Jump to content

Talk:Air force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:MilHist Assessment

[edit]

Given such a general umbrella topic, I am not sure how much more can be or should be said, without going into too much detail about any one particular air force. Nevertheless, this article looks pretty short and unpolished. LordAmeth 17:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School

[edit]

Why is there no mention of the United States Air Force Academy? Wikipediarules2221 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the general concept of an Air Force, not the United States Air Force in particular. Links to the Academy would be found at Wikipedia's page on the US Air Force. Impi 06:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World's First Independent Air Force?

[edit]

At present we have "The first independent air force in the world, however, is The Finnish Air Force, founded on 6 March 1918." Although the information is cited, can this really be correct as its first commander (Carl Seber) held the rank of Army Captain and the Finnish Air Force recieved its first aeroplane as a donation at some stage in 1918? Compare this with the newly established RAF which had over 20,000 aircraft on its establishment, a separate government ministry (the Air Ministry) and a Chief of the Air Staff (Hugh Trenchard) who held the rank of Major General in 1918.Greenshed 00:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references which support the RAF first claim:

Even in Finland the Finnish Air Force is said to be the second independent Air Force in the World, after the Raf. 62.183.251.50 06:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Finland's air force home page says it's 6 march 1918 then it very likely is. It may sound "dubious" because fi was/is such a small low profile country but the source seems reputable. 83.102.66.104 16:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But was it an independent air force? Following on from my comments above, I find it almost inconcievable that Seber (a junior officer) reported direct to the Finnish Government regarding the use of one aircraft, for which they didn't pay, without reference to the Finish Army or Navy commanders. Greenshed 22:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the ranks of the Finnish Air Force and Finnish Army are same, except private has a different title. So the claim that he was "just an army captain" is dubious, since today there are captains in the air force. I'm sure the RAF commander also had some army background there, so he was just an army major general? Sure the Finnish Air Force was weak in its early years but it still was a seperate branch. The 1918 Finnish Air Force is still in principle the same as modern day FAF. The commander of FAF, Heikki Lyytinen has exactly the same position as the March 1918 commander. Also, Seber was the second commander. The first one was John-Allan Hygerth, who was appointed as the Commander of the Finnish Air Force on March 10, 1918. He was appointed the rank of a captain. --Pudeo⺮ 21:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Army captain. The only point I was trying to make was that Seber (or Hygerth - thanks for the information) was a junior officer as per the army use of the rank as opposed to the naval use of the rank captain. The significance of this is that it does not seem that unlikely that an officer with the seniority of a naval captain could command an independent branch of nation's armed forces. As I have stated above, it seems rather unlikely that a junior officer could be in such a position.
  • Position of the FAF commander. It is stated above that the present commander of the FAF has exactly the same position as the March 1918 commander. I am not disputing that the FAF was founded before the RAF, or that the various commanders have had complete authority over the whole air force from 1918 to the present day. My concern is that the relationship of the FAF commander to the heads of the Finnish Army, Navy and the Government has changed.
  • Resolving the conflict without Original Research. There are clearly credible references which indicated that the RAF was the world's first independent air force (see above) and there is at least one credible reference which indicates that the FAF was the world's first independent air force. For editors just to compare the dates and then decide that the FAF was first amounts to Original Research which we must avoid. My reason for this statement is that the term independent may be being used in different ways and what we really need is a source on the history of air forces which addresses this question. Greenshed 22:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can't we just call both, RAF and FAF just "one of the earliest independent air forces"? Or do we just have to name the other as the oldest, eventhough it's controversial? (See the latest history to RAF, my edits) Mostly likely many references ignore the foundation of a small air force of a small country. --Pudeo⺮ 09:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To state that the RAF and FAF are each one of the earliest independent air forces is a good short-term solution. However, the identity of the oldest independent air force is something which certain readers are likely to want to know and if we can verifiably state this in the Wikipedia then that would be good. In terms of establishing which air force it is, I do accept that many references might ignore the foundation of a small air force of a small country. However, it remains my contention that the size of the FAF (is one aircraft an air force?) and seniority of its commander in 1918 makes it a dubious claimant. Greenshed 23:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone provide credible citations for the following?

