Talk:Philippine Air Force

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

Replaced PhAF with PAF[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (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 or 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 (, 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) (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 :-)) (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 (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 (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Philippines can choose to buy weapons from any country but have historically bought from the US due to special considerations given due to the close ties between the two nations. The Philippine Air Force is currently asking to purchase 12 F-16s (one squadron) from the US. The jet deal would be for second-hand F-16s block C/ D with the Philippines paying for reconditioning, maintenance and pilot training which will run for two years.

At the moment the PAF is buying 12 Fa50 Fighting eagles the f 16 hopefully will be bought of

by 2018  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundalo ng linya (talkcontribs) 12:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC) 


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 (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. (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The PAF has at most 38 SF-260. There are 20 "M" and "TP" models used for training and 18 SF-260F used for front-line service. All previous SF-260W models were converted to the "M" model and moved to training units. Henryjones000 (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Correction, the PAF currently have 20 mostly "TP" and some "M" models, some (unknown number, probably around 10-12 units) used as a light combat air support (CAS) aircraft with the 15th Strike Wing, while there are still remainder for training together with the 18 new "F" models which are with the 100th Training Wing. There are no more "W" left, all disposed off. - phichanad (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Aermacchi S-211[edit]

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)


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 (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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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:

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)


Its me (the Russian) Tatiana (IP user and the wife of (Pinouy) Martin (IP user I to am a constant editor at Wikipedia. PS: I convinced Martin (IP user 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 uses my computer often just incase ur wandering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now an account[edit]

My Former account was User talk: 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 (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 (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)


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"[edit]

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,

Contradiction re S-211[edit]

This article lists 13 active aircraft, citing a 2008 source. this 2009 source also says 13.

The Aermacchi S-211 article says that 25 aircraft were delivered, including one partially completed airframe as spare parts and 15 assembled locally, and says that 14 remain in service but only 4 are airworthy. It cites one source which lists 10 ejections and another which describes another loss and speaks of a fleet size of five aircraft as of November 2007.

this 2003 source says that at that time there were five intact PAF S-211s.

I've placed {{contradict-other}} tags in the articles, pointing here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Mitch, this would be my 2 cents worth in reply... would it be alright to accept that the figures provided by World Air Force isn't entirely correct, given that they cannot be compared to the website "", which has managed to provide a meticulously chronicled / detailed list of a/c's s/no. for the S.211 in service with both the Republic of Singapore Air Force and Phil AF. TBH, I find that an easily updated online database to be more user friendly than a book sometimes, especially when there are so many aviation enthusiast watching out and photographing the a/c to provide such constantly updated list. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 13:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I placed those tags one day when I was feeling especially anal about sourcing. Before placing the tags, I searched without success for online reliable sources to resolve the contradictions (I don't have access to dead tree sources on this). I've been meaning to get back to this and take another look at it if someone more knowledgeable than I in this area didn't resolve the problem, but I haven't gotten around to doing that. I think that the solution is probably to report the contradictory info from several different but apparently-reliable sources, identify the sources, and note that separate sources report differing figures. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(added) I did some googling and found PAF chief Lt. Gen. Oscar Rabena quoted as saying that the PAF still has six of the S-211 jet trainers in this 19 May 2010 Malaya article and this 23 May 2010 Philstar article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Mitch, the newspaper quoted "18 brand new trainer jets" when referring to the SF.260 prop trainers. I think now we can safely say that either the editor is overworked (scratching my head looking at his) or the General is really stressed-out (stares at his big belly), correct me if I'm wrong but I guess that's how some things are in life. Let me know when there is something in the Philippines that is similar to the GAO, thank you. BTW, I'm going to remove the tag from the S.211 article if you don't have any objection. Toodles~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 04:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Dave, Speaking of SF-260s, (not the S-211s) both the Malaya and the Philstar articles say, "[...] The Italian-made SF-260 is a propeller-driven, two-seater plane". It is common for newspaper article headlines to be written not by the reporters but by headline writers who are focused on layout and presentation, are pushed for time, and who sometimes screw up headlines (screwed up article headlines are so common in American newspapers that Jay Leno has weekly comedy segment on this using actual article headlines). The Philstar headline-writer screwed up the article headline. I don't know on what inside information you might have based the charge that the chief of the Philippine Air Force was "really stressed-out" when he made the statement that the PAF still has six of the S-211 jet trainers—or perhaps you were just guessing about that. In any case, I would refer you to the lead sentence of WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." I have edited the info re six remaining S-211s into the article and removed the {{contradict-other}} tag. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Add Composite to 25th Attack Squadron[edit]

