Talk:Philippine Air Force

Replaced PhAF with PAF

I have replaced all instances of PhAF with PAF. I have never heard anyone from the Philippines use the acronym "PhAF" when referring to the Philippine Air Force. I believe it's mostly used in places like [[1]] to differentiate the Philippine Air Force from the Pakistani Air Force. Edward Sandstig 18:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment re info of uncertain timeliness and origin

The Aircraft section for example, begins with the words "At present ...". That has clear meaning to the writer and, as the reader has no info about when the info to which this refers was placed into the article, this has no meaning at all to the reader. It is much better to say something like "As of Fobruary 2008, ". Following that introduction dating the info is a list of the number of various aircraft types which are, without naming the source of the info, asserted to be in PAF inventory. Whatever the source of the info might be, it appears to be pretty unreliable — going by unsupported changes I've noticed being made in the numbers. Please note that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia:Verifiability is an official policy of Wikipedia. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pumas no longer in service

Here are a few links showing RP-C752 (cn 1562) "Jonty" in Texas.[2][3][4][5] --Edward Sandstig (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Philippine Air Force uses T-34 mentor

The Philippine Air Force does in fact use T-34 mentors. I know I saw some T-34`s in Viliamore Air Base this after noon (still in service and flying). For links see,[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.166.250 (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have photo evidence or any sources to back this up? I really can't find any other sources that indicate these aircraft are still in service. Also, you were adding incorrect captions to a number of pictures, please don't perpetrate hoaxes. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the Philippines use T-28 Trojans

Does the Philippines still use T-28 Trojans. Because some say that the T-28 Trojan replaced the PAF GAF Nomad but others say it has already been replaced by the SF-260. Im confused. Does the PAF use T-28 Trojans or not? Just asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.107.236 (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be a bit odd to replace a trainer/light-attack aircraft (T-28 Trojan) with a light transport aircraft (GAF Nomad) so I'd question your source on that. ;) The Trojans were retired in the 90s as the SF-260s started entering service. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

May I add, the T-28 Trojan were actually replaced by the OV-10 Broncos bought in the early 1990s, although the SF-260s with ground attack configurations were already available as early as 1980s. but is mainly overshadowed by the bigger OV-10, since it is more widely used, have more media coverage, and is less deployed in the conflict areas. --phichanad (talk) 1249H 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Question to anybody who knows

Question to anybody who knows: Does the Philippine Air Force use F-16 Falcons? I`ve been hearing my friends talk about it and now i`ve been wondering. So if anybody has info about the PAF using F-16 Falcons just answer this ok. From Martin.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.180.86 (talk • contribs) 02:19:16 (UTC) 2008-04-21

They don't use F-16s. Any claims that they do as of 2008-04-21 should be regarded as speculation, wishful thinking or downright lies. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear guy who just asked this question. Yeah Im sure that the Philippine Air Force uses Lockheed F-16 Fighting Falcons. They also use F-18 Hornets. These planes even have Philippine Air Force Markings. Here just look at this Video I found [7] if you watch it (carefully) you can see F-16s with Phil Air Force Markings. So I think this should be evidence enough. Yours truely Tatiana Lochienko. (PS im Russian-Filipino but I dont think thats important) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.131.58 (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not evidence enough because the videos were edited, you should read the comments on that link. The Philippine Air Force does NOT operate F-16 or F-18s. If you'd like, send an e-mail to cgpaf@paf.mil.ph or webmaster@paf.mil.ph and ask them. Otherwise, please stop perpetrating hoaxes, and please consider registering for an account on Wikipedia. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, sorry to burst your bubble guys, but the pictures in the youtube video? It was posted a couple of years ago in the Images and Videos section of the Philippine Defense Forum (www.timawa.net/forum), as a post of one of its members who admitted everything because it was merely for purposes of joking around. The pictures were EDITED using Photoshop. I previously have copies of those pictures, but lost it when my hard drive malfunctioned last year. Please guys, don't be too gullible, check it out first before believing. And, as Mr. Sandstig just posted above, please consider having an account here. Happy reading! -- phichanad (talk) 1245H 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi it's my first time to join. But as Mr. Sandstig said the Philippine Air Force (PAF)doesn't have F-16s nor F-18s. We have F-5s but they are now not used. So the "fighter job" lies with the S-211s. The PAF had its anniversary July 1 and the Air Force Chief Gen. Candungog announced procurement of aircraft in 2 phases. Horizon 1 and Horizon 2. Horizon 1 is basically rotary wing (helicopters) for internal counter-insurgency and disaster assistance while Horizon 2 is fixed wing for external defense and cargo. Funding is a major problem since it might take as much as P50B or US$1B to buy all in the wish list. Hope that helps. Bongmaj (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Bong

