attack Helicopters are post-1962). Attack Helicopters are designated as helicopters first (e.g. H-64) and then designated with a prefix modifier to show their attack role (e.g. AH-64). I recommend the Attack Helicopters be moved as a subcategory of Helicopters. (Born2flie 17:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC))

I'd like to clarify my previous statement before, based on further research. Helicopters are designated by the type of aircraft, since they aren't airplanes, and then mission prefix precedes the aircraft type. In the U.S. Army, that is referred to as Mission Type Design Series (MTDS), compared to the Mission Design Series (MDS) stated in the AFI.

--Born2flie 20:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusing List

Anybody know why Paragraph 6 is "Army" when all the others at that level are role related, it also appears to duplicate information in Helicopter further down. We have a list of Cargo Helicopters and a list of Helicopters with the same aircraft in it !, as the C in CH is a mission modifier should they just be in a list from H-1 upwards. Would it not be easier to list the pre-1962 categories first then the unified system A-1 upwards, B-1 upwards, C-1 upwards in numerical order whatever the modifier is.MilborneOne 19:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Really it would be far better to break the whole thing into multiple lists. Its confusing because its all jumbled together. I would seriously suggest people think about breaking it into multiple pages for each system. I just think it gets generally confusing when its all in one place (meaning that the same airplanes often show up more than once), and I also think that how aircraft are cross referenced, that they appear in multiple places because of role modifiers, makes things confusing as well. In my opinion the only aircraft that should be cross referenced like that are helicopters and V/STOL aircraft, both of which have a defining modifier before their basic roll. -- Thatguy96 21:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is where do you break it? Pre-'62 and Post-'62? Sounds logical, until you consider how to cover aircraft that 1. were in service on both sides of the divide and 2. didn't get redesignated- exhibit A, C-130 Hercules, which list does it go on? - Aerobird 16:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically the C-130A did get redesignated, from one system to the other, the resulting designation just wasn't any different. This is how its listed in "Department of Defense Model Designation of Military Aircraft" dated 15 February 1963. I would say it goes in the appropriate place on both lists. In the one with its pre-'62 designation (C-130A) and one with its post-'62 designation (C-130A). More importantly things like the GC-130A were redesignated the DC-130A and MC-130A, and the SC-130B/E were redesignated the HC-130B/E I think the biggest question is how to tackle mission modifiers. So many aircraft are listed more than once in terms of total airframes, because they are listed under their mission modifier prefix too. While I think its correct to do this, it does make the list much longer. -- Thatguy96 16:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Missles that continued to use the bomber number series

I removed all the missiles from the bomber list as they were a separate sequence, somebody has now added all the missiles back in again under the title Missles that continued to use the bomber number series. Just like to point out that according to http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/old-missiles.html it states continued from 67, the last B-number originally assigned to a missile - They were in a new sequence that started at 67 so rather than starting a revert war I suggest that the missiles be moved out of the "bomber" list (only B-61 B-62 B-63 B-64 B65 and B67 were in the proper bomber sequence). MilborneOne 19:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the small heading above the missiles numbered 68+. I think these missiles should either be removed completely (because they are no "aircraft" in the sense of the article), or left where they are now (because numerically, the series is clearly derived from the B-series, and "numerics" is the only reason to include the missiles in the article in the first place). Andreas Parsch 07:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

T-50 Golden Eagle

Shouldn't this note go under the post-1962 system? After all this aircraft wasn't even dreamed of in 1962. (Reason #2,849,158 why I cry over the once-clean-and-logical U.S. designation system...) - Aerobird 15:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The T-50 Golden Eagle shouldn't even be in this list. It is not in U.S. service. But you are right, it should not be in the pre-1963 list; either T-50 was skipped or a legitimate aircraft is missing from that list. If the T-50 designation has been reserved for the Golden Eagle, then it would be taken out of the post-1962 series. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fly Navy (but not on this page)!

