Misplaced Pages

Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:05, 20 August 2007 editBilCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers215,738 edits Comments← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:42, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,539 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell| 1=
{{Not a forum}}
{{WikiProject Germany|class=B|importance= |nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WPMILHIST
{{WikiProject Aviation
|class=B
|B-Class-1=yes <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
|importance=
|B-Class-2=yes <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|Aviation-task-force=yes
|B-Class-3=yes <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|British-task-force=yes
|B-Class-4=yes <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|French-task-force=yes
|B-Class-5=yes <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|German-task-force=yes
|Aircraft=yes }}
|Weaponry-task-force=yes |nested=yes
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B |B-Class-1=yes |B-Class-2=yes |B-Class-3=yes |B-Class-4=yes |B-Class-5=yes |Aviation=yes |British=yes |French=yes |German=yes |Weaponry=yes}}
{{WikiProject Europe|importance= }}
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject NATO|importance= }}
}} }}
{{Press|year=2004|section=March 2004 (30 articles)
{{WPAVIATION|class=B|Aircraft-project=yes}}

{{onlinesource|year=2004|section=March 2004 (30 articles)
|title=Budget pays attention to the poor, but... |title=Budget pays attention to the poor, but...
|org=The Straits Times |org=The Straits Times
|date=March 16, 2004 |date=March 16, 2004
|url=http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/singapore/story/0,4386,240668,00.html}} |url=http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/singapore/story/0,4386,240668,00.html}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 7
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(365d)
|archive = Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Hinterstoisser Air Base) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Hinterstoisser Air Base","appear":{"revid":315195385,"parentid":311988829,"timestamp":"2009-09-20T23:40:11Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":755987273,"parentid":745798511,"timestamp":"2016-12-21T09:07:07Z","replaced_anchors":{"Air defence systems":"Other air defence systems"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (Typhoon FGR4) ]. <!-- {"title":"Typhoon FGR4","appear":null,"disappear":{"revid":465851613,"parentid":465849370,"timestamp":"2011-12-14T17:46:41Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
}} }}
{{talkheader}}

{{archive box|]}}

==Archived discussion==
I've archived the previous discussions due to page size. Since it's the first archive I thought it would be helpful to explain. The archives are accessible via the box to the right. ] 13:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
* Why not keep the August talk here? Did you move the main talk page or something? -] 13:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
**Yeah, moved to ]. There's two ways of archiving. You can either just cut and paste or move the talk page to a new name. By moving the edit history is maintained and links to the discussions etc. on other talk pages are also maintained. I didn't keep the August talk because they all seemed to be resolved. I can copy them back if you prefer? ] 13:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
*** I've always done it the cut & paste way. I guess it doesn't matter that much.. -] 13:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So now people can come in and add in what we had already discussed? There was absolutely no reason to archive it other than the fact that the discussion on comparable AC and the F-15 incident did not go your way. {{unsigned|141.155.140.48}}
:As much as I love your conspiracy theory there was one reason I archived - the page said "This page is 99 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance." Given the amount of time I've spent explaining myself I'm beginning to regret bothering to be honest. ] 21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

==F-22 consensus==
I am protesting in the strongest terms the dictating of what can and cannot be in this article by a user who does not even bother to join the community. the ] give a clear definition of what is considered "comparable", but this is continually ignored. The definition: ''Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. This will always be somewhat subjective, of course, but try to keep this as tight as possible. Again, some aircraft will be one-of-a-kind and this line will be inappropriate.'' It does not say "equal" or "identical", but "similar".

Similarities:
#SIngle-seater
#Twin-engine
#Supercruise capability
#Stealth features
#Mach 2+ max speeds
#Development began in the 1980s
#Entered production in the early-mid 2000s
#Primary role of Air SUperiority, with secondary air-to-ground capability
#Modern weapons
#Both the top of the line fighters for thier contries

Differences:
#Internal weapons for F-22
#F-22 has greater designed stealth abilites, tho these are untested in actual combat
#Higher supercruise speed for F-22
#Less emphasis on air-to-ground role for F-22, tho this may change with retirement of F-117.

In addition, most of the differences are of degree, not substance. I genuinely do not see how they cannot be considered "comparable" by WP:AIR's definition of the term.

