Talk:Light fighter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Major edits

I did some major edits today (7 October), working from the top of the article right down to the bottom.

My edits aimed to fix serious problems with Worldview (specifically US worldview), length, style, complexity, jargon and the "personal essay" criticism noted by senior Wikipedia editors. Some well-meaning people have clearly put a lot of work into this article, and I'm sorry to say that I was forced to chop much of it out. I extend my sympathy to those people and I hope they can find it within themselves to be objective and avoid edit-warring.

Other major problems included redundancies, repetition, jargon, over-use of group quotes and references generally, and an apparent sense of ownership by some editors. The article also wandered off into irrelevancies and incidental discussions which are un-encyclopedic in nature.

One of the biggest remaining problems is that the article does a poor job of explaining the difference between a "light fighter" as a category of aircraft and "a fighter that is light-weight." Most of the fighters in the early history sections appear to be simply fighters that are relatively light-weight, rather than "light fighters". All fighter aircraft are to some extent designed to minimise weight, and I would invite an editor with expert knowledge to jump in to the article to make this distinction more clear.

Newzild, GraemeLeggett and I did do a tremendous amount of work on the article over a period of months, including reading about 2000 pages of the recent literature of the field that were summarized here. You must be quite the expert writer since you can do a considerably better job in a day or two, without reading the references. I don't doubt that you can make it better fit the normal Wikipedia style, as it is quite long to fill in the missing material on effectiveness and was better suited to be broken into 3 articles (Light fighter, Fighter aircraft effectiveness, Fighter aircraft weapons effectiveness). The issue will be how well it covers the material and summarizes the best references in what is actually a scientific area.

As a relative newbie, I am curious as to what is going on here. I do not agree with a senior editor's opinion and make a case based on authoritative references (the Wikipedia policy), you arrive for the first time and start massive cutting (noting the article is "over-referenced" and you are "forced" to act), and the same day your talk page features "The Tireless Contributor Barnstar: For your contributions to Light fighter that may seem crazy to the untrained eye but overall good since your persistent editing helps make the article more neutral and encyclopedic. -- AI RPer". Are you someone called in to edit down articles that are basically in policy but judged by senior editors to be too long or too complicated? If that is the case it is a lesson to me not to invest too much time in reading references to support Wikipedia editing, as apparently the material will just be deleted if a senior editor disagrees with its inclusion. In contrast, right now the closely related Heavy fighter article is highly inadequate, with three references and no modern coverage on this strategically important issue (we're spending one trillion dollars on the F-35 heavy fighter), and apparently the senior editors are fully satisfied with its quality. It is a puzzling dichotomy that I would truly like to understand.

On the definition issue, just as for heavy fighters there really is no precise definition on the light fighter as distinct from the lightweight fighter, though there certainly are a lot of strong opinions among people who have not read the literature. The professional references do not get hung up on this issue. They recognize the weight/cost continuum as the smooth curve that it is, and they consider light and lightweight to often be interchangeable terms. For example, the F-5 is recognized as a true "light fighter", yet the most authoritative book on it, "Northrop F-5 Case Study in Aircraft Design" written by Northrop, refers to it as a "lightweight fighter". The guys who designed the plane could not care less if you call it "light" or "lightweight". The technical reality is that the idea seeks to project air to air combat power most efficiently per unit of budget by avoiding all unnecessary weight and features. The exact weight, cost, and feature set that results in are a function of the particular point in time and the exact mission pursued, though over history the successful "lights" have generally tended to be about 1/3 to 2/3 the weight of the "heavies". The exact words used to describe that results are a matter of preference, but the idea that a "light fighter" is restricted to be at the very low end of the weight range, often so performance limited that it is ineffective, is an artificial construct. For example, the F-5 is about twice the weight of the successful Folland Gnat light fighter and was designed in the same era, yet is still held up as a good example of a light fighter despite being so much bigger. PhaseAcer (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello PhaseAcer - I was expecting a lengthy response from you. To answer a couple of your questions, I am in fact a professional editor. I have eight years' experience as a journalist, including copy control on a newsdesk, and I regularly edit Wikipedia pages. The reasons for my edits are mentioned in my post on this page, and do not require expert knowledge as they are based on reducing the article to a manageable length, altering it to Wikipedia style, converting weights/balances/speeds to metrics, removing redundancies, etc. I am sorry if you have taken offence. I do appreciate that you've put a lot of time into the article, but I would suggest that that is part of the problem. It has become unwieldy in length and does not read like an encyclopedia article should. The way I've edited the article retains much of your work, but is heavily summarised. Please try to read the edited article with fresh eyes.Newzild (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Newzild, I'm not offended at all. My original goal was to correct a badly out of policy and unreferenced light fighter article, which was also just plain wrong in some of its assertions, and to get the aircraft and weapons effectiveness data not covered in Wikipedia anywhere in front of the editing community. That goal was achieved. If the goal now is to make the article really compact, that's an excellent professional job. There are few technical bugs and flow problems from fast editing, but I'm sure you will get them fixed up shortly. Even in this reduced form, it is still a whole lot better now than it was when Graeme and I started working on it. Maybe next you can get over to that Heavy fighter article, which similar to the old light fighter article is so short of material and references that it is really out of policy. In that case, you'll be needing to put material in instead of taking it out. PhaseAcer (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding, PhaseAcer.Newzild (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Newzild (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Hey could anybody put any sources? This is a great page but pages STILL can be deleted if no sources are found. Jamison Lofthouse (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I am adding significant material to the article, with referencing, June 19, 2016. A new section on light fighter theory is now in place, and improved history will follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhaseAcer (talk • contribs) 20:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

GraemeLegget, the light fighter vs. heavy fighter trade-off is an amazingly contentious subject. I have referenced expert sources extensively (over twice as many as are in the full fighter aircraft article), but those sources are themselves opinionated. If you want more direct quotes, I'll give them. If other editors have other expert references quoting differing opinions, they should quote those. If you can point out some examples of where you think I am being opinionated, I'll try to write it more neutrally. But, I point out than when something is true, positive, and well referenced, that is not "opinionated" or non-neutral. It is simply the truth. PhaseAcer (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

If almost all of the available material is opinionated then by definition it cannot be "simply the truth", otherwise one would not be relying on opinions but actual factual data. Opinions have their place but they need to be written as such, and not passed off as some inarguable "truth", and the less certain such supposed truths are, the more contentious their defence usually is. - NiD.29 (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

NiD.29, I am quoting far more references and hard numbers than quoted here before when this article was overly brief and under referenced. For example, I have referenced expert Fighter Weapons School opinion and extensive trial results that the F-16 is as good or better than the F-15 (such as the two F-16 teams referenced beating out all five F-15 teams in the Air Forces own air to air trial results), though I did not make a point of trying to overtly claim the F-16 was superior plane for plane (though what results the Air Force will allow to be published indicates it is, at about half the cost). On the other hand, you wrote in the introduction that the F-15 was "more capable" than the F-16, while providing no references. If you wish to make such strong (and what seem to be incorrect) statements, you should back that up with references. If the references conflict, we should explain both views in the article.PhaseAcer (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The page now has a massive slant toward the USAFs notion of a light(weight) fighter which is only one of several definitions, and so broad as to be almost meaningless, and with all the horrific butchery of the English language that goes along with copying USAF sources. I would be willing to bet that search high and low that you cannot find a single contemporary reference that suggests that the P-51, Bf 109 or other high powered single seat fighters were regarded as light fighters by anyone during WW2 (aside from perhaps - and that is still a stretch, the lightened late P-51s that saw no combat). Lighter is not light. Light is smaller again and with smaller engines, as was built by all sides. Jets did change what was possible, but none of the successful fighters from WW2 can be described as light fighters.

Whether someone has decided the F-16 is as good as or better in that context is going beyond facts and venturing deep into fanboi opinion territory of mine is better than yours. Combat maneuverability is only one part of each type's capabilities and is not fully demonstrated in exercises - the F-16s radar system is not as sophisticated as that of the F-15, and it carries a smaller warload, and each was designed for a different mission. The second engine also helps get the pilot home after losing an engine - ask an F-16 pilot after he's lost his engine in Indian country whether he'd rather be in an F-15 and I'd be willing to bet his opinion would change. - NiD.29 (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

BTW, the changes I made re: the P-38 were because it was used heavily for anti-shipping and ground attack, as well as reconnaissance, so like the P-47, its kill numbers would be difficult to accurately compare to those of the P-51. Perhaps rather than comparing apples and oranges, it should have been sorties, especially since even with gun cameras, the USAAF continued to overclaim (as it was still doing in Korea) on kills by a large margin. In addition, the cost per airframe was not static, and went down with the more airframes built. P-38 production was 2/3 that of either the P-47 or P-51, while the P-51 price dropped from ~58,000 to ~50,000. In addition, the P-51 had been built to British specifications, while P-38 and P-47 were both built to USAAC specifications, which added additional weight and cost. - NiD.29 (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

NiD.29, I'm not quoting U.S. Air Force sources except to use their trial results to back up the claim that the F-16 is competitive or better with the F-15 for about 60% the cost, and that the lightweight F-5 and F-86 absolutely tore up the heavy fighters of their day. Actually, the Air Force had to have the F-16 rammed down its throat by the Fighter Mafia. They were embarrassed that the F-16 was consistently getting the better of the F-15 in trials, and once it became clear that was true they stopped allowing direct public trials of F-16 vs. F-15. So, I don't know where you get the idea that the article has a USAF slant. But, that face-off of F-15 vs F16 is quite important in proving the strategic issue of how effective light fighters are in making best use of limited military budget. And, if you think the pilots prefer the F-15, read "Viper Pilot" by career F-16 pilot and USAF Fighter Weapons School instructor Dan Hampton. They absolutely love the F-16, in Indian Country or anywhere else.

Furthermore, I discussed repeatedly in the article the contributions of non-U.S. designers. Plenty of guys around the world understood the basics quite well before Boyd, Sprey, etc codified them in the effectiveness criteria, E-M theory, and OODA loop. I gave full credit and referencing to those guys. And, if you don't think the Zero and Me 109 were light fighters, I can stack you up neck deep in references. They HAD to design light fighters because of limited engine power, and they had no real option for the heavy fighter advantages of long range radar and BVR missiles. It was design a maneuvering fighter that could use power to weight and turn to get behind the enemy and kill him with guns, or lose the war. Most of the successful WWII day fighters were light fighters (a few middleweights like the Hellcat and Corsair were successful taking on outdated Zeroes--how they would have done against Me 109 and FW-190 is a separate question), though night fighters pursuing bombers were often heavy fighters because they carried heavy armament and primitive radar. And, the light fighters of that era ripped up the heavy fighters in any maneuvering fight. Adolf Galland, Germany's top fighter general and an ace with over 100 kills, disdained the P-38 and thought it was easy meat for him in an Me 109 that was 40% the size (See "The First and the Last"). It was only after big jet engines, radar, and BVR arrived that there really became such a thing as a successful heavy day fighter, and even then many took a beating from light fighters (like F-4 vs. MiG-17 and MiG-21 in Vietnam).

If you want to get in here with some good information and referencing, please do. But, don't expect me to roll over for you in cases where you are wrong or only partially right. I'll be back with my own references. If both sources are good, then we should put both sources in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhaseAcer (talk • contribs) 04:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

LET ME ADDRESS TWO ISSUES HERE:

Until a month ago this article assumed that "light fighter" meant "ultra-light fighter that is too limited to be a good fighter". This self-defeating description was a nonsensical definition that was not historically or by references supportable. Since then text and many references have been provided supporting a more logical definition, and one that is in fact clearly cemented into the historical record of practical fighters.

Some editors are asking that exact referencing be made to earlier fighters being light fighters. But, the term "light fighter" really only become popular in the 1970's with the Lightweight Fighter program leading to the F-16. Thus, when you read the detailed references on what are in fact earlier light fighters by the modern definition, the designers do not explicitly call them light fighters. Instead, they describe them as having all the features that are now associated with light fighters. Nobody denies that the F-5 is a light fighter, but its own designers did not call it that. Instead the design reports go on for many pages about how they made it as light as possible, how they gave it the highest thrust to weight possible, how they worked to keep the cost as low as possible, and how they made it as maneuverable as possible. Going back further, the designers of the lighter single engine WWII fighters said the same thing. It never occurred to them to say "light fighter", they just said "as light as possible", or "we wrapped the smallest airframe we could around the largest available engine", because MOST successful fighters were light fighters. The very idea of a heavy fighter was something that they would only resort to in order to hang enough armament to shoot down heavy bombers or to try for longer range. Otherwise, they knew their business too well to make the mistake of building heavy fighters that were easy prey for larger numbers of more maneuverable light fighters that could be built for half the cost each.

