Talk:Indian Air Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article is currently undergoing a peer review.
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon


Editing 1971 section[edit]

Dhaka itself did not have any airfields. Kurmitolla and Tejgaon were the two main airfields, not counting Lal Monirhat, Comilla, Shamser nagar etc. Also, the number of aircrafts shot down while raiding this non-existent airfield is more than what available figures from notable websites show. Also it said air supremacy was achieved towards the end of the war, which is wrong (it was achieved within the first four days, mostly in the first 72 hours). Lastly, it says all flights were destroyed, which is incorrect. The PAF had at least 14 serviceable F-86s at the end of the war (if not all) were captured by the Indian Army, and formed the nucleus of the nascent Bangladesh Air Force. I have reverted these now. Also, I think there is a hidden PoV pushing here.Rueben lys 00:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

About the neurality thing[edit]

To whoever attached the tag. Try explaining yourself before you attach a tag and do visit the guidelines on how to edit. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. Freedom skies 08:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The neurality of this subject is in dought.

Removing the dead File:DacotaIAF.jpeg link[edit]

There was a link, supposedly pointing to an image of the Dacota fighter. The image was labelled and everything but it simply did'nt show on either the article or a search in Wikipedia. I removed the dead link, if someone could find the image kindly restore it. Freedom skies 08:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


I've moved the history text to History of the Indian Air Force as:

  1. This article is rather long.
  2. I intent to work on expanding the history section.

The current history section needs to be summerized into a shorter block. Please feel free to start on this, otherwise I will get around to it soon. Greenshed 00:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

sensitive information[edit]

would some mod or admin plz be knid enough to remove the bases from the list.This is a threat to national security. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manchurian candidate (talkcontribs) 15:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't think so. Such information is already available in many resources like this one. — Ambuj Saxena () 16:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
While I find that it is not a threat to India's security, the inclusion rationale can certainly be debated. — Ambuj Saxena () 16:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Even more daring act has been done at ( by an Indian where all the PAF bases are shown as in google earth (related discussion can be found here, I fear there must be a Paki doing the same for IAF base somewhere LegalEagle 15:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To User LegalEagle86

Paki is an offensive and racial remark which is not tolerable on Wikipedia. You should either change or I will report it.Digimanpk (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

!!! What?[edit]

Out of this neat and nicely detailed article, the best you people can come up with is 8 references? Colonel Marksman 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC) What difference would it make if airbases are listed? India does have a under ground airbase in New Delhi as well, in Vivek Vihar, planes come and go, but no one knows where they are landing or taking off from. Dont believe me go to Vivek Vihar in New Delhi and speak to people there especially near Green Field School.

My 2 cents[edit]

200 Aircraft in MRCA deal??[edit]

1. I have seen no source that has spoken of 200 aircraft. The sources that did were only commentators, some forums and overenthusiastic mediapersons. the CoAFS himself stated that the number would be 126, and from a single vendor.

2. LCA procurement will most likely be 220 for IAF, with ~40 or more for the IN, depending on the number of carriers it operates. there is no source for the 120 figure.

3. This article SERIOUSLY lacks sources and citations, and to improve it, we must cite them ASAP. Plus, it needs to be updated as well- a lot of stuff is out of date.

4. I think it would be a good idea to create a new table with details of new procurements,, such a the HJT-36, MRCA, LCA, DARIN II, etc.

5. the list of squadrons and bases can be put into new pages. they lack relevance here, and would be useless info for most readers, and only increase the page length. I shall be creating these new pages and putting them there. If anyone objects, kindly let me know.

6. A new page on the MRCA tender can be created as a stub. There's a lot of info, and predictions are that it will be an interesting journey ahead. Considering the aircraft taking part, i agree.

