Talk:Philippine Air Force

message: I have replaced all instances of PhAF with PAF. I have never heard anyone from the Philippines use the acronym "PhAF" when referring to the Philippine Air Force. I believe it's mostly used in places like [] to differentiate the Philippine Air Force from the Pakistani Air Force. Edward Sandstig 18:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced PhAF with PAF 

message: The Aircraft section for example, begins with the words "At present ...". That has clear meaning to the writer and, as the reader has no info about when the info to which this refers was placed into the article,  this has no meaning at all to the reader.  It is much better to say something like "As of Fobruary 2008, ".  Following that introduction dating the info is a list of the number of various aircraft types which are, without naming the source of the info, asserted to be in PAF inventory. Whatever the source of the info might be, it appears to be pretty unreliable — going by unsupported changes I've noticed being made in the numbers.  Please note that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia:Verifiability is an official policy of Wikipedia. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment re info of uncertain timeliness and origin 

message: Here are a few links showing RP-C752 (cn 1562) "Jonty" in Texas. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pumas no longer in service 

message: The Philippine Air Force does in fact use T-34 mentors. I know I saw some T-34`s in Viliamore Air Base this after noon (still in service and flying). For links see,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.166.250 (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have photo evidence or any sources to back this up? I really can't find any other sources that indicate these aircraft are still in service. Also, you were adding incorrect captions to a number of pictures, please don't perpetrate hoaxes. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippine Air Force uses T-34 mentor 

message: I konw the Philippines uses SF-260s but I thought they use only 7/8 of them but 18? How many do they realy use (a bit confused here).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.131.58 (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At the end of the modernization section, it's mentioned that a deal has been signed for the purchase of 18 new SF-260s. That sentence is backed up by this article from the Philippine Daily Inquirer. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: No matter the number, the PAF has always had problems with maintenance. so if you only see 7 or 8, the other aircraft are there but are used for spares. 121.96.116.186 (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The PAF has at most 38 SF-260. There are 20 "M" and "TP" models used for training and 18 SF-260F used for front-line service. All previous SF-260W models were converted to the "M" model and moved to training units. Henryjones000 (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correction, the PAF currently have 20 mostly "TP" and some "M" models, some (unknown number, probably around 10-12 units) used as a light combat air support (CAS) aircraft with the 15th Strike Wing, while there are still remainder for training together with the 18 new "F" models which are with the 100th Training Wing. There are no more "W" left, all disposed off. - phichanad (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: SF-260?

message: Ok, guys... I have extensively updated the page of Aermacchi S-211, please help to update the PAF section therein should any be required. Thank you. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Aermacchi S-211]]

message: I thought the PAF used 3 C-130`s. Ok 1 crashed I get it but what happened to the other C-130 why does the Philippines only have one left I thought we should have at least 2 left?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.105.17 (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The PAF has several C-130s in storage awaiting funds to bring them back in the air. The numbers cited in the press refer to operational aircraft. The PAF usually does not say how many it has in the inventory. News reports are notoriously unreliable when it comes to aircraft numbers, but reportedly, had we not lost a C-130 in late 2008, the PAF would have had 3 operational Hercs. (Adroth (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wat!

message: Hi, Please note that a very persistent IP vandal has been adding hoax material to articles on the Philippines' military, military history and ethnic groups, including this article. The IP addresses they've been using include:
*  (30 September)
*  (19 September)
*  (17 September)
*  (13 September)
*  (12 September)
*  (29 August)
*  (22 August)
*  (2 August)
*  (12 July)
*  (11 July)
*  (7 July)
*  (2 July - admitted posting incorrect info at: )
*  (30 June, used this IP again for vandalism in early July, blocked 6 July - posted abuse on talk page and block extended for another month, responded by stating that they will continuine vandalism once the block expires ) 
*  (29 June)
*  (26 June
*  (25 June)
*  (25 June)
*  (20-21 June)
*  (17 May and 19 July, probable)
*  (5-7 May)
*  (28-30 April)
As such, anything added by IP addresses starting with 118.93., 118.92 or 202.37 should be considered highly dubious and I strongly recommend undoing such edits on sight. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent IP vandal  

message: Its me (the Russian) Tatiana (IP user 202.37.68.58) and the wife of (Pinouy) Martin (IP user 118.92.160.13). I to am a constant editor at Wikipedia. PS: I convinced Martin (IP user 118.92.160.13) to stop making edits without refrences. PS again: Before I came to the Phuilippines I was with the Soviet Air Force Command in Moskva (Moscow). Thats why I like military stuf. Martin (IP user 118.92.160.13) uses my computer often just incase ur wandering.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.68.58 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that this means that you will no longer be adding fiction to articles. Please consider this your first and last warning that any further vandalism will lead to the account being indefinetly blocked. Please provide a valid reference for all material you add. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text: All these accounts have also been blocked as this editor's vandalism has continued over the last few weeks. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation

message: My Former account was User talk:202.37.68.58 but now its User:PHL-USA-RUS.  —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that this means that you will no longer be adding fiction to articles. Please consider this your first and last warning that any further vandalism will lead to the account being indefinetly blocked. Please provide a valid reference for all material you add. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text: All these accounts have also been blocked as this editor's vandalism has continued over the last few weeks. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have now an account 

message: I have other problems with this article, but this recent edit stopped me cold when it popped up on my watchlist. I don't have a problem with the edit itself, but with the surrounding text which its popping up caused me examine.
The cited source amplified on this as follows:
I can make some guesses at what that seeks to convey, but they're just guesses. I'm guessing that "internal security threats" refers to the conflicts with the MILF and the NPA which have been ongoing for the past 40 years or so, growing out of the Hukbalahap rebellion; or perhaps it refers to the more recent problems with the ASG, which have only been ongoing for a decade or so; or perhaps it refers to something else. Whatever "internal security threats" Cadungog has in mind, he projects their defeat by next year. That's a bit of a blockbuster of a projection.
Offhand, I don't see how supersonic jets would be more useful for the legitimate needs of the PAF than COIN aircraft like the A-10 "Warthog", but my opinions don't meet notability requirements for inclusion in a WP article. The opinions of the commanding general  of the PAF do have notability but, from what I see in the article and the cited supporting source, I can't figure out what those opinions amount to. The article doesn't say anything about the focus on the acquisition of supersonic jets mentioned in the cited source. Perhaps it should.
The cited source tries to clarify things a bit by quoting Cadungog as follows:
 
"... protect the country's airspace as an economic resource"???? Offhand, I wouldn't imagine that the RP would get enough revenue from chasing down airliners with supersonic jets to offset the acquisition and operating costs of said supersonic aircraft. I guess I just don't understand the mission of the PAF. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh?? 

message: This article lists 13 active aircraft, citing a 2008 source. this 2009 source also says 13.
The Aermacchi S-211 article says that 25 aircraft were delivered, including one partially completed airframe as spare parts and 15 assembled locally, and says that 14 remain in service but only 4 are airworthy. It cites one source which lists 10 ejections and another which describes another loss and speaks of a fleet size of five aircraft as of November 2007.
this 2003 source says that at that time there were five intact PAF S-211s.
I've placed  tags in the articles, pointing here. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Mitch, this would be my 2 cents worth in reply... would it be alright to accept that the figures provided by World Air Force isn't entirely correct, given that they cannot be compared to the website "www.siai-marchetti.nl", which has managed to provide a meticulously chronicled / detailed list of a/c's s/no. for the S.211 in service with both the Republic of Singapore Air Force and Phil AF. TBH, I find that an easily updated online database to be more user friendly than a book sometimes, especially when there are so many aviation enthusiast watching out and photographing the a/c to provide such constantly updated list. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 13:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *Mitch, the newspaper quoted "18 brand new trainer jets" when referring to the SF.260 prop trainers. I think now we can safely say that either the editor is overworked (scratching my head looking at his) or the General is really stressed-out (stares at his big belly), correct me if I'm wrong but I guess that's how some things are in life. Let me know when there is something in the Philippines that is similar to the GAO, thank you. BTW, I'm going to remove the tag from the S.211 article if you don't have any objection. Toodles~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 04:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, Speaking of SF-260s, (not the S-211s) both the Malaya and the Philstar articles say, "[...] The Italian-made SF-260 is a propeller-driven, two-seater plane".  It is common for newspaper article headlines to be written not by the reporters but by headline writers who are focused on layout and presentation, are pushed for time, and who sometimes screw up headlines (screwed up article headlines are so common in American newspapers that Jay Leno has weekly comedy segment on this using actual article headlines). The Philstar headline-writer screwed up the article headline. I don't know on what inside information you might have based the charge that the chief of the Philippine Air Force was "really stressed-out"  when he made the statement that the PAF still has six of the S-211 jet trainers—or perhaps you were just guessing about that. In any case, I would refer you to the lead sentence of WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." I have edited the info re six remaining S-211s into the article and removed the  tag. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction re S-211 

