Knowledge Base Wiki

Search for LIMS content across all our Wiki Knowledge Bases.

Type a search term to find related articles by LIMS subject matter experts gathered from the most trusted and dynamic collaboration tools in the laboratory informatics industry.

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Merge Air Warfare into Military Aviation

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal wasthe article was not merged. --Born2flie 03:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC) I've removed the suggestion of a merge with Military aircraft, since that's about the aircraft, this is about the process. However I think a merge with Aerial warfare is appropriate, since there is almost nothing in this and that one has at least something.[reply]

The only thing that might live under Military aviation and not Aerial warfare might be peace-time and non-combat operations. Given that we might like to make this article the main one. DJ Clayworth 22:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree. TomStar81 21:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


In my oppinion aerial warfare is a subset of military aviation. Military aviation is the larger set, because it includes operations in peacetimes.81.221.156.100 13:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DISAGREE - should not be merged. List of marijuana slang terms 13:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Military Aviation with Air Warfare

I disagree with the proposed merger. The context of "military aviation" is one of two types of aviation: civil and military. Aerial warfare is a completely different concept; it is not a type of aviation operations, but a way to conduct warfare in and from the air. Military aviation includes operations which are not strictly "aerial warfare" such as cargo flights, and routine training flights. JD2020 20:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree as well. I agree with everything that JD2020 said in the article above. They should not be merged. - unsigned comment from Patm3300

Sorry i got that the wrong way around 81.221.156.100 13:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think this article might best be used in the Wikipedia Project on the History of Militray Aviation. Magi Media 01:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Magi Media[reply]

  • Nobody wants this article to merge with "Air Warfare" because they are the same subject, but because this one's too small to be relevant. If it were merged with the very broader Air Warfare, then it can show up.
  • So, within "Air Warfare", it could use a "History of Military Avaiation" section or whatever, and include this article.
  • Don't judge merging articles on the basis they are the same topics, you judge upon size and relevance of the article. Unless this article starts growing with detailed information, I'm for the merge. Colonel Marksman 21:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: removing {{Merge}}

  1. deleted {{Mergefrom|Aerial warfare}}, seems DOA above.
  2. Checked in Aerial warfare an verified {{Mergeto|Military_aviation}} already pulled by someone. // FrankB 20:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Too Amero-centric?

This article is biased too heavily towards the U.S. military. For example, the sentence"Reconnaissance aircraft include the fastest aircraft in the military, the SR-71 Blackbird, which is a spy plane made obsolete by satellite imaging" must be (I think?) refering to the U.S. military, which is fine as long as it says "U.S. military" instead of implying that no other military exists. :)

  • The SR-71 is (at least in terms of unclassified speeds) the fastest aircraft in WORLD history. There is no question that it was operated by the United States almost soley (perhaps a few allies such as the U.K. flew them), but that does not diminish the global applicability of your example. I see no reason to consider this article Amero-centric, but I believe additional information concerning Russian/Soviet, Chinese, European, Indian, Iranian, etc. aviation would be nice. In terms of money, the U.S. may outspend the rest of the world combined on military aviation. Saseigel (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the articles mentions the naming conventions (F- for fighters, B- for bombers, etc.), but are these western-centric as well? The Soviet fighters start with MiG-, for example.

Unfortunately I don't know enough about this topic to update it myself.209.150.227.67 03:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the naming conventions are extremly US-centric. This should be rephrased or moved into a different artical about US armed forces naming conventions.
You are mistaken with the MiG though. MiG stands for Mikoyan-Gurevich, which is the manufacturer of the plane, and not its type designation.
Comparison:
'Boeing IDS F/A-18E "Super Hornet"' vs 'Mikoyan MiG-29M "Fulcrum E"'
'Boeing IDS' corresponds with 'Mikoyan' - the manufacturer
'F/A-18' corresponds to MiG-29' the type of the plane
the difference here is that 'F/A' is part of a offical naming convention. This name was given to the project by the United States, not by Boeing. 'MiG-29' uses the naming convention of the manufacturer, not of the Russian Federation.
'E' corresponds to 'M' - they designate the variant of the plane. (i.e. design revision, mark number, mission specific equipment, etc.)
'Super Hornet' is the official name of the plane, it was given to it by Boeing.
'Fulcrum E' is the NATO reporting name for the MiG-29M. The MiG-29 did not have a official name given to it by Mikoyan, but the Pilots felt that 'Fulcrum' was a flattering description for the plane's characteristics so they adopted it.
There are of course other nicknames given to planes by pilots, i.e. Rhino is a nickname of the F/A-18E/F because of the shape of its nose.
81.221.156.100 13:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes-- Missing senses

This article is soooo totally missing the sense and use of miltary air lift capacity and capability as was so critical in so many theatures and conflicts (re: General William H. Tunner), not to mention airborne operations and today's air cavalry. Not counting either Gulf War! What an oversight. No bullets or food and water, no battle or troops!!! // FrankB 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article needs to be about the non-warfare aspects of military aviation. --Born2flie 04:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Army Aviation Branch

I added a see also link to United States Army Aviation Branch because most people within that community use the term Army Aviation to refer to the United States Army Aviation Branch exclusively. Perhaps this page should become a disambiguation. Saseigel (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on an article for "Army aviation", which Army Aviation to will be redirected. Alternatively, Army Aviation could be redirected to United States Army Aviation Branch, with a DAB header/hatnote to "Army aviation", when that page is live. I was surprised how many nations actually use the term "Army Aviation" in their army air arm titles (or in the English translation of their names). It's just a stub/list at the moment, and on a sandbox at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Army aviation. I need a good, sourced definition for what the term "army aviation" means and encompasses, and then I'll go live with it. I don't see a need for this page to be a DAB at this point, as "military aviation" is a legitimate term with broad appliction that needs to be defined and discussed. - BillCJ (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fast U2?

The U2 was and is a high-flying glider with just enough jet engine to keep it airborne. Its immunity from attack comes from its altitude, not its speed.

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Kubanczyk (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military aviation. 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) 23:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military aviation. 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) 05:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Military_aviation