Getting this page protected obviously did not help the matter, nor did simply waiting the user out. I DO NOT accept that a consensus was reached previously, just that the user was unable to edit the article, and the issue died down. How can we compromise? Put in "F-2"? It's either in or out - there is no apparent middle ground. I don't know if IPs are eligible for Arbitration or not, but that seems to be the only solution left here, as no one seems inclined to enforce 3RR on IPs. - ] 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
:A consensus was reached, in fact. I believe the consensus was to keep F-22 as a similar aircraft. Simply, no one felt like warring the IP just yet... ] 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, he certainly isn't interpreting the consensus that way! And do you mean "warring" or "warning" (just not sure in context). - ] 16:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
:I do mean warring. Warnings are for admins to give :) Users can only undo... ] 17:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
:: Users can give warnings if needed. But it takes admins to block them. -] 17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I just wasn't sure of your meaning, and wanted to make sure. - ] 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


== UK numbers usable ==
===Possible compromise===
Will this work?
* <s>]</s>


], noted your revert here: ], hence ] (though the added information wasn't really <U>that</U> <B>]</B>). So:
If having listed is a POV, and not having it listed is POV, then having it in, but struck out, must be NPOV! I don't see any other way to do it! - ] 17:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


1. Is the information encyclopedic? I think this is accepted.
*I've decided to be bold and unilaterally declare a moratorium on changes to the Similar aircraft list until there's some clear consensus. I know "voting is evil", yet ] are intended to ferret out consensus (as opposed to defining it). Rather than the disruptive debate over on which side the consensus may rest, I've set up a straw poll below to see if we can put an end to this contentious and disruptive (and just plain trivial) debate and concomitant edit war. ] <small>]</small> 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
What kind of stealth features does the Typhoon have? --] 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


2. Is the information correct? I don't know, but a RS says it is. Can another editor shed any light?
== Straw poll regarding whether the F-22 should be considered a "similar aircraft" to the Typhoon ==


3. The removed material is from a standard ], but in this instance you believe the source is wrong. Can you ], or are you arguing that the claim is ]? I assume that it is not that you ]?
Please sign your name using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.


With all respect, ] (]) 17:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
* The ] '''SHOULD BE''' included in the list of similar aircraft.
** Per ] guidelines defining "comparable" and "similar" - ] 18:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
** Agreed. ] 18:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
** Close enough to be considered "similar" per BillCJ's comparison list above. -] 18:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
** Same as ] ] 18:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
** Agreed - as per ]. ] 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
** Agreed - as per ]. ] 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
** Agreed -~~ <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:19:29, August 20, 2007 (UTC)|&#32;19:29, August 20, 2007 (UTC)}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
** Agreed. Close enough to make meaningful comparisons. --] 20:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


:Number usable is not really of any encyclopedic value all fleets will have some aircraft in maintenance, short term or long term storage, it is not something we normally include in these articles. ] (]) 17:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
* The ] '''SHOULD NOT BE''' included in the list of similar aircraft.
**Should not be included. The role of these two aircraft is ''fundamentally'' different, as is their performance. They are from different ''generations'' in the development of fighter aircraft (''see'' my remarks, below). ] 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
**
=== Discussion ===
:''Please keep it civil, respectful, ], and to the point.''


::Thank you for taking the time to set out your concerns here. On 1. - agreed.
::2 and 3 are related. As I put in the edit summary I find the Daily Telegraph to be a good source normally, and have used it many times for other defence related topics. <s>It's fair to raise</s> ]. In answer I am happy to state I do not have strong feelings on this article overall, or this specific issue, nor do I have any conflict of interest (not asked, but just for the record). I do however have concerns about the accuracy and objectivity of the cited article and therefore on the potential to mislead readers of this article. As well as the comments on Typhoons the article has some falsehoods and many many gross oversimplications. But to focus on the issue at hand:
::The article states "The RAF, too, is pitiably run down. Its main ability to make war today resides in just one combat jet, the disastrous Eurofighter Typhoon. This plane is so expensive to operate that just 98 of the 160 purchased are potentially flyable." So let's leave aside the fact that the author's contempt is blatant here. But just on the facts this is a gross oversimplification. In contrast, read this analysis from the ]:
:::" "On serviceability rates, the RAF is well within the top cohort of air forces around the world," Bronk said. "Modern combat aircraft are complex and maintenance intensive to operate," ...adding that "a regular deep maintenance/upgrade cycle for each airframe" is a standard fleet-management practice around the world. Having 55 of the service's 156 Typhoons in sustainment is normal, Bronk added, "and actually better than most comparable fleets in NATO and elsewhere."
::So if you are keen on including this "sustainment" vs "active" ratio, then in the interests of providing the full context you'd need to find and include the comparable servicability rates of all the other operators of the Typhoon? Germany has been reported as having much worse serviceability, e.g. It would also be necessary to provide the context that this active vs sustainment number is a common measure. The author misrepresents it as unique to the RAFs Typhoons because in his view its a "disastrous" aircraft. ] (]) 17:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Hardly unique to have aircraft on maintenance, modification programmes, short or long-term storage, it would be of note if they were all flyable, again not really noteworthy for inclusion. 19:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Also note the total fleet figures are way out in the business insider source as well, the RAF has just over 130 Typhoons so that makes the percentages generated wrong. ] (]) 19:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


