Talk:Indian Air Force/Archive 1

Archive 1

About the neurality thing

To whoever attached the tag. Try explaining yourself before you attach a tag and do visit the guidelines on how to edit. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. Freedom skies 08:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The neurality of this subject is in dought.

Removing the dead File:DacotaIAF.jpeg link

There was a link, supposedly pointing to an image of the Dacota fighter. The image was labelled and everything but it simply did'nt show on either the article or a search in Wikipedia. I removed the dead link, if someone could find the image kindly restore it. Freedom skies 08:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

History

I've moved the history text to History of the Indian Air Force as:

1. This article is rather long.
2. I intent to work on expanding the history section.

The current history section needs to be summerized into a shorter block. Please feel free to start on this, otherwise I will get around to it soon. Greenshed 00:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

!!! What?

Out of this neat and nicely detailed article, the best you people can come up with is 8 references? Colonel Marksman 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC) What difference would it make if airbases are listed? India does have a under ground airbase in New Delhi as well, in Vivek Vihar, planes come and go, but no one knows where they are landing or taking off from. Dont believe me go to Vivek Vihar in New Delhi and speak to people there especially near Green Field School.

My 2 cents

200 Aircraft in MRCA deal??

1. I have seen no source that has spoken of 200 aircraft. The sources that did were only commentators, some forums and overenthusiastic mediapersons. the CoAFS himself stated that the number would be 126, and from a single vendor.

2. LCA procurement will most likely be 220 for IAF, with ~40 or more for the IN, depending on the number of carriers it operates. there is no source for the 120 figure.

3. This article SERIOUSLY lacks sources and citations, and to improve it, we must cite them ASAP. Plus, it needs to be updated as well- a lot of stuff is out of date.

4. I think it would be a good idea to create a new table with details of new procurements,, such a the HJT-36, MRCA, LCA, DARIN II, etc.

5. the list of squadrons and bases can be put into new pages. they lack relevance here, and would be useless info for most readers, and only increase the page length. I shall be creating these new pages and putting them there. If anyone objects, kindly let me know.

6. A new page on the MRCA tender can be created as a stub. There's a lot of info, and predictions are that it will be an interesting journey ahead. Considering the aircraft taking part, i agree.

Cheers. Sniperz11 22:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing 1971 section

Dhaka itself did not have any airfields. Kurmitolla and Tejgaon were the two main airfields, not counting Lal Monirhat, Comilla, Shamser nagar etc. Also, the number of aircrafts shot down while raiding this non-existent airfield is more than what available figures from notable websites show. Also it said air supremacy was achieved towards the end of the war, which is wrong (it was achieved within the first four days, mostly in the first 72 hours). Lastly, it says all flights were destroyed, which is incorrect. The PAF had at least 14 serviceable F-86s at the end of the war (if not all) were captured by the Indian Army, and formed the nucleus of the nascent Bangladesh Air Force. I have reverted these now. Also, I think there is a hidden PoV pushing here.Rueben lys 00:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Su-30MKI is a Multirole Fighter according to Indian Air force

Some one reverted my edit back in the IAF aircraft section. Apparently he feels Su-30MKI is exactly air superiority fighter. Indian Air force says its a Multirole fighter. And Since when did Mig-29 become a multirole fighter, especially the Mig-29A/B which Indian Air force operates.
Indian Air force official website

• SU-30 : Twin seater twin engine multirole fighter of Russian origin which carries 130 mm GSH gun alongwith 8000 kg external armament. It is capable of carrying a variety of medium-range guided air to air missiles with active or semi-active radar or Infra red homing close range missiles. It has a max speed of 2500 km/hr (Mach 2.35).

• Mirage-2000 : A single seater air defence and multi-role fighter of French origin powered by a single engine can attain max speed of 2495 km/hr(Mach 2.3). It carries two 30 mm integral cannons and two matra super 530D medium-range and two R-550 magic II close combat missiles on external stations.

• MiG-29 : Twin engine, single seater air superiority fighter aircraftItalic text of Russian origin capable of attaining max. speed of 2445 km per hour (Mach-2.3). It has a combat ceiling of 17 km. It carries a 30 mm cannon alongwith four R-60 close combat and two R-27 R medium range radar guided missiles.
  Ajay ijn (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

Could someone fix the image in the infobox? It seems to have been changed by a bot, and I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia policies to know how to change this. Thanks! Jimgeorge (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The change was made in the Template:Indian Air Force. I've removed the dead file, so at least the annoying warning doesn't show now. - BillCJ (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy in number of combat aircraft

The intro states this as 1350, and the article later states it as 1450. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.47.129.79 (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

controversies

what about some mention on the high rate of MIG crashes over the last several years? It surely bares some resemblance? There another recently: http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=2&theme=&usrsess=1&id=230678

I can't seem to find anything, but a few years ago (maybe 5?) there were 2 muslims from the iAF arrested for some sort of terror links. That could come here too. It certainly bared relevance today. Lihaas (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

IAF Inventory figures

The inventory figures on this page seems to be sourced from http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Units/Fleet.html. which has exactly the same numbers as the ones in the inventory table and quite recently updated. however the references are being repointed to a generic page on AWST on wikipedia. Please substantiate that AWST actually published the same exact figures and squadron numbers before replacing the references again. jaiiaf 22:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The inventory figures have been sourced from Bharat Rakshak, but the numbers on that page and the ones in this article dont match. Bharat Rakshak doesnt even list the Dauphin helicopter but this list does, where the fuck are you getting the info for this article, because it sure as hell isnt from Bharat Rakshak.

Hey just because you didnt learn maths in school doesnt mean the figures dont match. 95% of the figures are a match. and the very fact that the bharat rakshak page shows the page edited on 23red april and someone edits the inventory page about the same time and insert the new figures and new units int the page jaiiaf 00:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fucking retard! The table listed the number of Mig-27 as 198 and other exaggerated numbers, so dont give me crap about maths.

Keep at it and you will be the retard who will get his ass banned jaiiaf 20:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Su-30 MK/I

The Su-30 statistics. 190(i.e 50+140)+Further order for 40 The 50 built in Russia has arrived. In 2004 HAL started to manufacture SU-30MKI and handed over the aircraft.[1][2]

Out of 140, First 26 will be assembled within 2007. By 2004=2,2005=2+12=14,2006=2+12+12=26.

Out of the remaining 114 12/year will be produced until 2012/13.

