Talk:Lebanese Air Force

Untitled

Is there actual evidence that the Hunters have been restored to service? I'm having a hard time finding a reliable source for this. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"The impossible happened"

This is an encyclopedia not a place for egos. Please removed this kind of silly language 77.58.193.99 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese Mirages

They should put back there mirages in service, they need to find funds to upgrade and to modernize them.

Most of the info on this page does not correspond to the current status. Even some of the historical data is quite misleading and this does not apply only for the Mirages but most of the types mentioned including some combat involvements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatche (talk • contribs) 10:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Mirages were sold to Pakistan in 2000. I took out of the article the false information that they were not sold. My source that I attributed is the OFFICAL Lebanese military website.--216.52.73.254 (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections. Just some additional info on the current inventory: There are 8 Hunters (3 F.70As, 3 F.70s and 2 T.66s) all stored but few may become operational in extreme emergencies. Helicopters include 23 UH-1H with different local modifications, 12 Gazelle 342Ls (at least 3 stored), 5 AB 212 (stored), 3 Pumas (stored), 4 Raven 44s. Few Alouette IIIs are also stored with no plans to bring them into service, unlike the other types mentioned above. I hope someone makes a better table than the current one which shows incorrect totals. Other air forces show the flags of the manufacturer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatche (talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Another note about the Hunters. I've read that reference page some time ago written by the US marine and found the info inaccurate as well. In 1982, there were 10 airworthy Hunters with the air force, doing regular flying sorties until the Israeli invasion in June, when the air force halted all activities. The Hunters resumed flying after a few months and I have seen at least 6 flying in formation during that period. This means that they were airworthy and what the marine writes about putting 3 Hunters in service is untrue. One of these was lost (shot down) in September, pilot safely ejected and was rescued by US crews. The same day another was badly damaged and was advised to fly to Akrotiri to save the plane. Both the Hunter and its pilot returned to Lebanon. I don't know where he gets his political asylum story from. Also, the Hunters were later briefly involved in February 1984 as well using the 30 mm Aden cannons and SNEB rockets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatche (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I just made a table of the aircraft inventory. I will gradually redesign the page to meet the standards better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatche (talk • contribs) 11:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Academy tn.png

The image File:Academy tn.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hawker Downs Israeli Jet, Pilot POW?

This can only be Nahum Merchavi, a 116th squadron pilot, who was captured on June 5th 1967. Merchavi, however, was hit by Syrian fire (AAA or MiG-17) while attacking an airfield in Damascus during the opening moves of the Six Days War, and only bailed out over Lebanon. The current reference should be amended or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poliocretes (talk • contribs) 20:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference is the Lebanese army itself. --Zaher1988 · ^Talk|_{Contributions} 06:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference in the article doesn't seem to work, the link must be outdated. Anyway, neither the English nor the French pages on the Lebanese Armed Forces website detail the incident. There was only one Israeli pilot returned to Israel by Lebanon (at that time) and that was Merchavi. All Israeli sources, both official and unofficial, attributed his downing to the Syrians. Tom Cooper's MiG-19 and MiG-21 Units in Combat attributes it to Syrian pilot Zuhir al-Baowab. Is there any more Lebanese info about the incident, date or pilot name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poliocretes (talk • contribs) 08:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lebanese 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130020435/http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/Lebanon/C4E6544B51A01293C2257593001BCF28?OpenDocument to http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/Lebanon/C4E6544B51A01293C2257593001BCF28?OpenDocument

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) 02:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lebanese 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071231061444/http://www.lebarmy.gov.lb/English/AirforceMain.asp to http://www.lebarmy.gov.lb/English/AirforceMain.asp

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) 11:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Aircraft inventory table on air force pages

Should table of "current inventory", commonly found in Air Force pages which list air force's aircraft inventory, allowed to be filled by aircraft with "on order" status (not in the inventory yet but will be, as the contract have been signed). Ckfasdf (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Since RfC discussion on WP:MILHIST was closed due to archived before reaching any conclusion (discussion on milhist talk page was automatically archived after certain period of times without comments). So, I am moving it here. the text below are taken from previous discussion.

Should table of "current inventory", commonly found in Air Force pages which list air force's aircraft inventory, allowed to be filled by aircraft with "on order" status (not in the inventory yet but will be, as the contract have been signed). Ckfasdf (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Air Force pages (or it's derivatives such as list of aircraft of xxx air force pages or equipment of xxx air forces pages) usually contain "Current Inventory" table. As an air force editor along with FOX 52, both of us have history on updating those table. Recently, I have disagreement with him regarding whether aircraft "on order" status should be included on that table or not.

