Talk:People's Liberation Army Air Force/Archive 1

Untitled
There seems to be some argument over the amounts for each type of plane that are currently in service. Could people please post their references either here or add links in the article to state where they got their information? --210.211.83.227 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

J-9
shouldn't the J-9 be removed from the list since it is not in service and was cancelled?

J-9, J-10, and J-12 cancelled projects placed in Cancelled Aircraft section. Although they never entered service, I put them there for the curious. -- Adeptitus 17:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Cancelled / Abandoned Aircraft

 * East Wind 104 - Shenyang Aircraft Factory's design (with Soviet assistance) for Mach 1.4 light fighter (Abandoned) -
 * East Wind 107 - Mach 1.8 fighter with design similiar to F-8U Crusader, abandoned in 1959 in favor of East Wind 113 (Abandoned) -
 * East Wind 113 - Proposed Mach 2.5 fighter similiar to F-104 by Harbin Military Engineering Institute, abandoned in favor of MiG-21 (Abandoned) -
 * JJ-1 (FT-1) - The Shenyang JJ-1 was the first Chinese-designed jet trainer, only 1 prototype made in 1958 (Cancelled) -
 * J-9 - Competing design to the J-8 to produce a Mach 2.4 interceptor, cancelled in 1980 (Cancelled) -
 * J-11 (old) - Fighter jet with British Spey 512 engine, project abandoned in 1980s (Abandoned) -
 * J-12 - Light fighter developed in 1960s-1970s, only 6 prototypes made. Cancelled in 1978 (Cancelled) -
 * J-13 - Light fighter developed in 1971 as J-6 replacement, cancelled. (Cancelled) -
 * KJ-1 - PRC's first attempt at building an AWACS aircraft in 1970s, based on Soviet copies of the B-29 aircraft.

Apology
Sorry, made a huge mistake.... No excuse. Will quit wiki as form of my apology Ch2000 05:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Army Aviation
I suspect that the WZ-9s and a large fraction of the Mil Mi-17 transports belong to PLA Army Aviation units rather than the PLAAF proper, is their a ref that all the Mils are PLAAF, as I have a printed source that claims that PLA Army Aviation consists of some 300 helicopters comprised of Z-9 attack helicopters and 74 Mil Mi-17s. KTo288 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Too technical
Not a single name. Who was the founder, the lead strategist? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Air Force Commander Liu Yalou (1949-65), Political Commissar Wu Faxian (1949-65)
 * Air Force Commander Wu Faxian (1965-71), Political Commissar Xiao Hua (1949-65)
 * Air Force Commander Ma Ning (1973-77)
 * Air Force Commander Zhang Tingfa (1977-85)
 * Air Force Commander Wang Hai (1985-92), the first pilot in this position.

Allen, Kenneth, et al, China's Air Force Enters the 21st Century, Rand (Santa Monica: 1995)< /ref > DOR (HK) (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Reversion
Is there some reason why Arienh4 reverted my inclusion of a table of the commanders and political commissars since 1949? The action seems not in keeping with the "assume goodwill" character of Wikipedia. I will restore it. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

PLAAF Future aircraft
Now, the future aircraft section of the PLAAF page states a number of aircraft. Some of them are definitely ongoing programmes, others are not as widely known. The less widely known ones include the Shenyang Darksword and Zhanying UCAV's, as opposed to perhaps the J-XX programme(s) or Z-15. Now, here's the list of disputed aircraft: All of these have extremely little information on. However, the last two projects (Darksword, and Zhanying) have had models displayed at the Zhuhai airshow, which is usually a good indicator of future aircraft to be integrated (the proof for this theory is the Xianglong UAV. It's model was displayed in 2006 (somehwere around that time) and a video was released around the time of 2008 Zhuhai showing the Xianglong doing it's high speed taxing). I'm not saying these two UCAV's will come out in two years time, but from previous experience, I think it's wrong to say there is no development in these fields. As for the J-13 and J-14, I think they should be deleted and put under the J-XX programme, but the J-11C/J-15 I think can't be ruled out. As for the H-8.... I think it should be put under a "speculated aircraft" section.
 * Chengdu J-13
 * Shenyang J-14
 * Shenyang J-11C (J-15)
 * Xian H-8
 * Shenyang DarkSword
 * Zhanying (Combat Eagle)

And finally. I might be biased, that's up to debate. I think that anyone who is desperately trying to rule out any chinese development is also being biased however. That would definetly rule out any competition, and defeat the Chinese people's morale. But more the fact that it's growing enemies do not have similar projects, and therefore would like to even the playing field by deleting Chinese projects. But oh well. Ignore that talk about being biased. Any comments on the future aircraft list?Blitzoace (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A better list should have only Super-10, J-XX of whose existence there is some reference. I feel that no country goes developing 4-5 5th generation fighters at a time. The amount of economical resources that will have to be poured in is too much. As of the UCAVs, I don't object them being there but please don't go on mentioning '5th generation' for everything. At present China has no aircraft carrier and J-11C can only be believed in if there is any information about that. I think China is seriously working on J-XX and Super-10 so, the other J- series are unverifiable. Let the lis be Shenyang J-XX, Chengdu Super-10, Zhanying (Combat Eagle), Shenyang DarkSword. The CAIC WZ-10 is already in service so there would be no need of mentioning it as a future aircraft.