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: I went to the site of 15th Strike Wing and the Lobos are abbreviated as 25th CAS. 
Source: http://www.15thstrikewing.mil.ph/
--Sir Jazer 13 (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Composite to 25th Attack Squadron 

message: Due to the long-running vandalism of this article (typically through adding either fanciful aircraft types or numbers of aircraft) which has continued despite several previous  periods of semi-protection, I've semi-protected this article for an indefinite period. Unregistered and very recently registered editors can ask for edits to be made to the article by posting their proposed changes here (using the  tag if you wish to attract attention). Further information about semi-protection is available at WP:SILVERLOCK. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is now semi-protected for an indefinite period 

message: Now that we have the requirements and source countries list, we could write out the exact aircraft models being considered, but that would still be OR. Hcobb (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Now is not yet the right time, too much clutter on the real state of this project. It appears that even people inside the DND and PAF are not yet really aware of the exact details. There appears to be 4 plans: either buy MRFs (used or brand new) and some new LIFTs; a mix of MRF and light combat aircraft/LIFT; or a mix of light combat aircraft and LIFT (2 separate aircraft); or a single model LIFT/LCA. Let's see first the exact details, it was announced a decision will be made earliest by July 2012. phichanad (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The Philippines appears to be one of the countries in which the military's ambitions for new equipment habitually exceeds the amount of money the government is willing or able to provide for this, and lots of projects go nowhere. As such, it's best to not add any of the speculation around potential acquisitions. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nick-D, I just hope this time something comes true. I've been trying to check my inside sources but so far nothing concrete. The new M346 + refurbished AMX ACOL/ATA with non afterburning EJ200 engines mix and the TA-50+FA-50 mix keep appearing on my sources but I can't speculate. Only 1 thing is clear, there is indeed money kept for so long and was only available now after all the kinks were ironed out for several years. phichanad (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippines Looking to Buy Non-USA Combat Aircraft 

message: The reported purchase of KAI T/A-50 was announced by ABS-CBN news on 19  & 20 June edition of TV-Patrol, reported by Mr. Anthony Taberna. But there was no direct statement from SecDef Gazmin during the interview or from any other sources that the T/A-50 was indeed selected. No other sources besides ABS-CBN came out with this news. On 21 June 2012 the DND-OPA (Office for Public Affairs) denied the said report by ABS-CBN that the T/A-50 was already chosen, although they clarified that the T/A-50 is part of the shortlist of aircraft being evaluated for the SAA/LIFT project, and there are no winning entity yet. Better wait for further announcements first, ABS-CBN already lost credibility by that news, no need to add more fuel to the fire. The game is still on for those shortlisted. - phichanad (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I seriously doubt the M-346 Master will be selected after the disaster that was the S-211. The Yak-130 Mitten won't be selected cause its Russian and there are serious political downsides in buying equipment from a potential antagonist, See Pakistan's F-16s. The L-159B ALCA is unproven and not compatible with any likely upgrades PAF will acquire. That leaves the T-50 Golden Eagle as the only viable candidate. Also... you may not know this but South Korea has been laying some serious foreign aid on nearly every branch of the Philippine Government. Those secondhand aircraft and naval ships are just the tip of the iceberg. Nearly every National Department and even some local government branches has got some donations within the last 5 years. The odds that the T-50 won't win this is remote. Henryjones000 (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cleared the thing about the alleged T/A-50 pick by the DND because, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a military forum, we have to be very accurate. As for the S-211, it is not the aircraft which was the disaster, it was the PAF itself. Who chose the S-211? Who maintains the S-211? Why are there so many non-active airframes stored in Clark? Singapore never had major problems with the S-211, it was only the PAF. Up until they sold the S-211 to public entities, almost all are in very good condition. Why can't the PAF make these stored S-211s fly? As for the reported T/A-50 pick, only Mr. Taberna/ABS-CBN reported the specific pointing of the T/A-50 which was immediately denied by the DND-OPA. All other news outfits were careful on making rash judgement, but I believe Mr. Taberna is reporting a topic that is not familiar to him, thus the error. I agree with you with regards to the Yak-130 and L-159, but believe me, you just don't know yet how deep the battle is being fought between the T/A-50 and M-346, both inside & outside the PAF/AFP/DND. The Korean presence is the PH government has always been there, but it doesn't end there as well. Although the T/A-50 appears to be at the forefront, it would never be 100% sure until the plane lands in Clark or Villamor Air Base. Contracts can be junked easily, remember the 7 Sokol attack helicopter versions awarded to PZL Sokol but was junked afterwards (separate from the 8 W-3A combat utility helicopters). I know a thing or two of what's happening inside, don't worry, but I'm not just the right person and not just in the right position to divulge. - phichanad (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

text: *Phichanad, think its about high time we inform Henryjones000 that Wikipedia is not a forum. Afterwhich, I will be closing this thread per the same rationale. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on T/A-50 Purchase

message: The Philippines intends to acquire 12 units at PhP 1.25 billion (USD 294 million) each. $294 Million each seems too high for a $20 Million Dollar Fighter. The F-35C costs $250 Million each. Can someone correct if wrong? Henryjones000 (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this correct?

message: According to the wikipedia description of the FA-50 plus various sources, it is to be a fully fleshed fighter and not just a LIFT. As such, perhaps we should move the entry away from the LIFT section?
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/koreas-t-50-spreads-its-wings-04004/ 
Henryjones000 (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Reportedly the PAF ordered the FA-50 with LIFT capability. It appears that the fighter capability was taken into consideration but priority was given to training pilots for future MRFs.
Phichanad (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA-50 is a Multirole, all-weather fighter 

message: Corrected per MOS.  This article was previously inconsistent with a mixture of sentence stye and title style capitalization. Phineas J. Whoopee (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization in section headings 

message: Some of the references is outdated and out of place and needs updating. Like for example, some of the the references belonging to the S-211 is out of place (no.60 and no.61), the reference belonging to fokker f28 (no.69) is invalid and the reference of t-41 mescalero (no.70) needs updating. (contact) cybolton 12:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Some of the references needs updating

message: There were moves done recently to separate the list of active and former aircraft of the PAF into another separate article. In my opinion, there is no need to do such since the lists are not too long, and these are very important to the article's completeness. I also think using photos of similar aircraft model but in foreign colors as irrelevant to the listing. What do you think?
Phichanad (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there a need to separate the list of aircraft from the main article?

message: Flight Global Insight is reporting in their World Air Forces 2014 report that the PAF has made a firm order for 4 units of AS550. Has anyone heard about this?--Henryjones000 (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Flight Global is not a perfect source. The Fennec deal did not push through, and was reverted back to the purchase of AW109s.Phichanad (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Eurocopter AS550 Fennec

message: I've created subheadings for the PAF history, please continue updating the "Early years to recent" with latest or previous operational history of the PAF with "citations please" of notable historic operations. Also the "Current Status" should be updated with notable or current updates regarding the PAF acquisitions and improvements, etc with "citation" please. Thank you. Efram23 (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History update 

message: |aircraft_helicopter= Bell 412EP, Bell Huey II, UH-1H, W-3A, S-70 Blackhawk, MD520MG, S-76A/AUH-76, Bell-205A, Agusta Westland AW109E,
Gabdecena (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2015 

message: I might be a bit thick here but can somebody explain why they are edit warring over a citation for 12 on order when both sources support the figure, as the sources dont contradict each other I cant see the point in keep changing it, probably me missing something obvious. MilborneOne (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my mistake here: for some reason I read the material as saying that 12 aircraft had been delivered (which is possible given the problems with the most recent edition of World Air Forces) rather than 12 being on order. Sorry about that FOX 52. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem Nick-D our dear friend  has been fighting every change regarding that section, for unexplained reasoning - FOX 52 (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Well that's odd because the one recurring source(s) used prior to my editing is the World Air Forces 2014 (which I've only updated to 2015). The KT-1 & FA-50 was typo, and your counter source to the AS550 never specified an aircraft type. Finally your reverting changes which are against image guidelines -WP:IMAGEMOS.  this disruptive editing will only get you blocked again - FOX 52 (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Than you should review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources - FOX 52 (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Can I just note that Flight's World Air Forces is a reliable source for our purposes, that doesnt mean we cant use other sources if they are more accurate or later but the use of WAF as a source is acceptable. MilborneOne (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Don't worry Efram, we'll try to fix this mess again sometime, we only need more publicly available sources. I have an actual listing of active PAF and PN aircraft as of June 2015, but they are not for public consumption, and its way too far from those listed in FG World's Air Force. All I can say is FG's list is too inaccurate on the Philippines section. Too bad the Philippine media does not always put in their numbers right because they also use older data/ Phichanad (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I can confirm that some in the Philippine media uses Wikipedia in their report as I have several friends in the business. So what's really happening is information going around. They only get it right when they are quoting from the military or defense department (which unusually for a direct source, also make several mistakes and sometimes make use of Wikipedia too!). Crazy, isn't it? Phichanad (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Not sure on that Efram23, the photo might not be allowed for use yet. Let's wait for other sources later on. Phichanad (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: FA-50

message: Do we need to change the tables? This is what i found on the aviation guide.
Fox52 has been changing Air Force tables all over the asian region.
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Lists
===What this format is for===
This format is to be used for shorter lists, which do not need to be split up, and which benefit from being sortable.
A very short list may be placed within the main article, while a longer list may require its own "List of..." page.
===What this format is not===
This format is not suitable for anything other than lists of aircraft types.
This format is not intended for very long lists split over multiple pages, such as lists by manufacturer or chronological lists.
This format is not absolute. It provides a default which should be used unless there is a good reason why it is not suitable for a particular list.
Our table is not a short list. Can someone clarify? Efram23 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The major concern is not to have images in the table they can cause formatting issues with narrow viewing ie smart phones. I have used a table the provides sub-headings as well. FOX 52 (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviation Table 

message: This format is not suitable for anything other than lists of aircraft types.
This format is not intended for very long lists split over multiple pages, such as lists by manufacturer or chronological lists.
This format is not absolute. It provides a default which should be used unless there is a good reason why it is not suitable for a particular list.
Our table is not a short list. Can someone clarify? Efram23 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The major concern is not to have images in the table they can cause formatting issues with narrow viewing ie smart phones. I have used a table the provides sub-headings as well. FOX 52 (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: What this format is not

message: To all concerned editors, please take note that some sourced entries in the aircraft section are erroneously displaying (or conflicting) information which is not even mentioned in the reference. Example: SIAI-Marchetti S.211 In Service: 5  there are two sources, one from   World Air Forces 2014 which show they have five, and the other source philstar.com  states near the bottom “The PAF still has  six of the S-211 jet trainers …” So an editor went with FG? In the Notes section it says: “Locally upgraded to AS-211 "Warrior" standard to do air-to-ground missions. 7 more airframes stored, waiting for reactivation”, and the source provided, makes no mention of what’s stated. Then adding to the confusion this source quotes "So far, we have  three (S-211) operational and we are requesting..." - As you can see they're some discrepancies just in that one alone - Please be careful Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that the Philstar citation is from 2010 so is not going to agree with World Air Forces 2014, so all we can do is use the latest information from a reliable source, if we have two that contradict then mention that as a note. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for information scramble.nl lists 12 possibly active in the last six years, although an aircraft that crashed on 26 November 2007 is not known and some have not been seen for a number of years. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to conclusion that the most recent sources should be used, but I'm getting resistance to that idea as some feel "Flight Global" is an inaccurate source - FOX 52 (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're just talking about S.211 here. For everyone sake, the previous post before your recent edit already corrected the quantity to 3 flying aircraft, the source came straight from the horse's mouth - the Philippine Air Force's 2015 report. Do you mean to say FG WAF2015 is more accurate than the PAF report, that's why you disregarded the source altogether just to pull of your edit? And for everyone's sake, the 3 flying aircraft are 07-001/801, 07-002/802, and 09-002/021. Flight Global did not even indicate that all 3 flying aircraft are already AS-211/AS.211 upgraded aircraft, not standard S.211. Further errors can be seen on the report if you only try to check more. I already included updated sources on the OV-10, FA-50, Sokol, and a few more, yet you did not even try to bother considering them. If your intentions are really good, try to cooperate and not to push yourself. Thanks Phichanad (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's in a source 