If I recall correctly, the last significant mission of those retired F-5s was during the Spratly crises in the 1990s. As for the Fil-Russian "Tatiana" - don't believe everything you see on the 'net, we're in the miraculous Photoshop Age. Sheesh. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 16:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In my memory, the more recent significant use of the F-5s was when then Pres. Joseph Estrada ordered an all out assault in Mindanao (after Muslim militants/terrorists continued with their kidnapping and rampage). Another use of the F-5s - though it maybe controversial in significance - was when it made "persuasion flights" over the Presidential Palace to oust Pres. Estrada. Both incidents happened between 1998 to 2000. BTW it might interest you Tatiana that one of the aircraft considered to replace the F5s is the MiG 29 (NATO Codename Fulcrum). It had a display - scale model and full-flying model - in 1997 at the Air Defense Exhibit in 1997. Going back to verifying F-16s and F-18s, you can either go to the website of Lockheed Martin (for F-16s) and/or Boeing (for F-18s)or to Wikipedia as it indicates countries which use either or both airrcaft. Do Svidanya! (hope i spelled that right)202.124.137.206 (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Bong

It's "das vidanya". — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 10:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

spaseba (again please correct me if wrong :-)) 202.124.137.206 (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Bong

Pozhaluista. Actually it's "spasiba". But enough of that now. lolz! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 01:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ the PAF was going to buy the Soviet/Russian Mig-29? I thought the Philippijnes can only buy planes from the US or other US allies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.68.69 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In 1997, the Philippine Air Force considered buying the MiG-29 together with two American fighters the F-18 and the F-16, one Swedish, the JAS-39 Grippen and one Israeli the Kfir. As to whether the Philippines can only buy from the U.S., my guess is it wants to follow Indonesia and Malaysia which have Su-27 (NATO Codename Flanker) and MiG-29 (NATO Codename Fulcrum) respectively. Bong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.137.206 (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

SF-260?

I konw the Philippines uses SF-260s but I thought they use only 7/8 of them but 18? How many do they realy use (a bit confused here). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.131.58 (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the modernization section, it's mentioned that a deal has been signed for the purchase of 18 new SF-260s. That sentence is backed up by this article from the Philippine Daily Inquirer. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No matter the number, the PAF has always had problems with maintenance. so if you only see 7 or 8, the other aircraft are there but are used for spares. 121.96.116.186 (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Aermacchi S-211

Ok, guys... I have extensively updated the page of Aermacchi S-211, please help to update the PAF section therein should any be required. Thank you. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wat!

I thought the PAF used 3 C-130`s. Ok 1 crashed I get it but what happened to the other C-130 why does the Philippines only have one left I thought we should have at least 2 left? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.105.17 (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But the paf and the news said 1 C-130 is left —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlo pabz (talk • contribs) 10:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The PAF has several C-130s in storage awaiting funds to bring them back in the air. The numbers cited in the press refer to operational aircraft. The PAF usually does not say how many it has in the inventory. News reports are notoriously unreliable when it comes to aircraft numbers, but reportedly, had we not lost a C-130 in late 2008, the PAF would have had 3 operational Hercs. (Adroth (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

Persistent IP vandal

Hi, Please note that a very persistent IP vandal has been adding hoax material to articles on the Philippines' military, military history and ethnic groups, including this article. The IP addresses they've been using include:

• 118.93.25.93 (talk · contribs) (30 September)
• 202.37.68.125 (talk · contribs) (19 September)
• 118.92.225.165 (talk · contribs) (17 September)
• 118.92.131.99 (talk · contribs) (13 September)
• 202.37.68.109 (talk · contribs) (12 September)
• 118.92.176.95 (talk · contribs) (29 August)
• 118.92.139.74 (talk · contribs) (22 August)
• 202.37.68.120 (talk · contribs) (2 August)
• 202.37.68.85 (talk · contribs) (12 July)
• 202.37.68.124 (talk · contribs) (11 July)
• 118.93.84.47 (talk · contribs) (7 July)
• 118.92.160.13 (talk · contribs) (2 July - admitted posting incorrect info at: [8])
• 68.89.176.172 (talk · contribs) (30 June, used this IP again for vandalism in early July, blocked 6 July - posted abuse on talk page and block extended for another month, responded by stating that they will continuine vandalism once the block expires [9])
• 118.93.111.221 (talk · contribs) (29 June)
• 118.93.143.205 (talk · contribs) (26 June
• 202.37.68.110 (talk · contribs) (25 June)
• 118.92.107.236 (talk · contribs) (25 June)
• 118.92.229.177 (talk · contribs) (20-21 June)
• 202.37.68.69 (talk · contribs) (17 May and 19 July, probable)
• 118.92.109.90 (talk · contribs) (5-7 May)
• 203.118.180.86 (talk · contribs) (28-30 April)

As such, anything added by IP addresses starting with 118.93., 118.92 or 202.37 should be considered highly dubious and I strongly recommend undoing such edits on sight. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

Its me (the Russian) Tatiana (IP user 202.37.68.58) and the wife of (Pinouy) Martin (IP user 118.92.160.13). I to am a constant editor at Wikipedia. PS: I convinced Martin (IP user 118.92.160.13) to stop making edits without refrences. PS again: Before I came to the Phuilippines I was with the Soviet Air Force Command in Moskva (Moscow). Thats why I like military stuf. Martin (IP user 118.92.160.13) uses my computer often just incase ur wandering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.68.58 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now an account

My Former account was User talk:202.37.68.58 but now its User:PHL-USA-RUS. —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC).

