Talk:List of equipment of the Indonesian Air Force

Military history: Asian / Southeast Asia CL‑class

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

CL

This article has been rated as CL-class on the project's quality scale.

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Southeast Asian military history task force

Indonesia Mid‑importance

	Indonesia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics 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.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pictures

I would like to add pictures for the list of aircraft. This is because other similar articles such as Equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force contain images in it. Thanks. Calvin Wisanto (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, it should help to improve this page.The Australian Red Man (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Former equipment

It would appear that this page has descended into a mess of lists upon lists. A main contributor to this is the listing of old and retired aircraft. This is not something that is the case for any other major military airforce, and I would suggest that the lists of this page be limited to equipment in active use. I would appreciate anyone else providing their opinion on this. I am happy to do the work, just want to get a concesus first. The Australian Red Man (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Equipment of the Indonesian 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120928142413/http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/indonesia-accepts-us-offer-of-24-f-16-fighter-jets/422756 to http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/indonesia-accepts-us-offer-of-24-f-16-fighter-jets/422756

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) 06:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Equipment of the Indonesian 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) 05:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing The Pictures and Reduced.

Cal1407, I Would say about FOX 52 Are very Determinated To Remove some Picture and Even he Destroyed RMAF Picture and Tables Equipment. Secondly, Using World's Air Forces Sources are ACTUALLY Not A Sources. It's a Blog and Faked.AirWave 800S1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was already discussed & gained consensus - SEE: "Military table formats related to images" - FOX 52 (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FOX 52: This is absurd. The article would not look good without images. There would be no clear representation of the aircraft operated by the Indonesian Air Force without the images. Please reconsider your edit. Cal1407 (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cal1407: - there will be it will resemble this page - List of active Brazilian military aircraft FOX 52 (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FOX 52: Okay maybe its fine for the aircraft section, but why you also remove the image for the firearm and missile section? Cal1407 (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cal1407: same thing as seen here FOX 52 (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FOX 52: Look, I understand that there has been a consensus, but I spent a lot of time on making that article. It is not easy fetching those images that you removed. Please again reconsider your decision. Cal1407 (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a formatting issue furthermore it goes against WP:IMAGEMOS plus the text in the note section is way to much per WP:WHENTABLE - I've been through your pain. but it's how we learn - FOX 52 (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing The Pictures and Reduced #2

@FOX 52:: I think we need to renegotiate about this consensus thing. This is because many editors like me feels that their contribution are unappreciated. Hours or days of works they have done are now wasted. Please bring this issue to the admin, and lets negotiate again so that we can achieve a consensus on this issue. Moreover, you have removed important information that the article use to have. Cal1407 (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to me to renegotiate this "consensus thing" - This article is comprised of tables and WP:WHENTABLE states avoid cramming detailed information into table entrie(s), the reader should be able to click a Wikilink to see detailed article corresponding concise table entry. - FOX 52 (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

@FOX 52:: Yes, but you removed many of the important information and sources that I have provided. You are just basically destroying the article. Cal1407 (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the history of the page you had a lot of material not sourced, there were trivial parts regarding aircraft that may be obtained – the fire arm section alone was devoid of any sources, and contained poor grammar with erroneous notes like “Standard issued sidearm” for M60 machine gun’s M2 Browning’s & DShK which are all heavy weapons, hardly a Side arm. - That's just to name a few FOX 52 (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FOX 52, With all due respect... "tidy"?

You removed bunch of stuffs that are sourced, and or cited. Did you look at the sources one by one every single one? I agree on removing unnecessary things like the "Su-35, KF-X/IF-X." but the rest are actually sourced. So why did you removed them? Can you give a more detail, and precise reason other than just "Tidy". Sincerely a very curious user --EvoSwatch (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well as an example your edit here, you state that aircraft is receiving up grades and the "B" variant "confirmed not to be a trainer" - but your source dose not confirm that, we can't make assumptions here on Wikipedia. - where's your source to confirm this claim? (which isn’t even sourced on the variants page itself). - FOX 52 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the NAS 330J^[1]. Or this one for the Superpuma family directly from PTDI. ^[2] This is for the 212/235/295 Family again from PTDI. ^[3] FYI, C-XXX = CASA made, N-XXX = IPTN/PTDI made, CN-XXX joint project between IPTN/PTDI, and CASA, NC-XXX = CASA made plane licensed production built by IPTN/PTDI. For F-16s.^[4]^[5]^[6] They are being upgraded with 'Bird Slicers' IFF, Ability to use BVRAAM the AIM-120C7 AMRAAM. JDAM Smart-bombs. I dont know about you, but i dont think "Trainer Aircraft" are upgraded as such. Also they are stationed on a Combat Squadron "Skadron Udara 3 Tempur (Skadud 3)" not Training Squadron (Skadik). Same with T-50, they should be on the "Combat" section, not "Training" section, because they are used as Light Attack with Training capability, not vice versa. T-50 are stationed "Skadron Udara 15 Tempur (Skadud 15)" again a Combat squadron, not Training (Skadik). A family member of mine who is in the Air Force, he used Gliders like this ^[7] as basic training to be a pilot in the Academy, and he said, F-16s are not trainer aircraft. I cant even find a single article about Trainer Tandem seat F-16. ALL Indonesian Air Force Academy Training Squadron are stationed on Adisutjipto International Airport/Air Force Base. (With exception the Training squadrons in Bandung "Sulaiman AFB") but they don't use aircraft, because they are mostly used as "Paradrop" training. and Paskhas training. And why did you removed the Drone section? --EvoSwatch (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

