Jump to content

Talk:Ukrainian Air Force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

old talk

[edit]

People, this article is obsolete regarding the official naming and structure of the force. It has been recently merged with Ukraine's Air Defense Force, and the new name is not "Air Force" (at least, literally not). However, this article is supposed to retain its English name. To be continued. AlexPU

P.S. Would you please also add any info you find on the merger to Military of Ukraine? AlexPU

This website has related material (including images): [1]--Riurik 04:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

update needed indeed

[edit]

Here are three paragraphs that need to be dealt with asap:

At this time, Ukraine maintained 4 Air Force Armies... etc.

we need reference for that.

Ukrainian Air Force, as befits the second largest country in Europe, boasts a formidable array of modern combat and transport aircraft.

This statement without comparative numbers is meaningless. --Irpen 04:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ukrainian Air Force is considered to be the country's foremost guarantor of its independence and territorial integrity.

This statement plainly looks strange. As of now, as everyone knows, the only threat to Ukrainian independence (for now an indirect one) comes from its northeastern neighbor. While the threat is indirect it is being dealt with different degrees of success by political means. Should the threat become direct, Ukrainian airforce or its entire military would not be a meaningful deterrent from our much more mighty neighbor. The only potential deterrent, should things go really bad, are possible alliances that Ukraine is yet to make. So, pls modify the statement. I just don't want to hurt anyone's feelings for now by marking it "dubious" which I would have done if this was a non-Ukrainian topic. --Irpen 04:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In 2005, the UAF is/was planning to restructure, in an effort to improve efficiency. Moreover, Ukraine is planning to put more advanced jet aircraft into service in upcoming years.

Obvious. --Irpen 04:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

size of the Ukrainian Air force

[edit]

am i the only one that sees a problem with the digit 220 (aircraft) in the upper right corner of the article, when the number is obviously much bigger if you add up all the aircraft from below. please fix if possible (or explain). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.100.60.93 (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The 220 aircraft number comes from the recent AirForces Monthly article on the Ukrainian Air Force (per the reference given in the article). I believe the numbers listed further down in the article are, most likely, the number of those types of a/c "inherited" from the USSR and don't reflect some or all of the drawdown/sales/scrapping that took place between then and now. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 01:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


aw, come on!. what european country would have 220 aifcraft total in th air force? Also, why are there specific mumbers in the article?

How in the world do the bunch of mouse-potatoes at globalsecurity.org know how many airplanes a former soviet country has? It's not like the government told the americans the layout of theit entire military. I say, remove the numbers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.50.184.231 (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"IISS assesses the overall force size as 817 aircraft of all types and 49,100 personnel"...Doesn't anyone see a difference between these figures and the ones in the upper-right corner (55000 personnel, 220 aircraft)? Which figures are correct and which ones aren't? Which ones should be removed?...and I honestly don't think that 220 is reasonable. And secondly, why would they need 55000 personel for 220 aircraft? (I'm sure this includes anti-air forces but still) Bogdan 00:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

putting numbersi in this article is absurd!

[edit]

wow, this article is terrible. why do people feel the need to throw out random numbers of aircraft? What does globalsecurity.org have contacts with the CIA that it knows exactly how much military equipment and of what kind every country in the world has? I'm removing the whole number table - it's absurd. If it's so useful and important, why doesn't the US Air Force article have one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.0.233 (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "If it's so useful and important, why doesn't the US Air Force article have one"? Not only does it have its own table, it has its own article. Bogdan що? 16:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Land Force

[edit]

Redirects to canadian something or other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.185.104 (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tupolev Tu-22m3.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Tupolev Tu-22m3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 26 October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ukrainian Falcons L-39.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Ukrainian Falcons L-39.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ukrainian Falcons L-39.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tu-22 still in service?

[edit]

I just saw one on ABC News footage of the action going on in Donetsk. Did they all get scrapped?

An-30 not shot down?

[edit]

I question that statement that "One [An-30] was shot down in Slavyansk 06.06.2014". The rebels reporting shooting down an An-30. The armed forces admitted that an An-26 was shot down. Wikipedia should either note the dispute, or acknowledge that an An-26 was downed - not an An-30. Wikipedia cannot prefer the claims of rebels to official sources.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as the list of aircraft types is not really the place to list accidents or other losses. MilborneOne (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As my last comment in June 2014, this is an overview article and not the place to list individual aircraft losses. MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

[edit]

Do you honestly believe that Ukraine has 140 MiG-29s. You realize that would mean that Ukraine has almost as many MiG-29s as Russia (which has around 200) while having a budget that is even smaller than the one Russia had in the 1990s. The fleet that was based in Belbek was 91% inoperable, it can be assumed that the other MiG-29 fleets are in no better shape. Also all reports that Ukraine is massively repairing air craft and putting them back into service are propaganda, there is no way Ukraine's current military budget of just 1.65 billions dollars will be able to repair 68 Air Craft that were grounded for 2 decades in 3 months. It also took Ukraine's air craft repair industry more then 6 months to repair just 12 Croatian MiG-21s and according to reports just 1 out of the 12 was properly repaired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.152.252.186 (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is what reliable sources, such as IHS Janes report. --Nug (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Is this noticeable(?):) Ukrainian Air Force (can hold) large-scale air defense exercise