Until 2006 its 50+26=76 aircrafts and by mid-2007 its 76+6=82 aircrafts in service. Chanakyathegreat 06:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

18 more ordered from Russia.[3]

40 more to be license produced will be completed by 2014[4] if the deal is confirmed, and the production rate need to be increased from the present 12 to 18 in 2007.

Chanakyathegreat 10:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Mid 2007, it's 82 aircrafts.
Mid 2008, its 94 aircrafts. (12/year)
End 2008, its 100 aircrafts.

Chanakyathegreat (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Jaguar

Jaguar IS = 35+58+15=108+20 ordered. Jaguar IB = 5+10=15+17 ordered. Jaguar IM = 12

37 ordered will be in service by 2009/10.[5]

Chanakyathegreat 08:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

17 IB inducted.[6]Chanakyathegreat 09:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

considering 35 aircrafts lost.[7] 2 IB+ 30 IS+1 IM and 2 loaned versions.

• Jaguar IS=108-30=78 + 20 ordered.
• Jaguar IB=30
• Jaguar IM=11

Chanakyathegreat 09:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Mig-29

"The contract stipulates the modernisation of 64 MiG-29 fighters, including nine fighter-trainers," Interfax Military News Agency reported quoting defence industry sources. [8]

Mig-27

165 produced by HAL.[9] 29 Mig-27 lost.[10] 136 remain in service. [11] The aircraft is no longer in service with Russia but remains in service with India (130 aircraft) Chanakyathegreat 11:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It will soon be replaced by new fighters e.g MCA, FGFA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.96.79 (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel that we should not stress so much on the MiG-27's upgrages.

Mig-21

70 Mig-21 FL was removed from service starting 2005.[12] Chanakyathegreat 16:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Crests and Insignia of Officers

Can anyone add the crests and insignia (means the ones on the collars, shoulders, caps etc for each of the ranks.

I guess this information should be a part of this topic. Mittal.fdk (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hawk

The follow on trainers to the Hawk will be the lead in fighter trainer which will be a derivative of the Tejas. "At Aero India 2009 here, M. Natarajan, Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister, also announced the development of a lead-in-fighter-trainer quite similar to South Korea’s T-50 Golden Eagle. He told The Hindu that the trainer which will be a derivative of the Light Combat Aircraft Tejas would be far superior to the Hawk and could be flying in five to six years."IAF reluctant to follow on order for Hawk trainer Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

sensitive information

would some mod or admin plz be knid enough to remove the bases from the list.This is a threat to national security. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 15:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't think so. Such information is already available in many resources like this one. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 16:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

While I find that it is not a threat to India's security, the inclusion rationale can certainly be debated. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 16:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Even more daring act has been done at (pauldevis.batcave.net/GoogleEarthPafAirbases.html) by an Indian where all the PAF bases are shown as in google earth (related discussion can be found here, I fear there must be a Paki doing the same for IAF base somewhere LegalEagle 15:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To User LegalEagle86

Paki is an offensive and racial remark which is not tolerable on Wikipedia. You should either change or I will report it.Digimanpk (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Grammar and bad writing

Great factual work here but I'm afraid the writing leaves much to be desired. A thorough rewrite is required. I've edited a couple of sections, also returning to sections created and written by me long ago, but assistance in running through the whole thing now would be very helpful. Jokester99 10 May 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC).

Lead paras

Several changes were made to the lead paras without discussion. The editor who made these changes argues that they were made in accordance with the peer review. I have gone the peer review and below are main points:

• One of the reviewers raised this valid point "There are a lot of refs in the article lead they should be covered in the body of the article if possible leaving the lead free of refs. It also makes it easier to read." And as per the suggestion, all the refs were removed. However, as per policy, "any material [in lead paras] not in the body should be sourced as usual". IAF being the world's fourth largest is not mentioned anywhere else in the article and hence a source on this is required in the lead paras.

• It is surprising that this article was being pushed for FA-status with sentences like "India is increasingly projecting its power beyond South Asia" and "A defining moment came for the force in 1971, during the Bangladesh liberation war." Please keep Wikipedia free of nationalistic bias.

• Minute details — such as who awarded the IAF the prefix royal; under what circumstances was a particular officer promoted to the post of Marshall etc. — belong to relevant sections, not lead paras. Keep the lead to the point.

I have made appropriate changes. Thanks --Nosedown (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Total Aircraft Inventory

i had used the data of presently available Aircrafts given in the wikipedia itself. 2,000 aircrafts including 795+ combat aircrafts.
reference may be taken from
http://indianairforce.nic.in/
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_IAF

OK I see you have added in the UAVs, I have changed the text in the article to reflect that as which operates nearly 760 combat and 774 non-combat aircraft and over 380 UAVs. Using the list in List_of_aircraft_of_the_IAF, which is not a reliable source but it should at least agree with the figures here:

• Combat Aircraft = 758
• Helicopters = 324
• Transports = 248
• Trainers = 178
• UAVs = 383

Which gives a total of 1915. We really need a more reliable source but that needs to be addressed in the other article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

2006 numbers

The 2006 CSIS Report (Pg 24) says 852 combat AC, 288+6 Transport and 260 Helis. Even AF's official webpage claims approx. 1700 total ACs.

I think the strength page is an abandoned page in Indian Armed Forces server. Sumanch (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

New section heading

I've renamed the section on Future Aircraft to Future Expansion, since it dealt with broader expansion plans of the IAF and not merely aircraft acquisition. There already exists a sub-section on future aircraft. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

IAF Inventory

I have corrected the total aircraft of the IAF. According to the official site inventory is 1700 aircrafts(official webpage). According to CSIS report IAF has 852 combat aircrafts. Using these info will help Class-A review. Any other data may be concedered OP. Sumanch (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The official site you qoute says nearly 1700 which cant really be used to add exactly 1700 to the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA)

GOI has not approved the MCA project yet. Therefore, I dont think it should be part of the article. 72.191.9.208 (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The shoulder and sleeve ranks of Master Warrant Officer and Warrant Officer are not correct

1.The rank of a Master Warrant Officer(MWO) is the IAF emblem along with the stripe of a Flying Officer and not of a Flight Lieutenant.

2.The rank of a Warrant Officer(WO) is the IAF emblem along with the stripe of a Pilot Officer and not of a Flying Officer.

The picture depicted as the rank of a WO is indeed of a MWO. The above correction be done, as this misleads everyone and also it is of sentimental value to the airmen bearing the rank.

--Karthik3606 (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)karthik

I see the mistake. I will fix it soon. Sumanch (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

P.K Barbora Comments

he was commenting on the defence exports of India being not up to the mark and not the defence capabilities of IAF,please go through the article,one who put it up there wanted to show a totally twisted view.I have edited it to put the exact words as reported in the article.In my opinion though this comment has npthing to do with IAF and should be removed.

