Talk:Egyptian Air Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Egypt (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.


egypt 4 ever

The Yom War[edit]

i apologize i had that bad edit but honestly i tried to change it but for some reason i couldonot find it. sorry for that, and i think the site have to do some thing with the EAF history laking the most important war in egypt's modern history. (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

some one deleted the Yom Kippur file does he have the right?......haaail no. i'll edit it again.

Early history[edit]

The early history section of this article was copied without acknowledgement from the identical pages at [1] and [2]. These pages are in very poor English - the writer has no grasp of tenses - and is rather jingoistic and not particularly accurate. Working from memory I have altered the early history sections but this is a temporary fix - someone really needs to do the job properly. Also something on the War of Attrition would be good.

and I shall see to its development.

Maybe the article need REW because: 1. "Egypt found itself attacking Israel with the British withdrawal from Palestine and the founding of Israel in 1947."

Maybe the British forces were withdrawing from Israel in 1947, but the withdrawal finished only in May 1948- and only then Israel was founded.

2. "The Egyptian Air Force contributed to this conflict with C-47 Dakotas and Spitfires, claiming two Israeli aircraft destroyed, although unfortunately many more Egyptian aircraft were lost"


3. "After Nasser decided to nationalize the Suez Canal, Egypt got involved in a war with Israel, France, and the United Kingdom."

First of all, Israel declered war on Egypt because Egypt closed straits of Tiran- and it should but said here. Secondly, "got involved" is bad explanation for the situation - the meaning of closing straits of Tiran and naionalizing the Suez canal was a war - the leadership in Egypt, and Nasser knew it.

4. "These strikes were launched at 2 p.m. October 6 and were made without any air opposition from the Israeli air force"

It's not true. Please read 2-28 Air Battle.

well i did and i found the mansura air battle where IDF lost 18 sky hawks and Phantoms all by direct air-air fire while EAF lost 5 MIG-21MFs : 3-for fule run off , one by air-air hit and one because of the extremly neer distruction of an enemy plan , in man power only one fighter pilot died while god knows what happened to the IDF guys LOL , another fact that the total jets in the were 180 : 60 from EAF and 120 from IDF so EAF pilots were out numbered and out gunned thuse they made the enemy lose 2/3 more than them and far more economoic value for the jets and do u know the kicker ....the source is wikipedia the arabic copy of yom kippur war and acig pluse a national magazine "al-ahram" that is about the air -air conquest now to the air-ground targets that were believed to destroy 25%of the attacking warplanes for the destruction of 5% of targets while what happened was that 85% of targets were destroyed for the destruction of about 5% of the first attacking wave meaning that the first wave maneged to achive 300% of the expected targets for the loss of 20% of the expected loses!!!! and for the ground-air conquest well no need to tell LOL

Wikify and NPOV tags[edit]

I have added Wikify and POV tags, because: - the syntax and grammar of this article should be improved. - there is a pro-Egyptian bias, - I don't have the knowledge to tackle the work myself.

(although I respectfully disagree with the critique of the term "got involved", as the vast majority of non-Zionist opinion is that Israel started the war by attacking Egypt - c.f. 1973, when Egypt started the war by attacking Israel, and I consider the article cited - "2-28 Air Battle" has a pro-Israeli bias and is liable to fall foul of the deletion police for being non-notable). Winstonwolfe 07:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Article has vastly improved, well done. Tags removed. Winstonwolfe 05:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

List of EAF aircraft[edit]

While a list of current EAF aircraft is appropriate in the article, I notice it has expanded to include some "retired" types. Perhaps the authors would care to create a new List of Aircraft of the Egyptian Air Force, including all types operated historically; such lists exist for many other air forces.Winstonwolfe 02:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

dose anyone know whether or not Egypt and Mikoyan amended a deal fro the 40 Mig-29 SE's

i support your request and also want to add that putting the planes into groups accourding to type or rule shall be much better than putting them separatly

I agree with much you have said, The EAF is not getting the mig-29 infact it had to upgrade its mig-21's with help from Ukraine. to include inflight refueling probes and several small upgrades to its radar.