I've spun off the pre-1962 U.S. Navy designations to their own page: List of military aircraft of the United States (Naval). In doing so I noticed a number of holes in that list (W2F Tracker, anyone?)... - Aerobird 15:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Rearrangement

Lots of us have complained about the way that this list was organised. I believe that the solution I just implemented will significantly improve the situation, by dividing it into the designation systems. I have also corrected some other issues I see: the manufacturer is hyperlinked only at the first occurrence in each section; there is no reason to link every word in a sentence. I have relinked several aircraft that were unlinked; most of them are probably military variants of frequently used civilian aircraft, and therefore should exist at least in the form of a redirect. Karl Dickman ^talk 22:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Some more things; periodically, this list has included at least some information on the status and configuration of the various aircraft listed in here; however, these have been purged throughout the history of this list. How much information is appropriate to include? Comments? Karl Dickman ^talk 23:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this rearrangement is an excellent idea. I moved the H-for-Helicopter list to be consistent with other categories, notably F and T. A problem with the H, T and X series is that they were carried over and continued from the pre-1962 USAF to the post-1962 DOD system. I'm not entirely sure how this is best handled within the new list arrangenment.Andreas Parsch 21:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who worked on fixing up my edit. I forked my version from the may 2006 version of this article, and I've done my best to make sure I haven't overwritten anything important, but 'tis very hard to be perfect. Karl Dickman ^talk 22:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

F-111 Entry

The whole list is organized according to the designation of the aircraft, not their entry into service. Therefore the F-111 "Aardvark" must be listed under the 1948-62 USAF F-for-Fighter series. The F-111A designation was officially assigned in December 1961. Andreas Parsch 21:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

F-109

What's the point of adding the F-101B here (especially if the quoted source is a website, which has not been updated since 1998)? First-hand documents show that F-109 was indeed proposed for what eventually became the F-101B, but not formally requested at the proper authorities. The proposal was obviously rejected before further paperwork was initiated. On the other hand, the request for the Bell YF-109 was made through official channels (twice, actually), and was formally disapproved. So the only "F-109" that left traces in the official nomenclature records was the Bell one. I suggest that (non-)designations like the McDonnell F-109 should only be included if they are the only ones known for a specific number (and can therefore explain why this number was never used). Otherwise, there would be many other "designations", which could be included as well (e.g. XF-106 = XF-84H, YC-137 = YC-97J).Andreas Parsch 21:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well my first instinct would be to add those "paper paper designations", , perhaps with the ** indent, but YMMV. :-) - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Variants (A-7F)

I removed the newly added A-7F entry, because subvariants of aircraft (let alone projected ones) are so far not included in the list. And I definitely wouldn't begin with it - the list is already more than long enough.Andreas Parsch 07:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

C-30 / KC-30 / A330

Betcha if the A330 is selected it gets officially designated C-30 (insert standard grumble about how the designation system is so badly abused by manufactures and even the DOD itself here). - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 16:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't bet against that (even if your "if" is a really big if ;-) ). But until now "KC-30" is nothing more than a marketing name, just like "VH-92" was in the VXX competition.Andreas Parsch 16:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record: The designation KC-45A has been reserved for the winner of the KC-X competition.Andreas Parsch 19:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

B-52

Why is the B-52 listed in a timespan up to 1948, when its maiden flight was 1952, and introduced in 1955? I think there should be a grouping by in service. Clicking on "Unified System, 1962-present," "Bomber," would omit the B-52, for instance, the most prominent member of the US bomber fleet. - MSTCrow 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The B-52 should be in the up-to-1962 category... having the B-52 included in the "Unified System, 1962-present," "Bomber," category would not work, because the Buff was designated under the old system - and this list is organised under that criteria. Going to List of active United States military aircraft would be the proper resonse for someone looking for current prominent aircraft. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the specific model could be added when an aircraft spans time based criteria. Or perhaps a change in title or category names should be made, the way it reads now it gives the idea that the B-52 is no longer a part of the Air Force, for those not familiar with the aircraft it could be misleading. Perhaps adding 'Aircraft Introduced' making the period questioned 'Unified System, Aircraft Introduced 1962-Present'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.163.121 (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Listings of converted/modified aircraft

There are some sublistings, which list converted or modified aircraft with a certain prefix letter (e.g. C, E, K or R). The presentation of these lists within the article is confusing and inconsistent. All but one of them are in the "Unified System, 1962-present" section, but contain lots of designations which were assigned before 1962. I think there are basically two ways to sort this out:

1. Make separate lists for pre- and post-1962 designations. However, this would further bloat the list, which I'd like to avoid.
2. As 1), but include only those designations, for which specialized Wiki articles exist (e.g. EA-18). Simple links to the "basic airplane" (e.g. EA-3 links to A-3) are omitted.
3. Delete these sublistings altogether, and adding notes after the headings of the "USAF, 1948-1962" and "Unified System" sections which explain that modified aircraft (e.g. EC-130) are to be found under their basic designation (e.g. C-130).