I agree with you. ] (]) 19:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The debate on comparability of the ] and ] suggests the need to define "comparable." Part of the difficulty in this debate is that there are exactly two definitions of the word:


:Agreed that no fleet will have 100% serviceability, but what is noteworthy is the number of aircraft which are "in active fleet management, which can include aircraft in storage (to preserve airframe hours)" but excluding aircraft which are in the process of being disposed of. That information is available, so I will have a look and update the article accordingly, if indeed it is not up to date. ] (]) 22:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
:1 : capable of or suitable for comparison
::Updated - 101 in service (out of 139 total - which from the note in the table includes aircraft which "are in the process of being disposed of"). ] (]) 23:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
:2 : SIMILAR, LIKE <fabrics of comparable quality>
:::Can any editor find a RS for what happened to the balance of 21 which have been disposed of, and what is the state of the 38 which are in the process of being disposed of? ] (]) 09:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
::::While we wait for reliable source, FYI some have been canaballised for parts, ] (]) 09:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
It would seem that the intent of the section "Comparable aircraft" is to list aircraft that are similar. You wouldn't expect to see ] or ] in this section because they are too ''dissimilar.'' On the other hand, it seems obvious that the ] should be in the list because there are strong similarities between it and the Typhoon (both are ]s with ] capabilities and similar performance). The F-22. on the other hand is a fifth generation ] with ] capabilities. These are fundamentally different roles. Consider what the article ''says'' about the comparison between the Typhoon and the F-22:
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-09-30T14:38:03.540945 | Cockpit of RAF Typhoon Fighter MOD 45152531.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 14:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


== Tranche 5? ==
:In March 2005, ] Chief of Staff General ], then the only person to have flown both the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Raptor, talked to Air Force Print News about these two aircraft. He said that "the Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F/A-22 Raptor. They are different kinds of airplanes to start with; it's like asking us to compare a ] car with a ] car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance".


Some news sources are calling the latest Tranche Germany are buying Tranche 5 not Tranche 4. Should we add Tranche 5 to the Production Summary Table? ] (]) 11:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I think that John Jumper is in a position to judge and he says that the Typhoon and the F-22 are very different. ] 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
:] agrees with you, i.e. not a 5th generation - however in terms of generation he made an excellent point on this talk page (now archived above):] 21:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
::"I don’t say this out of any desire to disparage the Typhoon – it’s a superb airplane – but general usage deems it to be the most advanced 4th-generation fighter (in that small category of elite, top-of-the-art 4th-generation designs referred to as “Generation 4.5”). It is widely reported to be the most advanced aircraft extant, second only to the F-22, and possibly outperforming the latter in some areas. We ought to be able to just write a fine article on the Typhoon's own merits. What "generation" an aircraft is will never win a dogfight." <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:21:11, August 20, 2007 (UTC)|&#32;21:11, August 20, 2007 (UTC)}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Tranche 5 is being used to refer to aircraft which have received the Long Term Evolution upgrade or built with it as new. The German order for 20 (which hasn’t been formally placed yet) would follow on from their 38 Tranche 4 (Quadriga) and be delivered in the 2030’s. ] (]) 08:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, they are each the most recent generation of their type. I am arguing that their roles are different. At almost three times the weight of the Typhoon, STOL capability would be inconceivable for the F-22. Likewise, stealth capability makes the F-22 a very different aircraft, IMO. ] 22:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


:The term "Tranche 5" appears in the article once. Shouldn't this be explained in some way? What does the "Long Term Evolution upgrade" include? ] (]) 09:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Uh, according to the specs, the MTOW for the Typhoon is 51,809 lb. I wasn't aware that the MTOW for the F-22 is 150,00 lb! In addition, I doubt either the Typhoon of Hornet qualify for the NATO definition of STOL - they may be able to use shorter fields than the average fighter, but they STOL aircraft to my knowledge. The Typhoon is desinged for more of a multi-role capability than the Raptor, but they both still perfom air-to-air and air-to ground missions. Some have argued that the missile fit of the Typhoon makes it even better in the BVR mode than the Raptor. Finally, the Typhoon does have some stealth features. Again, most of the differences here are of degree; the similarities far outweigh the real differences. - ] 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:42, 10 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eurofighter Typhoon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Eurofighter Typhoon. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Eurofighter Typhoon at the Reference desk.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAviation: Aircraft
WikiProject iconThis article 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
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / British / European / French / German
WikiProject iconThis article 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
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military aviation task force
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
Weaponry task force
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
French military history task force
Taskforce icon
German military history task force
WikiProject iconEurope
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGermany Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNATO (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