First off let me say you’re doing a great job, on your editing, I just want to refine some of the entries. I’m gonna restore the F-16’s based of your sources. Now some notes like “All two Su-30MK have been upgraded to MK2 standard” or “Licensed version built by IPTN, now Indonesian Aerospace” – if an aircraft has been upgraded then just change it in the variants column, (and forgo the lengthy note) For the Licensed company, again better stated as “Licensed version built by Indonesian Aerospace” and bypass the non-notable mention what the company once was. – The UAV section had one with no source, one with a source for demonstration flights only, and one with a dubious source. - Just always try to source everything you can -Cheers - FOX 52 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the help, i will look for any abnormalities in the future, and add/remove things with sources i could find. Thank you for your time.EvoSwatch (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOX 52. no need for duplicate articles.

Would you mind explaining it to me what do you mean by 'duplicate articles'? and please let me know why you removed my previous edits? the one with SIPRI? That is all, thank you. EvoSwatch (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the dropped content, someone remove the "retired" section to create a duplicate article (which is not needed) - I restored everything except the "potential upgrades" to the F-16. - best to post that when it happens FOX 52 (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, but what about the rest of former equipments from SIPRI, should i add them back? EvoSwatch (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah if I missed anything thing please do. the article was gutted by another editor, so not sure what else was removed - FOX 52 (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EvoSwatch: - don't put text like "according to SIPRI Arms Transfer Database" inside the table, that's what inline citations are for. Also please avoid non-notable content ie: CS-102, which is referring to the production block - we can't link it, and it doesn't provide the reader any educational value - Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, but the 'CS-102', etc are not production block, they are what they are called because its a licensed production. But i get your point. EvoSwatch (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The number of F-16 currently the Indonesian Air Force operates.

So World Air Forces released their annually report. And just like last year, the number of F-16 Indonesia operate is 32. Now first of all, i dont where they got that number, but yes... Four F-16 did crashed. The aircraft TS-1643 F-16C did catch on fire, and put out of service, and now a monument on 'Roesmin Nurjadin AFB'. But there are no news about TS-1603 F-16 a total loss. So it means from total 12 original F-16A/B + 24 F-16C/D there should 36, but 3 aircraft are total loss, so 36 - 3 = 33. I think it would make more sense to put 33 instead of 32. There are news articles that said the aircraft will be repaired, or undergoing maintenance. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvoSwatch (talk • contribs) 10:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.militer.or.id/2023/pesawat-f-16-ts-1603-akan-diperbaiki/

The source makes no mention of the total operated. MilborneOne (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but the article is about the aircraft TS-1603. The one that had an incident back in 2017, but the user 'Ckfasdf' said 4 crashed, therefore he said 36-4=32. But actually the aircraft TS-1603 wasnt considered a 'total loss' and its most likely under going maintenance.-EvoSwatch (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks thats why we need reliable references rather than synthesis MilborneOne (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately numbers on any of these tables may never be entirely accurate, due to unreported losses, spare part issues etc. but keeping it close is the best we can do for the reader. - FOX 52 (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are sites that provide such tables, but may not be used in Wikipedia as they are considered not comply to Wikipedia's rules. Anyway back to TS-1603, initial report from Kompas.com said it was total loss. However, news on the following days said that it can/will be repaired. Up to this date, no further news on TS-1603 status. So... is it 32 or 33? Ckfasdf (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this source, I guess it's confirmed to be 33 because chief of staff of Indonesian air force said so... Ckfasdf (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2023 and the number is still 33. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add to top it off, here is the aircraft in question TS-1603 undergoing the Falcon STAR eMLU program. EvoSwatch (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The accidents. Do we need to put it on the "Equipment" section, or put it on the "Notable Accidents" on the main page?

