Talk:South African Air Force/Archive 1

Strange aircraft
Hi, perhaps someone here can help me identify this aircraft that flew low over me on 2 May at about 18h30. I was at Modderfontien and this strange aircraft was flying east from Johannesburg International towards Johannesburg. Although it was getting dark I saw no markings or identification. This is all I can give you: it was a medium size twin turboprop, guessing about 10m plus in length, not sure but I think it had straight wings, it had a sharp nose cone over a metre long, it had a tail what look like a MAD boom, it had a small white object on its belly which looked like those search radars found on maritime aircraft and lastly it had a cable that ran from the nose to the starboard wing to the tail to the port wing and back to the nose. Sorry but that is all I could get although it flew low and slowly over head it was getting dark. It is smaller than the DC-3s that we use for MR if that helps --Jcw69 13:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the Spectrum Air Basler BT-67 operated by Anglo-American. Impi 11:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

2nd oldest independent?
How is this determined? The RAF is the oldest, and the article says the SAAF was indendent in 1951, but the US Air Force was independent in 1947 and the French Air Force in the 1930s. --Awiseman 17:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The following I got of the SAAF website maybe it helps clear up things: ''Col Pierre van Ryneveld was appointed Director Air Services (DAS) with effect from 1 February 1920 with instructions to establish an air force for the Union. This date is acknowledged as marking the official birth of the SAAF''.http://www.af.mil.za/about_us/history.html

Accesed 16 March 2007 -Franco


 * The statement about 1951 is a bit misleading. Even before the 1951 re-organisation the SAAF was not subservient to any other branch of the the until then monolithic UDF. Before 1951 the army or even the navy were not "independent" either. The pre 1951 situation is similar to the way the Canadian Forces are organised now. Roger (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Time to split up this article?
This article has become rather long (41KB) and slow to load. Shouldn't the tables of units and aircraft be put onto separate pages? Dirk L (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No; total text size is probably still under 36kB, and if you check the guidelines, total text size is what is counted. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Table header colours
I have removed the aircraft and squadron tables and changed them to collapsible tables for the sake of easier reading. But... for the life of me, I cant change the the pink header rows to any other colour, and I am certain pink is not the colour to be used in an air force OOD or aircraft table!!! Please assist! Farawayman (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pink? Don't see it --NJR_ZA (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK... light purple - but still appalling! Further, I have just moved the obsolete weapon systems out of the original table to List of obsolete weapon systems of the South African Air Force.  In my opinion there is / was too much irrelevant data on the page. Farawayman (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed - Colours made more presentable. Farawayman (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

RSAAF - Royal South African Air Force?
Didn't it used to be the Royal South African Air Force? Until 1960? (When South Africa became a Republic) I have Air Force badges that all have crowns and an old magazine article from the early 1950s that refers to the 'Dominion Air forces' and lists RAAF, RNZAF, RCAF & RSAAF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.245.47 (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the South African Air Force never carried the Royal prefix, as it was never applied for. Pre-1961 SAAF pilot wings included a crown because the centrepiece of the wings is a section of the national coat of arms, which featured the British crown until South Africa became a republic. Impi (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the magazine article is simply wrong. Roger (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The prefix 'Royal' is a title bestowed on an organisation by the reigning monarch in the form of a Royal Warrant. It is not 'applied for'. The most likely reason for it not being bestowed is either the relatively small size of the pre-war SAAF organisation at the time, or due to the possibility of objections from the local Boer population.

UAV/RPV's
Does the SAAF currently operate any RPV's? I believe the Seeker II has been withdrawn from service and the Seeker 400 is still under development. If "yes", please provide details and cite to allow these aircraft to be added to the "Current Aircraft" section. Farawayman (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * None currently in SAAF service - the old Seeker IIs from 10 Squadron are all in storage. The only UAV's currently in service in the SANDF are the Vulture UAV's used by the Army's G5 & G6 artillery units for target spotting. Roger (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure 10 Squadron operated the Seeker 1 (in two variants, the Seeker-P for training and the Seeker-D for ops), not the Seeker II. While the latter UAV was used by the SAAF, it was operated on contract by Kentron, was always flown by Kentron personnel and the aircraft never entered service with the air force. The SAAF does however operated one RPV: The Denel Dynamics Skua target drone system. Impi (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * [Edit] Scratch that, it turns out that as was the case with the Seeker II, the Skua is operated by Denel Dynamics under contract to the SAAF. I suppose that may still make it in 'SAAF service', but it's a grey area. Also, as a target drone it's not technically an RPV or UAV in the sense that was asked about here. Impi (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