Personally, I'm not sure if option 2) or 3) is the better way. Any comments or suggestions? Andreas Parsch 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In an ideal world, the solution would be to split the list into pre-1962 and post-1962 pages, but given the vast overlap in service times... I'm afraid that 1) is the only practical solution, 2) and (especially) 3) would lead to confusion ("why can't I find that plane?!"). - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 17:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to maintain the series lists, then I have to agree with Aerobird, especially since this has already been done with the Navy's aircraft. Considering the massive numbers of types of aircraft the US military has fielded over the past century, splitting the originally single list into three lists is not unreasonable. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with the "why can't I find that plane?!" confusion scenario. What's the problem with adding a note about prefixes, and if possible a link to a more detailed description of the designation system, at the top of each fisrt-level section? By definition, finding an airplane in a designation-based listing without a clue about the designation system itself will always remain a problem. Examples are complaints that the B-52 and F-111 cannot be found in the post-1962 listings.

As another suggestion from my side, a "merger" of my ideas 2) and 3). Seperate listing of only those subvariants, for which separate Wiki pages exist, directly below the "main" entry. Like this:

• ...
• F-17
• F-18
  • EF-18G
• F-19
• ...

This should make look-up of models easy, if one has a basic understanding of the designation system. But since I don't want to "hijack" this article in any way, I will follow the recommendation of other editors who have worked on this (and possible other) Wiki "listing-type" articles for much longer than I ;-). However, if "full" prefix-variant sublists are preferred, I would also support the idea of a pre/post-1962 split. I have a few ideas how the "overlap problem" could be managed. Andreas Parsch 22:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not in favour of adding subtypes as these can be easily found from the main linked aircraft article, it also encourages listing under all possible mission-modifiers which can be confusing as well. MilborneOne 21:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The missile designation M-74 revealed

New research by Andreas Parsch (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/sm-74.html) shows that the designation XSM-74 was assigned the Convair MX-2223, a little-known USAF long-range missile project. Previously the M-74 designation had been unknown, and therefore thought to have been possibly assigned to an unknown USAF missile project or skipped, but the discovery of the designation in USAF nomenclatoral records will force aviation experts to update the lists of missile designations. Therefore, change the entry for M-74 under the section "Missiles". 72.194.116.63 02:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 19.03, 23 July 2007

There is no reason why you can not change it yourself if you can properly source the information. MilborneOne 11:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added the XSM-74, but the only public reference source is my own website. My source in turn are USAF records, of which I have copies, but which are not readily available to the general public. If this violates "No original research" rule, I'd be happy to learn another way to make this information available to Wikipedia.Andreas Parsch 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The source does not have to be a website it can be any published document, using your own website may raise a few eyebrows and is probably not the best thing to do! MilborneOne 20:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to add that is not a criticism of your website which is always a good source of information.MilborneOne 21:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft production

Its all well and great to have the list of aircraft, but I just wanted to point out that their significance is highlighted by their production quantity, and the individual entry pages are not standardized to reflect production data (where known). I wasn't sure where to bring this up, but this is a problem throughout the 'aircraft' lists in all eras and countries. --Mrg3105 14:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 14:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Individual aircraft pages normally do give production totals, in both an infobox and in the text. If you believe their is a problem then you can ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. MilborneOne 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate lists/reorganize

There are a lot of different lists on wikipedia, and most of them share, if not outright duplcate, the same information. I think we need to do a major reconsolidation and rearrangement. So far, I've found:

• 1)List of military aircraft of the United States (this article)
• 2)List of active United States military aircraft
• 3)List of US Naval aircraft
• 4)List of military aircraft of the United States (naval)
• 5)United States Marine Corps Aviation#Current Aircraft
• 6)USAF#Aircraft

proposed changes

2 is almost a complete duplication of 1, so I say we convert 2 into a List of United States Air Force aircraft. Marge 3 and 4. Leave 5 alone (it's just a quick overview), and make 6 just a quick overview as well and link it to the main article (2). We should gin up a short section of Army Aviation Branch aircraft and a list of Coast Guard aircraft on thier respective pages. Each service will get thier own list (the Navy and AF lists will get thier own lists, being so extensive, and the other 3 branches will have a section on thier own articles); and there will be a single consolidated list for the US military as a whole.