The title said it all already. -EvoSwatch (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We dont normally list or discuss accidents in lists of aircraft auch as this one, we have an accidents and incidents section in the main article (or a stand-alone article) for the small number that are of note. They need to be removed from here. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The number of T-50 currently the Indonesian Air Force operates

On May 2011, Indonesia order T-50 with qty of 16 aircraft. And all order was received by January 2014 (source: 1 2 3). On December 2015, 1 T-50 was crashed.
So, as of 2020, total qty of T-50 is 15 (16 - 1). And that number is the same as mentioned on FlightGlobal's WAF 2020.
Also, I dont think it's necessary to put ref on aircraft crashes as it would be better to put it on or the "Notable Accidents" on the main page. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Indonesia the number of aircraft per squadron is 16 aircraft. A squadron of T-50 means 16 aircraft, one crashed which means 16-1 = 15 total of aircraft operational. Only one T-50 crashed, not two. -EvoSwatch (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK another editor gave the impression there were only 15 to start with - thanks for the heads up - FOX 52 (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, i was confused myself at first. Cheers bud. EvoSwatch (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yea.. I also missed that editor edit on T-50 and caused this confusion. Cheers. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving former aircrafts

To clear out things first, I do know that someone already discussing about the long list of the former aircraft and some suggestion on what should be done, but I feel since it was a few years ago it might be better to start a new section. If anyone have more knowledge in this matters, feel free to merge it.

Well as the title said, since the list of former aircraft is growing to a quite long list, I propose to moved the list of former aircrafts to List of aircraft of the Indonesian National Armed Forces page, as 1) it would appropriate since the page is about aircraft operated by the TNI, 2) it would declutter this page which I believe is more concerned about the current equipment of the air force. I would like to do it on my own, but I think it would be better if we can first gathered consensus about it. Jauhsekali (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a reasonable idea. MilborneOne (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Content moved. Jauhsekali (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FOX 52, unexplained changes and more.

Hi, it has come to my attention the page has been reverted again and again by FOX 52 to older statistics and data which are incorrect and even contradicts a number of the cited sources. I understand if its for tidy up, cleaning, or excessive content but the changes of the page to incorrectness and confusion is saddening. I would greatly appreciate if there is a good explanation to such actions and hope at least to take a look at the cited sources before removing or reverting it entirely. Thanks and would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this. -EvoSwatch (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many details have no notability, (ie: "Ordered via Philippine company according to SIPRI"..and so? You have to remember this is an Encyclopedia, not a news site. Some of your sourcing is insufficient like jetphotos.com picture are not a reliable source. Further don't add content that is not connected to the branch service like this - FOX 52 ^talk! 08:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points but i put the "Ordered via Philippine company" because people thought we have active diplomatic relationship with Israel, for the AW139, i don't even know who added that and never noticed it. Addendum: I don't recall using jetphotos.com as citation(s). EvoSwatch (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of WAF and other sources (and why WAF is not end all be all)

Hey @SurferSquall, thanks for notifying me. You are indeed correct, WAF is a reliable source and often used in other wikipages. However they are an annually updated source and very surface level stuffs, which I don't blame them as to keep up with the entire Air Forces of the world is a difficult task for anyone. However, for specifics they have been proven to be inaccurate at least partially which is why other sources would be more preferable. Some examples of incorrect and/or inaccurate data from WAF including but not limited to:

F-15ID/IDN are not in fact "on order" as there is no contract signed, a DSCA being published does not mean a contract has been signed.
The number of F-16 in service. Air Force officials have stated the number of F-16 in service (as well as planned to be upgraded) and based on visual imagery of the aircraft number and model it does add up.
KF-21 is also not "on order", the current agreement between INA and ROK is for R&D only (cmiiw). A separate contract for the acquisition of aircraft should follow in the future.
A400M are ordered as MRTT, can it be use for transport too? Of course, but its primary role is as Tankers akin to A330 MRTT or KC-130s. Also not one is in active service yet, its contract was only recently active. The "2+4*" on WAF 2023 refers to 2 on order with 4 in LoI. WAF mistakenly grouped this to "Transport" not "Tanker"
NC212 we use figures directly from PTDI (IAe)
This is a nitpick but T-50 for the TNI AU is T-50i (with lowercase) not T-50I (as shown in WAF). T-50i is what KAI uses, and its what TNI AU uses too.
There are also others that WAF hasn't implemented yet like the acquisition of Mirage 2000s.

This can goes on and on, but I think the point has already been made.

That being said I'm no way in any shape or form against the use of WAF as a source, in fact as you may have seen in my past edits I do too use them too (for the foundation in fact). But as someone who closely follows the modernization of the TNI through the MEF program (especially in the Aerospace sector) I am confident that the WAF figures is not always correct, sometimes even SIPRI is incorrect. Which is why when there are better sources such as official data or more recent data I use those instead. Lastly I see no reason as to why would I 'vandalize' a page that I have been working on for years now, if anything I try to improve it ever so slightly albeit sometimes messy and unnecessarily. These types of discussions have been done before with others in this talk page. Therefore I believe the previous data are better and should be reinstated as soon as possible, its more accurate, its more recent.

