Jump to content

Talk:List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force

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


Ground based air defese and Radarsystems

[edit]

I knew this page is about the Aircraft of the swiss Air Force. But would it not be better to have it as "equipment" list of the Swiss Air Force? Because with the edidt of this page and the edit of the Swiss Air Force page, the outpassed Ground Based Air Defense once lost (I add it again on the Swiss Air Force page). In my eyes it looks a bit straingh that now the Aircraft aire listet on this page and not on the Swiss Air Force page, but the GBA and Radar (present and former) are listed on the SAF page. I would sugest to have the old GBA and Radar Systems listet here (BTW the Swiss Air Force used a few years in the past the name "Flieger und Flab Truppe" you can translate this more or less as Aircraft and GBA Unit). FFA P-16 (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make a new page for air defence and radar systems if you must (I don't think one is needed) but they don't belong on lists of aircraft - they are not aircraft, after all (regardless of how the Swiss Air Force's organizational system may lump them together for command and control purposes, or whether they get serial numbers or not), and this list is one of many lists of aircraft, none of which are extended to "equipment" - though you will find equipment lists on many air force pages. NiD.29 (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may seem odd, but it is logical. The SAF article has a heading and a "main" link to this list, because the list is too long to fit in the SAF article. The list of ground-based systems is a bit too short for its own page, so it is best left in the SAF article - you were right to add it again there. A reader looking for the ground based equipment of the SAF would not follow a link to a page called "List of aircraft...". The information needs to be where the logical reader will find it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. thanks to you NiD29 and Steelpillow for the answers. FFA P-16 (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures and missing Airplane

[edit]

Pictures make the chart more attractive to the reader. Images are information carriers and give the reader a first impression of the aircraft to the publically available information. As can be seen, this (pictures in the chart) is used inventory lists for other Air Force on Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Czech_military_aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_aircraft_of_the_Turkish_Air_Force

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Air_Component#Aircraft_inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_Air_Forces#Aircraft_Inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Air_Force#Aircraft_inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Netherlands_Air_Force#Aircraft_inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Air_Force#Aircraft_inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Air_Force#Aircraft_inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Air_Force#Equipment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_Russian_military_aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_Kingdom_military_aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazian_Air_Force#Equipment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_Air_Force#Aircraft_inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory


Just to name a few.

The PC-12 is used by armasuisse to calibrate the FLORAKO System, MIDs Link-16 and MALS Radar. but it is also used by the Swiss Air Force as Transport aircraft (for eg to sweden when the Swiss AF PC-21 had a training week in Sweden. Also the PC-12 is used in Swiss Air Force Training as unknown enemy aircraft. The PC-12 is equpedt wit a Swiss Air Force IFF. See also Swiss Air Force Homepage: http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/de/home/dokumentation/assets/aircraft/pc12.html


The DA42 Is used by armasuisse for testing operations of UAV in civil used VFR airspace. But it is also used as liaison aircraft by armasuisse and the air Force, Armasuisse pilots are also part time swiss air Force Pilots so if for eg armasuisse Pilot is in charge as Chief Air defense he can use the DA42or armasuisse PC-6 HB-FOG as liaison aircraft. The DA42 has the military regr R-711 and is equiped with a Swiss Air Force IFF. See also Swiss Air Force Homepage: http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/de/home/dokumentation/assets/aircraft/da42.html

The KZD-85 is also part of the Swiss Air Force, it is operatet by Swiss Air Force personal, it is to train the Ground Based air Defense who is in the Swiss Military part of the Air Force. Also the regristration of the UAV is in line with the Swiss Air Force regristrations.

See also Swiss Air Force Homepage: http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/de/home/dokumentation/assets/aircraft/kzd85.html

