Talk:List of active United States Air Force aircraft

Boeing MH-139 deal
WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS is style guide to articles on specific aircraft types. It is not a general rule for all articles or lists containing aircraft. Furthermore, the referenced section states specifically: "Do not place potential operators in this section, only confirmed orders with likelihood of near-term production." The Boeing contract is a confirmed order as per DoD own website. The initial contract is for four aircraft and $98 million has already been earmarked for this year to conduct "research, development, test, and evaluation". Boeing is already building the first fuselage. As far as contracts go, this one is as clear cut as it gets. It is not speculation, but rather a confirmed deal. In addition, there is absoilutely no rule that precludes putting this information into the notes cell of a list.--Estonian1885 (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, the rule is Wikipedia is not a news website, but a collection of notable people, events, and things. I'm not gonna get into edit war, so I'll make an entry in the table - FOX 52 (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

B2 Stealth bomber
This article states 19 in inventory but I've found no information we took 1 out of service. We have 20 in service. 151.203.70.159 (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 151.203.70.159, Wikipedia doesn't attempt to represent "the truth" or "reality" in its pages. It only restates what reliable, published sources have already said. If you know of such a source for the disputed information, please inform us of it here.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see the source of the 19. What I know is 21 were built and 1 crashed. That leaves 20. 151.203.70.159 (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Unmanned aircraft
What about unmanned aircraft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.228.214.46 (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ - w o lf  13:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

USAF list
I've only restored the USAF inventory list, which you have changed - Now if you feel you have good reason to insert variant name(s) in the aircraft name column please make your case on the talk page, but just so you know I will be restoring the original name setting, and it you that need to make the case. - cheers FOX 52 talk! 03:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific please? Some of the names you changed to include manufacturer names, some you didn't. But other than names, I cleaned up other items, such alphabetizing, removing needless spacing from piped names, making uniform single space placement in the markup so that editing is easier (especially for new user), and removing duplicate links where they're not needed. I didn't change any info such numbers of craft, numbers on order, etc. I only restored the list the same uniform, alphabetical order layout, with linked items at the top of each section, as I did before quite some time ago. A layout you never seemed to have a problem with before, (despite editing the page) nor did any other editors of the page.


 * Now, as I say, I saw you updated some numbers and refs, but also changed some name schemes, changed the order so it was no longer alphabetical, added duplicate links and extra spaces to piped names, etc. I'm not sure why you did that, but I only cleaned up the items mentioned, without changing the updated info. - w o lf  14:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll make the corrections in the article, accordingly - FOX 52 talk! 15:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you specify which changes you're referring to? It's customary to discuss changes before making any, once a discussion on the talk page has started. Thanks - w o lf  16:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering if perhaps the manufacturer names you want to see included in on the list, and to that end, what if a columm was added for that? For example;

Current inventory
Lemme know what you think. If anyone else has any thoughts on this, please join in. Thanks - w o lf  02:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They are only going to be minor changes, am not gonna go back and forth here. - Any gripes just place'em here - FOX 52 talk! 06:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. The purpose of this discussion was to help clarify some of the changes you are seeking to make (or... just making). I had asked you above, but did not get a response. Instead, you made this edit, where you changed two of the aircraft entries, from desiganator & name to manufacturer and designator. You did this to only two of the almost 70 aircraft listed, making them appear oddly out of place. You also reversed them, taking them out of alpha-numerical order, for... some reason (your edit summary simply stated: "better this way". But how? And for who?) That was purpose of having this discussion, so you could help others understand why you insist on these changes, even though they don't appear to be improvements. You also added a link, even though the same link appears just two lines up, and there is only a total of three aircraft in that section. Links are not typically duplicated in articles, though there are some exceptions, for example the same link can be found in different sections here, but there is still just the one link per section. Why the need to duplicate here?

Also, you have not responded to my post just above. I had noted in your previous edit you had added the manufacturer of the aircraft, but at the expense of hiding the aircraft's name. Same as your most recent edit, noted just above. To address this, I suggested adding a 'manufacturer' column, so that way, we can list all the aicraft by their designator & namee, in a uniform, alpha-numeric order, and list the manufacturer for every aircraft as well. I added an example table above to demonstrate. This seems like solution to address both our concerns, as well as an improvement to the article.