 * And I have a suggestion. Please do add the surface to Air missile systems in service with PLAAF and also all the anti-ship, A2A missiles like P-12 etc. That should have been here. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the 3-4 5th gen projects could be competing, like the US ATF competition. The "5th generation" tags will be removed from the UCAV's (though from what we can see of the Darksword, it would be 6th gen instead.), as for the J-11c/J-15.... Chinese Military Aviation (which is quite a reliable source), has stated the development of such a fighter, as well as a time frame for it's deployment. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but defence analyst Richard Fisher has stated quite a few times that China will be making a carrier version of the J-11B. I think it, along with the H-8, should be put under a "speculated aircraft" title. The rest of your list I agree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 02:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Biggest airforce in Asia?
If the PLAAF is the 3rd largest air-force in the world, behind Russia and the USA, wouldn't it be the 2nd largest in Asia (behind Russia)? Shadoom (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No.Russia is not an Asian Country. It is an European country. I learned this in middle school.lol

Actually, russia is in both europe and asia. Technically, it should be changed to biggest airforce in southeast asia. I will change it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Dracula (talk • contribs) 12:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if someone changed it back, but i fixed it to read southeast asia. 208.65.175.197 (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (user BonusOnus)

Umm, According to wikipedia, China is not in Southeast Asia. Furthermore, while I understand that English is not everybody's first language here, you people should learn the difference between "biggest" and "largest." and also that "air force" is two words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.5.144 (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in People's Liberation Army 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 People's Liberation Army 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 "Chinese": From Antonov An-2: Gordon,Yefim & Komissarov, Dmitry. “Chinese Aircraft”. Hikoki Publications. Manchester. 2008. ISBN 9 781902 109046 From United Kingdom:  From Shaanxi Y-8: Gordon,Yefim & Komissarov, Dmitry. Chinese Aircraft. Hikoki Publications. Manchester. 2008. ISBN 9 781902 109046 From Xian Y-7: Komissarov, Chinese Aircraft 

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 ⚡ 03:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

DISPUTED AIRCRAFT CONFIRMED LINKS
Now, I've noticed that quite a few disputed aircraft have been put up. I have a few and family connections to the PLAAF, and I also have some links myself.

Here are some of the disputed:

- J-12

- J-18

- J-20

- JH-7B

- J-15

- J-10C

- YFC-1E

- H-8

- H-9

- Y-8 Gunship

Now, let me explain each one by one.

SHENYANG J-12:

This is the first aircraft of the J-XX series. It is in parallel with the J-13 and J-14. I'm pretty sure all of you enthusiasts have heard about it.

SHENYANG J-18 "RED EAGLE":

This is a heavy air superiority fighter. It is a fairly new aircraft and the info is only published in China, so I understand if you are skeptical about it. But it is indeed real and the news reports (WITH SPECIFICATIONS) does not seem fabricated. Links (I used Google Translate):

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chnqiang.com%2Farticle%2F2008%2F1206%2Farticle_57107.shtml

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.lzmmil.cn/html/jqbg/2009/1207/3627.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhhKnBKkgBaXrxo4mGQwRaPh0xSd7Q

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.lzmmil.cn/html/jqbg/2009/0911/2454.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhh4wahOXpsDLGtO_dPdvBhXfP_srw

(I got more links if you want)

J-20:

Now, this is the only jet that I mentioned that hasn't flown yet. However, due to the 5-year plan, it will in 2012. Since I got no photos nor designs, this is the one that you guys can leave out.

Links:

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.lzmmil.cn/html/jqbg/2009/1016/2894.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhgLMC0ZO9toTHDbqhuQwxRYxF9VoQ

JH-7B

This is in fact a more well-known aircraft. It is the stealthy variant of the JH-7A. Aviation sites like Aeroflight.co.uk, various defense sites, and many Chinese news articles confirmed this. I also got testing photos.

Links:

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/china/xian/jh-7/jh-7.htm

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fjunshi.xilu.com%2F2009%2F0611%2Fnews_1419_330074.htm

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fclub.china.com%2Fdata%2Fthread%2F1013%2F2703%2F68%2F08%2F8_1.html&sl=zh-CN&tl=en

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fbbs.tiexue.net%2Fpost_3864923_1.html

I got more links if you like

J-15:

This is a new carrier-borne fighter developed from the J-11B. It was developed by SAC, made its first flight August 2009. I have some photos and links

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.lzmmil.cn/html/jttx/20091225/3882.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhjue4ZxTSnwKvmLoqhbR5Colcj84w

http://www.milchina.com/uploadfile/article/uploadfile/200912/20091225021205647.jpg

http://cnair.top81.cn/fighter/J-15a.jpg

http://news.ifeng.com/mil/2/200909/0917_340_1353365.shtml

I got more links if you want

J-10C:

Despite its secrecy, it is in fact newly-flown and tested. It is a carrier-based variant of the J-10. Development took 8 years. It is very similar (almost identical) to the J-10, except with 152kN thrust. I have a photo and some links.

