Talk:List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces

Separating the list
No reason to put helicopters in a separate list. There is a pretty obvious reason: As it is now, the list is completely unclear arranged. A purely alphabetical order is the worst of all possible ways to make such a list. --DavidDCM (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You should not really bring it up on the talk page and then make the change as see discussion when it hasnt been discussed! The reason the list is an alphabetic order is because that is the standard way these tables are constructed I cant see why alphabetical order is confusing. Nearly every list of anything in wikipedia is in alphabetical or chronological order. If you start splitting of types it becomes unclear to readers without an expert knowledge of the subject where to look. If you then change the order to anything else it becomes confusing. Interested to know why alphabetical order is confusing. MilborneOne (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you have reverted back to your change with the summary you cant insist on your version without giving any arguments. Just point out that nobody owns any article - you want to make the change you have to get a concensus to change, status quo doesnt need concensus. MilborneOne (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course at a basic level an alphabetical order is the standard and the best way. But, separating the list into merely two sections, which are "fixed wings" and "helicopters" is nothing that confuses the reader. A hypothetical reader who doesn't even know the difference between a helicopter and a fixed-wing aircraft wouldn't have much use for this article/list anyway. Within these two sections, alphabetical order is retained. I know that that is hardly a valid point, but maybe I am a more proper example of the simple, occasional Wikipedia reader than you. You actually put great effort and time into WP, whereas I only use it from time to time. But whatever: I stumbled across this list because I wanted to know which fighter aircraft the RMAF has (due to scale-modeller's issues), but when I saw the list it was me who was confused. All aircraft simply in a alphabetical order, no matter if it was a helicopter, a transporter or a strike fighter. THAT really confused me. It took much longer to find out which fighter aircraft the RMAF has than I thought. It really is a matter of usefulness in my eyes: Nobody looks for this list because, let's say, he wants to know what aircraft the RMAF has that begin with "A". People would more probably come to this list because they want to know about a specific type of aircraft, be it strike fighters, transporters or helicopters or whatever. But looking for that information is very laborious, because you always have to work through the complete list, as the specific type of aircraft you are looking for might be listed in the beginning as well as in the end. That was what I wanted to change by at least separating them into fixed-wings and helos. --DavidDCM (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK that seem a reasonable argument - although I am defending the status quo I am open to well thought out points. I have made the point about not changing it without discussion - thanks for the reply I want change it again. MilborneOne (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So, I actually convinced you? That's kinda cool. To the point of not changing without discussion: I wasn't aware that such relatively simple things like splitting a list in two require a discussion beforehand. I just tried to be bold. --DavidDCM (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem with Bold but if it is challenged by a revert it is really better to go to the talk page then start a revert war. MilborneOne (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that from now on. BTW, that last one edit that separated the list further into "combat" and "transport" is not from me. --DavidDCM (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the table its all on one table but with sections was it that harrd too come up with that idea?--Heaven&#39;s Army (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Aérospatiale SA-316B Alouette III
I noticed this helo is still on the list. AFAIK it had been transfered to the army since 1995. Or they had 20 which left 10 after transferring 10 to the army? ChowHui (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

AGM-88?
Does RMAF has that? Source anyone? ChowHui (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * None listed in the United Nation Register of Conventional Arms, although it is not a complete list of exports/imports. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Photos to be uploaded
Just placing this here, to advise editors that the following photos can be uploaded to Commons for use on this article...


 * http://www.airliners.net/photo/Malaysia---Air/Sikorsky-S-61A-4-Nuri/0975918/L/
 * http://www.airliners.net/photo/Malaysia---Air/Airtech-CN-235-220M/0926268/L/
 * http://www.airliners.net/photo/Malaysia---Air/Cessna-402B-Utililiner/0961015/L/
 * http://www.airliners.net/photo/Malaysia---Air/Mikoyan-Gurevich-MiG-29N-(9-12SD)/1258579/L/
 * http://www.airliners.net/photo/Malaysia---Air/McDonnell-Douglas-F-18D/1259501/L/
 * http://www.airliners.net/photo/Malaysia---Air/Mikoyan-Gurevich-MiG-29N-(9-12SD)/0973440/L/
 * http://www.airliners.net/photo/Malaysia---Air/British-Aerospace-Hawk/1260057/L/

Please refer to Commons:Template:MRadziDesa for further information and licencing information. --Russavia Let's dialogue 07:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not change the info
Please do not spam this list with "lack of fund". We all know who did it. We don't vandalise your country's list of aircraft so you should stop. terima kasih — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.28.51 (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for an indefinite period
As all the IP edits to this article for as long as I can remember have been vandalism, I'd decided to semi-protect the article for an indefinite period. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

F-104 Starfighter missing
Whilst I lived in Butterworth back in 1980-1981 I saw a lot of RMAF Starfighters at Butterworth alongside the Mirages of the RAAF, yet there is no mention of F-104_Starfighter  Petedavo talkcontributions  04:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference that demonstrates that the RMAF operated Starfighters? I didn't think that they operated the type. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces. 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/20120207140138/http://www.scramble.nl/my.htm to http://www.scramble.nl/my.htm

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) 05:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces. 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://archive.is/20170310144440/http://airheadsfly.com/2017/03/09/fourth-and-final-a400m-delivered-to-malaysia/ to http://airheadsfly.com/2017/03/09/fourth-and-final-a400m-delivered-to-malaysia/

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) 10:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021
203.125.85.238 (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It shall be 24 nos that out of service include crash unit. In total Malaysia have 38 nos Sikorsky S-61A4 Nuri

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_SH-3_Sea_King
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Revision as June 2022 for duplication issue : It is better to SWAP?
It seems like the page of List of equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force is more MAIN rather than the page of List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces because the List of equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force talk mostly about the air force while the List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces talk all about the three branch of the army, navy and air force. In addition, in the main page of Royal Malaysian Air Force, the wikilink of List of equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force placed first followed by the wikilink of List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces. In addition, if reader want to search about the aircraft inventory they will need to click more to reach the table inventory. In example if reader click wikilink in the main page of Royal Malaysian Air Force they will reached the page of List of equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force then they need to click once more wikilink to reach the table inventory in the next page. Due to this, I suggested that the full inventory table we place in the List of equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force page while the wikilink we place in the List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces page. This actions/edits still not broke the rule of the duplication issue because I just SWAP the table and wikilink between this two page only.

Kistara (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Since there is no responses since my first comment (after 10 days) so I'll implement the change that I've said before. If there any thought from anyone feel glad to discuss it here. Kistara (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)