Talk:Lists of military aircraft of the United States

The "F-56 Maverick" is completely mystifying. Neither Google nor my own reference material list anything like this. (User:Stan Shebs)

I think it's supposed to be the F-149. :)

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)

---

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)

---

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

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.

• 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)

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)

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