Links:

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.lzmmil.cn/html/wqqy/20100105/4024.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhjbDYbsD8MsRb01VaC4sVvwNeVr1A

http://china-arsenal.blogspot.com/2009/12/carrier-based-j-10c-fighter.html

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.lzmmil.cn/html/wqqy/20091030/3101.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhjVvhhF4LD50MVeqlFQI-wbMWsWfA

I got more

YFC-1E:

Now this is a very recent development. It is a fairly new aircraft. It is a stealthier version of the JF-17, with upgraded composite material, avionics upgrades, and reduced RCS. I have a photo and many links:

Links:

http://pic.itiexue.net/pics/2009_11_13_69968_10269968.jpg

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fbbs.tiexue.net%2Fpost2_3937887_1.html

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fido.thethirdmedia.com%2Farticle%2Fframe.aspx%3Fturl%3Dhttp%253a%2F%2Fbig5.thethirdmedia.com%2Fg2b.aspx%2Fido.3mt.com.cn%2Farticle%2F200912%2Fshow1764348c30p1.ibod%26rurl%3D%26title%3D%25u65B0%25u6D88%25u606F%25uFF1A%25u96B1%25u8EAB%25u7248YFC-1E%25u689F%25u9F8D%25u6230%25u6A5F%25u5373%25u5C07%25u88DD%25u5099%25u4E2D%25u570B%25u7A7A%25u8ECD_%25u5C0F%25u9053%25u6D88%25u606F%25uFF1A%25u8ECD%25u5DE5%25u5C08%25u5BB6%25u9F4A%25u805A%25u5927%25u9023%25u70BA%25u201C%25u74E6%25u826F%25u683C%25u201D%25u6700%25u540E%25u5B9A%25u578B%25uFF1F%2520---%2520ido.3mt.com.cn

http://www.wangchao.net.cn/junshi/detail_3653.html

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newssm.com.cn%2Fbbs%2Fviewthread.php%3Ftid%3D24906

I got more if you like

Xian H-8 bomber

This has been on the news for quite some time. It is a stealth bomber developed by Xian. It uses 4 WS-10A engines. It has a speed of Mach 1.4, range of 11000 km, and bomb load of 20 tonnes. I have many links and some photos:

Links:

http://www.lzmmil.cn/uploads/090929/1_094619_1.jpg

http://moinansari.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/chinese-h-8-stealth-bomber.jpg

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.lzmmil.cn/html/jqbg/2009/0929/2706.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhh8vPzXm0IF9MYcNcCMelMk1t7KeQ

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.lzmmil.cn/html/wqqy/20090410/893.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhitg0xkYiuGo-RvHyDUJFoXgHmzFw

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.lzmmil.cn/html/jqdb/20090925/2667.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhho55n1WCj_8lY9me24OoYJF9puSw

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.lzmmil.cn/html/wqqy/20090711/1881.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhibyL8Vckln23CBxXqrwxBmnoswHg

http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/11/xian-h-8-chinese-stealth-bomber.html

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.lzmmil.cn/html/jqbg/2009/0929/2706.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhh8vPzXm0IF9MYcNcCMelMk1t7KeQ

I got more

'''H-9 bomber ''' This is a new bomber. It flies to mid-atmosphere. It takes off with four WS-12 engines, then switches to its Ramjet engines. I got some links

Links

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.lzmmil.cn/html/jqbg/2009/0401/798.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhgrDB5M3ILyTJ7qxQ1YbjcEzJShsg

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.lzmmil.cn/html/jqbg/2009/1022/2968.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhiUP2Rz868uXuIBFkTFe2OVF3Ul7A

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.lzmmil.cn/html/jqbg/2009/0305/444.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhhNkmnv1AvA6gwQfsIX1Ze4JLF3_Q

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.lzmmil.cn/html/wqqy/20090325/730.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhhKstUoK240MwSEg8TBCrgoLqSTWQ

http://pic.tiexue.net/pics/2007_7_17_18560_5718560.jpg

Now, if you want any more info, just reply to me. These aircraft are all over Chinese internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomahawkHunter (talk • contribs) 03:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What you mean is that there are no reliable sources for any of this and that WP should wait until there are? Hcobb (talk)


 * The recent addition of dozens of broken references has been reverted. Please test before adding, and make sure the sources are reliable. Hohum  01:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ..and I have reverted the addition again, since most were broken links, and most that worked even noted "Source: Unknown" - so are totally unreliable. Please read WP:V and WP:RELIABLE before adding to the article. Hohum  00:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the latest attempt at adding references had completely broken syntax. I don't think any of the links worked - although they looked like they might have been news sites. Please test your edits before saving them. I have reverted in the hope that the contributing editor will supply usable links. Hohum  01:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Unusable references.
Bad references have been added to this article dozens of times in the last few weeks. Please stop doing this. Read WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE. ( Hohum  @ ) 01:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeh, a lot of bad references. I re-did alot of the list using this source. http://www.milaviapress.com/orbat/china/index.php It has recently been updated so I think we should use it. Rademire2 (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Largest airforces
Chinese airforce is larger than Russia. If you look at the russian airforce artical the whole list of aircraft is sourced with one Russian web site and accounts for aprox 2,800 aircraft. On this Chinese airforce artical, much of the list is sourced using http://www.milaviapress.com/orbat/china/index.php and by adding all the numbers up on the artical (all-though some are not totaly accurate) it gives a figure of around 3,400 aircraft for the Chinese airforce, some 600 more aircraft than the russian airforce.

