This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Afghan Air Force article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Afghanistan needs a strong Air Force .. since United States is the primary country training the Military , why dosnt the United States give a bunch F-16, F-18, and B-52 bombers to its Afghan Allies. Instead of those crappy east European planes that they are using now... and while there at it adds some Cobra helicopters to the Afghans wish list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.130.141 ( talk) 06:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The official name is "Afghan National Army Air Corps" (ANAAC) [1] [2] -- Raoulduke47 ( talk) 15:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand L-39 is a trainer, but in this case, what are they training for? They have no jet fighter so I see the L-39 as attack aircraft, not as pure trainer. So they only train to pilot for the same aircraft they are flying, the L-39. Are they planning to train for front line jets to be purchased in the future? Miguel.A.Lopez.Regalado ( talk) 15:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Afghan Air Force Mike Cline ( talk) 22:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Afghan National Army Air Force →
Afghan Air Force – per
[3],
[4], and
List of Afghan Air Force aircraft.
TAzimi (
talk)
07:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello all, I have added [1] that the first A-29 Super Tucano pilots have graduated from Moody, regards. Twobells ( talk) 16:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Afghan Air Force. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Afghan Air Force. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The A-29 should be called the A-29, which is synonymous for the EMB 314. Separate variants include the A-29A (single seat) and A-29B (two seater). According to this source they are the same aircraft: http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=718
As well the Afghan Air Force calls it's the A-29 not EMB 314. Garuda28 ( talk) 17:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Afghan Air Force. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.afcent.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123260962When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The source reads: "'More than 150 Black Hawks, divested from US Army stock, will be shipped to Afghanistan over the next five years,' says Giovanni Estrada, country programme manager at the US Army Security Assistance Command. Under current plans, this total [159] would include 61 aircraft to be used in a basic utility configuration, plus at least 58 armed examples." [5] The second sentence obviously does not affect the total 159 Black Hawks. [6] The "119 in delivery" is therefore a misleading statement. [7] The United States Congress has already approved the program in which 159 Black Hawks to be given to Afghanistan and the U.S. military is currently busy in completing this project. This is very relevant information for this article so it should be presented as is, without adding personal opinions on the number of the aircraft.-- Wipeblade39 ( talk) 14:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
General John W. Nicholson: "So this is the quality we’re talking about. So this is a form of adaptability. Another example would be the Air Force. We have Afghan pilots who since we first flew our first combat sortie of the A-29 aircraft last year have dramatically increased the use of Afghan air power. And then these… this air is controlled by Afghan tactical air controllers on the ground. We have our first four Black Hawk helicopters have arrived in Afghanistan. Afghan pilots are being trained on the Black Hawk helicopter. So they’re extremely adaptable to the technologies necessary to go forward, and to the tactics of the enemy." [8]
"KABUL (Reuters) - The Afghan Air Force took delivery of its first four U.S.-made UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters on Tuesday as part of a planned replacement of its aging fleet of Russian-made Mi-17 helicopters, officials said." [9]
"KABUL, Afghanistan: Afghanistan on Saturday officially inducted four freshly-arrived U.S.-made UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters into its nascent air force, which many saw as a much-needed boost in fire power in the battle against insurgents." [10]-- Wipeblade39 ( talk) 12:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The ranks that were originally listed were of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Seeing as this article primarily pertains to the Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and the Taliban has not made any declarations of intentions to start an air force, the old ranks should be returned, and this article should refer to a disbanded military branch. Adykens ( talk) 14:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I am Nasir Ahmad I want to help me I am in Afghanistan I am a journalist the Taliban want kill me 23.88.197.229 ( talk) 17:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to know if oryx can be considered a source,since a editor keeps saying its user generated Kashiff17 ( talk) 04:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
it has been cited by multiple news agency as a reliable source including forbes."? ok prove it, just show where that is stated - FOX 52 talk! 06:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Oryx may qualify as an WP:SPS or perhaps WP:PRIMARY. If I were to use it, I would use it with caution, and always say "According to Oryx" or something. Ckfasdf ( talk) 15:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
...so anything which comes from Oryx is probably good, but needs to stick to exactly what Oryx say..
Oryx it's possible to argue its SPS by subject-matter experts
Oryx may qualify as an WP:SPS or perhaps WP:PRIMARY. If I were to use it, I would use it with caution, and always say "According to Oryx" or something.
Oryx is a group blog with two principles: Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans. Both are arguably subject matter experts so usable
I find Oryx excellent and trustworthy as a reader, but I have all the above qualms about using it on Wikipedia.-> this is the only one that somewhat oppose the usage of Oryx, but he still said Oryx is trustworthy.