proposed org

We can also tackle the organization of the lists at the same time. While it is confusing because there are so many different types and designations (sometimes for the same aircraft), and because there are variants and redesignations galore. While we could have three of four different lists organized different ways (one by designation, one by type, one by service, etc.), that seems like a poor way of handling the situation. Personally, I feel we can first divide the lists into three main categories: in common service (including prototypes that will be in service soon), uncommon service (low numbers, cancelled projects, trainers, unique aircraft, etc), and retired (further divided by era/war). We can then divide it by type; and include variants that have a wiki article in with the origional and in its own category (for example, EA-6B Prowler would be listed as a sub of A-6 Intruder under the Attack category and again in the Electronic Warfare category), those without thier own article won't be noted (or all be noted under a single bullet) because they are probably fairly insignificant and rare. In the table, we would include which branch is currently using each.

Any thoughts? I can tackle this soon, if nobody dissents or add thier own ideas in. Bahamut0013 20:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

When I added that large chunk to the List of military aircraft of the United States Prior to 1919, I thought that it was making the list too large and probably hard to use. Which list would hold the USAAF, USAAS, USAAC, USASC, and Air Technical Service Command aircraft? Would you crop all of those off the top and put them in the Army list? It would shorten the USAF list a bunch. --Colputt 22:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We could group all of those pre USAF planes on a single page, or make a quickie list on thier own pages (US Army Air Force, US Army Air Corps etc.), or we could simple add that to the list of USAF aircraft under a different category, or even on the History of the United States Air Force article (my vote is the last option). Obviously, for the big list to be complete, they'd have to be there as well, but every other plane is going to show up on that list and on thier own branch's so, why not these ones as well? Bahamut0013 13:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

F-35

Someone should add information about the F-35. Red Devil Captain 15:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

F-35 is on the list under Unified System, 1962-present Fighter so nothing to add. MilborneOne 16:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Spitfire

The spits were used from usaaf? i think yes--82.57.144.203 (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a list of un-designated foreign aircraft operated, which includes the Spitfire. MilborneOne (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

FB designations

It's true that their numbers are in the fighter sequence instead of the bomber sequence, however they still have 'B-for-bomber' designations. Aside from being yet another sign of just how screwed up the whole designation system has become, shouldn't they be at least noted in the bomber section? - The Bushranger (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

At first blush I'd say no, since the primary mission is "fighter" not "bomber". (Isn't it?) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Logically, it is. Based on the mission symbol, however, it isn't. They should be F-for-fighter, i.e. BF-111 and BF-22. Which would be the logical designations (actually BF-111G and BF-22C, to be precise). But the eggheads decided the FB designation (which, admittedly, looks better) would be used instead - which makes them technically B-for-Bomber. Grrr. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The trimming spree

Having noticed the size of the list was inching upwards torwards 100kb, I decided to be bold - and rather ruthless - and take the pruning shears to all the types that were variants of types, as opposed to original types. I can see both sides of the issue for including them (and I am, usually, a staunch Inclusionist), however I think the list works better overall without them. Of course, this raises an interesting case of the 'Tanker' section now being empty... - The Bushranger (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I do understand your reasoning, tho I disagree with it. I take it U-2 & SR-71 fail as non-military (CIA or NASA)? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it occured to me later that an alternative might be to split off the World War One-era aircraft ("Prior to 1919") into a seperate list. This might allow for important aircraft variants in the designation sequence to be included. Thoughts?.