I think it is wrong to continue placing the Chinese airforce as smaller than Russias.

Worlds largest airforces. (rounded off to nearest 100)


 * USA 6,000 aircraft
 * China 3,400 aicraft
 * Russia 2,800 aircraft
 * India 1,500 aircraft
 * UK 1,100 aircraft

Rademire2 (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in People's Liberation Army 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 People's Liberation Army 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 Military: Terra cotta of massed ranks of Qin Shi Huang's terra cotta soldiers From Aerial refueling:  From Russian Air Force: http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=2180&catid=241&type=bombers</li> <li>From Second Sino-Japanese War: Chung Wu Taipei "History of the Sino-Japanese war (1937–1945)" 1972 pp 565</li> <li>From People's Liberation Army Ground Force: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Div-ADS.html#mozTocId836386</li> <li>From China: Homer H. Dubs, "Theism and Naturalism in Ancient Chinese Philosophy," Philosophy of East and West, Vol. 9, No. 3/4, 1959</li> </ul>

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 ⚡ 23:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Video controversy"
Regarding this edit, addition here is not notable, and it is irrelevant and nonreflective to the main topic at hand. Not only is it out of shape in the article, but it appears like something that should be on a discussion website, and not on Wikipedia. It places WP:UNDUE weight on a minor, trivial thing on an article that is supposed to be about the formal technicalities and details of the PLAAF. Also note that the original edit summary that brought you here reads "removed. This section is not about the J-10 - it is about the air force faking something - it may belong on the air force page, but not the J-10 page", note the emphasis added. "May" does not denote certainty. Talk:Chengdu J-10 also uses the word "may" ("It may warrant inclusion in the air force article"), and it also explains how the incident isn't really that notable. Also note that WP is WP:NOTNEWS, and such minor trivial detail that will lose its vigor in ten weeks time doesn't really belong here at all. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 15:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on what are you saying it is not notable? We agreed it has nothing to do with the plane in particular and removed it there to put it here. Benjwong (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * NOTE: I've reverted Benjwong's edit, please note the chinese proverb: "黑狗偷吃，白狗当灾". A civilian might have produced that crappy/fake video clip but was there any direct involvement from PLAAF? And until a reliable source is produced, please keep it on article page of CCTV instead. BTW, this is the not the first time that CCTV is involved in these kind of "masquerading" videos, we know them all too well. Thank you, best and out to all. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I will move it to CCTV's page. I understand this is not that big of a news in the eyes of the citizens, because similar instances have happened many times (not necessarily this station). But it is linked from 2011 in the People's Republic of China. And this outcome was not just for another production, but an actual military demo to be showcased worldwide. So it is different. Benjwong (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No need, I've already done so. And to quote from CCTV article page, "it reports directly to high-level officials in the Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China". Hence, making it very clear to all who is the one pulling the string here... so let's leave ORIGINAL RESEARCH out of this and stick to the facts, shall we? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not see you move that to the page earlier. Sorry. Also if you want to make this VERY factual, you should point out the names of the people who did this editing.  Then see where they belong or rank in the CPC. Benjwong (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You roll your dice and you call your own shot... but as much as you don't like people to push your buttons, don't be going around pushing others', alright? As for CCTV's rhetoric, this is not the first time they have been exposed by their sharp-eyed audience/critic who will not stand up to their nonsense, since CCTV's approval for their production of a few animations and drama serials based on those of Japanese, Taiwanese and Hong Konger's production companies (in blatant violation of international copyrights) are out there for all to see. Hence, if I start to list them here, Wikipedia becomes a junkyard instantly. Get it? (Read also: WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.) -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * CCTV do have some great shows. I will not deny that or the station. But come on.  This is not the typical copyright violation. Benjwong (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A copyright violation is still a violation, no matter how they try to give themselves excuses. Which, IMO, would only serves to make themselves look so stupid for not being gentlemen enough to own up to their deed. Thereby, losing their credibility in the long run. And that is the surest way to disgrace yourself... or to coin another term, shooting yourself in your own feet. Who would take you seriously then? Anyway, please just keep this CCTV controversy thingie off this article page, alrighty? Meantime, enjoy the video comparison → here ←. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the J-7 and J-8 interceptors and the PLAAF UAVs
Hi, I've edited the PLAAF page a couple of days ago by adding a section to the PLAAF aircraft inventory dedicated to its UAVs but today I see that someone has completely removed it. Why actually? It is a known fact that China does operate UAVs, right? And why were several active service interceptors like the J-7 and J-8 removed from the fighter plane section, as well?

