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

Archive 1

Questions:

What is the reason for the ordering within the categories: Chronological?

Also, why is the C-130 considered special instead of transport?--Rogerd 02:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

C-130

The KC-130 variant, is a refuel tanker. (Born2flie 21:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC))

Mission vs. Modified Mission

According to the Joint Services designations (since 1962), aircraft are classified by Mission and then Modified Mission. Attack Helicopters are a subset of Helicopters, not Attack aircraft. (Born2flie 21:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC))

Photo

As this page also seems to double as a template, placing a photo at the top of the page causes it to appear elsewhere. The following image was appearing on what looked like every US military aircraft's page, and it seemed rather out of place for aircraft not in the picture. As two of the aircraft are non-US (the F/A-18 is a US design, but its an Australian aircraft in the photo) it seems to be doubly out of place. --Nick Dowling 03:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft fly over the desert on April 14, 2003. Aircraft include KC-135 Stratotanker, F-15E Strike Eagle, F-117 Nighthawk, F-16CJ Falcon, British GR-4 Tornado, and Australian F/A-18 Hornet.

Shouldn't the Bomber section be a sub-section of Combat?

Shouldn't the Bomber section be a sub-section of Combat?

I'd go along with that. Unless we have a "fire-fighting" bomber section! BTW, I changed all your NBSP BR tags with the more elegant BR CLEAR=ALL, which is more effective if all you want is a new section to clear hte right-aligned image box. Hope that helps. — David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs 19:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

List

This is the list of the active united states aircraft. PLEASE....... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.233.159 (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 10:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the C22 still an active US military aircraft?

According the to C22 article, it seems that the aircraft is no longer in use. user:mnw2000 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the F 18 who was missing on the list

Edited link: AH-1 Cobra to the active variant: AH-1 SuperCobra. 166.214.53.111 (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)DLM

F-117

Isn't the F-117 still in active service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.141.250 (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is an attack aircraft, why is it listed by fighters? The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The USAF gets to decide how to classify their aircraft. The nighthawk is an F for fighter. It goes in the fighter section. Given the secrecy behind it we really have no idea of its air to air abilities though I would guess that the fact that no air to air missle can get a lock on the f-117 I would assume it would handle itself nicely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.114.13 (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Air Force has retired the F-117. It was not generally capable of air-to-air combat. It was an attack aircraft. Sperril (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

T-41 Mescalero

The article for T-41 says it was retired in 1997, yet it's listed as having 518 planes in active duty. Can anyone explain the discrepancy? 66.112.232.68 (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The T-41 is still in service, but the U.S. Navy only operates 4 according to Aviation Week & Space Technology as of January, 26 2009. I will change that ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stars999 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes

Should the changes by Redjacket3827 be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stars999 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Stars999, this is Redjacket3827. Which changes did you not like? I really like the re-edit that you did (I think it was you). All I did was a little cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redjacket3827 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the only thing I didn't like was that you changed to subgroups to fixed wing, helicopter, etc, I don't think it is specific enough. The rest of the changes you made were great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stars999 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to change it to how the DoD classifies aircraft: first by vehicle type (ie fixed-wing aircraft, helicopter, vtol/vstol, etc.) then use the type in the actual list for the basic mission or modified mission (so that all attack aircraft are grouped together). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redjacket3827 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Tu-2

In the list there is the Tupolev Tu-2. Is this an error (maybe a misspell for another soviet plane) or was the WWII bomber used by USAF ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.39.34.232 (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge

List of currently active United States military watercraft and List of currently active United States military land vehicles should be merged here and put into chart form. The reason is logistical (since the two articles have been coming along really slowly), and logical (i'll put an main article dab at Equipment of the United States Armed Forces#Vehicles). The name should be changed to Vehicles of the United States Armed Forces. In addition the article should be trimmed a bit as the subjects can be described better at Vehicles of the United States Air Force etc. username 1 (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure it is a good idea as far as I know watercraft and land vehicles are not military aircraft. This list is a summary to enable readers to find information and articles on current military aircraft you would not come here to find out about Landing Craft. Most people would not make the connection between aircraft and vehicle (they would probably not class Landing Craft as a vehicle either!). I would suggest that the more specialised articles like this dont need to be watered down and the contents subsumed into a larger subject article. This is really a subject to be discussed at project level. MilborneOne (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose as well. Based on the nature of the lists, there is no real gain to have from combining them; they are pretty much dissimilar lists, the only thing having in common is that they are United States military equipment and they are transportation and fighting platforms. Not to mention just how huge such a list would be, even without images, it would take a while to load, amongst other size considerations (WP:SIZE). bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

T-45

The T-45 Goshawk, a Navy plane derived from the British BAe Hawk is not present. Somebody add it, since I'm not so good at tables. Jeremy Wang (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Already listed under Navy and as far as I can see has been in the list for a long time. MilborneOne (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Images

A few of the images are of the same or similar aircraft types rather than the relevant ones:

• USAF C-20 is a USN aircraft
• USAF C-27 is an Italian Air Force aircraft
• USAF UV-18 a Canadian civil Twin Otter (on floats)
• USAF MiG-29 is a Yugoslav Air Force example
• USAF Su-27 is a Russian example
• US Army C-12 is a USAF aircraft
• US Army C-20 is a USN aircraft
• US Army C-31 is a Pakistan civil Fokker F-27
• US Army C-37 is USAF aircraft
• US Army UV-18 a Canadian civil Twin Otter (on floats)
• US Army An-26 is Romanian
• US Army An-2 is probably Russian
• US Army Mi-24 is Polish
• USN F-5 is a USAF aircraft
• USN T-6 is a USAF aircraft (and shows more of WW2 Texan than the modern aircraft)
• USN C-35 is a US Army aircraft

If anybody can find replacement images so these can be removed, thanks MilborneOne (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes User:Babak902003 MilborneOne (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

File:C-40B USAF VIP Transport.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:C-40B USAF VIP Transport.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

F-16

Can we get a source for the number of F-16s in service? I'm not saying it isn't true, but that is a stupid high number (larger than the total aircraft in the wold's next largest airforce). 15 October 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.50.35 (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Globalhawk.750pix.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Globalhawk.750pix.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Boeing KC-46

Doesn't the Boeing KC-46 need to be added? While not in the field, it was selected, the design is complete, and it is in production. It would seem that inclusion would be consistent with other entries here, like the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"To be replaced by the KC-46" If there is no such airplane in inventory there is no need to state you have zero aircrafts.

File:MiG-29 SRB2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MiG-29 SRB2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:MiG-29 SRB2.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

M-28 Skytruck

Wonder if 8-10 M-28 Skytruck from AFSOC belongs to USAF (and this list)? --SojerPL (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's non-standard aviation asset without designation, not listed among inventory. --SojerPL (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Harrier loss

The article lists the U.S. Marines as having 99 AV-8B Harrier II jump jets. But I think that's before the loss of at least 6, and perhaps as many as 8, in the 9/14/2012 attack on Camp Bastion in Afghanistan by Taliban sappers. So, should we change 99 to 93? NCdave (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• if you have a valid source (web article etc.) you could update the number Redalert2fan (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Air National Guard

I believe that there should be some information regarding ANG aircraft. If they are included in the "Air Force" section, then the headline should be: "Air Force - including Air National Guard". If ANG aircraft isn't considered active U.S. military aircraft, it should be mentioned in a note in the opening. Perhaps there should be a new paragraph called "Air National Guard", or a subsection in the "Air Force" paragraph. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A proposal to upgrade the Future section to its own article.

It is my opinion that the future subject deserves its own article, something like List of future United States military aircraft. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with a separate article but a list of active aircraft should not have a "future" section so should be deleted from here new article or not. MilborneOne (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do we still have manually maintained lists of articles? Can't we cat it all? Hcobb (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It does seem funny to have a Future aircaft section in a list of active military aircraft! :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What about Future military aircraft of the United States? Gavbadger (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What happens to futures that do not happen? Why not have something along the lines of military aviation development programs of the United States? Hcobb (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Now the Future section has been upgraded to its own article Future military aircraft of the United States. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f-35-lightning-ii-joint-strike-fighter-ctol-variant/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

All in one inventory

Please can you do one inventory which contain all aircraft and helicopters, the central inventory, because for example i am interested in how much has USA F-18 hornet, now i must pass all articles add hornet from Air force, Navy, marine corps and it is boring. The old inventories I had left, but I would add the central inventory. sorry for my english i am not from English speaking countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.250.18.86 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to know who has a particular type or helicopter then you need to look at the related article like McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet which list all the operators of the Hornet. MilborneOne (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes but i think it is better on one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.153.49.236 (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

New Source - "World Air Forces 2014" from Flight Global - Entire page update

Hello everyone. With your permission, I would like to update this entire page with the new source.

• Link

Karim3343 (talk) 08:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

That source is already a year old. The 2015 edition has been available for several weeks from the same source. Paaln (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Eye candy in lists

The WikiProject aviation has been discussing eye candy in lists of aircraft here and has reaffirmed that images and flag icons should not be included in these lists. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have cleaned up one section but the others still need doing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Citing

The QF-4E Phantom is incorrectly cited, as it brings me to the page of the F-4 Phantom II, which caused much confusion. Does anyone have a link to the correct article? AA Quantum (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

QF-4Es are covered in the F-4 article. There's no need for a separate article on a minor variant. - BilCat (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, just noticed. Thank you. AA Quantum (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

List format

The format of this list currently differs in some respects from the relevant "mil-current" format defined in the Aviation wikiproject style guide WP:AVILIST. Provided that good reasons can be agreed here on the talk page, that is fine.

• The Manufacturer has been spit off to a separate column, leaving shortened Type descriptions. This allows sorting on the allocated type number: F-16, etc. I think we should agree that this is a worthy exception to the general case.
• The standard format includes another column for numbers: it has one for the number currently In service and another for the Total which have seen service to date. I do not see any reason why the USAF should differ from others here so I'd like to suggest that we add the extra column.