As for the U-2 and SR-71, the former is under Utility, while the latter actually appears in two places - the pre-1962 bombers (since its number is in that sequence), and Reconnaissance-Strike. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I missed those. :( (Just saw the U-2 get deleted once...) For myself, I don't like separate lists; given a choice, I'd put Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, & Coast Guard aicraft on a single searchable list... That said, what do you think of splitting at 1919 and 1962? I find the '62 split the more logical, 'cause that's a merged list, while before that is Army &/or AF. A '47 split might make sense, too, at independent AF afterward. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to see everything on a single list as well, but that one would be Listasaurous Rex. A split between the 'pre-'62' and 'post-'62' sequences (which one would the Army designations be on?) has been mooted before further up the talk page - the problem there is that you then have all the aircraft still in service with the pre-'62 designations - and, in the case of C for Transport and (especially) T for Trainer aircraft, still receiving designations from the pre-'62 lists! So I'm not sure that's really workable once you look at it deeper. Really, IMHO the only ones that realistically can be split off are the pre-'19 ones - and possibly the Army ones, although that would produce a rather small breakout as a result - in which case the 'Significant Variants' could be restored, and we just live with the Really Big File Size that results. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a big problem with the subtypes being removed, tho would you say adding a mention of them under the parent type (not a link) would lead to a Megalistus wikipedius? I wouldn't have a big problem with splitting the pre-1919 & Army types (in effect, pre-'47; not a hard & fast cutoff year, tho). I confess, I hadn't thought of the implications of the '62 break; if adopted, it would appear to lead to some required duplication on this & the post-'62s list & some clarification on both. IMO, tho, that's going to be unavoidable whichever way it gets split, since service will overlap any year, so I wouldn't hold that against the '62 split. Not arguing against the other options, mind, just being clear what I think. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, a 1947 split would have some of the same issues, with the various USAAF types being carried over to the new USAF. I can see some merits of both a "by service" and "by system" splitting (clearly when both apply, splitting is the way to go, but yeah, any way you slice it there's bound to be issues. Barring comment from others I'll see later how it looks with the pre-'19 types removed, and then ponder things from there - I'd really like to get this page up to Featured List. :) - The Bushranger (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no particular preference, & the only reason I oppose taking out the subtypes entire is for those who don't know the system as well as you or I, & who don't know what parent type to look under; that's why I sugget re-adding the subtypes under the parent, minus links (as a memory saver, & as really needless if all subheaded). It means some real work reorganizing the page, tho... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Work indeed, but fun! At least for me anyway. And yeah, for the average Wikipedian, it would probably help. I would think just adding those that actually have links to Wikipedia pages (as opposed to, say, including a note for the JRB-47...). But adding them as "indents" under the parent would make the most sense. Off to work! - The Bushranger (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There, the primary variants - those that had been removed, yet had their own Wiki pages - have been re-added, the pre-'19 list has been broken out, I think it's looking good, but of course, then I would, wouldn't I? =P - The Bushranger (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I like it, too. ;D One question, tho: should the "phantom" projects get the added indent? I know, they aren't strictly part of the list, but I find that's thrown me off. Ideas? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion would be to have them set at the "normal" position - this also would help where a "phantom" is the first project in a list, otherwise it makes a large space at the top for some reason. Anybody else have an opinion on this? - The Bushranger (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Helicopters and X-Planes: breakout and redirect?

It occured to me, perhaps there should be a List of military rotorcraft of the United States page, with the appropriate sections split off from this page? The "pre" and "post" 1962 lists are virtually no different - six types were re-designated in 1962 (two Navy, four Army), but the "new" sequence wasn't continued - instead, the "old" sequence was, which makes the page a little awkward as-is. It's also one of only two really logical breakouts I can think of that are left that wouldn't cause major duplication issues, the other being to redirect people looking for the X-Plane sequence to X-plane#List of X-planes. Thoughts, folks? - The Bushranger (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. I wish I'd thought of it. :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, a lot of times obvious things have stared me in the face without me noticing them. I'm sandboxing the Helicopters page, what I've got so far is here. - The Bushranger (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I always feel stupid I didn't notice sooner. Call me Watson. ;p Mycroft Holmes ^{don't be stupid, Sherlock} 20:34 & 20:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC) (I like the use of the pic, btw.)

It's elementary! (And thanks). - The Bushranger (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Dont like the idea of breaking out rotorcraft as it would cause problems with List of military aircraft of the United States (naval) which is the article for pre-62 navy stuff with the post 62 being in this article. I think it would be better to have an article for all the post-62 aircraft and then have the older pre-62 USAF etc stuff in a separate article. Temptation would be to move the pre-62 helos out of the navy article which should really be left alone. MilborneOne (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I can see your point there, I was wondering about that myself. Of course, helicopters aren't really aircraft...