I went to the site of 15th Strike Wing and the Lobos are abbreviated as 25th CAS. Source: --Sir Jazer 13 (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is now semi-protected for an indefinite period[edit]

Due to the long-running vandalism of this article (typically through adding either fanciful aircraft types or numbers of aircraft) which has continued despite several previous periods of semi-protection, I've semi-protected this article for an indefinite period. Unregistered and very recently registered editors can ask for edits to be made to the article by posting their proposed changes here (using the {{editsemiprotected}} tag if you wish to attract attention). Further information about semi-protection is available at WP:SILVERLOCK. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Philippines Looking to Buy Non-USA Combat Aircraft[edit]

Now that we have the requirements and source countries list, we could write out the exact aircraft models being considered, but that would still be OR. Hcobb (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Now is not yet the right time, too much clutter on the real state of this project. It appears that even people inside the DND and PAF are not yet really aware of the exact details. There appears to be 4 plans: either buy MRFs (used or brand new) and some new LIFTs; a mix of MRF and light combat aircraft/LIFT; or a mix of light combat aircraft and LIFT (2 separate aircraft); or a single model LIFT/LCA. Let's see first the exact details, it was announced a decision will be made earliest by July 2012. phichanad (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The Philippines appears to be one of the countries in which the military's ambitions for new equipment habitually exceeds the amount of money the government is willing or able to provide for this, and lots of projects go nowhere. As such, it's best to not add any of the speculation around potential acquisitions. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Nick-D, I just hope this time something comes true. I've been trying to check my inside sources but so far nothing concrete. The new M346 + refurbished AMX ACOL/ATA with non afterburning EJ200 engines mix and the TA-50+FA-50 mix keep appearing on my sources but I can't speculate. Only 1 thing is clear, there is indeed money kept for so long and was only available now after all the kinks were ironed out for several years. phichanad (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Notes on T/A-50 Purchase[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The reported purchase of KAI T/A-50 was announced by ABS-CBN news on 19 & 20 June edition of TV-Patrol, reported by Mr. Anthony Taberna. But there was no direct statement from SecDef Gazmin during the interview or from any other sources that the T/A-50 was indeed selected. No other sources besides ABS-CBN came out with this news. On 21 June 2012 the DND-OPA (Office for Public Affairs) denied the said report by ABS-CBN that the T/A-50 was already chosen, although they clarified that the T/A-50 is part of the shortlist of aircraft being evaluated for the SAA/LIFT project, and there are no winning entity yet. Better wait for further announcements first, ABS-CBN already lost credibility by that news, no need to add more fuel to the fire. The game is still on for those shortlisted. - phichanad (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the M-346 Master will be selected after the disaster that was the S-211. The Yak-130 Mitten won't be selected cause its Russian and there are serious political downsides in buying equipment from a potential antagonist, See Pakistan's F-16s. The L-159B ALCA is unproven and not compatible with any likely upgrades PAF will acquire. That leaves the T-50 Golden Eagle as the only viable candidate. Also... you may not know this but South Korea has been laying some serious foreign aid on nearly every branch of the Philippine Government. Those secondhand aircraft and naval ships are just the tip of the iceberg. Nearly every National Department and even some local government branches has got some donations within the last 5 years. The odds that the T-50 won't win this is remote. Henryjones000 (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I cleared the thing about the alleged T/A-50 pick by the DND because, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a military forum, we have to be very accurate. As for the S-211, it is not the aircraft which was the disaster, it was the PAF itself. Who chose the S-211? Who maintains the S-211? Why are there so many non-active airframes stored in Clark? Singapore never had major problems with the S-211, it was only the PAF. Up until they sold the S-211 to public entities, almost all are in very good condition. Why can't the PAF make these stored S-211s fly? As for the reported T/A-50 pick, only Mr. Taberna/ABS-CBN reported the specific pointing of the T/A-50 which was immediately denied by the DND-OPA. All other news outfits were careful on making rash judgement, but I believe Mr. Taberna is reporting a topic that is not familiar to him, thus the error. I agree with you with regards to the Yak-130 and L-159, but believe me, you just don't know yet how deep the battle is being fought between the T/A-50 and M-346, both inside & outside the PAF/AFP/DND. The Korean presence is the PH government has always been there, but it doesn't end there as well. Although the T/A-50 appears to be at the forefront, it would never be 100% sure until the plane lands in Clark or Villamor Air Base. Contracts can be junked easily, remember the 7 Sokol attack helicopter versions awarded to PZL Sokol but was junked afterwards (separate from the 8 W-3A combat utility helicopters). I know a thing or two of what's happening inside, don't worry, but I'm not just the right person and not just in the right position to divulge. - phichanad (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is this correct?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The Philippines intends to acquire 12 units at PhP 1.25 billion (USD 294 million) each. $294 Million each seems too high for a $20 Million Dollar Fighter. The F-35C costs $250 Million each. Can someone correct if wrong? Henryjones000 (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Henry, are you new to editing on Wikipedia? Because if you are, I'm going to have to tell you to stop posing such questions here as we are not a discussion forum, no offence to anyone but that's our policy (read: WP:Not a forum). Hope you understand as I'm going to be closing this thread in a very short while. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