[edit]

At least it is claiming to do so currently (currently was August 2016 when I wrote this). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+ better source. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it is a nationwide exercise. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ukrainian 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Ukrainian Air Force

[edit]

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 Ukrainian 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 "World Air Forces 2022":

  • From Royal Netherlands Air Force: "World Air Forces 2022". Flightglobal Insight. 2022. Retrieved 2 December 2021.
  • From Albanian Air Force: "World Air Forces 2022". FlightGlobal. 8 December 2021. Retrieved 12 December 2021.
  • From Bulgarian Air Force: "World Air Forces 2022". Flightglobal Insight. 2022. Retrieved 14 December 2021.

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⚡ 07:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


That article does not mention Ukraine at all.````Me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:201:8000:F0D0:389C:44BC:4829:CD74 (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

urgent needed

[edit]

considering putin's invasion of a sovereign country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.36.71 (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine Airforce No existing

[edit]

This information is outdated Ukraine Air Force does not have 225 migs. They have none in the air and there seems to be a big question as to whether though whether Russia destroyed them all on the ground during the current war 2601:281:8200:C20:C4B1:3822:57A4:526A (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

37 to 70 Mig 29s

[edit]

Not including any extra parts that can be used to repair the damaged Ukranian Mig-29s, it's playing a huge role denying the VKS air-superiority especially in Western Ukraine. Mikoyin (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Astroturfing/deliberate falsification

[edit]

The recent edit history strongly indicates a concerted effort to distort this article for propaganda purposes. The article should be locked and all edits after 2/23/2022 reverted until current events (Ukraine-Russia armed conflict) are at a stasis and reliable sources have made statements of record. As it stands, this article only serves to reinforce the perception of Wikipedia as a shoddy and biased source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:8201:B000:2C56:3318:800F:249E (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft inventory

[edit]

The inventory numbers are flat out wrong. The Ukrainians still operate over 50 combat aircraft. Weathin (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Valid Citations for Ukrainian Aircraft Inventory

[edit]

A propaganda effort to inflate Ukrainian aircraft numbers with inappropriate citations is being used. Citation 54 refers to 'World Air Forces 2022', but looking at the reference no mention about Ukraine or any of the named aircraft is actually made. Despite this, the change indicating a lack of citations has been reverted back to the invalid and insufficient one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.138.8 (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mil Mi-17

[edit]

The article give the following note for the Mil Mi-17: "Given to Ukraine in latest aid package by the United States." No source is given, and it's unclear what "latest aid package" it is referring to here, as the United States is continuing to send new aid packages to Ukraine. I'll be putting a citation needed tag on it for now. Any clarification on this would be appreciated. --2601:644:8501:3FF0:90DE:4A7A:FD75:128D (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is, I request that someone put a citations needed tag on it, as I cannot edit this article. 2601:644:8501:3FF0:90DE:4A7A:FD75:128D (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria indirectly donates SU-25?

[edit]

According to ORYX and Novinite,Bulgaria has sent SU-25s to Ukraine (partially dismantled).Novinite seems quite reliable as they have cited sources and go into a good amount of detail.The rest of their article seem reliable and not like clickbait etc at quick look.

https://www.novinite.com/articles/215264/Ukraine+received+a+Dozen+Soviet+Su-25s+in+Spare+Parts+%E2%80%93+Did+Bulgaria+send+them%3F https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/answering-call-heavy-weaponry-supplied.html

--Basedosaurus (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC) the Bulgarian government confirmed that no bulgarian su 25s are in Ukraine — Preceding unsigned comment added by STURMMANN16 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria never donated any su 25s to ukraine please redact the page

[edit]

Bulgaria never donated any su 25s to ukraine please redact the page Bulgaria never donated any su 25s to ukraine please redact the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by STURMMANN16 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

do you have a source to prove this? Basedosaurus (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to update number of aircraft

[edit]

As one user has previously stated the number of aircraft used by Ukraine is as of Feb. 2022.Since 6 months has passed and multiple countries have donated aircraft since the start of the war in Ukraine it should therefore be appropriate to add those aircraft the the figures to the number of aircraft (of course using RS) Basedosaurus (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That content should be updated on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine page, and because the situation is constantly changing, we need to wait & to see how the inventory shapes up. (we are an encyclopedia not a news blog) - FOX 52 talk! 04:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Table troubles

[edit]