Can someone make sure that any changes made on this page should at least be discussed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaveq (talk • contribs) 10:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I still see a UAV section. However, it is unreferenced and liable to be removed without discussion if references aren't provided. If it is a known fact, there must be references available to support it. ( Hohum  @ ) 15:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Prototypes and Developing aircraft
There are several aircraft in the list that have not entered service with the PLAAF. The purpose of that section is not to list every prototype and development project for every aircraft that is made in China. There are several aircraft that are going to have to be removed. -Nem1yan (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

number of fighters
Sinodefence has been so far the most reliable and neutral stance on Chinese military matters. Pentagon report has referenced Sinodefence in their report numerous times, even some members on the forum. The numbers are correct. Cause they use serial numbers on the planes, then reference them back to the regiment and division were their stationed. a regiment consist of 20-25 fighters. They also use CCTV, engine purchase numbers, Chinese military articles, google earth, and multiple other dedicated Chinese military based websites. Aviation week has consistently been wrong in number of fighters, and has shown bias towards China military when articles are released. Example of clear wrong numbers is aviationweek state 20 JH-7/A. China has 6 regiment of JH-7/A, confirmed from google earth, military pictures, location, videos. Chinese regiment consists of 20-25 fighters, which makes at minimum 150 JH-7/A. Also China purchase additional batches of secondhand spey engines cause they said they didnt have enough for their new airframes. Which contradicts the aviationweek of 20. The numbers given give the max and min value of the quantity of each aircraft. J-10 exceeded 50 a while ago its +150. Since production rate is at 2-3 per month a single year makes 24-36 J-10 its been more then 6 years in production. Not to mention additional AL-31 engines taylored made by the Russians to be fitted on J-10. Whoever keeps refereing to aviationweek is basing chinese military matters on one website that isnt even dedicated to chinese military. While their are multiple references from unofficial and even official sources. In the end the numbers are extremely wrong from aviation week. 55 J-10? 20 JH-7/A? there is visual confirmation, yet that person keeps believing everyword based on one website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.147.110 (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to have troubles with the definition of what constitutes a reliable source. Please read the article in question and if you can substantiate your claims with actual references, please do. Deleting cited sources and posting numbers that were allegedly collected from "visual confirmation" doesn't constitute a reliable source and isn't how the encyclopedia works. Vedant (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If that site says China doesnt have any JH-7/A in their inventory then its reliable and true. Despite physical evidence. A reliable information isn't based off 1 site, its based of many. Sinodefence is the most reliable as I've stated already. Pentagon report on Chinese military. Chinese release white paper on their Military, official papers, are more reliable then an opinion of a person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.147.110 (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If sinodefence gives different figures, you need to provide a specific citation to support it. Also, something we can refer to that supports your claim that sinodefence is more reliable. ( Hohum  @ ) 01:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/aircraft/types/xian-jh-7-flounder.htm & http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/groundattack/jh7.asp, they list division, regiment, serial numbers, pictures determining the numbers. all vedant can come up with is aviation week from the site giving a number with no references and hard concrete information. how is it possible that their is only 20 JH-7/A when batch production of jh-7 was 20 and batch production of jh-7a is 20. retired q-5 are replaced by jh-7a.


 * I would just like to renew this discussion. When talking about PLAAF one simply CAN NOT rely on vastly outdated sources like milavia etc. What mechanism does Wiki have to incorporate photographic evidence as valid evidence? When using photographs, be it Google earth kind where one can see what sort of plane a base operates, or serial numbers of various new planes, one can make a much better assesment of plaaf's forces.


 * Also, just who measures a website's reliability? Why is milavia reliable (when it is obviously several years behind the real situaton) and some other sites are deemed unreliable? How to make certain sites seem more reliable to wikipedia? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totoro1234 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please check WP:Verify to answer most of your questions. Feel free to ask anything else here for clarification. -Nem1yan (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked the offered link but I fail to understand just how is reliability of a site established. The way wiki phrases it, it seems to be a very subjective and relative concept. Pretty much if the source has bigger readership it is deemed more reliable. But in the real world that doesn't have to mean it is reliable at all. Is there another way to measure reliability? I'd like to talk about specifics. Example of scramble website. What makes it unreliable for wiki and how can one help make scramble a more reliable site in the eyes of wiki? --Totoro1234 (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would really like to have a talk with everyone who is involved in upkeeping plaaf's page, and especially you, so perhaps we can come to some sort of understanding. Some of the errors and omissions are so grave that it just makes wiki look bad. I really want a civilized discussion so everyone can be heard. Thank you. --Totoro1234 (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC

I do realize that some aircraft are missing from the article, and I re-added the J-7 with the numbers from the J-7 article (even though I dont know where those came from exactly either. Wikipedia's policies require that information be verifiable.  As in it can be traced back to a reliable source.  The sources provided before were self-published, and so not reliable in this situation.  I'm not against adding the aircraft to the article, but they must be sourced.  If you say that there are 300 aircraft without a source then what happens when someone else says that there are 400?  That is also the reason Wikipedia often doesnt approve self-published sources.  In the case of most Chinese aircraft I cant find a reliable source on the number of aircraft, and the ones that exist are quite dated in some cases (as you noted).  -Nem1yan (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So what is worse in wiki's eyes and eyes of the users? A non-selfpublished source which is years old and incorrect or a selfpublished source which is much closer to the truth? Also, just what does constitute a selfpublished source? If i make a webpage and do my own research there, that'd constitute selfpublished source. Are Huitong's page and sinodefence website also selfpublished sources then? As far as i can tell they're all made by people who gather info from god knows where. What about scramble.nl? They seem to be a bunch of enthusiasts who also happen to publish paper versions of their info. Are they selfpublished? What is the difference between them and milaviapress? The latter is a part of a firm? Maybe scramble.nl is also a firm. Should it be checked for that? How does milaviapress get their info? (which by the way is oftentimes quite old and incorrect). Jane's is the same. How does their process of gathering info differ from the process that huitong does or scramble.nl does?