So, when putting together detailed referencing, this change in terminology must be taken into account. Detailed referencing has been provided in earlier fighters being light fighters according to the modern definition. But, you won't find references where the designers use terms that were not in use during their time. Instead, they provide detailed descriptions of the same thing, using slightly different terminology. It does not change the reality, just like the U.S. calling fighters "pursuit planes" in WWII does not change the reality they are fighters by the modern definition. PhaseAcer (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I said - you are retroactively applying a term (not a detailed description) to types that contemporary usage never referred to as such. Yes, the Zero was built as light as possible, and the 109 was built as small as possible - but around the most powerful available engines, however there was a class of fighters at that time that already filled the category of light fighters and were described as such - the Germans had the Arado Ar 76, Heinkel He 74 and Focke-Wulf Fw 56, the French had the Caudron C.714 and the Arsenal VG-30 series (STAé technical programme A23 light C1 single-seat fighters), the US had the Bell XP-77, the Italians had the Ambrosini SAI.207, the Latvians had the VEF I-16, while other countries also built aircraft described in contemporary sources as "light" fighters. This wasn't a term that suddenly appeared in the 60s, but has been in use since the 20s. Retroactive designations do not work, just as trying to reclassify Japanese heavy bombers as medium bombers doesn't fly. This not the same as calling WW2 fighters pursuits, as many English language sources already referred to them as fighters.

The article has a US slant because you are using modern USAF categorization to retroactively use on types it was never applied to, all of which were just common garden variety single seat, single engine fighters. There were heavy fighters (although that term wasn't necessarily used) whose success if any was well away from single seat fighters, but the term light fighter was applied to aircraft that were significantly smaller and lower powered than the primary single seat fighters. Whether they were successful is immaterial to their existence or definition. In contrast the F-5 was widely described and classified as a lightweight fighter while it was in service, and was developed with the intent of being both significantly smaller and lighter than contemporary fighters, but even in that it was preceded by the Folland Gnat (1) & (2).

None of this is to say the weight/cost/effectiveness argument doesn't have merit, but your examples are not light fighters. - NiD.29 (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Both P-38 and P-47 were also used as fighter-trainers, further lowering their potential air-air numbers. - NiD.29 (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Nid.29, the most authoritative definition we have comes from the U.S. Air Force. In their view 20,000 lbs or less is a "lightweight fighter" in the modern context. That would thus include the Mirage III, Saab Draken, Saab Gripon, F-20, F-104, F-16, and F-5. These fighters are 5-10 ton practical fighting machines that are about 1/3 to 2/3 the weight of the heavies like the F-4, F-15, and F-14. Similarly, many single engine WWII fighters fell into that same 1/3 to 2/3 fraction of the heavies of that era.

Historically, Wikipedia casually uses the term "very light fighter" to describe the 2700 lb empty weight XP-48 and XP-77 prototypes. In that case I see nothing wrong with calling the Zero and Me 109 "light fighters". But, you seem to be very wrapped up in wanting to reserve the term "light fighter" to these very light fighter prototype cases because (maybe) a few people used that terminology then.

If this is really bothering you, it can be addressed several ways. We can change the title of this article to something like "Lighter Fighters vs. Heavier Fighters", and we can explain these weights and terms over time. I can call fighters like the Me 109 "lighter fighters" instead of "light fighters". But, in the later time period the U.S. Air Force definition would seem to be what we need to go with.

Or, we can do two separate articles. This one can revert to the poor shape it was in a month ago, and you can do whatever you want with it. Go ahead and reserve "light fighter" in the WWII time frame to those failed very light prototypes. It makes the article much less interesting (it would have little modern applicability, nor would it help understand why certain earlier fighters were successful), but we can do that if you wish. I can take all this new material to a new article with a title like "Lighter fighters vs. heavier fighters". That allows me to avoid this whole semantic argument and concentrate on the strategic issue of how air power is best projected with optimum selection of complexity, weight, and cost. That is what I consider to be the important point, and it has been a point not well covered in Wikipedia until the recent upgrade to this article. I'm trying to get it well covered, and I can do so just as well in a separate article. PhaseAcer (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem with covering an issue, but it needs to be done in an encyclopaedic manner. To some extent that means giving a good overview without getting too much detail onto the page. It also needs to cover all aspects without over focussing on one particular viewpoint - at the moment it comes across as US centric and suffering from a degree of logorrhoea.GraemeLeggett (talk)|

NiD.29, I have tried to address your concerns of "official" light fighter definition over time. Please take a look. If we cannot get this to be satisfactory, we can move this material to a new article that addresses what is the far more important issue of getting best effectiveness. As just one example, in the 1965 Feather Duster trials the F-86 (at 1/3 the weight and 1/10 the unit and operational cost) ran over the F-4 and the F-105, and even achieved a superior kill rate against the F-5. It did so with surprise and maneuver, achieving kills at about 5% the cost per kill of what the heavy and then high tech F-4 could achieve. That kind of effectiveness per dollar is strategically a very important issue to address, a lot more important than the semantic issue of whether a fighter is "light" or only "lighter".

GraemeLeggett, whatever logorrhea is (it is not in my dictionary), I'll try to cut back. Also, I've tried to give international designers and their planes the credit they deserve, and not just focus on the U.S. Air Force. Recent books give Boyd and the Fighter Mafia a lot of credit, but a lot of others understood these principles informally. Though not much discussed in these books, the F-16 is basically an update of the F-5 concept, with improved aerodynamic, engine technology, and (later versions) BVR. If the F-20 had not been shot down by F-16 politics, it could have done the same basic things for about 60% the cost. And, the Mirage III and Draken were very similar to the F-16 in weight and basic performance, just without the BVR. And, the Saab Gripen is basically matching the F-16 in everything for less money, just like the F-20 could have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhaseAcer (talk • contribs) 20:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

LIGHT FIGHTER DEFINITION: NiD.29, I added the following to the U.S. WWII experimental light fighter description: "Illustrating how the definition of "light fighter" can change quickly over time, these two prototypes which are very light or even ultra-light by the standards of WWII fighters, were actually heavier than some standard front line fighters of just a few years earlier. For example, the U.S. Army Air Corps standard front line fighter from 1934 to 1938 was the 600HP, very light 2,196 lb empty weight Boeing P-26 Peashooter. The 785HP Japanese Mitsubishi A5M, introduced in 1936, built in volume, and used by Japan in WWII combat into 1942, had empty weight of 2,681 lbs (1216kg). This illustrates how many single engine fighters of this era and through WWII were fundamentally light fighters in concept, and whether they are acknowledged as light fighters seems to depend mostly on semantics."

See what I mean? It is almost useless to say a plane is a light fighter based on who happened to say "Light fighter" on what date. The only definition that makes any sense is classifying the plane as a light or lighter fighter if it meets a more time independent functional description of the characteristics of a light fighter. The most clearly elucidated definition comes from Pierre Sprey's paper. A lot of people don't like Sprey because he is blunt, but his book length DoD report on fighter effectiveness is the most logical, detailed, and generally best thing in print on the subject. He is an operations research military analyst, and he knows how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Some guys with stars on their shoulders are way behind him. Consider the adoption of the F-4 as our front line air to air fighter of the 1960's. It was so large and smokey you could see it 20 miles away and know it was an F-4 (it screamed "shoot me now" to the enemy), the visibility out of the cockpit was poor, the turn performance was poor, and its missiles had 10% Pk (and early versions had no gun). Declining to procure any F-5's at one quarter the cost was a large strategic mistake borne of not understanding the fundamentals of fighter effectiveness. PhaseAcer (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Wordiness

Graeme, I appreciate all this excellent editing you are taking the time to do to strengthen this article. But, I notice that now that you are into it you are not much reducing the word count like you seemed to think it needed ("logorrhoea" = "pathological wordiness"). I assume that is because once you get into actually reviewing the quite expert references, you start to see that there is a huge amount of important, pertinent, well referenced, and fascinating information that needs presenting. PhaseAcer (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Logorrhoea as in verbosity, not Logorrhea (psychology) was what I meant. What I do find upon reading is that there is 1) claims that are presented as undeniable fact when actually refer to highly nuanced situations. Adding in all the nuancing leads to more wordiness to counteract what shouldn't really be claimed in an encyclopaedic article in the first place. 2) some degree of essay rhetoric which is not needed - phrases in the style of "X shows that this", or "it can be seen that" are obvious ones.

As to experts, I see a fair bit of Sprey quoting Sprey, or Boyd on Boyd on the matter and not a higher level of abstraction - where an expert says this is what Sprey thought, this is where he was right.

And fascination? The article needs to be written more for the know-nothing reader than the expert - which is covered to some extent at WP:NOTFAQ as "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics" GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Graeme, Sprey as a guy with master's degrees in operations research and mathematics, and who spent a full career in defense analysis and aircraft definition, is far more focused on hard numbers and bottom line results than any other author I have read. Even the well respected books like "Brassey's Modern Fighters" and "Modern Combat Aircraft Design" are more dominated by opinion and pretty pictures than hard data. Plus, Sprey just lays out what he believes is the truth (almost always backed up by ice cold logic and combat data) regardless of what generals and defense contractors might think. With the exception of the design report book on the F-5 and the book "Mustang Designer" on Ed Schmued, most books focused on individual aircraft just ramble along with statements like "Flt.Lt. James Smith went up in his beautiful and powerful Spitfire on August 4, 1940, and shot down TWO ME-109's. Jimmy sure loves his Spitfire!" When you want hard core weapons system effectiveness data, I've never read an author as good as Sprey. And, for a time Boyd was probably the best fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force, and certainly the best at figuring out air to air combat tactics and optimum fighter aircraft design. If it had not been for him, the Air Force would have been stuck with the 44,000 lb swing wing F-14 super-heavyweight instead of the much more effective light-heavyweight F-15. Multiple experts involved also report that without him there would have been no F-16. He went on from there to combat strategy in general, where his contributions are such that the Marine Corps, of which I was a member, has a large statue and display of him at Marine HQ in Quantico. When they wanted someone who could figure out the best strategy for the first Gulf War, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney called Boyd out of retirement to largely design the plan around OODA loop and combined air and ground. If there are any better experts to quote that these guys, I don't know who they are.

Addressing your concern with circular "Sprey on Sprey" references, that is not the case. The article is "Light Fighter", not "Pierre Sprey", so Sprey's outstanding report is a perfectly valid primary reference. I have not contributed to this article to pay homage to Sprey and Boyd, but factually speaking they seem to have made tremendous recent contributions to the subject of fighter design strategy, and I have seen NO references that can fundamentally dispute their theories (if you got 'em, bring 'em). In earlier times Schmued, Messerschmidt, Mitchell, and Horikoshi made outstanding contributions as well, so they are well referenced also.

But, there is one other published super-expert we can easily quote without getting too technical, Harry Hillaker, who was the design manager of the F-16 program at General Dynamics. I had lunch with him once when I was a young engineer at GD back in the 80's working on the F-16 program. He published an excellent brief article titled "Technology and the F-16 Fighting Falcon Jet Fighter." It is in an engineering magazine called "The Bridge", Spring 2004. If you want useful detail, its got that without getting too deep in the aeronautical engineering, along with a few snappy quotes for the layman.PhaseAcer (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Light fighter. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20121006120643/http://www.mossekongen.no/downloads/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf to http://www.mossekongen.no/downloads/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Historical use of light fighter term

Product of quick rummage through Flight archive with "light fighter" as object of interest, thought I should leave the links somewhere in case useful.

• Blackburn Lincock [1] and [2] and [3]
• Caudron C.714/713 https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1939/1939%20-%200025.PDF
• Nieuport-Delage NiD 48 C1 https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1926/1926%20-%200885.PDF

and some mid-1950s discussion

• https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1954/1954%20-%202658.html - pic shows how small Midge was
• https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1954/1954%20-%201851.html

Perhaps I'll find some more to add GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Graeme, those are excellent references to make use of. I note as follows:

1. The 1939 C.714 specifically defined "light fighter" at 3,075 lbs is only moderately lighter than the Zero, and heavier than some front line fighters then in service. Again, this is just semantics. But very interestingly, the write-up on "The Case for the Light Fighter" mentions low cost, and greater survivability due to more maneuverability and a smaller target to hit if the enemy does get his cone of fire on that maneuverable target. These are all points later codified by Sprey and his colleagues, and in particular Sprey points out how the twin engine fighter suffers in comparison. A shotgun pattern of fire is about twice as likely to put a few rounds in a vulnerable spot on the twin, and effectively shoot it down by immediate engine fire or by so handicapping it that is downed in the next pass or two.

2. The brochure on the Midge/Gnat almost perfectly quotes the attributes of effective fighters and particularly light fighters, years before Sprey and Riccione. This is certainly worth mentioning in the article in order to attribute proper credit. The only thing these guys were missing was understanding that Lanchester's Laws make the case for the light fighter even stronger.

3. The U.S. Air Force lost sight of these essential truths in the 1950's when it started taking the size way up in order to carry a bunch of missiles. But since the missiles were very poor in effectiveness at about 10% Pk, and still only about 30% to 60% now (depending on type and if the target is maneuvering), the concept of the heavy fighter was fallacious then and only moderately better now. PhaseAcer (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

"Light Fighter" Hits the Big Time

Graeme, the use of the term "light fighter" exploded in the late sixties and to the late 70's because of the deliberate publicity created by the Fighter Mafia, which further led to the U.S. Military Reform Movement. These guys were convinced that not only were the budgets bloated, but that the quality of the weapons systems was much lower than possible by better efficiency. Tired of losing the argument to the generals, the contractors, and the congressmen sending pork to their districts, they started fighting dirty with guerrilla tactics. They leaked information to friendly congressmen and to the media. Some ended up on the covers of major magazines. Chapter 7 of the Hammond book is devoted to this subject, as is mostly the entire book "The Pentagon Paradox: the Development of the F-18." So, it became a huge media event and the term "light fighter" was prominent within it. But, this article on the light fighter as a technical and weapons procurement issue is not the right placed to provide all that detail. A Wikipedia article devoted to the U.S. Military Reform movement would be--there is not now one but it is mentioned under the skimpy John Boyd article.PhaseAcer (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Light fighter. 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/20110514003113/http://www.vectorsite.net/avmir2k.html to http://www.vectorsite.net/avmir2k.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of PhaseAcer's changes

I have just rather WP:BOLDly reverted PhaseAcer's changes to this article, in light of their comments above and this post in which they stated that "A major point of the article is about how the light fighter appears to be the best use of budget...". I think that it's clear from even a cursory review of the article that this material is not written in accordance with the core policy WP:NPOV, and is a project to argue for the superiority of the "light fighter" (defined very loosely) over all other fighter types rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. I suspect that I'll be reverted (which is fundamentally OK per WP:BRD), but this kind of editing is highly disrespectful to our readers. We should be presenting them with a just-the-facts description of what a light fighter is, and how they are regarded by reliable sources and not trying to argue some point. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Nick, the phrase "major point of the article" is not me personally making that point as a POV. It is SUMMARIZING the expert sources and data that are extensively referenced. Such summarization is stated to be the job of Wikipedia editors per Wikipedia policy. When such summary is fully referenced and fairly presents available data, not cherry picked to suppress majority views or significant minority views, it is by the Wikipedia definition "neutral". But, perhaps you did not think the tone was neutral. In that case please assist with rewriting to eliminate any non-neutral tone. PhaseAcer PhaseAcer (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, per BRD, the addition of PA's material was the Bold part, followed by Nick's Reversion of that material, followed by starting this Discussion. This discussion is supposed the find consensus before any further editing. PA's reversion of Nick's reversion is technically starting an WP:EW; PA should revert his/her edit and comment here to play by BRD. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A D Monroe, Nick himself said that a revert for further consideration is fundamentally OK, so I request leaving it as is for further review. Nick also says the goal is "just the facts, and how they are regarded by reliable sources..." Well, the sources I am quoting are the finest experts I am aware of, some considered the giants of the field. The raw data comes from combat and carefully instrumented trials. I literally don't know how we can get more factual and more neutral than that. There is one respected source that might have some data for the heavy fighter case, which is the book "Military Reform: The High Tech Debate in Tactical Air Forces." I have a copy on order and if there is any data there worth quoting I was planning to add it.

I do understand what a surprise some of this data is. I thought I knew the subject pretty well, but initially found that much of this data was a complete surprise to me also. That's why I ordered a half dozen books on the subject and read them carefully, along with tracking down a bunch of professional reports, before adding this material to the light fighter article. I believe this data is fundamentally sound and crucially important to the subject--it just takes some detailed reading to come to grips with. If any of it can be shown wrong, out with it. But, before just deleting it, I request review of primary source material such as the Sprey report. It is very professional and incredibly enlightening even to an aviation enthusiast. PhaseAcer (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must provide appropriate recognition of the views in different reliable sources, with the emphasis being strongly on secondary sources. Primary sources are, in general, not suitable sources - especially for opinion or contentious material: please see WP:PRIMARY. You keep quoting the Sprey report, whatever it is, to support your position, but that's not the way Wikipedia works at all. The process of developing Wikipedia articles is also based around consensus, and at present you do not appear to have attracted any support for your contention that the content you've added to this article is suitable. As I noted on my talk page, threatening to edit war to keep this material in the article is really unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Nick, there has been support of this material. GraemeLeggett has been working extensively with me on it over a period of weeks, and has done a great job with his editing. NiD.29 originally had a few complaints, but after providing him with factual data and further offering to start a new article instead of presenting the data and references here if he opposed that, he had no further comments, and GraemeLeggett was in favor of presenting it here. A.D. Monroe questioned the Sprey reference recently, but he has not yet reviewed that reference. Since there is time involved in reviewing this new body of references, it takes time for either consensus or opposition to emerge. The lack of immediate consensus is not the same as consensus for you to remove this new body of significant modern references, and thereby simply terminate discussion and review. PhaseAcer (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

My statement was I did not want to get into an editing war. I won't either--if you want the article to revert to the poor condition it was in and the other editors agree, I am going to get out of the way and let it happen. I don't want to argue, I want to get the best referenced sources and data on the table on this important subject. But, it is a bit of shock when you without discussion simply remove over 100 hours of editing work that GraemeLegget and I have done over the course of weeks. I'm an honest and careful editor, and I've never had another editor treat me that way.

But as for what you get if you just revert the article back, here is the summary sentence in the Introduction before I started editing: "Typically, light fighters have been dismissed by military planners as being too limited in capability, and of the many designs introduced since the 1930s, only a few have proven themselves in combat.” Then just below that in early history: "The most numerous, with about 90 eventually being built, was the Caudron C.714 which exemplified the fundamental flaws of the light fighter concept: underpowered, underarmed, and limited endurance." This damming summary information comes across as a negative personal POV, as it is unreferenced and by modern interpretation just plain wrong. I'm sure the original editors did not intend it this way, but lack of inclusion of modern references and over-reliance on out of date early experiments and 75 year old terminology led to that results. By unnecessarily and rigidly taking the view that light fighter means "very light" fighter (by the modern standard) and not a practical functional definition of light fighter as used in modern references today, the resulting article does not correctly present light fighter history and strategy from WWII to now. The reversion also removes all the modern literature of the field that has been added to the article. It is a lot less editorial work to not take into account the modern literature of the field, but to my knowledge that is not what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do. Are they not obligated to do the work of reading the literature and summarizing/referencing it fairly for Wikipedia readers? Particularly on a highly noteworthy subject of high strategic and budgetary importance that is worthy of a strong effort? PhaseAcer (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It is also telling that above you say "Sprey report, whatever it is..." Since apparently you have not checked the sources, here is what it is. Sprey was a prodigy who entered Yale at age 15 and by age 19 had two bachelor's degrees in mechanical engineering and French literature, a master's degree in math and operations research, and half a PhD. Grumman Aviation plucked him out of school to lead their air combat statistics analysis team. He went from there to being a special assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Analysis. He's a genius who devoted his life to defense analysis and combat aircraft design, a giant of the field who had a huge impact. He defined the A-10, which was the best attack aircraft in history. Sprey's 159 page fighter effectiveness paper is the distillation of his life's work in fighter analysis, with the benefit of all the data the U.S. Dept. of Defense had on fighter combat. I've offered it to you, apparently you are so far declining to look at it. I've also extensively referenced the 4 entire books primarily devoted to light fighter/Boyd/Sprey, which ARE the secondary references you claim are missing, and there is no evidence you have looked at any of those either. Boyd was the finest fighter pilot, fighter tactician, and fighter aircraft architect in the U.S. Air Force. He went on to military strategy in general, where he invented modern maneuver warfare for the U.S. Marine Corps, which was later adopted by the entire U.S. military as doctrine. The Marine Corps has a display of him and his papers at Marine HQ. In Desert Storm, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney called him out of retirement to plan the strategy, which became the most successful campaign in U.S. history. Boyd and Sprey together forced a much lightened and more effective F-15 and then the even better F-16 on the Air Force, which otherwise would have had a swing-wing F-111 super-heavy derivative that would have been almost helpless against maneuverable fighters (or the F-14, not much better according to sources). The F-18 came out of the same work. Their fighters are still in production 40 years later, and are the backbone of American tactical aviation, because they are EFFECTIVE. Sprey and Boyd are among the small set of true fathers of modern combat aircraft, and you seem completely unaware of them and the 4 books they engendered, the professional articles based on their work, and the huge effect they had on military aviation and the modern light fighter that is now the most popular in the world. This is all extremely pertinent to the light fighter article, and its proper inclusion makes for not only a far more accurate and noteworthy article, but a more interesting one as well.

Now, if you are not aware of the literature and recent history of the field, upon what are you basing your criticism of the substance of the article? According to Wikipedia policy, in a scientific field generally heavier weight is given to more recent sources and interpretations (such as the modern rather broad definition of light fighter), and the large body of references I have added that you seek to delete are more recent, authoritative, and scientific than any previously published. I can understand if you think the wording could be better (of course it can be), but instead of better wording and a better article, you seem to prefer reversion to an article that through lack of inclusion of major references is wrong in its assertions. Now, of course you cannot instantly review this large body of literature on the modern light fighter subject. It's actually at least 7 total books, parts of other books, and associated articles, research reports, and briefings. But, if you wish to be a major editor on this article, don't you think you could acknowledge this literature exists and agree to review it when you can? A couple of hours in the Sprey report would give you an idea of the soundness of these references. Or, am I wasting my time showing you references and data because the bottom line is that you don't want weapons systems effectiveness data in a weapons system article? It seems to me to be of foundational importance--is there some rational reason for leaving it out? Or, are you actually open minded on it and just want to slow down to allow proper review of all these new references? PhaseAcer (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the source, but from its effects to the article -- full of WP:PUFF and far-reaching promotive generalizations -- it seems more like a ad than a reliable source. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

A.D., President Ronald Reagan had a saying: "Facts are stubborn things". That's sort of the problem we seem to be up against here. Pretty much all the recent literature of the field that has any real data reports the light fighter is the superior weapons system. This was determined by the standard scientific method of hypothesis, analysis, experimental confirmation. Sprey is a world-class expert (basically an air combat scientist), and his official book-length U.S. Dept. of Defense report is brimming with insider hard data based on science and official records (which are really the primary source in the Wikipedia definition--by that view Sprey is spanning primary and secondary), so is quoted quite a bit. But, I did not count just on Sprey. I have quoted extensively from the secondary sources of Hammond, Coram, Stevenson, and Burton, and they back up Sprey totally. These are entire books devoted to this subject. Stevenson is a career professional military aviation author who for many years was the editor of Topgun Journal, the official publication of the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. He is an insider who knows everybody in American and Israeli tactical aviation, and interviewed many authoritative sources for his book. Col. Burton was an influential Pentagon officer with similar access to official data as Sprey, and was the first person to collate the statistical data of air to air missile effectiveness (which is very critical to the comparative effectiveness of light fighters and heavy fighters). This critical data was presented in a classified high level Pentagon briefing that has been declassified and is now available and referenced. It was used and vetted in the Air War College research report of LtCol. Higby, also referenced. I have also quoted extensively from other professional papers on the topic, combat results, trial data, and again they all back up Sprey. As far as I can tell this data is immaculate and in agreement over a wide range of sources. Now, if authoritative opposing data does not exist, then there is no "significant minority view" for us to summarize as editors. If we can find any other references with opposing views, real data, and scientific validity that rise to the level of a significant minority view, then of course they should be in the article. And for complete fairness I personally am fine with including even minor minority opposing views (even though we are not required to), which I believe we can get from references in opinion form, though not in more authoritative hard data form for bulk applications. By that I mean there are certainly some missions that more expensive and more complex aircraft are suited to, like the F-15E for deep interdiction. But for common bulk combat, the data seems to come down firmly on the light fighter being more effective. PhaseAcer (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There's three problems here: 1) you seem to think that this is a venue for publishing analysis on a "complex topic". It isn't: this is an encyclopedia article which should be focused on describing what a "light fighter" is and does. 2) You are obviously cherry picking sources and definitions in your attempt to do this to support your views (whatever a "light fighter" is seems to be what you want to rule in - eg, the rather large and complex for its era but successful P-51 is apparently a light fighter, but the even smaller but mediocre P-40 isn't mentioned), and your above comment dismissing sources which don't support your view and your preferred types of references says a lot 3) You are also cherry picking facts - for instance, it's claimed that the Me-109 was a successful "light fighter", yet the fact that the Germans felt the need to greatly increase the type's armament over the war for it to remain competitive (resulting in deteriorating performance) is omitted, and the fact that the Zero proved a death trap once Allied air forces figured out how to beat it with their pre-war designs is skimmed over. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Nick, let me address your concerns in top down order of importance:

1. Policy: I don't think there is any issue here, because the coverage of the article is in full compliance with stated Wikipedia policy. You are assuming that light fighters are just pieces of equipment, and that a proper Wikipedia aviation article just gives some specs and examples, apparently according to your personal POV. But the modern literature (which in a science based topic is supposed to be emphasized according to Wikipedia policy) treats light fighters as an important strategic and policy issue (and Wikipedia policy states that greater article weight be given to more important issues). The data and references supporting this are completely sound and in strong agreement, but you seek to dismiss them without review (a violation of Wikipedia policy). There may be issues with fully neutral tone and some dissatisfaction with the style of the article being somewhat different than Wikipedia military aviation articles normally follow. That's because this is a deeper subject than Wikipedia military aviation articles typically address, again because that is the nature of the subject and what the references indicate. But, unsuitable tone (if it exists) is not a cause to dismiss the article and its references--it is a cause to improve the writing. If that is a perceived problem, I would think Graeme could improve the tone and style to your satisfaction. He's already deep in the article and the references, and he is an experienced Wiki aviation editor. I'm more of a subject matter writer and less experienced as a Wiki editor on military aviation, so I'm happy to get out of the way and let some more experienced aviation editors take the lead and ensure the article meets Wikipedia military aviation standards. They seem to be about the most strict of any type of article on Wikipedia. I've extensively edited scientific articles without a peep of complaint from the professional scientists who manage those articles, but the military aviation editors are much more demanding. That is why this article is so extensively referenced, and why it is now showing hard data and not just quoting conclusions from the references.

