Talk:F/A-XX program/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)