Cheers. Sniperz11 22:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

IAF Inventory figures[edit]

The inventory figures on this page seems to be sourced from which has exactly the same numbers as the ones in the inventory table and quite recently updated. however the references are being repointed to a generic page on AWST on wikipedia. Please substantiate that AWST actually published the same exact figures and squadron numbers before replacing the references again. jaiiaf 22:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The inventory figures have been sourced from Bharat Rakshak, but the numbers on that page and the ones in this article dont match. Bharat Rakshak doesnt even list the Dauphin helicopter but this list does, where the fuck are you getting the info for this article, because it sure as hell isnt from Bharat Rakshak.
Hey just because you didnt learn maths in school doesnt mean the figures dont match. 95% of the figures are a match. and the very fact that the bharat rakshak page shows the page edited on 23red april and someone edits the inventory page about the same time and insert the new figures and new units int the page jaiiaf 00:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Fucking retard! The table listed the number of Mig-27 as 198 and other exaggerated numbers, so dont give me crap about maths.
Keep at it and you will be the retard who will get his ass banned jaiiaf 20:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Su-30 MK/I[edit]

The Su-30 statistics. 190(i.e 50+140)+Further order for 40 The 50 built in Russia has arrived. In 2004 HAL started to manufacture SU-30MKI and handed over the aircraft.[1][2]

Out of 140, First 26 will be assembled within 2007. By 2004=2,2005=2+12=14,2006=2+12+12=26.

Out of the remaining 114 12/year will be produced until 2012/13.

Until 2006 its 50+26=76 aircrafts and by mid-2007 its 76+6=82 aircrafts in service. Chanakyathegreat 06:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

18 more ordered from Russia.[3]

40 more to be license produced will be completed by 2014[4] if the deal is confirmed, and the production rate need to be increased from the present 12 to 18 in 2007.

Chanakyathegreat 10:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Mid 2007, it's 82 aircrafts.
Mid 2008, its 94 aircrafts. (12/year)
End 2008, its 100 aircrafts.

Chanakyathegreat (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


Jaguar IS = 35+58+15=108+20 ordered. Jaguar IB = 5+10=15+17 ordered. Jaguar IM = 12

37 ordered will be in service by 2009/10.[5]

Chanakyathegreat 08:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

17 IB inducted.[6]Chanakyathegreat 09:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

considering 35 aircrafts lost.[7] 2 IB+ 30 IS+1 IM and 2 loaned versions.

  • Jaguar IS=108-30=78 + 20 ordered.
  • Jaguar IB=30
  • Jaguar IM=11

Chanakyathegreat 09:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


"The contract stipulates the modernisation of 64 MiG-29 fighters, including nine fighter-trainers," Interfax Military News Agency reported quoting defence industry sources. [8]


165 produced by HAL.[9] 29 Mig-27 lost.[10] 136 remain in service. [11] The aircraft is no longer in service with Russia but remains in service with India (130 aircraft) Chanakyathegreat 11:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It will soon be replaced by new fighters e.g MCA, FGFA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel that we should not stress so much on the MiG-27's upgrages.


70 Mig-21 FL was removed from service starting 2005.[12] Chanakyathegreat 16:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

weapon systems of IAF?[edit]

we can list the AAM, ASMs, Munitions. From Kh-25 to Brahmos-A, AA-2 to AA-12 we can list a lot of them. we can also include ATGMs carried by Mi-35, Chetak and Mi-17.

Procured Numbers Instead of InService Numbers?[edit]

The InService Numbers of Aircraft are merely estimated and doesn't give the whole picture, changes from time to time depending on aircraft reserves, attrition figures etc.

So why not give Procured Numbers Figure.

