Talk:List of active Indian military aircraft

Images removed

Following the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, which ended in consensus but for one participant, I have removed the images from the tables, for better readability, especially on small screens. Jan olieslagers (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sea Harrier retirement

The Sea Harrier has been retired. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/naval-aviation/2016/03/21/indian-navy-retires-sea-harriers/82070296/ My update to this effect was reverted by a user who has been banned as a sockpuppet. With nothing more than "not yet"

Not sure how to handle this. Planning to undo the revert in couple of days.

Barath s (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sea Harrier retirement edit was undone citing Flight Global World Air Forces 2016 which came out in December 2015 and ignoring news reports in March 2016 of the retirement

Flight Global is outdated - the sea harrier has been retired in the Indian Navy after it came out.

Hence undid the undo...

Barath s (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

New page with photos

A new page List of active Indian military aircraft with photos has been created. The only difference is they contain images of active military aircraft. This was done as certain users known as UY Scuti(Mystery Intelligence GUY) and Antiochus the great(Name Shows Inflated EGO) are repeatedly removing images citing Consensus. They are ignoring or not knowing this same development had happened 3 months back and the administrator had asked for reason to have two pages 1 with photos and another without photos. To cut affair short the, Reply to every one is that 1) Wikipedia is about Knowledge. 2) A picture is worth 1000 words(More Knowledge).

Hence the administrators had merged both pages while retaining images, Overlooking argument of consensus,Hence the Admin had kept the page Locked for some months. The consensus for removing image was on point that the images were difficult to download on smart phones not that the images did not contribute to page with knowledge, This guys should ideally buy better capacity smart phones or upgrade to 3G, 4G or visit the pages via laptop computer. They decided to remove images instead.

Now this guys are treating same consensus as gospel truth by removing images and accusing me of disruptive edits. If this is allowed to continue they will make Wikipedia a Bible, Torah, Geeta, Kuran. But to avoid conflict I am starting the above said page with images users please do contribute to new page but without removing images — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh D Churi (talk • contribs) 07:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Please provide links which show the whole trail of changes that you claim, nobody else will go rooting through the page histories on the off chance of finding them. For example the article on List of active Indian military aircraft with images was created only two days ago, not several months as you suggest. Please also read the guidelines at WP:AVILIST and, if you wish to differ from it, create an appropriate discussion to establish consensus before making your changes. Finally, I should offer a friendly warning that your abusive comments against other editors breach the WP:CIVIL policy and if you persist then you risk sanctions being applied. Thank you for working within our community and not against it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop removing the images — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh D Churi (talk • contribs) 22:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

WARNING No, you need to stop edit warring against multiple editors and start responding actively to our concerns. An admin has had to protect the article to stop you breaching our house rules and to try and persuade you to engage in real dialogue. If you persist in your disruptive behaviour after the protection is lifted, you will risk sanctions being imposed on you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop threatning asyou have still not provided proof that images are not contributing to page,Images are present in List of active indian Naval Ships & List of equipment of Indian Army I am concerned only with List of active Indian Military Aircraft as its about India and want to keep same standard for all three armed forces of india by keeping images, I am not insisting that you change patern of your countries List of active military aircraft, there do whatever you want,but not in indian list as India is free country and Indians are free Men and women. So to hell with your threats you racist person you are trying to cow me down I wont,I demand an apology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh D Churi (talk • contribs) 18:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I have not named any person so its not personal attack so stop threatning me on notification as thats personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh D Churi (talk • contribs) 18:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No wriggle room, you are jut plain abusive. You attack me personally and swear at me. It's not even as if this were in hot blood, you have had days to cool down. I have reported you at WP:ANI and asked that they undo your disruption to the article at the same time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 December 2016

Please add Dassault Rafale fighters, which India have ordered recently. 36 fighters are on order. Please include it. Abhishek Das Chnd (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 December 2016

Proposal to update the numbers of the multi-role MiG-29K planes currently active with the Indian Navy from "39" to "41". Reference is here. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done —MBlaze Lightning ^T 12:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Total number of LCA Tejas ordered

The total number of Tejas ordered is 123 and not 103. Here are the citation links

http://idrw.org/hal-plans-to-convert-20-foc-lca-tejas-mk1-into-mk1a/

code|https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-delhi-signs-off-on-83-tejas-fighters-431301/

Im making the required changes. someone please add the citation links as im not familiar with the procedure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.186.43 (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This Page Needs Heavy Updating

Reference: World Air Forces 2017. Found original here. Archived here.
Thanks. 14.139.38.11 (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Removing Mi-8 from the list

The list currently shows 400+ Mi-8 helicopters in service. But we have media reports that the Indian Air Force has phased the "entire fleet" of Mi-8's today. References here ([1],[2],[3]). It is difficult to believe that the IAF would retire 400 helicopters in one day or even one year. I did a bit a background check and it seems multiple IAF squadrons operate Mi-8's including No. 105 Helicopter Unit, IAF, No. 107 Helicopter Unit, IAF, No. 110 Helicopter Unit, IAF, No. 112 Helicopter Unit, IAF, No. 118 Helicopter Unit, IAF. The media reports state that the ceremony is happening at Yelahanka Air Force Station and No. 112 Helicopter Unit, IAF but not others. This leads to two questions: (1) Can we safely remove the Mi-8's from here with this references (assuming we had the 400 number wrong all along) and (2) Can we also now remove them from the other IAF squadrons. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The table also shows 400+ Mi-17 helicopters. The reason is that some of the previous older squadrons of Mi-8 were already replaced by Mi-17 helicopters. But not much information was given when that happened. So it is estimated that the total number of both Mi-8 and Mi-17 collectively is 400+ (as Mi-17 is based on Mi-8 they have the same role and almost same specs). So my guess is that no. 112 HU is the last squadron of IAF with Mi-8 helicopters and rest of the squadrons, previously had Mi-8s, but are now operating Mi-17s. References to back it up: (1. 112 HU is last squadron, rest were already phased out), (2. IAF has replaced the Mi-8 with new inductions in the same category such as the Mi-17).
@Adamgerber80: (1) Yes we can now remove Mi-8 from here (we have reference for that). (2) We don't have any information about other squadrons. Sarvatra (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The 400 number was definitely wrong all along. If the known number of Mi-17s delivered (151) is subtracted from the total number of Mi-8 + Mi-17 in service (259) from FlightGlobal's World Air Forces 2017, we get a maximum of 108 Mi-8s in service. Gazoth (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I have a confirmation from PIB as well that there are not more Mi-8's in service with IAF. We can now safely remove this. I am not sure about the number of Mi-17 but we can use other existing sources for this. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Repeated removal of sourced information

