Talk:Belgian Air Component

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Belgian Air Component article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Belgium

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Aviation / National / World War I / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	National militaries task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Untitled

I'm removing the external link to the picture of the Brittan-Norman BN-2B-21 Islander, but in case anyone needs it or needs proof, it's here: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0722334/M Regards, Flint

4 Agusta A109 were effectively sold to Benin (source: http://www2.vrtnieuws.net/cm/vrtnieuws.net/nieuws/binnenland/1.115227), sorry, Dutch source) Whale plane 15:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 82.174.99.7

Some of these edits seem a bit fishy to me, but as it is not real vandalism, a revert isn't allowed if I'm not mistaken (and have read the info on reverts correctly). Any other thoughts on this? Whale plane 15:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F16 midlife upgrade

If I read this well, the F16's are mid-life upgraded. Does anyone have another source of this ? http://www.mil.be/aircomp/units/index.asp?LAN=en&FILE=&ID=639&MENU=272&PAGE=1

Nuclear weapons

in light of recent news that the 10th wing has US owned nuclear weapons at kleine brogel, should this be included? source:

http://www.knack.be/belga/politiek/kleine-brogel--sp-a-limburg-en-spirit-willen-kernwapens-weg/site78-section3-article34528.html

Noserider (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

they're not "owned" by the 10th Wing, they are US A-bombs stocked on the terrains of the air base. Part of NATO's strategy of dispersal. But they are not owned by any part of the Belgian military. -- fdewaele, 24 January 2007, 15:57.

I guess the question of ownership is irrelevant if the deployment is with the 10th wing right? The minister spoke of "nuclear capacity" at the base, I deduce that there is hence a tactical infrastructure involving either personnel and equipment of the 10th wing or at the very least the airforce base itself. But hey, belgians like denial so whatever... Noserider (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or more likely, there's a US presence on the base. -- fdewaele, 28 Janaury 2008, 18:17.

Communism is very precious!

I heard of a 1980's Cold War story, where the KGB bribed a belgian air force mechanic with a promise of 1 million dollars to steal an F-16. He climed into the Viper and started it, but he crashed after take-off due to lack of experience. I tried searching the net, but found nothing beyond a single mention in a forum. Does anybody have the name, date and location of this incident? 82.131.210.162 (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a lot like an urban legend if you ask me Whale plane (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note concerning Foundation thru WWII

I realize I have been liberal with the red links in expanding this section of the article. I have done so in hopes that someone more qualified will cull out the notables and de-pipe the rest.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of C130's in current service

The 'number in service' was recently changed from 11 to 10; yet the description accounts for 11 aircraft (originally 12 acquired, one lost in Eindhoven, another lost in the fire of Hangar 40 and eventually replaced). If the number is really 10, what has become of the 11th C130? Jan olieslagers (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"origin" of planes

I took the liberty to revert some recent changes to that field - the title "Origin" does not require a country to be mentioned, after all. But coming to think of it, what is the use or value of such a field? Most visitors will know anyhow that the F16 is a US'an design while the Airbus is indeed pan-European; those few visitors who don't can easily consult the relevant pages. My vote is for removing this "origin" field entirely. But if it must remain, there is no reason to limit its content to one single country. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

uh, what?

Wait... is there a Belgian Air Force or not? Reading this article, it's not clear. There was an Air Force at one time, but it was changed to Air Component after creating a unified structure (a la CF). But the article continues to make references to the Air Force (and Air Component). It also mentions the Air Component is part of the Belgian Armed Forces (lead) and part of the Belgian Army (infobox). This is all quite confusing. - ^theWOLFchild 15:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Belgian Air Component

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 Belgian Air Component'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 "ReferenceC":

From German Air Force: Assembled in France from parts built across Airbus partner factories
From Jacky Ickx: Steve Small. The Guinness Complete Grand Prix Who's Who. p. 198. ISBN 0851127029.
From Czech Republic: Gemeinsame Deutsch-Tschechischee Historikerkommission, Stellungnahme der Deutsch-Tschechischen Historikerkommission zu den Vertreibungsverlusten, in: Hoensch, Jörg K. und Hans Lemberg, Begegnung und Konflikt. Schlaglichter auf das Verhältnis von Tschechen, Slowaken und Deutschen 1815–1989 Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung 2001, pp. 254–8
From Turkish Naval Forces: "Amphibious Ship". Retrieved 27 October 2015.
From Fernand Jacquet: Pusher Aces of World War 1. p. 14.
From List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1935–1939): 1938 USAAC Accident Reports
From List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–2009): "1987 USAF Serial Numbers". joebaugher.com. Retrieved 9 July 2015.
From Norway: Norwegian National Rail Administration, 2008: 13

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 ⚡ 17:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Kings

This source says: "According to the Belgium Airforce the Sea King, with serial RS-05, will fly the last operational Sea King mission on March 21th, 2019." Is this correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a blog, so I’m not sure we can use that as a reputable source. Without an official press release I’d treat it as WP:CRYSTALBALL Garuda28 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any better source? It sounds suspiciously like this blogger has seen an official statement somewhere. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's retired janes.com FOX 52 (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the source of this continued to-and-fro edit warring that there is some grey area? e.g. they have been retired from operational service, but are still being flown by Air Force pilots for photo opportunities? Just a thought. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sourced consensus is that they have been retired. Garuda28 (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps editors could share their sources here and it could be agreed which are the more reliable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After this March is when the last S-61 is pulled from the inventory (so I say, just wait it out)- FOX 52 (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has someone in the Belgian Air Force personally tipped you off on this, or do you have any actual source(s) to share? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: here Belgium MoD - FOX 52 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

difference on source for aircraft inventory

For most of the air force pages, aircraft inventory data usually refer to WAF which is good compilation site for aircraft inventory of all air forces.
However for the case of belgian air component, belgian MoD website provide information on quantity of aircraft. While it's true that they dont put latest date update but the information are update but it's common for active website to keep updating itself, afterall that site is not news website.
Most of the quantity mentioned on both WAF and belgian MoD are the same, however difference quantity on some aircraft such as F16, ERJ 135, and Alpha Jet.
My proposal is to refer belgian MoD data as it is primary source and in this case primary source would be better (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD).
Regarding the issue that belgian MoD didnt put date on it, refer to Template:Cite web, there is a statement there on template date that mention Full date when the source was published; if unknown, use access-date instead; do not wikilink, so access-date can be used to solve date issue. Any other thoughts on this? (Ckfasdf (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

As there is no response, then I will begin to update the qty refer to Belgium MoD site and starting with ERJ135/145 (lowest qty compare to f16 or alpha jet), hence easier to verify. WAF group ERJ135/ERJ145 into 1 line with qty of 3, whereas according to Belgium MoD they claim to have 2 ERJ135 (reg no:CE-01 and CE-02) and 2 ERJ145 (reg no:CE-03 and CE-04), and there plenty other site that confirm this such as flightglobal, planespotter, photo, here, and more.(Ckfasdf (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]