FFA P-16 (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Fox,

Yes wikipedia is not a photobook. But ther are not add a big uncoordinated amount of pictures. Its one picture , a visual information, to the described typ. The picture is also a inormation. The link you send to mee says nothing aabout not to use pictures in a air force iventory list. I don't se it that this is wrong, for me a list of an airforce inventory whitout pictures look a kinde of incomplet. You say the exampels i have give are all bad exampels? I can think that for eg, the one about the russian air force has been visited in the last time (actual political situation, Krim, NATO,..) by many wikipedia user, writers and so one und it looks like on one was thinking there should be no pictures. My point of view is that this pictures are usefull , and as long as in other aircraft inventory lists pictures are used i see no need to delet the pictures out of the list of aircraft used by the swiss air force. FFA P-16 (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too many pictures is information overload. There are already a selection of pictures along the side. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Leggett Then it makes more sens to delet the pictures along the side, than deleting out the picture out of the tabella who are in relation to the describet aircraft typ. It more logical, not? FFA P-16 (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, FFA P-16 (talk · contribs) asked me to pop over and take a look at the situation here. There has certainly been some lively editing to-and-fro, and I'd suggest that too much communication has been loaded onto edit comments and not enough on this discussion. All credit to FFA P-16 for bringing it to the talk page.
I think this article should be styled similarly to the other examples linked above here, which all have a column in the table for images of each entry. I found a second column of images outside the table for the current types so as a first step I deleted that. Looks like the table of retired types needs that image column creating and populating, so that the images alongside the table can be brought into it. Does anybody have a problem with this approach? Have I missed something? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Steelpillow. I think this is a good solution. BTW The table of retired types had the photos of each typ (who exist a photo of such a type in swiss air force service on wikicommons) in a column in the table. But also this was deleted out some times ago. I didn't restored it.( then is no need for second column of images outside the table). FFA P-16 (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the extra images added outside the table are not needed. At narrower browser widths they displace the table itself and make a mess of the page. - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt, Thank you, the idea of the images outside the table was to fill the empty space. But I can agree to you they are not important and not needed. But Inside the the table we should keep the pictures. FFA P-16 (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The images in the table are unnecessary, ugly, and only clutter the page.
  1. Many aircraft either lack images or lack images for the appropriate air force.
  2. Images are of random sizes, messing up table formatting.
  3. The purpose of the table is to provide information, not be a gallery. Wikimedia is for galleries - even one in a table format if you'd like.
  4. They take up a lot of space, stretching long lists into unmanageable ones.
  5. Images in tables are too small to see properly on smaller screens such as cell phones.
  6. If someone is interested in what the aircraft looks like there is already a link to that aircraft's page.
  7. The tables that have images are almost all for current inventory, which covers a small number of types - historical listings rarely have images inline, not least because they are less likely to be the focus of nationalistic zealotry, and they have a lot more entries and would be unmanageable for even a medium sized air force. A small air force like Switzerland is not the place to set such a rule. They should however be consistent, and the likelihood of finding appropriate images for even a majority of historical listings is very low. Images should be used sparingly, and should actually add something to the article beyond making it look pretty (which they don't) - in fact there is a wiki rule against that being the sole purpose for images.
  8. Of all the information one can put in a table, an image is a long way down the useful list - when it entered service is far more important but there is no room for that in the current table, nor is there room to give each entry a single line.
  9. Because other lists have them is no reason at all (another wiki rule). Many lists are not infected by useless clutter such as:
List of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Navy
List of historic aircraft of the People's Liberation Army Air Force
List of military aircraft of Japan
List of historical aircraft of the Indian Air Force
List of Regia Aeronautica aircraft used in World War II
List of aircraft of the Royal Air Force
List of military aircraft of Sweden
List of military aircraft of the Soviet Union and the CIS
List of Albanian Air Force aircraft
List of aircraft of Argentine Naval Aviation
Belize Defence Force Air Wing
List of active Brazilian military aircraft
List of aircraft of the Brazilian Navy
List of active Bulgarian military aircraft
List of former Bulgarian military aircraft
List of active People's Liberation Army aircraft
List of military aircraft of Denmark
List of active Egyptian military aircraft
List of aircraft of the Egyptian Air Force
List of military aircraft of Finland
List of aircraft of Canada's air forces

And on, and on... indeed more of these air force lists lack images than have them. Perhaps this discussion should be over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation as it potentially affects a bunch of pages? NiD.29 (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NiD.29 dear NiD.29 I think we have here to split it in to parts.

  • One is the "Current inventory". At this part I am (and as it looks like at the moment other wikipedia members woh are now looking at this topic) think pictures should be inside the table (like they are now). I don't think this pictures in the table are not a problem not only in the small Swiss Air Force you can see it also on such air Forces with a lot of types like List of currently active Russian military aircraft, List of active United Kingdom military aircraft, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Air_Force#Equipment ,[[List of active Indian military aircraft and so one.
  • the other thing is "Retired" aircraft table. As I see so far we have at the moment wipiedia members who are pro and other who are contra to have pictures inside this table. I would prefer to have also pictures in the table BUT its only nice to have in my eyes not a must have. If we dont have pictures in the tabel of the retired aircraft it WOULD be nice to have some pictures outside the table who fill the emty space. Bye 18:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
My point is that current inventory for all air forces is very small compared to historical usage, and it is both impractical due to the non availability of images, and due to the sheer size and unread-ability that adding images causes to both the shorter current and longer historical sections (which should not be split anyway).