@FOX 52: Can you explain why you are repeatedly removing sourced content from the article? There were 38 references as of revision 816090673 and as of your last edit, there are only 23. If you want to reformat the table, do it in a way that preserves cited information. If you disagree with the sourcing, provide an explanation for each one instead of removing everything in the name of "streamlining". Gazoth (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gazoth: - All the sourced content is there, minus the redundant sources stating the exact same thing per WP:OVERCITE. Further why are you removing the Apache, Chinook, and LCH orders (which are sourced)? As a newbie it's a good idea to familiarize yourself some of the guidelines here on Wikipedia - cheers FOX 52 (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@FOX 52: I removed Apache, Chinook, LCH and Rafale as they are not yet in service and the article is on aircraft that are currently in service. Your edit removed VIP transport aircraft i.e. Boing 737-700 and Embraer Legacy 600, Zenith and Pipistrel Virus trainers, removed the variant information for many aircraft including MiG-29 (for which I had explicitly added a source on your request a few edits ago), messed up the citation information on Embraer AEW&CS, used Su-30MKI numbers that weren't in citation and replaced cited numbers with the ones from WAF without providing any justification. These were just the differences that stood out, I'm pretty sure there are many others.

Can explain how the sources that you removed were redundant? I can see a couple of sources that could be replaced by WAF as their numbers match, but this is not true for most of the sources that you removed. FlightGlobal's WAF has many errors in its numbers, which were corrected by using other sources like Jane's or newspaper sources. Using sources other than WAF is not WP:OVERCITE. Gazoth (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gazoth: you mean like Pipistrel Virus,4 sources one of which is a blog and NOT allowed per WP:SPS. Aircraft order are allowed since contracts have been signed WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS - FOX 52 (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@FOX 52: If one among 4 refs are bad, the solution is to remove the bad ref and not the entry itself. WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS only talks about listing operators on the article of a particular type, I don't see how it is applicable here. Gazoth (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It was left out when I re-did the format (unintentional), I mention it to demonstrate the WP:OVERCITE rule. Regarding order(s) "Do not place potential operators in this section, only confirmed orders with likelihood of near-term production" applies to the tables as well. This way we do it, (Brazil), (Philippine) etc.. don't like go gain consensus on the talk page - FYI under the Naval Air Arm you have an order of 12 Pipistrel Virus's - FOX 52 (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of aircraft types not yet in service

Should we include aircraft types that have been ordered, but are not yet in service like Rafale, Ka-226 and HAL LCH? I don't think we should include them as non-inducted aircraft cannot possibly be counted as active and the definition in the lead agrees with me. FOX 52 disagrees with the justification that WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS allows operators that have ordered a type be listed on its article. What do you think? Gazoth (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, the aircraft whose contract has been signed, that is they are confirmed to join the service, should be included, like Rafale, HAL LCH, Apache, Chinook etc. But those aircraft which are supposed/speculated to join Indian military, regardless of how strong their chance of joining is, should not be included here. This includes Ka-226, HTT-40 and the Guardian drones. Sarvatra (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Gazoth The lead can be edited to state aircraft in service and under procurement. We can also add a color legend to the table which states that these aircraft are under procurement or on order. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Sarvatra that pretty much sums it up, and adding color just makes an unnecessary mess when simply text works just fine - FOX 52 (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Since the consensus is to include only orders that have reached contract signature, I'll remove HAL LCH too along with HTT-40 and Ka-226. The order for 15 limited series production LCH is at RFP stage, rest are just commitments. Gazoth (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorporation of UAVs into the main tables

FOX 52, discuss your changes here instead of trying to enforce a particular version of the page from December. You have removed well-sourced information multiple times in the past few months on this article and yet seem to comfortable ignoring sourcing requirements when it seems to suit you. The Jane's article says that Searcher and Heron UAVs are operated by all three services, while the numbers from SIPRI are for India in total with no break-up given for each service. How exactly are you attributing the complete number to IAF? —Gazoth (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

References

@Gazoth: You do not to cite the same material over & over again per WP:OVERCITE, further you have removed current reliable source(s) and replaced with out dated one's and presumed differnces in numbers are due to losses - you are not in a position to make that judgment. I have given a lot of leeway for a newbie here on Wikipedia, but you are still expected to collaborate with others. - FOX 52 (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@FOX 52: You still did not answer how you attributed the entire UAV numbers to IAF. FlightGlobal's WAF, being a tertiary source can be overridden by reliable secondary sources like Jane's. The numbers are not outdated (in comparison to WAF) as there have been no Jaguar procurements since 2015. As for your other edits, you have reverted other editors' changes over the past few months twice ([4] and [5]). For example, you have removed Sarvatra's additions on order for a single C-17, 86.132.7.26's change to correct RAIT to RIAT, a number of editors' changes to the pictures listed beside the tables and a number of edits of my own on capitalization, Tejas numbers, variant information among others. You seem to have started with a version of page from December, included the edits that you liked from the current page and replaced the page with your own version. That is not collaboration. You have to discuss specific changes here instead of sneaking them through when there is obviously no consensus on those changes. —Gazoth (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: In your rash decision to revert what I inputted on the page you managed eliminate the rest of the subheadings “Transports” “Helicopters” etc. & reinstate a few errors ei IAI Harop is not considered an “attack” asset but a loitering munition under the Type section. Speaking of which (Type section) we do not need to capitalize those, as far as notes that can go either way. In short there is no need for a separate table for the UAV's, if the numbers are an issue then will leave them out. or make a notation in the "Notes" section - FOX 52 (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@FOX 52: It was your choice to sneak in your preferred version of the page among other changes. It is not my responsibility to hunt down the small good parts of a largely bad edit and restore it partially. I have no problems with changing the type of IAI Harop from "Attack" to "Loitering munition". As for capitalization of types, the long standing consensus on this page has been to capitalize it. You should have discussed the change here first, especially since I had edited your changes in December to re-introduce capitalization. Same goes for UAVs too, discuss your changes here, obtain consensus and then make the change. —Gazoth (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