Here is a more accurate list of EAF aircraft and their role.

f-16 220 most all modified to 32/40 standards. These are multi role aircraft.

Mirage 2000 a total of 20, with 3-4 being two seat trainers This is the primary air defense/interceptor of the EAF, there is no liscence to self build though Egypt did have a liscence granted to Helwan AOI to build a wing Aileron. in 1979 Egypt and Iraq had planned to build liscence built Mirage 20000 but by 1986 this went nowhere.

Mirage 5 circa 58-62 These are used in yeoman service in strike, low level interception and photo reconissance they were domesticaly upgraded vis a vis france and fitted with alphajet nav attack systems, Further upkeep is assisted with pakistan as part of a deal where PAF f-16s are serviced in egypt and egyptian Mirage 5's are serviced in Pakistan.

Phantom f-4 aircraft 28-40 are in existance a not all together sucessful aircraft in egyptian service, was planned on using it in combination with the Mirage 2000 in airdefense it has instead filled the niche vacated by the retirements of the il-28/tu-16 and su-7/17/22 in stike bomber roles.

Mig-21 is listed seperately from the F-7 as the F-7 of chinese and egyptian build has a greater range and aerodynamic ability, around 40-60 still flying used in very advanced pilot training and light weapons attack. were able by 1983 to fire sidewinders and french short range aam with failing to sign for new aircraft some were returned to service with assistance of Ukraine.

f-7 around 80-120 in service many assembled in egypt and fitted with french avionics, along with the mig-21 some higher numbers may be in service to reduce the effects of not recieving the Mig-29s

Alpha Jet Primary light strike and secondary trainer circa 40 in service liscence built in egypt

L-59 albatross is simmilar to the alpha jet in role.

OBSOLETE/Retired aircraft are from time to time taken and can returned to service in egypt this is different than striken from service at this time the obsolete/retired but not striken strength of the EAF is

su-20C 48 tu-16 20 Il-28 15 su-7/17 80 Mig-21 120 Mig-19 20 F-6 40


Mig-17 120 al-gumhurya trainer 200

as for the Future the EAf is looking to acquire a future aircraft however there are political and other concerns.

Jf-1t/fc-1 has aroused much interest in Egypt however due to a unwillingness by both pakistan and china to export it with BVR missiles, Egypt rejected it.

f-15 there were discussions when Egypt modified its f-16 fleet to 35/40 standards (most eaf f-16s now have a common engine with the f-15) however after the Rammadan 2000 war games AIPAC and other lobbies raised concerns over the sale of this, and congress turned it down, It went instead into the Longbow, ah-64 upgrade and further ground forces equipment.

Eurofighter Typhoon there is interest however due to its cost it is impractical

Dassault Rafale there is interest however due to its cost it is impractical

Panavia Tornado (saudi) There is great interest however due to the fact KSA is upgrading these with Bae to extend their service lives it is unlikely they will be gifted anytime soon.

Bae Saab Gripen due to Egypts Human rights records and its US based engine it is very unlikely.

Mikoyan Guerevich Mig-29 aroused great interest however due to funding and other issues over the 1978 dissappearance of EAF mig-21's the debt Russian claims Egypt claims soviet debt, and the like the Egyptians were forced to take mig-21's and f-7s out of the boneyard and return them to service... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabMilExpert (talkcontribs) 02:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Future Aircraft[edit]

There are so many types listed in there like the Su-35, MiG-29, Rafale, JF-17 etc. Any reliable sources from either Egypt or the manufacturing state? If not, the list must be removed. Every nation expresses interests in many types but we can't list all as future plans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatche (talkcontribs) 11:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, i'll remove them by january 19 if nobody finds a source. You know, it can be said that the MiG-29SMT deal is a secret one, therefore no sources. Anyway, it will be removed from the wikipedia article till a reliabe and authoritive source is found. Heavy Metal Moe (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The list has re-appeared and to be honest, such lists with no backing evidence give very poor credibility to the whole article. Many will start doubting the actual figueres and the stories of the page as well. Well, if the editors prefer it this way with low credibility, then let it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatche (talkcontribs) 18:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV problems[edit]

