Jump to content

Talk:Libyan Air Force

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

References?

[edit]

I'm surprised this article hasn't received much attention. Hopefully some experts on the subject would be willing to enlighten us and provide references. --Edward Sandstig 09:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Rafale and Tiger

[edit]

They are negotiations for the procurement og Rafale and Tiger . they are not made any annoucments yet . John Athens 20/10/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.192.143 (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely unlikely before the revolt, even more now --Jean-Marc Liotier (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Libya has decided not to buy any Rafale planes, prefered the russian SU-35 planes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.8.83 (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blinder

[edit]

As long as I know the Tu-22 Blinders aren't retired. Any reference for that ? I'll put them back in current aircraft - Tourbillon A ? 09:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tu-22 are retired many years ago, replaced by Su-24 planes bought in late 80s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.8.83 (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rough OB

[edit]

Benghazi / Benina (HLLB) 1040sq MiG-23MLD/UB (OCU) 1060sq MiG-23MLD/MS/UB 1211sq L-410 1222sq G222 13.sq Det. Mi-8/Mi-17

Brach / El Beida / Labraq (HLLQ) 10.9sq L-39ZO 10.3sq MiG-23MLD/MS/UB Al Bumbah 1050sq MiG-23MLD/MS/UB Gamal Abd-El-Nasser/El Adem Tobruk AFB 1021sq MiG-21bis/UM 1040sq MiG-23MLD/MS/UB 13.8sq (Det.) Mi-8/Mi-17 Okba ibn Nafi AFB 1015sq Mirage F1ED/BD 1032sq Su-22M-3K, Su-22UM-3 For the Mirage F1 unit, also ‘Fataq’ squadron was mentioned.

Ghurdabiyah / GardabyaAFB 1124sq Su-24MK/MR 1022sq Su-22M-4/Su-22UM-3 13.8sq Det. Mi-8/Mi-17 13.5sq Mi-35

Al Jufra-Hun 1276sq Det. IL-76 This is a former Tu-22 and MiG-25 base. Misurata / Misratah 10..sq G-2A 1090sq MiG-23MLD/MS/UB G.Abdel-Nasser Frontier sq Mi-35, Mi-8 Ghudar Dabaya Coastal sq Mi-35, Mi-14PL, SA321GM Sebha / Sabha - Zawia AFB (HLLS) Air Force Academy Air Secondray School SF260WL Advanced Flying Tr. sq L-39ZO Military Flying Clubs SF-260 Besides the Air Froce Academy, MiG-25s used to be based here

Tripoli / Tarrabalus AB (HLLT) 1387sq CH-47C/CH-47C+ This units is also mentioned as 1347sq. Umm Aitiqah / Mitiga / Okba ben Nafi (HLLM) 1023sq MiG-23MLD/UB 1039sq L-39ZO 1226sq An-26 1230sq C-130H 1274sq An-74, Yak-40 1276sq Il-76M/T/TD, Il-62 1314sq Mi-14PL 1347sq CH-47C/CH-47C+ 1328sq Mi-8T Libyan Air Cargo An-124, Il-76, Il-78, An-26

Buckshot06 (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies?

[edit]

How do these two statements come together?:

"The last major delivery of Soviet aircraft was 15 Su-24 Fencers in March/April 1989."

"Sukhoi Su-24MK Soviet Union Long range bomber 4 One lost in fire"

Also, the article Sukhoi Su-24 mentions:

"8 Su-24MK purchased for the Libyan Air Force, 6 still on inventory, one destroyed in fire."

