Talk:Finnish Air Force

message: I noticed the following statement in the article:
The Finnish command knew from Invasion of Poland that Germany had destroyed most of Poland's aircrafts at the airfields. Therefore Finnish planes were decentralized to many different airfields and hidden to forests. Fake targets were made and many airfields also had sharpnel protection for the planes. As an effect, Soviet air attacks to Finnish airfields were not efficient.
In reality, it was but a myth spread by the Soviet and Nazi propaganda. In fact the Polish Air Force was not destroyed on the airfields, specifically because most of the planes had been relocated to secret airfields just prior to the outbreak of the war. Could someone correct that? //Halibutt 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the text a little, not mentioning Poland, but the new tactics instead. MoRsE 08:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion of Poland 

message: There is a discussion going on on merging F-18 Hornet to F/A-18 Hornet. See here: Talk:F/A-18 Hornet -- Petri Krohn 22:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it means you are ignorant, see War booty --MoRsE 01:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging of  [[F-18 Hornet]] to [[F/A-18 Hornet]] 

message: I miss information about Finnish Air Force bases in this article. Is it possible to add it? Thank you. Miraceti 10:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish Air Force bases 

message: Quality of the article could be better, especially the chapter about Hornet.
First of all, the difference of the "variants" is exaggerated. As far as I know, the differences are very minor if there are any. I've never heard of any difference in avionics for instance. Software might be somehow different though. At least there should be source for this information. The sentence describing the special features of Finnish variant is in general vague as if the writer was not sure what he is writing. Change from F/A-18 to F-18 is basically renaming instead of reconfiguring. Finnish aircrafts are even able to operate on carriers as it was cheaper to retain the standard configuration so it seems unlikely that there were any significant modifications to the ground attack capabilities.
Also the sources suggest that Hornet's life-time costs were lower than most of the other's so the comment on Hornet's high price is questionable. The paragraph describing the reasons for limiting the aircraft to interceptor duties is also off the point and gives a misleading impression although it is factually quite accurate. However it is not at all uncommon to use word defense instead of war, attack, army etc so there's really no point in making a big deal out of it.
Paris peace treaty only banned bombers with internal payload so it had no influence of the decision whatsoever. The list of ground attack weapons also needs references, I've never heard of any complete list of the possible weapons.
The picture of Finnish Hornet is not actually of a Finnish Hornet. The insignia is way bigger than in real Finnish Hornets. It is either manipulated or painted on some other Hornet for PR purposes.
Khilon 19:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of the article 

message: I notice that both here and on Air force, it states that the Finnish Air Force is the World's first independent air force.  Although this is cited, I have my doubts.  I would welcome comments at Talk:Air force. Thanks. Greenshed 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World's First Independent Air Force

message: This fact is mentioned that FAF never did such thing, but has "citation needed" tag behind it, i just wonder why. Its hard to prove something that just didnt happen, why dont we change it so that you actually have to prove any civilian target was bombed rather than not, that should be easiet to prove, but of course impossible cause nothing like it ever happened.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.217.247 (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of bombing of civilian targets 

message: The .gif illustrating the change from the old swastika to the new insignia is a nice idea, but it's making it very difficult to concentrate on actually reading the article, and it's not really something that needs to be illustrated with an animation. Wouldn't it be better to just have two pictures: one of the swastika and one of the new insignia? /Julle (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree so I have removed the animation, with the Edit message "Annoying animation removed, both symbols can be seen elsewhere on the article and there never was the progression shown in the GIF". There is no need to repeat the symbols in the article because the current roundel is in the infobox and the swastika is on some of the photos - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swaistika/insignia 

message: As far as I've ever known, no branches of the Finnish Defence Forces have their own flags. They only have their emblem, that is now in the template. The Swastika flag that was there, is not the Air Forces' flag, but the flags of all the Air Commands are based on that. They have their own emblem in the upper left corner of the flag, but that flag isn't used without them because there is no 'generic' Air Force flag. Therefore, I have moved it to the Organization -part with description. More information on the Air Command flags, see end of the page. --Pudeo' 22:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely You are right. In that case, You may correct the information in the Russian-language Wikipedia: Военно-воздушные силы Финляндии (Флаг ВВС Финляндии/Flag VVS Finlandii means Flag of the Finland's Air Force). --WPK (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Force flag 