OK first off I didn't try and sneak my preferred version so DO NOT accuse of such. - And since you seem to be unwilling to compromise, I'll take care of all the bad edits myself FOX 52 (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@FOX 52: How do you explain removal sourced number for 6 Tejas, changing ordered number to 123 when 83 are still at RFP stage, changing variant names of Jaguars from India-specific IB/IS/IM to the generic T/S/M, removal of "incudeonly" tags for proper transclusion into "Indian Air Force" page, removal of 1 extra Dhruv ordered by Navy, removal of 1 C-17 ordered by IAF, changing of order of images, removal of MiG-29UPG, Netra, 737-700, Do 228-201 and Mk. 42B/C (all sourced) from the variants table? All of these changes made in the past few months were removed without any justification or mention in the edit summary. I had assumed good faith until you chose to do it again and then posted an inflammatory notice on my talk page. I can't think of any explanation for such actions unless you were trying to sneak in your preferred version. If all of this was just an honest mistake and it was not your intention to remove sourced information, I apologize for assuming that you were acting in bad faith. —Gazoth (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

FOX 52, I'm fully willing to compromise if the consensus goes your way, but you have to seek it first before making controversial changes. —Gazoth (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I have a copy on my computer of the original page, so some unintended changes were brought on by that fact. And right now the only consensus is between you and me - so you have a look at it and see what compromise can be made. - FOX 52 (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

We obviously disagree on the changes. I think the capitalization and UAV section is fine as it is. You need to start a new discussion, get opinions from other editors and gain consensus. There are other editors watching this page too, even if I was the first one to respond to your edits. Also, from the next time edit the current page instead of any outdated copy you might have and use the Show changes button to avoid any unintended changes. —Gazoth (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Su30-MKI numbers

Hi Gazoth, I think there is a confusion on the number of these aircraft in service. This page says 233 while the Sukhoi Su-30MKI page states 249 based on this reference. I believe it was you who updated the number to 249 on that page based on 272-23 (using WP:CALC in this reference [6]). I don't have a strong preference on either numbers but we should have this consistent. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: The 249 number is the total number of Su-30MKIs produced. It doesn't tell us how many have been delivered and how many of them are still in service i.e. not lost in accidents. —Gazoth (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: I understand and I agree with the point you have raised. Maybe insert a syntactical comment across that number. I assume some of these IPs see the number 249 there and come running here to update this number. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: I have added a HTML comment. Feel free to modify the wording as you see fit. —Gazoth (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. You have done some great work in the last few months to improve the Indian military articles in general. Especially from sourcing them with better sources and removing WP:SPS. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Pipistrel revert

FOX 52 can you explain what part of my change seemed unsourced to you? Arming India ref states that Navy has ordered 12 and NCC 110. The Hindu and Times of India references show that 2 microlights each have been delivered to the Navy and NCC. Applying simple maths, that'd leave Navy with 10 more to be delivered and NCC with 108. —Gazoth (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Your edit wasn't accompanied by any source(s), so I'm not sure what your change is based off of - FOX 52 (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It clearly was in the case of NCC, the ref already existed for Navy. In the interest of clarity, let me accomany my previous statements with the refs from my version of the page.

Arming India ref states that Navy has ordered 12 and NCC 110. The Hindu and Times of India references show that 2 microlights each have been delivered to the Navy and NCC. Applying simple maths, that'd leave Navy with 10 more to be delivered and NCC with 108.

—Gazoth (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

In the future be specific in your edit summaries to avoid further confusion FOX 52 (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Recent Changes

@FOX 52: Your recent edit has several inconsistencies. I'm listing them here in a point-wise manner. Please explain them:

1. Images:
   1. Replaced an Mi-17 image with Mi-8 image. Mi-8 has already been retired, there was a discussion on talk page about this (Talk:List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft#Removing_Mi-8_from_the_list), after which I removed Mi-8 image, while another editor added Mi-17 image.
   2. Changed caption of this image from IL-78MKI to IL-76. It is clearly mentioned in the image description that it is IL-78MKI.
2. Removed the information about variant of Mig-21 along with reference.
3. Changed HAL Tejas numbers: Operational number was changed from 9 (sourced) to 5 (no source given for this). On-order number was changed from 31 to 123 (this new source was added). Now quoting your source The Indian Air Force intends to induct a total of 123 Tejas Mark-IA aircraft. Where does it talk about signing the contract?
4. Changed Su-30MKI's numbers: From 272 on order to 39 on order. The source you added was WAF2018. From what I can see in that source, it says Su-30MKI 198 operational and 53 on order. Where does 39 come from?
5. Removed the information about variant of DRDO AEW&CS along with reference.
6. Added HAL LCH and HTT-40 under IAF. Do you have a source which talks about signing of a contract? Or did you again choose to ignore the talk page discussion on this (Talk:List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft#Inclusion_of_aircraft_types_not_yet_in_service)?
7. Added HAL LCH and Kamov Ka-226 under Indian Army, similar to the above case.
8. Removed information about Indian Navy's IL-38 variant along with its reference.
9. Changed Indian Navy's HAL Dhruv numbers from "17 on order" to "16 on order". It was me who changed that from 16 to 17 with a proper reason. Why did you ignore that?
10. Changed ICG's Dhruv's "16 Mk. III on order" to "16 on order". Again I changed that long back to avoid confusion between currently operated Mk.I and the order Mk.III. But you ignored that too.