FA-50 is a Multirole, all-weather fighter[edit]

According to the wikipedia description of the FA-50 plus various sources, it is to be a fully fleshed fighter and not just a LIFT. As such, perhaps we should move the entry away from the LIFT section?

Henryjones000 (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Reportedly the PAF ordered the FA-50 with LIFT capability. It appears that the fighter capability was taken into consideration but priority was given to training pilots for future MRFs.

Phichanad (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization in section headings[edit]

Corrected per MOS. This article was previously inconsistent with a mixture of sentence stye and title style capitalization. Phineas J. Whoopee (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Some of the references needs updating[edit]

Some of the references is outdated and out of place and needs updating. Like for example, some of the the references belonging to the S-211 is out of place (no.60 and no.61), the reference belonging to fokker f28 (no.69) is invalid and the reference of t-41 mescalero (no.70) needs updating. (contact) cybolton 12:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there a need to separate the list of aircraft from the main article?[edit]

There were moves done recently to separate the list of active and former aircraft of the PAF into another separate article. In my opinion, there is no need to do such since the lists are not too long, and these are very important to the article's completeness. I also think using photos of similar aircraft model but in foreign colors as irrelevant to the listing. What do you think? Phichanad (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  • The separation of list of aircrafts is just fine for me, because the two tables of list of aircrafts before were confusing. Just my opinion. (chat) techatology 03:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • First I'd like to notice it's 200 edits/1 month active User:Cybolton creation. Both lists seems too short for separate lists - you may leave "former" list if you're going to make it longer or at least make one list, but I recommend merging List of active aircrafts of the Philippine Air Force with current site. It's 17 and 16 types long lists and photos are "US service" like despite there are PAF counterparts in commons. Look at other pages in Category:Lists of military aircraft. There are usually 50-100 types long lists.--SojerPL (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm the deliveries of TA-50 for the PAF? I've been seeing them here flying over here in Cebu with Military Camouflage schemed paint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gn001quantum (talkcontribs) 00:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

  • The aircrafts you saw in Cebu are Indonesian Air Force's. They were being ferried from South Korea and stopped in Cebu for refueling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC) (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Eurocopter AS550 Fennec[edit]

Flight Global Insight is reporting in their World Air Forces 2014 report that the PAF has made a firm order for 4 units of AS550. Has anyone heard about this?--Henryjones000 (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Flight Global is not a perfect source. The Fennec deal did not push through, and was reverted back to the purchase of AW109s.Phichanad (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Medium lift aircraft[edit]

It was officially announced that the medium lift aircraft contract was awarded to Airbus military/CASA for an order of 3 C-295[1] [2] not the italian C-27J Spartan.