Also why comments praising the PAF by american defence offcials who were then PAF's biggest supporters and there fore praised them immensely find their way into this article.Please remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyji 2k (talk • contribs) 20:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

PK BABORA'S STATEMENT

The the Indian Vice Chief said that India cannot even match Pakistan in Defence.

See multiple sources:

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_iaf-vice-chief-hits-out-at-political-class-over-defence-issues_1313877 http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/IAF-Vice-Chiefs-latest-Politics-stalls-defence-purchases/544097/ http://newsx.com/story/66875

Why is this content being deleted? I am sure that a Vice Chief statement is something to look at and should belong here. Someone clear this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AzanGun (talk • contribs) 05:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

before you read and add something on an encyclopedia,please understand its meaning and dont twist it.He was referring there on defence exports and not defence capabilities.Exports as you may understand has nothing to do with Indian air force.

Commenting on the defence exports of India, he said, "as far as defence goes, we don't even match up with Pakistan." Hope that clears your mind. sunny.......... 15:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyji 2k (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What that comment is

That comment is a one-liner from an ocean of verbal cacophony. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It neither enlightens a readrer nor adds value to the history of the Indian Air Force. Therefore, it is out. Sumanch (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiple languages

I've just reverted (twice) the insertion of translation of the name in additional languages. The convention is to use English and the country's official languages. In India's case, they happen to be Hindi and English (already included). Also, there is no reason to include one or a few of the many constitutionally recognized or for that matter any other spoken languages. That would be not be neutral. Including all the constitutionally recognized or spoken languages is undue. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 02:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Indian Air Force has 1,550 aircraft in service

A revision of Air craft Numbers concludes the Indian airforce has 1,550 aircraft in service, with 553 of those fighter aircraft.

source.http://www.milaviapress.com/orbat/india/index.phpRademire (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing Expansion Section

Some of the missiles and missile systems mentioned in this section are already in service with the IAF(eg. Prithvi II, and the funniest part is, it is mentioned that it is in service!). Also, some of the missiles in development are not listed here, such as the Nishant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitgeorgesebastian (talk • contribs) 04:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Indian Air Force

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Indian Air Force's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "IMO":

• From Ilyushin Il-76: Ilyushin beriev IL-76 Candid(Gajraj) at indian military database
• From Ilyushin Il-78: IL-78MKI Midas at Indian Military Database
• From Mil Mi-24: "Mil Mi-24, Mi-25, Mi-35 (Hind) Akbar". Indian-Military.org. 5 October 2009. Retrieved 17 November. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

this is now fixed. - Salamurai (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft Under Development

I suggest making new separate sections for "aircraft under development" and "aircraft under procurement" instead of the "future equipments" section. I have posted the "aircraft under development" section I suggested below. Please comment. Rohitgeorgesebastian (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really the best place for some of this information the bit in the article is really to long at the moment. Suggestion at List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force is that we create a separate article something like List of proposed aircraft of the Indian Air Force or Future of the Indian Air Force. This would be a good start for that article. Section in this article should be changed to more of a summary MilborneOne (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested text

Image Clutter This article contains a lot of images and this has created a lot of clutter. Therefore, I am suggesting the following steps – 1. Only use images of aircraft that bears the IAF's name. 2. Avoid images of models. 3. Avoid using personal banners that are not associated with the IAF such as this ([13]). Thanks Sumanch (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Future equipments Main article: Future of the Indian Air Force IAF MiG-21 Bison The IAF is planning for the introduction of new aircraft and equipment in order to mordernise its fleet. These include — Aircraft procured through the Indian MRCA competition and HAL Tejas to replace its aging and obsolete MiG-21 fleet. Induct combat and transport helicopters to replace and supliment current inventory and improve its combat capability. Induct tranport aircraft to enhance special operations capability and enhance heavy lift capability.. Acquire or develop trainer aircraft to replace the aging or obsolete once. Revived the Airavat Project, which was India's first attempt in developing an indigenous AEW aircraft. Develop a fifth generation fighter aircraft in cooperation with Russia. Develop unmanned combat arial vehicle and UAV. Enhance offensive and defensive missile capabilities.. Aerospace Command Main article: Integrated Space Cell The IAF is setting up an aerospace command. This command will leverage space technology including satellites. The command will be utilised by all the three services of the Indian armed forces and also for civilian purposes by ISRO. On 22 October 2001, ISRO launched the Technology Experiment Satellite (TES). Its onboard 1-metre resolution camera was the testbed for Indian space based imagery intelligence. ISRO launched follow-up military satellite CARTOSAT-2A on 28 April 2008. It carries a panchromatic camera (PAN) with a resolution less than 1-metre but lacks night time and cloudy weather observation capability. ISRO launched a sophisticated radar-imaging satellite on 20 April 2009 called RISAT-2. It is capable of imaging in all-weather conditions and has a resolution of one metre. ISRO has denied that the spacecraft is spy satellite; however, experts believe that the satellite will allow India's security agencies to monitor military activities and movements of suspected terrorists in neighbouring countries as well as enable the IAF to carry out precise strikes against targets like terrorist training camps.

Created the split page. Now this this whole section should be compressed to 1 or two paras. Sumanch (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

OK! This is what I did. It is concise, no crystalballing, details are linked. Sumanch (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note on Air Headquarters

Air Headquarters is at Vayu Bhawan otherwise also known as the "Air House". Vayu Bhawan is located at Rafi Marg in New Delhi. (Indian warbirds site) Buckshot06 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft Numbers

The total number of aircraft in the IAF inventory is claimed to be 1309. However, none of the citations provided states this number (perhaps the pages have been edited after they were first cited). --RGS (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

Aircraft Inventory

• Instead of a dedicated UAV section, I think it will be more appropriate if the UAVs are listed according to their roles with conventional aircraft with special mentioning that it is a UAV.

• I think HS 748 and the HAL Chetak should be listed under training aircraft as it is primarily used for that role.

I will wait for the opinions and comments of other editors before making any edits. --RGS (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Chetaks may be used in training role but most of them are not. They are used as Utility helicopter. They are even used in Siachen area for casualty evacuation. Bcs09 (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style

There are several MOS issues in the article. One of the major is regarding Images MOS. Point #3 deals with sandwiching text. This frowned upon in wikipedia. I will go through and see what can be done. Sumanch (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

1971 war section

"Despite being qualitatively inferior, the Gnats were extremely effective against the F-86, earning them the nickname Sabre Slayers.[15] Though the number of Sabres shot down remains a matter of dispute, the impact was quite visible during the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War when the number of PAF's Sabre squadrons decreased from a peak of 6 in 1965 to not more than 2 in 1971."

