Wikipedia

Talk:Royal Netherlands Air Force/Archive 1

< Talk:Royal Netherlands Air Force
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Redalert2fan in topic External links modified
Archive 1

History

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is badly missing something on the History of the RNAF. Nigel Ish 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The current history is too long. It should have a short synopsis and than a seperate article which includes the entire history imo. And to the person that is adding the history section please cite some sources and refer to english wiki articles not Dutch ones. EggyNL 10:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fokker D.XXI

The article states the Fokker D.XXI airplane was outdated at the start of the war. The aircraft was in fact brand new (designed in 1935, delivered from 1938) but designed for air patrol duties in the Dutch East Indies where ruggedness and easy maintainance was more important than speed, armor and armament. While the order by the Dutch East Indies Airforce was cancelled the aircraft was pressed into service in the Dutch, Danish and Finnish airforces. Especially the Finnish D.XXI's performed excellent in the rough conditions of the Winter and Continuation wars against the Red Army airforce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.25.128 (talk) 12:04, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Editing this article

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I've given this article a quick going over to fix some of the grammar, add some links and remove some of the more glaring errors. Note that I just hit the most obvious stuff due to toddler-related time pressure - it still needs some TLC to make it a good article.

I'll try to return to it soonish once I've done a bit more research, but any help would also be appreciated :). ck (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


February 24th, 2008: I've added a little short information on the table below and changed some descriptions (DC-10 is not a medium airliner, Fokker 60 was a utlilty, Apaches (30 bought), PC-7 the yellow paint before. By the way, the KDC-10 is nog similar to the KC-10A Extender. The KC-10 was build especially for the USAF. The KDC-10 were former civilian airliners (note the difference in the windows (KDC-10) and the no windows (KC-10).


The Apaches will NOT be converted to the Longbow version. This is absolutely wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.81.118.63 (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't they Longbows already? This page: [1] seems to indicate that, as does this (pdf file) from Boeing - who make the aircraft [2].

You've not signed your comment so I can't access your talk page to confirm this with you directly, but I'll wait a week to let people comment and then change the article to say that they're Longbows already.ck (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The dutch apache's are AH64-D's but were ordered without the longbow radar. Therefore they are not called longbows. See also the wiki about the AH-64D. To date there are no official plans to buy these radars. I've checked a recent letter to parliament (dated 29 may 2008) regarding the modernisation of the five reserve AH64's to bring them to on the same level as the active ah64's [3]. The letter states the reserves need to undergo three projects: Modernized Target Acquisition and Designation Sight (MTADS), AH-64D Selfdefense (ASE) and AH-64D Upgrade (Block II upgrade). This concurs with the overview of running programs [4].

None of these projects involve buying the longbow-radar therefore the AH64's remain 'just' AH64-D's not Longbows.

Regarding the boeing document above: Please note that it doesn't state the dutch bought 'longbow' apache's. In fact the term longbow is only used when referring to US apache's.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.216.96 (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot give you any references, as the following came from talking with Apache crews. They feel the Longbow Radar System affects the performance of their mounts in such a bad way that the benefits are cancelled out. They rather fight without it, than with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.19.254 (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I just entered this discussion: but the information about the Apache is definitely wrong. All of the Dutch Apaches are AH-64D's and the Dutch government has not ordered the 'Longbow'-upgrade. The term 'Apache Longbow' refers to an AH-64D on which a Longbow radar has been installed, with some other modifications [5]. As stated in the comments above the text specifying that the RNLAF is going to upgrade its AH64D's to the Longbow-configuration is incorrect, and should immediately be deleted. There are no references specifying that the RNLAF has any concrete plans to do this.

I have an idea why there has been some confusion about this. During the 1990's at the start of the AH-64 'A to D' upgrade program the US Army had planned & communicated that only the Apaches that would be modified with the Longbow radar would be given the designation 'AH-64D' and to give the other helicopters that with almost the same set of modifications, but not with the Longbow radar, the 'AH-64C' designation. Later on it was decided not to use the designation 'AH-64C' and to use the designation 'AH-64D' for all of the modified Apaches.

jannis Jannisdevisser (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Roundel

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would it be possible to modify the background of the pictured roundel, as the white section isn't visible? StaticGull  Talk  16:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A user has added an external link to the order of battle and other images on the touchdown aviation site as we already have one link to a similar site scramble I removed the link. A few of these type of sites exist on the internet should we list all of them or none? My reversion has been challenged so I have brought it here for opinion. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

RNAF WWII combat record

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The article implies the german losses of 350 airplanes during the attack on the Netherlands in World War II can all be attributed to the RNAF. These were in fact the total figures of lost german plaines during the 5 day lasting attack on the Netherlands, most of which can be attributed to the Germans landing their Ju-52 transport plaines in unsuitable places like soggy ground, beaches and airfields still under Dutch control. Another large chunk of the german losses can be attributed to Dutch anti-aircraft fire, which was infact the only well-prepared and well-armed section of the Dutch defences at the time of the attack. Dutch fighter plaines never actually got to shoot German transports as those were escorted by Bf-109's against which they performed well, but were completely outnumbered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.25.128 (talk) 12:19, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Correction of the above => Two Ju-52 transport plaines were in fact shot down by Dutch fighter plaines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.25.128 (talk) 21:58, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
I was about to comment on this issue myself. There is no way the Dutch airforce shot down 350 German aircraft. In this matter, the article is wholely misleading. Toby Douglass 11:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
As there was no independent Air Force, this whole matter is academic. The Militaire Luchtvaart (military aviation) was a component of the Army. Most of the kills were thus 'scored' by the army, the remainder going to the navy, which shot Ju-52 transports on the beach near The Hague. Having said that: the number of Ju-52 lost by the Luftwaffe in the Netherlands is most likely the reason for postponing and later abandoning the start of Operation Sea Lion (Seelöwe), the invasion of the Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.19.254 (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Since this article is about the Dutch airforce, be it as an independent entity or not, it simply should not suggest large numbers of German airplane were downed by Dutch aircraft as this is clearly not true. The current text is clear on the matter, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.85.98 (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Size

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What does this mean? There is no units, just the number '181'. Should be modified to reflect what this is counting. Number of aircraft? Bases? Rank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.138.46 (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The personnel count can't possibly be right; it's 50% larger than the army, and much larger than the size of the Netherlands armed forces minus the sizes of the army and navy. But I can't find a cite for the size of the airforce on http://www.defensie.nl/luchtmacht/ (I don't read Dutch) Fivemack (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

F-35 program

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm putting this in here so that knowledgeable people can do something useful with it. Everything below is from Air Force Magazine, Journal of the Air Force Association,September 2012, p.34-35.

Dutch Parliament passed a nonbinding resolution to terminate participation in the F35 program, July 5. The Labor Party is leading the charge against the program.

The Nethelands has "reserved 4.5 billion euros (5.3 billion dollars) for the purchase of as many as 80 F-35's."

Hope this is useful. Poihths (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The list of active aircraft is showing 2 x F-35 I believe that although these have been ordered they have not yet been delivered so are hardly active? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.226.44.65 (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Royal Netherlands Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Royal Netherlands Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Royal Netherlands Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

 Y 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.

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

1st link does not work, 2nd does. Redalert2fan (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal Netherlands 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}}).

 Y 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) 17:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Netherlands_Air_Force/Archive_1&oldid=1137164894"