Talk:F/A-XX program

Sixth Generation Jet Fighter

So please don't place it on 5th gen lists. Hcobb (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Next generation air dominance (NGAD)

Egads, it's NGAD now. So I move that we move the article. Do I have a second?

www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2508669/posts But a Boeing official told me the acquisition process for a new fighter for the US Navy and US Air Force has already begun. The navy has renamed its program from F/A-XX to next generation air dominance (NGAD) as it enters the analysis of alternatives stage. The air force, meanwhile, also is starting an alternatives study for an F-22 replacement.

Air_superiority_fighter

Hcobb (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Stealth speed tidbit

I noticed that the article claims that speeds of Mach 3-4 would be inhibited by stealth technology, citing the F-22's supercruise speed of Mach 1.8. This isn't its maximum speed, as the article claims, as it is Mach 2.25. Should we just change the claimed max speed, or erase that part of the section, due to the incorrect information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonestar117 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Raptor isn't very stealthy at its top speed. Hcobb (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, 90% of this article should be deleted. It's uncited and little relation with reality. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hcobb, it's not a matter of whether or not the aircraft is stealthy at the top speed, whoever included the part about stealth limiting speed meant that a stealth aircraft could not meet or exceed Mach 1.8, which not only isn't cited, but is flat out wrong. I agree with SidewinderX, this article could use major reworking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonestar117 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark those statements that are not carried by the current refs and I'll ref or delete them then. Hcobb (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've added cite needed tags where required... most of the article. If you're willing to try and maintain this article, have at it. I have a feeling this will be an article that attracts a lot of riff-raff. -SidewinderX (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The section that seems to be the most egregious is the "configurations" section, which looks like it's based off opinion rather than fact. I'd vote that for deletion, personally. Lonestar117 (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hcobb -- It's now been several months since I marked the paragraphs with cite-needed tags, and nothing has been cited. I am planning on deleting them today if they do not get cited. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, all the uncited speculation was removed. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

F/A-XX

This article was moved from "F/A-XX" but it appears to be the common name for the programme, should it be moved back? MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

NGAD is USAF. F/A-XX is USN. There is no relationship between the two programs. Hcobb (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK then we need to move the USN programme to F/A-XX program as it is clearly the common name and has no connection with the USAF. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Since the Navy program seems to be a bit ahead of the AF one (RFI issued), maybe just rename this article. Cover them both in here. The programs will probably connected to some degree, such as using the same engines and/or other systems. See "US Navy issues F/A-XX RFI". -Fnlayson (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That would seem to violate both WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. As it stands right now, they are two separate programs. We can guess that they will be similar or have similar engines, but those are only guesses. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but we're getting that from journalists in the field. AFAIK the USN actually has a infant program while the USAF is at the briefing slides stage where they know that somebody is going to something at some point, but currently they're not budgeted any money to really think about it. Hcobb (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

So basically 2 stub articles instead of 1 article. Does not seem worth it at this early stage. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If they are not the same thing, they are not the same thing. I could get having a more generalized article on future fighter/strike aircraft procurement, or something, but you can't have one merged article that is titled for one of these programs, but has the content for both. Maybe it is more prudent to not cover Next Generation Air Dominance at all if, as Hcobb asserts, it has only had one briefing with a few slides. That might put it below notability. Maybe delete it and put a mention of the program on an article for F-22 development, or something, since it directly relates as a replacement. What it does not relate to is the Navy program, it is separate from that as far as we have any sources to tell. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sixth-generation jet fighter would be the better place to cover these, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Flight Magazine Article

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/senior-official-raises-fa-xx-doubts-while-retired-usmc-generals-question-usns-f-35-commitment-371442/

This is several different spins on the issue than our coverage. Do we include Gardner's main points or not? Hcobb (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Name discrepancy

This program seems to have gone through several name changes that the page hasn't caught. According to http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing39s-fighting-comeback-359258/, the U.S. Navy program name started as F/A-XX then was changed to NGAD, which the page says now, but was then changed again to air-dominance fighter (ADF). The Air Force program to acquire a sixth-gen fighter is apparently entirely separate and called F-X. This page grouped both those programs together since they are both searching for the same type of aircraft, but the two are not connected. How should this page go regarding the various names and what should be done about the Air Force program? America789 (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As discussed (and agreed upon) in the section above titled "F/A-XX", F/A-XX is a Navy fighter program (http://news.usni.org/2015/02/04/cno-greenert-navys-next-fighter-might-not-need-stealth-high-speed), while NGAD is an AF program (not a fighter)(http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/03/07/next-gen-air-dominance-6th-gen-fighter/24393673/). It appears that ADF is a generic term, not a specific program. Based on the earlier discussion, I'm initiating a title change for the article.Eeyoresdream (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation page links

BilCat, I'd ask you to please stop reverting the inclusion of this wikilink. I've asked you repeatedly to explain how the removal of it improves the article. You've failed to provide an explanation, simply linking to WP:FURTHERDAB which does not actually support the removal of this link. First, as I noted before, that page is a guideline, not policy. Second, as the relevant section notes, it is explicitly an allowable exception to the general practice on links to disambiguations when "several different articles might be of interest to the reader and multiple ones are listed on the disambiguation page." That's what's happening here. In this case, all of the links on the disambiguation page are variations on the RSTA/ISR/ISTAR/C4IST concept. All of these are variants of the same general concept of Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition, just in slightly different flavors by branch of service and historical context (for instance, "STA" is an outdated term and has been replaced with RSTA; they both are the same concept but one was developed by the USMC and the other by the USA/USAF).