SAAF in Sicily: 1943
I have removed this legacy bullet point from the article: My concerns are: Above could be included in a section titled "Mediterranean Operations." Any additional info substantiating the original cite would be appreciated - I cannot access this document. Farawayman (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sicily (1943): 3 and 7 Wings (SAAF) as well as 1, 3, 15, 16, 17, 28, 40 and 60 Squadrons.  Reference:  "Royal Air Force 1943" Secret Document 161, Location of units in the Royal Air Force, 34th issue, July 1943, Royal Air Force Museum accession number PR02859."
 * 1) Many of the separate squadrons listed - were part of 3 and 7 Wings.  Not "as well as...."
 * 2, 4 and 5 Sqn's were definitely involved - this reference neglects to mention them.
 * 1) 16 Sqn flew torpedo bomber missions duties in the Med - this does not qualify as direct participation in Op Husky;
 * 2) 15 Sqn flew maritime patrol duties in the Med - this does also not qualify as participating in Op Husky.
 * 3) Pilots of 17 Sqn had been distributed to other squadrons until Aug 1943 - Husky commenced June 1943.
 * 4) 28 Sqn flew transport services using Wellingtons and C-47's from Libya.  Possibly provided transport services in support of Husky - could not find any references to this.

AFB Port Elizabeth
I removed AFB PE from the map because of this [] edit by user:Buckshot06 (Refer paragraph commencing "	From 1990 with the perceived reduction in threat, ......" Buckshot - your views? Removal of FAPE from map was reverted by User:Impi Farawayman (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I should've been more specific in my edit. User:Buckshot06's original edit was partially correct, as AFB Port Elizabeth was not closed but downgraded to an Air Force Station and is currently home to 15 Squadron's C Flight. See [] for further information. As an Air Force Station, I'm open to suggestions that it not be included in the map, but as SAAF aircraft are based there my preference is to keep it. --Darren (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've edited the map caption to "South Africa Air Force bases and stations". Roger (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea. My apologies, I should've spotted that the description said 'bases'. --Darren (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just created a tiny stub for AFS Port Elizabeth please feel free to dig in and expand it. Roger (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * SAAF base map symbols changed to reflect differences between AFB and AFS. Are there any more AFS' - is it correct that all others are classified as AFB (Save for Port Elizabeth)?Farawayman (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think AFB Durban was supposed to be downgraded to an AFS at some point, but I don't think this has officially happened. I believe there's also an 'AFS Thaba Tshwane' but it's not aligned to an airfield. --Darren (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is the Port Elizabeth branch of the SAAF Museum part of the AFS or not? Roger (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, see SAAF Museum Port Elizabeth (Official Site) and SAAF Museum Port Elizabeth Facebook page.--Darren (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC) I may have been too hasty. The Museum is on the southern side of the airport and it appears that AFS Port Elizabeth occupies the north-eastern side of the airport. So I'm not sure if we can say that the SAAF Museum's PE branch is 'at' AFS Port Elizabeth. --Darren (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They don't share facilities. The museum is housed in the two hangars on the south side closest to where runway 08/26 and 17/35 cross. Not sure if there is any reporting lines between the two. --NJR_ZA (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the "official SAAF" difference between an AFB and an AFS? Farawayman (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question. I would guess that it's based largely on the size of the unit(s) operating from the facility. Where there is only one unit and it's not at squadron strength (such as C Flight) or the units are ground-based, the facility should be an AFS. The rules around this are a bit flexible, as an example AFS Snake Valley became the Air Force Mobile Deployment Wing. --Darren (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question. I would guess that it's based largely on the size of the unit(s) operating from the facility. Where there is only one unit and it's not at squadron strength (such as C Flight) or the units are ground-based, the facility should be an AFS. The rules around this are a bit flexible, as an example AFS Snake Valley became the Air Force Mobile Deployment Wing. --Darren (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Current reserve squadrons and their representation in the SAAF template
Interested editors are invited to comment in Template talk:SAAF navbox - it appears that there are no longer any reserve squadrons. Please comment on the template talk page. Farawayman (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Resolved. Farawayman (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Farawayman, thanks for all your continuing hard work on this article. I note you've changed 107 Sqn to 103 Sqn as the disbanding Commando squadron. The original data came from the official SAAF website -- do you have a better source? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Buckshot - from Official SAAF Website it appears that only the following reserve squadrons remain:
 * 101	Lt Col Frans Boshoff	AFB Hoedspruit
 * 102	Lt Col Brink Schlesinger	AFB Makhado
 * 104	Lt Col Hannes Roets	AFB Waterkloof
 * 105	Lt Col John Dyer	AFB Durban
 * 106	Lt Col Lucas Wiese	AFB Bloemspruit
 * 107	Lt Col Jan Human	Kimberley
 * 108	Lt Col Charles Kingwell	AFS Port Elizabeth
 * 110	Lt Col Noel Walsh	AFB Ysterplaat
 * 111	Lt Col Roger Mossom	AFB Waterkloof
 * So 103 Sqn has been disbanded and 107 Sqn is still on the reserve Sqn list. Trust this clarifies matters.  Farawayman (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting that Kimberley has a Reserve squadron without any permanent SAAF unit or facilities. BTW Should we really be publishing people's phone numbers? Roger (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Removed the numbers, was a direct cut and paste from the official SAAF website, numbers included. Farawayman (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the numbers were for the Squadrons' admin offices, not of the OCs themselves. They are also publicly available on the SAAF website as Farawayman indicated. So no harm done, I think. --Darren (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Help needed to identify CSIR UAV/Drone
Anyone know what this UAV/drone is? Photo was taken at the SAAF museum (Swartkop), but no additional information was provided with the exhibit. --NJR_ZA (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've posted a question about it on The SAAF Forum. Roger (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that's the Skyfly, a target drone demonstrator that CSIR Aerotek developed in 1992. The example in the photo is missing its vertical stabiliser. I'm afraid I have no further details, but it should be possible to use the name to dig a bit deeper. Darren (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think you are correct See:  --NJR_ZA (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

RSA-3
If anyone is looking to start a new article, the RSA-3 can be an interesting article to research. --NJR_ZA (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * RSA-3 is currently a redirect to South Africa and weapons of mass destruction which has a section on it and the RSA-4. Roger (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Photo opportunity - SAAF Museum warbird centenary Air Show
The Warbirds Centenary Airshow will be held on 12 May 2012 at AFB Swartkop. Gates open 7AM. Good opportunity to get some photos of some of the old birds in flight --NJR_ZA (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ....and then post those photos onto Commons for use in SAAF articles :) Farawayman (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Also please collect citeable pamphlets and other written material. Perhaps we'll have enough to expand the stubby South African Air Force Museum article into something more substantial. Roger (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I was at the museum yesterday. Not a lot of pamphlets, but they do sell some magazines. Will buy some at the show.
 * Asked my better half to take photos as she is far better than me, but photo opportunities were limited as most of the exhibits were in the process of being cleaned in preparation for the show (friends of the air force museum were hard at work). Couple of photos already uploaded can be seen in Leo_za1's toolserver gallery. --NJR_ZA (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Couple of photos. Will add more later commons:Category:2012 SAAF Swartkops Airshow — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJR ZA (talk • contribs) 15:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Museum took delivery of the SAAF's only CASA CN-235 during the show. Roger (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Debate on citation style
Interested editors are welcome to review / comment on the discussion taking place on Socrates2008 talk page. Farawayman (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Medals and decorations section
This section currently discusses only SANDF medals. I believe the section is supposed to discuss medals that are exclusive to the Air Force rather than medals that are awarded across the entire SANDF. Roger (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree - now we need a decision; between circa 1914 and 1960, SAAF were eligible to be awarded British medals which had numerous medals specific to air operations. Between 1960 and 2003 SADF medals were awarded and I don't think there were any air-specific medals or decorations. Post 2003, from what I read - there were only SANDF medals. Perhaps the above sentence (or similar with confirmed dates) is all that is needed? I have no objection if the existing section is removed.  Farawayman (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge the SAAF has awarded two air-specific models since around 1960 until the present day: The Air Force Cross and the Ad Astra Decoration. I recommend that we alter the medals section to include only these two, along with a sentence explaining that SAAF members are obviously eligible for SANDF-wide medals and a link to wherever those medals are shown. --Darren (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I reworded this section to add the redirect to the South African military decorations page. Impi's idea of SAAF specific medals is a good one, although the page mentions post 2003, so you'd have to clearly mention that they were issued by the SADF Gbawden (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