message: I made some changes to the section describing the purchase of the F-18. First of all I changed "Due to the F-18's high price, the number of fighters to be purchased was decreased by three" so that it no longer makes a reference to the price of the F-18. In articles written after the competition it has been said that F-16 assembled in the USA was actually the only choice that would allow buying 67 aircraft within the budget so I don't see that cutting the number of aircraft is specific to the Hornet in any way.
I also removed the whole section discussing the semantics of "attack" and Paris peace treaty and replaced them with one sentence. The ban on bombers had absolutely nothing to do with the fighter competition so there's no point in mentioning it here. Also the lengthy and somewhat speculative part on the motives of the exclusion of the ground attack capability was mostly irrelevant. It was simply easier to get everyone to accept the Hornet when it was marketed as an interceptor.
The section about Finland's foreign policy seems also irrelevant and it is not any way connected to the rest of the article but I chose to keep it for now. It should at least be rewritten. -Khilon (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-18 purchase 

message: Hello
Can someone please clear up the lead as i have just removed information stating that the Finnish Air Force was is the oldest independent airforce in the world on 6 March 1918 yet the lead says it was part of the Army Corps of Aviation and did not become independent until 4 May 1928.
I have tried to clear it up a bit but the lead is still mis-leading as it says "the Finnish Air Force is the oldest in the world, having existed officially since 6 March 1918" yet the French Air Force article says "It was formed in 1909 as the Service Aéronautique, a service arm of the French Army". How can the Finnish Air Force be older if the French Air Force was founded in 1909?
Gavbadger (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This confusion arises from not understanding the difference between a country's army owning aircraft and a country having an airforce. There were no Independent airforces, as opposed to army or navy aircorps, until the (British) Royal Air Force was founded in 1918. The American army actually bought an aeroplane (a Wright Flyer) before anyone else, but didn't have an airforce as such until 1947! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearing up the lead. 

message: Finland declared that the limiting treaties were no longer active in 1990.  A declaration does not of itself have any legal effect nullifying the peace treaties or any part of them. The signatory states may have "abstained from diplomatic notes regarding the declaration", but this does not "confirm [sic] the nullification" - it merely shows that no action would be taken in respect of the purported nullification of the treaties.101.98.175.68 (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaty limits 

message: I just corrected the inventory list that was some time ago updated based on "World Air Forces 2015" listing. The worst mistake was to claim Redigo to be the basic trainer instead of Vinka. Also some difference in the numbers. This is a good reminder that it's not safe to update inventory lists based on a generic source like that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khilon (talk • contribs) 11:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft Inventory 

message: For this paragraph, as its sources from a Youtube video, it is not entered into the article. In its stead, the paragraph has been edited with sources from different Wikipedia aircraft articles in various Flying Regiments articles under the List of units of the Finnish Air Force during the Continuation War.
The Finnish Air Force was better prepared for the Continuation War. It had been considerably strengthened and consisted of some 550 aircraft, though many were considered second-rate and thus "exportable" by their countries of origin. Finland purchased a large number of aircraft during the Winter War, but few of those reached service during the short conflict. Politics also played a factor, since Hitler did not wish to antagonize the Soviet Union by allowing aircraft exports through German-controlled territory during the conflict. So in addition to Fokker fighters and Bristol Blenheim bombers built under license, new aircraft types were in place by the time hostilities with Soviet Union resumed in 1941. Small numbers of Hawker Hurricanes arrived from the United Kingdom, Morane-Saulnier M.S.406s from France, Fiat G.50s from Italy, and one liaison aircraft. Numerous Brewster B239s from the neutral USA strengthened the FiAF. Morane 's and a few dozen Curtiss Hawk 75s were captured by the Germans in France and Norway then sold to Finland when Germany began warming up its ties with Finland; Tupolev SB, Ilyushin DB-3 and one Polikarpov I-153, either captured in the Winter War or acquired from German depots were reconditioned for service. The FiAF proved capable of holding its own in the upcoming battles with the Red Air Force. Older models, like the Fokker D.XXI and Gloster Gladiator, had been replaced with new aircraft in front-line combat units; Front-line squadrons now had 253 aircraft in 17 different types.
So my question is, "Are the contents in that youtube video accountable ?" -- Cybercavalier (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  aircraft refurbishment before the Continuation war 

