Talk:List of active Indian military aircraft/Archive 1

Canberra numbers ambiguous

Canberras are listed under both the bomber and reconnaissance categories, with the number in each case being "150". Common sense suggests that these numbers are inclusive, and that the total in both roles was 150. But this isn't clear from the article, which implies that there were 150 bombers plus 150 recon models, for a total of 300.Darkstar8799 (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

some aircraft not included

its confusing, we including transports & Combat Aircraft in that table, while Helicopters is under historical aircraft. Either create table for all kinds of aircraft or for none of them. we have not included UAVs, Boeing VIP Aircraft, Gulfstream Aircraft for recon, recently purchased ERJ-145 or something from brazil for VVIP. many sources like airliners.net, FAS, globasecurity confirms that IAF operates Gulfstream Aircraft jointly with ARC. other aircraft which IAF might be operating are learjet-29, Astra-SPX etc (as per globalsecurity).

Do-288 is also not in the list.

True. Also the introduction says IAF operates more than 1130 combat aircraft but the table adds to 352 aircraft+200 MiG 21 variants. Also article on Indian bid for aircrafts has totally different numbers which puts MiG 21 at more than 400--59.95.17.78 (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It came to 800(797) using microsoft calculator must have included mig-23.Mig-23 is in service i will add it .This was done assuming there are 116 sukhois.Zoravar (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Su-30 MKI

50 imported from Russia. HAL has already produced 34=84. Total 170 to be made in India by 2015. Total 170+50=220 Su-30MKI.Production rate 19-23/year.[1] Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Total=220+40 more from Russia.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

UAVs and Other additions

Hey Guys, I have added some information for UAVs and other aircrafts. I don't know how to add references. Can anyone do that??? Mittal.fdk (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Su-30MKI Numbers

IAF has 116 SU-30MKI's as of now. The numbers increase by around 20 a year. Please change the numbers of su-30mki's. It says only 105. The actual number is 116.

And also include LCA in the list of Fighter Aircraft please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.214.24 (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Mig 23

IAf website says Mig-23 is still in service,source:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Fighters/MiG23UM/.Zoravar (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":

• From Aerial refueling: A1-F18AC-NFM-000 Naval Aviation Training and Operating Procedures Standardization (NATOPS) Manual. United States Department of the Navy. 1 August 2006. p. 364. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• From History of the Indian Air Force: Pradhan & Chavan 2007, p. xiv

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Indian Air Force has 1,550 aircraft in service

A revision of Air craft Numbers concludes the Indian airforce has 1,550+ aircraft in service, with 553+ of those fighter aircraft.

source.http://www.milaviapress.com/orbat/india/index.phpRademire (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

AgustaWestland AW101

12 AW101 helicopters have been ordered and the order will be completed by 2013. This page needs to be updated to reflect the change.

Edit request from Sujit222, 28 April 2010

{{editprotected}} The information provided about the number of operational AWACS in IAF is wrong, the second one has also been inducted into the air force, please check facts and then post. And later towards the end of this year the 3rd will also be recieved from Israel.

My reference: http://article.wn.com/view/2010/03/25/India_receives_second_AWACS_to_be_deployed_in_Agra/

Also check the facts about the number of Mirage Multi role fighters in india posession, 41 single seaters and 10 twin trainers, the total is 51, not 41.

Sujit222 (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: This article is no longer protected. Please make the edit yourself, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi protected

I've semi-protected this page at the request of User:Recon.Army. Please attempt to work out consensus on how to present differing reports of aircraft numbers on this page first before starting reverting back and forth. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks buckshot. Hopefully this will stop the vandalism. Recon.Army (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Move article

This article is meant to provide a breif listing of every aircraft ever in service in the Indian Air Force. Hoever this article has become dominated by the active fleet. Shouldnt the equiptment table be moved to a new article such as Active aircraft of the Indian Air Force and the future aircraft tables moved to Future of the Indian Air Force. Recon.Army (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable idea, this could be an alphabetic list of all aircraft operated and the active aircraft moved to another article. The large future aircraft section is a but of speculation and doesnt really belong here. Just a note If anybody creates any new articles then please do not copy and paste and follow the relevant process. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed this too. It seems like the historical aircraft section has been somewhat marginalized which kind of gives a focus to the active and future fleet. However, I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. I do like Milborne's suggestion that we have two separate articles. The first one should detail all the aircraft that were ever in service (persumably in an alphabetical order) and the second should focus on the active fleet. I also agree that the future aircraft section invites a fair bit of speculation and instead of being talked about in a table could have a few text sections detailing major orders (like the MRCA competition and such). Vedant (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Future of the Indian Air Force has been created by another editor so I have removed the future section and made a note about the new article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected the article as the fleet totals are being changed without discussion. Can editors please come to a consensus rather than edit war, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please refer to the source provided for aircraft figures. Changing figures while meant in good faith cannot be accepted because of a lack of discussion and/or lack of sources to support those changes. — Woe^{(talk with 90i)} 10:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 December 2011

3 new AEW EMB-145I

source http://globalmilitaryreview.blogspot.com/2011/12/indian-emb-145i-airborne-warning-and.html

Not done; The source is not dated and has no information on figures. Besides the source quotes "we are moving towards delivery of the first aircraft during the first half of 2012". So the aircraft are not as of yet in service. I can however make a note that they are on order with deliveries starting in 2012. Cheers. — Woe90i 22:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Article Protected

Can users come to some consensus on this talk page on the totals to be used rather then edit war, some reliable references may help, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank goodness, Armyjawan1 is a suspected sock and blatantly ignores the reliable source already given. The IISS is one of the more authoritative sources available and is cited in the article. Armyjawan1 is obviously unhappy with the IISS figures and appears to be sourcing figures from thin-air instead. Either Armyjawan1 is banned for sockpuppetry (if confirmed) or we use another method to try and "reach him". Otherwise he'll continue to cause disruption give editors a headache. There is not much reasoning with this user/sock to reach a consensus, he feels very strongly that his own research (that tickles his POV) is correct.

I recently requested Temporary Full Protection for this article to dull the fires and bring this situation under-control. Talk^Woe90i 18:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the protection, nobody turned up to discuss the changes so they clearly had no consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Future Aircraft shall be added

I request that the future aircraft like FGFA, HAL Light Combat Helicopter should also be added like the US Aircraft page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.57.15.47 (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Figures are wrong and need to be updated

Flight global report is available and the data need to be updated. http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/reports_pdf/world-air-forces-2011-2012-90190.aspx

From flight global the figures provided are

INDIA
INDIAN AIR FORCE
Type Active Ordered
Combat aircraft
Jaguar M/S 120 10
MiG-21 153
MiG-23 14
MiG-27 88
MiG-29 68
Mirage 2000H 45
Su-30/MKI 137 53+40*
Tejas LCA 1 19
Special mission
1125 G100 (Recce) 1
EMB-145 (AEW) 3
Gulfstream III (EW) 2
Il-76 (AEW) 3 3
Tanker
Il-78 7
Transport
1125 Astra SPX 1
An-32 108
C-17 10*
C-130J 6 6*
Dornier228 28 12
HS 748 55
Il-76 17
Combat helicopter
AH-64D 22*
Dhruv ALH 25 54
LCH 25
Mi-8/17 138 54+59*
Mi-26 3
Mi-35 20
SA315 11
SA316 72
Training aircraft/helicopters
Hawk 132 35 70
HJT-16 Kiran 161
HJT-36 Sitara 16
Jaguar T 31
Mirage 2000TH 12
Saras 15*
Tejas LCA 20

INDIAN ARMY
Type Active Ordered
Combat helicopter
Dhruv ALH 53
LCH 114
SA315 25 10

INDIAN NAVY
Type Active Ordered
Combat aircraft
MiG-29/K 11 32
Sea Harrier FRS51 8
Tejas LCA 6*
Tu-142 8
Special mission
Dornier 228 (MPA) 22
Il-38 (MPA) 5
P-8I (737) (MPA) 8
Transport
BN-2 12
Dornier 228 4
Combat helicopter
Dhruv ALH 5
Ka-25 16
Ka-28 12
Ka-31 9 4
SA316/319 32
Sea King 42 27
UH-3 3
Training aircraft/helicopters
Harrier T4/60 3
Hawk 132 17
HJT-16 Kiran 20
MiG-29KUB 2

Tapovana (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The lock on the page is preventing these updates. The latest being the induction of about 20 Mi-17 V5's into service. [2] The lock be lifted and the figures updated.Tapovana (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Add the Dassault Rafale to the list

The Dassault Rafale has been chosen by the IAF (ref IAF procures 126 Dassault Rafale fighters). Needs to be added into the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratishmenon (talk • contribs) 06:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont think it should be as they have not actually ordered any never mind having any delivered it cant really be considered active. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mi-17 V5 has to added 80 ordered 20 delivered http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/latest-mi-17-v5-choppers-formally-inducted-into-indian-air-force-177255 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.44.232 (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Rafale-ec-1-7.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rafale-ec-1-7.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Rafale-ec-1-7.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

A50 Phalcon AWACS

The correct designation is A50 and not IL 76, because this is a special version manufactured by Beriev:

http://en.take-off.ru/news/102-feb2011/570-a50ei-10-2010

So please replace IL 76:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il-76

with A50: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_A-50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.181.185.45 (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Decorative flags

Is there any reason that this article should be exempt from WP:MOSFLAG? bobrayner (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried initially removing flags from many articles like Equipment of the Indian Army (by mostly the same users, along with many ip editors), but eventually I gave up, due to constant re-adds, and when i saw that it really wasn't affecting the quality/content of the article, and to constantly revert the changes was a waste of my time. Plz remove them if you have the patience. Thanks! :D Anir1uph (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No reason why this article should be different. MilborneOne (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Anir1uph (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Added Israel to A-50

Ive added Israel to Russia on the A-50. Israel makes the AWACS system so its addition is fully justified. Irondome (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

IL 78 MKI change

Added Israel to relevant parties on the IL-78 MKI. The fuel transfer system is Israeli. Essentially then she is an Israeli tanker built on the IL-78. The Russian contribution is solely the airframe.Irondome (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Building a consensus to better describe the "origins" of 3 IAF types

Added Israel to the Sea Harrier. the radar and BVR missile are Israeli. Again these are critical components, and it more accurately reflects the various types diverse origins. Also my edits I think more clearly illustrates the role Israeli industry has on Indian defense. I believe Israel is now Indias 2nd largest arms supplier, after Russia. Sorry to be a pain guys, but I think the edits are justified. Cheers :) Irondome (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but your 3 edits were not justified (as i have already stated in my edit comment) as the column is solely dedicated to the source/origin of the aircraft in the list, not the country/company which upgrades it or provides a armaments/critical components. This is not a place to show how any country is our supplier, but about the source country. To change that, you must first start a discussion on the talk page to change the name of the column from "Origin" to something else. I have no problems with your changes, but first you must build consensus on the column name. Anir1uph (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your position, and it seems you understand mine. Thus we need to build consensus as to the need for change, if any and a possible change to column name. I understand the priority on airframes, but this of itself in some cases is in fact misleading, as in at least 2 of my proposed edits which I was attempting to improve. As it is it leaves readers who may have less knowledge with the erroneous impression that the countries cited have created models with capabilities shown, when this is inaccurate. I therefore propose a change to the column name, or if a type has been RADICALLY modified, as in the types I have highlighted, a shared nationality/flag attribution would be sufficient. For instance, in the Phalcon project, India, Israel and Russia have signed a formal tripartite agreement on all aspects of production. The airframes are flown to Tel Aviv for extensive modification and flight and system tests. A similar case is with the tankers, I believe. The tanker airframes are assembled in Uzbekistan, with IAI technicians to assist with the fuel transfer equipment, which requires considerable modifications to the airframe. I would argue my edits more accurately and unambiguously reflect the true position and technical origin of these types. In addition I am only proposing to edit these 3 types, each of which are unique and interesting in their own right. It would be more informative and instructive to the user if we recognise the unique shared provenence of these types. Irondome (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see the page Sukhoi Su-30 MKI. In general, if the level of cooperation is of the level of that aircraft, only then is the origin of the aircraft shared between the two. As the Su-30MKI was designed from the grounds up for the Indian Air force, and it has little resemblance to the Su-30 or Su-27, and is comparable to Su-35. If you can find reliable sources that that say the same for other aircraft, then it is OK. But the changes should not be just upgrades. The changes introduced (structural as well as software) must make the aircraft not comparable to the parent aircraft. The meaning of the word origin is very clear. Anir1uph (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I would suggest as a temporary compromise that Israeli technology be acknowledged in the "notes" section of the relevant airframes in the current list. The question you posed is complex, but doubtless sufficient structural modifications were made in at least 2 of the types, otherwise they would not spend several months at IAI facilities, which specialise in airframe issues. The extent and citations I would need to get, but im confident. I also note that the Su-30 MKI has Israeli modifications and input. I believe these are state of the art targeting, the superb LITENING targeting pod, electronics and countermeasures suites, which Russia is relatively backward on technologically. IAF commanders (and all Indian arms) greatly appreciate and respect Israeli computer software and EW and countermeasures suites, which is why intensive co-operaration in these fields are ongoing, also with advanced X band radars for ABM systems, such as Green Pine. I assume the IAF top brass have identified the critical items that stop the plane from ending up as a smelly wreck on a hill somewhere. :) Irondome (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I would again ask you to see the dictionary meaning of "origin". And this is a 'List of aircraft, and as such must include minimal information about miscellaneous details. Details are for the main article of the that aircraft and must be include only there. That is why main articles exist in the first place. Providing critical parts/armament does not make a country the origin of that aircraft. And this is not a page for Info-Israel defence relations. This is a list. Anir1uph (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A list that signally fails to mention the actual machines in their entirety. As such it is meaningless and misleading. Tech input must be mentioned, by whatever source. I would say then that notes would be the appropriate place. Do you agree? Irondome (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"Origin" is a red herring in this context. Many users will not look up the source article and remain misled, albeit unintentionally by the authors. Irondome (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This list in its current form is not meaningless. Also the word origin is not misleading, it is representative of the fact about the country which started work on the aircraft. A list is not supposed to provide excessive technical/historic details. The details of the aircraft can be accessed from the wikilinks of the aircraft, which are part of the list. Notes are not needed, as anyone wanting to access detailed info can go to the aircraft's page directly from here. The main purpose of a list is to keep it simple. Over-cluttering will ruin the list. Anir1uph (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point about brevity. However editing the note section will not over clutter, and will improve the list, for all concerned. Are you ok with that idea? We could add some BRIEF notes as a test, and see how it looks. FULL information I believe is critical to the "sophistication" of the list. It can only enhance it. At the moment, the list is misleading to the casual reader, many of whom will not continue the thought-trail to the source article. Human nature. I believe brief additions to notes can only enhance the list at this point. I am only proposing the addition of perhaps 25 words in 3 airframe notes sections, in a list of over 50airframe types. My request is not excessive, I feel. In fact on the 3 types in question, there are no notes in the boxes provided. So the space argument seems irrelevant. Irondome (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Normally the origin in these list article is the source of the airframe, for example the Sea Harrier is the United Kingdom. Normally the only time this is changed if the aircraft has been built under license in another country like the Hawk. It is not meant to indicate the nationality of every supplier of equipment that is not the function of the list or the origin column. Certainly the origin of radars and other avionic equipment fitted are never notable enough to really mention, the most expensive bit is normally the engine and we dont mention the origin of it. If an aircraft has had an upgrade then that can be detailed on the particularly aircraft article either under variant or customer sections. Really if you want to change this idea then you should really get a wider consensus from the aircraft project. Please remember this is just a list to help readers find the right articles and give an overview picture of the equipment used. MilborneOne (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I really do appreciate that point gentlemen and in essence I agree with the usage of lists in general. Its just a few notes wouldnt do any harm, especially as there is space free. Also the Phalcon entry does not include India (it seems to be the earlier Chilean version) so a note in list would be of real practical help. These are perhaps the most "strategic" airframes in the IAF, I mean the multi-engined types Ive been going on about. They are interesting. Irondome (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC

Dont have a problem against balanced and properly constructed notes, perhaps you could add the text here on the talk page so we can take a view. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. I will bang out a few v. brief rough note ideas on here during the course of the evening. Think we are only talking about maybe a couple of dozen words in total. Irondome (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

IL-78 MKI. Assembled in Uzbekistan. Israeli designed fuel- transfer system. A50-EI. Fitted with EL/W-2090 radar system. Sea Harrier. Fitted with EL/M-2032 radar and Derby Python missile BVR AAM. Thats all I propose. Irondome (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Lets us skip the missile. *reluctantly* A note at the bottom of the page (in references) saying "IL-78 MKI. Assembled in Uzbekistan. Israeli designed fuel- transfer system. A50-EI. Fitted with EL/W-2090 radar system. Sea Harrier. Fitted with EL/M-2032 radar" seems fine to me. Anir1uph (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Very good. Thank you for your generous and co-operative stance. I agree about the missile. A luxury we can dispense with. One issue. I am new to Wiki as an active user, and am presently having issues adding linked notes on reference pages. I have sought help from help desk for this. May I add the wording to the "Notes" box as a temporary measure? Later we can link them to reference section to provide a self-referring source for the consumer. Is this ok for now? A pleasure co-operating with you my friend. Irondome (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have made the changes. Plz give your suggestions. Anir1uph (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Can the radars be wikilinked directly to the articles in question? Especially useful in the case of the EL/W-2090. I really appreciate all you have done. I need to quickly become familiar with the nuts and bolts of how to do these tasks.Irondome (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thats ok! You'l learn soon :) Anir1uph (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

EMB 135 + BSF aircrafts

The EMB 135 of IAF for VIP transport is missing

Ref: http://ia.rediff.com/news/2005/sep/20look.htm?q=tp&file=.htm

Picture: http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/746/img8945ln4.jpg

Also the aircrafts of BSF are missing

Ref: http://bsf.nic.in/en/air-wing.html

http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%85%E0%B4%A4%E0%B4%BF%E0%B5%BC%E0%B4%A4%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%A4%E0%B4%BF%E0%B4%B0%E0%B4%95%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B7%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%B8%E0%B5%87%E0%B4%A8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.10.51.48 (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 January 2013

we don't have any C-5 ? Insomniaccreative (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The edit template (and the talk page) is for changes to the article, you appear to have asked a question which is not relevant. Perhaps you can try the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous which deals with questions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of active Indian military aircraft

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of active Indian military aircraft's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "br":

• From Pilatus PC-7: "India signs 500 M Swiss francs contract for Pilatus PC-7 MKII." Bharat-Rakshak.com. Retrieved: 9 November 2012.
• From Aérospatiale Alouette III: http://bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1971War/Appendix3.html

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

MiG-29 and others

World Air Forces 2014 mentions a total of

• 66 MiG-29
• 44 Mirage 2000 plus 10 Trainer (total 54)
• 117 Jaguar M/S + 31 Trainer

BTW Anthony told parliament we have 49 Mirage and 69 MiG-29s...So I think Anthony is more reliable than FlightGlobal for Mirage and MiG-29...:) ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 03:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Crashes

We are we displaying the info about crashes? This article is supposed to tell about active aircraft..not crashes! I see no other aircraft page does that..except this one! I plan to remove the crashes info....any comments? ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 03:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

No we dont normally give information on crashes, we may give the original numbers delivered as a note but listing lost aircraft is not needed. MilborneOne (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks..I will remove them now ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 14:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Mig 21s decommisioned

Please see this source:

• ibnlive.in.com - news
• http://www.telegraphindia.com/1131212/jsp/nation/story_17671855.jsp
• http://www.livemint.com/Politics/1ROhzHzNVE9AAQC0xJdnHJ/MiG21-FL-flies-into-Indian-Air-Force-history.html
• http://www.ssbcrack.com/2013/12/a-warrior-bows-out-mig-21-fl.html
• http://www.livefistdefence.com/2013/12/goodbye-mig-21-type-77-iafs-1st.html

Marchoctober (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, they all support the fact that only the MiG 21FL variant has been retired, other variants are still operational. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The article sources on MIG21 make the above perfectly clear. The FL mod has been retired but 125 Bisons are to be kept on till 2025. You removed that important caveat with your hasty edit. Irondome (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ths sources mention only the facts about MiG 21FL variant, not the entire family of MiG 21's.--βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)^(Support) 13:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Mig 29 numbers.

"54 MiG-29UPG amongst them, plus 8 MiG-29UUPG two-seaters,The 7 remaining MiG-29UPGs will be held as attrition replacement" that make 54+8+7 = 69 --> 63 to be upgraded by HAL 6 upgraded by Mig. Please do not edit unless you want misinformation its 63 and 6.

63

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2015

Mig 29 numbers.

"54 MiG-29UPG amongst them, plus 8 MiG-29UUPG two-seaters,The 7 remaining MiG-29UPGs will be held as attrition replacement" that make 54+8+7 = 69 --> 63 to be upgraded by HAL 6 upgraded by Mig. Please edit unless you want misinformation its 63 and 6

Please change the Mig 29 numbers:

60 ( Not accurate)

by:

63(Accurate as of May 2014)

2620:117:C080:520:1A03:73FF:FE0A:7269 (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

References

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. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Please change the nation of origin of the Su-30MKI to Russia/India and not Russia alone

The Su-30MKI contains a fair proportion of Indian developed avionics as mentionened -

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html

Under the "Indian contribution"

Furthermore , almost about 100% of the Su-30MKI is made in India from the production of raw materials to the final plane assembly.

http://www.asian-defence.net/2011/07/total-indigenisation-of-indian-sukhoi.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.206.120 (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@NavneetChaudhary1503: Su-30MkI originated in Russia and not in India. It is/was only manufactured in India. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

By that logic, under "List of Active Aircrafts of United Kingdom" , Eurofighter Typhoon or Panavia Tornedo did not "originate" in Uk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.178.155 (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

And Su-30MKI is an Aircraft which was jointly customized by India and Russia from the original Russian Su-30 for the Indian Airforce Requirements. Thats how India added its own avionics and systems to it as well as sub systems from 3rd parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.178.155 (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You were right. Added India back. Sorry. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)