Talk:Republic of Korea Air Force

3 instead of 4 F15K
4 were delivered but 1 was destroyed in flight. 

(Wikimachine 05:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

who put kim jong il as general

The F-15K is South Korea's best choice for the control of the skies in the Asia Pacific reagion.

Number of 15K
In the text there is a note that under phase 1 there was 30 aircrafts delivered, and under phase 2, there is 21 aircrafts giving total number of 50 aircrafts (excluding one F-15K that crashed). But in the numbers section there is numbe of 60 aircrafts. --Corran.pl (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

700 Avro 748 VIP Transport?
Is that number correct..? (Ulises Jorge 8:20, 29 January 2009 (EST))


 * May be it's typo, I'm not sure where this numbers came from? --Korsentry 05:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Bases
?--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Second source for public pressure claim?
This: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/24/korea-fighter-idUSL4N0HK0LG20130924

Is the only time I've seen public pressure claimed for choosing a 5th gen. Reuters is a very good source, but I'd like a second source before including this claim. Hcobb (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

F-X Phase 3
I think this section is getting too long and should be slimmed down. Its size is completely disproportional to the rest of the article Mztourist (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * moved to new article at F-X fighter program. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good move, thanks! Mztourist (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newskai-to-supply-additional-fa-50-fighters-to-south-korean-air-force
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Republic of Korea 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/20100608043749/http://www.history.army.mil/books/Vietnam/allied/ch06.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/books/Vietnam/allied/ch06.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) 22:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Sidearms of the flying personal
What for a kind of firearm do pilots and other flying personal carry? I've read that they are using a 1911-pistol. --Exodianecross (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Smith & Wesson Model 10 http://m1.daumcdn.net/cfile217/image/9952E84F5CE9A8AB0D63B0 or Daewoo Precision Industries K5 https://1boon.kakao.com/dema/5a9ce4d86a8e5100010d5b08 Vader1997 (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Republic of Korea 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://archive.is/20130615211801/http://news.dbv.vn/korea-rejected-the-us-global-hawk-uav--17810.html to http://news.dbv.vn/korea-rejected-the-us-global-hawk-uav--17810.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060701181500/http://airwar.hihome.com/ to http://airwar.hihome.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111129080556/http://www.rokaf.org/ to http://www.rokaf.org/

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) 09:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The file on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The file on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The English Source about ROKAF current aircrafts inventory is very wrong
That The World Air Forces 2019 English source is very wrong compared to the local Korean language sources. For example, only one F-4 fighter squadron is remaining in the 10th Fighter Wing(based at Suwon) June 2019, but that "ENGLISH" source says 71. And only five F-5 fighter squadrons are remaining in 1th Fighter Wing(Gwangju), 10th Fighter Wing(Suwon), and 18th Fighter Wing(Gangneung), but that "English" source says 158. Incorrect ENGLISH source is preferred over correct KOREAN sources about KOREAN Air Forces. WOW WIKIPEDIA


 * Sorry you are not making sense, the flighglobal source is talking about number of aircraft and you are talking about number of squadrons, not the same thing. Do you have a reliable source that details the number of aircraft are different from flightglobal. MilborneOne (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not completely different. The number of 71 is excessive because one fighter squadron of the Korean Air Force is usually composed of about 20 units. About a decade ago, there were three squadrons(152, 153, and 156SQ) in 17th fighter wing based at Cheongju. Flightglobal would have written down the quantity based on that time and it seems that it has not been updated so far. Of course, Flightglobal would not have been able to check the current status of all the planes from around the world, especially those from non-English speaking countries. But most of F-4Es are retired now for adopting new F-35A fighters, and now only one squadron(153SQ) remains with 20 F-4Es in 10th fighter wing based at Suwon. Maybe you'll need a translation, but this article(the author is a reporter with access to the ROK Department of Defense.) explains the details. And for F-5 fighters, the number of 158 also excessive, and this Source says(the author is the representative of the KODEF), "또한 공군은 100여 대의 F-5 전력을 대체하기 위해 국산 전투기인 KF-X 개발사업을 2015년부터 시작했다." ("For replacing F-5s number of about 100, ROKAF began KF-X development in 2015."). But above all, I actually served in the Air Force 10th fighter wing from 2016 to 2018, the base which operates F-4s and F-5s. I even knew all the names of who was actually flying the plane. In addition, F-16s, transport aircraft, and helicopter quantities are slightly out of line, but I'll only talk about these two cases(F-4 and F-5) because they make the biggest difference in quantity. Vader1997 (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you yourself cannot be used as a source per WP:NOR. - The other source(s) are 1. hard to verify the contents validity and 2. Some of them appear to be "Self-made blogs" which are not unreliable. - FOX 52 (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. I already know that I can't be the source myself. As a retired Korean airmen, I wrote it just because this situation is ridiculous. Incorrect data published by a generally trusted authority in appropriate English format for Wikipedia rules VS Correct data published by unknown authority to non-Korean people in Korean Language. 2. Homepage design can look like that, but those are definitely not self-made blogs. They only had separate military article sections but these articles were published by major press in South Korea. (F-4 Source: Kyunghyang Shinmun http://www.khan.co.kr/ / F-5 Source: The Chosun Ilbo https://www.chosun.com/ ) After all, I hope that those who have read this will know that English source can be very different from what it really is, even if the Korean sources I have suggested are not able to quote in the text.Vader1997 (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

numbers provided by flightglobal.com cannot be confirmed unless some out-of-fk-mind worker of ministry of defense in some poor country confirms that numbers. of cause this will not be never happen. all numbers around internet are same, unreliable, including numbers published via "DVV Media International Limited" what makes numbers from "DVV Media International Limited" special? Hiseob (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure who DVV Media International are and why it is relevant. You need to remember that the flight numbers are reliable at a certain point in time the fact that that F-4 squadrons have been disbanded on the introduction of the F-35 is an ongoing thing and that it will be reflected when Flight is updated next year. MilborneOne (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * dvv media? see the flightglobal.com's footer. flightglobal.com is not official government organization, just a private company and these numbers and sources are not comfirmable too. "diffrent from flightglobal so give me reliable source" this isn't sounds right to me. Hiseob (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok although being a publishing company rather than a government doesnt appear to be relevant. As a respected magazine with a editorial control Flightglobal is a reliable source. Just because military aircraft are retired and introduced all the time since it was published is no reason to doubt the Flightglobal figures. MilborneOne (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * In fact, the number of F-4Es did not suddenly decrease in 2019 in line with the introduction of the F-35A. Previously, 156SQ was disbanded in 2012 and 152SQ was disbanded in 2016. A corresponding number of planes have also been gradually retired. But Flightglobal has not updated this information for many years, so there is no guarantee that it will be updated in the following year. I've sent them an e-mail asking for a second look at this, but I don't know if they'll make the right corrections.Vader1997 (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh and just for information non-reliable spotter sources indicate that 26 F-4Es are still active all with the 153 Fighter Squadron. MilborneOne (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So, if you don't consider Wikipedia's rules, what do you personally believe in, 71 or 26? I don't have any special intention, but I'm just curious.Vader1997 (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

F35 Counts
This statement seems inconsistent, or requires clarification: > The South Korean Air Force acquired 40 F-35s and +20 additional F-35. 198.54.109.0 (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing the original contract was for 40, then it got extended to an extra 20? But the article should say such if that is the case. 198.54.109.0 (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)