The purpose of these lists is NOT to provide a bunch of pretty pictures (as I said - if that is what you want to do go to wikimedia which is why it exists) but to provide an overview which you can't get when it is cluttered up with images. The pretty pictures belong in the pages for those aircraft, and there should never be a picture from some other airforce (a common problem) which what happens when there isn't a one that is. I suspect the other authors are more against having pictures in both the table AND alongside (which frees up the table, and doesn't need to have every type represented, nor does it destroy the formatting for the table).NiD.29 (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NiD.29: Thank you for highlighting the inconsistency across all our lists. Evidently I was indeed missing something! I think that your suggestion to take the whole issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation is a good one. I only dropped in quickly because I was asked, or I would do so myself. Also, I'd suggest that once consensus is reached, it should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with all of NiD.29 (talk · contribs)'s points. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NiD.29 and Steelpillow, I think this is a good Idea, with Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists. So that in the end for all Air Force inventory tables are the same roules (no special requests for all Air Force). That we have a clear statement who says pictures in the table are ok , or pictures in the table are prohibited. My vot goes for having pictures in the tables FFA P-16 (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pilatus PC-6 used by the swiss Air Force

[edit]

The Swiss air Force uses the PC-6T of the armasuisse (Reg. HB-FCF) regulraly as lieason aircraft (often if armasuisse pilots are on duty for the swiss air force). The armasuisse PC-6T Turboporter has a more modern Cockpit than the 15 PC-6T of the Air Force, because of this it has not a V-6XX reg like the other PC-6T. The PC-6T of the armasuisse is regardet by the swiss Air Force as own military and not as assumed friend or civil aircraft. So in the list should be 15 PC-6 plus 1 from armasuisse, or just 16 PC-6. FFA P-16 (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please translate this into proper English? The Banner talk 23:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it retains a civil registry it probably isn't owned by the Armasuisse, but it could be leased - more information would be needed to determine if it should be listed. "regarded as its own" isn't enough information as that could mean anything.NiD.29 (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We need a reliable published source that specifically states that the Swiss Air Force owns or leases this particular PC-6T. WP does not accept personal knowledge, which is what you're basing this on. That is considered Original Research, and not permitted on WP. - BilCat (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The PC-12 of the armasuisse is also used by the swiss Air Force for transportation (for ge. wen the pilotschool was on a trainingweek with the Pc-21 in sweden). also the Pc-12 is used for trainingsmissions as targed. ("However, the machine can, depending on requirement and capacity, be deployed for air transports".)[1]. The Diamond DA42 OPA (with mil reg R-711)and the PC-6 HB-FCF are used as lieason aircraft by the Swiss air Force (because armasuisse Pilots are also milzpiloten by the Swiss air Force.. for eg. Test Pilot Bernhard "Beni" Berset who is also CAD (Chef Air Defense at the ADDC (Air Defense & Directions Center at Dübendorf AFB) and are equiped with an Mod2 IFF Identification friend or foe this in contrast of the (also govermental) aircraft of the FOCAFederal Office of Civil Aviation they have no IFF are not regardet by the swiss air Force as own military and are never used by the swiss air force for any mission. [ The page of Herman Keist has the HB-FCF also under Swiss Air Force [2] or "HB-FCF - PC-6 - Arma Suisse [Stans 9.12]Used by Swiss AF"[3] Pilatus PC-6B1-H2 Turbo Porter HB-FCF Swiss Air Force [4] FFA P-16 (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea what any of that means, the English is so horrible as to be mostly meaningless. Does any of that actually say that the Swiss Air Force owns or leases the particular PC-6T? - BilCat (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What did you not understand? That the PC-12 also is used as transport aircraft by the Air Force? lieason aircraft? armasuisse aircraft are quiped with an Mod2 IFF Identification friend or foe ? FOCA aircraft have no IFF? Armasuisse Pilots are also on duty in the Swiss Air Force? FFA P-16 (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way we talk here about 3 aircraft who all belong to the Swiss MoD.... have a look at this one List of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Air Force... FFA P-16 (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with List of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Air Force, raise it on that talk page. It's not relevant here. - BilCat (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You argue here because of the HB-FCF which is subordinated to the MoD, but on the other hand, even the An-225 listed.I have questions is whether judged here really neutral on ALL Air Forces.FFA P-16 (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue what that means. Is the An-225 listed on the Swiss Air Force page? - BilCat (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I trye to say that we have now a big discussion about the armasuisse aircraft who are all under the Swiss Ministry of Defense (like the Swiss air Force) and all 3 Aircraft are also used by the swiss Air force... We can discuss this, yes. But I think we should have the same rouls for every such List for ANY Air Force. so its a bit straing to me that we havve here such a dicusion but no one cares that in the List of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Air Force (if you scroll down, also leasde and rent aircraft (for eg. the an-225 [5]) is shown. if it is acceptable to have this in the Canadian lest, we realy don't have to talk here about the 3 armasuise aircraft. If it isn't acceptable, i would say to fix this is much more urgend than what we talk now. Same rules for all!FFA P-16 (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is armasuisse part of the Swiss Air Force? It seems not, so their aircraft shouldn't be listed here, but under armasuisse, unless the Swiss Air Force is leasing or contracting for them. That would be following the "same rules". Whether or or not leased or contracted aircraft, especially short term, should be listed at all on air force articles is really a separate question. - BilCat (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But this aircraft are used by the Swiss air Force, Pilots work for the Armasuisse AND the Air Force, both are part of the MoD. And we are talking here about it And on the Canadian page are aircraft listed who even not are owned by the Canadian Goverment. The Swiss ai Force list was forced to delet out the Pictures and flags but on the canadian list, russian list and some more not. That is not right!FFA P-16 (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But those aircraft are/were contracted or leased by the RCAF. Again, whether or not leased or contracted aircraft should be listed is a separate question, but here that isn't the issue. Editors are removing photos and flags from the lists of other air forces as they can, but they can't do them all in one day. The fact that the Swiss Air Force photos got removed before those isn't a bias against the Swiss Air Force, but the result of your disruptive edits that draw attention to this page. The squeaky wheel gets the grease first. - BilCat (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When i add the photos the other pages had photos too and no one was putting them in question. So If other pages have pictures it was locigal to use it here. And it is realy unfair to delet the pictures out only here.. we can see that some are very happy to delet out photos here at the swiss air force page but didn't care if there are photos& flags on other air Force pages.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your adding the photos here is what drew attention to the issue, but it's been an ongoing problem for a long time. The photos and flags have been removed from some other air force pages already, but it will take time. - BilCat (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well its now 6 days ago since i presented here about 20 pages with photos, here on the swiss air force page every sentens is put in question in this time, but from the other 20 pages are still 16 or so still with photos& flags. lokks tome like with the solodysplay, the swiss ones had been to be deleted but the turkish and greece not.. FFA P-16 (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it seems that way to you, and I understand why, but it has more to do with the mess you make of pages that you edit than any bias against Swiss topics. I'm sure if you edited Turkish topics for awhile, you'd face the same opposition on those articles. Your lack of competence in English limits the productive work you are able to do, and your persecution complex limits anyone else's ability to help you learn here, as does your inability to understand and follow English WP's policies. Perhaps for the sake of Switzerland, you should limit yourself to editing in your native language's Wikipedia. Assuming the German WP hasn't banned you already, of course. - BilCat (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is also marking non-minor edits as minor - that's not good practice either. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We spent some time discussing the images on the Project talk page. There we agreed to delete images of both aircraft and national flags from all such tables. There are many pages with these tables in and it will take time to correct them all. You yourself can help us with this work and remove images from the pages you have noticed, Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This issue seems pretty straightforward, aircraft of the armasuisse that are occasionally used in service of the air force are not air force aircraft and don't belong on this list. - Ahunt (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelpillow, Yes you are right, I can help with this. But to do that I have to motivate myself.I still think that remove the images and flags is a step backwards.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beech 1900