History update[edit]

I've created subheadings for the PAF history, please continue updating the "Early years to recent" with latest or previous operational history of the PAF with "citations please" of notable historic operations. Also the "Current Status" should be updated with notable or current updates regarding the PAF acquisitions and improvements, etc with "citation" please. Thank you. Efram23 (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2015[edit]

|aircraft_helicopter= Bell 412EP, Bell Huey II, UH-1H, W-3A, S-70 Blackhawk, MD520MG, S-76A/AUH-76, Bell-205A, Agusta Westland AW109E, Gabdecena (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


I might be a bit thick here but can somebody explain why they are edit warring over a citation for 12 on order when both sources support the figure, as the sources dont contradict each other I cant see the point in keep changing it, probably me missing something obvious. MilborneOne (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@FOX 52: That's my mistake here: for some reason I read the material as saying that 12 aircraft had been delivered (which is possible given the problems with the most recent edition of World Air Forces) rather than 12 being on order. Sorry about that FOX 52. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem Nick-D our dear friend Efram23 has been fighting every change regarding that section, for unexplained reasoning - FOX 52 (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Because FOX 52 (talk) been posting wrong data on the table citing World air forces which is inaccurate. First you write KT-1 instead of FA-50, then insists we are acquiring Fennec AS550 which has been already mentioned was cancelled was replaced by AW-109s which my country recieved this year, and many people have told you that site is inaccurate all you do cite it in all tables of asian air forces tables. Efram23 (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well that's odd because the one recurring source(s) used prior to my editing is the World Air Forces 2014 (which I've only updated to 2015). The KT-1 & FA-50 was typo, and your counter source to the AS550 never specified an aircraft type. Finally your reverting changes which are against image guidelines -WP:IMAGEMOS. this disruptive editing will only get you blocked again - FOX 52 (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

FOX 52 (talk) I have no problem with the image and table guidelines, just the wrong information you are adding to the table which is inaccurate. Try cross checking other sources and data rather than using just one site as source, which again people have told you is inaccurate. Your intention to help is appreciated just the single source you are using is unacceptable. And don't threaten me with block i don't care really, i'm just a volunteer here trying to keep our article accurate. I'll leave that to the admins to deal with you. Go ahead block me. Efram23 (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Than you should review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources - FOX 52 (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Can I just note that Flight's World Air Forces is a reliable source for our purposes, that doesnt mean we cant use other sources if they are more accurate or later but the use of WAF as a source is acceptable. MilborneOne (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry Efram, we'll try to fix this mess again sometime, we only need more publicly available sources. I have an actual listing of active PAF and PN aircraft as of June 2015, but they are not for public consumption, and its way too far from those listed in FG World's Air Force. All I can say is FG's list is too inaccurate on the Philippines section. Too bad the Philippine media does not always put in their numbers right because they also use older data/ Phichanad (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Phichanad (talk), my problem with this is that some Philippine media sometimes uses wiki as their source for Philippine military information. Someone here thinks FG World's Air Force is always updated regularly like its the only source in the whole world and everything else is farce. All i ask is cross check if there data is updated or not. We have to remember they gather data from around the world i doubt they can keep it updated as regular as we think. I'll just leave this to you, i'll just do the updates with reliable source if one comes up if not updated already. Efram23 (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that some in the Philippine media uses Wikipedia in their report as I have several friends in the business. So what's really happening is information going around. They only get it right when they are quoting from the military or defense department (which unusually for a direct source, also make several mistakes and sometimes make use of Wikipedia too!). Crazy, isn't it? Phichanad (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Phichanad (talk) Can the official photo of KAI of the Philippines FA-50PH be uploaded and used in the article yet? Efram23 (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure on that Efram23, the photo might not be allowed for use yet. Let's wait for other sources later on. Phichanad (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I updated the section regarding the PAF taking deliveryt of the two FA-50's. I was in a hurry and just made a very minor tweak and included the Yahoo news source. A major rewrite is perhaps in order once the Filipino Air Force takes delivery of more of their consignment of 12 and acquires the follow on weapons systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickdfresh (talkcontribs) 15:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Aviation Table[edit]

Do we need to change the tables? This is what i found on the aviation guide. Fox52 has been changing Air Force tables all over the asian region.