Su-30MKI is a Multirole Fighter according to Indian Air force[edit]

Some one reverted my edit back in the IAF aircraft section. Apparently he feels Su-30MKI is exactly air superiority fighter. Indian Air force says its a Multirole fighter. And Since when did Mig-29 become a multirole fighter, especially the Mig-29A/B which Indian Air force operates.
Indian Air force official website

  • SU-30 : Twin seater twin engine multirole fighter of Russian origin which carries 130 mm GSH gun alongwith 8000 kg external armament. It is capable of carrying a variety of medium-range guided air to air missiles with active or semi-active radar or Infra red homing close range missiles. It has a max speed of 2500 km/hr (Mach 2.35).
  • Mirage-2000 : A single seater air defence and multi-role fighter of French origin powered by a single engine can attain max speed of 2495 km/hr(Mach 2.3). It carries two 30 mm integral cannons and two matra super 530D medium-range and two R-550 magic II close combat missiles on external stations.
  • MiG-29 : Twin engine, single seater air superiority fighter aircraftItalic text of Russian origin capable of attaining max. speed of 2445 km per hour (Mach-2.3). It has a combat ceiling of 17 km. It carries a 30 mm cannon alongwith four R-60 close combat and two R-27 R medium range radar guided missiles.
    Ajay ijn (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image[edit]

Could someone fix the image in the infobox? It seems to have been changed by a bot, and I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia policies to know how to change this. Thanks! Jimgeorge (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The change was made in the Template:Indian Air Force. I've removed the dead file, so at least the annoying warning doesn't show now. - BillCJ (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy in number of combat aircraft[edit]

The intro states this as 1350, and the article later states it as 1450. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


what about some mention on the high rate of MIG crashes over the last several years? It surely bares some resemblance? There another recently:

I can't seem to find anything, but a few years ago (maybe 5?) there were 2 muslims from the iAF arrested for some sort of terror links. That could come here too. It certainly bared relevance today. Lihaas (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Crests and Insignia of Officers[edit]

Can anyone add the crests and insignia (means the ones on the collars, shoulders, caps etc for each of the ranks.

I guess this information should be a part of this topic. Mittal.fdk (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

1971 war section[edit]

"Despite being qualitatively inferior, the Gnats were extremely effective against the F-86, earning them the nickname Sabre Slayers.[15] Though the number of Sabres shot down remains a matter of dispute, the impact was quite visible during the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War when the number of PAF's Sabre squadrons decreased from a peak of 6 in 1965 to not more than 2 in 1971."

Why doesn't it mention that PAF was under sanctions from the US after the 1965 war and so they would have been struggling to find spare parts for F-86, meaning they would be forced to cannibalise part of the fleet to keep the rest airworthy? If the article must mention PAF's number of F-86 and speculate on a reason for lower numbers, surely it is unfair to only tell part of the story? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia containing facts, not a fanboy site containing lies and/or half-truths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. The material will be removed soon and replaced by neutral, sourced information. Thanks --Incidious (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

respected members!!! i have just one ambiguity that how was saber better than gnats and hunters!!!! saber was made in 40's and outdated in 50's ... says in wikipedia ...... where as gnats came in 50's and hunters came in 56!!! where as saber was at the end of its life!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


The follow on trainers to the Hawk will be the lead in fighter trainer which will be a derivative of the Tejas. "At Aero India 2009 here, M. Natarajan, Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister, also announced the development of a lead-in-fighter-trainer quite similar to South Korea’s T-50 Golden Eagle. He told The Hindu that the trainer which will be a derivative of the Light Combat Aircraft Tejas would be far superior to the Hawk and could be flying in five to six years."IAF reluctant to follow on order for Hawk trainer Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Grammar and bad writing[edit]

Great factual work here but I'm afraid the writing leaves much to be desired. A thorough rewrite is required. I've edited a couple of sections, also returning to sections created and written by me long ago, but assistance in running through the whole thing now would be very helpful. Jokester99 10 May 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC).

Total Aircraft Inventory[edit]

i had used the data of presently available Aircrafts given in the wikipedia itself. 2,000 aircrafts including 795+ combat aircrafts.
reference may be taken from

OK I see you have added in the UAVs, I have changed the text in the article to reflect that as which operates nearly 760 combat and 774 non-combat aircraft and over 380 UAVs. Using the list in List_of_aircraft_of_the_IAF, which is not a reliable source but it should at least agree with the figures here:
  • Combat Aircraft = 758
  • Helicopters = 324
  • Transports = 248
  • Trainers = 178
  • UAVs = 383

Which gives a total of 1915. We really need a more reliable source but that needs to be addressed in the other article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

2006 numbers[edit]

The 2006 CSIS Report (Pg 24) says 852 combat AC, 288+6 Transport and 260 Helis. Even AF's official webpage claims approx. 1700 total ACs.