I would love to hear your reply to this.

Sincerely. - EvoSwatch (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have better, newer sources than WAF, you are welcome to provide them in the article. Else, WAF is the newest source available and thus will be used. Also, Mirage 2000? Seriously? Why would they acquire a jet that hasn’t been made until 2007? I will leave WAF as the source for what I added, until you can add a better, newer source for everything you wish to change. Please discuss any changes here before making them. SurferSquall (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

F-15EX/ID/IDN not in contract yet. https://www.airspace-review.com/2023/05/04/prabowo-pastikan-indonesia-membeli-jet-tempur-rafale-mirage-2000-dan-f-15ex/
KF-21 no acquisition of production models yet, only number 5 prototype. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/indonesia-to-receive-kf-21-prototype-no-5-if-payments-completed
A400M in MRTT, 2 on order with 4 additional in LoI. Not 2 in service, 4 on order. https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2021-11-indonesia-ministry-of-defence-orders-two-airbus-a400ms & https://twitter.com/AirbusDefence/status/1602230104574365696
9 NC212i on order, not 2. https://www.indonesian-aerospace.com/press/detail/243_tutup+tahun+2022%2C+ptdi+kirim+nc212i++untuk+perkuat+alutsista+tni+au

These are all primary sources, from the Ministry of Defence, Korean Aerospace Industries, Airbus, and Indonesian Aerospace. EvoSwatch (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the sources you listed here are older than the current WAF register so are outdated. Also, per previous Wikipedia discussions, LOIs that can be presumed as serious can and should be listed as orders. I’m leaving them in the article for now as it’s fairly obvious that KF-21s and F-15s will be procured. SurferSquall (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WAF 2023 was published in December 2022, you saying Airbus could produce 2 entire A400M in a matter of days? "it’s fairly obvious that KF-21s and F-15s will be procured." is not a valid argument. Just because it is going to be doesn't mean its already is. Planned does not equal to "on order", sometimes even "on order" could be cancelled (e.g. Su-35) or postponed (e.g. F-16V). Speaking of F-16s, the number of F-16 in service is 33, this has been discussed before and its agreed its accurate. Its what the Chief of Staff of the Air Force said, its what the MoD proposes to be upgraded to Bappenas just recently early this year in 2023. Even if we use WAF data for A400M it clearly states 0 in service and 2+4 on order. @FOX 52 @Ckfasdf can I have a second opinion?

Also, I'm not appreciating the continuous threats of "blocked from editing" to me, as I said I'm in no way editing "disruptively" or "vandalizing", why would I do it on a page that I have been working on for years. Your accusation is absurd.EvoSwatch (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have establish consensus that WAF is generally reliable until proven that it's not. And Indonesian air force inventory, WAF data, as EvoSwatch pointed out, is simply wrong and can be considered as unreliable on this case. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is "simply wrong", do you have a source published in the last five months that supports that claim? SurferSquall (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SurferSquall: See Evoswatch comment dated 02:24, 28 May 2023 above.Ckfasdf (talk)

Also, I believe we have establish consensus to include aircraft into "on order" only after the agreement between manufacturer and buying country signed. And for F-15, no such an agreement signed yet. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then he needs to enter these sources into the article itself. Until that is done, WAF will be left as the source. SurferSquall (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, because WAF is wrong, that should not be included into the article on the first place. Discussion on talk page is sufficient to remove WAF source. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If WAF is wrong, proof of that needs to exist in the article. SurferSquall (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SurferSquall: Whatever in the article should have reference, if the reference is incorrect then it should not be in the article. This talkpage is where we discuss what should or should not be in the article. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If WAF is wrong, why should we keep it and explain it why its wrong when its not supposed to be there in the first place. Just don't add it, when the contract get signed we could add it then. No need for "36 on order (but not actually)" EvoSwatch (talk) 06:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean add better sources it isn’t that hard SurferSquall (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SurferSquall: I have no idea what are you trying to say here. Anyway, please reply on my comment on the bottom of this section (or dated 07:16, 29 May 2023).Ckfasdf (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of time you have been working on a page for does not matter whatsoever. You are removing 2023 sources and replacing them with sources from previous years, with outdated information. Every claim you make requires a supporting source, and if you cannot provide one, you cannot make those claims. SurferSquall (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, removing reliably sourced information is indeed vandalization. SurferSquall (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please remember this an encyclopedia, it is not necessary to update a program every week. Wikipedia is not a directory WP:NOTCATALOG WP:NOTNEWS - So bickering over a discrepancy by a couple of airframes is pointless - FOX 52 ^talk! 02:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the source I added is newer, therefore I have every reason to believe it is more up to date, no? SurferSquall (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WAF 2023 data was published sometime in the early/middle of December 2022, the sources I have put as an example are from: May 2023, April 2023, mid December and late December 2022. So I don't know how you could say its "its old" or "from previous years" when its obviously not. EvoSwatch (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting that publication date for the WAF registry? I don’t see it anywhere SurferSquall (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The html of the article, mentions 16 November 2022 though the earliest version that can be seen through the Archive is mid December 2022. EvoSwatch (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page 9 of WAF 2023 explicitly says their data is per 3 October 2022. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the second thought, for "on order" information, it seems WAF is not entirely wrong... Page 9 of WAF 2023 did state that Our directory ..... also includes information about firm orders for some 4,185 aircraft, and letters of intent or options for up to another 7,423 (denoted by an asterisk next to a figure in the Ordered column); including a potential 2,579 F-35s which Saab have yet to come under contract.