For the sake of clarity, it would be convenient if you individually address these concerns. Thanks.—Sarvatra (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sarvatra: you seem to be arguing over one source over another. Which is better? Are you a scholar do you know better than the other editors? TomSwansen (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC) TomSwansen (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@TomSwansen: No, only some of these issues are about "which-source-is-better". Allow me to add some clarification. So, User:FOX 52 did this edit with edit summary "overhaul - incorporate uav", which IMO doesn't justify these parts of that edit.

• Points 2, 5 and 8 are about removal of sourced information about variant of different aircraft. The information was outright removed (along with their sources), and wasn't replaced by anything. Though only one of these - point 2 about Mig-21 has recently been undone by FOX 52 in this edit.
• Point 3, 6 and 7 go against the consensus made on the talk page (Talk:List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft#Inclusion_of_aircraft_types_not_yet_in_service). The consensus was about whether we should include speculated aircraft in this article. These speculated aircraft include "planned", "under-development", "in-process-of-signing-a-deal" and all such aircraft. FOX 52 also commented in that discussion in favour of the final decision, that only the numbers for which a deal has been confirmed signed will be included. Though only one of these - point 3 about HAL Tejas (that only a deal of 40 Mk.1 variants has been signed, and the deal about 83 Mk.1A is not yet signed) has recently been undone by FOX in this edit.
• Point 10 is about removing clarity about the variants of HAL Dhruv which are in service and on-order. Indian Coast Guard operates 4 HAL Dhruv Mk.I aircraft, and it has 16 Mk.III and order, and this is already stated in the source.
• Point 4 and 9 are the ones where my argument of which source is better applies. Before I justify which source is better, I'm declaring that I have no issue about the reliability of all the sources, the one which were removed as well as the ones which are present right now. The question is that the sources currently in the article are outdated or misinterpreted. For example: (point 9) for Navy's HAL Dhruv, the current source is World-Air-Forces-2018, which is a magazine issued in November 2017. It states 16 helicopter on order. This only accounts for the march 2017 contract in which 16 each helicopters were ordered by Navy and Coast Guard. However, there was another new contract for one more helicopter in September 2017 for one more helicopter, which takes the count to 17 (=16+1). The second edit, in point 4, FOX's edit mentions that Su-30MKI are 272 in service and 39 order. But if you look at the source (WAF2018), it only mentions 198 in service and 53 on order.

I hope these clarifications will make my argument easy to understand. Thanks —Sarvatra (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sarvatra: FOX 52 seems to have taken advantage of my temporary absence from Wikipedia to restore disputed edits from April without obtaining talk page consensus. While doing so, they have restored a version of a page from 7 April which itself was an edited version of the page from December. This reverted a large number of changes from multiple editors and you'll find that there is a large overlap between the issues that you have raised and the ones that I raised in the previous discussion. In fact, if you compare a recent recent revision of the page with a version of the page from 7 April, you'll find minimal differences. Last time they told me that the changes were unintentional, but since it has happened again, it is quite clear that this action was not in good faith. I'll be reverting all the changes back to the 28 June version until FOX 52 obtains talk page consensus for their edits since almost all subsequent edits by others were prompted by FOX 52's edits. —Gazoth (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: Yes, I figured out that your absence could be the reason behind the timing of this edit. However, I wanted to end these issues in a civil manner, hence I started this discussion. I looked into the page's history and I think that some of these disputed edits go back even further to December 2017: Talk:List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft#Repeated_removal_of_sourced_information. Anyway, I hope this gets resolved through proper discussion. Welcome Back. Thanks —Sarvatra (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sarvatra: Thank you. Yes, quite a few of the changes date back to December. —Gazoth (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: Problem is you don't have consensus, your the newbie to all this not me - FOX 52 (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The UAV's should not have their own table 47.152.60.149 (talk) 09:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@FOX 52: Do yourself a favour by dropping the condescending attitude and address the issues head on for a change. Violating WP:BRD and repeatedly calling me a "newbie" without offering any justifications for issues already raised on the talk page does not reflect well on you. —Gazoth (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: From the page's edit history I have to agree with Fox 52, the UAV's should not have their own table, and don't capitalize the type. The sources need to be studied a little more since there is contradicting information TomSwansen (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@TomSwansen: Are you justifying attribution of all UAV numbers to IAF? Can you explain how that can be justified and what do you mean by contradicting information in the sources? Regarding capitalization, it is not sufficient to merely express your preference, you also need to justify it. If we use MOS:LISTCASE as guidance, capitalization is the default choice for most lists and lower case is usually reserved for continuation of sentence fragments and glossary items. Neither of these cases apply to the type column. Capitalization has been the long accepted convention on this page and neither of you have offered any justification for changing the case apart from expressing a personal preference. Besides, this page is not an exception in capitalizing types; other popular lists such as List of active United States military aircraft, List of active People's Liberation Army aircraft, List of active Russian military aircraft and French Air Force#Aircraft inventory capitalize the types too. —Gazoth (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: You can’t say that’s my preference for capitalization with these examples. (1) Ecuadorian Air Force, (2) Argentine Air Force, (3) Polish Air Force, (4) Lebanese Air Force, (5) Royal Bahamas Defence Force, (6) Belize Defence Force, (7) Spanish Air Force, (8) List of active aircraft of the Turkish Air Force, (9) Vietnam People's Air Force, (10) Royal New Zealand Air Force, (11) Equipment of the Indonesian Air Force, (12) Sri Lanka Air Force, (13) Serbian Air Force and Air Defence, (14) Japan Air Self-Defense Force, (15) Royal Australian Air Force, (16) Royal Air Force of Oman, (17) Philippine Air Force, (18) List of aircraft of the Philippine Air Force, (19) Iraqi Air Force, (20) Algerian Air Force, (21) National Air Force of Angola, (22) Cameroon Air Force, (23) Libyan Air Force, (24) Nigerian Air Force, (25) Afghan Air Force, (26) Austrian Air Force, (27) Royal Norwegian Air Force, (28) Royal Netherlands Air Force, (29) Mexican Air Force, (30) List of active Brazilian military aircraft, (31) Colombian Air Force TomSwansen (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@TomSwansen: Firstly, examples alone are insufficient and secondly, you need choose examples that neither you nor FOX 52 has edited. Quoting other pages where you have removed capitalization makes no sense. —Gazoth (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: Now it's nonsense? You started with your 4 examples, I counter with 30, showing you that your claim is not correct. And "I" haven't edited any of those examples, so don't accuse me of such. TomSwansen (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@TomSwansen: By "you" I meant to say one of you, that is either you or FOX 52. Since FOX 52 removed the capitalization on those pages, they cannot be used as examples. In fact, they reinforce my claim that it is a personal preference. I chose the examples to show that capitalization is not a stylistic deviation that needs to be corrected. It is not a numbers game. —Gazoth (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Well what you meant to say and what you did say or two different things. So I would appreciate it if you didn't do that in the future TomSwansen (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I spent some time looking at the issues raised. @FOX 52: your single edit has numerous changes which have nothing to do with style and these have been raised by other editors. Some of those changes were done with consensus on this very talk page and you were watching the page at that time but did not participate. If you wish to change them now, you need to gain consensus again.