I think the strength page is an abandoned page in Indian Armed Forces server. Sumanch (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead paras[edit]

Several changes were made to the lead paras without discussion. The editor who made these changes argues that they were made in accordance with the peer review. I have gone the peer review and below are main points:

  • One of the reviewers raised this valid point "There are a lot of refs in the article lead they should be covered in the body of the article if possible leaving the lead free of refs. It also makes it easier to read." And as per the suggestion, all the refs were removed. However, as per policy, "any material [in lead paras] not in the body should be sourced as usual". IAF being the world's fourth largest is not mentioned anywhere else in the article and hence a source on this is required in the lead paras.
  • It is surprising that this article was being pushed for FA-status with sentences like "India is increasingly projecting its power beyond South Asia" and "A defining moment came for the force in 1971, during the Bangladesh liberation war." Please keep Wikipedia free of nationalistic bias.
  • Minute details — such as who awarded the IAF the prefix royal; under what circumstances was a particular officer promoted to the post of Marshall etc. — belong to relevant sections, not lead paras. Keep the lead to the point.

I have made appropriate changes. Thanks --Nosedown (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

New section heading[edit]

I've renamed the section on Future Aircraft to Future Expansion, since it dealt with broader expansion plans of the IAF and not merely aircraft acquisition. There already exists a sub-section on future aircraft. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

IAF Inventory[edit]

I have corrected the total aircraft of the IAF. According to the official site inventory is 1700 aircrafts(official webpage). According to CSIS report IAF has 852 combat aircrafts. Using these info will help Class-A review. Any other data may be concedered OP. Sumanch (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The official site you qoute says nearly 1700 which cant really be used to add exactly 1700 to the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA)[edit]

GOI has not approved the MCA project yet. Therefore, I dont think it should be part of the article. (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The shoulder and sleeve ranks of Master Warrant Officer and Warrant Officer are not correct[edit]

1.The rank of a Master Warrant Officer(MWO) is the IAF emblem along with the stripe of a Flying Officer and not of a Flight Lieutenant.

2.The rank of a Warrant Officer(WO) is the IAF emblem along with the stripe of a Pilot Officer and not of a Flying Officer.

The picture depicted as the rank of a WO is indeed of a MWO. The above correction be done, as this misleads everyone and also it is of sentimental value to the airmen bearing the rank.

--Karthik3606 (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)karthik

I see the mistake. I will fix it soon. Sumanch (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

P.K Barbora Comments

he was commenting on the defence exports of India being not up to the mark and not the defence capabilities of IAF,please go through the article,one who put it up there wanted to show a totally twisted view.I have edited it to put the exact words as reported in the article.In my opinion though this comment has npthing to do with IAF and should be removed.

Also why comments praising the PAF by american defence offcials who were then PAF's biggest supporters and there fore praised them immensely find their way into this article.Please remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyji 2k (talkcontribs) 20:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


The the Indian Vice Chief said that India cannot even match Pakistan in Defence.

See multiple sources:

Why is this content being deleted? I am sure that a Vice Chief statement is something to look at and should belong here. Someone clear this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AzanGun (talkcontribs) 05:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

before you read and add something on an encyclopedia,please understand its meaning and dont twist it.He was referring there on defence exports and not defence capabilities.Exports as you may understand has nothing to do with Indian air force.