However, here in air force pages in WP, we have standard to include signed agreement only for "on order" column. FOX 52 is strong advocate for this standard, as seen here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and many more. Therefore, we should not include WAF data when it has asterisk next to a figure in the ordered column. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If @FOX 52: can accept to include potential orders on aircraft inventory section in Air Forces articles, then I don't see any further reason to reject WAF data that have asterisk next to a figure in the ordered column and we will have new consensus/standard. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think because this is a "List of equipment" MoU, LoI, etc. should not be included because its too much, too unreliable, too dynamic and fluid, as well as not yet binding. MoU, LoI could last for years before any development and some are straight up cancelled or ignored before anything more. For potential or possible purchase I think each respective wikipage/article already suffice but because this is the list of equipment we should include only existing ones and confirmed to be, this is to prevent misinformation. However I think MoU, LoI, etc. could be included in the list if said equipment is already in service or on order e.g. A400M, its on order therefore its in the list and we can use and we do use the "Notes" section to mention of the 4 airframe in LoI.

Addendum: Too dynamic or fluid as in for example in the aerospace sector. Rafales 36 was originally mentioned, then it went up to 48, there was also a report it went as low as 23, now its finally stays 42. Su-35 was originally 16, then it went down to 8, then 10, and finally 11 before ultimately abandoned despite it was a signed contract. I think the article/wikipage was fine as is before the edit war. EvoSwatch (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Rafale order is 42. That is done. The F-15 order will be left as it is, and if it changes to a higher or lower number- I'll edit it! Isn't it magic? A website you can always edit? SurferSquall (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here, especially, the LOIs/orders are more than significant; if the numbers change later, I or somebody else can edit it. SurferSquall (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are still missing the point. Not sure on purpose or you legitimately just don't get it still. Also again, LoI are not orders, its literally different terms. EvoSwatch (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading anything else anyone is saying? SurferSquall (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting comment from FOX 52, while I'm at it... pinging other milhist aviation editors for more comments @MilborneOne:, @Fnlayson:, and @BilCat:.Ckfasdf (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ckfasdf: first off stop pinging me every five minutes, secondly I did comment - Frankly I have no idea what you guys are arguing over - no source will ever satisfy the masses, but the information is for the reader. Any and all orders should a signed contract period. - FOX 52 ^talk! 02:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FOX 52, The question is simply "should we include potential order?". This question is arise since WAF data also include potential order (denotes by asterisk). Anyway, your answer is crystal clear, so we should also omit WAF data that have asterisk from inventory section on Air Forces pages. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ckfasdf: I’m saying it’s pretty obvious the F-15s and KF-21s are indeed future purchases and should be included. According to EvoSwatch’s OWN SOURCES this is true. SurferSquall (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely future purchases no one is denying that, but its not "on order" yet, what part of it is so complicated? Even as Ckfasdf pointed out WAF itself said its "letters of intent or options...yet to come under contract". As FOX said, "Any and all orders should a signed contract period" and its not a signed contract. I challenge you to show the contract if you do think it exist already. If not then I suggest to end the discussions here and revert the changes, else its just going around on circles forever now. EvoSwatch (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Evo has it right - WAF is usually on top of it, but I would suggest an accompany source confirming the contract status - FOX 52 ^talk! 04:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? WAF says the orders exist, and Evo has no source otherwise. Why then remove it SurferSquall (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SurferSquall: - Wikipedia is no place for possible future events WP:NOTNEWS - its pretty clear consensus on the issue has been reached- FOX 52 ^talk! 04:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How? You are attempting to flip a past Wiki standard on its head for no reason whatsoever SurferSquall (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of which Wiki standard you are referring to but, again this is an encyclopedia we are not a news blog - see WP:CBALL for clarity FOX 52 ^talk! 04:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly a “crystal ball” attempt, the LOIs are there, on paper, in both US and Indonesian docs SurferSquall (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just provide a source that states they have signed contracts - FOX 52 ^talk! 05:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Signed contract" is more likely to happen in the future than MoU, LoI, approval sales or any other form of "potential order" as it's legally binding to manufacturer and customers. That's why we agreed to only includes those what already have signed contract. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that I "don't have source" etc. but first reply I gave you sources. Its from the Minister of Defence himself saying and quoted "Then we also hope that in the near future we can also complete the acquisition contract for the F-15 for our air force" and you said the source is "old" despite it being barely a month old. You said "If you have better, newer sources than WAF" well there you go, what is better and newer than the Minister himself saying it in quotation 4 weeks ago. Stop moving the goalposts. EvoSwatch (talk) 05:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the KF-21 and F-15s from the list- Everything else I changed will be left as is. I'll go ahead and leave an invisible comment about them in the fleet list. SurferSquall (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire edits are problematic, and at least there 3 editors who disagree with your edit. Also Evo already pointed out the issues of your edit in the beginning of discussion. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources he provided for the A400 and other aircraft are older than WAF and thus are outdated. Newer information preside over older. Why is this difficult to understand? SurferSquall (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WAF is not always reliable. On A400, if you look up WAF 2022, it was also listed as "Transport" and WAF 2023 didn't update this information. Hence no difference in quality of WAF data. All other aircrafts also have similar issue. See discussions on sections above. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That does it being listed as "transport" have to do with anything? The A400 is a transport plane lol SurferSquall (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A400 purchased by Indonesia is in MRTT configuration. Regarding the delivery, flightglobal (publisher of WAF) itself said the first two deliveries will be in 2026, with an option to potentially later boost its fleet to six aircraft. Hence data in WAF is incorrect (WAF said 2 already in service and 4 on order). Newer update doesn't guarantee better information. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then please change that, and only that. Leave everything else as it is for now. The F-16s are very different variants (structurally different) and should be separated, as they are on most other air force articles. SurferSquall (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And add THAT AS A SOURCE! SurferSquall (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content on flightblglobal news is still the same as 2021 reference. It is good to update ref, but it's still OK to use existing reference. The only requirement to update reference is only if there is any changes. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where it's the same? SurferSquall (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Existing 2021 source said Indonesia order 2 A400 with additional 4 in LoI. That information is pretty much the same as Flightglobal source in 2023 above. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the KF-21 and F-15 per consensus. EvoSwatch I suggest you learn what "Consensus" means as it was never reached on any other aircraft. SurferSquall (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop this nonsense, and maybe scroll up and read. Two separate consensus was made prior, for both the F-16s and T-50s, literally up there for anyone to read. As for the A400M I have pointed out how wrong it is in WAF, I used two primary sources from Airbus which are more recent than WAF, same with NC212 which uses PTDI as primary source and published earlier than WAF. So you are either being dense and in denial for trolling or actually have no interest in contributing. EvoSwatch (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You literally just said yourself that your source for the NC212 is older than WAF, and is therefore outdated. No "consensus" was made on the f016 or T-50, the omly person that mentioned them was you. This does not constitute a consensus of any kind. SurferSquall (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even read previous discussion, did you? The discussion for both F-16 and T-50 are literally up here... see #The number of F-16 currently the Indonesian Air Force operates. and #The number of T-50 currently the Indonesian Air Force operates. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those discussion are dated 2019 and 2020, and are thus OLD! OUT OF DATE! Why is this difficult to understand? SurferSquall (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's still relevant afterall if you look up WAF 2019/2020/2021/2022 and 2023 number of F-16 is never change (25 and 7). And Evo and I did put updates on F16 just yesterday, which further prove that you didn't read. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there are 25 combat and 7 training f-16s, I edited the article to show that and you both removed it for no reason SurferSquall (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

25 plus 7 is 32 SurferSquall (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am understand if F-16 discussion may be too complex for you, since you only read 27+5=32 and ignoring other nuances. I'll try to explain as simple as possible.

1. #The number of F-16 currently the Indonesian Air Force operates. discuss whether F-16 of Indonesian Air Forces is 32 or 33.

2. The discussion arise since WAF 2020 listed it as 25 and 7.

3. Total F-16 that Indonesia have obtained are 36 unit (7 F16A, 21 F16C, 3 F16B, 6 F16D). 3 F16A was crashed before 2017.