— 91.11.211.226 (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mig-25s

[edit]

An editor has removed all the 104 Mig-25 interceptors from the list, saying that they were "retired" in 2006. I disagree with this removal. The source used is Military Balance 2010 - a much newer and the most widely quoted source on military equipment numbers. I have not seen it disputed by other sources. The total number of aircraft they give - 374 - is also supported by other sources, and this number does include the 104 Mig-25s. Nanobear (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember IISS only updates their numbers when they get good new information. While I highly respect the Air Analyst they had working there in the last few years, he wasn't able to go over everything with a fine tooth comb, especially for obscure air forces like the LARAF. The IP gave this edit summary: 'remove the Mig-25 planes, are retired years ago. At LAVEX-2006 the commander of Mitiga AB stated at a interview at AFM that ,,the Mig-25 have all been retired,,. interview is at volume 227, February 2007'. This makes me think that if you looked up Air Forces Monthly, Vol 227, February 2007, you would fine a corrobating reference. My personal opinion would be to allow the removal to stand, and track down a copy of AFM Feb 2007. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nanobear I remove the Mig-25s. The source you provide is not correct. The Mig-25s are retired years ago, becauce they were no spare parts and most of all becauce the were obsolete. Also their wasnt 104 planes in inventory but much fewer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.8.83 (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

94.71.8.83, can you confirm you used Air Forces Monthly, February 2007, to help make this assessment ? Is there an article on the LARAF in AFM FEbruary 2007? If not, where were the comments of the LARAF commander at Mitiga reported ? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes their is a article at page 68-72, has the title ,,Libya Opens Up,,. The AFM author was at Mitiga AB becauce of air show LAVEX-2006, their is a interview of the commander of the AB, his name is Juma Zaid El Gaddafi. Also a photo of a Libyan Mig-25 is at the 4th page of the volume, has comments below about the retirement of the type. J.A 13 March 2011

J.A., thank you for your note. Would you please consider adding a note to the top of the aircraft-in-use section saying that all MiG-25s were retired as of that date, and attaching the full reference details for the AFM article? The thing is we need WP:Reliable Sources when other sources contradict standard reference works like the IISS Military Balance. Thanks for your additions and kind regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mig-23s sink Warships

[edit]

This is being reported and this article sites a Reuters link in ref 24. However, multiple sources have reported this, but they have since suggested this is unlikely (NPR, BBC, Al Jazeera) and stated that this statement from an "Unnamed Libyan Air Force official" hasn't been verified, it's just being reported. There's currently no verification of Rebel use of aircraft, let alone Mig-23s which is unlikely as Air Forces Monthly are stating the majority of Mig-23s in service are the ML and UB variants which aren't wired for the strike role as such. There's also currently no verification for the sinking of any large warships in that region. Can we have some actual verification of this? Otherwise, this is just hearsay being reported as fact. (121.45.146.138 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Since that contemporary plane was shot down, and confirmed as MiG-23BN the sinking would seem possible. Also, one has to keep in mind that "ships" in this case most probably refers to some small landing or attack craft.Ihosama (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube Sources (and blogs)

[edit]

There are some instances were youtube is more acceptable as a source, however I do not believe this is one of them. The video of a man standing over a downed aircraft with a small RPG on his shoulders cannot be connected to recent events. Unless the references are improved a lot of the recent edits about the Libyan revolt will have to be removed. -Nem1yan (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some better references for some of it. That they explicitly disagree with what people have been trying to add to the article is troubling. SDY (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the start

[edit]

Really need to return the aircraft numbers and other data back before the current conflict, and leave them as they were until everything has finished. Wikipedia is not a news service it doesnt need to be up to date by the hour so the status a few months ago would be a lot more helpful to the reader. If they want to know the current situation they can read the blogs and other sources. MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then revert it. I suppose some IP's may disagree with you but they aren't likely to use the talks page. -Nem1yan (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the sense in that - although even then it is difficult to establish accurate data, especially as to what is/was actually airworthy. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are going to have to put the brakes on all of these edits eventually or it is going to become impossible to sort the good from the bad. -Nem1yan (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JWAF list of units effective June 2011