Could you please, before making any further changes, make an effort to engage here, collegially and in good faith? Thank you - w o lf  06:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * alpha-numerical order? - are you joking? "B"..then come "G"lobal Express, so now I have to make it 3 then 4 (and off the shelf airframes should have the manufacture name, then variant" FOX 52 talk! 06:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And the aircraft name is enough, since its linked to the page, its unnecessary to repeat the with a manufactures column, let not inundate the reader with more text. - <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 07:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * First, chatacterizing any questions as "gripes" and asking if I'm "joking" is just unnecessary rudeness. I'm trying to continue a discussion you started, in a sincere manner. That said, I just noticed you had changed the name of a third aircraft as well, removing the USAF's designation for the Canadian manufacturer's name only. I'm still not seeing how this is "better", either by looking at the overall list, or your comments here. I can say that previously, those entries has the USAF designators, and as such we listed as "E-3", "E-4", "E-11A". Seems to make sense, and is in line with the layout of the rest of the table, a layout that has been in place, and stable, for some time now. But again, I think simply adding a 'manufacturer' column would solve these... "gripes". The manufactuer might be linked, but that's still on another page. So why not add the column? It's not as if it's overwhelming. But, as you say, linking to the manufacturer is sufficent, so why the push to have these particular manufactuer's names added here? (And at the expense of the aircraft designator, used for every other entry in all the sections.) This just seems oddly contradictory. -  w o lf  07:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The layout names haven't been an issue till now, but there's room for some modifications. Now not to confuse designation with variant, aircraft like the A-10 is an aircraft designed specifically for military use. Off the shelf aircraft like Bombardier Global Express, Learjet 35, or the Cirrus SR20 are civilian air frames that have been repurposed for military use and as such should be listed by the original names, with the variant name, listed in the proper column. - And we do NOT need a column for manufactures that's just unnecessary redundancy, which is not an improvement. - <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 16:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you basing all this on? Why have a mix of USAF designations and manufacturer names, when the craft names you changed also have USAF designations? (And all caps is not necessary, just an explanation will suffice.) With the exception of the three manufacturer names you just suddenly added to one section, they weren't included before. Since you seem so intent on having them, why not add the column then? The the "Name" column can go back to names and the manufacturers that you want can be included as well. There would be no "redundancy", just a uniform list returned to stability and ease of use. - w o lf  16:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well since its inception they've all always been like this, till you came in - just like with the images - In short its not much of an improvement - — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOX 52 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not particularly collaborative, more of a case of "I don't like it." I was able to support my changes with demonstative and sensible explanations, and P&G when needed. You otoh, not so much... just random changes and unexplained reverts, with the odd "my way is better" edit summary, (if you leave a summary at all). And it always seems to be this way you. - w o lf  07:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said "my way is better" I stated "better this way" referring to the Bombardier Global Express airframe - doesn't make sense to name the aircraft the E-11A, and then duplicate it in the variant column as "E-11A". IMO I think its better for the reader to be able I.D. the aircraft under the more common / recognizable name. - (depending on the aircraft being listed). I don't think it not being alphabetized is gonna ruin the table - It's certainly not a standard: Ivory_Coast Armed Forces, List of Portuguese Air Force, Eswatini Defence Force,  Slovak_Air_Force,  PNGDF just a few samples pulled.    <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 05:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

In other words, the better "this" way is really just "your" way. And to support that, you name a few other non-US lists and their problems as... what? Proof? Some of these "examples" hardly even apply here, and others that have been heavily edited by you. How is it that "your" way is the "only" way? That is not collaboration. - w o lf  04:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * OK let me break it down -