4. In March 2017, one F16 B with serial no: TS-1603 skidded off runway, and initial report says it was total loss.

5. So, it was understandable if WAF 2017 and 2018 listed it as 27 and 5 (total 32)

6. In 2019, there isinformation that TS-1603 is not total loss and being repaired.

7. And in October 2019, there is statement that from Chief of Staf of the Air Force that total F-16 in Indonesia is 33.

8. There are further sources that TS-1603 is operational and includes into aircraft that undergo upgrading into F-16 BM

9. Naturally, we are expecting WAF 2020 will listed it as 25 and 8, however they didn't change it.

10. WAF also didn't change it on WAF 2021, 2022 and 2023.

11. Yesterday, I put academic publication source publisher in April 2023 that stated qty of F-16 in Indonesia is 33.

12. It is rare case, but there are few instance WAF data is not reliable and this is one of them. Hence newer WAF update does not necessarily translate to better data. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13. Lastly, the 7 F-16 B/MB/D or two-seater F-16 is not dedicated training aircraft, they also used for combat/interception duties, such as here. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to mention TNI AU has stated many times that they are upgrading 10 F-16A/B with the Falcon STAR eMLU program, while WAF data still only have 9 F-16A/B. Primary source > WAF in this case. 12 + 24 airframes, with 3 total loss/written off: 1 F-16A (TS-1608), 1 F-16B (TS-1611), 1 F-16C (TS-1643). Therefore 36 - 3 = 33. EvoSwatch (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These sources you have need to be in the article. Also, yet again I must mention that a 2019 source is 4 years outdated. SurferSquall (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You still didn't get it, did you? WAF was wrong since 4 years ago and they didn't fix it until now, so why should we follow it? By the time WAF 2024 published, and if it's still wrong. Do we need to follow it?

Ckfasdf (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it’s wrong? SurferSquall (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dude... I just explained how it's wrong in 13 points above... just read it. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That link is dead. SurferSquall (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AW101 order

Since the procurement of AW101 is plagued by corruption case and even it's local supplier CEO has been sentenced to 10 years in jail after found guilty by the court on January 2023. It is very unlikely the remaining 2 order will still in place, even the operational status of the one that already arrived is pretty much unknown at the moment (only seen flying once in 2016).

Can we just remove AW101 entry from the inventory table or at least remove "2 on order" on notes? Pinging EvoSwatch. Ckfasdf (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah go ahead and pulled it - FOX 52 ^talk! 18:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the order is in place, it needs to be left, which you said yourself above in the above discussion. SurferSquall (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WAF 2023 also didn't list it anymore.. IIRC, it was included in WAF 2018/2019. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If WAF 2023 doesn't have it, then remove it. If it does have it, then leave it. That is the point of all these discussions SurferSquall (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about WAF 2023, it's about seeking for consensus, since I am proposing to remove sourced content. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you said it's OK to remove before, but when I did removed it. you just reverted it. Care to explain? Ckfasdf (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that says it is or isn’t in service? SurferSquall (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, it appears you are correct. SurferSquall (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft is still in the hangar afaik, but yeah its not "in service" therefore Its fine to be removed. EvoSwatch (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that says it is not in service? SurferSquall (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Edits

Ad Orientem (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WAF 'In service' and 'Ordered'

@Ckfasdf can you help me out here? Not sure if I'm losing my reading comprehension but WAF 2023 states that NC212i (Recce) is 4 on order and not 4 in active service right? EvoSwatch (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WAF 2023 put NC212I (Reece) in Special Mission as 4 on order. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding N-212, Total N-212 obtained before June 2008 is 10. 1 crashed in 2008, so number goes down to 9. WAF listed it as 9 up until WAF 2017. In 2017, MoD order 9 C-212 (4 transport, 4 cloudseeding, 1 training). WAF 2023 list N-212 as: 4 ordered in special mission, 11 active and 2 ordered in transport, 1 order in training. As of December 2022, 4 of 9 ordered airfract has been delivered (3 transport and 1 cloud seeding. I'll edit the inventory table accordingly. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't say that. SurferSquall (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it was explicitly mentioned in the source that I provide above that total 4 of 9 order aircraft has been delivered with types of the aircraft and date of delivery. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look up my edit, I am actually somewhat supporting WAF 2023 format and this reference is just an update on WAF information (WAF 2023 published in Nov 2023, that reference is issued in Dec 2023. So I suggest to revert back to my edit. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Su-27 and Su-30

@Cal1407 @Ckfasdf @MoussaCB

Welcome all, I would like to invite all of you to discuss the ongoing edits in the wikipage to avoid an edit war (again).

Straight to the point, the Su-27 and Su-30 are separated as they serve different purpose and role. Su-27 is an air superiority fighter akin to F-15C while Su-30 is multirole akin to F-15E, which is why they are separated too btw. You wouldn't see F-15C and E to be merged into one. This separation applies to any other wikipage e.g. US Air Force & Russian Air Force. As for "you also forgot to add SU30MK and SU27SK" its literally explained in the note.

