This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Argentina High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Science and technology in Argentina. If you would like to participate, you can improve Argentine Air Force, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Aviation / National / South America 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 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: /  Military aviation task force National militaries task force South American military history task force

Someone please add this information to the article (from the FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II page):

Despite the fact that it never went beyond prototype stage due to economic reasons, the Pulqui is still considered important in aviation history because it was the first jet fighter to be entirely developed and built in Latin America, making Argentina the 6th country in the world to develop such technology on its own.

Thanks. --OneEuropeanHeart 05:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the straight-winged Pulqui I? - Aerobird 03:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this was written by a non-English speaker. Please don't hesitate to try to fix it. Pirate^Argh!!1! 21:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers in this section are wrong, e.g. A-4AR are 34, only 2 have been official retired due crashes, some are stored but could return to operational status at no time. Same for Mirages. It is not accurate to take these numbers from a Netherland's spotters website --Jor70 (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case, I'd suggest being bold and ditching the non-RS, and adding the numbers from a more 'local' source. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest instead of reverting edits with no argument except from your own bias opinion, that you should find (like Bushranger said) a more 'local' source. Other wise the current source and its figures stay, even if its not a RS. Which it isnt. It must be said that Orbat has been and still is widely used on wiki.

Also your dispute dosent merit a box on the wiki article and i have thus removed it from the article. When you have a valid source then feel free to revive this dispute. Other wise this is all a waste of time. Thanks. Recon.Army (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! argentine mirages are all set together in Tandil Airbase they are not in San Luis Vylla Reynolds and the numbers are all wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.108.211 (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In 10/06/2016, I found that this page "Aircraft Inventory" list was completely wrong. It listed aircraft as the M-346 Master as the country's primary defense aircraft. It hasn't been bought yet, and it isn't even the primary choice for the A-4AR replacement, the favourite being the FA-50 (source: members of the Argentine Air Force). It also omitted the Pucará and listed aircraft as the Embraer Super Tucano and Texan II in service, again, aircraft not in the inventory of the Argentine Air Force. The Pucará is still in service and will continue in active service until 2022. It also listed the KC-390 (still a prototype) and omitted the Fokker F28. I have repaired these nonsense changes and provided source for my information. Please try to be serious, as this is an encyclopedia and not some childish blog site as Taringa or Reddit. -Nicosolerf1- Nicosolerf1 (talk) Nicosolerf1 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:FAA pilotos skyhawk.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:FAA pilotos skyhawk.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Faa.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Faa.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

80.194.170.125 (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC) In the comparison chart of other ranks the equivalent Royal Air Force ranks are incorrect in one particular.[reply]

A flight Sergeant is of higher rank than a Chief Technician. These two entries should be reversed.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/ranks.cfm

 Not done you can't use the RAF hierarchy as a source in an article about the Argentine Air Force, they are not directly compatible - Arjayay (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Argentine 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/20130529034716/http://www.marambio.aq/primerherculesmarambio.html to http://www.marambio.aq/primerherculesmarambio.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718102115/http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/material/images/foto_twinotter.png to http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/material/images/foto_twinotter.png
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100903174817/http://zonamilitar.com.ar/?p=479 to http://zonamilitar.com.ar/?p=479
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141029013125/http://dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9470%3Aargentina-spanish-mirage-f-1-deal-scrapped-due-to-uk-preassure&catid=35%3Alatin-america&Itemid=58 to http://dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9470%3Aargentina-spanish-mirage-f-1-deal-scrapped-due-to-uk-preassure&catid=35%3Alatin-america&Itemid=58
• Added archive https://archive.is/20070927223458/http://www.saorbats.com.ar/FAA_orbat.htm to http://www.saorbats.com.ar/FAA_orbat.htm

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) 21:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Here to clean up the rough translation from the Spanish version of the article. As par for the course, noticing lots of other things that need to be cleaned up along the way (clarification of terms, adding missing stuff from the Spanish as well as their citations, organizing for clarity, yada yada). Trying to not delete anything and add copious citation needed tags if the stuff I'm adding is not cited in the es version. NOTE: I am *not* an expert in this, so plz lend your knowledge if you have any. With that said, seems to help sometimes to not know what's going on since it forces me to go research and write for other people who have no knowledge of the subject. But again, help appreciated. Carla.Abra (talk)

Update1: 5/19 got up until the Antarctica section. added links and stuff but still missing accents, but too tired to go thru it now.

Update2: 5/20 got up until the bigger heading of Organization. again going thru the es version and adding stuff, mostly refs (og translator didn't add them); and rewording so things are clearer. Unfortunately all refs are in Spanish but what are you gonna do, it's Argentina. Noticed many sections go wayyy into detail, usually on long lists of exactly which aircraft were involved in a play-by-play of a conflict (*cough cough* the Falkland section). Going to need to go thru that and pare it down a bit. Not entirely sure how much detail to include (I am a n00b after all) but perhaps linking to the article on the Falkland War itself would be better than info-dumping? Well that's my thoughts. Also in some places there's verging on "FAA is the best!!1!" so gonna have to tone that down.

To do:

• link scouring, make sure no "common sense" links
• sooo many citations needed...
• copy editing cleanup for the sections I haven't translated personally
• lots of missing accents (obv my fault)
• organization is all over the place
• way too much detail in some places, link to main articles (do I know how to do that? figure it out)
• modify effusive tone

currently (transl) up to: Organization

I notice above that a 'tidy up' has been noted from several months ago. I have begun to do that as of May 2021. IMO there is a lot more to do than merely ironing out the rough translations from the Spanish original. 1..Much of the detail is not needed and amounts to verbosity and clutter. 2..This is an English language article and so names should be in English first with the Spanish name second, and only if needed for clarity...unless the Spanish name is commonly used in English. 3..There is some weasel wording and nationalist bravado that needs to be sorted out. 4..Most of the references are not reliable secondary sources. Many of those references are also poorly written primary sources some of which should simply be removed. 5..Some of the references, even though they are primary, do contain some useful detail. If appropriate they could be put into external links. I do understand that any article of this nature is likely to have to rely on statistical data and some primary information, but this should be kept to a minimum. 6..English language sources would be useful. Happy to discuss if anyone has alternative opinions on this article. I fully expect I will make mistakes along the way - I am no expert in Spanish or the technical detail of the Argentinian airforce. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better to discuss here than to edit war. Personally I cannot see the problem with noting that such a large number are not in service. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]