Why doesn't it mention that PAF was under sanctions from the US after the 1965 war and so they would have been struggling to find spare parts for F-86, meaning they would be forced to cannibalise part of the fleet to keep the rest airworthy? If the article must mention PAF's number of F-86 and speculate on a reason for lower numbers, surely it is unfair to only tell part of the story? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia containing facts, not a fanboy site containing lies and/or half-truths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.32.199 (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. The material will be removed soon and replaced by neutral, sourced information. Thanks --Incidious (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.32.47 (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

respected members!!! i have just one ambiguity that how was saber better than gnats and hunters!!!! saber was made in 40's and outdated in 50's ... says in wikipedia ...... where as gnats came in 50's and hunters came in 56!!! where as saber was at the end of its life!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.124.111 (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The number of Il-76

The IAF purchased 17 IL-76, 6 IL-78 and 3 A-50s. Some sources claim there are 7 IL-78. Because the Il-78s and the A-50s are in fact modified IL-76s, some people have a tendency of adding all these up when quoting the number of IL-76 operated by the IAF (24 is the addition of 17 IL-76 and 7 IL-78 since the 3 A-50s are very recent acquisitions). Because the IL-78s and the A-50s are mentionned elsewhere in this article, they should not be re-counted in the paragraph relating to the transport IL-76. Hudicourt (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Numbers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_level_of_military_equipment

The above article states that India has the third largest air force in the world. The table is near the bottom of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.142.186 (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Apache Longbow as IAF's attack Helicopter

For this recent Edit done by the IP i checked the available sources [14] and [15] and It seems that Apache will be bought, although it is a bit early to give a clear statement about the numbers. Accordingly i have not reverted this edit but would request the editors to check this fact in near future when there is a final announcement --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Helicopters

Does the first helicopters deserve no credit... User:RGS should have edited the text inserted by me and not removed the whole thing as 'vandalism'. I understand that he treats IAF as his pet projects and would not like any outside intervention. Replies from other people, and not User:RGS will be given credibility. Thanks. DebashisM (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I in no way see this article as my "pet project", and I am always for others making this article better.

First, you included the text in the "aircraft inventory" section, which is meant have brief info of all the aircraft the IAF currently have in service. So this belongs in the history section more than the aircraft inventory section. If we go on and include every single aircraft the IAF has ever operated and in such vivid detail (be it in the aircraft inventory or history or any other section), the page will simply become too large and bloated. The IAF main article should aim at encapsulating the general info about the IAF in a brief and easy to understand manner. You seem to be a relatively new editor to wikipedia, so I suggest you have a look at some similar featured military articles. You can also take a look at the articles of other air forces, like the USAF.

Second, I did not mean to mark your edit as vandalism. If you have rollback rights, you will know that the undo and rollback links are close by. I merely meant to undo, but I accidentally clicked the rollback link instead - an honest mistake. Once you follow that link, there is no option to turn back. --RGS (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you say its a mistake, I take it as such and forget...'

DebashisM (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, please provide properly formatted citations wherever possible, so that the info is easily verifiable. --RGS (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft inventory articles

I noticed that the article "List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force, has been moved to "list of active Indian military aircraft", and that a new article "list of historical aircraft of the Indian Air Force" is also given the "see also" tag under the aircraft inventory section. First, I dont think the link to "list of historical aircraft" is necessary under the aircraft inventory section. We can give links to that article in History of the Indian Air Force if needed. Also, instead of an article about the aircraft operated by the enitre armed forces, isn't it better to have an article on the active aircraft of the IAF alone? Please comment. --RGS (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes "list of historical aircraft of the Indian Air Force" would be better placed in the History of the Indian Air Force article. I will make the change. — Woe90i^Woe90i 13:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965

The aircraft losses for both sides seem to be inaccurate. The citation provided leads to another wikipedia article. I searched a lot around wikipedia and finally came across a dead link. The aircraft losses mentioned in http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070506/spectrum/main1.htm seem to be more reliable and even gives attrition rates which I feel should be added to the article.

I removed some text from the section which I am posting here.

Removed text

The Hunter would also be a major feature in the escalation of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965; along with the Gnat the Hunter was the primary air defence fighter of India, and regularly engaged in dogfights with Pakistani F-86 Sabres. The aerial war saw both sides conducting thousands of sorties in a single month. In the conflict the top Pakistani flying ace Sqn Ldr Muhammad Mahmood Alam, claimed 11 kills. In air-to-air combat Pakistan Air Force F-86 Flying Ace Sqn Ldr Muhammad Mahmood Alam shot down five Indian Aircraft in less than a minute. These five kills were all against Indian Air Force (IAF) Hawker Hunter Mk.56 fighters, which were export versions of the Hunter Mk.6 of the Royal Air Force. Despite the intense fighting, the conflict was effectively a stalemate.

I removed this because, I don't feel we should give this much importance to the Hunter. Also, the "11 kills" are stated differently in different articles, even Paksitani ones. Some state it as 9 kills and 2 probables. The 5 hunter kills are also disputed - according to AEROSPACE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AIR WARFARE (Volume 2 1946-present) by Chris Bishop, AIRTime publishing, USA, Squadron Leader Mohammed Alam was credited with the downing of five Indian Hunters in a single engagement over Sargodha during the 1965 war, but the IAF lost only 3 Hunters that day, two of them due to enemy action. Two of the "Hunter Pilots" named by the PAF as victims actually flew Mysteres on another strike. In any case, this info is better suited for the main article on the war and not in the history section of this page, which should be as comprehensive as possible. --RGS (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree Sumanch (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I don't think this was a constructive change. I think the Infobox should show the approximate total number instead of a breakdown like this. Sumanch (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have not seen such a break up in any other military article. Moreover, the numbers cannot be verified as there are no citations. --RGS (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree I have changed it back to just an approx number, although it could do with a reliable ref. MilborneOne (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Rafale

The Rafale is currently not in service and so should not be mentioned in the "Aircraft Inventory" section simply because it is not currently in the aircraft inventory! It is already mentioned in the "Future" section. I know it is usually new or IP users who include it in the section and they are unlikely to look at the talk page, but I felt it should be mentioned here anyway. --RGS (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Addition by Noopur28

Noopur28 added the following to section History - In February 2013, it was revealed that the Indian Air Force had ordered for the procurement of 12 AW101 helicopters for the use of VVIPs in 2010 from the Italian defense manufacturer Finmeccanica of which only 4 were received so far. In 2013 India had already paid 40 percent of the total contract and reported kickbacks following which Giuseppe Orsi, head of the company was arrested in Italy. The case has been transferred to CBI and is being investigated.