 * Per this edit -give me your rational to this specific entry - why name the aircraft the E-11A, and then duplicate it in the variant column as "E-11A"? as opposed to "Bombardier Global Express" aircraft name & "E-11A' as variant name?
 * The samples I pulled were to show you that whether its armor, weapons, or aircraft those lists aren't alphabetized, and the names used are not to any specific method. (Prior to any that I edited there was no specific method)
 * Finally, am not here to change the entire list, as I said before "I think its better for the reader to be able I.D. the aircraft under the more common / recognizable name" - <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 05:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Still not seeing any suggestions toward compromise, just more "it should be this way because...", and no other way. That's not typically how content is built & maintained, nor how content disputes are resolved. - w o lf  04:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Would not be to advisable to add manufacturer row, get too lengthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B1AC:4A25:48B3:554B:CF1:4089 (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Really, huh? - w o lf  04:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * When you can give me your reasoning (for the E-11A naming issue) then we can move forward, it's a simple question - sorry am just not convinced, it's the way to go (I think the common / recognizable name) benefits the reader- <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 05:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The first column has all USAF designations. You changed the E-11 from it's USAF designation to it's Canadian manufacturer name? How is that an improvememt? - w o lf  22:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it notifies the reader that this aircraft is an off the shelf design, and has been modified for a military purpose hence the variant name. - <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 04:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It does? Just how does it do that? - w o lf  00:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's called reading - <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 01:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oy. Can you stop being a WP:DICK for at least one discussion? (please & thank you). I would just like to resolve this. The point was, just what content is on this page for readers to read that would identify and clarify this nomenclature in the manner you intend? - w o lf  07:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be pettifogging the issue - The F-15 Eagle has part of its name in the list as its reflects the article name "McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle ", we don't have an article for the E-11A, because its based off the Bombardier Global Express airframe- it's that simple. - And please avoid personal attacks. - Thank you <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 04:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Just posting an link to an appropriate essay, following your snippy and insulting comment: "It's called reading", along with the general gaslighting and uncooperative attitude you've had throughout this entire thread. I've asked you repatedly to try to be more collaborative here. Collaboration is a large part of how this project works. - w o lf  05:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * like this wasn't snarky? "It does? Just how does it do that?" - Anyways, there's not a whole lot of wiggle room, as we can't create names that don't exist. And if I don't come up with an idea, somehow am not collaborating with you? Again I've ask you more than once "why name the aircraft the E-11A, and then duplicate it in the variant column as "E-11A"?" you haven't given answer to a simple question. - <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 08:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that was a legitimate, straight-forward question... How does it do that?. (Still awaiting an answer, btw.) We can create "wiggle room" by adding explanatory content, adding and/or modifying the table, etc. (and this may resolve this E11A dilemma that seems to be keeping you up at night). Anything would be better than the direction this table has been taken in during the most recent changes. (Another change you arbitrarily made just hours ago, with no mention on it here before-hand. This is not working in good faith, and so the page should go back to quo). - w o lf  04:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How does it do that? the reader " will read it" that's how it notifies them - Well since were setting the page back quo, then that's what I'll be doing - back to the "quo" If you can come up with a better solution, am all ears - IMO this is the best result, it may not be alphabetized, but that's no reason to go clutter up the table, with redundant text. - <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 05:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Table partially restored back, prior to your arbitrary changes 6/2022 (gain some input from others)- <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 02:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What you call "arbitrary changes" I call clean up and improvement. Now, it is at all possible that you are willing to work towards a solution here, both on the talk page, and in the article? This has been dragging on for some time now, with no end in sight, and as opposed to any cooperation, you only seem interested in carrying on grudges and pushing to have content laid the way you prefer only, regardless of wether it adversely affects the article or not. You don't seem interested in a resolution, just "winning". This is not collaboration. - w o lf  14:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly Wikiproject Aviation have "style guide" on how to fill "aircraft column" which are This should be the top-level type designator. Where possible use the same name as the aircraft article, in the format [Manufacturer Type Identifier Name]. In some cases common sense will be needed to modify the type description for a particular entry. I fully aware that current inventory table is not exactly follows that "Syle Guide", but I don't see why we should not follow "Style Guide", esp. on "aircraft column". Ckfasdf (talk)
 * Thats exactly the point I'm trying to make...."Where possible use the same name as the aircraft article, in the format Manufacturer Type Identifier Name The table isn't the issue but the most common identifiable name - <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 07:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I was following the bit about using "common sense", and using the USAF designations for each aircraft in the "Aircraft" column, and listing them alphabetically, which is commonly done on WP lists. Some of the names were changed to include the manufacturer, creating an inconsistency. I suggested adding a manufacturer column, but that was shot down foe some reason (pardon the pun). Some of the names were changed to the generic name used by the manufacturer, instead of the USAF designation. Not sure why this inconsistency was added, but there are other ways to address this, but that is usually determined through collaboration, if all parties are willing. - w o lf  05:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with it being alphabetize, but the common names have been used because, that's the title of article its linked too. ie: Bombardier Global Express, which is the name of the article, not the "E-11A" - hence the "variant" column which covers this naming issue for repurposed civilian aircraft. The source we are using has the same layout. Remember out of 65 entries, were talking about 9 civilian aircraft. - thoughts <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 06:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I hear you, and this is why I tried to keep this discission going, in hopes of coming to a resolution. I see that you wanted to have original manufacturer names included, especially ones you feel are prevalent, or even predominant. For some time now, on these lists, (I'm referring to US military for now), I've been maintaining the lists using the branch name/designation under the first column, "Aircraft". This seems like an obvious and straight-forward choice to make. (eg: using the USAF's name for the USAF craft on the USAF list) But, this does not mean your approach needs to be dismissed. For example, above I suggested adding another column for "Manufacturer" (or Mfgr. "Name", "Designation", etc.) As demonstrated, the table can easily accomodate another column, and given the intended content, it should remain reletively slim and not overwhelm the table. This has the benefit being able to include both the names that you and I are seeking to add. This has the further benefits of helping to claify for readers just which names belong to which craft, (lolz... "which craft", that was unintentional.), and may further aid users in searching and linking, etc. It seems like a win-win solution. Everyone gets what they want, and it shows not only that I recognize the changes you're trying to make, but also why you're trying to make them, annd, that I trying to work towards a solution that includeds them. So, given some extra time and consideration... what do you think? -  w o lf  08:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

designation change EC-37B to EA-37B
The air force has apparently changed the designation for the EC-37B to EA-37B. Thought this could be changed

source : https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/new-attack-ea-37b-moniker-for-usaf-electronic-warfare-jets Dauby09 (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ - w o lf  04:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)