2. Too "complex" a topic: It is the modern body of high quality references that describe the topic this way, and that shows the very high importance of the topic. It is actually a very crucial military issue. I now have 5 high quality books (another arrived just yesterday) that are basically devoted to the modern light fighter vs heavy fighter strategic issue. The author of the latest book is a colonel who later became a 4 star general. He states his point in writing the book is to educate the 5000 decision makers in Washington DC about the subject so they can make the best strategic and budgetary decisions. That's how much attention this issue has received. Our job as editors is to summarize those references, even if it is more of an editing challenge than typical. The summarization is now mostly complete, so it is not much work for the other editors to polish. Maybe we do need to reduce the detail to include in the article. It is now structured in a way that attempts to summarize the references to just enough detail that the readers can grasp it without having to review all the references. If desired after review of the references, we can reduce the detail (data presentation) and just give brief summaries and then refer the readers to the references for detailed data.

3. Cherry picking: On the concern of cherry picking to distort the conclusion, review of the references will show that to be incorrect. Showing the examples as described in the references is not cherry picking, it is summarizing the references and effective writing to illustrate the conclusions of the references. Stevenson focuses sharply on P-51 and Bearcat as light fighters, and P-38 and P-47 as heavy fighters. Wagner goes into detail on the programs to lighten the P-51 still more, and provided the basic data shown on cost, weight, sorties, and kills that shows P-51 attritting the enemy for 20% to 30% the dollars per kill of the heavy fighters. The references do this to illustrate their main points--they cannot cover every example and Wikipedia must cover even less. Neither the references nor the article claim that the light fighter always beats the heavy fighter. There is no claim that ONLY making the fighter light grants automatic superiority. The references claim that when the light fighter is aerodynamically competitive and otherwise well designed, then over the course of time it TENDS to win more often due to superior surprise, numbers in the air (lower cost, higher reliability), and maneuverability. This is a big dice game in the sky, and all other factors being similar, the light fighter loads the dice in its favor. That may seem like a small point, but in larger wars of attrition it is a war winning point. You have only to examine the graphs of force size over combat time to see that just a modest edge in higher enemy kills per sortie and lower friendly losses per sortie results in victory. There are similar graphs in the references showing how numerical superiority also shifts kills rates to favor the larger side (via Lanchester's Laws), and light fighters do enable that numerical superiority. This gives more throws of the dice, where the other side is losing more on every lost throw. For example, though the American F-4 scored a 2.4:1 kill ratio against Vietnamese MiG's, it was trading a $4Million aircraft for MiG's worth an average of about $0.3M. The North Vietnamese thus won that battle by about 5.6:1 on a per dollar basis. Well designed light fighters in the same technology tend to win on a per plane basis for half the cost (F-16 vs. F-15), but even when they don't, if they are in the ballpark on performance and well fought they can usually win the budget battle (F-5 vs. F-15). In the final analysis, in a battle for survival, that's "effectiveness".

4. Other examples (extension of Cherry Picking concern): The other examples such as the missing P-40 and more material on ME-109 and Zero can be given, but more coverage will not alter the main points and too much detail mainly muddies the water and make a long article longer still. They are of interest to the avid reader and may be more fully covered if desired, perhaps mostly in pop ups as many of the details of BVR are described in pop ups. But, to answer your concerns, here is more detail--you probably know most of it but perhaps there are a few points you had not encountered. The pace of development in the WWII time frame was very high. The Zero and P-40 were early fighters, surpassed in aerodynamic performance as the war progressed. The Zero was really a “very light” fighter by WWII standards, not able to take much battle damage and with inferior engine and aerodynamic technology compared that fielded by the Allies soon after who could use superior speed to engage and disengage at will. In fact, Japan was several years behind the Allies in engine technology even before the war started, hence early Allied fighters typically had about 25% to 30% more horsepower. Many land based Zero units removed the radios to make them as light as possible, and this hurt their ability to function as a team, so obviously the plane needed more power. This is not an indictment of the light fighter concept, it is a design warning that adequate power is needed for any weight of fighter. The P-38 could win over the Zero with energy attacks, but that is a misleading argument due to the drastically inferior speed of the Zero (again, “light fighter” is not “magic fighter”). And when you compare similar levels of technology, put the P-38 against the P-51 (just as fast) and it will be soundly beaten on a statistical basis plane for plane, and destroyed on a budgetary comparison. These points on the Zero are stated to what I believe is adequate detail in the article. We can go into more detail if you wish, but all it will show is that light fighters of lower power to weight ratio than their opponents will struggle, as will any fighter of any weight. Concerning Zero vs. P-40, the P-40 is an example of a light fighter that is of pretty good design quality in the inferior technology of the late 1930’s as compared to the 1940’s (not quite as good as the Me 109 and Spitfire of similar vintage). However, properly led and flown (Claire Chenault and Flying Tigers) with tactics to avoid depending on its poor maneuverability, it could under some circumstances achieve superior kill ratios against the Zero. But, again this is a light fighter vs. light fighter fight that while showing the Zero was probably a little too light and underpowered to be optimum (which is plainly stated in the article) does not illustrate the main point at issue (light vs heavy, not light vs a little lighter). But, even though the Japanese losses were very large in the last two years of the war when the Zero was really obsolete and most of their better pilots were dead, over the course of the whole war the exchange rate of U.S. vs Japan was actually only 1.96:1 despite those 10:1 to 20:1 type rates late in the war. So, they did pretty well with the light, slow Zero early in the war. The Zero article reports that even the Spitfire really struggled with the Zero, and that British experts considered it the the finest fighter in the world until 1943. If you read the autobiography of Saburu Sakai ("Samurai!"), he certainly did not think he was flying a "death-trap". He loved the plane and feared no enemy in it--any Hellcat that came within sight was in grave danger. Late in the war he once alone took on 15 Hellcats in a famous long, running dogfight that ended over his own base. Eventually he mostly ran them out of ammo with his maneuverability, and facing AA fire the Hellcats gave up and retreated. When he landed in front of a cheering crowd, his ground crew reported that there was not a single bullet hole in his plane. Now, the statements you make about the Me 109 are true, but they are not relevant to the issue. The implication you seem to be making is that the lightness/smallness of the Me 109 did not make it omnipotent, nor immune to the need to evolve over time. Of course not, and no such foolish claims are made in the article (see Straw man argument).

I understand that this topic is difficult to cover within the typical length of a single Wikipedia article. It is more work than the typical military aviation article that gives some brief specs, history, and pictures. It’s probably irritating to the other editors to have this dropped on them. But, this is not only what this huge set of modern literature is covering, it is also the main issue about light fighters. Light fighters (according to the modern definition) have dominated air combat throughout its history. Light fighter sales over the last 40 years have exceeded $50 billion. Light fighters dominate modern air forces. Light fighters are a huge strategic and budgetary issue that receive deep attention at the highest levels. Wikipedia articles are mandated to give appropriate weight to the major issues of a topic, and this is THE major issue concerning light fighters. The idea behind the “bold” policy is to allow important issues that are not given proper weight to be brought to the attention of the other editors, and that is the situation here. As I said, I am a less experienced military aviation editor who may struggle with Wikipedia expectations in a contentious and closely monitored subject area where supreme editing skills are needed to both present the material well and conform to Wikipedia standards. Graeme and some other more experienced editors can no doubt improve upon the tone of the article. PhaseAcer (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that anyone is going to read that wall of text. Regarding your more accessible last para, this topic isn't too difficult to cover within a reasonable article length - it really isn't that complex. Your impression that this is a "contentious and closely monitored subject area where supreme editing skills are needed" is also mistaken - you've vastly expanded this article meeting little resistance until recently, and now seem determined to ignore comments from other editors which really isn't helpful. Wikipedia runs on consensus-based editing and the editors who work on aircraft articles are generally collaborative and friendly (if you want to see what a hostile editing environment looks like, try US or Middle Eastern politics), and it would be great if you could negotiate your changes. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Nick, whose comments am I ignoring? The only objection to any of this content, besides your initial concern that I was distorting the data and references, was NiD.29's initial objection to the more modern definition of light fighter. Now, that definition would seem to be correct by Wikipedia policy since 1. There is far greater weight of sources for the more modern definition, and 2. On scientific topics Wiki policy leans towards more modern sources and interpretations (resulting in NiD.29 dropping that objection and not taking me up on my offer to revert the article). I'm certainly not ignoring your comments either--the "wall of text" above is a detailed answer to your latest concerns. I am merely disagreeing that the month of intense editing that GraemeLeggett and I invested with rigorous attention to the references is a "POV pushing mess". If you check the references you will see it is an honest summary of over 2000 pages of references, and that no references or significant minority views we are aware of are suppressed. Now, if the writing does not meet standards, I am perfectly happy with letting the more experienced editors take the lead and ensure that it does. It is pretty long and detailed now, which is partly a consequence of the depth of the subject and references, and also partly a result of my perception that the Wiki aviation editors are a rigorous team that wants to see the evidence. I also am perfectly willing to negotiate changes, including even totally reverting the article, though it will be out of policy if we do that. By the way, the reason I did not seek to negotiate these changes up front was that I was only vaguely aware of the existence of the Wiki aircraft project page, and did not know that the editors were actually using it to seek consensus. Graeme just recently clued me in to it. It was not my intention to be a bull in a china shop about it, but just to bring what seemed to be an important issue to light. Actual editing seemed to be the best way, and is the way it is done on the articles I have worked on in the past.

But, this highly important strategic and budgetary issue does have a huge body of literature behind it and does need to be covered in Wikipedia some way or other. Force effectiveness and budget are actually the most important things about fighter aircraft, and according to Wiki "weight" policy on issues within a topic those should be receiving prominent coverage. So, my suggestion to properly prioritize would be to put all arguing behind us and: 1. For now let the more experienced editors polish this article up to standard to get the material at least covered in Wikipedia. 2. Longer term, plan for a dedicated article on fighter effectiveness and strategy that this article, the heavy fighter article, the general fighter aircraft article, and the articles on particular fighters can all refer to. Another article devoted to just the effectiveness of the weapons, the guns, heat seeking missiles, and radar guided missiles, is also recommended for referencing. The weapons carried have a strong effect on the design and effectiveness of the aircraft, and that information is not well summarized in Wikipedia either. That is probably the most logical article structure for the full set of Wiki fighter aviation articles. That approach will also let this light fighter article be edited down smaller the way you prefer, while still being in policy. The full set of articles are already at a high standard, and with these top level issues added in referenceable form they will be even better and more in accordance with policy.

