Jump to content

Talk:Afghan Air Force

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

What the hell

[edit]

Afghanistan needs a strong Air Force .. since United States is the primary country training the Military , why dosnt the United States give a bunch F-16, F-18, and B-52 bombers to its Afghan Allies. Instead of those crappy east European planes that they are using now... and while there at it adds some Cobra helicopters to the Afghans wish list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.130.141 (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly likely due to the fact that the military of Afghanistan is not yet capable of handling f-16s, f-18s, B-52s. Giving those types of planes to them now is dangerous because there isn't any well trained Afghan Airforce pilots.--Kipperz (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the United States won't make the mistake of arming the terrorists again. Afghanistan is far too unstable to be given/sold any advanced aircraft at the risk of them being stolen by the insurgents. And the fact that the military is woefully underfunded to take any large amount of high-cost aircraft like B-52s or F-16s and maintain them. The extremely poor infrastructure may also have something to do with it. Canationalist (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official name

[edit]

The official name is "Afghan National Army Air Corps" (ANAAC)[1][2] --Raoulduke47 (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attack aircraft instead of pure trainer.

[edit]

I understand L-39 is a trainer, but in this case, what are they training for? They have no jet fighter so I see the L-39 as attack aircraft, not as pure trainer. So they only train to pilot for the same aircraft they are flying, the L-39. Are they planning to train for front line jets to be purchased in the future? Miguel.A.Lopez.Regalado (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Afghan Air Force Mike Cline (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Afghan National Army Air Force → Afghan Air Force – per [3], [4], and List of Afghan Air Force aircraft.TAzimi (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

First A-29 Super Tucano Pilots Graduate

[edit]

Hello all, I have added [1] that the first A-29 Super Tucano pilots have graduated from Moody, regards. Twobells (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Afghan_Air_Force&diff=prev&oldid=697446935
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Afghan Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A-29 name

[edit]

The A-29 should be called the A-29, which is synonymous for the EMB 314. Separate variants include the A-29A (single seat) and A-29B (two seater). According to this source they are the same aircraft: http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=718

As well the Afghan Air Force calls it's the A-29 not EMB 314. Garuda28 (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going off of that it seems like when the Canadians call their F/A-18s CF-118s, even though their the same aircraft. Looks like Fox52 is mis reading the information and seeing a separate variant when it's just an alternate designation. 2600:100E:B008:85F8:8463:5EDE:B6DE:1973 (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree the aircraft manufactures baseline model is called the EMB 314, hence you have the section for the variants 47.152.57.146 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the variants are only A-29A and A-29B, with an emphasis on the A and B indicating single seat and duel seating. As it is mentjln in the intro the EMB 314 is also known as the A-29, no A or B designator, indicating that the A-29 is the main platform and an A-29A is a variant. This is in a similar manner that the F-15 is the baseline aircraft, but the F-15A is the variant. Either way, A-29 cannot be used as a variety as it does not fit these categories. Move to rename A-29 as the main aircraft. 24.192.250.124 (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/12/28/after-delays-a29-attack-aircraft-to-arrive-afghanistan-2016.html here's another article saying there are the same aircraft 24.192.250.124 (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I'd say you guys put up a good argument - so going with consensus and have changed the name to A-29 - FOX 52 (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hawks

[edit]

The source reads: "'More than 150 Black Hawks, divested from US Army stock, will be shipped to Afghanistan over the next five years,' says Giovanni Estrada, country programme manager at the US Army Security Assistance Command. Under current plans, this total [159] would include 61 aircraft to be used in a basic utility configuration, plus at least 58 armed examples." [5] The second sentence obviously does not affect the total 159 Black Hawks. [6] The "119 in delivery" is therefore a misleading statement. [7] The United States Congress has already approved the program in which 159 Black Hawks to be given to Afghanistan and the U.S. military is currently busy in completing this project. This is very relevant information for this article so it should be presented as is, without adding personal opinions on the number of the aircraft.--Wipeblade39 (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General John W. Nicholson: "So this is the quality we’re talking about. So this is a form of adaptability. Another example would be the Air Force. We have Afghan pilots who since we first flew our first combat sortie of the A-29 aircraft last year have dramatically increased the use of Afghan air power. And then these… this air is controlled by Afghan tactical air controllers on the ground. We have our first four Black Hawk helicopters have arrived in Afghanistan. Afghan pilots are being trained on the Black Hawk helicopter. So they’re extremely adaptable to the technologies necessary to go forward, and to the tactics of the enemy." [8]