 * On another note, J-8II should also be added, but I wont do it before we talk about it here. There are other errors in the inventory listings but we can leave those for later, when bigger issues and sourcing is discussed.


 * Also, how about a more clear division of aircraft in the article? The article is supposed to be about PLAAF yet there are PLANAF's and PLA's aicraft there listed as if they are a part of PLAAF. I am not against that but i do believe they should be clearly marked as aircraft of another branch of service.--Totoro1234 (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Read WP:RELIABLE again. Jane's is an acclaimed authority on military systems, and clearly not a self-published source. Questions about particular sources can be brought to the reliable sources noticeboard. ( Hohum  @ ) 15:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that certain figures in the inventory section are sourced by huitong. No one removed them for some time. Does that mean huitong's page is a decent source? If so, could we use it for other planes in the inventory? If we did, we'd find that oftentimes huitongs claims clash with other claims on the inventory pages.


 * Some of the wiki air forces use multiple examples of inventory figures, divided by columns and their coressponding sources. Israeli air force for example. I believe that with such a tricy air force as chinas, where things are harder to verify, it would be VERY benefitial if we went the same route. Use three different sources and three different lists of figures. That way everyone would be happy. Those who choose only to believe in jane's outdated figures would still have that, and those who want more up to date info but less reknown sources would have theirs. Is there some sort of small council that needs to decide on my proposal? --Totoro1234 (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So i've corrected the su30mk section in the inventory list and used milaviapress there as the source. I do hope that is okay, though milavia can be quite behind the current events. Since various new planes like j10 and j11 would be an impossible battle to find sources for, I will skip those for now and ask about j7s, j8s and q5s. Does anyone have sources for those which are current? Because right now the inventory lists too many units for each, especially for q5s which are near the end of their service life within plaaf. I see some planes are sourced by huitong. Since he seldomly cites the exact numbers, can we use the number of regiments for each type he lists as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totoro1234 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Huitong's page? What/where is that?
 * Outdated figures from Jane's are better than any figures from self published sources, because they are simply not WP:RELIABLE. Per WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
 * Milavia appears to be self published site by Niels Hillebrand, according to its own "about" page. Reliable sources noticeboard or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft should be able to give opinion on whether it is acceptable as a reference. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * http://cnair.top81.cn/ is huitong's page. I see some stuff on plaaf wiki page are linked to there, as a source. So i must ask is that an omission or a decent source? should everything that is sourced to that page be deleted?


 * My question is what else, besides jane's, IISS and aviationweek is considered non self published and credible? Also, what happens when there are two conflicting sets of data between two good sources? I must strongly advise to use BOTH sets of data in that case, in two different columns if needed, rather than just go with the 'bigger and more renown' source.


 * Once again, where does wiki define what is selfpublished? Jane's was a small private and selfpublished company before it was bought by a larger IHS publishing. Does being a part of a larger publicly traded company make something not selfpublished? I am really trying to figure out the precise definition of what is good for wiki and what is not. But so far to me the line between the two looks blurred. --Totoro1234 (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't think cnair is reliable. I have told you twice where to get additional opinion about the reliability of sources, and linked you to places where self publication is explained. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OK this has pretty much gone far enough. The numbers we have say that the PLAAF has around 1300 fighters and 2500 combat aircraft, which according to the current aircraft inventory is correct (given the J-8 numbers are from both the airforce and navy). If you feel that the information you have is more reliable then take it to the reliable sources noticeboard and if it checks out then fine. Until then this page will be held to the same standard as other aircraft pages, wherein reliable sources must be used. China's history with aircraft manufacturing show that they arent producing hundreds of aircraft per year. No matter how you look at it, it is unlikely that the current figures are too far off the mark. -Nem1yan (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Will we have to keep editing and reverting ad nauseaum? Please stop destroying perfectly valid notices, like the one about some of the inventory being out of date. That notice can only help wiki users, it can not possibly be seen as something negative. Why remove it? Sources themselves say they're up to five years old, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with that notice. It is in the best interest of wiki readership.--Totoro1234 (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Information which is old can be marked "as of 2006", for example.
 * Articles are continuously updated as newer, reliable information becomes available. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You've refused to take any of this to the RSN and have yet to present a reputable source. You're only arguing in order to get the rules bent in your favor, which isnt going to happen.  You can go to RSN to make your argument or find better sources that support your statements, but thats about it. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case I suggest every mention of cnair be removed from the wiki page, as well we as the data sourced by cnair. We can not allow that certain parts are sourced by cnair and others are not. Double standards are never a good thing. Alternative set of data, from other sources, should be listed on the page. --Totoro1234 (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Done, if you do find anything else from cnair feel free to change it to a more reliable source. -Nem1yan (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have just gotten my hands on a copy of IISS' military balance 2010. Finally somewhat up to date source which is, i hope, quite credible. Still, I wanted to check here first, if it is okay to use the figures cited there. If so, I will gladly implement the changed in the inventory.--Totoro1234 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.74.125 (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you were checking with us then it would be easier if we could see what exactly we were checking. Either way, it should be fine. -Nem1yan (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * IISS Military Balance 2010 is reliable IMO. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that Military Balance has started to be used as a source. Please reference each aircraft with a page number, rather than an entire column with a book reference. Page numbers are required as standard. It also means that if and when new aircraft types are added, they won't look like they have a reference when they may not. ( Hohum  @ ) 13:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will change that. Please keep in mind i'm not that good with wiki code, it took me like an half an hour just to figure out how to use that one link. I will add the page references throughout tomorrow. Also, I must say there are still some discrepancies from various sources. IISS doesn't even mention gazelles in chinese inventory. Also, there are various trainer aircraft types missing from the list, am i free to add them? --94.253.142.91 (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Only add things you have sources for.
 * For what will be many IISS references, I suggest you use a simple referencing format within the text:
 * (replace # with the page number)
 * I have added a more complete biblio entry for them to refer to. ( Hohum  @ ) 23:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help but it seems someone else undid my revisions. And wiki says it can't undo the changes. How am I supposed to do anything if people keep changing it? If you want to I can send the IISS balance your way and you can do it yourself. I certainly won't invesnt another hour into changing things manually only to have it reverted back within a moment. Perhaps your name is more of a heavyweight and your entry won't be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totoro1234 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Inventory
There seems to be significant conflict between sources as to the inventory of the PLAAF. I think the Milavia information at http://www.milaviapress.com/orbat/china/index.php is out of date. I think the data by Flight Global at http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/reports_pdf/emptys/90190/world-air-forces-2011-2012.pdf might be more up to date and professionally done. I think maybe the data at http://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/upload/201102172337151.pdf is also good but 6 months older.