- EvoSwatch (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it's similar to the discussion found on Talk:Algerian Air Force#edit 27/04/2024 by MoussaCB. MoussaCB leans towards listing the "original" aircraft in the Aircraft column, thereby grouping the Su-30 with the Su-27 since the Su-30 was derived from the Su-27. However, I disagree with this placement as it diverges from the standard formatting that we've employed in aircraft inventory tables over the years, and suggested Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide. Essentially, I agree with EvoSwatch's version. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support the decision to separate them. Combining them never made sense to begin with. Cal1407 (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, its settled then. -EvoSwatch (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well,Lets get straight to the point. Indonesian air force does not operate SU30, and its as simple as that.

i suppose this talk page was made to counter my edits of grouping SU30MK/MK2 and SU27SK/SKM as they should be.

here is reasons why they should be groupped:

1- SU30MK/MK2 and SU27SK/SKM are all part of the SU27 series, all are based from the Sukhoi T10.

2- According to IISS,both are used in the sames role in the indonesian air force (which is Fighter and Attack)

3- Nato use the same reporting name (flanker) for the planes,which mean they are very similar

4- they have a lot of common, for example they use the same airframe

5- the table has a place for the original name of the plane, and the variant,so puting a variant of a plane in the original name isnt correct

the only argument for the opposite side/camp is that SOME (not all) people think SU30MK/MK2 isnt from the same series as SU27SK/SKM

oh and you cant call a plane being from the SU30 series,because there is a plane simply called SU30,but you can call them from the SU27 series,because no plane is simply called SU27 موسى (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

after nearly a week there is no response,for me thats a yes and i will rever it back موسى (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide In general, there should be only one entry (row) for each type. Exceptions may be allowable where: A production variant evolved from the same basic design has been given a different name, which is the case for Su-30. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and guess what, SU30 was originaly going to be named SU27PU,U stands for training in russian,it was just going to be a training SU27P.and it dosent change the fact its a variant of the SU27 series,not a new plane like for example the SU57.the variant case exist for a reason. you either put every exact type on a collumn or say the general type and put the variant موسى (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but exceptions are allowed, and the fact that another editor reverted your edit suggests that others share this view. The Su-30, despite its origins as a training variant of the Su-27, is recognized as a distinct variant within the Su-27 series. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Mark 66 for the Super Tucano in the GP bombs and Rockets section

Good day, I'm quite confused on the Mark66 listed on the bombs and rockets section. On the original source it's stated that:

"OFAB 250, S-8KOM Rocket, MK 66 and MK 81 Bomb"

26 Pesawat Tempur Lanud Iswahjudi Siap “Hujani” Bom

Now, I can't find any reference for a Mark 66 bomb. The only closest thing is a 250kg practice bomb named mk66 mod 0 from one website. As far as I am aware, the naming of the Mark 66 refers to the Hydra 70 rockets, a further development of the FFAR which uses the Mk.66 rocket. In the Hydra 70 page it was also explained that:

"Hydra 70 rockets are known mainly by either their warhead type or by the rocket motor designation [mk.66]"

-Hydra 70#Service

This might explain why the article mentioned it as the mk.66 instead of the Hydra. My questions are: wouldn't separating these two rockets between the FFAR and the mk.66 (Hydra) be redundant? Since presumably they refer to the same thing? Or am I mistaken and the mk.66 here refers to the aforementioned bomb or another type of ordnance ? Thank you for your answers NFrost51 (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, probably whoever write this article mixed up between "bomb" and "rocket", and most likely "Mark 66 bomb" is actually refer to Hydra 70 rockets. Since it was redundant, I believe we should just remove Mark 66 bomb entry. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, unless there's another explanation on what that Mk66 refers to, personally I think we should remove it. NFrost51 (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.hanoman.web.id/id3/1471-1368/Iptn-Nas-330j_221084_hanoman.html

[2] ttps://www.indonesian-aerospace.com/aircraft/detail/13_superpuma+family

[3] ttps://www.indonesian-aerospace.com/aircraft/index/set/fw

[4] ttps://jakartagreater.com/upgrade-dan-rotasi-pesawat-f-16-ab-tni-au/

[5] ttps://jatim.idntimes.com/news/jatim/nofika-dian-nugroho/f-16-ab-yang-diperbarui-personel-tni-au-segera-diuji-terbang

[6] ttps://militermeter.com/upgrade-senjata-f-16-a-b-tni-au-agar-bisa-membawa-smart-bomb-jdam/

[7] ttp://rri.co.id/yogyakarta/post/berita/330432/pertahanan_dan_keamanan/latihan_terbang_layang_taruna_akademi_angkatan_udara.html

[8] ttps://www.militer.or.id/2023/pesawat-f-16-ts-1603-akan-diperbaiki/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]