![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would like to add pictures for the list of aircraft. This is because other similar articles such as Equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force contain images in it. Thanks. Calvin Wisanto ( talk) 15:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, it should help to improve this page. The Australian Red Man ( talk) 10:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It would appear that this page has descended into a mess of lists upon lists. A main contributor to this is the listing of old and retired aircraft. This is not something that is the case for any other major military airforce, and I would suggest that the lists of this page be limited to equipment in active use. I would appreciate anyone else providing their opinion on this. I am happy to do the work, just want to get a concesus first. The Australian Red Man ( talk) 10:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Equipment of the Indonesian 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, 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) 06:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Equipment of the Indonesian 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, 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) 05:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Cal1407, I Would say about FOX 52 Are very Determinated To Remove some Picture and Even he Destroyed RMAF Picture and Tables Equipment. Secondly, Using World's Air Forces Sources are ACTUALLY Not A Sources. It's a Blog and Faked. AirWave 800S1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@ FOX 52:: I think we need to renegotiate about this consensus thing. This is because many editors like me feels that their contribution are unappreciated. Hours or days of works they have done are now wasted. Please bring this issue to the admin, and lets negotiate again so that we can achieve a consensus on this issue. Moreover, you have removed important information that the article use to have. Cal1407 ( talk) 03:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
You removed bunch of stuffs that are sourced, and or cited. Did you look at the sources one by one every single one? I agree on removing unnecessary things like the "Su-35, KF-X/IF-X." but the rest are actually sourced. So why did you removed them? Can you give a more detail, and precise reason other than just "Tidy". Sincerely a very curious user -- EvoSwatch ( talk) 15:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
References
Would you mind explaining it to me what do you mean by 'duplicate articles'? and please let me know why you removed my previous edits? the one with SIPRI? That is all, thank you. EvoSwatch ( talk) 01:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@ EvoSwatch: - don't put text like "according to SIPRI Arms Transfer Database" inside the table, that's what inline citations are for. Also please avoid non-notable content ie: CS-102, which is referring to the production block - we can't link it, and it doesn't provide the reader any educational value - Thanks FOX 52 ( talk) 15:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
So World Air Forces released their annually report. And just like last year, the number of F-16 Indonesia operate is 32. Now first of all, i dont where they got that number, but yes... Four F-16 did crashed. The aircraft TS-1643 F-16C did catch on fire, and put out of service, and now a monument on 'Roesmin Nurjadin AFB'. But there are no news about TS-1603 F-16 a total loss. So it means from total 12 original F-16A/B + 24 F-16C/D there should 36, but 3 aircraft are total loss, so 36 - 3 = 33. I think it would make more sense to put 33 instead of 32. There are news articles that said the aircraft will be repaired, or undergoing maintenance. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvoSwatch ( talk • contribs) 10:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The accidents. Do we need to put it on the "Equipment" section, or put it on the "Notable Accidents" on the main page?
The title said it all already. - EvoSwatch ( talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
On May 2011, Indonesia order T-50 with qty of 16 aircraft. And all order was received by January 2014 (source:
1
2
3). On December 2015, 1 T-50 was
crashed.
So, as of 2020, total qty of T-50 is 15 (16 - 1). And that number is the same as mentioned on FlightGlobal's WAF 2020.
Also, I dont think it's necessary to put ref on aircraft crashes as it would be better to put it on or the "Notable Accidents" on the main page.
Ckfasdf (
talk)
03:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
To clear out things first, I do know that someone already discussing about the long list of the former aircraft and some suggestion on what should be done, but I feel since it was a few years ago it might be better to start a new section. If anyone have more knowledge in this matters, feel free to merge it.
Well as the title said, since the list of former aircraft is growing to a quite long list, I propose to moved the list of former aircrafts to List of aircraft of the Indonesian National Armed Forces page, as 1) it would appropriate since the page is about aircraft operated by the TNI, 2) it would declutter this page which I believe is more concerned about the current equipment of the air force. I would like to do it on my own, but I think it would be better if we can first gathered consensus about it. Jauhsekali ( talk) 12:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, it has come to my attention the page has been reverted again and again by FOX 52 to older statistics and data which are incorrect and even contradicts a number of the cited sources. I understand if its for tidy up, cleaning, or excessive content but the changes of the page to incorrectness and confusion is saddening. I would greatly appreciate if there is a good explanation to such actions and hope at least to take a look at the cited sources before removing or reverting it entirely. Thanks and would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this. - EvoSwatch ( talk) 06:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey @ SurferSquall, thanks for notifying me. You are indeed correct, WAF is a reliable source and often used in other wikipages. However they are an annually updated source and very surface level stuffs, which I don't blame them as to keep up with the entire Air Forces of the world is a difficult task for anyone. However, for specifics they have been proven to be inaccurate at least partially which is why other sources would be more preferable. Some examples of incorrect and/or inaccurate data from WAF including but not limited to:
This can goes on and on, but I think the point has already been made.