Commenting on the defence exports of India, he said, "as far as defence goes, we don't even match up with Pakistan." Hope that clears your mind. sunny.......... 15:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyji 2k (talkcontribs) 15:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What that comment is[edit]

That comment is a one-liner from an ocean of verbal cacophony. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It neither enlightens a readrer nor adds value to the history of the Indian Air Force. Therefore, it is out. Sumanch (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiple languages[edit]

I've just reverted (twice) the insertion of translation of the name in additional languages. The convention is to use English and the country's official languages. In India's case, they happen to be Hindi and English (already included). Also, there is no reason to include one or a few of the many constitutionally recognized or for that matter any other spoken languages. That would be not be neutral. Including all the constitutionally recognized or spoken languages is undue. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 02:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Indian Air Force has 1,550 aircraft in service[edit]

A revision of Air craft Numbers concludes the Indian airforce has 1,550 aircraft in service, with 553 of those fighter aircraft.

source. (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing Expansion Section[edit]

Some of the missiles and missile systems mentioned in this section are already in service with the IAF(eg. Prithvi II, and the funniest part is, it is mentioned that it is in service!). Also, some of the missiles in development are not listed here, such as the Nishant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitgeorgesebastian (talkcontribs) 04:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft Under Development[edit]

I suggest making new separate sections for "aircraft under development" and "aircraft under procurement" instead of the "future equipments" section. I have posted the "aircraft under development" section I suggested below. Please comment. Rohitgeorgesebastian (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really the best place for some of this information the bit in the article is really to long at the moment. Suggestion at List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force is that we create a separate article something like List of proposed aircraft of the Indian Air Force or Future of the Indian Air Force. This would be a good start for that article. Section in this article should be changed to more of a summary MilborneOne (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Created the split page. Now this this whole section should be compressed to 1 or two paras. Sumanch (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
OK! This is what I did. It is concise, no crystalballing, details are linked. Sumanch (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Indian Air Force[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Indian Air Force's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "IMO":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 10:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

this is now fixed. - Salamurai (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Image Clutter[edit]

This article contains a lot of images and this has created a lot of clutter. Therefore, I am suggesting the following steps –

1. Only use images of aircraft that bears the IAF's name.
2. Avoid images of models.
3. Avoid using personal banners that are not associated with the IAF such as this ([13]).

Thanks Sumanch (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note on Air Headquarters[edit]

Air Headquarters is at Vayu Bhawan otherwise also known as the "Air House". Vayu Bhawan is located at Rafi Marg in New Delhi. (Indian warbirds site) Buckshot06 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft Numbers[edit]

The total number of aircraft in the IAF inventory is claimed to be 1309. However, none of the citations provided states this number (perhaps the pages have been edited after they were first cited). --RGS (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


Aircraft Inventory[edit]

  • Instead of a dedicated UAV section, I think it will be more appropriate if the UAVs are listed according to their roles with conventional aircraft with special mentioning that it is a UAV.
  • I think HS 748 and the HAL Chetak should be listed under training aircraft as it is primarily used for that role.

I will wait for the opinions and comments of other editors before making any edits. --RGS (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Chetaks may be used in training role but most of them are not. They are used as Utility helicopter. They are even used in Siachen area for casualty evacuation. Bcs09 (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style[edit]

There are several MOS issues in the article. One of the major is regarding Images MOS. Point #3 deals with sandwiching text. This frowned upon in wikipedia. I will go through and see what can be done. Sumanch (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Image Queue[edit]

The Queue.

The number of Il-76[edit]

The IAF purchased 17 IL-76, 6 IL-78 and 3 A-50s. Some sources claim there are 7 IL-78. Because the Il-78s and the A-50s are in fact modified IL-76s, some people have a tendency of adding all these up when quoting the number of IL-76 operated by the IAF (24 is the addition of 17 IL-76 and 7 IL-78 since the 3 A-50s are very recent acquisitions). Because the IL-78s and the A-50s are mentionned elsewhere in this article, they should not be re-counted in the paragraph relating to the transport IL-76. Hudicourt (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


The above article states that India has the third largest air force in the world. The table is near the bottom of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Apache Longbow as IAF's attack Helicopter[edit]