SAAF Motto
The infobox states the motto to be Per Aspera Ad Astra - is this correct? The RAF motto is Per Ardua ad Astra and I would have assumed that the SAAF would have adopted the RAF motto, being a Commonwealth air force (Australian, Canadian and New Zealand air forces all adopted the exact RAF motto). If its correct - do we have any citation to substantiate this? Also, I suspect it may originally have been identical to the RAF motto and was subsequently changed - does anyone have any evidence of this? Views? Farawayman (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is definitely correct - See http://www.af.mil.za/corporate/corporate.html The SAAF is more like a sibling of the RAF than a child - being only slightly younger, so I don't think an expectation that it would necessarily share a motto is really reasonable. Roger (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dodger - I will add the citation for above. Another one for you below.  Farawayman (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

SAAF March
The SAAF March apparently used to be a localised version of "Erica" (Auf der Heide blüht ein kleines Blümelein) - which also happened to be the original March of the Waffen SS (later adopted by the Wehrmacht)! See here. Does anyone know what the current official march may be? Farawayman (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

New draft article
The Imperial Gift article is basically done. I'm now working on a "sub" article covering South Africa's share of the Imperial Gift and the subsequent establishment and early history of the SAAF in greater detail - User:Dodger67/Sandbox/South Africa's Imperial Gift. Please feel free to particpate in the drafting process. Roger (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Broken reference
I can't find the full citation for the "Becker (1991)" reference that is used repeatedly in the history section. This style of citing requires a "list of sources" containing the full bibliographic details to be appended to the references section. If the full cite is used once inline instead of being added to a separate bibliography list such references may easily be broken if that first occurrence happens to be removed during the article development. I suspect other references in this style may also be broken due to the absence of a bibliography list. I would like to be able to use the source in the new Imperial Gift article. Roger (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Give me a day or two and I will check and add reference data as required. Farawayman (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Farawayman! I don't have anything by Becker published in 1991 on my bookshelf, otherwise I'd have fixed it myself. I'm using - - as a source to write the SA section of Imperial Gift. It seems to cover much of the same material as "Becker (1991)". In fact it looks as if Dave "recycled" some of his material, repeating it in different books. I'd really appreciate some help with the article, so if you (or anyone else reading this) have the time and sources please jump right in. Roger (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As for the Becker source.... although its a well researched book - it does not have a date of publication! I derived the publication date from the introduction: "...In 1970, as part of the SAAF's 50th Anniversary..... some twenty one years later it has become patently obvious that a single volume history of the SAAF covering events right up to the present is very necessary."  1970+21 years = 1991.  Rather shoddy printing.  Here are the details again, re-checked:




 * I suspect that "75 Years on Wings of Eagles" was the above edition, re-published to coincide with the SAAF 75th anniversary (they didn't even bother to update the ISBN, as I notice your edition and mine have the same ISBN). Full reference added to the SAAF page. Farawayman (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for following it up - so they just "tweaked" the title for the 2nd edition. I thought different editions are supposed to have different ISNBs? BTW you're more than welcome to come play in my sandbox. Roger (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Split suggestion
Hi. I am seriously impressed with the quality of the history section of this page. But I would like to suggest that you consider splitting off the history section. IMHO there is enough info to merit its own page. At some stage it would be useful to add more to the page ito Current role, organisation, etc. Just my 2c Gbawden (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to doing this - however, I suggest we move the history part AFTER the current role, organisation, etc sections have been added. Farawayman (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved the history section to History of the South African Air Force Farawayman (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Roger, why did you re-instate the history section in the SAAF page [I assume it was you]? In the above thread we agreed (OK, only two editors agreed!) to move the history section to a new page.  I believe there should be a short summarised history section on the main SAAF page, that's why I left the original text and added a remark into the HTML code saying "Add summarised history here."  Its impossible to maintain two history pages - as they will soon be out of sync and may even contradict one-another.  I know the SAAF page looks a bit bare with that section removed - but if you see above, the intention was to add other, non-historical data to the page.  I am currently maintaining and expanding the History of the South African Air Force page - you will already notice considerable changes to the original text as was moved.  Views? Farawayman (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure about this - looking through the Article history, I can't find anywhere that I (or anyone ele for that matter) (re)added a large chunk of content under the History heading. It looks like it was never actually trimmed down to a summary after the agreement to split. I haven't done much editing of this article in recent weeks - my attention was mostly focussed on Olympics articles. Roger (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Was re-instated by Buckshot - see [|here]. Comment for that edit was "Keep until a summary has been written".  Guess thats OK - suggest we use the lead from History of the South African Air Force in the SAAF history section.! Farawayman (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure if Socrates2008 is active on this page - you may want his input. You will need to strike a balance - have some history on this page and the rest on a more detailed page. My 2c Gbawden (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead of History of the South African Air Force is hopelessy too short - we need a summary - not just a passing mention! :( I think we get that sorted first before chopping out a large chunk of this article. Roger (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We're all acting as if the WP:Publishing deadline was tomorrow. No need. Lets just trim down the history section in the main article slowly, until it's more of a summary. No need for quick butchering. Yes, also, expand my initial crack at the History of SAAF intro. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What does (od) mean? Actually, I agree - no urgency here! Farawayman (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Outdenting Resetting the indents of the posts, so that they dont get squished into a narrow column down the right side of the page. I've just fixed the format of the outdent. I still have a draft in my sandbox covering the 1920s. It's an expansion of the main Imperial Gift article with respect to the establishment of the SAAF and the subsequent history of the IG aircraft. Unfortunately I'm up to by eyeballs in work (and I'm studying at Unisa) so I won't be able to do much with the draft for at least the next month. If anyone else would like to have a go at it I can make my source documents (Scans from books and magazine articles) available to you. Roger (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This page was accidentally off my watchlist - I've contributed significantly to the history, and have no issue with the split. Happy to help where necessary with appropriate summaries. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 10:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in South African 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 South African 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 "SAAF": From History of the South African Air Force:  From List of accidents and incidents involving the DC-3 in 1972:  From North American F-86 Sabre: "Sabre." RAAF Museum. Retrieved: 20 August 2010. 

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 ⚡ 22:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Farawayman (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Radar Coverage over South Africa
I recommend this section be cut to a separate page and that we make a brief reference to current coverage in the form of one paragraph. The "Radar Coverage over South Africa" section contains sufficient information to warrant a completely separate page. This new page could be made more generic and further make reference to the major contributions South Africa made to development of radar during WW2: See here Farawayman (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with History of the South African Air Force
This article on slightly expands on the South African Air Force article. Merging them would lead to one much-improved article. FunkyCanute (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Such a merge would make the article too long. I think we should actually "finish" the split properly, by moving most of the history detail from South African Air Force to History of the South African Air Force, then both articles would be improved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - go back and read "Split Suggestion" above on this Talk Page: It was recommended to remove the history part from the SAAF page because it made the page too long and cumbersome. The History PAGE was intended to contain detailed history down to squadron level while the History SECTION on the SAAF page was intended as an overview covering each campaign or era. Farawayman (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2017
i created the images of the shooting proficiency badges on the SAAF page. firstly, they are inaccurate, and half of them never existed. secondly, it was never intended to be put on wiki or any other page/site. please remove them. 105.186.164.38 (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  12:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * South African Air Force Command and Control ver 3.jpg

1958-2003 SAAF roundel
The unusual shape of this roundel is based on the plan of the Castle of Good Hope in Cape Town. But I'm not sure where this would be best placed; perhaps underneath the illustrations of the roundels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.37.71 (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

BK 117
No mention of it being actively used, why not? 41.13.131.15 (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

huh?
I don't know who wrote this...

"Due to the international arms embargo imposed against South Africa, the SAAF was unable to procure modern fighter aircraft to compete with the MiG-23s fielded by the Cubans in this conflict."

South Africa had both Mirage III's and Mirage F-1's in the air during the Angola war. Both of those were capable aircraft when compared with the MiG-23. The only big problem that the SAAF had was that their air-to-air missile, the V3 Kukri stank on ice. We need to rework this section a bit.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_184.shtml

Plaasjaapie (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * although Mirage F-1 and MiG-23 were both 3rd Gen, due to sanctions our aircraft were stuck in the 60s. 60 avionics, 50-60s missiles. When the 80s came the MiG-23 along with others were upgraded with 4th Gen tech, including Fox 3 missiles, which we didn't have. the best we had was helmet mounted display's. 10 years in aviation is OLD, imagine 10+ years. Another problem was that we didn't have enough, every Mirage we had we had put out there, so maintenance was beginning to take it's toll. basically SAAF was too far behind by force,, to small and too difficult to maintain. And the the worst part is that it's still like that and we got no sanctions. Befok bobbejaan (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking the exact same thing. There are numberous quotes from South African Serviceman stating that in most cases the Angolan and Cuban pilots were laughable. A MiG-23 was only taken seriously when there was a Russian pilot inside. Even then, the Mirages were easily a match for them. The nationality of the pilot could be identified by the language they spoke on their radio. Werner ghost (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The MiG-23 had better manoeuvrability, acceleration and rates of climb than the Mirage F1 across virtually the entire engagement window. This allowed MiG-23 pilots to effectively set the terms of an engagement, especially at the altitudes at which they were commonly flown over Angola, as a result of which SAAF pilots were forced to invent zoom-up flight profiles designed to take the MiGs by surprise and escape cleanly if the attack did not work. Further, there's no real evidence of Russian pilots being present in Angola, and if there were any they were in extremely short numbers. Not that it matters, since contrary to your statement the Cubans were not 'laughable' but were actually skilled and dangerous opponents. Indeed, the only Mirage F1 lost in an air-to-air engagement (Capt. Arthur Piercy's '206') was hit by a missile from a Cuban-piloted MiG-23. That said, the usual claims of absolute MiG-23 superiority over Angola are incorrect; S.African F1 pilots scored close-calls or near hits on at least four MiG-23s (none of which are confirmed as having actually been destroyed though), which is a testament to the to training of SAAF pilots. In sum, I agree that the original sentence should be changed to something more neutral and accurate, but we should be careful to avoid falling into the trap of believing the troepie stories that accompany every conflict and get more impressive in every telling. The lack of better aircraft and missiles meant that the SAAF could never hope to achieve air-superiority over Angola. &mdash; Impi (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons
S Afr developed a couple of free fall nuclear weapons - I think they were designed for delivery by Buccaneer (not sure). Were these weapons under command of the SAAF? Should reference be made to these weapons on this page? Farawayman (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * All the sources I've seen say the nukes never left Armscor's custody, so the SAAF never "owned" them. Roger (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * if I'm correct we used nukes as a threat against Cuba when they entered the fray in Angola officially. But we NEVER intended use, our bombs were essentially a huge bluff and probably one of the reasons why we dismantled them, what's the point of having something we'd never use. Also it was by Buccanner, it was our most modern bomber. And I do agree about reference being made to them here. Befok bobbejaan (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)