"KABUL (Reuters) - The Afghan Air Force took delivery of its first four U.S.-made UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters on Tuesday as part of a planned replacement of its aging fleet of Russian-made Mi-17 helicopters, officials said." [9]

"KABUL, Afghanistan: Afghanistan on Saturday officially inducted four freshly-arrived U.S.-made UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters into its nascent air force, which many saw as a much-needed boost in fire power in the battle against insurgents." [10]--Wipeblade39 (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Return the previously listed ranks

[edit]

The ranks that were originally listed were of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Seeing as this article primarily pertains to the Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and the Taliban has not made any declarations of intentions to start an air force, the old ranks should be returned, and this article should refer to a disbanded military branch. Adykens (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aregent

[edit]

I am Nasir Ahmad I want to help me I am in Afghanistan I am a journalist the Taliban want kill me 23.88.197.229 (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oryx as a source

[edit]

I just wanted to know if oryx can be considered a source,since a editor keeps saying its user generatedKashiff17 (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashiff17: The edit summary states clearly that the source User-generated content which is not an acceptable source to use. Your edits have been reverted provide a reliable source before reinserting. - FOX 52 talk! 05:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the source is the official taliban twitter accounts confirmed by the link in their website ,therefore its not user-generated. Kashiff17 (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not confirmed by an outside independent source, unfortunately the "oryx" website is User-generated content. - FOX 52 talk! 05:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it has been cited by multiple news agency as a reliable source including forbes, also its source is also the official taliban accounts confirmed by the links on their website. Kashiff17 (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
its oryx not onyx Kashiff17 (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"it has been cited by multiple news agency as a reliable source including forbes."? ok prove it, just show where that is stated - FOX 52 talk! 06:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its literal Wikipedia page Kashiff17 (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope you can not use Wikiedpia as a source per WP:CIRCULAR Look you are not understanding it Oryx is a blog - Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated are unacceptable - Sites include personal websites, personal and group blogs See: WP:RSSELF for more information- FOX 52 talk! 06:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a open source defense analysis website as quoted by forbes started by former bellingcat employee Kashiff17 (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also the page has links has citation from the sources I mentioned,you could look it up yourself. Kashiff17 (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashiff17: It'll be better if you ask that question on WP:RSN. And actually, there is discussion on reliability of Oryx in general there. Personally, I tend to agree to this following comment on discussion: Oryx may qualify as an WP:SPS or perhaps WP:PRIMARY. If I were to use it, I would use it with caution, and always say "According to Oryx" or something. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kashiff17 (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orxy sources are (1) twitter.com C-130 running its engines, so can they fly it? (2) The M.O.D. announced that 5 Afghan air force pilots return certainly not enough to fly all the aircraft on that list. (3) Afghan airlines to acquire A330 that has nothing to do with the Air Force. And all the linked picture have no data, when were that taken? before or after the fall. - FOX 52 talk! 18:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1.the c-130 are not shown to be operational by oryx 2.there are atleast 30 pilots who are currently employed by the afghan air force as reported by the the Anadolu agency in the original source news article and the afghan ministry of defense website and Twitter account 3.you could find the original pictures from afghan ministry of defense twitter which is the confirmed to be their account by the links from their website as well as the telegram channel. Kashiff17 (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but No images by themselves are not a valid source the only lead to original research which is not considered a reliable source. - FOX 52 talk! 19:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOR is only applies to us, WP editors, NOT the source itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
pictures still lead to implying what may be true or not 2600:1012:B1C2:C4AE:C89B:9CF:6EF6:413A (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