What this format is for[edit]

This format is to be used for shorter lists, which do not need to be split up, and which benefit from being sortable. A very short list may be placed within the main article, while a longer list may require its own "List of..." page.

What this format is not[edit]

This format is not suitable for anything other than lists of aircraft types. This format is not intended for very long lists split over multiple pages, such as lists by manufacturer or chronological lists. This format is not absolute. It provides a default which should be used unless there is a good reason why it is not suitable for a particular list.

Our table is not a short list. Can someone clarify? Efram23 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The major concern is not to have images in the table they can cause formatting issues with narrow viewing ie smart phones. I have used a table the provides sub-headings as well. FOX 52 (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

What's in a source[edit]

To all concerned editors, please take note that some sourced entries in the aircraft section are erroneously displaying (or conflicting) information which is not even mentioned in the reference. Example: SIAI-Marchetti S.211 In Service: 5 there are two sources, one from World Air Forces 2014 which show they have five, and the other source states near the bottom “The PAF still has six of the S-211 jet trainers …” So an editor went with FG? In the Notes section it says: “Locally upgraded to AS-211 "Warrior" standard to do air-to-ground missions. 7 more airframes stored, waiting for reactivation”, and the source provided, makes no mention of what’s stated. Then adding to the confusion this source quotes "So far, we have three (S-211) operational and we are requesting..." - As you can see they're some discrepancies just in that one alone - Please be careful Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I note that the Philstar citation is from 2010 so is not going to agree with World Air Forces 2014, so all we can do is use the latest information from a reliable source, if we have two that contradict then mention that as a note. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Just for information lists 12 possibly active in the last six years, although an aircraft that crashed on 26 November 2007 is not known and some have not been seen for a number of years. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
list of S.211s
  • 07001/801 of 7 FTS last seen feb07
  • 07002/802 of 7 FTS last seen jul11
  • 07003/803 of 7 FTS last seen jan99
  • 07004/804 of 7 FTS last seen feb07
  • 07005/806 of Red Aces last seen jan 99
  • 07006/806 written off 1992
  • 07007/007 of 7 FTS last seen jan99
  • 07008/008 of 7 FTS last seen jan99
  • 07009/809 written off 1998
  • 07010/810 written off 1992
  • 07011/011 withdrawn from use
  • 07012/012 of 7 FTS last seen jan99
  • 07013/813 written off 1993
  • 07014/814 of 7 FTS last seen jan03
  • 07015/815 of 7 FTS last seen jan99
  • 07016/816 of 7 FTS last seen may98
  • 07017/017 written off 2002
  • 07018/018 written off 1992 later dumped
  • 09001/020 written off 2011
  • 09002/021 of 7 FTS last seen jan99
  • 09003/022 withdrawn from use
  • 09004/023 dumped at Basa in Red Aces colour scheme
  • 09005/024 written off 2010
  • 09006/025 written off 1995
I came to conclusion that the most recent sources should be used, but I'm getting resistance to that idea as some feel "Flight Global" is an inaccurate source - FOX 52 (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You're just talking about S.211 here. For everyone sake, the previous post before your recent edit already corrected the quantity to 3 flying aircraft, the source came straight from the horse's mouth - the Philippine Air Force's 2015 report. Do you mean to say FG WAF2015 is more accurate than the PAF report, that's why you disregarded the source altogether just to pull of your edit? And for everyone's sake, the 3 flying aircraft are 07-001/801, 07-002/802, and 09-002/021. Flight Global did not even indicate that all 3 flying aircraft are already AS-211/AS.211 upgraded aircraft, not standard S.211. Further errors can be seen on the report if you only try to check more. I already included updated sources on the OV-10, FA-50, Sokol, and a few more, yet you did not even try to bother considering them. If your intentions are really good, try to cooperate and not to push yourself. Thanks Phichanad (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Pointing out errors in the Flight International's World Air Forces 2015[edit]