  • The first Finnish Air Force commander did not report to a senior officer in the Finnish Army (or Navy).
  • The Finnish Air Force budget for the period 6 March to 1 April 1918 was funded direct from the Finnish Government and not drawn from the Finnish Army (or Navy) budget.

If so, then I think we can say that the Finnish Air Force gained its independence before the Royal Air Force; if not, then its claim looks very dubious. We still would need to caveat the "air force" claim as the common sense meaning of the term implies several aircraft. Greenshed 21:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is quite scant. I would like to see someone build this up. 71.79.98.90 SharedProxy (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is in the definition of air force as also being army air corps. If that is the case, we can go back to French balloons of the Napoleonic Wars! An independent Armed Service is the RAF from April 1918--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence has come to light. As copied from the RAF article: Sometimes it is erroneously stated that the RAF as an independent service was preceded by the Finnish Air Force, which was created on 6 March 1918. Actually, on this day only the Finnish Army Corps of Aviation received its first airplane. The Finnish Air Force as a separate service was only established on 4 May 1928. See http://www.saunalahti.fi/~ambush/faf/summary.html for confirmation. Clearly, this establishes that the RAF was the first independent air force in military history. Greenshed (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the only confirmation on that page is a name change "On 4 May 1928 Finnish Aviation Force was re-named to Finnish Air Force". That is hardly "Clearly, this establishes...". Factual references would be much better. The funding and reporting of the Air force (or aviation force) would be much more solid proof of the "indepencence" of the air force" In this light the article is still incorrect. And if you add the Thai claims to it, it becomes very interesting indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.150.82.183 (talk • contribs) 83.150.82.183


Um, folks, check out the Thai Air Force as the world's first independent: http://www.rtaf.mi.th/eng/index.html --Arthur Borges (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should distinguish between the very beginning of armed forces aviation to which respective national air forces traces date of their origin, and between existence of an independent air force with the status equal to other nation's armed services. In first case, France holds an undeniable priority with first military experimentation with airplanes in 1909, and creation of l'Aéronautique-militaire as French Army "fifth service" - i.e. branch independent from other branches of army - on March 29 1912 (which "beats" Royal Flying Corps by margin of weeks). Anyway - even the separation of army aviation from control of other army branch (engineers, signals etc.) is but a landmark in history of the respective country aviation, but not the actual creation of an independent air force. These are two different things - and both Finnish and Thai "claims" refer to the very origin of the respective armed service - to which point their heritages are traced, while Royal Air Force was established on April 1 1918 as the world's first independent Air force, unsubordinated to other British armed forces - completely independent from Army or Navy control, and with Chief of Staff equal to heads of other armed forces of the Crown. --ja_62 (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.: The reference relating to Finnish aviation also says:"Finnish Aviation Force or Air Corpse [sic] at the time was established under the Army Command" - which is hardly sign of an independent Air Force, isn't it?--ja_62 (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
p.p.s.: It seems that Royal Thai Air Force gained independence from Army as late as in April 1937.--ja_62 (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the comment I made a bit lower down about the semantic difference of the english Army term and the Finnish "Armeija" to give you a clearer picture.