blogs are still not acceptable & some other citation should be used 2600:1012:B1C2:C4AE:C89B:9CF:6EF6:413A (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion on RSN, nobody says Oryx cannot be used as it's arguably qualify as Subject-matter expert per WP:SPS. For further clarity, you may restart discussion on Oryx in WP:RSN. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"One" editor suggested "Subject-matter expert" as three where not convinced of their reliability - regardless of all that their content is based off of photos with no data, dates, and not very clear. Further the Tabibian are not particularly on truthful their press release. - FOX 52 talk! 01:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that RSN discussion, I only see 6 editors who put comments on Oryx, they are as follows:
  1. Jayron32 said ...so anything which comes from Oryx is probably good, but needs to stick to exactly what Oryx say..
  2. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi agrees with Jayron32.
  3. BobFromBrockley said Oryx it's possible to argue its SPS by subject-matter experts
  4. Nederlandse Leeuw said Oryx may qualify as an WP:SPS or perhaps WP:PRIMARY. If I were to use it, I would use it with caution, and always say "According to Oryx" or something.
  5. Horse Eye's Back said Oryx is a group blog with two principles: Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans. Both are arguably subject matter experts so usable
  6. David Gerard said I find Oryx excellent and trustworthy as a reader, but I have all the above qualms about using it on Wikipedia. -> this is the only one that somewhat oppose the usage of Oryx, but he still said Oryx is trustworthy.
And, I don't see anyone disputing its reliability. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Volunteer Marek - "While Oryx is a great and interesting twitter account/blog, the fact that it is WP:SPS means that it is potentially not reliable for this information"
  2. My very best wishes - "however the specific claim (the table with losses) is not consistent with other sources, and in any case would required multiple secondary RS to be included on the page"
and David Gerard is the 3rd - Agian! all that their content is based off of photos with no data, dates, and not very clear. Further the Tabibian are not particularly on truthful their press release. - FOX 52 talk! 03:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek is the thread starter who open discussion, and 5 other editors respond and pretty much accept Onyx with certain condition (IMO everyone agree it's SPS but SME may applies here). Lastly, My very best wishes's comment is not specific to Oryx, he may comment on random twitter that was asked, and Nederlandse Leeuw also commented on comment. At any case, As I suggest from the beginning this discussion should go to WP:DRN.Ckfasdf (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have open up discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Oryx (revisited), please continue the discussion there. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend not to use, the author has offered little evidence of the force as properly active. Photographs alone should not be the standard, and there must be a second source to authenticate working aircraft. 2600:1012:B13C:4F1F:9118:C8EC:ED9A:EBFC (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about the afghan ministry of defense Kashiff17 (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't whether Oryx is a RS or not, my issue is with the source(s) they used for their article. - I personally cannot tell when these poor quality pictures were taken- (which are in flyable condition?) [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] - only found a few flying, but what is there status today? - flying, flying, flying – other sources mentions a C-130 fixed, but no where to be found flying - tolonews.com and finally 5 pilots came back. - FOX 52 talk! 05:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could literally see the official logo of the Afghan ministry of defense on these photos. Kashiff17 (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are 30 pilots in the current air force as linked in the origin Anadolu agency article about 70 aircrafts being repaired. Kashiff17 (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashiff17: I have open up discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Oryx (revisited), please continue the discussion there to avoid duplicated discussion. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ckfasdf: No the discussion should stay here as were getting off topic, per my source questions it gets away from more in depth specifics from their article - FOX 52 talk! 07:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about the talibans ability to keep their aircraft operational a report by sugar already said the afghans are capable of keeping atleast their russian helicopters operational. Kashiff17 (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction:sigar not sugar Kashiff17 (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigar? No idea what that is you'll have to link it to something - So this author seems to dispute claims made by the Taliban - written this past May - Plus these don't look promising [21], [22], [23] for a functioning air force. - FOX 52 talk! 09:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does,according to sigars report the afghan air force was completely dependent on contractors for repair of their aircraft aircraftnow they've brought two more uh-60s [24]https://twitter.com/MoDAfghanistan2/status/1646403892635115520?t=NHstmc91PD2E3rN_GJvGkg&s=19 into service,plus your own source says they have atleast 50 aircraft operational Kashiff17 (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that SIGAR report talks about the air force as of Jan. 21, but they can't speak of it situation today 2600:1012:B156:8FEC:7C1A:F260:76D6:4758 