I think we should approach this by discussing each issue individually. The first issue is the change of numbers of aircraft (in service and on order). Here it seems to be FOX 52 has a strong preference to World Air Forces 2018. I would like to point out this source though WP:RS is not considered as the only source on which these pages can be populated. The other numbers present are supplemented by reliable references.

Second, is the issue of style. We have examples of different styles from different pages and since WP:WikiProject_Aircraft does not impose or specify a particular style (AFAIK), this seems to be a matter of preference. Now it is ideal to have all pages on Wikipedia with lists of aircraft following the same style, this needs to be edited by gaining consensus with the page stakeholders not strongly pushing your preference (which seems to be the case). Third, is the issue of what should be in the notes section. Again this seems to be a question of style and preference not any guideline. I would encourage all the editors here to base this discussion on these points.

@TomSwansen: If there is a disagreement of sources then the latest sources in time must be used. WAF 2018 which seems to be imposed by an editor is not the supreme source and might be outdated based on when it was compiled (probably 2017). So let's not claim one source is greater than the other but see which one is more relevant per time. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I never said WAF 2018 was the supreme source, I only use as a starting point but have made updates through out the year Flight Global and Air Forces Monthly - Other editor have to be careful not to use blogs, wiki's or self made sources as these are NOT a [[reliable sources and will be removed. - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@FOX 52: Yes, your concerns are noted. I believe you might have opposition to [7] which seems like a WP:SPS. I have provided alternate WP:RS for this information, one from the company itself and another from a newspaper article ([8], [9]). This, IMO, should be enough. Please mention other issues you have and we can discuss them. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: It could not be Arming India, since that ref was added by FOX 52 in rev 816212038. I believe their opposition is for Jane's Defence Weekly sources dated earlier than 2017, such as the one used for Jaguar numbers. The sources used there are perfectly reliable and show a decline in numbers as more crashes were reported, while FlightGlobal's WAF has been very erratic in reporting accurate numbers. WAF 2015 mentioned the number of Jaguar M/S in service with IAF as 117 with an additional 30 Jaguar T. In WAF 2017, the number suddenly went up to 130 Jaguar M/S and 30 Jaguar T and the numbers remained the same in WAF 2018 too. The Jaguar line at HAL has been closed since the late 2000s, so there is no way that the number of Jaguars with IAF can increase. The JDW source is a little outdated now, dating back to 2015, but it provides a breakup of single-seat and twin-seat jets that other sources (excluding WAF) don't. From newer reports, the 123 Jaguar number mentioned in the article is not off by a lot, with JDW reporting 120 Jaguars in service as of August 2017 and Business Standard reporting 119 Jaguars in service as of May 2018. —Gazoth (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: Make that number 118 after the crash in June [10]. Unfortunately, the 2017 and later references only provide the total and not the breakup. I see two ways to approach this issue, one is to add only the reduced Jaguar numbers since I agree with your assessment that WAF numbers are a bit sketchy here given we have lost quite a few Jaguars in crashes over the last few years but added none. @FOX 52: I am also happy to include the WAF 2018 numbers in the column "in addition" to the reduced numbers with a footnote claiming that this is from WAF. This way we accomodate both sources and let the reader decide what they like to choose. Thoughts? Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I strongly oppose making an exception for WAF by mentioning it in addition to other sourced numbers. WAF is no more of an authoritative source than The Military Balance or Jane's World Air Forces. How many sources are we going to add? —Gazoth (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: If I may, you can strongly disagree, yet at this time you do not hold the consensus. I concur the others, firstly you don't need to capitalize the types, secondly you don't need to have multiply tables, combining the UAV's to the respective sections works better. Thirdly the most recent source should be used. (my 2 cents) Austinrex (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Austinrex: I still haven't seen a single explanation for why we need to move to lower case for types, apart from a personal preference of FOX 52 which he seems to be imposing on all aircraft list articles. You have also completely ignored the reasoning I provided a couple of comments ago on why a blind preference for most recent source would lead to substandard results. Consensus is not a vote, the arguments of the other side have to be addressed instead of just repeating preferences. —Gazoth (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that the Flight International report gives the 'active' number for 'day-to-day' use - it will not necessarily include aircraft in storage or undergoing heavy maintenance or upgrade - so it is possible for the active number to increase without taking deliveries of new aircraft - they just have to take aircraft out of storage or return from upgrading. The recent Flight International reports do not tend to include General Aviation types.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: I think you might be speaking from your experience of numbers from American or Western air forces. WAF is nowhere near that responsive in updating numbers for IAF. Their numbers for Su-30MKI dropped by 2 from 2017 to 2018 with number of jets on order being the same, despite HAL manufacturing them at the rate of 12 per year. If there was a production break for a year, there would definitely be news reports about it. If they can't keep up with production rates, they can hardly be expected to keep track of number of jets that are in storage or upgrades. Anyways, the increase is not the only issue, the numbers from WAF contradicts many other reliable sources as shown above. I would rather keep a slightly outdated number than a known to be inaccurate one that just happened to be published later. If the consensus here is to keep the newest possible numbers, we'd have to work on a way to split the numbers between the single-seat and dual-seat variants by combining multiple sources or by using a different "base" source such as The Military Balance or avoiding the problem altogether by not splitting the numbers. Introducing other sources such as The Military Balance might create more problems than it solves, as we'd have no way to reconcile numbers between WAF and The Military Balance for jets that have very few secondary sources reporting newest numbers like MiG-21 and MiG-27. —Gazoth (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: I don't your grasping the concept of collaborating with you fellow editor's. - Making assumption that your right all the time, doesn't make it so, and arguing only makes things worse. Most of these list's are best guess, numbers change constantly do to accidents and/or maintenance issues. Regarding the caps I don't think is matters, so I'll leave them as is, but the rest I have to go over line by line, and try and straighten out this mess - FOX 52 (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• ChinookIAF.jpg (discussion)
• IAF apache.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Global 5000