I am not sure if and where this should be added, but i do think that this does not belong to the History section. So i have moved it here for further discussion about its inclusion. Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest moving this to the section Future, and/or to another page here. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Usually, articles have a section called controversy or incidents/accidents. I wanted to put it under that. Should I start the "controversy" section? Noopur28 (talk)

This is a controversy about the defence deal not about the Air Force so not correct to place it here, even if you have a controversy section. AshLin (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

But it definitely involves the addition of new helicopters to the Indian Air Force. And, from what I read about these choppers, they seem like important additions to the force. Noopur28 (talk)

Mentioning each and every procurement by Air force in this article is inappropriate at the least and particularly these 12 choppers were for VIP transport only maintained and operated by IAF so adding it to the list of air craft operated by IAF would be more appropriate; as far as kickbacks and corruption is concerned one can create a full article on this. So no disrespect but I strongly disagree with adding this material.--Vyom25 (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I Agree with AshLin sir's opinion that it was a controversy about the deal but not about the IAF itself.In my opinion, it could be mentioned(to a certain extent) in Future of the Indian Air Force as well as Indo-Italian Relations articles rather than this one.The corruption charges are in my opinion, too subtle to be mentioned in the Air Force article(yet). Cheers TheStrikeΣagle 13:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

CHANGES to be made on OFFICER ranks

The officer ranks which are shown in the page contain "pilot officer" which no longer exists. It must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudeepth 123 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Court case that IAF fighters are death traps

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Flying-MiG-violates-right-to-life-Officer/articleshow/21111456.cms

Notable at this level? Hcobb (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Dont think so, on officer who doesnt like the idea of flying Mig-21s, he could just resign it would be easier. MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

History of the IAF Incomplete.

I find no mention of the entire history of the IAF in the article. the history starts after the partition , are the valiant efforts of our air warriors who fought and died in the skies over Britain ,Burma and Libya in WWII to go without mention in this article?

I would be willing to contribute to expanding this section if someone else doesn't do it first. also a mention of the previous inventory of the IAF all the way from the first Hawker Audaxs would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.146.115 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free. However, make sure your edits include references and are listed in a neutral tone (i.e. - no sentences that include wording like "the valiant efforts of our air warriors". Thanks - Ckruschke (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I would suggest that improving History of the Indian Air Force may be better as it already covers pre-independence history. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I Have expanded the History of the Indian Air Force and List of historical aircraft of the Indian Air Force articles a little and linked them to this page. I also added excerpts from the history page to this article so it doesnt look like the history of the iaf began only after 1947. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvpoodle (talk • contribs) 00:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Future acquisitions

Please remove reference to Augustawestland as the deal has been scrapped by the government of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.44.119 (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hjttrainer/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Indian 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070710041049/http://www.aerospaceindia.org:80/Journals/Monsoon%202005/The%20Congo%20Diary.pdf to http://www.aerospaceindia.org/Journals/Monsoon%202005/The%20Congo%20Diary.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090316054249/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/Units/MissileUnits.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Units/MissileUnits.html

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge Future of the Indian Air Force

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 result of this discussion was to not merge, per WP:SNOW. Procedures were not followed on this proposal as in WP:Merging (both the page should've been tagged). I would WP:IAR since this page has around 200 watchers and since this proposal was running for more than two weeks. Also, this proposal is not based on policies. Regards —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Proposal of merger, since separate article not required. The info can be included within this article itself. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose It will cause too much clutter and will lead to a lot of confusion for the reader and the article will become too long. Indian Air Force is large and is growing in terms of it's operations. Separating existing and Future capabilities is important to keep the sanctity and encyclopaedic nature of the main article. standardengineer (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose first of all if we merge then the article will be too long, subject itself is very notable hence we can give it a separate article. U.S and British air force also has similar article see - Future of the Royal Air Force, Future military aircraft of the United States and see also Future of the Royal Navy. I see no solid reason to merge, both articles follows the basic accepted pattern in Wikipedia on how air force and navy articles are written, classified and arranged.Nicky mathew (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Future of the Indian Air Force has a lot of extensive and useful information, so it merits a stand alone article. Also, as Standardengineer and Nicky mathew have already said, a merger would cause this article to become overly long. I will remove the tag, as there is an obvious consensus here. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Indian 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111128211632/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/Museum/Palam/Heraldry.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Museum/Palam/Heraldry.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091006180501/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/History/1940s/Goyal.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1940s/Goyal.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080502235038/http://www.ndtv.com:80/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070015064 to http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070015064
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120711044139/http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Path-clear-for-Rafale-fighter-deal-Antony/Article1-886703.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Path-clear-for-Rafale-fighter-deal-Antony/Article1-886703.aspx