Before you say that's too hard to do, or our readers just want a brief overview, or just plain "not what Wikipedia is for" as you have said several times, please take a look at the article on jet engines. It does not just show some pictures with brief text and then list references for the interested reader to go buy. It does an honest and thorough job of trying to summarize those references, with real scientific depth. It's chock full of equations and graphs, with pointers to a large set of other articles to take it deeper still. Same thing on Radar. "Light fighter" as a technical and strategic issue is similarly complicated, and even more important and interesting. The fighter effectiveness material, along with weapons capability and the critical importance of pilot skill and determination (mostly in the pop-ups), are the very heart of understanding fighter planes and air-to-air combat. Interested readers who really want to understand are going to appreciate the material. PhaseAcer (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that as more detail is provided each point seems to need more qualification for accuracy/balance. eg P38 performs badly against light fighters in Germany - but in Pacific quite well (Bong shot down ~17 Zeros and Oscars in his heavy P38). Me 262 beaten down by greater number Allied fighters - but also medium bombers attacking their bases, lack of crews, etc. This seems to contribute to making article longer than useful.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for Fair Review

The reasons for making the changes to the Light Fighter article are as follows: 1. Light fighters, like all fighters, are weapons systems. Their effectiveness as weapons systems is therefore a key issue, in fact the main issue. Wikipedia articles are mandated to give higher weight and coverage to more important issues on a topic, and this issue was basically not covered at all. 2. There is a large body of apparently impeccable scientific data based on combat results and extensive trials that was not reflected in the article. No conflicting data appears to be available, so there is no real "significant minority view" for us as editors to summarize. If such data and sources can be found, then of course they should also be added to the article. 3. The hard data presented is backed by sourcing the work of the finest experts in the field. These included air strategists, fighter aircraft designers, military analysts, Pentagon insiders, scientists, declassified briefings presented at the highest military levels, reports from the graduate training of serving officers who had access to the detailed military record, and high scoring aces. 4. The hard data and expert sources are backed by 4 complete books (with a 5th now ready to add) as secondary sources that are mostly devoted to the issue of the light fighter vs heavy fighter strategic trade-off. The data, expert opinion, and books all together constitute a modern body of literature that was not reflected in the article. According to Wikipedia policy it should not only be reflected, but as this is a fairly scientific topic such references are generally accorded higher weight than earlier references. The article without these references was presenting a not only very incomplete review of the subject, but was substantially incorrect in the conclusions it was presenting. 5. The strategic and budget implications are large. This is a surprisingly important subject, and not really addressed in Wikipedia before now.

Doubt was raised by Nick-D with the claim that reporting and summarizing these data and sources was somehow inappropriate and also disrespectful to our readers. I have no idea how reporting and summarizing the modern body of literature on the subject is disrespectful to our readers--in fact I would contend that Wikipedia policy mandates that we do so. Nick says "I think that it's clear from even a cursory review of the article that this material is not written in accordance with the core policy..." What is wrong with that claim is 1. This is not a "cursory" subject, it is a complex subject that needs careful study of the modern references and not snap decisions to ignore that body of literature, 2. Nick has not reviewed these references, so any claim that the references are not accurately summarized is highly premature, and 3. What should be done differently, lie about what the data and world-class experts say? Ignore complete and authoritative books devoted to this topic that are in sharp disagreement with the article's unreferenced conclusions? The data shown is not cherry picked to build a POV, it is an honest attempt to show the full data rather than just stating the conclusions of the experts. Somehow showing the data has brought an accusation of improper editing, when in fact it is an attempt to be excruciatingly fair and complete. If any editors have other HARD DATA that in any way contradicts this data, that should be presented as well. That will take care of any concerns that a POV is being favored. I don't think much such data will be found, since the record seems to show the heavy fighter is an inferior strategic idea based on factual results. I have read over 2000 pages of pertinent books, professional military reports, briefings, and scientific papers looking for such data, and in hundreds of hours of review and chasing every lead I have not been able to find it. But, if any that is worthy of being shown can be found, then it should be presented. I'm totally open to the heavy fighter getting its fair due in comparison to the light fighter.

But, all I have been able to find after looking quite hard for evidence supporting heavy fighter effectiveness is the hope that slightly better radar range and heavier weapon load outs will give it superiority. However, whenever the acid test of combat or extensive trials is faced that hope appears to fail. For example, in the extensive Nellis trials of 1977 featuring older 3rd gen F-5E vs. new 4th gen F-14 and F-15, the USAF predicted a 78:1 exchange ratio favoring the F-15 against the F-5 (Stevenson, p.38). The actual exchange ratio turned out to be 1:1 to 3:1 depending on tactical circumstances, and that is reported to be with the F-5s forbidden to use their radar warning receivers and with quite unrealistically high radar missile Pk's favoring the F-15s (30% to 80%, whereas recent Vietnam results was only 10%). But the F-5E was not much more than 10% the cost of the F-15, so that for half the budget the F-5 force could attrit the F-15 force to zero and have most of their planes left (That's the full meaning of "effectiveness", not always winning per plane, but winning per budget and thus winning the war). It would have apparently been a massacre if the radar missile Pk's were accurate. Rather than just stating this light fighter victory, I gave the data for why it happened, which was that forward looking air to air radar is not reliable to find the enemy (it had only a 3% detection rate in Vietnam just 5-10 years before this test), and the F-5 is harder to see. I did not stop there, but cited the scientific and medical reports that showed the F-5 pilot could see the F-15 7 miles away (more if there was engine smoke), while the furthest the F-15 pilot can see the much smaller F-5 is 4 miles, allowing the F-5 to set up for the attack first and win. Similarly, back when the Air Force allowed public trials of F-15 vs. F-16, the F-16 with its own radar and radar guided missiles won plane for plane, for 60% the budget. Since that happened, the Air Force has not allowed more public trials of F-15 vs. F-16. It is similar in combat, when the F-16 is allowed to participate in air to air it does as well or better than the F-15. A key case is the Middle East War of 1982. Israeli F-15s scored 41-0, while F-16s that were mostly used air to ground scored 44-0 fighting air to air part time.

I thus request the other editors leave the bulk of the article in place long enough for this work and body of modern references it is based on to receive a fair review. This will take time because the references are extensive. If any data or references are found to be flawed or overwhelmed by other references, they can always be removed later. But, if simply deleted in mass then it cannot receive a fair review. Additionally, mass deletion removes all the modern references of the field of fighter aircraft design and history that have been added to the article. That would appear to be a violation of Wikipedia policy. Some of these references and experts do have strong opinions on the subject. Note on Wikipedia neutrality policy regarding references: "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say." Now that the editors have been made aware of the existence of this body of modern literature on the subject, there is an obligation to reflect it in the article.

Other editors, I also request you download and review the Pierre Sprey report on fighter effectiveness. It is probably the best thing in print on the subject as a whole, and it really helps in understanding both the historical and scientific basis of fighter effectiveness. This report is full of hard data that Sprey had access to as an advisor to the U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense. You can get it at http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/08.pdf

If you really want to confirm the data and reference validity and not just state conclusions, then review of these major sources is necessary. If you believe the sources after review and believe the article is overly long, then the article could be made less wordy by deleting some of the data presentation and just referencing the sources. PhaseAcer (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

My impression of the recent changes by PhaseAcer[4] is that much of the material is an improvement, telling the reader that the light fighter is highly capable, in many ways better than larger fighters equipped with more weaponry and systems. So if that's the POV people are complaining about, I think it is appropriate, and it reflects the literature. I see a big problem with the article dwelling too much on the US experience, specifically the Fighter Mafia of Boyd, Sprey and others, and the internal battle between advocates of the USAF F-16 and the F-15. Certainly that story can and should be told at the Fighter Mafia article, but here we should summarize. To minimize the problem, the article editors should purposely seek out information from other countries to put more of a global scope into our text. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Binksternet, most of the references are American as a result of the U.S. defense budget being as large as the next 10 put together, and the issue of light fighter vs. heavy being such an intense topic of interest in the U.S. military for over 40 years now. As a result the 5 books I am aware of that are mostly devoted to the issue of light fighter vs. heavy are by American authors. However, I have the autobiography of Marcel Dassault, the originator of the excellent French Mirage light fighter, on order. I also have the two books published on the apparently excellent Swedish JAS 39 Gripen light fighter on order. The advertising of the outstanding English Folland Gnat also shows its designers were well aware of the Sprey effectiveness criteria many years before Sprey popularized them. We can include that information also. As for the depth of the article, much of the data is included for the benefit of the rigorous Wikipedia military aviation editor community. If the feeling after review is that the hard data does not need to all be shown, then it may be deleted and just referenced. PhaseAcer (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The too-high level of detail and the way the text is worded give the impression that the article author is trying to convince the reader. I think it should be more of a history lesson, telling the reader what concepts and developments were put into place, by which people, at which time. And which contrary forces arose and why. In terms of chronology, it would help the globalization problem immensely if the earliest developments were described first, since other countries had as much or more interest in lightweight, less expensive fighters before the US Fighter Mafia started their procurment battles. Binksternet (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Binkster, it probably does give the impression of trying to convince. But, the article is following Wiki policy in summarizing the major references, and trying to convince is what the references are doing. They are doing that because the issue is so strategically important and there has been an intense battle over the issue. Now, I just received a new reference, "Military Reform: the High-Tech Debate in Tactical Air Forces", by then Col. Walter Kross (later 4 star general). His book is basically his thesis from the National Defense University. Kross, probably under orders, is trying to take the high-tech/heavy/expensive side. He openly states in the preface that his major purpose is to convince the 5000 major decision makers in Washington DC, mainly to give DoD more money and let them spend it as they choose. His problem as a reference for this article is that while he gives some qualitative arguments we could quote, he does not seem to give hard numbers on the most important points. The Wiki policy is to weigh the evidence, and without the numbers his evidence is not as convincing. For example, on the critical evidence of the Nellis 77 trials, he claims the F-5 had the benefit of AIM-9L heat seeker missile Pk's that were a little too high. But, the F-14s and F-15s also had those same numbers for their own AIM-9L's, as well highly artificial Pk's on the radar missiles that only they had. He does not mention that at all, much less give the numbers, so it immediately raises suspicion. He also makes some clear errors of logic and uses straw man arguments. One such was that in reviewing light fighter vs. heavy fighter history he claims that the P-38 did not get a fair shake because it could have been better if it used Merlin engines instead of Allison, but because the P-51 was so good it made more sense to reserve the limited supply of Merlins for the P-51. He does not seem to understand that this straw man argument only strengthens the light fighter case, in that strategically the light fighter was the better use of resources. I'm not done with the book, which is pretty good, but so far his argument regarding the modern light fighter seems to come down to that while the F-16 was a great idea, that does not mean that they are wrong about high tech weapons in general, so they need budget for them. The deeper you look with regards to this article, even in a book trying to support the more expensive equipment, all that happens is the more unassailable the light fighter case becomes. PhaseAcer (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Binkster, on the issue of article organization, there is a good reason the article does not just proceed in chronological order. It is because there has been a tremendous amount of publishing in the last 20 years on the light vs. heavy fighter issue, and most readers and some editors are not aware of this (I was not myself until the last few years, and was initially really surprised by these references). The publishing is not just on light fighters as equipment, but on the theory of light fighters as a technical and strategic issue. So, to understand what light fighters are in modern definition and why they are strategically and budgetarily important, that material is given up front. I believe that is the best thing given the current Wikipedia military aviation article structure. However, it would probably be better long term to do what I suggested to Nick-D above, and plan for a dedicated article on fighter effectiveness and strategy that this article, the heavy fighter article, the general fighter aircraft article, and the articles on particular fighters can all refer to. Another article devoted to just the effectiveness of the weapons, the guns, heat seeking missiles, and radar guided missiles, is also recommended for referencing. The weapons carried have a strong effect on the design and effectiveness of the aircraft, and that information is not well summarized in Wikipedia either. That is probably the most logical article structure for the full set of Wiki fighter aviation articles. That approach would then let this light fighter article be edited down smaller the way some editors prefer, while still being in policy and allowing full coverage of the recent literature. PhaseAcer (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Notes and References

The list of notes seems quite long and some of them seem to be things that are a reference. Furthermore the reflist is under Citations while References only contain books, is this done the right way? Redalert2fan (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Redalert2fan, a lot of the notes are from references in the bibliography, which in this article is simply called "References". Are you saying that if they are in the Bibliography/References list we should always give just an abbreviated reference identifier such as last name and year instead of a more full identifier? For reader convenience I usually give a more full identifier for references that are not quoted so extensively that the reader instantly recognizes them, but if that is not good practice I will switch to brief identifier only. Also, it is news to me that Bibliography/References are restricted to full length books, if that is what you mean. In this case they all happen to be books except the Sprey report, which is a book length report. By the way, thanks for the corrections on several of the references. PhaseAcer (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I for sure don't mind more information and you do have quite an extensive list (which is a good thing). I just found the section "notes" quite long. And the layout of the sections below differs a bit from how its normal done, however since you explained it comes from books I can understand why the list is like this. Bibliography/References are restricted to full length books --> that's not the way I ment it at all, I've got not problems with that at all. :) Redalert2fan (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe some other editors can share their opinion? Thanks.--Redalert2fan (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

RedAlert, you might not have noticed that the "notes" are not just footnotes, but "pop-up notes". If the reader left clicks on them at the point they occur in the text, they pop up a text box with more information and referencing pertinent to the discussion at that exact point in the text. It is a writing technique to make the main body shorter, while giving the more interested reader extra information. The notes are repeated again at the bottom of the article for completeness, but because the notes pop up on demand the reader is not required to keep scrolling down to read the notes. It is particularly useful here because the modern body of references introduced for the article is providing a large volume of material not provided by other Wikipedia articles. For example, a key issue in the relative effectiveness of light fighters and heavy fighters is just how well beyond visual range radar missiles actually work (very poorly until recently), and whether they are financially and tactically worthwhile. That is not covered in other articles, so to present it here without making the article too long much of it is described in the pop ups. In the current Wikipedia fighter aircraft article structure, this article is the most logical place to put this information. But, it would probably make more long term sense to plan for a separate article on "Fighter effectiveness" that covers the theory and politics of the issue. This article could then reference that article, and be simplified to be more of a historical and equipment description article like most of the aviation articles. That other article on effectiveness could also be referenced from the full set of other fighter aircraft articles, so the whole structure of the article set is improved. PhaseAcer (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't like this style of notes. Maybe if this was a published scientific or academic research paper, this level of explanation would be required, but even there, such explanations would generally be worked into the text. Such long notes should be the rare exception, used when there's a common misunderstanding or notable dispute. Here, in an encyclopedia, it's just WP:TLDR. Our readers won't appreciate this.