This article is fanciful at best. Besides the complete lack of citations, it's full of wishful thinking about the EAF performance. It desperately needs a cleanup. Bartleby 03:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If egypt bought 40 Mig-29, why isnt it stated on the page of Mig-29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
It didn't buy them it's negotiating. And who the hell removed the Battle of Al-Mansourah article?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
I deleted it because it was copied verbatim from Bartleby 21:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Did u delete the 73 war article too ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if the 'heroic egyptian forces against evil aggressors' vibe could be toned down. This reads like a propaganda brochure or something they'd hand out at a recruitment office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if those who see the article as being not neutral point out some exact phrases which implicate bias in the article. Until then, there seem to be no clear objections on what should be changed in the article, and the article includes 36 references as of today. Clear enough, the two tags are not needed, until reasonable objections are there. ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  10:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Israel Objects To US Sale of F-15s[edit]

The author says that Israle objected to the sale of F-15s to Egypt because Egypt was using wargames of which Israel was the "enemy", and the US supposedly confirmed this? I checked the person's sources and neither Israel nor the US says any such thing and one of the sources are no longer available. Besides, I don't see what the problem is, since Russia routinely maintains that its missile and naval program are based on hypothetical battles with the US, since any successful training against the US Navy is a successful program.MPA 00:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

planes list is uncorrect[edit]

The Egyptian Air forces air craft forces is not full cuz some many other Egyptian planes made like Huras nuclear planes , and Saqr 4 and Ahmus 80 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoud-Megahid (talkcontribs) 02:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you could elaborate on this?

some of what you are talking about are 1960s plans for aircraft that went NOWHERE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabMilExpert (talkcontribs) 02:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

aircraft flown[edit]

You have at the list airplanes that are in service and aircrafts that are retired. This makes a confusion, you must have the planes that are only in service. the others belong to the past. in other case add all the types Egypt used in the past to honour them. John, Athens 11/4/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(Lack of) air supremacy in Yom Kippur war[edit]

During the Yom Kippur/1973 war, Egyptian SAM batteries were very effective against the IAF, and limited its ability to operate in Egyptian airspace. That's not the same as air supremacy. If the EAF had attained air supremacy in 1973, they would have been able to fly anywhere they wanted in Israeli airspace, the way that the allies could fly in German airspace in spring 1945, or Israel was able to operate in Egyptian airspace during the 1967 war. I've removed (again) the statement that the EAF obtained air supremacy, since they managed very few operations against Israeli targets even in their own territory, and the IAF remained a major force to the east of the line of SAM defences (p.s. no axes to grind either way — I'm neutral in the mideast debate). David (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