[edit]
  • 1015 Squadron1 Okba Ibn Nafa Mirage F1 Interceptor / Air Defence
  • 1021 Squadron Gamal Abd El Nasser MiG-21bis Fighter / Multirole
  • 1022 Squadron Sirte/Ghurdabivah Su-22M3 Fighter-Ground Attack / Strike
  • 1023 Squadron Mitiga MiG-23MLD Air Defence
  • 1032 Squadron Okba Ibn Nafa Su-22M3 Fighter-Ground Attack / Strike
  • 1039 Squadron n/a2 L-39 Training
  • 1040 Squadron Benina MiG-23MS Fighter - Air Defence
  • 1050 Squadron1 Al Bumbah North MiG-23MS Fighter - Air Defence
  • 1060 Squadron Gamal Abd El Nasser MiG-23MS Fighter - Air Defence
  • 1090 Squadron Misurata MiG-23MS Fighter - Air Defence
  • 1124 Squadron Sirte/Ghurdabiyah Su-24 Strike / Attack
  • 1211 Squadron Benina L 410 Utility
  • 1226 Squadron1 Mitiga An-26 Transport
  • 1230 Squadron1 Mitiga Hercules Transport
  • 1240 Squadron Tripoli IAP Various VIP Transport
  • 1274 Squadron Mitiga An-74 Transport
  • 1276 Squadron Tripoli IAP Il-76 Transport
  • 1276 Squadron Tripoli IAP An-124 Transport
  • 1314 Squadron Mitiga Mi-14PL Maritime Patrol / Anti-Submarine Warfare
  • 1314 Squadron Mitiga Mi-14PZh Fire-Fighting
  • 1328 Squadron Mitiga Mi-8 Utility / Transport
  • 1335 Squadron Sirte/Ghurdabivah Mi-24 Fighter-Multirole
  • 1385 Squadron Mitiga CH-47 Chinook Transport
  • Squadron Okba Ibn Nafa MiG-21bis Fighter-Interceptor / Air Defence
  • Squadron Mitiga MiG-21bis Fighter-Interceptor / Air Defence
  • Squadron Benina Mi-8 Assault / Transport
  • Squadron Okba Ibn Nafa Mi-8 Assault / Transport
  • Squadron Okba Ibn Nafa Mi-24 Attack
  • Squadron Gamal Abd El Nasser Mi-8 Assault / Transport
  • Squadron Gamal Abd El Nasser Mi-24 Attack
  • Air Secondary School Sebha SF-260WL Primary Training
  • Air Force Academy Misurata Galeb Weapons Training

Notes: 2. Unconfirmed. 3. Possibly stationed at Brach, which is known to have resident L-39s.

Orphaned references in Libyan 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 Libyan 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 "ReferenceA":

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⚡ 12:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with "Free Libyan Air Force" article?

[edit]

Now that the entire country (at least all major cities and presumably airbases) is now nominally under the control of the NTC, it does not make much sense to have two different articles that seem dedicated to what is essentially now the same subject matter. It seems further jumbled by such inconsistencies as listing the current allegiance to the NTC, while leaving the possibility that a Pro-Gaddafi commander that has fled to Niger might still be in charge. I thus propose that the "Free Libyan Air Force" contents are moved to this article, with separate sections for the air force under Gaddafi's government, and one for the NTC-allied force (which would presumably include whatever remaining aircraft inventory). Does anyone else concur about any form of merge? Jetpower45 (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, but do it carefully, with as many references as you can find and insert. Do not do a simple cut-and-paste. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuilding the air force ?

[edit]

Ive noticed that the post war air force part of the article has been moved into the Free Libyan Air Force article, nothing much wrong with that but the Libyan Air Force is now being rebuilt, and under the name of the Libyan Air Force, so should a new article be created to take this into account, something like "New Libyan Air Force", or just "Libyan Air Force" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.27.75 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. If it's really true that the new air force also uses the name "Libyan Air Force", then the Free Libyan Air Force article should simply be renamed to Libyan Air Force (2011–). - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Armed Forces of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 14:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libyan 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Libyan 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) 09:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft numbers

[edit]