I'm fairly sure no one likes this style here. I think more editors would join in this if it wasn't for the fact that all of PhaseAcer's edits are under question, of which this is a side-effect. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

A.D., you may have liked the previous version of the article better, but without modern referencing it was out of policy, not informative to the large amount of literature of the last 20 years, and actually giving some incorrect conclusions. It is policy for Wikipedia articles to be based on summarizing references, and to emphasize more modern references and more important issues, and that is what the article now does. The strategic, tactical, and cost effectiveness of fighter aircraft has to be a MAJOR issue, but has been almost totally missing. The modern references and the historical record strongly indicate that light fighters (by the modern definition and if well designed) tend to have higher effectiveness per plane and much higher per budget. If you check the references, you will find this to be true and highly verifiable (the Wikipedia criteria). I keep ordering more references, and all that happens is that this case gets stronger (it is perfectly described in the latest extensive book I have on the JAS 39 Gripen, designed around Boyd/Sprey light fighter and OODA loop theory, written by three highly professional authors). That is why this information, so far mostly missing from Wikipedia, is most logically introduced in this article. However, I agree it makes for a somewhat long article to have it all here, though many articles are longer (see how long the F-5 article is with all the detail on different users), and many are much more complex (see Jet engine and Radar). It would thus be even more logical to generate a new article on fighter effectiveness, and then reduce this article and refer to the new effectiveness article from here. I am happy to work with the other editors to create and refine such an article, and can generate a first draft to get it going. This would be in compliance with modern references and Wikipedia policy, would allow a more typical "light fighter" article, and would be a significant improvement to the body of Wikipedia fighter aviation articles. PhaseAcer (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Complete rewrite needed

In spite of what amounts to page after page of argument above, none of this directly addresses the issue of the difference between "light fighter" and "a fighter that is light". The former was a well defined class, the later is simply a relative measure. The P-51, for instance, is not a "light fighter" in spite of being lighter than other fighters. The Jockey fighters, on the other hand, were light fighters by definition. Similarly, heavy fighter has a fairly well defined meaning, not just "a fighter over a certain weight. This distinction has been lost in this article as it currently stands.

The confusion seems to stem from PhaseAcer's reading of the well publicized materials produced by the Fighter Mafia and their fans. One can see this as the entire section on "theory and strategy" suggests the entire concept was invented by them, mentioning previous designs only in references to the Fighter Mafia's arguments. All of this is excellent material for the Lightweight Fighter program, but it has little to do with this article. By adding all of this material we not only weaken this article, but the LWF as well, and further confuse the definition.

I suggest expunging most of the material in this article and putting it in the LWF. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Maury, you are saying that the "light fighter" is a well defined class at the very lowest weight, and that some fighters like the Jockey are light fighters "by definition". But, by WHOSE verifiable definition? You clearly think the material is wrong, but where are your references that say differently? For example, you say the P-51 is not a light fighter, but the authoritative references quoted say it is (meeting Wikipedia verifiability standards). We cannot pull these definitions out of thin air based on personal preferences, and there are no older authoritative references I am aware of that establish a clear light fighter definition as only applying to the very lightest of aircraft. Even if there were a few, they would be overwhelmed by the number, authority, and weight of importance of more modern references written by top experts who back their positions with hard data. The Wikipedia policy is to give extra weight to more recent and more scientific references, of which we have a large number that are now summarized here, against basically zero counter references. Whether we like it or not, these ARE the references, they are highly authoritative and verifiable, and they are explaining a critically important military aviation subject that should receive its due in Wikipedia. It is not up to us as editors to ignore this large body of literature and fighter aircraft reality based on personal preferences, or the way it was previously presented in Wikipedia.

Your major specific objection seems to be that the article is "confusing" the definition of a "light fighter" with a "lightweight fighter". Actually, the article for the first time clearly defines the light fighter, and it does so based on strong references and real data, and not on personal opinion or a few meaningless examples of no historical significance. The light OR lightweight fighter is well defined in the article, based upon many references, as a most commonly single engine fighter that is generally about half the weight and cost of heavy twin engine fighters. It is a simple, clear, and VERIFIABLE definition that readers can easily understand. It is also the reality that has occurred in practice from WWII to now. What would confuse the reader is to do what you suggest and further complicate the situation by claiming that a "light fighter" is a different animal than a "lightweight fighter" (again, according to what references?), and then further claim that lightweight fighter is only an invention of the American Lightweight Fighter Program, which flies in the face of actual fighter design history and practice.

If you have references that say differently, they should be presented for due consideration. Their valid weight should be compared to the weight of the references quoted. Note that this article is meticulously referenced with 175 detailed references, many of them by giants of the field and the most expert of sources. If you want to see an article that needs some references to support its assertions, note that the "Heavy Fighter" article has 3 (!) references, only giving a few page numbers. Given as it is basically unreferenced and has nearly zero modern coverage, that would seem to be an article strongly in need of major rewriting and expansion to bring it up to date and up to Wikipedia standards.

I do agree the article is a bit long. That can be corrected by writing a new article devoted to the effectiveness of fighters and their weapons, and then shrinking this article down by referencing it. The effectiveness of a weapons system is the most important feature it possesses, and Wikipedia articles are supposed to emphasize "due weight" and to base that on REFERENCES. But, that top issue has been mostly missing from Wikipedia fighter aviation articles. The updates to the light fighter article are taking effectiveness into account as the top issue, and because it is not covered elsewhere the article had to be relatively long to cover the material. A separate article is the best way to address this missing critical information, and reduce this article's length. The other fighter related articles would also benefit by referencing such a foundational article, as it applies to all classes of fighters and individual aircraft, and would provide a superior article structure that complies with the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy.

PhaseAcer (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Fighters that are called light fighters should be called light fighters. Fighters that are not called light fighters should not be called light fighters. So, for instance, the article currently talks about the P-51 as a light fighter. Can you provide a reference for that? Not its weight, I mean a direct statement, not from one of the LFW books, stating that the P-51 is a light fighter design. You know, like the way the HAL Tejas is called a "light weight fighter". A clear, unambiguous statement. Then we can move onto the next example. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Maury, it is already there. Paragraph 1, Note 1: "Fighter aircraft like the P-51, F8F Bearcat, and F-16 are examples of fighters that are lighter than their contemporaries, are less expensive, and have greater performance. Because fighter aircraft of lower weight can have increased performance, can cost less, and can create a larger force, these three benefits are embodied in the term lightweight fighter." James Stevenson, "The Pentagon Paradox", Naval Institute Press, 1993, p.62. Stevenson is a career military aviation journalist, formerly editor of "Topgun Journal". There are many more such quotes available in this one reference. They are not rigid definitions because being overly rigid does not make sense, but they are certainly clear enough. USAF four star general Walter Kross (a heavy fighter proponent) also repeatedly contrasts the P-51 as a lighter and cheaper fighter to the heavy P-38 in his book "Military Reform: The High Tech Debate in Tactical Air Forces". He is not concerned with defining the term for Wikipedia editors who want a dictionary style definition, but his meaning is crystal clear. One amusing argument he tries to make in favor of the P-38 is saying it did not get a fair shake in comparison to the much cheaper P-51 because its engines were not as good, but that this could not be corrected because it made much more sense to put those Merlins into the P-51. Thanks General, you just summarized the argument favoring light fighters without even understanding that you were doing so.

You are probably going to claim these are too recent of references to be applicable. Actually, the opposite is true. In science and engineering related fields, Wikipedia favors newer references over older references in terms of their due weight. Though you seem to be implying that references that have any coverage of the American LWF program are invalid, presumably because they may be non-neutral, Wikipedia policy specifically notes that many of the finest references are non-neutral. So, such references are perfectly valid.

The semantics problems of "light fighter", "lightweight fighter", etc, are addressed in several places in the article, with a particular example in the section on WWII United States history. I'm sure you are not going to argue that the XP-77 and XP-48 are light fighters. Note there: "The United States Army Air Corps also contracted for several "very light" fighter designs based on the Ranger V-770 engine, an air-cooled inverted V12 engine, that delivered up to 700 hp. The desire for these fighters was based on early WWII fears that a massive German attack could forthcoming, leading to a need for larger quantities of fighters that could be rapidly put into production using non-strategic materials. The two aircraft of this type that entered the prototype stage were the Bell XP-77 (empty weight 2,855 lbs) and the Douglas XP-48 (empty weight 2,655 lbs). Problems with the engine, failure to meet expectations, and disappearance of the need meant both programs were canceled. They do provide early evidence in the historical record of specifically defined "light" or "very light" fighter aircraft, though their modest performance and failure to be produced leaves them largely unconsidered in the strategic context of light and lighter fighters that successfully provide highly effective air power on a per budget basis. Illustrating how the definition of "light fighter" can change quickly over time, these two prototypes which are very light or even ultra-light by the standards of WWII fighters, were actually heavier than some standard front line fighters of just a few years earlier. For example, the U.S. Army Air Corps standard front line fighter from 1934 to 1938 was the 600HP, very light 2,196 lb empty weight Boeing P-26 Peashooter." The "standard" P-36 is significantly lighter than the "light fighters" of just a few years later, and as these are aircraft of the same era this does really matter in addressing the reality of fighter aircraft design and classification.

Because of the "due weight" policy at Wikipedia, who said "light fighter" or instead said "small fighter" on what date over 75 years ago is of very low weight compared to the issue of properly explaining the highly strategically important current issue of lighter, simpler, cheaper fighters vs heavier, more expensive, more complex fighters. It is the job of the editors to properly rate and rank the total material on the subject, giving higher weight to more important issues and to more recent and more scientific sources. If there are semantics problems such as here, then WE have to solve them as logically as we can based on due weight of issues and references. I note that some WWII era heavy fighters are considerably heavier than the P-38, but you (correctly) are not confused by this and have no issue with calling the P-38 a heavy fighter even though it is not at the very heavy end of the range. The same should apply to the lightweight fighter. But, if for some reason the semantics are still really bothering you with respect to light fighters, the title of the article can be changed to "Light and Lightweight Fighters". At that point we can move on to properly addressing the tactical and budgetary effectiveness of the total curve of weight and complexity vs. effectiveness and cost, which is a hugely important issue today. That issue is deserving of its due weight both here and in the heavy fighter article, which is highly out of date and very lacking due weight with its three WWII references and no modern references or coverage. With the U.S. F-35 heavy fighter program being the most expensive military program in world history, that article is definitely due for some expansion and proper weighting of issue coverage.

PhaseAcer (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is one of WP:UNDUE weight given to the application of the term "light fighter" to the P-51 Mustang. Yes, a couple of sources say that it is a light fighter, but the majority of sources call it a fighter without any weight qualification. Because of that, I think we must tell the reader that the light fighter concept can be said to have its roots in the lighter examples of WWII fighters such as the P-51, for the reasons x, y and z. This rather than putting the hard label of "light fighter" on the P-51. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Binkster, I'm not committed to calling the P-51 a "light fighter". Authoritative and professional modern references go into deep detail to explain why "lightweight fighters" are more effective than "heavy fighters", so in reflecting this modern body of literature that is what the article currently reports. The P-51 is a prominent example in these references, but communicating the point about its effectiveness would be served just as well by calling it a "lightweight fighter". It is of no import to me or to the references whether this article is titled "Light Fighter" or "Lightweight Fighters", except that it tends to confuse new readers to have two such similar terms with apparently different meanings. What is important is to properly present the modern references that make the important strategic point of where on the continuum of weight and cost the greatest effectiveness results. The evidence strongly indicates that it is in the light to light middleweight range, whatever semantics we settle on to label it, and whatever article structure we settle on to present it. Within the existing article structure this was most logically presented in the "Light Fighter" article, but I am just as happy to present it in a separate article. PhaseAcer (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

That reference is talking about a "lightweight fighter", not a "light fighter". There is a difference, and in spite of several people pointing this out to you, you still won't address it. Instead you post screeds like this one telling us that all of that should be ignored because something someone else didn't actually say. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

In my view, the debate boils down to the claim that there is a difference between "light fighter" and "light weight fighter". This article is now about the later, while it used to be about the former. Phaser has argued the old form was incorrect, and that we are basing this on old references. That seems odd, considering the myopic selection of references currently in the article. So, let's go looking for references. Here are the first 10 pages of results in Google Books, with a small number removed because they are Wiki articles, or have nothing to do with aircraft (one had something to do with the bible).

