Talk:Fox (code word)

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Fox (code word). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Fox (code word) at the Reference desk.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation

	Aviation portal This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Military history: Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force

Who uses this term?[edit]

Is it a universal military terminology? BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 22:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Air Force. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 04:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it only the USAF I guess is what my original question was. Similarly, would army attack helicopter pilots use similar terms when launching missiles? BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 05:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC) The RAF also uses the Fox cordwords the UK being part of NATO[reply]

References[edit]

I removed the "Unreferenced" template, as references seem to be derived from "Brevity code". Nahum Reduta (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Four ?[edit]

Fox Four is often used as a slang, as it were, for a mid-air collision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.130.67 (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur 81.102.54.10 (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Fox Three used to be guns, then Fox Four was ramming or collision. Then again there didn't used to be a differentiation in what sort of radar-guided munition you were putting in the air, either. Sparrow, Phoenix, whatever. Then again only the Tomcats carried Phoenixes and you'd have to check with them if they ever actually fired one in anger. Surely not in Vietnam where the "fox codes" were developed. 67.142.130.24 (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is required. Fox four used to be guns, but is now no longer mentioned in joint/NATO publications. Buffs (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be too hard to find an older brevity code list somewhere (any volunteers?), but agree that until then strict sourcing is best. 76.175.235.210 (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found a Navy document using/referencing it on p61 Buffs (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neat find! I just included it. I think it's more helpful to keep current usage highlighted, but still we ought to include historical uses. I think a note captures that balance best - what do you think? 76.175.235.210 (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The note is fine, but I think it would be more apropos to simply annotate fox four as what it was and annotate that its use is deprecated. The name of the article is Fox (code word), not some terms people use when shooting at other airplanes. By not including it as a historical note, it doesn't make sense in the article: "Hmmm, fox 1 is that...fox two is that...fox three is this thing...guns? what the hell is 'guns' doing in there...hmmm...that just doesn't make sense...oh wait, there's a note... yada, yada, yada... Oh! guns used to be fox four!" I say we go back to prior setup, but I have no objection using the notation as well. I have no problem including that minor note in the text itself. Buffs (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good the way you did it. 76.175.235.210 (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to dig up the source.

Webber, J.C.; Allen, C.R. (2 August 1972). Written at San Diego, California, USA. "Speech Intelligibility In Naval Aircraft Radios" (PDF). www.dtic.mil. Springfield, Virginia, USA: Naval Electronics Laboratory Center (published 15 September 1972). pp. 58–60. AD749202. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 April 2013. Retrieved 25 September 2022.

It's been 11-ish years, but I feel I do need to point out that "Fox Four" (to mean the same as "Guns! Guns! Guns!") is not actually used in this source. It's actually referencing an aircraft designated "Sly Fox Four". Sadly this cannot be used to prove historical use of Fox code 4.

Xiongu (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to add, gentlemen: Fox Four was the term used for bomber cannon defensive fire even after fighters adopted "guns". Of course that was when B-52s still had guns. On personal experience, this continued up through the first gulf war until the guns and gunners were eleminated from B-52s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.28.77 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as per my username, I flew F-4Es in the Air Force in the late 1970s/early 1980s. At that time, Fox Three meant guns (the AAMRAM hadn't been developed yet). Fox Four was a general "none of the above" term and not just ramming, but also included running the bandit out of fuel, forcing it into a dive or spin at too low an altitude to recover, or getting it to fly into "cumulus granite" in a low-altitude fight.PhantomWSO (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fox is a NATO codeword[edit]

The term 'fox' is a code used by NATO air forces, although their army aviation elements may use a different nomenclature, as the nature of helicopter fired weapons is usually air-to-surface, with many helicopters lacking the dedicated systems to launch all but the smallest air-to-air munitions.

What about Air to air stinger used in military helo ops? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.118.42 (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Fox[edit]

What is the time frame on this? When added to jargon? Many thanks. Researching Fox and numerical theory. Lead me here. 2605:8D80:665:ACF7:58B3:2B21:2709:58FD (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]