message: The 1918-45 Swastika insignia was removed from the article late last year, after being in the article since around 2007. I have restored the image on a temporary basis and am hoping to learn a little more about the reasons for its removal. It seems sensible to me to have photos or replicas of both insignia in the article, especially considering the fact a whole paragraph in the history section is devoted to the Swastika insigina. I appreciate that the insignia can be seen on some of the planes in the other photos but they are neither particularly clear and they are in black & white, so it seems reasonable to have a clear image in the article. As a rule I don't go around shoving swastikas into articles (this is a first for me actually) but I think there is a valid case for its inclusion here. Betty Logan (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swastika insignia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Finnish Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212062235/http://www.ilmavoimat.fi/index_en.php?id=387 to http://www.ilmavoimat.fi/index_en.php?id=387
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi..
FlightGlobal's World Air Forces usually is the reference used for type and number of aircraft operated by certain country's air forces. However, few air forces do put their inventory on their website such as Finnish Air Force. I think official Finnish Air Force (FAF) website is better source than WAF for basic facts such as type and number of aircraft used. 
Refer to latest edit on inventory, I noticed that there are few difference between WAF and FAF website, which are number of trainer aircraft (Hawk and L-70 Vinka). Number of Finnish Air Force is lower than WAF. Below is comparison on information on FAF and WAF:
FAF page
*Hawk: 31 Update Jan 18 (From 2019 onward, the Air Force will have a fleet of 31 Hawks with upgraded cockpits.)
*L-70: 26 Update Dec 17 (the aircraft has been used since 1980)
WAF 2020
*Hawk: 37 
*L-70: 28
WAF 2019
*Hawk: 43
*L-70: 28
WAF 2018
*Hawk: 43
*L-70: no mention
WAF 2017
*Hawk: 43
*L-70: no mention
As mentioned above, WAF 2017-2019 claimed number of Hawk is 43, whereas FAF mentioned in 2018 number of Hawk used is 31. WAF also didnt mentioned L-70 on 2017-208 or maybe even earlier edition, and just started to mentioned it on 2019 edition onward with number of L-70 is 28 unit, whereas FAF mentioned number of L-70 is 26 of 30 initial L-70 in service.
So, I propose to not use WAF data on Finnish Air Force, and refer to FAF page for aircraft inventory. Since WAF data is not always accurate and reliable. Even WAF put disclaimer "The information contained in our databases and used in this presentation has been assembled from many sources, and whilst reasonable care has been taken to ensure accuracy, the information is supplied on the understanding that no legal liability whatsoever shall attach to FlightGlobal, its offices, or employees in respect of any error or omission that may have occurred." on each edition, which implies they noted possibility of error on their data. Cheers. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep WAF in place apply supplemental sourcing for number adjustments on the 2 air frames in question.- FOX 52 (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done, I've re-added FAF page on the source as supplemental sourcing (afterall, they provide better detail of each aircraft history on FAF). This is not really resolve the number diff issue yet, but should be sufficient until we have other more conclusive source. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Refer to latest edit by  to remove FAF page as source on inventory, I disagree with that removal because: 
# As I mentioned earlier, FAF is one of few aircraft that actually put aircraft inventory on their website. It'll be a waste not use them. Afterall, numbers on WAF and FAF didnt contradict. 
# WAF only shows number of aircraft, while FAF page shows more detailed information such as history of the aircraft on Finnish Air Force. Such additional information is valuable supplement source. 
# Refer to discussion on Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Ideal number of citations, two citations didn't constitute as citation overkill and should be acceptable.
#: With that's being said, I'll revert the edit. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the link. it seems the process to written off those 2 aircrafts didnt get into the news, so WAF editor and scramble.nl missed it out. However, FAF conduct aeronautical fatigue review periodically. On 2015-2017 Review, it was shown total number Vinka is 27 unit, and on 2017-2019 Review, the number is 26 unit. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft Inventory source 

message: Hello,
Emil Thuy's career included serving as an adviser to the Finns circa 1924. This should be explored.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  German adviser(s) 

message: As in . Also, 
what does "MEUR" mean, please? --90.244.195.234 (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: MEUR = Million Euro, BEUR = Billion Euro. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: What does "BEUR" mean?

message: The article states that during WW2 "The principle (sic!) reconnaissance type was the German Arado Ar 196". This is incorrect. The Finnish Air Force had a total of three Ar 196s on loan from Germany during 1943-44 and none of these were used for reconnaissance; they were used primarily for resupply of long range patrols and medevac. Aside from a dozen Westland Lysanders, there was no dedicated reconnaissance type; reconnaissance was carried out early in the war mainly by various biplane recce/bombers (Blackburn Ripon, Fokker CV and CX) and later by fighters considered no longer suitable for air combat (Gloster Gladiator, Polikarpov I-153, Fokker D.XXI, Fiat G50, Curtiss Hawk, Morane-Saulnier 406 etc.) while maritime recce and submarine patrol were carried out by SB-2s and a couple of two-seat seaplane recce-bomber types (Dornier Do-22, M.F. 11). Jarmo K. (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principal reconnaissance type?