For this recent Edit done by the IP i checked the available sources [14] and [15] and It seems that Apache will be bought, although it is a bit early to give a clear statement about the numbers. Accordingly i have not reverted this edit but would request the editors to check this fact in near future when there is a final announcement --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


Does the first helicopters deserve no credit... User:RGS should have edited the text inserted by me and not removed the whole thing as 'vandalism'. I understand that he treats IAF as his pet projects and would not like any outside intervention. Replies from other people, and not User:RGS will be given credibility. Thanks. DebashisM (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I in no way see this article as my "pet project", and I am always for others making this article better.
First, you included the text in the "aircraft inventory" section, which is meant have brief info of all the aircraft the IAF currently have in service. So this belongs in the history section more than the aircraft inventory section. If we go on and include every single aircraft the IAF has ever operated and in such vivid detail (be it in the aircraft inventory or history or any other section), the page will simply become too large and bloated. The IAF main article should aim at encapsulating the general info about the IAF in a brief and easy to understand manner. You seem to be a relatively new editor to wikipedia, so I suggest you have a look at some similar featured military articles. You can also take a look at the articles of other air forces, like the USAF.
Second, I did not mean to mark your edit as vandalism. If you have rollback rights, you will know that the undo and rollback links are close by. I merely meant to undo, but I accidentally clicked the rollback link instead - an honest mistake. Once you follow that link, there is no option to turn back. --RGS (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you say its a mistake, I take it as such and forget...'
DebashisM (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, please provide properly formatted citations wherever possible, so that the info is easily verifiable. --RGS (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft inventory articles[edit]

I noticed that the article "List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force, has been moved to "list of active Indian military aircraft", and that a new article "list of historical aircraft of the Indian Air Force" is also given the "see also" tag under the aircraft inventory section. First, I dont think the link to "list of historical aircraft" is necessary under the aircraft inventory section. We can give links to that article in History of the Indian Air Force if needed. Also, instead of an article about the aircraft operated by the enitre armed forces, isn't it better to have an article on the active aircraft of the IAF alone? Please comment. --RGS (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes "list of historical aircraft of the Indian Air Force" would be better placed in the History of the Indian Air Force article. I will make the change. — Woe90i 13:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965[edit]

The aircraft losses for both sides seem to be inaccurate. The citation provided leads to another wikipedia article. I searched a lot around wikipedia and finally came across a dead link. The aircraft losses mentioned in seem to be more reliable and even gives attrition rates which I feel should be added to the article.

I removed some text from the section which I am posting here.

I removed this because, I don't feel we should give this much importance to the Hunter. Also, the "11 kills" are stated differently in different articles, even Paksitani ones. Some state it as 9 kills and 2 probables. The 5 hunter kills are also disputed - according to AEROSPACE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AIR WARFARE (Volume 2 1946-present) by Chris Bishop, AIRTime publishing, USA, Squadron Leader Mohammed Alam was credited with the downing of five Indian Hunters in a single engagement over Sargodha during the 1965 war, but the IAF lost only 3 Hunters that day, two of them due to enemy action. Two of the "Hunter Pilots" named by the PAF as victims actually flew Mysteres on another strike. In any case, this info is better suited for the main article on the war and not in the history section of this page, which should be as comprehensive as possible. --RGS (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree Sumanch (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


I don't think this was a constructive change. I think the Infobox should show the approximate total number instead of a breakdown like this. Sumanch (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have not seen such a break up in any other military article. Moreover, the numbers cannot be verified as there are no citations. --RGS (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree I have changed it back to just an approx number, although it could do with a reliable ref. MilborneOne (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


The Rafale is currently not in service and so should not be mentioned in the "Aircraft Inventory" section simply because it is not currently in the aircraft inventory! It is already mentioned in the "Future" section. I know it is usually new or IP users who include it in the section and they are unlikely to look at the talk page, but I felt it should be mentioned here anyway. --RGS (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Addition by Noopur28[edit]