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 35 external links on Indian 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100329193739/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/Museum/Palam/Heraldry.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Museum/Palam/Heraldry.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121021032255/http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?31169-Royal-Indian-Air-Force-in-WW2-Lots-of-Rare-Pics to http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?31169-Royal-Indian-Air-Force-in-WW2-Lots-of-Rare-Pics
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091230140314/http://bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1940s/Aspy01.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1940s/Aspy01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120107025811/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/History/1960s/Goa01.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1960s/Goa01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100612133807/http://www.vectorsite.net/avgnat.html to http://www.vectorsite.net/avgnat.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091230183851/http://bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Aircraft/Su-7.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Aircraft/Su-7.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111118130237/http://bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1971War/Sabres.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1971War/Sabres.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090318080515/http://bharat-rakshak.com:80/ARMY/History/1971War/Longewala.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ARMY/History/1971War/Longewala.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110609120451/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1987IPKF/Chapter1.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1987IPKF/Chapter1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110807084357/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/PCamp.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/PCamp.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120106150433/http://isro.org/satellites/cartosat2A.aspx to http://www.isro.org/satellites/cartosat2A.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090526231539/http://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2008/05/27/224117/ila-2008-proud-as-peacocks.html to http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/05/27/224117/ila-2008-proud-as-peacocks.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120202212452/http://ibnlive.in.com:80/generalnewsfeed/news/two-iaf-mirage-aircraft-flown-to-france-for-upgradation/922632.html to http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/two-iaf-mirage-aircraft-flown-to-france-for-upgradation/922632.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100526013545/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/Images/Current/Transports/Il-76/ to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Transports/Il-76/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100420060049/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/Images/Current/Transports/Do228 to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Transports/Do228/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100420060619/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/Images/Current/Transports/Boeing737 to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Transports/Boeing737/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100414025410/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/Images/Current/Transports/Embraer to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Transports/Embraer/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100420090252/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/Images/Current/Transports/HS748 to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Transports/HS748/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206083205/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/Images/Current/Trainers/Deepak/ to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Trainers/Deepak/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090322155033/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/Images/Current/Trainers/Kiran1 to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Trainers/Kiran1/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081004072209/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/Images/Current/Trainers/Kiran2/ to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Trainers/Kiran2/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100330153328/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/Images/Current/Helicopters/Dhruv to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Helicopters/Dhruv/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100207181106/http://bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Helicopters/Chetak/ to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Helicopters/Chetak/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100329175152/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/Images/Current/Helicopters/Cheetah to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Helicopters/Cheetah/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100330151244/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/Images/Current/Helicopters/Mi8 to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Helicopters/Mi8/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100421025030/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/Images/Current/Helicopters/Mi17/ to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Helicopters/Mi17/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100329153008/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/Images/Current/Helicopters/Mi26 to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Helicopters/Mi26/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100329125300/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/Images/Current/Helicopters/Mi25 to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Helicopters/Mi25/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100716130918/http://www.livemint.com:80/2010/07/06211749/Air-force-to-get-20-more-Tejas.html?atype=tp to http://www.livemint.com/2010/07/06211749/Air-force-to-get-20-more-Tejas.html?atype=tp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100504013019/http://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2010/04/09/340351/indian-air-force-orders-harop-loitering-munitions.html to http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/09/340351/indian-air-force-orders-harop-loitering-munitions.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120801072605/http://www.defencenews.in:80/defence-news-internal.asp?get=new&id=1358 to http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.asp?get=new&id=1358
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100710130423/http://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2010/07/07/344140/india-canvasses-global-suppliers-for-stealthy-ucav.html to http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/07/344140/india-canvasses-global-suppliers-for-stealthy-ucav.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090210035617/http://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2008/10/06/316782/india-reveals-plan-to-develop-indigenous-medium-fighter.html to http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/10/06/316782/india-reveals-plan-to-develop-indigenous-medium-fighter.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081002030927/http://www.hindu.com:80/thehindu/holnus/002200806261402.htm to http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200806261402.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111227123500/http://economictimes.indiatimes.com:80/news/news-by-industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/india-developing-uav-similar-to-american-predator-drone/articleshow/10728979.cms to http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/india-developing-uav-similar-to-american-predator-drone/articleshow/10728979.cms

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Indian 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130619002157/http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19990811/ige01049.html to http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19990811/ige01049.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120519070958/http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?catid=3&id=6377&h=Indian%20Force%20Opts%20More%20Su-30MKI%20Despite%20Problems to http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?catid=3&id=6377&h=Indian%20Force%20Opts%20More%20Su-30MKI%20Despite%20Problems
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120507013949/http://www.zeenews.com/nation/2009-03-16/515323news.html to http://www.zeenews.com/nation/2009-03-16/515323news.html#
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151018220423/http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=19463 to http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=19463
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121008024312/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?topicName=india&id=news/awx/2011/06/16/awx_06_16_2011_p0-336768.xml&headline=India%20Selects%20Pilatus%20Basic%20Trainer to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?topicName=india&id=news/awx/2011/06/16/awx_06_16_2011_p0-336768.xml&headline=India%20Selects%20Pilatus%20Basic%20Trainer
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130508063826/http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-to-buy-six-more-C-17-airlifters-from-US/Article1-582325.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-to-buy-six-more-C-17-airlifters-from-US/Article1-582325.aspx

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian 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/20120616174211/http://frontierindia.net/iaf-initiates-process-for-inducting-akash-and-trishul-sams to http://frontierindia.net/iaf-initiates-process-for-inducting-akash-and-trishul-sams

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indian 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?catid=3&id=6377&h=Indian+Force+Opts+More+Su-30MKI+Despite+Problems
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511182509/http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_light-combat-aircraft-flies-with-near-full-gear_1374851 to http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_light-combat-aircraft-flies-with-near-full-gear_1374851

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please do not edit or revert without using talk page first

I'm working on this article in response to a GOCE request. I welcome collaboration from other editors, but it is important you first get in touch here on the talk page first, otherwise this will get messy. Jasphetamine (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

What's a "GOCE request"? And normally, open-ended "requests" like yours are improper. If your editing the article for short period, like up to an hour, you can add an {{Inuse}} template to the top of the article. But otherwise you can't ask people not to edit for an unspecified length of time. - BilCat (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If you navigate to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests you'll see some introductory material on a GOCE request. I'm not very comfortable being told what I can and cannot do, since I'm new here and frankly am still learning the ropes, so I'd refer you to an experienced GOCE member like @Miniapolis: or @Corinne:. Hopefully they can address any concerns you may have, and notify me if I have conducted myself in an improper way. Hope this helps clear things up. Jasphetamine (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your first post here consists solely of telling people what to do. I'm simply letting you know that's an unreasonable request on your part. I also gave you alternatives that are normal conduct on Wikipedia. You'd be wise to listen that advice. - BilCat (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, I will get in touch with people from WP:GOCE who will not hesitate to tell me if I was mistaken in any way by making my initial talk page post. Until then, I'll leave it as is, and continue editing the article. Thanks, Jasphetamine (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying you shouldn't edit the article. There are steps you can take to make sure there are no edit conflicts for a short period in which you're editing, as I've already explained. But telling others that they can't edit the article without discussing it first is unreasonable. - BilCat (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello, Jasphetamine. Since you are, as you admit, new to GOCE, I should think you would be open to instruction or advice from other editors. Before telling another editor who has left a courteous comment that you don't appreciate being told what you can or cannot do, consider the fact that you don't really know whether BilCat is an experienced editor (unless you study his/her user page). As far as I could see, his/her advice was worded in a courteous manner, and is in fact right. You can always ask another editor (or a GOCE coordinator) for corroboration, or a second opinion, but I think telling another editor who took the time to give you some advice that you don't appreciate being told what to do is not the right approach here. Besides that, to find the answer to a general procedural question about editing, perhaps you should have left your comment on the talk page of either the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests or the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators. If you read the information that accompanies the "GOCEinuse" template:

This template is for pages actively undergoing a major edit by the Guild of Copy Editors. It is otherwise effectively identical to {{In use}}. If this template has been up for more than 24 hours since the last edit, it should be removed.