message: Due to insistence in totally using the said source for all aircraft quantities not only in the Philippine Air Force article, but also for other country's air forces, let's try to see what are the errors in the WAF2015 for the Philippine Air Force page as seen on page 26:
1. OV-10: There are 3 variants of OV-10 used by the PAF, the "A", "C',and the so-called "M". This was not shown in WAF2015. As for the numbers, it is still unclear so we can say that WAF2015 could either be correct or wrong.
2. C-295: as of March 2015, there is already a single C-295M in service with the PAF. WAF2015 did not list that. WAF2015 also failed to mention that the aircraft is the "M" variant.
3. F-27: while there are only 2 serviceable F-27 as of May 2015 due to a landing gear accident, there were actually 3 when WAF2015 was published on December 2014. The F-27 involved in an accident is still being determined if they would repair or not depending on the aircraft's condition.
4. N-22: there were 3 Nomads that flew in PAF's anniversary in 2013, t/n's B-12, B-68, and C-87, and none has crashed since then. B-19 was also even spotted as late as June 2015 flying.
5. AS550: this deal didn't push through as of 2013. And even if it did, it covers 10 aircraft, not 4.
6. Bell 212/412: although the aircraft looks the same with only few differences including the rotors, these are 2 different birds. There are no Bell 212 currently in service with the PAF, and there are 5 Bell 412HP/EP operating when WAF was published last December. There were 6 already delivered as of July 2015, although only 2 were commissioned to the PAF.  
7. UH-1D/H: this is the difficult part, because the PAF has more than 60 airframes of the UH-1H, and not all are in working condition. Latest reports put it at between 20-40. The UH-1D, there were 21 ordered, not 11 as written in the WAF2015, and 7 were already received. This did not reflect in WAF2015.
8. The S.211 are still considered trainer aircraft when they are not more configured as combat aircraft due to lack of air assets. They are even converted to AS.211 Warrior standard, which is different from the standard S.211. WAF2015 did not indicate this, even in their 2014 report.
9. SF-260: it did cover the number of SF-260MP/TP/MZ but did not acknowledge the arrival of 18 new SF-260FH in 2011. Even FlightGlobal reported it in 2008!
10. SE313: The Philippine Navy never operated SE-313 in its entire history!
11. Missing BO-105 for the Philippine Navy: maybe this is what WAF2015 mean, the BO-105, not SE-313!
12. Missing R-22 helicopter: WAF2015 totally missed this, there's a single R-22 helicopter with the PN!
13. Missing Philippine Army aviation: so where is the aviation assets of the Philippine Army? It's missing in the WAF2015!
So out of 21 entries in the Philippines for WAF2015, 10 have mistakes or incomplete, and there are several missing. That's quite high for a source that is said to be highly reliable. So although WAF2015 can be used as a source, it can't be used as the only source. Phichanad (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DUE would appear to apply here. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Based on official info that I have, it was not shelved but rescheduled to Horizon 2. The number is also increased to 4 aircraft in the new plan. No official publicly available source though. Phichanad (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Flight Global's WAF report only comes out once a year, so it's obvious updates that occur later in the year would not reflect the article at that time. Variants are not a major part of their report, and as far as the numbers that appears to be a fuzzy on all source(s). Army aviation seems to be a mystery as well timawa.net. So your so-called "gotcha moments" are a tad weak, but regardless any source is capable of mistakes. Getting correct number(s) is a challenge as sources may not report aircraft that are stored due to budget constraints or lost to accidents and as an Encyclopedia it is not necessary to report every minor detail like it’s a news site WP:NOTNEWS. - FOX 52 (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

text: FOX 52 (talk) Then you know it yourself that it gets updated only once a year, situations change all through that time till they update it, then why not use other sources other than WAF? You are disregarding other editors efforts to update articles taken from other valid sources. You keep promoting WAF like wiki can't use other sources in all your edits on other air forces articles in the region. Efram23 (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Fox 52, You seem to be suggesting that the source which you call philstar.com "2010" above might be treated as an update to the source which you call World Air Forces 2014. A source from 2010 clearly is not, and should not be treated as, an update to a source from 2014 (several years later). I have looked at both sources. The 2010 source says that PAF had six S-211s as of May 23, 2010. The 2014 source says that the PAF had three S-211s as of sometime in 2014. The article currently says that PAF has three active S-211s (citing a 2015 source), that it has 11 airframes stored, and has plans to reactivate three of those (citing two different 2012 sources). Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest to use the most recent source, and remove unreliable sources that can not guarantee accuracy as disclaimed by Airport-Data.com - FOX 52 (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The final part of that suggestion conflicts with WP:DUE -- which is part of WP's WP:NPOV policy. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

text: That is what we are trying to do FOX 52 (talk). Take a look at the updates made. And it still an ongoing process. We never said that the previous version before your edits was 100% accurate either, and we thank you for pointing out the lack of updates. But as I was saying before, DO NOT SOLELY USE WAF2015 because it is absolutely not 100% accurate as well, and might even be less accurate than the current sources used right now. Happy weekend. Phichanad (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointing out errors in the Flight International's World Air Forces 2015 