neither the 67, or the 73 wars can be compared to the WW2 in that matter. in WW2 it had to end up with either germany having europe under it's control, or that the allies invad and take over the nazy germany. but in the last 2 wars between egypt and israel, non had the goal of taking the other under it's role, and non could do so. israel optained the air supermacy over the sinai in 67, and egypt optained the air supermacy over the suez ie, the battle field. so in the 2nd world war, one side had to optain the air supermacy over the other, because one side had to finish the other once, and for all. in the last 2 wars, the side that had the air supermacy is the side that had it over the battle feild or the territories that he would gain as a direct result of the war; israel had it over the sinai in 67 and it gained it, egypt optained it over the suez in 73, and it gained it. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
can you cite credible sources for any of those statements? From everything I've read, neither side managed to obtain air supremacy in the 1973 war, and the only widely effective weapon against the Israelis was the Egyptian SAMs, not the Egyptian Air Force. The war wasn't a disaster for the EAF like the 1967 war was, but avoiding a disaster is not the same as obtaining supremacy. David (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
i thought what i wrote was an already known fact, besides i was discussing , not editing an article. i recommend reading about the mansourah air battle were 62 egyptian MiG-21s were more than enough to repel an attack of some 160 phantoms, skyhawks, and Mirages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by One last pharaoh (talkcontribs) 16:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I ran into the same problem at first working on the War of 1812 article — what I thought was generally known and accepted turned out to be heavily biased information taught in Canadian schools (we all learned that Canada "won" that war against the U.S.). If you studied history somewhere in the Arab world, or somewhere under Arab influence, you may have had similar biases built into in your own education about the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars; I'm sure that Israeli schools do the same thing. As other people have noted, this current article has fairly serious problems with a non-neutral POV (not just the air supremacy issue), and it's going to need some work to make it more balanced. David (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
i believe, i would be happy to work for improving the article with u. but actually we were not told no thing about nothing.....all of what that stupid history book is telling is stopping at the 6th of ctober, not mentioning the libyan-egyptian boarder war, neither the egyptian participation in the frst gulf war, and ofcourse not even hinting to the presence of some thing called the yemen war. insteed some stupid roman and greek history, and mythologies that have nothing to do with egypt. back to our issue here, i ment that the allies had to gain the complete air supemacy to win the war, i realy think that no one disagree with that, also i knew about the 67, and 73 from mainly western sources -thanks to the greek-roman history book entiteled history for egyptian secondry school-. u may find this strange, but i for one donot trust the govenrmental history books. at the end, u can read about the battle from here

and there it is even mentioned in wikipedia i am planning to make an article for it, but i donot have enough time to make a good wikipedian article about it. maybe u can help?One last pharaoh (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Images positions[edit]

i started that sub-article not to discuss an information, it's for images. i believe that there position now is fare better, and Orthopraxia, it took me a while to upload, and to put them in the current shape, so leave them for me ^^. One last pharaoh (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, perhaps it does not show on your screen when you open this page, but on mine, the two images are covering and superimpositing on the "Content" box and the "Egyptian Air Force" box on the right and it is veryugly to leave it as such. I am not sure whether this is only my problem or not. Also, the normal position of these two images would be where they are now since they represent modern and current planes and this would be more adequate to match the flow of description and content. I hope that this does not offend you, if it does, please find a way that it would not cause what it does where you had them although as I mentioned they would be out of context with the current layout of the page. Orthopraxia (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Orthopraxia

maybe u have ur system set to low resolution, that would make u see 800x600 images the same size i see... say 1240x1024 ones. however that's not the problem i think lowering their resolution to perhaps 200-250, and setting them beside the aircraft inventory table, or inside it each beside it's aircraft's name would be nice. One last pharaoh (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I use 1024*768 resolution and firefox, image(air fuelling f-16 and f-4 pics) positions are blocking the text. I am deleting them. I don't so much about wiki system, so someone should put them in a better place —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

maybe u can replace them so that each image be in it's aircraft's raw in the aircraft inventory table. i think u would have to lower their resolution not to destroy the main frame of the table, but please do not make them less than 200px. i strongly recommend that they stay in their current position filling the empty space beside contents; besides, i for one have 10 degrees of resolution available, and the middle one (the 1152 by 864 pixels option) shows no problem. i use the 1280 by 1024 pixels option, and i really am not seeing them the pest way i want, but it serves the average since my middles resolution, and other's low resolution ie. people who have stronger hardware than mine, and use some 2560 by 2048 pixels or some thing. so if after all the majority still want to replace them, i hope u would follow the 1st suggestion. Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Insert formula here

Upclassing the article[edit]

while i was arguing with others about where certain images should be in the article, we could have created a gallery like the one in the T-55 article. I suggest that we create a gallery, and search for better images; i bright star for example i believe that an image that contains airplanes belonging to more than one air force including the egyptian would be better for that certain subarticle than another that shows aircraft(s) belonging to the egyptian air force only, also in the development subarticle, an image that shows jets of different generations is better than another that shows only modern jets for that certain subarticle. If some one is interested, just create the gallery, and i have the images needed, i think. Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cobra helicopter photo[edit]