Global 5000 is an variant of Bombardier Global Express which is a Canadian company therefore, origin should be replaced as Canada instead of United States in Indian Air Force column, sub-column Reconnaissance. Mtkhan1989 (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• An IAF HAL Tejas Mk.1.jpg
• IAF Sukhoi Su-30MKI.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

IAI Eitan

Can anyone confirm with proper reliable source, is it the same IAI Heron version added in the table or some other version. Drat8sub (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

Total number of mig-21s are approx 113 not 54 The Enthusiastt (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Do you have a reliable reference that they have acquired more or the original references are wrong ? MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Lock the page

Some people are making unnecessary changes to the number of aircrafts continuously. Requesting to lock the page from such edits. Darkphantom007 (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

"change multirole to omnirole in Rafale section" 112.133.245.128 (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: "Multirole" is the common name, "omnirole" is just what Dassault calls it. Volteer1 (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

mig 21 bison crashed

Number planes should be reduced to 107 Siddheshsawant.360 (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Have you a reliable source for 107? MilborneOne (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Mig 21 bison crashed Siddheshsawant.360 (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

another crash in the IAF, a senior experienced pilot was killed when his MiG-21 `Bison’ fighter went down soon after taking off from the Gwalior airbase Siddheshsawant.360 (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Group Captain Ashish Gupta, who was posted at IAF’s `Top-Gun’ school Tactics and Air Combat Development Establishment (TACDE) at Gwalior, had taken off in his MiG-21 for a “combat training mission” when the accident took place at about 10.50 am. He was slated to take over as the commanding officer of a MiG-21 squadron in Rajasthan. Siddheshsawant.360 (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Another MiG-21 bison crashed in May2021

One Mig 21 bison crashed in May 2021 Siddheshsawant.360 (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Squadron Leader Abhinav Chaudhary’s MiG-21 Bison crashed near Moga on May 21. This was the third Bison crash this year. Siddheshsawant.360 (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Panthers (the squadron) paid tribute to Sqn Ldr Abhinav Chaudhary by flying a ‘Missing Man’ formation, as they recommenced their op (operational) flying. The senior most serving ‘Panther’, CAS (Chief of Air Staff) flew a Bison & joined the CO in the aerial tribute. CAS later interacted with aircrew & technicians of the base,” the IAF said. Siddheshsawant.360 (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Number of planes should be reduced to 106 Siddheshsawant.360 (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Kindly update ASAP Siddheshsawant.360 (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Numbers

People are making unnecessary changes to the number of aircraft. Please correct those numbers. Ruk469 (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Kolkata class for correction Ruk469 (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Numbers

Please correct it again. Ruk469 (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

NOTICE

Someone named FOX 52 is spreading misinformation!!! Ruk469 (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2021 (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:

• ICG Dhruv during a sortie.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

BN-2 retired

BN-2 retired long ago, page need to be updated 117.203.86.140 (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

@Darkphantom007: Greetings, Let's come to the point 1.Platform name on this list

You claims that platform name should be added as this - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft&diff=1043928730&oldid=1043928467
My opposition to that is

1. Indian Air Force is buying Netra/DRDO AWACS not Embraer EMB-145 or Airbus A321 -right? so is it correct to add A321 or EMB??
2. Indigenous AWACS system is called DRDO AWACS or Netra, as the new system is based on a different platform it should be called as Netra Mk2 but that doesn't change the platform - ie DRDO AEW&CS so it could be much better if it is added as
   

DRDO AWACS - India -AEWCS -Netra mk1/2 -number -on note we can mention that it is based on EMB or A321
What do you think? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Update: Where did I said that order is placed? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft&diff=1043932559&oldid=1043931552 - source for this claim is - https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/india-concludes-price-negotiations-to-acquire-62-c295-transport-aircraft - it clearly states that India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) has concluded price negotiations to acquire a total of 62 Airbus Defence and Space C295 medium transport aircraft (MTA) for the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Indian Coast Guard (ICG). -that's what I have updated!