message: The current article/page lists 12 bases as being utilized by the PAF (7 in Luzon, 1 in the Visayas, and three in Mindanao). According to the PAF's official website (http://www.paf.mil.ph/aboutus/bases/bases.html), however, there are only 8:
1. Clark Air Base in Pampanga (http://www.paf.mil.ph/aboutus/bases/cab.html)
2. Basa Air Base also in Pampanga (http://www.paf.mil.ph/aboutus/bases/basa.html)
3. Col. Jesus Villamor AB in Pasay, Metro Manila (it is part of Ninoy Aquino International Airport) (http://www.paf.mil.ph/aboutus/bases/cjvab.html)
4. Maj. Danilo Atienza AB in Cavite (http://www.paf.mil.ph/aboutus/bases/mdaab.html)
5. Fernando AB in Batangas (http://www.paf.mil.ph/aboutus/bases/aetc.html)
6. Antonio Bautista AB in Palawan (http://www.paf.mil.ph/aboutus/bases/abab.html)
7. Mactan-Benito Ebuen AB on Mactan (http://www.paf.mil.ph/aboutus/bases/mbeab.html)
8. Edwin Andrews AB in Mindanao (http://www.paf.mil.ph/aboutus/bases/eab.html)
Razshiev (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of PAF bases 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Philippine Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090326042725/http://www.dnd.gov.ph/DNDWEBPAGE_files/dndbac/acafp/iab4.pdf to http://www.dnd.gov.ph/DNDWEBPAGE_files/dndbac/acafp/iab4.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Philippine Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120225034457/http://businessmirror.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25373:paf-getting-18-new-training-jets-at-p660m&catid=23:topnews&Itemid=58 to http://businessmirror.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25373:paf-getting-18-new-training-jets-at-p660m&catid=23:topnews&Itemid=58
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Replacing the name West Philippine Sea in South East Asia with international recognize name of South China Sea to avoid confusion. Why Should I Tell (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2017 

message: In the table under Transport Aircraft, Lockheed C-130 Hercules, change "Total 5 in service,[93] H model t/n 4726 & 4704, and B model t/n 3633.[91] 6 more C-130B & L-100-20 stored. Two ordered C-130Ts from the US will be delivered by early 2016.[94] 1 C-130T arrived and commissioned April 2015.[92]" to "Total 6 in service,[93] H model t/n 4726 & 4704, and B model t/n 3633.[91] 6 more C-130B & L-100-20 stored. Two ordered C-130Ts from the US will be delivered by early 2016.[94] 1 C-130T arrived and commissioned April 2016.[92]".  The reference [92] was misread as a 2015 article instead of 2016.  There are only 2 x C-130T aircraft.
Change the "Active" column from "3[92]" to "2[92]". Roxetta (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had a tidy up, most of the information you had above was not needed, it was just repeating what the table said and we dont normally list serial numbers in these lists. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2017 

message: The note on Dornier UH-1D Models is wrong. It said 13 out of 21 UH-1D was delivered. WRONG.
Only 7 out of 21 was delivered and accepeted by PAF Inpection Team. Of the 7 accepted and commisioned, 2 were lost in accidents. Then PAF acquired 4 UH-1 Super Deltas. Total 9 operational aircraft.
Wrong assumption that 13 (7 Delta + 4 Super Delta +2 lost inaccident) was delivered.
Please Change it. GoalkeeperCIWS (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite a Reliable Source for your information. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Several sources including MaxDefense and Pinoy Aviators confirmed that there were 13 Dornier UH-1D delivered, despite news outlets reporting it as 9. Among those delivered were 9 Deltas (2 lost in accidents) and 4 Super Deltas. MaxDefense mentioned that their information came from Rice Helicopters itself, which is among their group members. Philippine Daily Inquirer also confirmed there are 13 Dornier Hueys delivered. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/896989/look-grounded-uh-1d-choppers-cleared-to-fly-again Phichanad (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong note on Dornier UH-1D 

message: Just to note although I cant see it in the article an order with the Canadian government to procure 16 new Bell Helicopters 412EPI medium-lift helicopters for the Philippine Air Force has been cancelled. MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: philippines-cancels-bell-412-deal - FOX 52 (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bell 412EPI 