Due to insistence in totally using the said source for all aircraft quantities not only in the Philippine Air Force article, but also for other country's air forces, let's try to see what are the errors in the WAF2015 for the Philippine Air Force page as seen on page 26:

1. OV-10: There are 3 variants of OV-10 used by the PAF, the "A", "C',and the so-called "M". This was not shown in WAF2015. As for the numbers, it is still unclear so we can say that WAF2015 could either be correct or wrong.
2. C-295: as of March 2015, there is already a single C-295M in service with the PAF. WAF2015 did not list that. WAF2015 also failed to mention that the aircraft is the "M" variant.
3. F-27: while there are only 2 serviceable F-27 as of May 2015 due to a landing gear accident, there were actually 3 when WAF2015 was published on December 2014. The F-27 involved in an accident is still being determined if they would repair or not depending on the aircraft's condition.
4. N-22: there were 3 Nomads that flew in PAF's anniversary in 2013, t/n's B-12, B-68, and C-87, and none has crashed since then. B-19 was also even spotted as late as June 2015 flying.
5. AS550: this deal didn't push through as of 2013. And even if it did, it covers 10 aircraft, not 4.
6. Bell 212/412: although the aircraft looks the same with only few differences including the rotors, these are 2 different birds. There are no Bell 212 currently in service with the PAF, and there are 5 Bell 412HP/EP operating when WAF was published last December. There were 6 already delivered as of July 2015, although only 2 were commissioned to the PAF.
7. UH-1D/H: this is the difficult part, because the PAF has more than 60 airframes of the UH-1H, and not all are in working condition. Latest reports put it at between 20-40. The UH-1D, there were 21 ordered, not 11 as written in the WAF2015, and 7 were already received. This did not reflect in WAF2015.
8. The S.211 are still considered trainer aircraft when they are not more configured as combat aircraft due to lack of air assets. They are even converted to AS.211 Warrior standard, which is different from the standard S.211. WAF2015 did not indicate this, even in their 2014 report.
9. SF-260: it did cover the number of SF-260MP/TP/MZ but did not acknowledge the arrival of 18 new SF-260FH in 2011. Even FlightGlobal reported it in 2008!
10. SE313: The Philippine Navy never operated SE-313 in its entire history!
11. Missing BO-105 for the Philippine Navy: maybe this is what WAF2015 mean, the BO-105, not SE-313!
12. Missing R-22 helicopter: WAF2015 totally missed this, there's a single R-22 helicopter with the PN!
13. Missing Philippine Army aviation: so where is the aviation assets of the Philippine Army? It's missing in the WAF2015!