That being said I'm no way in any shape or form against the use of WAF as a source, in fact as you may have seen in my past edits I do too use them too (for the foundation in fact). But as someone who closely follows the modernization of the TNI through the MEF program (especially in the Aerospace sector) I am confident that the WAF figures is not always correct, sometimes even SIPRI is incorrect. Which is why when there are better sources such as official data or more recent data I use those instead. Lastly I see no reason as to why would I 'vandalize' a page that I have been working on for years now, if anything I try to improve it ever so slightly albeit sometimes messy and unnecessarily. These types of discussions have been done before with others in this talk page. Therefore I believe the previous data are better and should be reinstated as soon as possible, its more accurate, its more recent.
I would love to hear your reply to this.
Sincerely. - EvoSwatch ( talk) 15:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Our directory ..... also includes information about firm orders for some 4,185 aircraft, and letters of intent or options for up to another 7,423 (denoted by an asterisk next to a figure in the Ordered column); including a potential 2,579 F-35s which Saab have yet to come under contract.
Since the procurement of AW101 is plagued by corruption case and even it's local supplier CEO has been sentenced to 10 years in jail after found guilty by the court on January 2023. It is very unlikely the remaining 2 order will still in place, even the operational status of the one that already arrived is pretty much unknown at the moment (only seen flying once in 2016).
Can we just remove AW101 entry from the inventory table or at least remove "2 on order" on notes? Pinging EvoSwatch. Ckfasdf ( talk) 16:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This page has been getting a lot of editing including reverts. When editing this, and related articles, please ensure you are familiar with pertinent guidelines for reverting edits made by other users. In particular
WP:BRD,
WP:3RR,
WP:CONSENSUS. and
WP:DR.
A few quick points...
Violations of the above linked guidelines can be regarded as a specie of disruptive editing, which can result in warnings and loss of editing privileges. Your cooperation is deeply appreciated. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Courtesy ping to editors recently active on this page: Ckfasdf, SurferSquall, FOX 52, EvoSwatch, Teknologi Exprt, Layah50 |
Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Ckfasdf can you help me out here? Not sure if I'm losing my reading comprehension but WAF 2023 states that NC212i (Recce) is 4 on order and not 4 in active service right? EvoSwatch ( talk) 02:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Cal1407 @ Ckfasdf @ MoussaCB
Welcome all, I would like to invite all of you to discuss the ongoing edits in the wikipage to avoid an edit war (again).
Straight to the point, the Su-27 and Su-30 are separated as they serve different purpose and role. Su-27 is an air superiority fighter akin to F-15C while Su-30 is multirole akin to F-15E, which is why they are separated too btw. You wouldn't see F-15C and E to be merged into one. This separation applies to any other wikipage e.g. US Air Force & Russian Air Force. As for "you also forgot to add SU30MK and SU27SK" its literally explained in the note.