I hope that this means that you will no longer be adding fiction to articles. Please consider this your first and last warning that any further vandalism will lead to the account being indefinetly blocked. Please provide a valid reference for all material you add. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I wont but I have a question. There is a Bell 212 listed in this article but in the Bell 212 article the Philippines is not listed there. Is there a refrence to prove that the PAF uses the Bell 212? If so pls add it to the disussion. PS: Its still me Tatiana but im using Martins computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.131.226 (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tatiana, the Bell 212 is indicated in the list of helicopters used by the Presidential Airlift Wing. In the media, I sometimes see it being flown up to the present. But the funny thing is if you go the wikipedia article of Bell 212, it is listed under the Philippine National Police. Bong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.137.206 (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

All these accounts have also been blocked as this editor's vandalism has continued over the last few weeks. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh??

I have other problems with this article, but this recent edit stopped me cold when it popped up on my watchlist. I don't have a problem with the edit itself, but with the surrounding text which its popping up caused me examine.

Air Force Chief Lt. Gen. Pedrito Cadungog said the Air Force is presently in the process of making a study of what type of fighter jets they are going to acquire. He said the acquisition can only start after 2010 which is the projected defeat of internal security threats.[10]

The cited source amplified on this as follows:

“(We will make the acquisition) after 2010. As a matter of fact, that is what we call the horizon 2. We're looking beyond the horizon, by 2011," said Cadungog on when the Air Force will begin acquiring fighter jets.

“As a matter of fact, we are very busy right now making all the researches what (fighter planes) is appropriate for us. Our staff, key staff officers, are there making evaluation on that...The process of acquisition takes a lot of time. We have to start now if we want to have supersonic jets by 2015. As early as now, we should start the process. We cant buy them over the counter," he added.

Already, the military is in the process of acquiring attack helicopters with night-flying capability which he said are crucial to the defeat of internal security threats. The procurement of such helicopters, however, suffered a setback early this year due to alleged bidding irregularities.

I can make some guesses at what that seeks to convey, but they're just guesses. I'm guessing that "internal security threats" refers to the conflicts with the MILF and the NPA which have been ongoing for the past 40 years or so, growing out of the Hukbalahap rebellion; or perhaps it refers to the more recent problems with the ASG, which have only been ongoing for a decade or so; or perhaps it refers to something else. Whatever "internal security threats" Cadungog has in mind, he projects their defeat by next year. That's a bit of a blockbuster of a projection.

Offhand, I don't see how supersonic jets would be more useful for the legitimate needs of the PAF than COIN aircraft like the A-10 "Warthog", but my opinions don't meet notability requirements for inclusion in a WP article. The opinions of the commanding general of the PAF do have notability but, from what I see in the article and the cited supporting source, I can't figure out what those opinions amount to. The article doesn't say anything about the focus on the acquisition of supersonic jets mentioned in the cited source. Perhaps it should.

The cited source tries to clarify things a bit by quoting Cadungog as follows:

Cadungog said that while there are no external threats to the country, a fleet of fighter jets is necessary to prevent possible violations of the country’s airspace, and protect the country's airspace as an economic resource.

If we are not going to guard that (airspace), we cannot collect any fee (from aircraft using our airspace). They can violate our airspace until they want. Unfortunately, some do not understand this. They may be asking ‘who is our enemy?’. But we have an airspace to protect because that is also part of our economic resources. We should be billing aircraft passing (the country’s airspace), ... .

"... protect the country's airspace as an economic resource"???? Offhand, I wouldn't imagine that the RP would get enough revenue from chasing down airliners with supersonic jets to offset the acquisition and operating costs of said supersonic aircraft. I guess I just don't understand the mission of the PAF. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, fix this, it must be checked gramatically and remove the usage of "our"

It said kasi sa Air Defense Command section, paragraph 2:

The mission of the Air Defense Command is to defend, secure and protect the Philippine archipelago. The command is responsible not only for the country’s air defense, it also conducts strategic air strikes and combat air patrol over our exclusive economic zone. Air surveillance, early warning, aircraft control, command and control, and the communications network of the entire defense system is also falls(?!) the command and strategic deployment of missile systems which the air force still has to procure, for point (maybe pinpoint) defense against enemy air attacks. Air Support to combat focus(?!) in maritime environment is also its prime functions. Monitoring surface traffic on our territory especially in our exclusive economic zone is its last although not the least of its functions (baka naman may mas maganda and simpleng term, maybe "is one of its crucial function"?) unless higher headquarters otherwise decides to give additional responsibilities to the command.

Isn't it awkward na merong "our"? Mahirap pang ma-gets yung iba,