As you can see, there is a very clear definition of "light fighter", which is "small aircraft mostly for ground attack, often developed from trainers". The G.91, Gnat and F-5 are, by far, the most mentioned among the class, but almost all of the others than come up clearly fall into this category as well - AMX, JF-17, 159, etc. More directly, Jane's directly defines the class, and lists several examples, all of which are part of this definition. The Jockey program is also mentioned. In contrast, the F-16 appears only in two passing mentions, as is the F-104. None of the other aircraft Phaser claims should be here are mentioned anywhere.

There are a few references that are not about light fighters, but have that term in them. These generally refer to weight - like a "light fighter" vs. "heavy bomber" when discussing their effect on takeoffs and landings on roadways. The other interesting one is the pre-war German definition, which describes light vs. heavy by mission - light are short range defensive aircraft, heavy are long range dual-mission aircraft. In modern terminology the former would be "day fighter" or "interceptor".

These references span the world; they come from the US, UK, across Europe, India, China, Africa and the Middle East. There's even an Canadian one in there for good measure. They also span time, from WWI to last year. As one can easily see, the list is utterly dominated by aircraft that fit the definition in this article prior to Phaser's edits - that is, an aircraft that is designed to fit a certain niche to take advantage of performance or cost related advantages that "mainstream" aircraft do not. "Light" does not refer to weight, per se, but mission - "light attack" not "attack by a light aircraft".

• lists many light fighters
• refers to the Super Galeb as a light fighter
• talking about the development of the Ki-43 and Ki-44. The former was a light fighter while the later was not
• talks about the Gnat and several follow-on designs
• F-5
• german WWII definition is based on range and mission
• F-5
• AMX
• Gnat
• talks about two German aircraft that were light fighters and/or trainers
• talks about several light fighter designs that led to the Fury
• article on "the new light fighter", the Gnat
• Mako trainer/light fighter
• reference to unknown "light fighter tests" during WWI
• debates in the UK house about "the light fighter", the gnat
• has a sidebar listing several light fighter designs, Gnat, G.91, etc
• gnat
• F-5
• general discussion of trainer/light fighter aircraft
• gnat
• gnat
• states that the OV-10 is in a league with light fighter aircraft
• Hawk and AMX
• gnat
• Fiat G-91
• talking about the Ki-60 and Ki-61, the later being the "light fighter" compared to the former "heavy"
• midge and gnat
• F-16
• "Bright future for light fighters" talks about low-cost designs like the Gnat and Jet Provost for the ground attack role, speaks of G.91.
• F-5
• roadways for "heavy bomber" vs. "light fighter" - first reference to weight
• another reference to the German WWII definitions
• last light fighter (patrol) (not really about light fighters)
• Spanish light fighter project, XC-6 (Helwan HA-300)
• Ki-27
• Chinese light fighter project, FC-1 (turned into the CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder)
• Gnat
• SA's efforts to buy a light fighter
• German WWII paper project
• Tejas, potential Swedish exchange
• A-20 "light fighter-bomber" (not really about light fighters)
• talking about low-cost aircraft with multirole capability
• NATO light fighter evaluation - Gnat vs. G.91
• "the light fighter, as such, no longer exists" - talking about day fighters
• Gnat/Tejas
• south korean light fighter (KAI T-50 Golden Eagle)
• lengthy discussion of light fighters in US definition. Wonderful example of how the military has constantly denigrated the class. In this case they speak of the need for off-board resources to cue the fighter into combat, inability to fly in bad weather, and increased deck resources. Argues that light fighters are actually more resource intensive while also being less effective in combat.
• F-16/LWF
• F-5
• talks about the F-104 as a "light" fighter (quotes just like that, referring to weight)
• skyhawk another US reference talking about weight, but in role the A-4 definitely was similar to the modern definition
• of L-159 light fighter/trainer aircraft
• congressional report on the LWF
• "light" fighter/dive bomber (not about light fighters)
• F-16
• F-5
• F109 engine for light fighters
• book on boyd, "light fighter" appears only once
• talking about "light fighter planes" as opposed to (heavier) bombers. not really referring to "light fighter"
• india's LCA project
• refers to many Iraqi light fighter planes being shot down context not clear
• https://books.google.ca/books?id=12ApAQAAIAAJ referring to the build up of "light fighter planes" like the T-50 and similar]
• talking about Sukhoi S-54 and MiG efforts failing due to the weight of the radar
• complaint about the high cost of the F-2 compared to european light fighters
• Jane's All The World's Aircraft specifically defines the light fighter and lists four examples of "light fighter/advanced jet trainer", the Hawk, Su LFS, Aero L-159 and Mako
• Breguet 1100, lost to the G.91
• "definition of a modern fighter trainer/light fighter is under way at Embraer" the AMX
• WWI tests of carrier aircraft this is using "light" to mean "lightweight"
• F-104
• Canadian interest in a naval version of the Gnat (never heard of that before)
• compares MiG-29 to Su-27
• Gnat
• F-5
• F-5
• defined as low-cost
• Gnat
• JF-17 Thunder
• "hence the light fighter plane is called "Jockey" in France" mentions Moreaux 190
• "France wants a light fighter optimized for ground attack"
• Gnat
• mentions several light fighters including the Magister, T-33 and G.91
• Gnat
• mentions conversion of trainers to next-gem light fighter (perhaps talking about Hawk 200)
• talks about replacing the MiG-21 with a light fighter (which they did with the Tejas)
• JF-17 Thunder
• parliamentary debate on the light fighter (gnat)
• article on the "philosophy of the light fighter" the gnat

Sorry for the long post, but apparently short ones will be ignored. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Maury, I'm not ignoring you, I am disagreeing with the strong focus on semantics and minor issues, and apparent disinclination to properly use and weight authoritative references and concentrate on getting the major issues into correct and well referenced form. For example, in the heavy fighter article there are only 3 references, all WWI to WWII time frame, and one of them a newspaper article from 1932. To be honest that is very poor referencing given the article is more than a decade old, and the many far better sources available. There are a half dozen excellent modern books (several by elite insider professionals) quite focused on the major issue of the effectiveness of light or lighter or lightweight fighters (whatever you want to call them) vs heavy fighters, references with deep professional quality thinking and hardcore data, and they are currently completely neglected. This is an issue of top strategic importance even today, with national security and hundreds of billions of dollars of budget at stake, and yet it receives almost no coverage in the heavy fighter article. Where is the due weight?

The original light fighter article was just as lacking or more so, ignoring the modern literature and the fact that lightweight fighters are proven to generally be the most effective class of fighters, and claiming instead that light fighters are generally a failure. As an example, the article without reference previously stated for many years the negative personal POV that "The most numerous, with about 90 eventually being built, was the Caudron C.714 which exemplified the fundamental flaws of the light fighter concept: underpowered, underarmed, and limited endurance." It's like the famous Steve Jobs "Reality Distortion Field" applied to fighter aviation.

Furthermore, the original light fighter article, the heavy fighter article, and many others mostly ignore the issue of the well referenced effectiveness of fighter aircraft and their weapons, which is a large oversight in an encyclopedia that is supposed to provide weight of coverage proportional to importance. Effectiveness of a weapons system is the number one issue about that system, and to my knowledge the current light fighter article is the only Wikipedia article to present the statistical effectiveness of the various weapons and how they affect the design and effectiveness of fighter aircraft. It is also the only one I am aware of providing detailed statistics on the effectiveness of WWII fighter planes, such as dollars per kill and kills per sortie. Similarly it is the only one providing extensive data on the trial results of light jet fighters vs. heavy jets.

The "Light Fighter" article was the best place to correct these weaknesses within the existing article structure by presenting the modern body of literature on lightweight fighter effectiveness as compared to heavy fighters. But, if the semantic issue of desiring a very strict definition for light fighters that specifically excludes higher performance lightweight fighters is really bothering you, we can change the title of this article to "Lightweight Fighters", even though there are no such artificial fine distinctions among the heavy fighters. To reduce reader confusion between "light" and "lightweight", with minor modification we could use a more general title like "Effectiveness of Fighters". In either case the article can then continue communicating the highly important issues of where on the curve of weight/cost fighter aircraft are most effective, how effective their weapons are, and how that has played out in history and going into the future. The "Light Fighter" title could then revert to the previous content, basically stating light fighters are only at the very lowest weight, and/or are failed experiments or trainers pressed into combat service, and that they are often too low in performance to be practical. The problem with that approach will be that we will have one article whose thesis seems to be "We have the opinion the light fighter is bad", and another reporting "According to the modern professional literature of the field, the lightweight fighter is good". But, if there is consensus support for that undesirable situation to occur for the sake of a small semantical point, I'll get out of the way and let it happen.

Now, on the other hand if you want to improve the writing of the current article to better take into account your preferred definition of light fighter, I am also happy to assist in accommodating that. We have tried to do that by explicitly noting the interpretation that "light" is sometimes interpreted as "very light" and that these standards evolve over time, but perhaps a better job can be done. Another step in that direction would be to re-title the article as "Light and Lightweight Fighters".

I also am sorry for the lengthy responses, but the light vs. heavy fighter subject is complex and contentious enough that it has spawned 6 dedicated books totaling over 1000 pages. It generates more intense argument than any military subject I have ever seen, such as some amazingly bitter arguments when comparing F-15 to F-16 that I have seen on-line. Even summarizing the points in such a contentious area, knowing the evidence must be shown to be convincing, does take some text.

PhaseAcer (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

CANDIDATE NEW REFERENCES: Maury, I've clicked through these references you located on Google Books, and I'm not finding any that rise to the level of a strong reference. It might be that a few rise to the level of a "significant minority view" (specifically Jane's, but I can't access the definition you report them giving due to the copyright limits), or are otherwise worth mentioning as supportive of the majority view now presented in the article (see Gnat below). Most of them are simply casual comments and often not even "light fighter", but "light fighter bomber" or "light attack". Many other of these reference prove no point at all, such as the one referring to South Africa wanting a light fighter and thus procuring the Gripen. Some equate "light fighter" and "lightweight fighter" as effectively the same thing, which is the opposite of what you are trying to show. For example, the one you label "philosophy of the light fighter" on the Gnat sounds like it might support your semantic preference, as the Gnat is the lightest successful jet fighter ever fielded. But, when you check the source, it refers to the Gnat as both a "lightweight fighter" and as a "light fighter", and also as a "small fighter" (though you apparently cannot read it all for more clarity due to copyright restrictions at Google Books). The "Northrop F-5 Case Study in Aircraft Design" (the most authoritative thing in print on the F-5), an aircraft which you have also used as an example of a pure "light fighter", instead refers to the F-5 as a "lightweight fighter" (a key design goal sentence doing so is quoted in the article). So, even the guys designing these aircraft don't see any real difference in the terms, and when you assign proper weight to the references, the argument for making a strong distinction between the terms would appear to be very weak. If we are going by common language usage in trying to home in on a definition, they use them all at different times to refer to the same thing.

So, again it seems to fall to the editors to rate and rank the references and the total scope of the material to try to bring some kind of order to the sometimes confusing semantics that surround this subject. Wikipedia provides the guidance to do so, and by not getting overly caught up in the semantics and assigning too much weight to casual term usage, we can present it logically.

On the existing references, I am baffled that you describe them as "myopic". They are top references by the finest authors and experts, as you would quickly be convinced of if you read them. For example, just download and read the Sprey report, which is the single most extensive, informative, and hard-data backed work on fighter effectiveness in print. The 175 references quoted are now supporting an article that appears to be one of the most informative fighter aviation article in Wikipedia. Where else in Wikipedia are these key facts, data, and summary on fighter and weapons systems effectiveness available? To my mind the article appears due for promotion more than it does for complete rewriting, though perhaps promotion is not the current topic of discussion because without a separate article on fighter effectiveness the article is necessarily somewhat long, and thus somewhat out of the norm. However, it is not the fault of this article that a major hole in Wikipedia coverage had to be filled by a single article.