S' possible only the X-Planes should be broken out (not all of them are strictly "military", after all - X-38, I'm lookin' at you - but the chopper work could be shifted into this article when it's done, and maybe the other sections reformatted that way. Breaking the list into "pre-'62" and "post-'62" sections would seem to be the only really workable split, I guess, except IMHO it won't work, with the C, H, and T series being the biggest problems with such a split. I guess the only way to have it is to leave the pre- and post-'62 lists together, and accept a 100K page, perhaps... - The Bushranger (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

After having read up a bit, it seems for lists and such ~400K is actually the reccomened absolute ceiling...so, I think it might be possible for the page to be kept as-is (although reformatted, perhaps, for better readability), without splitting. We'll see, I reckon. In other news, rotorcraft section re-do nearly ready... - The Bushranger (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Rotorcraft in the "original" series are now up! And, on second thought, page size might still become an issue. However, the "Army Air Service, 1919-1924" section would be a logical breakout, I think. EDIT: Also, maybe the "variants" column of the table could be axed...which would make the size much more managable, with notable variants being put in "Notes". - The Bushranger (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC) That was done, and it looks much better (and is much smaller). - The Bushranger (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Splits

After sleeping on it, I have to reluctantly agree that a by-designation-series split is probably the way to go here, with this page possibly being merged with the list of active aircraft (or not?), and the following pages, I think, being set up (with prose, perhaps, from the appropriate designation sytem article - or even merged with/redirected from them, at least in some cases, i.e. the Army's 1956 system?):

List of military aircraft of the United States (1909-1919) - Exists.
List of U.S. Army Air Service aircraft 1919-1924
List of military aircraft of the United States (naval) - Exists. (maybe rename to List of aircraft of the United States Navy (1922-1962)?)
List of aircraft of the United States Army and Air Force (1924-1962) * †
List of aircraft of the United States Army (1956-1962)
List of military aircraft of the United States (1962-present) †
List of X-planes

* - The naming is a little awkward on this one, even if it is accurate. Perhaps a redirect to it from List of military aircraft of the United States (1924-1962)...

† - The C, H, and T series still are irrating problems with the dating here, although I suppose under the appropriate sections adding a note along the lines of "the [[insert appropriate link here|other system]] was also continued during this time period" could cover that.

Thoughts? - The Bushranger (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Due to the large number of aircraft involved this should be just a starting point for the lists in the same manner as List of artillery.

The break in periods because of the designation system is of no relevance to the average reader, although it makes some sense to those of us who understand the how and why of it, and could prove confusing.

I would advocate a hierearchy of lists wether the designation periods are required to be kept separate or not.

• List of military aircraft of the US
  • List of aircaft of the USN
  • List of aircraft of the US Army
    • Sub lists as required
  • List of aircraft of the US Army Air Forces
  • List of aircraft of the US Air Force

List of X-planes includes research as well as military so would be a see also link from article, the actual military X (and Y) planes going in the lists in the appropriate places. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If you mean prototype & service test a/c, they'd be subsumed under the main type, unless (like the YF-107 or XF-103) they were never adopted. A separate list for pure X-planes makes a lot of sense, esp since most of them AFAIK had little/no direct military application. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

R-16 Stratofortress

We need a reliable source for listing R-16, as the main article B-52 Stratofortress makes no mention of it; plus a brief search found another "list" site with the R-16 listed but no source. LanceBarber (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Added a source and added the XR-16A to the B-52 article, it wasnt actually used the aircraft being produced as RB-52Bs. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong plane photo for F-1

The photo image for the F-1 is the wrong plane. It shows the FJ-1 that was the immediate post war WW II straight wing jet that was the direct ancestor of the F-86. The FJ-1 was a failure that served only briefly on carriers, and was long out of the USN inventory by the time the great redesignation occured. The correct fighter is the swept winged FJ-4, the ultimate development of the F-86 lineage, that was still in service when McNamara came to office. GPaul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.212.177 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Mislabeling abounds