- EvoSwatch ( talk) 07:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
In general, there should be only one entry (row) for each type. Exceptions may be allowable where: A production variant evolved from the same basic design has been given a different name, which is the case for Su-30. Ckfasdf ( talk) 06:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Good day, I'm quite confused on the Mark66 listed on the bombs and rockets section. On the original source it's stated that:
"OFAB 250, S-8KOM Rocket, MK 66 and MK 81 Bomb"
26 Pesawat Tempur Lanud Iswahjudi Siap “Hujani” Bom
Now, I can't find any reference for a Mark 66 bomb. The only closest thing is a 250kg practice bomb named mk66 mod 0 from one website. As far as I am aware, the naming of the Mark 66 refers to the Hydra 70 rockets, a further development of the FFAR which uses the Mk.66 rocket. In the Hydra 70 page it was also explained that:
"Hydra 70 rockets are known mainly by either their warhead type or by the rocket motor designation [mk.66]"
This might explain why the article mentioned it as the mk.66 instead of the Hydra. My questions are: wouldn't separating these two rockets between the FFAR and the mk.66 (Hydra) be redundant? Since presumably they refer to the same thing? Or am I mistaken and the mk.66 here refers to the aforementioned bomb or another type of ordnance ? Thank you for your answers NFrost51 ( talk) 09:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would like to add pictures for the list of aircraft. This is because other similar articles such as Equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force contain images in it. Thanks. Calvin Wisanto ( talk) 15:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, it should help to improve this page. The Australian Red Man ( talk) 10:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It would appear that this page has descended into a mess of lists upon lists. A main contributor to this is the listing of old and retired aircraft. This is not something that is the case for any other major military airforce, and I would suggest that the lists of this page be limited to equipment in active use. I would appreciate anyone else providing their opinion on this. I am happy to do the work, just want to get a concesus first. The Australian Red Man ( talk) 10:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Equipment of the Indonesian 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, 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) 06:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Equipment of the Indonesian 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, 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) 05:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Cal1407, I Would say about FOX 52 Are very Determinated To Remove some Picture and Even he Destroyed RMAF Picture and Tables Equipment. Secondly, Using World's Air Forces Sources are ACTUALLY Not A Sources. It's a Blog and Faked. AirWave 800S1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@ FOX 52:: I think we need to renegotiate about this consensus thing. This is because many editors like me feels that their contribution are unappreciated. Hours or days of works they have done are now wasted. Please bring this issue to the admin, and lets negotiate again so that we can achieve a consensus on this issue. Moreover, you have removed important information that the article use to have. Cal1407 ( talk) 03:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
You removed bunch of stuffs that are sourced, and or cited. Did you look at the sources one by one every single one? I agree on removing unnecessary things like the "Su-35, KF-X/IF-X." but the rest are actually sourced. So why did you removed them? Can you give a more detail, and precise reason other than just "Tidy". Sincerely a very curious user -- EvoSwatch ( talk) 15:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
References
Would you mind explaining it to me what do you mean by 'duplicate articles'? and please let me know why you removed my previous edits? the one with SIPRI? That is all, thank you. EvoSwatch ( talk) 01:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@ EvoSwatch: - don't put text like "according to SIPRI Arms Transfer Database" inside the table, that's what inline citations are for. Also please avoid non-notable content ie: CS-102, which is referring to the production block - we can't link it, and it doesn't provide the reader any educational value - Thanks FOX 52 ( talk) 15:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
So World Air Forces released their annually report. And just like last year, the number of F-16 Indonesia operate is 32. Now first of all, i dont where they got that number, but yes... Four F-16 did crashed. The aircraft TS-1643 F-16C did catch on fire, and put out of service, and now a monument on 'Roesmin Nurjadin AFB'. But there are no news about TS-1603 F-16 a total loss. So it means from total 12 original F-16A/B + 24 F-16C/D there should 36, but 3 aircraft are total loss, so 36 - 3 = 33. I think it would make more sense to put 33 instead of 32. There are news articles that said the aircraft will be repaired, or undergoing maintenance. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvoSwatch ( talk • contribs) 10:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The accidents. Do we need to put it on the "Equipment" section, or put it on the "Notable Accidents" on the main page?
The title said it all already. - EvoSwatch ( talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
On May 2011, Indonesia order T-50 with qty of 16 aircraft. And all order was received by January 2014 (source:
1
2
3). On December 2015, 1 T-50 was
crashed.
So, as of 2020, total qty of T-50 is 15 (16 - 1). And that number is the same as mentioned on FlightGlobal's WAF 2020.
Also, I dont think it's necessary to put ref on aircraft crashes as it would be better to put it on or the "Notable Accidents" on the main page.
Ckfasdf (
talk)
03:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
To clear out things first, I do know that someone already discussing about the long list of the former aircraft and some suggestion on what should be done, but I feel since it was a few years ago it might be better to start a new section. If anyone have more knowledge in this matters, feel free to merge it.
Well as the title said, since the list of former aircraft is growing to a quite long list, I propose to moved the list of former aircrafts to List of aircraft of the Indonesian National Armed Forces page, as 1) it would appropriate since the page is about aircraft operated by the TNI, 2) it would declutter this page which I believe is more concerned about the current equipment of the air force. I would like to do it on my own, but I think it would be better if we can first gathered consensus about it. Jauhsekali ( talk) 12:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, it has come to my attention the page has been reverted again and again by FOX 52 to older statistics and data which are incorrect and even contradicts a number of the cited sources. I understand if its for tidy up, cleaning, or excessive content but the changes of the page to incorrectness and confusion is saddening. I would greatly appreciate if there is a good explanation to such actions and hope at least to take a look at the cited sources before removing or reverting it entirely. Thanks and would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this. - EvoSwatch ( talk) 06:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey @ SurferSquall, thanks for notifying me. You are indeed correct, WAF is a reliable source and often used in other wikipages. However they are an annually updated source and very surface level stuffs, which I don't blame them as to keep up with the entire Air Forces of the world is a difficult task for anyone. However, for specifics they have been proven to be inaccurate at least partially which is why other sources would be more preferable. Some examples of incorrect and/or inaccurate data from WAF including but not limited to:
This can goes on and on, but I think the point has already been made.