I've been reconsidering the case of Finnish Air Force for a while, and came to conclusion that while the reference says that Finnish Aviation Corps was established under command of the army, it actually does not say, that it gained independence with renaming. So - if the reference should be taken literally, the sentence would go something like - "The Finnish Air Force was founded on March 6, 1918 as the Finnish Aviation Force, under command of the Finnish Army, and changed it's name to Finnish Air Force on 4 May 1928" - and I don't understand why this all should be mentioned in Independent air forces section. --ja_62 (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it comes down to semantics at some level. In the discussion of the RAF there are some pointers to people better "in the know" discussing the matter. In Finland, the term "army or Armeija in Finnish" means "Defence Forces" and this is directly the government in the case of 1918. Army as it is understood in English is "maavoimat" literally land forces. In Finland the Navy and Air force both were created as dedicated forces in 1918. The land forces (army) was created much later. I guess the true definition of independent would be something in the lines of budget and reporting independence from other arms of the defence forces. I haven't seen evidence as to the status of the Finnish air force in any direction on this matter. But then again, I'm no historian either Nasula (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really that this is a matter of semantics - in my opinion it's rather a question of administrative organisation. What matters here is whether the status of the commander of Finnish Air Force (in time prior to April 1 1918) was formally equal to position of Finnish Ground Forces commander, regardless of the designation of this position. I just can't imagine an independent Air Force (and Navy) in situation when they are subordinated to the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces (when no separate position of Ground Forces Commander existed), regardless of his designation as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. If the Finnish Air Force (and Navy) were originally subordinated to the Commander-in-Chief of Finnish Armed Forces, who was directly (without intermediate level of command on par with Air Force/Navy Commanders) commanding Ground Forces, then I wouldn't describe the situation as "Air Force and Navy independent, Ground Forces not independent" - in my opinion the Finnish Air Force (and Maritime Force too) were then just independent commands within the Finnish Armed Forces. --ja_62 (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I did find a reference to the indepence of the FAF. This comes directly from the ex-Commander in Chief of the FAF http://www.sci.fi/~fta/FAFhist.htm. Here he clearly states, that the Air force was established as an independent arm of the armed forces. Yes it started with one aircraft, but by the end of the year (9 months later) it had 31 aircraft. Still small, but so was the country. Nasula (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - and Shores (who is extremely unreliable in administrative questions, e.g. he describes Czechoslovak Air Force as an independent Air Force from its inception, although it always remained firmly linked to the Army) states this too, but there still is question of the overall organisation of the Finnish Armed Forces prior to April 1918 and the position of the Air Force Commander-in-Chief (or several Commanders-in-Chief) prior to April 1 1918, in relation to chiefs of other Finnish armed forces? (For a little clarification - the French sometimes claim, that they had the world's first Air Force, as they were the first to create an independent dedicated air branch of service within the Ground Forces) More plainly - were Commanders-in-chief of Finnish Air Force (and of Navy, perhaps) in March 1918 of equal status to the C-i-C of Finnish Ground Forces (who, as far as I know, at the time was general Mannerheim) or were they subordinated to the High Command of the Ground Forces (regardless of its actual designation in Finnish language)? By the way - who had appointed them - were they appointed by an Army official, or directly by the Government? --ja_62 (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems, that the Chief of the FAF reported to the "general office of the armed forces" during the civil war (1918). Does that make it independent or not? They were for example never part of any "army" battalion or group, but acted independently in several air battallions. Who did the RAF report to at the time of war? Churchill? Hügerth was appointed by Mannerheim. Nasula (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was this "General Office of the Armed Forces" the same echelon of command to which the commander of Ground Forces (if any such position existed) was also subordinated? Or was it performing function of de facto Ground Forces Command? Organisation of independent air service units is not a sign of the Air Force independence - it is perfectly understandable, that any army would create separate aircraft-equipped units - even if the Air service had not yet achieved status of an autonomous Army branch on her own - i.e. Air Battalion Royal Engineers or Aviation Section, U.S. Signal Corps squadrons.
The appointment of Hügerth: Mannerheim, as far as I know, was at the time Finnish Commander-in-Chief, but in this position he was directly in charge of the Ground Forces command. Was there any echelon of command of Ground Forces equal to the Hügerth's position of Air service commander at this time (prior to April 1 1918, when RAF came into existence) or was the Commander-in-Chief directly commanding Ground Forces? If at this time positions of Ground Forces Commander and Commander in Chief merged in the same office, I just can't describe this situation as an independent Air force - just an Air arm autonomous within the Army structure, as I pointed out previously.
First Chief of Air Staff, Major General Hugh Trenchard, was appointed by Lord Rothermere, Minister of Air, on January 3 1918 (perhaps formally in the name of His Majesty, I'm not completely sure about niceties of British procedures). (Actually Trenchard resigned his position in letter to Rothermere two weeks prior to April 1, but his resignation took effect only on April 13 1918.) The RAF had a separate Air Ministry from its inception, similarly to War Office and Admiralty of other British armed forces, but I don't think that's a necessary condition for a service being independent - especially in view of later trends towards unified Ministry of Defence in most countries. What matters here is the fact that RAF was completely separated from other British Armed forces, and formally equal to the Army and Royal Navy. And I don't believe that the Finnish Air Service was at that time separate from (and equal to) the Finnish Army at this time.