• You removed cited content
• You've violated 3RR rule within 24 hour —Echo1Charlie (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

@Darkphantom007: If you've any objection to this change, please say that here. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Echo1Charlie: Hello,

So we are engaged with intenstive edit war i guess on IAF AEW&C list. Here are my points-

1. First row mentions the aircraft like take the example of Phalcon AEW&C. Beriev A-50 aircraft and the other row is variant which mentions A-50EI which is the variant. So obviosuly for the other two types Airbus a319/a321 is the aircraft and netra mk.ii is the variant. But you continously edits aircraft row as DRDO AEW&C, which is not the case. DRDO AEW&C is not the aircraft, its the variant, its either a319/a321 or EMB 145. and that was already there for several years. Look at Reconnaissance section where aircraft is Gulfstream G100 and the variant is 1125 Astra. You are confused between aircraft and variant. Take a look on List of active People's Liberation Army aircraft to have a better understanding.

2, As you have added 6 Airbus C295 aircrafts in the Indian coast guard aircraft list, but that deal is not confirmed yet by CCS. There are a lot of deals which are cleared by DAC but not cleared by CCS, neither signed. Take the example of 30 MQ Predator, which was not cleared by CCS hence its not there in the list and there are several other deals too in all the three services.

Hope i made it clear to you !!

@Darkphantom007: Good day, first of all I didn't entered into an edit war with you, you can check diffs

Let's come to the topic

1. Let's take your example - Beriev A-50 - here Beriev A-50 is the system and Phalcon is its customized variant; going by your logic Il-76 has to be added in place of aircraft column because Beriev A-50 is based on Il-76 transporter. Got it? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

For the ease of understanding

Aircraft	Origin	Type	Variant	In service	Notes
AEW&C
Beriev A-50	Soviet Union Israel	AEW&C	A-50EI	3	Equipped with the EL/W-2090 radar

- This is right

Aircraft	Origin	Type	Variant	In service	Notes
AEW&C
Ilyushin Il-76	Soviet Union Israel	AEW&C	A-50EI	3	Equipped with the EL/W-2090 radar

- This is wrong

—Echo1Charlie (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
And about 6 C-295, I've already cleared that in previous paragraph, This source [15] (Janes.com) clearly states that India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) has concluded price negotiations to acquire a total of 62 Airbus Defence and Space C295 medium transport aircraft (MTA) for the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Indian Coast Guard (ICG). -that's what I have updated.—Echo1Charlie (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Echo1Charlie:Dear,

alas you are getting wrong again !! Dont you know Beriev A-50 is based on IL-76? does EMB-145 based on anything? Do A319 and A321 based on anything else? thats what i am saying again mate, DRDO AEW&C is NOT the aircraft, Beriev A-50, EMB-145 and Airbus A319/A321 ARE THE aircrafts. Beriev A-50, EMB-145 were there as aircraft for several years now in this page but you have messed it up !

Aircraft	Origin	Type	Variant	In service	Notes
AEW&C
Beriev A-50	Soviet Union Israel	AEW&C	A-50EI	3	Equipped with the EL/W-2090 radar
EMB-145	Brazil Israel	AEW&C	Netra	3
Airbus A321	France Israel	AEW&C	Netra Mk.II	6

I am just saying based on what other senior members have edited the page for several years. Need suggestion from other members regarding this .

@Darkphantom007:

1. Indian air force is NOT "buying" EMB-145; It is DRDO purchasing it - modified with DRDO developed radar system - offered to the IAF as DRDO AWACS or Netra - which the Indian Air force is buying; similarly
2. IAF is not buying A319/321 but they are buying DRDO AWACS now based on ex-AI A319/320 aka Netra mk2 offered by DRDO; got it?!—Echo1Charlie (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Beriev A50 - variant - Phalcon
DRDO AEWCS - variants - Netra Mk1 and Netra MK2; or further simplified Netra AEWCS is not the "variant" of Embraer EMB-145 or Airbus A319/321 —Echo1Charlie (talk) 10:28, 16 September 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:

• MH-60R of Indian Navy..jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Crash

One aircraft crashed yesterday, killing a general. His name was Bipin Rawat. Can the list be updated?49.178.80.27 (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for the total Mi-17 now in the fleet ? MilborneOne (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

No, but there's a reliable source which states that the helicopter crashed.49.178.80.27 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, military aircraft crashes are beyond the purview of this article. From what I understand, this article is merely a list of aircrafts in the Indian military (and not crashes). Thus, the only change that should be made IMHO is that the number of Mi-17 helicopters in the army be updated (when a reliable source is available). --ShellPandey (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

incorrect numbers

Su 30 mki shows 260 number and linked article says 272. Same story for mig29 article says 69 2607:FEA8:4DC0:4510:907D:74AC:FE49:DF80 (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The figures should match the references or a new reference/citation is needed. MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

oh nice -- this is from the article linked "Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has completed the production of all 272 Su-30MKIs contracted to HAL by the Indian Air Force (IAF) " unless you are claiming 12 attritional losses , or want to keep the numbers to 260 for some unknown reason, correct it to 272. super petty, try to get accurate information pls.

Line by Line

For all the those "Edit Warriors" who don't understand the edits made by me - I will commence the tedious task of doing each one line by line..to help those who are baffled by the concepts of Reliable sourcing, WP: Image(s), Notability, and any other Policies pertaining to this page.- And for any disputes, you can now note the specific issues as opposed to a blanket revert - FOX 52 ^talk! 06:52, 13 January 2022 (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)

Total Tejas order?