That being said I'm no way in any shape or form against the use of WAF as a source, in fact as you may have seen in my past edits I do too use them too (for the foundation in fact). But as someone who closely follows the modernization of the TNI through the MEF program (especially in the Aerospace sector) I am confident that the WAF figures is not always correct, sometimes even SIPRI is incorrect. Which is why when there are better sources such as official data or more recent data I use those instead. Lastly I see no reason as to why would I 'vandalize' a page that I have been working on for years now, if anything I try to improve it ever so slightly albeit sometimes messy and unnecessarily. These types of discussions have been done before with others in this talk page. Therefore I believe the previous data are better and should be reinstated as soon as possible, its more accurate, its more recent.
I would love to hear your reply to this.
Sincerely. - EvoSwatch ( talk) 15:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Our directory ..... also includes information about firm orders for some 4,185 aircraft, and letters of intent or options for up to another 7,423 (denoted by an asterisk next to a figure in the Ordered column); including a potential 2,579 F-35s which Saab have yet to come under contract.
Since the procurement of AW101 is plagued by corruption case and even it's local supplier CEO has been sentenced to 10 years in jail after found guilty by the court on January 2023. It is very unlikely the remaining 2 order will still in place, even the operational status of the one that already arrived is pretty much unknown at the moment (only seen flying once in 2016).
Can we just remove AW101 entry from the inventory table or at least remove "2 on order" on notes? Pinging EvoSwatch. Ckfasdf ( talk) 16:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This page has been getting a lot of editing including reverts. When editing this, and related articles, please ensure you are familiar with pertinent guidelines for reverting edits made by other users. In particular
WP:BRD,
WP:3RR,
WP:CONSENSUS. and
WP:DR.
A few quick points...
Violations of the above linked guidelines can be regarded as a specie of disruptive editing, which can result in warnings and loss of editing privileges. Your cooperation is deeply appreciated. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Courtesy ping to editors recently active on this page: Ckfasdf, SurferSquall, FOX 52, EvoSwatch, Teknologi Exprt, Layah50 |
Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Ckfasdf can you help me out here? Not sure if I'm losing my reading comprehension but WAF 2023 states that NC212i (Recce) is 4 on order and not 4 in active service right? EvoSwatch ( talk) 02:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Cal1407 @ Ckfasdf @ MoussaCB
Welcome all, I would like to invite all of you to discuss the ongoing edits in the wikipage to avoid an edit war (again).
Straight to the point, the Su-27 and Su-30 are separated as they serve different purpose and role. Su-27 is an air superiority fighter akin to F-15C while Su-30 is multirole akin to F-15E, which is why they are separated too btw. You wouldn't see F-15C and E to be merged into one. This separation applies to any other wikipage e.g. US Air Force & Russian Air Force. As for "you also forgot to add SU30MK and SU27SK" its literally explained in the note.
- EvoSwatch ( talk) 07:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
In general, there should be only one entry (row) for each type. Exceptions may be allowable where: A production variant evolved from the same basic design has been given a different name, which is the case for Su-30. Ckfasdf ( talk) 06:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Good day, I'm quite confused on the Mark66 listed on the bombs and rockets section. On the original source it's stated that:
"OFAB 250, S-8KOM Rocket, MK 66 and MK 81 Bomb"
26 Pesawat Tempur Lanud Iswahjudi Siap “Hujani” Bom
Now, I can't find any reference for a Mark 66 bomb. The only closest thing is a 250kg practice bomb named mk66 mod 0 from one website. As far as I am aware, the naming of the Mark 66 refers to the Hydra 70 rockets, a further development of the FFAR which uses the Mk.66 rocket. In the Hydra 70 page it was also explained that:
"Hydra 70 rockets are known mainly by either their warhead type or by the rocket motor designation [mk.66]"
This might explain why the article mentioned it as the mk.66 instead of the Hydra. My questions are: wouldn't separating these two rockets between the FFAR and the mk.66 (Hydra) be redundant? Since presumably they refer to the same thing? Or am I mistaken and the mk.66 here refers to the aforementioned bomb or another type of ordnance ? Thank you for your answers NFrost51 ( talk) 09:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)