Noopur28 added the following to section History - In February 2013, it was revealed that the Indian Air Force had ordered for the procurement of 12 AW101 helicopters for the use of VVIPs in 2010 from the Italian defense manufacturer Finmeccanica of which only 4 were received so far. In 2013 India had already paid 40 percent of the total contract and reported kickbacks following which Giuseppe Orsi, head of the company was arrested in Italy. The case has been transferred to CBI and is being investigated.[35]

I am not sure if and where this should be added, but i do think that this does not belong to the History section. So i have moved it here for further discussion about its inclusion. Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest moving this to the section Future, and/or to another page here. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Usually, articles have a section called controversy or incidents/accidents. I wanted to put it under that. Should I start the "controversy" section? Noopur28 (talk)
This is a controversy about the defence deal not about the Air Force so not correct to place it here, even if you have a controversy section. AshLin (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
But it definitely involves the addition of new helicopters to the Indian Air Force. And, from what I read about these choppers, they seem like important additions to the force. Noopur28 (talk)
Mentioning each and every procurement by Air force in this article is inappropriate at the least and particularly these 12 choppers were for VIP transport only maintained and operated by IAF so adding it to the list of air craft operated by IAF would be more appropriate; as far as kickbacks and corruption is concerned one can create a full article on this. So no disrespect but I strongly disagree with adding this material.--Vyom25 (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I Agree with AshLin sir's opinion that it was a controversy about the deal but not about the IAF itself.In my opinion, it could be mentioned(to a certain extent) in Future of the Indian Air Force as well as Indo-Italian Relations articles rather than this one.The corruption charges are in my opinion, too subtle to be mentioned in the Air Force article(yet). Cheers TheStrikeΣagle 13:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

CHANGES to be made on OFFICER ranks[edit]

The officer ranks which are shown in the page contain "pilot officer" which no longer exists. It must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudeepth 123 (talkcontribs) 05:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Court case that IAF fighters are death traps[edit]

Notable at this level? Hcobb (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Dont think so, on officer who doesnt like the idea of flying Mig-21s, he could just resign it would be easier. MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

History of the IAF Incomplete.[edit]

I find no mention of the entire history of the IAF in the article. the history starts after the partition , are the valiant efforts of our air warriors who fought and died in the skies over Britain ,Burma and Libya in WWII to go without mention in this article?

I would be willing to contribute to expanding this section if someone else doesn't do it first. also a mention of the previous inventory of the IAF all the way from the first Hawker Audaxs would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free. However, make sure your edits include references and are listed in a neutral tone (i.e. - no sentences that include wording like "the valiant efforts of our air warriors". Thanks - Ckruschke (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
I would suggest that improving History of the Indian Air Force may be better as it already covers pre-independence history. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I Have expanded the History of the Indian Air Force and List of historical aircraft of the Indian Air Force articles a little and linked them to this page. I also added excerpts from the history page to this article so it doesnt look like the history of the iaf began only after 1947. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvpoodle (talkcontribs) 00:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Future acquisitions[edit]