There has been some discussion regarding the sources to be used when it come to inventory numbers, PutItOnAMap (talk) has used a few blogs and twitter posts which seems to go against Self-publishing sites. I have utilized Flightglobal as seem to be a reliable source. For the time being I've added a note to notify the reader of the possible discrepancy in the numbers count. - FOX 52 (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delalande is verifiably reliable as an expert in the field of aviation. Here is a link to one of the contributions he has made to Air Forces Monthly: https://shop.keypublishing.com/issue/View/issue/AFM351 The discrepancies are not at all small. Flightglobal overestimates the number of planes in the Libyan inventory by well over 40, and it probably does this because it lists the number of aircraft, not the number of active aircraft in service (Libya is full of decommissioned, incomplete air frames from the Qaddafi era). Besides, ignoring the work of the dx.doi source I used (The Military Balance) is also wrong. This source gave a comprehensive breakdown of active aircraft in the Libyan air force at the time of publication, and the data it used was compiled later than in Flightglobal's tables. Thus, if it did not list an aircraft in service, we should (as editors) assume that aircraft was not in service at the time of publication (instead of adding in what Flightglobal wrote beforehand anyway). Aircraft should only be added to the table if newer reliable sources indicate they are in use (such as Delalande's work, warisboring.com, etc). That is why I propose we revert the inventory numbers to what they were at the time of my last edit. PutItOnAMap (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your making some assumptions there, the problem I see in Delalande's reports is the ambiguous text ie: “that Russia appears to have supplied at least one warplane” - “Libyan National Army Air Force has potentially 18 fighter-bombers” and there is this statement “The only aircraft available to the LNA in the west, near Misrata, are one Mirage F1, two Su-22s and a Mi-35 helicopter”, so is that what's near Misrata, or for the entire Air Force? For there record I've included some of the warisboring source(s). -FOX 52 (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've avoided his ambiguous reports where possible (in terms of sourcing for this page, that is). Regarding the MiG-23s, I've not counted the Russian supplies (I prefer not to do so until they're claimed to be active and in service, rather than simply supplied as airframes). I even traced every active serial number (including 3 BNs 9119, 8772 and 5136 and a UB 8008), hence being able to list the types currently in service. Whilst the UB has been confirmed to be in service since the Misrata airstrikes on Brak Al-Shati (there are sources for the linked here, too), the warisboring article included a Misratan claim that a MiG was destroyed on the ground in that airbase, and as only MiG-23s could have been based there at the time, it is logical to conclude (in the absence of an LNA/AF official denial, but the presence of a threat by the LNA/AF in response) that a MiG-23 was indeed destroyed there (in all likelihood). Hence, I reduced the number of active MiG-23s in this inventory table to 3, with 1 UB and 2 BN left. Regarding the MiG-21s, the warisboring article clearly indicates that (at the time of writing), only a few of the 14 intact MiG-21s were actually in active service. The Military Balance report (written prior to the warisboring article) indicated that 5 were in service at the time of writing (2 had been shot down since then) - hence I'd initially assumed just 3 were active. Since then, Delalande showed that 9 had been refurbished, indicating that at least 9 are now in service. We don't know how many of the 14 are currently active, but 9-12 is almost certainly the correct answer and I think it'd be wise to settle for that in the inventory. When he refers to the LNA's aircraft in the West, he is almost certainly referring to Watiya Airbase, where Zintan militias aligned with the House of Representatives are holding out (most of the LNA/AF's aircraft are in the east, near Tobruk). Tl;dr What I have been trying to do is use the most recent 'comprehensive' report as a baseline (The Military Balance is more recent than Flightglobal 2017 in this respect) and then make changes based on updates from Delalande and sources such as the Libya Herald, warisboring, etc. I am not sure why Flightglobal seems to overestimate inventory numbers, but that may well be because it is simply listing the airframes in service, as opposed to the functional aircraft in active service. (This may explain its listing of Hawker Hunter planes as part of the Lebanese airforce - the airframes are still intact and exist there, but the aircraft have been retired for several years now.) When the next comprehensive report comes in, we can wipe the slate clean in terms of 'newsy' updates and redefine the inventory based on those numbers. PutItOnAMap (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remember WP is not a News site WP:NOTNEWS, so don't go overboard trying to "report" every little change - FOX 52 (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a good deal of sense in most cases, but when the LNA/AF's entire inventory is only in the double digits, each aircraft matters a great deal and this should be reflected in the Wiki's account of that. PutItOnAMap (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PutItOnAMap: "Most cases" are all cases, this is an Encyclopedia not a News blog - FOX 52 (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libyan 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) 22:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libyan_Air_Force&oldid=1203586115"