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,I'm well aware of that I'm drawing a comparison between the former Afghan Republic government and current Afghan emirates government - Link Kashiff17 (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the year old video before, its all still vague on their current status. Remember this is an Encyclopedia, not a news blog. Restoring basic paragraph structure, until new information becomes available. - FOX 52 talk! 06:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You literally used the same taliban source to try prove these aircraft aren't functional and even Your own quoted source literally said its over 50 aircraft and you deleted the original info from oryx which has yet to be considered an unreliable source,I'm reversing your edit till its established that oryx is an unreliable source. Kashiff17 (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again this an Encyclopedia, not a news blog. A basic paragraph to notify the reader of the unverified claims, is the responsible thing to do, until new information becomes available - FOX 52 talk! 07:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not unverified,literally all sources including the one cited have confirmed that these aircrafts are operational and they all use the same source which is the official twitter account of the afghan ministry of defense linked from their official website. Kashiff17 (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the official website of the Afghan government which says atleast 60 helicopters have been repaired and put into service
1 Kashiff17 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there's a new reliable source that confirms the taliban have atleast 78 aircrafts operational collaborating oryx"s information Link Kashiff17 (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
stars and stripes only confirms that there estimate of 78 aircraft in possession - airworthiness, is another issue - FOX 52 talk! 18:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh they are worthy this is a recently repaired aircraft
1 Kashiff17 (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again it isn't a case of no aircraft operational, but of how many - FOX 52 talk! 19:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Atleast 70 airceaft have been repaired according to the defense ministry spokesman inayathulla khawarizmi 1 Kashiff17 (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicting article on that claim - Further the new so called "Government" lacks any verified reliability, and must be taken with a grain of salt - FOX 52 talk! 19:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source literally cites the original author of oryx which defeats the very argument you are making of oryx not being a reliable source and your second source says nothing about the taliban"s claim of the aircraft,this debate is over,I'm reversing your edit 1 Kashiff17 (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Muller says that, based on photos and videos, the Taliban now has approximately 50 operational planes and helicopters" which specific types? Hence the paragraph on the current inventory. - FOX 52 talk! 19:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its Documented in the very website you argued isn't a reliable source which he is the author of and I linked to,this discussion is over. Kashiff17 (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way anyone, expert or not can determine whether an aircraft is airworthy, based off of image(s) (of an aircraft sitting on the ground motionless). Thats a guess on their part and is no way acceptable as reliable - FOX 52 talk! 14:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
unless there is actual evidence or expert opinion proving those aircraft aren't operational let us know till then please refrain from deleting information these cited source. Kashiff17 (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Oryx would qualify as a reliable source for this, especially given your descriptions above at how your small team comes up with it's data. You're free to take the discussion to WP:RSN, but you'll like to hear the same thing there. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lucas muller is the original source he wrote the book wings over the hindu kush which documented the afghan air forces through the 90s state he is even considered a reliable source by the "Contradicting claim" article cited by Fox 52 Kashiff17 (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can get consensus at WP:RSN, that's not a usable source for this or any article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already did. Kashiff17 (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion Kashiff17 (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a consensus there (or in the previous discussion) that it's a reliable source; I see a fairly split opinion. To be using it to add this much content should have a stronger support consensus in RSN. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't evenly split the only one who disagreed on it as source was Fox 52 Kashiff17 (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sole operational An-26

[edit]

https://twitter.com/aaf_lukas/status/1714729959061643576 Buckshot06 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I saw it fly then I would considerate operational - otherwise some person on "X" is not a reliable source - FOX 52 talk! 00:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afghan_Air_Force&oldid=1263396364"