The differences are significant. Milavia says 500 Q-5s, Asia Military Review says 240, and Flight Global says 120.

Asia Military Review says 290 J-7's and 40 JJ-7's. Flight Global says 389.

Anyone got any ideas how to resolve this. Kitplane01 (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reattach the helicopter section in the aircraft inventory!
A couple of months ago, I saw that the aircraft inventory also contained a section about PLAAF helicopters but now it is completely removed. Can somebody put it back on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaveq (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

VANDALISM! / Who the hell removed the aircraft inventory section?
There was an aircraft inventory section on this page first, now it's completely removed and replaced by a poorly made and completely unnecessary directory. I am suspecting vandalism! I think it's the same guy who edited the PLAAF page with his bad spelling (Then instead of Than? Seriously?). Can someone revert the vandalism that has been done to this page or at least put back the aircraft inventory section where it belongs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaveq (talk • contribs) 23:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong photos for air force academy and airbase?
I just wanted to let you guys know that the buildings labelled "PLA Air Force Academy" and "Songshan Airbase" in pictures for this article both display the abbreviation ROC and the Taiwanese flag. That can't be right, can it? Can someone look into it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.119.192.71 (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, quite clearly the wrong photos. I have removed them. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

How to edit the Aircraft Inventory?
I strongly feel the updating of Chinese Air Force is extremely slowly and far below grade. Many new types of military planes which were built these years never mention in this article, like J-20, J-31, J-11 etc. I have many resources about them but when I try to edit the Aircraft inventory, the edit page was blanked!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxjiang000 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Xian H-8? Stealth Bomber?
I would question the validity of that. The existence of the supposed Chinese stealth bomber is just yet another rumor. I don't think It belongs on this page quite yet. Show me something valid and I'll put it back in. Until then... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.202.221 (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay

http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/china-wants-to-develop-a-new-long-range-strategic-bomber/

Hcobb (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Not air force of China
It is not correct that "the People's Liberation Army, [is] the armed forces of the People's Republic of China". It is the armed forces of the Chinese Communist Party. That is fundamentally different.122.59.140.215 (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft inventory - column sort function not working
I noticed that the sort buttons on the columns aren't working. For example if you click on 'In service' it will list 1,10,100,2,20,200 etc rather than the expected 1,2,10,20,100,200 etc. see List of active United States military aircraft for how it should work. Does anyone know how to fix this?-- Boreas74  You'll catch more flies with honey 22:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Contradictory numbers
The opening of the [| Equipment section] says "3,010+ aircraft, of which around 2,100 are combat aircraft (fighter, attack and bombers)." yet the immediately following inventory shows about 1,300 combat aircraft, and another couple of hundred craft, for a total of less than 1,500. Such a serious discrepancy should at least be mentioned, if not explained. --Eliyahu S Talk 22:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on People's Liberation Army 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/20070929102648/http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF182/CF182.ch9.pdf to http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF182/CF182.ch9.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113154633/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20131113000004 to http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20131113000004
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031207153458/http://www.softwar.net/plaaf.html to http://www.softwar.net/plaaf.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207070630/http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-PLAAF-Aug-02.pdf to http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-PLAAF-Aug-02.pdf

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) 17:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * J-10a zhas.png

SOVIET vs Russian
For all the technical edits so far by various experts in aviation, this page had shown an APPALLING ignorance of the difference between "Russia" and "The Soviet Union." THE TWO TERMS CANNOT BE USED INTERCHANGEABLY any more than "England" can be used for "The United Kingdom". Please people - if you want to speak like intelligent experts, at least get the name of the major countries correctly! I have updated most of the page, though have left some of the more modern aircraft (like SU27) as "Russian", though this is subject to some debate. Please note that I didn't know how to put the soviet flag in the table (i tried "SUN" but this didn't work even thought what I read on wikipedia suggested it should), so I just put the term "Soviet Union" which is 100% better than the 100% wrong "Russia

Wait, so England and UK aren't interchangeable? Wandavianempire (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Contradictory numbers II
As of 9/12/2020 I counted around 1,900 combat aircraft in the inventory list, and "2,755-3,110 fighter, bomber, and attack aircraft" are cited in the info box. ????????????????????????????????????