Does this sound reasonable? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good to me. - ^theWOLFchild 11:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of active United States military aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025101040/http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-07-06_USAF-Cirrus.asp to http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-07-06_USAF-Cirrus.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130728055610/http://navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.display&key=CFD01141-CD4E-4DB8-A6B2-7E8FBFB31B86 to http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.display&key=CFD01141-CD4E-4DB8-A6B2-7E8FBFB31B86

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Number of MQ9 UAV's in service and on order.

The numbers never seem to change from one month to the next. Is your list updated periodically? If not is there a way I can update it on demand?Bobleppel (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

shouldnt the dehaviland dash 7 be on here

I know the US Army uses the dash 7 for reconnaissance as well as electronic missions. The thread on this aircraft says that the US Army owns ten of them De_Havilland_Canada_Dash_7. Cshedor (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

They are listed under "EO-5" in the Army section. MilborneOne (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of active United States military aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724075943/http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110211-038.pdf to http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110211-038.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203075601/http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2013_defense_industry_military_news_uk/united_states_army_puchases_maveric_bird_camouflage_uas_unmanned_aerial_system_2611135.html to http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2013_defense_industry_military_news_uk/united_states_army_puchases_maveric_bird_camouflage_uas_unmanned_aerial_system_2611135.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130301031003/http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/News/NewsArticleDisplay/tabid/3488/Article/78874/marine-corps-continues-flying-with-joint-strike-fighter-program.aspx to http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/News/NewsArticleDisplay/tabid/3488/Article/78874/marine-corps-continues-flying-with-joint-strike-fighter-program.aspx

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722211142/https://www.alt.army.mil/portal/page/portal/oasaalt/documents/AWSH_2010_Book-web.pdf to https://www.alt.army.mil/portal/page/portal/oasaalt/documents/AWSH_2010_Book-web.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of active United States military aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505140944/http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS182954+25-Mar-2009+PRN20090325 to https://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS182954+25-Mar-2009+PRN20090325

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion / Question about classification of propellers and jet engines

In the instance of the AC-130, it is listed as a propeller driven aircraft when it in fact a Turboprop. It is not a piston driven aircraft, but a jet engined powered one. I reccomend that all turboprop engine aircraft be changed to accurately depict so - AH (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Turboprops have propellers. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd just remove that column altogether, as it's not all that important a distinction, and just takes up valuable space. - BilCat (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Number of Twin Otter UV-18B used by U.S. Air Force is odd

Currently it listed 884 of Twin Otter UV-18B are in use, compare to other type of aircraft this seems impossible.

Thanks for that, I have changed it to the more realistic "three". MilborneOne (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge List of active United States Air Force aircraft into List of active United States military aircraft. The first article duplicates some of the content in the this article. Natg 19 (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC) @FOX 52 and Steelpillow:

• OPPOSE - The Air Force inventory is page is dedicated to the AF article. If any thing we should do away with the List of active United States military aircraft page(s) and let the specific inventory page stay linked to the perspective articles - FOX 52 (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, so you would propose separating out the List of active United States military aircraft page into separate pages for each branch of the US military? I don't think the other branches currently have their own pages. Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

there is for the US.Navy and US Marines - FOX 52 (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I was unaware of that. Thanks for letting me know. From what I can see, the current page is used to follow convention of "List of active <country name> military aircraft", as seen in this template's "military aircraft" section. Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Right and as I see it, they are all current/active (for the individual services) We may want to just keep or convert the "all" page into a historical aircraft page - thoughts??? FOX 52 (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• OPPOSE I believe that the content on the second page that is being proposed to merge with this page (List of all active United States military aircraft) is inaccurate and SHOULD NOT MERGE AT ALL. I use this page a lot for research and i believe it would make it a worse experience if these two were merged. Talk) 09:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• NEUTRAL - I am on the fence here. I would think it would be easier to maintain a single list, especially since many of the aircraft serve more than a single branch. If it is split then we should see that a similar format or template is used for all 5 branches, and perhaps another for non-military aircraft operated by other branches of the government, many of which are former military or pulled from military production lines. The effort needed to maintain 5 (or 6) separate lists might be more cumbersome and less likely to be maintained accurately.N9jig (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Currently I'm trying to maintain over a hundred inventory's from Air Forces around the globe, so 5 more won't make a difference to me - FOX 52 (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Maintaining duplicate information is sometimes done where it appears within overlapping but distinct topics. It adds work and risks inconsistencies, but sending the visitor clicking around in the middle of a topic discussion is unhelpful. What is done here should reflect consensus at WP:MILHIST and WP:AVIATION as to how the article base is structured and how lists are presented. IMHO the first thing necessary is to ensure that the presentation of tables like the List of active United States Air Force aircraft should be aligned with the guideline at WP:AVILIST, with changes to either the lists or the guideline agreed by common consensus across the projects. For example making the table sortable with an extra column for the role would make all the in-table subheadings unnecessary and arbitrary information of interest to the visitor easier to group. Once the character of the lists is established, it will be much easier to see whether merging them makes sense. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Variants column

It will be much better that if you add another column as "Variants" & rename the column name "Types" into "Aircrafts". Mtkhan1989 (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Grumman F-14 Tomcat

Where is F-14 Tomcat fighter?

188.238.76.242 (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No longer active. - wolf 18:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)