[edit]

According to the source provided the “In use until” for the serial T-729 is still open –The loose translation is vague “Like the VBS on 14.02.2018 in one Media release announced this Beech 1900D through in 2019 the two Bombardier Challenger CL604 (T-751) and (T-752) replaced that as used Ambulance jets from Rega" - ? So the role has been taken over by the 2 CL604's? Is there a notation on the B1900's removal from inventory? Lastly these photos do not indicate the aircraft current status. Images are not a reliable source, as is leads to original research, which is not allowed in WP. If anyone has a more clearer source on the current status of the B1900, it would be great appreciated. - FOX 52 (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I can add is that we need a proper source for this or it should be reverted. - Ahunt (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I read it, in 2019 the Beechcraft was replaced by two planes. But I have the eerie feeling that we are dealing with a sockpuppet here... The Banner talk 19:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I had that same feeling... - Ahunt (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"As the VBS announced on February 14, 2018 in a media release, this Beech 1900D will be replaced in 2019 by the two Bombardier Challenger CL604 HB-JRB (T-751) and HB-JRC (T-752), which are used as ambulance jets by Rega will be taken over." from Google translate. Although I cant find any evidence from anywhere else that the Beech 1900 has moved on, all the "original research" spotter sites still show it as T-729. MilborneOne (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_aircraft_of_the_Swiss_Air_Force&oldid=1214678451"