@FOX 52: State your concern here. —FoxtAl (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Total order - 40 Tejas Mk1 (Including 32 single seat fighter + 8 Twin seat trainer) + 83 (73 single seat Mk1A + 10 Twin seat trainer) = 123 source -> https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis/analysis-tejas-regaining-its-lustre/131059.article. That means if 24 single seat Tejas are delivered so far then 8 single seat tejas mk1 + 73 Tejas MK1A + 18 Tejas Mk1 trainer are to be delivered. —FoxtAl (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@FoxtAl: Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia, as you did here . Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans - FOX 52 ^talk! 15:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@FOX 52: So you can intentionally make factual errors like this with [16] lame edit summary? From what I or a reader would get from the content you trying to add is -> so far 24 Tejas delivered, 8 more Tejas Mk1 and 73 Mk2 are to be delivered = 105 Tejas in total contradicting actual order ie 123! I have provided a link here consider reading it before reverting. Also you don't need to over wikilink HAL tejas is already wikilinked. —FoxtAl (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Also what justification you have for adding this potentially WP:SPS blog source - http://idrw.org/ in your edits here -[17] [18] [19] after I have informed you in edit summary here [20], Why do you want to add factual errors and blog source here? ——FoxtAl (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2022

You'er not getting it - your additional text "18 dual seat trainers" needs to be supported by a reliable source - this 3 year old data, is vague and ambitious, but since you mentions Flightglobal I'll update with their latest 2022 info. - FOX 52 ^talk! 05:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"your additional text "18 dual seat trainers" needs to be supported by a reliable source" - Source is provided at the beginning of this talk (Flightlobal), "this 3 year old data" — So what? Don't you know that once a deal is signed it's final; unless there's some serious problems like India's Augusta westland helicopter deal, is there any problems with Tejas purchase? No right?!, "3 year old data, is vague and ambitious" - On what ground you came up to this conclusion? Do you know what is ambitious number regarding Tejas purchase? Plan to purchase 350 or so unit eventually - that is ambitious not 123 units under two contracts already signed. "but since you mentions Flightglobal I'll update with their latest 2022 info." - Go on page number 20 (Flightglobal world air forces 2022). —FoxtAl (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

per source HAL will finally conclude a March 2006 order for 20 initial operational clearance-standard Tejas fighters this year. Work on the first final operational clearance (FOC)-standard Tejas, as part of a December 2010 order for 20 aircraft, is now under way; delivery is planned by year-end. These orders comprise 32 fighters with eight two-seat trainers - Not sure were you are getting 18, but we do not included planned or proposed orders, only signed contracts. Now since you pointed out WAF 2022, I'll update with your idea. - FOX 52 ^talk! 04:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@FOX 52: New Delhi has signed off on an order for 83 Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) Tejas Mk-1A Light Combat Aircraft. The order covers 73 single-seat Tejas Mk-1As and 10 two-seat trainers, and is worth Rs457 billion ($6.4 billion), says India’s defence ministry. ——https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/india-orders-83-tejas-mk-1a-fighters/141975.article ; ie total trainers on order is 8+10=18, hope you got where I'm getting 18, you're fortunate I'm a qualified teacher (no kidding lol)—FoxtAl (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Mirage 2000

India had 13 Mirage 2000 crashes so they are left with 37 Mirages plus they bought 2 new ones and they bought some junk for parts. Information on wiki about numbers is wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.148.86.32 (talk • contribs) 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2022

The fleet is divided between HAL Cheetah, HAL Cheetal and HAL Lancer. - license-built version of the SA 315B Lama Maitrey Telang (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2022 (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. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2023

Sukhoi Su-30 122.172.188.158 (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2023 (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. Cannolis (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2023 (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:

• Iaf-alh-mk-iv-helicopter-4.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Tejas mk1 and su30 mki numbers inaccurate

Tejas mk1 40, su30 mki 260 2607:FEA8:4DDF:A120:2D72:B8BB:F7B:3B5C (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

32 Tejas Mk 1 and 1 Tejas trainers are delivered as of 25th Nov 2023. 17 trainers and 73 Mk 1As are on order. Deliveries will begin in Feb-March period in 2024.[21][22] Aviator Jr (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Sumki numbers wrong

272 total number 12 attrition losses. Makes it 260 2607:FEA8:4DDF:A120:FC4B:4D54:9D93:DC86 (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Conversion trainers/Dual seater versions

Numbers of double seater fighter jet's(conversion trainers) should be added in 'combat aircraft' column,like other countries aircrafts pages.. also Dual seater versions can perform all combat roles, Dl ff (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Deliberately vandalising page by removing Tejas image.

Came to notice that User:FOX 52 is deliberately removing Tejas image trying to enforce feelings as Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia don't have any rules that states that only Admin checked and confirmed images can be used. If anyone has any reason to believe that the image is sourced from copyrighted place they can ask the image be removed though proper process. Not vandalize page deliberately wanting to remove Tejas image. If you play such shoddy games, and vandalize pages you be warned that you will be reported. Mifiin (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

removing image(s) with questionable copyright status is not vandalism - an image with "has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid" means that it may not be free to use. Removing It is the responsible thing to do. Further @Mifiin: you've been warned before not to attack other editors [23],[24] - FOX 52 ^talk! 05:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It is vandalism. It is not only an irresponsible thing to do but goes against Wiki rules. You are not supposed to remove anything without valid reason. Your argument that "has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid" is a very shoddy way to tell that you did not like the image of Tejas being added and hence you removed it. It is administrators job to ensure that the images added are validated. Now they are so overwhelmed with their job that they could not keep up validating images. So at least the likes of you if you really meant to contribute to Wikipedia must make an effort to check it whether it is indeed from Government of India source. Just because Admins did not do their job did not give you a license to manipulate and vandalize pages. Please keep that in mind. Mifiin (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

"goes against Wiki rules"? really what rule(s) are those -No this is vandalism "is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia" please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines - Thank you FOX 52 ^talk! 20:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

FOX 52 According to the file's page, it says that it was taken by the government of India, and it was posted on an official Indian government X account. Do you have reason to believe that it was not, in fact, taken by the government of India? Mifiin The copyright status has yet to be reviewed by an admin on Commons, so it is best to remove the image until it can be determined that the copyright status is valid. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed Govt of India account. The account itself has this to say #OfficialAccount of #PublicRelationsOfficer, Palam (New Delhi), #MinistryOfDefence. Fox is unnecessarily and deliberately trying to get rid of the image. Now your statement that its better to remove until its copyright is determined is untenable because, do you know how many years it takes the Admins to have a look at it? How much is the backlog for them? So until they could get the work done, we should go with agreeing to vandalism and whims and fancies of the likes of Fox? Commonsense dictate that we check whether its from Government of India site and then continue using it. Aint it? Mifiin (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)