So out of 21 entries in the Philippines for WAF2015, 10 have mistakes or incomplete, and there are several missing. That's quite high for a source that is said to be highly reliable. So although WAF2015 can be used as a source, it can't be used as the only source. Phichanad (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:DUE would appear to apply here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Phichanad (talk) Regarding the Seaplanes, i heard it was shelved do you have a source so the section can be removed? I haven't heard any progress regarding this type of aircraft. Efram23 (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on official info that I have, it was not shelved but rescheduled to Horizon 2. The number is also increased to 4 aircraft in the new plan. No official publicly available source though. Phichanad (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Flight Global's WAF report only comes out once a year, so it's obvious updates that occur later in the year would not reflect the article at that time. Variants are not a major part of their report, and as far as the numbers that appears to be a fuzzy on all source(s). Army aviation seems to be a mystery as well So your so-called "gotcha moments" are a tad weak, but regardless any source is capable of mistakes. Getting correct number(s) is a challenge as sources may not report aircraft that are stored due to budget constraints or lost to accidents and as an Encyclopedia it is not necessary to report every minor detail like it’s a news site WP:NOTNEWS. - FOX 52 (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
FOX 52 (talk) Then you know it yourself that it gets updated only once a year, situations change all through that time till they update it, then why not use other sources other than WAF? You are disregarding other editors efforts to update articles taken from other valid sources. You keep promoting WAF like wiki can't use other sources in all your edits on other air forces articles in the region. Efram23 (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No I have a problem with entries that state the PAF have 5 S.211’s in service with two sources, one from World Air Forces 2014 which show they have five, and the other source "2010" states “The PAF still has six of the S-211 jet trainers …” confusing. And In the Notes section it says: “Locally upgraded to AS-211 "Warrior" standard to do air-to-ground missions. 7 more airframes stored …”, and the source provided, makes no mention of this. Also using 'unreliable' sources like which disclaims “not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any information on this site. Use at your own risk” - FOX 52 (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Fox 52, You seem to be suggesting that the source which you call "2010" above might be treated as an update to the source which you call World Air Forces 2014. A source from 2010 clearly is not, and should not be treated as, an update to a source from 2014 (several years later). I have looked at both sources. The 2010 source says that PAF had six S-211s as of May 23, 2010. The 2014 source says that the PAF had three S-211s as of sometime in 2014. The article currently says that PAF has three active S-211s (citing a 2015 source), that it has 11 airframes stored, and has plans to reactivate three of those (citing two different 2012 sources). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest to use the most recent source, and remove unreliable sources that can not guarantee accuracy as disclaimed by - FOX 52 (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The final part of that suggestion conflicts with WP:DUE -- which is part of WP's WP:NPOV policy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
That is what we are trying to do FOX 52 (talk). Take a look at the updates made. And it still an ongoing process. We never said that the previous version before your edits was 100% accurate either, and we thank you for pointing out the lack of updates. But as I was saying before, DO NOT SOLELY USE WAF2015 because it is absolutely not 100% accurate as well, and might even be less accurate than the current sources used right now. Happy weekend. Phichanad (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

List of PAF bases[edit]

The current article/page lists 12 bases as being utilized by the PAF (7 in Luzon, 1 in the Visayas, and three in Mindanao). According to the PAF's official website (, however, there are only 8: 1. Clark Air Base in Pampanga ( 2. Basa Air Base also in Pampanga ( 3. Col. Jesus Villamor AB in Pasay, Metro Manila (it is part of Ninoy Aquino International Airport) ( 4. Maj. Danilo Atienza AB in Cavite ( 5. Fernando AB in Batangas ( 6. Antonio Bautista AB in Palawan ( 7. Mactan-Benito Ebuen AB on Mactan ( 8. Edwin Andrews AB in Mindanao (

Razshiev (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit/Add AW-109E Helicopter[edit]

Template:Edit Add AW-109E Helicopter

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Philippine Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Philippine Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2017[edit]

Replacing the name West Philippine Sea in South East Asia with international recognize name of South China Sea to avoid confusion. Why Should I Tell (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2017[edit]

In the table under Transport Aircraft, Lockheed C-130 Hercules, change "Total 5 in service,[93] H model t/n 4726 & 4704, and B model t/n 3633.[91] 6 more C-130B & L-100-20 stored. Two ordered C-130Ts from the US will be delivered by early 2016.[94] 1 C-130T arrived and commissioned April 2015.[92]" to "Total 6 in service,[93] H model t/n 4726 & 4704, and B model t/n 3633.[91] 6 more C-130B & L-100-20 stored. Two ordered C-130Ts from the US will be delivered by early 2016.[94] 1 C-130T arrived and commissioned April 2016.[92]". The reference [92] was misread as a 2015 article instead of 2016. There are only 2 x C-130T aircraft. Change the "Active" column from "3[92]" to "2[92]". Roxetta (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I have had a tidy up, most of the information you had above was not needed, it was just repeating what the table said and we dont normally list serial numbers in these lists. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong note on Dornier UH-1D[edit]

The note on Dornier UH-1D Models is wrong. It said 13 out of 21 UH-1D was delivered. WRONG.

Only 7 out of 21 was delivered and accepeted by PAF Inpection Team. Of the 7 accepted and commisioned, 2 were lost in accidents. Then PAF acquired 4 UH-1 Super Deltas. Total 9 operational aircraft.

Wrong assumption that 13 (7 Delta + 4 Super Delta +2 lost inaccident) was delivered.

Please Change it. GoalkeeperCIWS (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Please cite a Reliable Source for your information. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)