If the "GOCEinuse" or the "In-use" template is up, out of courtesy most editors will wait until the template has been removed before making any edits. After the template is removed, any editor is free to make edits. You can look at any edits made and judge their effectiveness at improving the article and deal with them as you would any other edits. If you are really actively editing the article, you need to keep the template there. If 24 hours passes after the last edit, another editor or a bot may remove it. GOCE editors cannot claim ownership of an article. Anyone can edit any article. That's why it is important to use the in-use templates to give yourself a little uninterrupted time. I hope this helps. Thank you for your continued participation in GOCE. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say I don't appreciate being told what to do. I greatly appreciate BilCat popping in. I said I wasn't comfortable with it, since I had no idea what was correct or not. I did study BilCat's page and determined his general Wiki know-how utterly outstrips mine. I did not intend the way I phrased my response to be a slight to you BilCat as you are clearly an asset to the project.

That said the question of protocol was related to GOCE conduct and BilCat didn't know what a GOCE Request was, so I figured I should probably just deer-in-the-headlights as much as possible until someone who is fully versed in the workings of GOCE Requests got here to dress me down. Thanks for sorting things out Corinne and again, BilCat, my apologies if you took anything I wrote as dismissive. I was aiming for passive. Jasphetamine (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I simply couldn't remember what "GOCE" was at the time I wrote it, but I do know what the "Guild of Copy Editors" is. But not every user will know, so it's good to spell out acronyms on first use.- BilCat (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Roger that, I can totally see how I caused confusion. I'll properly write out acronyms in the future. Thanks, Jasphetamine (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

A section for c/e questions.

In the first section, the word "prefix" is used a LOT to refer to "Royal" in the context of the period during which the IAF was the Royal IAF (Title was granted in 1945 as recognition for blowing up tons of bad guys.) Since it is bestowed as a sort of honorific or title by the UK, I'm sure there must be a more effective word than "Prefix." Thoughts? Jasphetamine (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Besides BilCat, who seems eminently qualified to answer the question, I think perhaps either Pendright or AustralianRupert might be able to answer your question.  – Corinne (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)  – Corinne (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I honestly am not sure. British honorifics and honors aren't my forté. - BilCat (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, due to this being written in reference to India getting titles from a foreign empire occupying them sixty years ago for all I know "Prefix" is the exact and only word that is appropriate. I've got some British buddies I can ask. See if they know. Jasphetamine (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know nothing wrong with using Prefix, not sure about "foreign empire" as far as I am aware when awarded the prefix the King was head of state of India. MilborneOne (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• A strange term used in the latest edits "RAF and IAF pilots would train by flying with their non-native air wings to gain combat experience and communication proficiency." never heard the term non-native air wing do we have a reliable reference for this? (or even an explanation in clear English what it actually means) MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: That is meaninglessly scribbled out placeholder language. I do editing in passes, so sometimes a real clunker like that gets left for a later pass.Anyways it was like an exchange program for pilots. An RAF pilot would fly a CAP or whatever with IAF nuggets, so they're flying with a foreign (non-native) air wing. I wanted more citation to find out if it was some kind of important program and should be expounded upon, or if I could just gloss over it for the sake of keeping the paragraph tight.

Well, you're not wrong technically "prefix" works, but the thing is in this context that is like saying when we elect a new president in the USA he adds the prefix "President" to his name. I suppose you could say that, but the way you would say it is "adds the title" and you could say that O.B.E. is a "Suffixes" given to impressive British folks, it is an honor/honorific.

It isn't a bold stance to say that the UK, which was utterly dominant the world over, was a "foreign empire" in India. India was referred to as the Jewel in the crown of the British Empire. George VI was king during this period IIRC but that doesn't mean he wasn't foreign. Jasphetamine (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

G'day, for what it's worth, in Australia we'd probably say "bestowed the royal title or prefix". From a quick search I found a few examples of this: [16]. Not sure if that helps or not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: that is exactly what I was looking for -- whether it is a title, honorific, designation, distinction, etc. Fortunately I'm only concerned with style so an Aussie saying bestowed the royal honor is good enough for me but if you have any usable sources of examples they may be useful further down the line. Thank you greatly! Jasphetamine (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to reply to the "placeholder" reply above, the language you are using doesnt really relate as to how the RAF and commonwealth forces work and the term "foreign (non-native) air wing" is a really strange and out of context term for use in this context. They didnt really have an "exchange" programme, they just all worked together. Squadrons would have a mix of Brits, Aussies, South Africans etc and none of the would be considered "native" or even foreign. I would suggest you just remove it as a placeholder it wasnt in the original article and I am not sure it is part of a copy edit task either to add placeholders for stuff that wasnt there before. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

There was something there before. Look: (diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Air_Force&diff=next&oldid=788621439) and I couldn't find a good phrasing and wanted to take a break so some broken placeholder text got left in a B-grade article I flagged as undergoing a big GOCE work pass with a template that's hard to miss. I know how to copy edit. I'm not a researcher I don't add or delete information I polish the delivery. I do it to relax and the second I feel the need to provide a dif to someone to prove I c/e from the text of the article as it stands or have phrasing that had no purpose other than being rewritten later singled out and showcased on the talk page I am not relaxing. I am going to find something else to work on. Jasphetamine (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Not really an improvement

" stipulated out their auxiliary status and enforced the adoption of the Royal Air Force uniforms, badges, brevets and insignia." has been added another weird change of terminology and bad English. And I am not sure copy editing whould add spelling mistakes either. I would suggest that if this is really an effort to improve the article then it is going downhill really fast so perhaps we need to consider whats going on here and perhaps revert back to the status quo. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian 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/20100505193941/http://knol.google.com/k/vijainder-k-thakur/akash-missile/yo54fmdhy2mq/57 to http://knol.google.com/k/vijainder-k-thakur/akash-missile/yo54fmdhy2mq/57

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian 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/20100405044844/http://knol.google.com/k/vijainder-k-thakur/light-combat-helicopter-lch/yo54fmdhy2mq/55 to http://knol.google.com/k/vijainder-k-thakur/light-combat-helicopter-lch/yo54fmdhy2mq/55

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2019

The Indian Air Force issues Glock 26 9mm handguns to some of its fighter pilots as a sidearm when flying missions. 68.15.98.162 (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 14:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

weapon systems of IAF?

we can list the AAM, ASMs, Munitions. From Kh-25 to Brahmos-A, AA-2 to AA-12 we can list a lot of them. we can also include ATGMs carried by Mi-35, Chetak and Mi-17.