While Oryx is a great and interesting twitter account/blog, the fact that it is WP:SPS means that it is potentially not reliable for this information"
however the specific claim (the table with losses) is not consistent with other sources, and in any case would required multiple secondary RS to be included on the page"
"Muller says that, based on photos and videos, the Taliban now has approximately 50 operational planes and helicopters" which specific types? Hence the paragraph on the current inventory. - FOX 52 talk! 19:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/aaf_lukas/status/1714729959061643576 Buckshot06 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Afghan Air Force article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Afghanistan needs a strong Air Force .. since United States is the primary country training the Military , why dosnt the United States give a bunch F-16, F-18, and B-52 bombers to its Afghan Allies. Instead of those crappy east European planes that they are using now... and while there at it adds some Cobra helicopters to the Afghans wish list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.130.141 ( talk) 06:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The official name is "Afghan National Army Air Corps" (ANAAC) [1] [2] -- Raoulduke47 ( talk) 15:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand L-39 is a trainer, but in this case, what are they training for? They have no jet fighter so I see the L-39 as attack aircraft, not as pure trainer. So they only train to pilot for the same aircraft they are flying, the L-39. Are they planning to train for front line jets to be purchased in the future? Miguel.A.Lopez.Regalado ( talk) 15:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Afghan Air Force Mike Cline ( talk) 22:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Afghan National Army Air Force →
Afghan Air Force – per
[3],
[4], and
List of Afghan Air Force aircraft.
TAzimi (
talk)
07:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello all, I have added [1] that the first A-29 Super Tucano pilots have graduated from Moody, regards. Twobells ( talk) 16:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Afghan Air Force. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Afghan Air Force. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The A-29 should be called the A-29, which is synonymous for the EMB 314. Separate variants include the A-29A (single seat) and A-29B (two seater). According to this source they are the same aircraft: http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=718
As well the Afghan Air Force calls it's the A-29 not EMB 314. Garuda28 ( talk) 17:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Afghan Air Force. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.afcent.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123260962When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The source reads: "'More than 150 Black Hawks, divested from US Army stock, will be shipped to Afghanistan over the next five years,' says Giovanni Estrada, country programme manager at the US Army Security Assistance Command. Under current plans, this total [159] would include 61 aircraft to be used in a basic utility configuration, plus at least 58 armed examples." [5] The second sentence obviously does not affect the total 159 Black Hawks. [6] The "119 in delivery" is therefore a misleading statement. [7] The United States Congress has already approved the program in which 159 Black Hawks to be given to Afghanistan and the U.S. military is currently busy in completing this project. This is very relevant information for this article so it should be presented as is, without adding personal opinions on the number of the aircraft.-- Wipeblade39 ( talk) 14:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
General John W. Nicholson: "So this is the quality we’re talking about. So this is a form of adaptability. Another example would be the Air Force. We have Afghan pilots who since we first flew our first combat sortie of the A-29 aircraft last year have dramatically increased the use of Afghan air power. And then these… this air is controlled by Afghan tactical air controllers on the ground. We have our first four Black Hawk helicopters have arrived in Afghanistan. Afghan pilots are being trained on the Black Hawk helicopter. So they’re extremely adaptable to the technologies necessary to go forward, and to the tactics of the enemy." [8]
"KABUL (Reuters) - The Afghan Air Force took delivery of its first four U.S.-made UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters on Tuesday as part of a planned replacement of its aging fleet of Russian-made Mi-17 helicopters, officials said." [9]
"KABUL, Afghanistan: Afghanistan on Saturday officially inducted four freshly-arrived U.S.-made UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters into its nascent air force, which many saw as a much-needed boost in fire power in the battle against insurgents." [10]-- Wipeblade39 ( talk) 12:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The ranks that were originally listed were of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Seeing as this article primarily pertains to the Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and the Taliban has not made any declarations of intentions to start an air force, the old ranks should be returned, and this article should refer to a disbanded military branch. Adykens ( talk) 14:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I am Nasir Ahmad I want to help me I am in Afghanistan I am a journalist the Taliban want kill me 23.88.197.229 ( talk) 17:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to know if oryx can be considered a source,since a editor keeps saying its user generated Kashiff17 ( talk) 04:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
it has been cited by multiple news agency as a reliable source including forbes."? ok prove it, just show where that is stated - FOX 52 talk! 06:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Oryx may qualify as an WP:SPS or perhaps WP:PRIMARY. If I were to use it, I would use it with caution, and always say "According to Oryx" or something. Ckfasdf ( talk) 15:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
...so anything which comes from Oryx is probably good, but needs to stick to exactly what Oryx say..
Oryx it's possible to argue its SPS by subject-matter experts
Oryx may qualify as an WP:SPS or perhaps WP:PRIMARY. If I were to use it, I would use it with caution, and always say "According to Oryx" or something.
Oryx is a group blog with two principles: Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans. Both are arguably subject matter experts so usable
I find Oryx excellent and trustworthy as a reader, but I have all the above qualms about using it on Wikipedia.-> this is the only one that somewhat oppose the usage of Oryx, but he still said Oryx is trustworthy.
While Oryx is a great and interesting twitter account/blog, the fact that it is WP:SPS means that it is potentially not reliable for this information"
however the specific claim (the table with losses) is not consistent with other sources, and in any case would required multiple secondary RS to be included on the page"
"Muller says that, based on photos and videos, the Taliban now has approximately 50 operational planes and helicopters" which specific types? Hence the paragraph on the current inventory. - FOX 52 talk! 19:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/aaf_lukas/status/1714729959061643576 Buckshot06 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)