I've got to say, but in military parlance, this article is a one big soup-sandwich. This lists don't really make sense and the way things are labeled, you would think an aircraft like the C-130 is not in service anymore. There seems to be some sort of haphazard system employed that outside of Wikipedia, is not even considered. Maybe it is time to do a little resorting for readability and and easy of use. Making things simple to read and use and there won't be any misunderstanding. Remember another military acronym: K.I.S.S. One final note: if a plane is still active today, then it needs to be highlighted in such a way that we know it is still being used. 74.79.34.29 (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'll spell it out: Separate the article into major categories based on the airplanes original purpose and ignore variants unless they became their own craft with their own page. (For example: Cargo, Attack, Bomber, etc) Then in each major category you organize the lists by the airplane military designator. I'd use a table and include in the the list: designator, name, builder, military service(s), years active, and variants. That's it. That would be far easier to read, easier to maintain, and much more sensible then the word salad that is present now. 74.79.34.29 (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

From the lede sentence "This list of military aircraft of the United States includes prototype, pre-production, and operational types. For aircraft in service, see the List of active United States military aircraft." There is a whole list of aircraft that are in service. The aircraft in this list are listed according to where they came in the designation system. If you want to note that a particular aircraft is still in service, then just add a note "currently in service" in its note section. But you also need to be prepared to come back later and remove it when it leaves service. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Um did you just delete my last comment. I know it's been a while since I last wad active, but that's a big no-no. 74.79.34.29 (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit: I'll also add your response still does not make any sense. There is no reason to keep it complex and arcane like it is now. It should simplified and kept simple. The lead: "This list of military aircraft of the United States includes prototype, pre-production, and operational types. For aircraft in service, see the List of active United States military aircraft." does not mean you need to employ some arcane system that is hard to understand or read. To understand what I mean, read the comment of my above that you quickly deleted. 74.79.34.29 (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

An inadvertent deletion, I assure you. I didn't notice the edit conflict. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Bigger Everything

Surely we can find a better description for the F/A-18 Super Hornet than "an enlarged F/A-18 with bigger everything" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.86.78 (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Grumman F7 Tigercat

The Grumman F7 Tigercat seems to be completely missing from the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.184.43 (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

All the naval aircraft are in a separate article List of military aircraft of the United States (naval) which is explained at the top of the article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:List of military aircraft of the United States/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

In all likelihood, this list includes almost every aircraft ever given a military designation, with the exception of those used prior to 1919. Some final questions need to be answered: does it include enough information on the individual aircraft? Does it include too many aircraft? Also, it needs some better references. Still, I consider this excellent featured list material. Karl Dickman talk 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted by JJMC89 bot (talk) at 22:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Bullet or table format?

The current mix of bullet lists and tables is really horrible, can we agree on one or the other?

• Bullet lists are the more concise for big lists like this one, but they are not suited to much information about each entry.
• Table lists can provide several data fields and, carefully constructed, a single big list can be sorted on various criteria, making it better to merge everything into one big, sortable table. For example a column can be added for what is currently the subsection title, allowing easy sorting on the present title when required, but not enforcing it as happens now. On the other hand, table lists take up more space and are harder to maintain, making them less suitable for very long lists.

There is some guidance on lists of aircraft at WP:AVILIST. Thoughts? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody seems to care enough to be watching, so I am applying the format of the first half throughout and changing tables to bullet form. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking about and dropping in a link for the full list for the x-planes as the base designations wouldn't allow much in the way of descriptions. Thoughts? 24.59.190.77 (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have been thinking that too, but have not yet worked my way down that far. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

SR-71

It is not on the list, but it is a United States aircraft and although unarmed, I would not go and call it a civilian aircraft? Does it not count because of the CIA ownership? 193.90.161.14 (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

For various reasons it is listed under "RS-71" MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

MS-1 and XS-1

It appears the "S-1" spaceplace designation has been assigned to this project. I'm not sure how we want to handle this as I can't find any sources on the fate of the MS-1 program, and for all we know the S-1 designation could have been assigned to two unrelated projects. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

MilborneOne What are your thoughts on this? - ZLEA _T\^C 13:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

There's an error.

The Hawker Hurricane is listed in the "Un-designated foreign aircraft operated by the United States" section and it shouldn't be in there because the USAAF did not use it, as shown in the "Operators" section of the Hawker Hurricane page. Slotsloads2 (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Except they did. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)