Should the number of Military Satellites operated by IAF be Added in the wiki info box? As the same is mentioned in wiki info box of USAF(United States Air Force) Mayank Prasoon (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Not convinced that the number of satellites is noteworthy enough to be mention in the infobox, despite what is in the USAF article the normal approach in Air Force articles is just to mention how many people and aircraft the force has. MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2019

Please add this sentence. "US's Pentagon said it was not aware of counting of Pak F-16s" here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Air_Force#2019_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_standoff

Source https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/whose-f-16-was-it-anyway-as-controversy-rages-on-indias-claim-us-declines-to-confirm-audit/articleshow/68757450.cms Jetsmasher (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Article already says "but a statement from Pentagon said that it was unaware of such an audit" NiciVampireHeart 19:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2019

1. In section 'Structure', replace table value "Air Marshal Anil Khosla, PVSM, AVSM, VM" with "Rakesh Kumar Singh Bhadauria, PVSM, AVSM, VM,ADC".

2. In section 'Structure#Commands' replace table value "Air Marshal Rakesh Kumar Singh Bhadauria" with "Air Marshal S K Ghotia, VSM".

14.139.38.11 (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

References

 Done with PIB refs instead of tweets. —Gazoth (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Prithvi II has been transferred to army

Prithvi II is operated by indian army and not by iaf Dhruv.rai2001 (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Personnel Strength Reference

Can we use this reference for IAF Personnel Strength as 170,000.

https://www-indiatoday-in.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.indiatoday.in/amp/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/indian-air-force-345577-2016-10-08?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#aoh=15711590532041&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indiatoday.in%2Feducation-today%2Fgk-current-affairs%2Fstory%2Findian-air-force-345577-2016-10-08 Mayank Prasoon (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mayank Prasoon: I would prefer this one. It is directly from the Minister of State for Defence in Lok Sabha in July 2019. At the link given, there are three tables: one for number of officers, one for airmen, and third for personnel from north east. I think for air force, the sum of 'held strength' of both first table (12142) and second table (129094) can be used for total personnel strength of IAF (total = 141236). —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 20:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayank Prasoon (talk • contribs) 03:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Updating content

I wanted to add latest information about the "Dassault Rafale" in Aircraft inventory, but it is locked. I request the publisher to update contents because some of your information has become outdated. Also, Plzzz make a "Table" to show Number & Type of Aircrafts in inventory. World's Military Analysis (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

You need to let us know what information should be included and a reliable reference, also note that number and type of aircraft are listed at List of active Indian military aircraft and not here. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed edits

• Please hyperlink the words "HAL Amca" in the section Indian_Air_Force#DRDO_and_HAL_projects to wiki article HAL_AMCA. -- Divijvaidya13 (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: HAL AMCA is already linked in the first line of the section. Please see MOS:DL. - Harsh (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• The first batch of Rafale.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Armed forces flag.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2021

Motto meaning change : Touch the sky with glory 174.93.43.10 (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Run n Fly (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021

The english translation of Airforce Motto is

Touch the sky with glory

And not

Glory that touches the sky.....

(I am an Indian Airforce Veteran) 2409:4073:4E18:980A:0:0:3D0B:6D08 (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 16:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Not the OP, but the IAF careers website does list the moto as "Touch the sky with glory". https://afcat.cdac.in/AFCAT/motto.html

This video produced by the official government publishing agency (Press Information Bureau) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFm1pCOl5W8, also provides the motto as "Touch the sky with glory"

Digitallyresonant (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2021

Hindi is not the national language of India. Keep only the motto in English 122.164.134.51 (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Copied from India: "According to Part XVII of the Constitution of India, Hindi in the Devanagari script is the official language of the Union, along with English as an additional official language." Hindi is quite clearly the national language of India. Not done. --Ferien (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Missing Tejas Image

Page is missing Tejas image The Queue.

• File:Two HAL Tejas (LSP-07) firing Python-5 missile better visibility.png
• 
• 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Airpowerobserver (talk • contribs) 07:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Airpowerobserver: was it intentional that one of the files you referenced in your post does not exist? Or did you mean to reference File:HAL Tejas (LSP-07) firing Python-5 missile better visibility.png? -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2021

The Badge/crest of Indian Air Force is not the official one. Request change with the attached Crest of the Indian Air Force

INDIAN AIR FORCE CREST OFFICIAL

Prasanth ypb (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Dont appear to have linked to an image or reliable source, current image on page is the same as used on the official air force website. MilborneOne (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2021

Change from: transl. "Touch the sky with Glory" (Taken from Bhagavad Gita) Change to : "May your glory touch the sky" Gmtplus530 (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The real translation of the sanskrit script Gmtplus530 (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Social science

How much is the strength of our air force in recent times? 2405:204:1014:C70E:0:0:766:C0A1 (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The size is detailed in the article, particularly the infobox. I have no idea what the relevance of "social science" is. MilborneOne (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• IAF LCH Induction 1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Aircraft inventory

Hello, may I know why older sources from 2014 and 2016 have been included in the aircraft inventory part, while there are new reports of 2022 available, from flight global insight, which clearly indicates the IAF has approx 2182 aircrafts, instead of 1850+ ? Can the sources be updated and number of aircrafts be changed ? Thank you! S882iiqu2ey6 (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Lol no reply, I actually changed the citations and number of aircrafts, but that Shishupal Nagar guy deleted that, bruh ! S882iiqu2ey6 (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Defence system

About the best for yourself 206.84.236.200 (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• AMCA render by Satwik Sadhukhan.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Indian Air Force → Indian Air and Space Force – Rename done to Indian Air and Space Force Read more at:

http://m.timesofindia.com/articleshow/105885149.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst 122.187.144.98 (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Even that article mostly refers to it as the IAF. Can't see any evidence that it's officially been renamed. This article says it appears to be "imminent", not that it has happened. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Please add <noinclude>{{User:RMCD bot/subject notice|1=The Spirit of Mojave|2=Talk:Indian Air and Space Force#Requested move 12 December 2023}} </noinclude> at the top of article to allow article name change "Indian Air Force" to "Indian Air and Space Force" as per the above cited article as proof. 122.187.144.98 (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.Shadow311 (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2024

“Adding information about flying officer Nirmal Jit Singh Sekhon” Lavanyaprasad (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 02:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2024

The motto is “Touch the sky with glory”. 2409:40D0:10CE:7BC0:5C44:FFAA:5FF5:11A4 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)