For all parties involved, please stop ignoring policies that have been created by the Wikipedia community, as it demonstrates a lack respect for those who put in countless hours keeping pages up to par. Reminder Wikipedia is not a repository of images, not a blog, or a news site WP:NOT - If you want to post dozens of pictures on your favorite subject, then create a blog and do it there. Presently there is no reason to keep changing inventory numbers as we have no real verified sources due the current situation in Ukraine. Lastly let the wikilinks provide the additional information, on a subject, it's not necessary to illustrate all aspects of an article with an image. - FOX 52 talk! 07:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New equipment

[edit]

I would have added the IRIS-T SLM, Aspide and NASAMS batteries that are already in Ukraine's air defense forces but I haven't found credible sources for the number of systems in ukraine's inventory, only for how many systems Germany, Spain and the US pledged or the Ukranian defense ministry announcing taking delivery of the first battery.

Also,No patriot (yet) probably in 6ish months if the US is to avoid sending their own crews for that system

I haven't found information of Hawks making it to ukraine yet either Nodspine (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Shadow

[edit]

Storm Shadow says: "The UK government announced in May 2023 that export Storm Shadows were "going into" or already supplied to the Ukraine military during fighting following the Russian invasion of Ukraine from 2022.[1] Can these be carried by MiG19s and Su-27s, or will Ukraine need western jets to use them? 86.187.163.190 (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photographic evidence is now available to show them carried by UAF Su-24s. MiG-29 and Su-27s wouldn't be particularly suited to carry a large underwing cruise missile such as Storm Shadow or SCALP. As and when NATO types such as F-16 or Gripen arrive in-country they would likely be used for such launches since they would be a better avionics/electronics match for targeting data etc.
That is my understanding at any rate. 92.1.104.214 (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gregory, James (11 May 2023). "UK confirms supply of Storm Shadow long-range missiles in Ukraine". BBC News.

Disclaimer

[edit]

Ckfasdf, Template:Current, which is linked to from Wikipedia:No disclaimers#Acceptable disclaimers, says that "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence. This and closely related templates are generally expected to appear on an article for less than a day, sometimes longer." So I still think the disclaimer that you keep restoring does not belong here.

There's also a consistency problem: it makes no sense to single out this article and add a disclaimer when there are hundreds of other, much more actively edited articles on the Russo-Ukrainian war that don't have a disclaimer. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No disclaimers#Acceptable disclaimers, says These alert the reader that the article content may be subject to a flux of recent and upcoming significant changes for reasons beyond the control of Wikipedia. So, IMO as long as the war still not over, significant changes still can happens. And, Ukrainian Navy also uses similar disclaimer. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Significant changes may happen, or they may not happen. This logic could be extended to thousands of other articles. From a quick look at the article's edit history in the last month, most of the changes were additions to the "Equipment" section - not exactly some groundbreaking stuff. IMO this article simply does not have enough editing activity to justify a disclaimer. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, significant changes may happen, or may not happen. However, in this case, the conflict most likely will cause such changes. And you are right that "Equipment" section is the area whereas most changes happen. So, I suggest to relegate the disclaimer to this section, not entire article. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine by me. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made this change per my understanding of the consensus (remove the Current disclaimer at the top of the article, add a Warning disclaimer in the Equipment section). TROPtastic (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Launchers

[edit]

In the drive article listed under the source for the 5 additional patriot systems, it directly states that Ukraine will not be getting 5 additional Patriots but they are in fact NASAMS. The source and number needs to be removed 99.197.222.98 (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be able to edit this article yourself - any difficulties let us know Chidgk1 (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove F-16A from "Aircraft flown" until demonstrated

[edit]
Resolved

I propose the removal of the Fighter F-16A under "Aircraft flown". We know that Ukraine will fly these aircraft in the future (currently estimated for April 2024), but since timelines can shift and Ukraine may choose to hold some aircraft outside the country until they receive a sufficient quantity, it makes sense to keep the infobox for only the aircraft the Ukrainian Air Force has confirmed to be flying. TROPtastic (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Hoyle FlightGlobal Reference

[edit]

Thank you @Mr. Komori for adding the Hoyle FlightGlobal reference. I think it will be useful to have a single source of numbers for equipment from a (as far as I can tell) reputable publication.

My two complaints are that (1) the source doesn't capture the details that previous references did, leading to difficulties in verifying exact text (ex. the several dozen aircraft supplied by Slovakia and Poland), and (2) it uses a prospective number for F-16s that assumes that the Netherlands will be able to supply all 42 aircraft when technical considerations might prevent that, and it assumes that Denmark will be the only other country supplying F-16s when we know that isn't the case. (Norway will supply at least a few).

I propose keeping the Hoyle reference for most table entries that talk about quantity, but restoring the previous references for notes that add context or detail for ease of verification. For the F-16 note entry, it would be best to use numbers that derive from specific committments, which have been sourced in the F-16 procurement section.

Your thoughts? TROPtastic (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ukrainian_Air_Force&oldid=1205188254"