message: As before, may I again remind everyone especially FOX 52 that this source is inaccurate in its listing of aircraft in the Philippine Air Force. Among those noted are as follows: fleet numbers for AS-211, SF-260, OV-10, F-27, Nomad, Bell 412, UH-1, T-41, and the presence of H125 despite no orders for such helicopter. THis H125 has been appearing in their list for several years now and I remember mentioning this 2 years ago. As I said before, do not use FGs WAF too much especially when there are other sources confirming fleet numbers of other aircraft. This also applies to the List of aircraft of the Philippine Air Force which is essentially just a better listing of that found in the PAF entry.Phichanad (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracy of Flight Global's World Air Forces 2017/2018

message: Regarding the KAI T-50 others have made the accretion to the "Multirole" title see here, and the infobox states that it is a multirole aircraft, personally I could go either way on the matter. As for the H125 order it is in the FightGlobal World Air Forces 2018 directory on page 25, but we can leave it out as there are no other sources pertaining to the order. - FOX 52 (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  KAI T-50  

message: Kindly please change "After a throughout study and research, the Department of National Defense prefers the Swedish-made Gripen multi-role supersonic jet fighter, while the PAF MRFAP Technical Working Group was said to prefer the F-16V Block 70 for the Philippine Air Force." to "After a throughout study and research, the Department of National Defense prefers the Swedish-made Gripen multi-role supersonic jet fighter." on citations [53] and [54] Atdsutm (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: KSFT (t|c) 05:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2019 

message: Hi!
At the very bottom, there is a dead link for Elta System Ltd.
WIKI has a page for: Elta Systems, an Israeli defense contractor, although they do not make full fledged airplanes.
Anyway, if this is the proper company, please update the link. I cannot do it since no outside Editing is allowed.
All the best,
James
203.150.154.126 (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link - Elta Systems 

message: Can I ask your permission to make "current inventory" as section? Gwapo461 (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it for you. MilborneOne (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current inventory to be considered as section 

message: Philippine Air Force's Vice Commander, as of now, is MGEN Pelagio Valenzuela AFP  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippine air warrior (talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAF Vice Commander 

message: i need someone to add a section for the upcoming air defense systems , armaments or missile , and radars just below the PAF's UAV section, the information showing the PAF's inventory is outdated and it need some changes. 
Air defense system:
Spyder= +12-18 missile firing units(+3 batteries) 
Stingers= (unknown quantity) 
Radars: 
FPS-3= +3 units
TPS-P14= +1 unit
ELM-2288ER= 3 units
*make sure to do some research before making changes, Thank you! Hankenseiz (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. This isn't the place to request other editors add information for you. If you want, reopen this request with a specific change to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  20:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Request on PAF's Inventory 

message: Five years after I pointed out that the numbers found on Flight International's annual World's Air Forces, not just for the Philippine Air Force but for several other air arms, is mostly incorrect. And a few editors are simply disregarding even any other acceptable sources. What's with the fixation on World's Air Forces? Are you an editor of Flight International? Many not just here but in other threads on air forces and air arms have provided reliable sources yet the same people simply take them out just to be in line with the data from World's Air Forces. What's with the monopoly on info? Phichanad (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is used because it is a reliable source, if you have another reliable source that contradicts the WAF entry then I dont see why you should have an issue, the worst is a note to say that a says b but c says they only have d. WAF is used because it is readily available, covers all the air forces and as I have said is a reliable source for fleets. That doesnt stop you raising it on the talk page and having a better source and then coming to some consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Still Too Much Reliance on Flight International's World's Air Force??

message: I will move the equipment (excluding aircraft) to the dedicated page since the list looked messy. If anybody is against me doing this, please reply why I should not do it. RPC7778 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving equipment to a [[List of equipment of the Philippine Air Force|dedicated page]]

message: Change the literal English translation of "Hukbong Himpapawid ng Pilipinas" to "Sky Army of the Philippines" 136.158.29.78 (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2022 

message: I was a confused by the "Excessive Details" tag for this article (as of 4 December 2022), and upon further investigation, realized that editor  likely already addressed the cleanup issue, dated May 2020, in edits in July 2021. I thus propose to remove said tag, but wish to inform the community before doing so. I shall do so in 24 hours if there are no objections. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive detail tag seems to have been addressed 

message: What is the status of 3 sokol helicopter that was reported that the condition is repairable? 2001:4456:1C3:6F00:11C4:E30F:E319:2513 (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sokol Update 

message: Please add related club under "see also" for example
(Philippine Air Force F.C.) 93.143.88.246 (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detail 

message: The redirect DZHH-AM has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.   Jay 💬 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:DZHH-AM]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]