Removing of the wikilink does absolutely nothing to benefit the article. It's not even a policy that is required to be enforced. It's simply detrimental and destructive to the article. So, unless you can articulate a good, policy-based reason for not doing so in this specific case, I'll ask you to please stop. Thanks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

EW links to a page with EA on it (hence the subset comment), stop this back-and-forth link edit warring and finally, stop adding all those useless spaces to the infobox. - wolf 01:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Two edits are not a "back-and-forth link edit warring", certainly not to the point where it would merit you issuing aggressive warning templates to admins. Stop it, do better. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(watching) ...issuing aggressive warning templates to admins, ah. @Swatjester: are you acting as an editor or an admin on this topic? SN54129 — Review here please :) 14:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you point to an admin action I've made on this topic? That should answer your question. I brought it up because WP:DTR, WP:AGF, and WP:BITE are all things that BilCat (and Wolfchild) blatantly ignored. Now, how about asking the same question of them? Seeing as they're the ones throwing around threats of blocking? Thanks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Swatjester You're involved in a content dispute which means you're not an admin, you're just a plain ole editor like the rest us. You discuss, try to build a consensus, or seek dispute resolution. You don't revenge tag and keep waving your admin flag about, as if it makes you special, when it doesn't. Do better - wolf 14:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, you're in no position to be talking about discussion or building a consensus given that I'm the only one who has attempted to build consensus on a talk page here, while you simply dive-bombed into a content dispute you were involved with and started issuing blocking threats. You tried to throw your weight around, and you got clapped back on for it. Quit misrepresenting the situation. I made two edits to the article over the course of multiple days. BilCat, a non-admin user involved in the dispute, began issuing templated warnings to me threatening blocking. You then jumped in and involved yourself in the same dispute and likewise made templated threats. Now, BilCat isn't an admin so I can understand their lack of understanding of basic policies and guidelines, but you? Holy shit, you know better. Frankly, you should be desysopped for your behavior here. If you're actually interested in improving the article, you're welcome to start practicing what you preach. But I suspect you're not and you never were. So how about you move along now. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Not only is most of what you posted here largely disingenuous, it is also quite rude. I think you owe BiCat an apology, and as for me, go ahead and try to desysop me... I dare ya. - wolf 18:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Swatjester BilCat has been here for about as long as you have and has made almost 10 times as many edits as you. Your notion that BilCat does not understand basic policies and guidelines because he is not an admin is behavior unbecoming an admin. Furthermore, threatening to desysop a non-admin shows a lack of competence on your part. I don't want to contribute to the current admin shortage, but it appears to me that you consider adminship to be a hat more than a tool. I would not be opposed to an RfDA, but I'll let BilCat file one if he believes it to be necessary. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you point to where I threatened anyone with desysopping? I'd wait, but we'd be sitting here to the heat death of the universe because it's never happened. Read carefully, for comprehension this time, what I said. Now consider, using context clues, that it's unlikely that a non 'crat would be threatening anyone. Meanwhile, seeing as you've *actually* threatened me with desysopping (e.g. RFDA)...... FAFO. Don't write checks you can't cash. Also, equating edit count to knowledge of policy in a world of automated tools? And this is what you jumped in here with? Don't make me laugh. You're in no position to be talking about any "lack of competence." ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

So maybe you didn't exactly threaten to desysop Wolf (nor did I threaten to desysop you), but you can't deny saying that Wolf, a non-admin, should be desysopped. While I don't usually equate edit counts with knowledge, the fact that BilCat has contributed far more content to this project than you (293 mainspace articles created to your 14) is evidence that he is far more well versed in content policies and guidelines, but more importantly when to use WP:IAR, than you are. The highly petty nature of your last comment and your attempt to boomerang my remarks only strengthens my position to talk of a lack of competence. I highly suggest you back off and apologize to BilCat, even if he was wrong, your handling of the situation is not exactly the kind of civility we expect from an admin. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Imagine talking about "highly petty" after coming at me with a demonstrably false accusation, getting called out on it, and saying "So maybe you didn't exactly do the thing I accused you of...." and then trying to tell me who I should be apologizing to? Nah, miss me with that. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you seem to be in a very poor mood with regards to this article and those involved here? You don't want to be templated, I won't template you, but the attitude needs to change. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow. At least I said I was wrong. But my choice of words is beside the point, which is how does an editor experienced enough to be an admin make such a rookie mistake like talking of desysopping a non-admin? - ZLEA _T\^C 15:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You didn't say you were wrong. In fact the opposite, you weaseled out of that and you didn't apologize. Your choice of words is not besides the point, you fabricated whole cloth something I never said. So if you're going to keep accusing me of "lack of competency" or "rookie mistakes", on a thread where you've already demonstrated not only those things but a complete lack of honesty and integrity -- well, I guess you just answered 331dot's question. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It's especially ironic that you're accusing me of these things while actively brigading/meatpuppeting on behalf of your bestie, BilCat while seeking off-wiki investigation of my account. Rest assured, I will escalate this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)