Please remove reference to Augustawestland as the deal has been scrapped by the government of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Indian Government to put Air Force 126 M-MRCA deal of fast track". India Defence. 10 March 2006. Retrieved 24 Apr. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ Luthra, Nitin (28 May 2009). "India Fighter-Jet Deal Moves Ahead". The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company. Retrieved 9 Jul. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. ^ "India floats tender for combat, heavy lift helicopters". The Times (UK of India). 27 May 2009. Retrieved 11 Jul. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  4. ^ "Boeing Submits Proposals to India to Sell Helicopters". The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company. 23 Oct 2009. Retrieved 2 Jul. 2010.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  5. ^ "Russia’s Mi-17 to Land in India". Kommersant. 11 July 2006. Retrieved 23 Apr. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  6. ^ "Russia to deliver first Mi-171 helicopter to India in 2010". RIA Novosti. 11 February 2009. Retrieved 24 Apr. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  7. ^ "Lockheed Martin at Aero India 2009 February 11–15, 2009". Lockheed Martin Corporation. Retrieved 2 August 2009. 
  8. ^ "India signs deal to buy six C-130 planes from US". 7 Feb 2008. Retrieved 2 Jul 2010. 
  9. ^ "Indian Air Force to buy 10 C-17 Globemaster III heavy-lift transport aircraft". Defence Professionals GmbH. 14 June 2009. Retrieved 9 Jul. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  10. ^ "HAL looking for global partner to design trainer aircraft". The Hindu. 20 July 2009. Retrieved 4 July 2010. 
  11. ^ "Cabinet panel nod for `Airawat' project". The Hindu. 10 September 2004. Retrieved 24 Apr. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  12. ^ "Brazilian jets to serve as eye in the sky for IAF". The Hindu. 20 April 2008. Retrieved 2 Aug. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  13. ^ Pubby, Manu (12 October 2007). "India, Russia to ink pact for developing fighters". The Indian Express. Retrieved 1 Aug. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  14. ^ "Russia To Develop Two Versions Of 5th-Generation Fighter". RIA Novosti. 29 September 2008. Retrieved 1 Aug. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  15. ^ "India to develop unmanned combat aerial vehicle". 25 Nov 2009. Retrieved 4 July 2010. 
  16. ^ "India, Israel To Co-Develop Advanced Barak Ship Defense Missile System". 7 August 2007. Retrieved 5 July 2009. 
  17. ^ "DRDO to develop quick reaction missile, Maitri, with MBDAnews". domain-b. 20 March 2007. Retrieved 24 Apr. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  18. ^ "DRDO, MBDA to Jointly Develop Maitri Quick Reaction Missile". India Defence. 19 March 2007. Retrieved 24 Apr. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  19. ^ "Low-Level Quick Reaction Missile system (LLQRM)". Retrieved 24 Apr. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  20. ^ "India in aerospace defence plan". BBC. 28 January 2007. Retrieved 24 Apr. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  21. ^ "India Begins Work On Space Weapons Command". SpaceDaily. 12 April 2006. Retrieved 24 Apr. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  22. ^ "India's spy satellite boost". BBC. 27 November 2001. Retrieved 31 Jul. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  23. ^ "ISRO arm may get more satellite launch contracts". The Hindu Business Line. 23 January 2008. Retrieved 24 Apr. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  24. ^ "CARTOSAT-2A". ISRO. Retrieved 31 Jul. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  25. ^ "India launches radar-imaging satellite". CNN. 20 April 2008. Retrieved 31 Jul. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  26. ^ a b Herman, Steve (20 April 2008). "India Launches High-Tech Imaging Satellite". Voice of America. Retrieved 31 Jul. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  27. ^ "RISAT-2 not a spy satellite: ISRO chief". Times. UK of India. 20 April 2008. Retrieved 31 Jul. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  28. ^ "Satellite to enhance Indian air force: chief". AFP. 12 February 2009. Retrieved 24 Apr. 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  29. ^ Coggins 2000, p. 163.
  30. ^ Mohan and Chopra 2005, p. 41.
  31. ^ Singh, Jasjit. "The 1965 India-Pakistan War: IAF’s Ground Reality". The Sunday Tribune, 6 May 2007.
  32. ^ Fricker, John. Battle for Pakistan: the air war of 1965. 

    'before we had completed more than of about 270 degree of the turn, at around 12 degree per second, all four hunters had been shot down.'

  33. ^ Tufail, Air Cdre M. Kaiser. "Alam’s Speed-shooting Classic." Retrieved: 20 August 2010.
  34. ^ Coggins 2000, pp. 163-164.
  35. ^ Shukla, Ajai (19 February 2013). "VVIP lessons - build arms, don't buy them". Business Standard. Retrieved 19 February 2013. 

Cite error: There are <ref group=N> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=N}} template (see the help page).