Jump to content

Talk:Swiss Air Force

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Swisstestpilot (talk | contribs) at 13:17, 10 April 2010 (→Inventory). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I have some additional information about the SAF:

1. there were only 62 Mirage III/S/RS 2. the F-5E/F Fighters are still in operateion, but there was a significant reduction from over 100 to about 58 and some of them are leased to the Austrian Air Force

The Air Defence branch of the Swiss Armed Forces are also a part of the Swiss Air Force, operation three air defence systems:

- FIM-92 Stinger MANPADS light Air Defense - BAe Rapier Mk. 2 SAM - 35 mm Oerlikon Skyguard air defence artillery system

Thank you for your attention, don't hasitade to ask for more. Greetings

Merging

Couldn't this be moved to Military of Switzerland?--The4sword 23:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

| This is fake then, correct? vlad§inger tlk 15:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent

the article isn't consistent in tone. the summary is not all that conlusive. it leaves a gap of information in between the first and second paragraphs. improving the summary may do the trick. Freshymail-user_talk:fngosa--the-knowledge-defender 23:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Swiss Air Force/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • In the lead it says that there are eight bases, then only lists seven, as far as I can see.
    • The second paragraph of the lead contains information that is not included in the article, which violates the main principle of a summary lead. Also, why is Payerne the most important air base?
    • The Air Defence section says "The high level air defence of the Swiss national airspace is the responsibility of the FLORAKO". I'm not really seeing what this is trying to say.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • I'm concerned that the image of the Eurocopter Dauphin doesn't have correct licensing. The tag is discussing free software, rather than an image.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article, but a few things with prose, MOS and images to be dealt with. These issues should be easy to fix, and the article should be able to be of GA status within a short time. Please let me know if you have any questions! Dana boomer (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the lack of work on the article (no edits have been made since I conducted the above review) I am failing this article's GA nomination. Once the work detailed above has been completed, the article may be renominated for GAN, and should pass with flying colors! Dana boomer (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source incomplete!

The source 7 is incomplete, stating only "Lombardi, p.40–41." Is this a book? If it is, please provide the full information (at least author and title, possibly more). Furthermore, I think the corresponding paragraph should be verified again. Greeting from Basel, Switzerland.81.62.210.240 (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much missing Informations, Much Wrong Informations

Many Air Bases are missing (Lodrino, Buochs,..), aircraft typs are missing (PC-12) Wrong numbers (F-5E, AlouetteIII). Outpasst Typs and Bases Are missing. Wrong informations: Bern is a civil Airport, F-5E are still in use as Fighter, PC-9 is also used for ECM ...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisstestpilot (talk • contribs) 09:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Can you point us to reliable published sources that we can use as a basis for correcting these error?  Sandstein  09:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/en/home/dokumentation/assets/aircraft.html

http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/en/home/verbaende/einsatz_lw.html


Well the Air Force Page is not 100% up to date talking from 13 Alouette in April, there are at end of this Month only 8 left. By the F-5E thy dont count the F-5E/F at Meiringen and the one who is a temporary exponat in the Trafficmusseum Lucerne because of the 100 year festival —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisstestpilot (talk • contribs) 10:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Because in this Articel so many Informations are missing or just wrong i had made some update , unfortunatly my english is not good enough for the english wikipedia. i hope some one can go trouh my writtings and put the articel about the swiss air force in the right way . I have the re written page below. the main sources are the official homepage of the Swiss air force (some pages there exist not in English ,only in german)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swiss_Air_Force&oldid=355135040"