UK numbers usable

User:Mark83, noted your revert here: ], hence WP:BRD (though the added information wasn't really that B). So:

1. Is the information encyclopedic? I think this is accepted.

2. Is the information correct? I don't know, but a RS says it is. Can another editor shed any light?

3. The removed material is from a standard WP:RS, but in this instance you believe the source is wrong. Can you prove it, or are you arguing that the claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL? I assume that it is not that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT?

With all respect, Springnuts (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Number usable is not really of any encyclopedic value all fleets will have some aircraft in maintenance, short term or long term storage, it is not something we normally include in these articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to set out your concerns here. On 1. - agreed.
2 and 3 are related. As I put in the edit summary I find the Daily Telegraph to be a good source normally, and have used it many times for other defence related topics. It's fair to raise WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. In answer I am happy to state I do not have strong feelings on this article overall, or this specific issue, nor do I have any conflict of interest (not asked, but just for the record). I do however have concerns about the accuracy and objectivity of the cited article and therefore on the potential to mislead readers of this article. As well as the comments on Typhoons the article has some falsehoods and many many gross oversimplications. But to focus on the issue at hand:
The article states "The RAF, too, is pitiably run down. Its main ability to make war today resides in just one combat jet, the disastrous Eurofighter Typhoon. This plane is so expensive to operate that just 98 of the 160 purchased are potentially flyable." So let's leave aside the fact that the author's contempt is blatant here. But just on the facts this is a gross oversimplification. In contrast, read this analysis from the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies:
" "On serviceability rates, the RAF is well within the top cohort of air forces around the world," Bronk said. "Modern combat aircraft are complex and maintenance intensive to operate," ...adding that "a regular deep maintenance/upgrade cycle for each airframe" is a standard fleet-management practice around the world. Having 55 of the service's 156 Typhoons in sustainment is normal, Bronk added, "and actually better than most comparable fleets in NATO and elsewhere."
So if you are keen on including this "sustainment" vs "active" ratio, then in the interests of providing the full context you'd need to find and include the comparable servicability rates of all the other operators of the Typhoon? Germany has been reported as having much worse serviceability, e.g. It would also be necessary to provide the context that this active vs sustainment number is a common measure. The author misrepresents it as unique to the RAFs Typhoons because in his view its a "disastrous" aircraft. Mark83 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hardly unique to have aircraft on maintenance, modification programmes, short or long-term storage, it would be of note if they were all flyable, again not really noteworthy for inclusion. 19:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Also note the total fleet figures are way out in the business insider source as well, the RAF has just over 130 Typhoons so that makes the percentages generated wrong. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. Mark83 (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that no fleet will have 100% serviceability, but what is noteworthy is the number of aircraft which are "in active fleet management, which can include aircraft in storage (to preserve airframe hours)" but excluding aircraft which are in the process of being disposed of. That information is available, so I will have a look and update the article accordingly, if indeed it is not up to date. Springnuts (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Updated - 101 in service (out of 139 total - which from the note in the table includes aircraft which "are in the process of being disposed of"). Springnuts (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Can any editor find a RS for what happened to the balance of 21 which have been disposed of, and what is the state of the 38 which are in the process of being disposed of? Springnuts (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
While we wait for reliable source, FYI some have been canaballised for parts, Mark83 (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Tranche 5?

Some news sources are calling the latest Tranche Germany are buying Tranche 5 not Tranche 4. Should we add Tranche 5 to the Production Summary Table? 2A00:23C5:CFAA:AC01:54E3:DB43:2137:9491 (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Tranche 5 is being used to refer to aircraft which have received the Long Term Evolution upgrade or built with it as new. The German order for 20 (which hasn’t been formally placed yet) would follow on from their 38 Tranche 4 (Quadriga) and be delivered in the 2030’s. WatcherZero (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
The term "Tranche 5" appears in the article once. Shouldn't this be explained in some way? What does the "Long Term Evolution upgrade" include? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Categories: