Talk:Lebanese Air Force

Untitled
Is there actual evidence that the Hunters have been restored to service? I'm having a hard time finding a reliable source for this. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"The impossible happened"
This is an encyclopedia not a place for egos. Please removed this kind of silly language 77.58.193.99 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese Mirages
They should put back there mirages in service, they need to find funds to upgrade and to modernize them.

Most of the info on this page does not correspond to the current status. Even some of the historical data is quite misleading and this does not apply only for the Mirages but most of the types mentioned including some combat involvements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatche (talk • contribs) 10:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Mirages were sold to Pakistan in 2000. I took out of the article the false information that they were not sold. My source that I attributed is the OFFICAL Lebanese military website.--216.52.73.254 (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections. Just some additional info on the current inventory: There are 8 Hunters (3 F.70As, 3 F.70s and 2 T.66s) all stored but few may become operational in extreme emergencies. Helicopters include 23 UH-1H with different local modifications, 12 Gazelle 342Ls (at least 3 stored), 5 AB 212 (stored), 3 Pumas (stored), 4 Raven 44s. Few Alouette IIIs are also stored with no plans to bring them into service, unlike the other types mentioned above. I hope someone makes a better table than the current one which shows incorrect totals. Other air forces show the flags of the manufacturer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatche (talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Another note about the Hunters. I've read that reference page some time ago written by the US marine and found the info inaccurate as well. In 1982, there were 10 airworthy Hunters with the air force, doing regular flying sorties until the Israeli invasion in June, when the air force halted all activities. The Hunters resumed flying after a few months and I have seen at least 6 flying in formation during that period. This means that they were airworthy and what the marine writes about putting 3 Hunters in service is untrue. One of these was lost (shot down) in September, pilot safely ejected and was rescued by US crews. The same day another was badly damaged and was advised to fly to Akrotiri to save the plane. Both the Hunter and its pilot returned to Lebanon. I don't know where he gets his political asylum story from. Also, the Hunters were later briefly involved in February 1984 as well using the 30 mm Aden cannons and SNEB rockets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatche (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I just made a table of the aircraft inventory. I will gradually redesign the page to meet the standards better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatche (talk • contribs) 11:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Academy tn.png
The image File:Academy tn.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hawker Downs Israeli Jet, Pilot POW?
This can only be Nahum Merchavi, a 116th squadron pilot, who was captured on June 5th 1967. Merchavi, however, was hit by Syrian fire (AAA or MiG-17) while attacking an airfield in Damascus during the opening moves of the Six Days War, and only bailed out over Lebanon. The current reference should be amended or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poliocretes (talk • contribs) 20:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference is the Lebanese army itself. -- Zaher1988 · Talk | Contributions 06:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference in the article doesn't seem to work, the link must be outdated. Anyway, neither the English nor the French pages on the Lebanese Armed Forces website detail the incident. There was only one Israeli pilot returned to Israel by Lebanon (at that time) and that was Merchavi. All Israeli sources, both official and unofficial, attributed his downing to the Syrians. Tom Cooper's |Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 Units in Combat attributes it to Syrian pilot Zuhir al-Baowab. Is there any more Lebanese info about the incident, date or pilot name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poliocretes (talk • contribs) 08:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lebanese 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/20091130020435/http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/Lebanon/C4E6544B51A01293C2257593001BCF28?OpenDocument to http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/Lebanon/C4E6544B51A01293C2257593001BCF28?OpenDocument

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) 02:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lebanese 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/20071231061444/http://www.lebarmy.gov.lb/English/AirforceMain.asp to http://www.lebarmy.gov.lb/English/AirforceMain.asp

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) 11:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Aircraft inventory table on air force pages
Should table of "current inventory", commonly found in Air Force pages which list air force's aircraft inventory, allowed to be filled by aircraft with "on order" status (not in the inventory yet but will be, as the contract have been signed). Ckfasdf (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Since RfC discussion on WP:MILHIST was closed due to archived before reaching any conclusion (discussion on milhist talk page was automatically archived after certain period of times without comments). So, I am moving it here. the text below are taken from previous discussion.

Just to reiterate my points, I disagree to put aircraft "on order" into current inventory table due to:
 * 1) Name of table title itself. Refer to WP:HEADERS, whereas MOS:AT also applicable for table title, a title should be sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related table. So, if the table title is "current inventory" then it should only contain aircraft currently in active or in operational status not includes those that will be in active or in operational.
 * 2) Refer to WP:NO-TABLES, Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. Aircraft "on order" status on table did not provide detailed information or clarity on how that aircraft get into "on order" status, and when will it be entered service. Such information usually covered in other section such as "History", "Future', "Plan", or "Modern times". If the information is not present on that section, instead of adding it on table, we can write it down on those sections.
 * 3) Redundancy or unnecessary duplication. Redundancy is generally frowned upon in writing (1, 2) and Wikipedia is not exception for that (WP:OBVIOUS). But, please do not mix it up with Infobox, since infobox is summary of article and it's content generally should already cited elsewhere in the article. Whereas table is part of the article not it's summary. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Include in table. Assuming order is expected to be filled in the near future (up to 2-3 years) and is not expected to be cancelled, then this provides valuable information on expected force structure. It is verifiable.--Eostrix (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is verifiable, no question on that. In fact it usually already covered on other section. It's just aircraft procurement usually take quite long time (more than 2-3 years). For example: Bulgarian Air Force just recently signed contract to purchase F-16. Source said that the order expected to complete in 2027. So, if we allow "on order" on the table then it will only be shown "on order" maybe until 2027. Whereas other section already provide valuable information on expected force structure. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say it depends on when the order is expected and how definite it is. If it is an order with deliveries expected in 7 years, probably no. But if deliveries are expected next year, money has been paid, and the deal is quite definite - I'd say yes.--Eostrix (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Majority "on order" status have expected delivery of more than 1-2 years, and information on table also didn't mentioned expected delivery date. So, why not just simply only allow entry table after confirmed delivery. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm kind of on the fence about it. I can see arguments either way. If I had to choose, I would say do not include in the tables and instead have a section about future orders that discusses them in prose, indicating (if available) expected deliveries, options for more, etc. The notion of "on order" is nebulous, and means different things in different contexts, and can vary depending on a contact's terms, of which we often do not know the particulars. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Include in table per Eostrix -- Idealigic (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)