What is arousing my suspicion about Finnish Air Force independence "since the beginning" claims is the very existence of presumably independent Air force equipped with handful of aircraft only, commanded by a company-grade officer, who was appointed into this function by the Commander-in-Chief of Ground Forces (regardless of the designation of Mannerheim's position in the Finnish language). --ja_62 (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.:I've found the English translation of the 1919 Constitution of Finland, which deals only with the Armed Forces of Finland in general, but in its Section 90 it gives the power of "appointing officers of the Army and the Navy" to the President of Finland. I don't take this ommission of the Air Force in a 1919 document as an irrefutable proof of non-existence of an independent Finnish Air Force in March 1918, but it certainly would seem a bit strange to me if the Air Force had existed in 1918, and in 1919 Constitution notion of appointment of Air Force officers would have been completely missing, contrary to the appointment of officers of the Army and Navy, wouldn't it? --ja_62 (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are correct on the matter and have made a much better effort at defining the independence and lack of it than the other discussion points have managed to achieve. I don't have any objections to the matter now that there is more concrete evidence. 1918 being civil war was confusing and the command-structures are still unclear to me between the different branches of the military. The interesting point is that section 90 (which discusses the different arms) of the 1919 law I can't find in the Finnish sources. But that is propably just my fault. The handful of aircraft actually holds even today as a small nation it can't be very big. The original air force went from 1 to 31 in 9 months. There were actually 2 aircraft in the beginning, but the very first one was under repair at the appointment of Hügerth and the air force.
But. I did find a thesis on the budgetary side of the matter, where for example in the 1918 budget (government, not military) the air force was allocated 400000 Finnish Marks 0,002% of the budget). So it did have an independent budget already then. Really confusing this is. So that leaves the command structure between the different branches to sort out Nasula (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does the thesis state whether the Finnish Government only specified the budget for the Army, Navy and Air Force or did it go into more detail prescribing the individual budgets of the different arms and services? Greenshed (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It states that the government specified the funds (as part of the armed forces budget) "for building of airfiels and purchase of fuel for aircraft" (my translation). The following year 900000 "for purchase of aircraft and building of hangars and airfields". In other words, the government dictated the use of the money to the airforce (i.e. Army or Navy couldn't divert or decide on the use of the money). Like I said, it gets confusing as to "what is an independent airforce". The money is from the Budget for "Armed forces (all branches)" in this case but the governmental budget specifically targets money for the air force use. It would be similar to what today countries state as "Military budgets of from which XXX is allocated for YYY". We need to find more info on the command relationships. The budget seems to be "independent" as far as money is concerned. Then of course is the question of funding of staff, which the thesis states nothing about in 1918. It focuses more on the 1920->present day developments Nasula (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Nasula: The quoted law was a 1919 constitution of Finland. If the translation is correct, which I have no reason to doubt, it would had been quite strange if the president of Finland had had right to appoint (i.e. he was commissioning them, as I understand it) officers of Army and Navy, but there's not a mention about officers of the Air Force, if it had existed in the time. You probably could find more sources related to the constitution development and/or amendments in Finnish. If the section 90 is later, the less I could understand why Air Force officers are not mentioned there. We must also remember that the constitution was enacted in July 1919, while the Air Force is supposed to be established independent prior to April 1 1918 to qualify as "the first independent". Therefore non-existence of Air Force in 1919 could at most, as I pointed out previously, been indicative of the Air Force existence prior to April 1 1918 - e.g. it does not outrule possibility that the independent Air Force with thirty one aircraft was no more considered worthy of independent existence - but it would be strange if the Air Force with just two aircraft had been.
As for the budget chapter - I'm not accustomed with the structure of budget of Finland; but I'd interprete the situation as these means were "a portion of military expeditures dedicated for development of the military aviation", not a separate budget chapter for an Independent Air Force. I don't understand Finnish, but from your translation wording "for building of airfiels and purchase of aircraft and fuel for aircraft" not an independent Armed Forces branch budget which would include other means usually associated with an separate Armed Force - i.e. wages, barracks, perhaps even buildings for headquarters etc.
Did the officers and other ranks of Finnish Military Aviation, prior to April 1 1918, draw their pay from a separate funds for the Air Force (if there were any), or were they paid from the same funds as other Army personnel?
Does the thesis you quoted deal with the budget chapter (or subchapter) of Military Aviation of Finland of the time in general, or does it analyse figures actually allocated on airplane, airfield and aviation fuel procurement, extracted from government papers, or other sources?
What body of government did the allocation mentioned in the thesis quoted? Did the Diet of Finland at these days just enacted budget for Armed Forces in general, and left it to the Senate how the funds would be allocated in detail?
Generally speaking, it's quite customary practice that the parliament does not only decide on allocation of budgetary means to the government, or Armed Forces, in general, but also specifies in what area they are to be spent - it's one of its basic instruments how to infuence and limit the actions of executive power.
The strucure of budget could be different in different countries. That's why I did not stressed the question of budget.