PhaseAcer (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

"They are top references by the finest authors and experts, as you would quickly be convinced of if you read them. For example, just download and read the Sprey report, which is the single most extensive, informative, and hard-data backed work on fighter effectiveness in print." - sounds more like text for an hagiography. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It's still true, Graeme. In any technical field the cream rises to the top, and all references are not created equal. There is far more useful data and valid conclusions in Sprey's professional report than in that entire long list of references making casual comments above. PhaseAcer (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

In spite of repeated posts from long-time editors disagreeing with you, and now having providing literally pages of references that disagree with your position, you still refuse to accept the point. Instead you continue to suggest you know the True Definition because of your reading of a small selection of texts. I'm sorry, but everything you're saying flies in the face of the entire concept of the Wikipedia, especially the extended essay-like off-topic discussions. As Graeme succinctly puts it, it appears you are more interested in writing adulatory articles about Spey than you are about following the collaborative nature of the Wikipedia. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Maury, I'm perfectly happy to comply with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. But, one thing that has struck me as a newbie is what appears to be a double standard in the nature of that collaboration. When long time editors disagree with content and extensively quote Wikipedia policy as the reason, they seem to expect a new editor to instantly acquiesce to their point of view and not dare to defend their position by pointing out when they are correct via the best references and are in policy. This appears especially true in the highly organized military aviation editor community, where newer editors appear very timid about ever disagreeing with senior editors. I'm not that timid because I am a design engineer with a masters degree and decades of experience, including serving in the U.S. Marine Corps and being a private pilot who has been reading about these issues all his life, and in particular has gone to a big effort to gather and carefully read the references on this subject. I've written many technical articles for professional journals. I have the background, and I've done my homework on this article. I have rigorously complied with the policies on boldness, cooperation, and due weight of references and subject matter. I appreciate the trouble you went to gather those references via Google Books. But, they seem to be mostly casual references that would appear to be low weight via Wikipedia policy. Compare those to the professional references of Sprey, Burton, Stevenson, Higby, Boyd, Stuart, Schmued, and Hillaker, who are all top professionals and who spent their lives studying and in some cases literally dominating the industry on this very subject. Some of these men literally changed the course of history with their accomplishments in combat aircraft design. That carries high weight by the Wikipedia policy on quality of references. But, it seems we just have to disagree on what constitutes a good reference. I don't hold any hard feelings over disagreeing about it, and I hope you won't either.

PhaseAcer (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The only one who has quoting policy up to this point has been you; you repeatedly make claims about what the Wikipedia considers to be quality reference, including in this post. A double standard indeed.

Maury, check the history here to see why I am quoting policy. NickD had previously summarily reverted over 100 hours of editing work by Graeme and myself. Despite meticulous referencing, this was done on the claim that the material was out of policy. It was also done without paying any heed to the guidance on communicating with fellow editors on the Talk Page prior to erasing their work, without reviewing the references, and without paying any heed to general editor courtesy guidance and the specific "Don't bite the newcomer" guidance. I don't know how to describe that behavior other than it being a complete slap down on fellow editors who have actually done a tremendous amount of work and homework on the article. PhaseAcer (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

In any event, I have provided ample references to back my position. Based on these, I am now going to being a series of significant edits. That will start with the now-butchered lede. Seeing as the references have been provided, RVs will be considered disruptive. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I won't be reverting any properly referenced material, Maury. But, will the same apply to you?

PhaseAcer (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Valid Referencing

We're now back to having a completely unreferenced lead that claims larger air forces are dismissive of light fighters, which appears to be in direct contradiction to multiple authoritative modern references. Apparently this is based on the idea that "light fighter" and "lightweight fighter" are two very different things, though the lightweight F-16 is still the lead picture (as it has been for years). The United States and the many other nations who have more F-16's than any other fighter are not "dismissing" it, and can only be described as doing the exact opposite by "embracing" it.

So, there is seemingly a major problem on referencing and resulting content. I'm trying to follow the rules on this key issue of referencing, which even to a newbie like me seem pretty clear. Here's how I read them with respect to a technical article like this--please correct me if I am wrong.

1. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." In this contentious subject area, this is a particularly important rule. There are differing opinions and vocabulary usages in the sources that directly apply to the basic content of this article.

2. "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." They cannot be weighed without being read, so doing serious editing with major conclusions seems to require making the commitment to review the references. A special note here with respect to the new claims in the lead is since promotional materials are viewed skeptically as references, sales materials trying to sell trainers into combat roles by use of the term "light fighter" as part of a sales pitch are unlikely to carry so much weight that they dominate the definition of light and lightweight fighters.

3. "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed." This is a scientific topic where there is a body of authoritative recent literature. A pertinent example of vocabulary in this technical area are the terms "light fighter", "lightweight fighter", and "small fighter". These are often used interchangeably in the modern literature, but now seem to be claimed to be so different as to totally dominate the theme of the article.

4. "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." There is a particularly illustrative example here pertinent to vocabulary and its effect on the nature of this article. The "Northrop F-5 Case Study in Aircraft Design" is an engineering textbook written by the team that designed and supported the F-5, and it refers to the F-5 as a lightweight fighter (the text does not use the term light fighter at all). Other references use the term light fighter and lightweight fighter interchangeably when referring to the same aircraft (such as the F-16), though this aeronautical engineering book is a particularly good example since it is the best thing in print on the F-5 design, and nobody claims the F-5 is not a light fighter.

5. "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." There is little doubt this is intended to apply more to authoritative literature that it does to sales materials. PhaseAcer (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate and Unreferenced Lead

Maury, it's been nearly a week and you have not provided any referencing for your rewrite on the lead. References alluded to on the Talk page are inadequate--specific references must be supplied in the article, and where they disagree with other references direct quotes are needed ("Wikipedia is not in the argument, it summarizes the argument"). They then have to be weighed against the body of modern literature, and summarized in the proper proportions in the article.

These questions about your rewritten lead apply:

1. What references say a light fighter is fundamentally different from a lightweight fighter?

I have provided two strong references on the practical interchangeability of the terms "light fighter" and "lightweight fighter" in the literature, in Notes 1 and 2 in the lead. More can be provided if desired. PhaseAcer (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

2. What references say the fundamental definition of a light/lightweight fighter is to fill a performance niche, and not to optimize the standard effectiveness criteria of a fighter? The implication there is that the light fighter is just a gimmick, and that the definition of a light fighter forces that, instead of being mainstream fighters as they are in practice and in the literature.

3. What references say large air forces are "dismissive" of light/lightweight fighters and prefer "more capable" multi-role aircraft? Most light/lightweight fighters are multi-role aircraft. Even the very light fighters like the Gnat, F-5, and Gripen are multi-role.

4. Why are the failed pre-WWII "jockey fighter" programs, gimmicks of no practical importance that were never used, weighted at 20% of the lead? Modern light/lightweight fighters have generated over $100 billion dollars of business over the last 50 years and dominate modern modern air forces, so if anything deserves high weight in the lead, that does. According to the modern literature, the lightweight fighter is a winner that projects air power more efficiently than any other form of fighter, which is a huge strategic issue that needs proper weighting in the article.

5. What references say that light WWII fighters like the Zero and 109 are "simply fighters" and not light/lightweight fighters? The modern body of literature does not take that view, and the sources must be both mentioned and weighted.

6. Why is the Folland Gnat emphasized as an attack aircraft? It was a multi-role light fighter, but its greatest application and success was air-to-air, where its dominance over the F-86 is perfect example of general light fighter virtues.

7. What serious references (not sales literature from hopeful trainer manufacturers), say that modern light fighters are reused trainers and primarily ground attack? The modern literature says light/lightweight fighters are purpose designed and optimized to their goals of providing the best effectiveness. In the form of the F-16 that has been a huge success--it is the backbone of the U.S. Air Force.

8. Why is the F-20 mentioned as having moderate success in the market? It was a prototype that was never fielded. The multi-role JAS 39 Gripen would be a far better example, as it epitomizes the modern light fighter.

You have stated that reversions of your material would be disruptive. But, when you don't provide references and instead apply what seems to be a negative personal POV that distorts practical reality, disagrees with the modern body of literature, slows down our work, and gets in the way of a balanced article, that would appear to be what is not constructive.

If you won't communicate on the issue, new editing in the lead that is referenced and that gives a balanced view will be provided. PhaseAcer (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Re-Expansion of Concept Section

After the complaints of the article being non-encyclopedic that led to it being cut back, Maury has re-expanded the Concept section back out, complete with a mathematical analysis trying to prove that the heavy fighter concept is financially superior.

It seems Maury has been doing some reading and has come to understand that the terms light fighter and lightweight fighter do strongly overlap, and that the light/lightweight fighter is a strategically important concept that actually needs to be explained in the Light Fighter article. That's fundamentally good and I congratulate Maury on making the effort, but the problems now are:

1. Most of the references other than Maury's few are no longer mentioned in the Concept section, leading to non-neutrality. Other valid references are required to be included and properly weighted giving all significant points of view.

2. One incomplete equation with questionable input and no clear referencing does not overcome the weight of the full literature, which overwhelmingly concludes that the properly designed light/lightweight fighter is the better weapon except for a few cases that seldom occur in practice (such as the very few long range BVR kills that have ever happened). Writing in unreferenced equations may subject us to the claim of original research, and possibly also to being just plain wrong. For example, this equation is making a purely economic argument on the basis of pilot ORIGINAL basic training cost (less pilots for less aircraft if those aircraft are heavies). This does not account for the fact that far more training cost occurs over operational time in the actual service aircraft (30 sorties per month needed, Sprey p. 17), and that training pilots in lightweights is inherently about HALF the operational cost. It also makes the unreferenced assumption of average pilot service of only 5 years, and also the unreferenced assumption that a light fighter is half the combat value of a heavier fighter. Using a more appropriate example, the F-16 runs about 54% the per hour total amortized cost of the F-15, but on a plane for plane basis is actually superior due to its better surprise (about 80% of kills occurring by surprise) and maneuverability.

Equation numbers check. See http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/ for hourly operating cost of USAF aircraft, which came from the USAF. As of 2013, total F15C cost is reported at $41.9k per hour, and F-16C at $22.5k per hour. Maintaining high pilot proficiency takes about 30 sorties per month as reported in Sprey (p. 17 via page numbers, 64 via Adobe reader position). If sorties average 1.2 hours, then annual flight hours are 396 (one month leave per year). That's a lot of flying, and requires pilots to be spending about 20% of total work hours actually in the air, and it dominates total training cost far more than original pilot training. On these accurate numbers, annual training cost for actual flying are $16.5M per F-15 and $8.9M per F-16. That has to be taken into account in analyzing cost effectiveness in peacetime. In wartime, combat success and losses are dominant, and the record is clear than the F-16 statistically outperforms the F-15 on a per plane basis. The only advantage the F-15 has is slightly more radar range, and that is in practice almost no advantage because >99% of kills are achieved well within the radar range of the F-16. That information was fully detailed in the weapons effectiveness reporting in the article before Newzild deleted it.

Maury, if you want to give math, it has to be correct math, properly referenced and weighted. In this case, the different operating costs and combat effectiveness of correctly chosen examples of light and heavy fighters are first order, and must be accounted for. PhaseAcer (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

3. Factual referencing errors in the text. For example, the text of "Boyd, the Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War" is referenced from p. 243 to 262 with respect to the F-5. But, the F-5 is not even mentioned on those pages, which are about the early work on the F-16.

We're building up to an essay again here, but I am not complaining about that. Some essay like Wikipedia articles are quite outstanding, like the one on Secretary of State John Hay, which is actually a Feature Article. And, in this case actually presenting the material does take some text. Nor would I complain about how technical it may be, as many excellent articles like radar and jet engine are quite technical and chock full of equations.

But, we do seem to have a situation here where some references are suppressed instead of their point of view being presented, seemingly leading to some incorrect conclusions, and a lack of collaboration on an article where there have been several other editors making major contributions. The resulting contention clearly needs better collaboration rather than more unilateral editing.

Until this summer when we really started hitting this article hard, it had been in pitiful condition since it was started back in 2004. It has remained "Start Class" until the present, and has even been up for deletion. But we have a fascinating and important topic here, and enough understanding and referencing to write a tremendous article. This article should be settled in and rapidly promoted--there is no reason it cannot be one of the finest Wikipedia military articles in rather short order.

To do that we'll have to stop arguing and cooperate. Maury, I'm sorry we've butted heads over it. I hope now that you are reading the serious references that we can find common ground and turn this into the great article it can be. PhaseAcer (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Concepts sections has several unreferenced significant flaws that I have left in place, but added counter references to provide balance:

1. Surprise as the dominant light fighter advantage is noted in numerous modern sources, but was missing in the Advantages section. I have added a paragraph with references to correct this.

2. Superior range is claimed for heavy fighters in the Disadvantages section. I have added referenced description to the contrary.

3. Speed is noted as as a heavy fighter advantage in the Disadvantages section, and is basically unreferenced as a concept (references to exact speeds of some fighters are given). I have added referenced conceptual description to the contrary that explains the limits of top speed as a valuable trait in combat.

4. Cost is claimed as an advantage for heavy fighters in the Disadvantages section. I have added references to the contrary.

I am not seeking to be essay like or argumentative with these additions, and out of respect for my fellow editor who is bringing some valuable referenced material and making a real effort, I have left his edits in place even when they are flatly contradicted by the references. But if the article is to be burdened with some unreferenced and actually incorrect fundamental assertions, it becomes necessary to add balancing referenced material. I'm not advocating that the article be left in this longer point / counterpoint form, and am only putting the counterpoints out there to illustrate what needs to be done to have a sound article. If Maury will communicate on the Talk page about these issues instead of continuing unilateral editing, we would be able to get consensus and work as a team to rapidly polish up this article, compress it to no more than necessary length, and get it promoted.PhaseAcer (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)