I propose not to include aircraft "on order". The main rationale is name of table itself, which is "Current Inventory", So it put heavy emphasis on "Current" fleet. Not future. Not "soon will be" inventory. Those "on order" aircraft can be added once they are delivered. And most of the time information on aircraft "on order" already covered on other section (sometimes named "Plan" or "Future" section), so there is possible redundancy on that topics.
Note:I also used to add "on order" aircraft into that table, but got my edit reverted due to above reason [1]. FOX's edit also have history to get reverted for the same reason [2]

Since discussion between only two us may not reach any conclusion. I hope I can have other insight on this issue. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Disagree partly as it's done on the air frame pages themselves ie: Bell UH-1Y, AH-1Z, CASA C-295, AW139, CH-47, JAS 39 Gripen... -Based off WP: AIR OPS it states in part "Do not place potential operators in this section, only confirmed orders with likelihood of near-term production" Those air frames are in these tables, making the two points interchangeable. I agree when it comes to "potential" or "planned orders", that goes to far. FOX 52 (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

IMO, WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS only applies for aircraft/airframe pages. Lead section of that guidelines essays even says This is a set of suggested guidelines for articles on specific aircraft types. Therefore it should not applies to Air Force pages (and its relatives) and lead to discussion here. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Using the example of Lebanese Air Force, I think it is reasonable to include the MD500 Defender in the current inventory table as it is a short article in terms of air force articles - it does not contain a Planned or Future acquisitions section. Some air forces articles do not contain such section and adding "on order" is a concise way of including this information in a article. The inclusion is not confusing the "In service" column is empty and the "Notes" column explains it is on order. What is reasonable depends on each article. Including it for all articles presents the information easier to a reader and also allows for comparison to other aircraft types. --Melbguy05 (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

IMO, the problem to only list it on table, is the reader may not know when the aircraft actually get into the inventory and the table title itself "current inventory". For example Bulgarian Air Force, just signed contract to purchase F-16 per source and the order expected to complete in 2027. So, if we allow "on order" on the table then it will only be shown "on order" maybe until 2027 without clarity of when will it entered service. Whereas if that information placed on other section (history, plan, future, or others), more information about the procurement process until it's delivery can be shown. Also most of "on order" are using source from Flighglobal's World Air Forces, which also didn't provide information on when will it be delivered. Hence, it'll be better to take it out from the table and describe it on other section.Ckfasdf (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that aircraft "on order" should not be included. Even if there's no specific section for planned acquisitions or future procurement, you can always reference the aircraft order on the History section. -- Get_It (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Melbguy05 as a long time maintainer of these inventory tables, there are drawbacks to “future program/history” sections – One we end up getting unverified orders with weak sourcing, that no one ever checks on. Over time some of them never materialize, & we are left with pointless bits of text. Noting these “confirmed orders” in the tables gives a concise view, and does not confuse the reader. It also is an easier way to make changes update that countries inventory. FOX 52 (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf, FOX 52, and Get It: The wording could emphasis it is a new model/series/block on order, instead of the number on order, for example "New model on order" excluding the number. --Melbguy05 (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@FOX 52: IMO, no source reliable for all. even WAF (the usual source used) can be debatable. Weak sourcing can be fixed by replace it with other sourcing or even simply remove the claim if it was really dubious.Ckfasdf (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Get_It, all air force pages have history section, it could go there if there's no specific section for upcoming procurement (future, plan, and etc).Ckfasdf (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Well super if it can be in the article, then it can certainly be in the table - just like having native names in info boxs - FOX 52 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, IMO that's two different things. Table is part of article, while infobox is summary of article. Also refer to lead section of MOS:TABLE which state ....sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs, and MOS:NO-TABLES which also state Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to reiterate my points, I disagree to put aircraft "on order" into current inventory table due to:

1. Name of table title itself. Refer to WP:HEADERS, whereas MOS:AT also applicable for table title, a title should be sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related table. So, if the table title is "current inventory" then it should only contain aircraft currently in active or in operational status not includes those that will be in active or in operational.
2. Refer to WP:NO-TABLES, Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. Aircraft "on order" status on table did not provide detailed information or clarity on how that aircraft get into "on order" status, and when will it be entered service. Such information usually covered in other section such as "History", "Future', "Plan", or "Modern times". If the information is not present on that section, instead of adding it on table, we can write it down on those sections.
3. Redundancy or unnecessary duplication. Redundancy is generally frowned upon in writing (1, 2) and Wikipedia is not exception for that (WP:OBVIOUS). But, please do not mix it up with Infobox, since infobox is summary of article and it's content generally should already cited elsewhere in the article. Whereas table is part of the article not it's summary. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Include in table. Assuming order is expected to be filled in the near future (up to 2-3 years) and is not expected to be cancelled, then this provides valuable information on expected force structure. It is verifiable.--Eostrix (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Eostrix: It is verifiable, no question on that. In fact it usually already covered on other section. It's just aircraft procurement usually take quite long time (more than 2-3 years). For example: Bulgarian Air Force just recently signed contract to purchase F-16. Source said that the order expected to complete in 2027. So, if we allow "on order" on the table then it will only be shown "on order" maybe until 2027. Whereas other section already provide valuable information on expected force structure. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  I would say it depends on when the order is expected and how definite it is. If it is an order with deliveries expected in 7 years, probably no. But if deliveries are expected next year, money has been paid, and the deal is quite definite - I'd say yes.--Eostrix (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Eostrix: Majority "on order" status have expected delivery of more than 1-2 years, and information on table also didn't mentioned expected delivery date. So, why not just simply only allow entry table after confirmed delivery. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• To be honest, I'm kind of on the fence about it. I can see arguments either way. If I had to choose, I would say do not include in the tables and instead have a section about future orders that discusses them in prose, indicating (if available) expected deliveries, options for more, etc. The notion of "on order" is nebulous, and means different things in different contexts, and can vary depending on a contact's terms, of which we often do not know the particulars. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Include in table per Eostrix -- Idealigic (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)