Their is a excellent improvement in the article about Egyptian Air Force with more infos and photos but their is posted a new photo of a Cobra helicopter. This helicopter is not in service with Egyptian AF. The last 20+ years i have never heard about Cobras in egyptian inventory. Also it is not in order, and not any plans to buy it. John, Athens Greece 10 Sept 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That image was removed due to lack of copy right info. I am an egyptian, and i have seen a Cobra in an egyptian movie ! Maybe the internal security forces use them in little few numbers, while the army uses the Apache. One last pharaoh (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Al Mansourah Battle[edit]

To the best of my knowledge this battle never happened. The name (the victorious) historical connotations (a battle against the crusaders of the same name) and disagreement with the results of other air to air battles between the air forces suggest that it's a mere Egyptian propaganda attempt. There are no real sources (academic ones). The official Israeli score of lost aircraft lists no planes lost to air to air combat on that day. I move to remove. --Valleyofdawn (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

--Valleyofdawn (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The First Paragraph[edit]

Theres no reason to have an article mentioning the size of the EAF mention that Turkey and Israel are supperior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabMilExpert (talkcontribs) 02:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rafale and Su-35 as possible future aircraft[edit]

The article says that The EAF plans to procure aproximately 100 Rafale's, but given the high unit cost , around $63m, it is extremely difficult -if not impossible- for the EAF to sign a deal of $6.3b at the very least, excluding spare parts and maintainance costs and other "niceties".

As for the 20-25 Su-35, (which is an interim aircraft for the Russian Air Force, till the T-50 is ready for fielding, and only 12 Su-35's are in service with the Russian air force as of 2008.) I dont think the EAF could get such advanced fighters from Russia in the near future, as relations are not that close between the two countries, and the unit cost is also around $65m which is impractical and expensive for the EAF. Please cite an authoritive source for those two "plans" or they will be deleted. Heavy Metal Moe (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Laugable citations needed[edit]

With a bit of common sense, and knowledge about history, why there are c.n. in the following affermations?

Currently the EAF has over 350 combat aircraft and 149 armed helicopters, making it the largest in Africa[citation needed] and the second largest in the Middle East after Israel. It is currently the strongest and most developed in Africa[citation needed].

Do the c.n. writer knows what means to have, in Africa, 350 combat aircrafts, 149 armed helicopters and hundreds of other planes? South Africa is reduced to 26(!) Gripen, Algeria, Lybia and others are all in worse shape. No one has an AEW force in Africa except Egypt. So, if we hold the 200+ F-16, 20 Mirage 2000, 8 E-2C force, that's already far better that anything else except Israel. The only one vaguely similar is Lybian AF, already whipped in 1977 when she was in the best shape compared to today. So definitively, Egypt si not only the best, but FAR better than any other African AF. So i expected that these affermations will be hold: simply logic is needed to understand this.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Verifiablity, not truth. 'Common sense' and 'logic' are not standards for making statements in Wikipedia articles (and "most developed" also smells of WP:PEACOCK). - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 22:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

INSS[edit] Flayer (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Revert explanations[edit]

I reverted the unreferenced changes to the number of F-16s in the EAF. If this can be sourced and cited, please feel free to re-add them. :) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 22:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, if you are going to change numbers in the article, cite a source for the changes. This morning's changes have been rollbacked due to being unverifiable. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 21:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words, lack of citation, etc[edit]

The article is full of weasel words and should be cleaned of these to a more encyclopedic standard. Also, if you argue that the EAF pilots shot down Israeli fighters during Yom Kippur war then please provide RS for such exceptional argument -as all reliable foreign sources I know about the Yom Kippur war don't tell about even one dog fight where EAF pilots shot down the IAF pilots. --Gilisa (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Egyptian air defence forces' flag.gif Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Egyptian air defence forces' flag.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 8 October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sea King[edit]

doubtful these aircraft are still in use, see — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

EAF Units[edit]

  • There doesn't seem to be a listing of the various units (squadrons/wings etc) that make up the EAF - can someone with the appropriate refs add these? thanks.NiD.29 (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)