--JLavigne508 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in People's Liberation Army 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 People's Liberation Army 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 "IISS_2021":<ul> <li>From List of equipment of the People's Liberation Army Ground Force: </li> <li>From Shenyang J-16: </li> </ul>

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 ⚡ 16:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice
Following the unofficial and misled citation, @FlightGlobal 2021 report (China lacks transparency and these posted by @the Internet are just silly guesses with no foundation), I would like to deconstruct and reconstruct the page. Controversially, for many people, western media sources are trusty on paper, but nope. Sincerely, Hypersonic Man 11. DO NOT UNOFFICIALLY REMOVE ANYTHING WITHOUT DISCUSSION, AS PER THE TAG SUGGEST THAT IT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION


 * Flight Global is the web page for Flight International magazine, who've been around for a 100 years. Data is complied from companies providing signed contracts which give the basis of their content, so its far cry from "silly guesses". Also be advised all content must be verifiable, with a reliable source.  Any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports the content may be removed and should not be restored until a citation to a reliable source can be found. - See: WP:PROVEIT and WP:RELIABLE for additional help. Lastly please be sure to sign your posts on talk pages, using four tildes   to ID yourself.  Thank You - <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 20:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * fox, these are just guesses, rather, you should count on a domestic tabloid like Global Times or Chinese-based analysis. :), no conflict here Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As has been explained to you before,, Global Times is not considered a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. See WP:GLOBALTIMES for a reminder. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * sry, i didn't cite any propaganda based tabloid Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

, can I ask why you're adding "numbers disclosed" to entries where the number is stated as unknown? Surely if the numbers have been disclosed, they're known? Or do you mean "numbers undisclosed"? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * rectified it Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

For the section @Equipment, the reformation is pretty much done, do discuss before any action is taken. Much appreciated! Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , just FYI that since your revert, the article now has two equipment sections. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for that, fixed it - <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b>

Erm...
engagement misunderstanding: 2020-2021 border standoff isn't an engagement involving PLAAF, PLAAF just do power projection and sovereignty control. Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , do you have a reliable source for that? Unreferenced assertions have no value. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Needs major updates
numerous sections are written as contemporary information e.g. "currently... as of recently... as of today... as of 2009..." etc but some of that information is over a decade old. editing that would involve major changes as it would either require updated information or large scale deletions. 69.117.72.108 (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

some problems.
1.the tankers, well yes there is 3 il78, but it is not the only type of tanker they have there is also 20 H-20 and some Y-20U's

2."combat aircraft"; in it "combat aircraft" are really just fighter jets and bombers somehow dont count? isn't it obvious.

3. maritime patrol. they seriously forgot the y8Q.

Abdullah raji (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Revert on the equipment section.
@Fox 52, could you explain the revert you did at Equipment section? International Institute for Strategic Studies is a very reputable publication with annual reports of global military arsenal. Your current source, FlightGlobal has several glaring mistakes - For example, Guizhou JL-9, a trainer aircraft in PlAAF service, is marked as zero per Flightglobal database. This is clearly an outdated number, which makes the content of the table nowhere close to their respective Wikipedia articles. FlightGlobal also didn’t list the editorial team, making the whole thing more like a leaflet. Even if we count this is reliable, as per Wikipedia policy, WP:CONFLICTING, two reliable sources should be displayed equally and newer sources should be preferred. The IISS report is published about a month later than FlightGlobal. Overall, this revert should be undone, but I will wait for your response first to get a consensus. -Loned (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @FOX 52 @Loned I agree that the newer source is both more reputable and reliable compared to Flight Global Cidician (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well besides your "update" -you piled on ton of variants / numbers with no help links. Its ultimately an utter mess, but keeping within the spirit of cooperation, I'll reinstate IISS & consolidate the variants. - <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 19:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There would be no link for this at the moment, because The Military Balance is a paid database, but that makes it no less valid than the free PDF FlightGlobal published. The specific variant number is recorded in the Military Balance 2023 so that's not some random pile of numbers. For obvious copyright reason, I can't post the paid content here. But if you want to verify the numbers and not paying 500 pounds, I know alternative services like Perlego, which offers eBook rental service, where you could access The military balance 2023 for free for a limited time (you could also try Scholar if you have access to a university library). Around page 245 on Chapter 6, you will see the exact number I wrote down here. -Loned (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify the help links regarding the variants "Sukhoi Su-27 | Su-27UBK" - the paid part is not really my concern. cheers - <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 22:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * According to IISS2023, China currently only operate Su-27UBK. The twin-seat variant for training and strike missions. China has retired all Su-27SK they bought from Russia in the 90s. That’s why I added the UBK at variant section to signify that this is the variant that PLAAF operates.-Loned (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)