This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This template is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
I recently removed the F-117 from this list for two reasons, first and most obvious-it came well after this series ended and as such was part of a different series. Indeed the USAF used a series of triple digit designations for covertly acquired foreign aircraft, such as YF-113 for a Mig-23, but this has nothing to do with the pre 1962 series. At the end of that series, the F-110 became the F-4. Starting the new triple digit series was the YF-110 which was actually a Chinese J-7. The pre 62 series was not continued, it ended with the F-111 and any triple digit designation afterward was meant to designate covertly acquired aircraft. The F-117 was supposed to look like one of them on paper, probably to throw off the Soviets and aviation community. (The last sentence was OR on my part, so I won't be posting it in an article.) Anynobody22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually thinking a complete revamp is necessary. I was going to say, "wherever the F-16, F-15 and F-22 are listed", and then it dawned on me... USAF Fighters, that should be here. Anynobody07:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]