Sorry for my late reaction, I got stuck elsewhere.--ja_62 (t|c) 19:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According finnish version of this thread FAF was founded March 6 1918 not May 4 1918, this would make FAF first independent air force. Also that date is in few history books. I will find information later. (19.11.2011 0:25 UTC+2)
Finnish Air Force wepsite says following "...joka tuli perille Vaasaan 6. maaliskuuta. Päivämäärää on siitä lähtien juhlittu Ilmavoimien perustamisajankohtana..." means that Finland got their first plane on 6. March 1928 and that day have been celebrated as founding day of FAF. (19.11.2011 0:00 UTC+2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.1.46 (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the point which is well made above is that the foundation date of an air force which is independent today is not necessarily the same thing as the date on which it became independent (typically of the army). The French Air Force is the obvious example of this point. The argument set out above is that when there are reliable sources which give conflicting claims it is necessary to example the relationship of the air force commander to the ground forces commander. In the case of Finland it appears that as the country was essentially a land power in 1918, the air force and navy commanders reported to the de-facto ground forces commander (whatever the semantics of his title might imply). Greenshed (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last Paragraph:Introduction

[edit]

The last paragraph in the first section seems almost like a summary of entrance requirements for an air force( possibly U.S.), it does not seem relevant to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.134.165 (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written, possibly vandalism? --67.91.27.19 (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, thanks whoever removed it, couldn't find the edit button. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.134.165 (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selection of pictures

[edit]

There are currently 6 pictures in the article - all are of aircraft (and mostly shiny pics of modern combat aircraft in flight). I propose replacing some of these with pics that better represent a range of air force activities - ground crew, missiles, infrastructure etc (while keeping a range of countries).DexDor (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@DexDor: That is a good idea. I may do so. Do you have any in particular in mind? --Dreddmoto (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could start by replacing the photograph of A-6A Intruder aircraft that is between the sections titled Post World War II and Organization. It was operated by the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps and therefore, is not an air force aircraft. --Dreddmoto (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old page history

[edit]

Some page history that used to be at the title "Air force" can now be found at Talk:Air force/Old history. Graham87 14:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roles

[edit]

The article would benefit from a breakdown of the main roles in air forces. In other words the current last paragraph of the lead (In addition to pilots, air forces have ground support staff who support the aircrew. In a similar manner to civilian airlines, there are supporting ground crew as pilots cannot fly without the assistance of other personnel such as engineers, loadmasters, fuel technicians and mechanics. However, some supporting personnel such as airfield defence troops, weapons engineers and air intelligence staff do not have equivalent roles in civilian organizations.) should summarize something. Any volunteers? Greenshed (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infantry and special forces sections

[edit]

Regarding those sections of the article, they currently mention particular units and formations. Considering that they and others are already listed in the Air force ground forces and special forces article, keeping them in this article is not necessary. I suggest removing them. Dreddmoto (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_force&oldid=1216894661"