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

Military history: Aviation / National / Canadian / North 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 articles 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 Canadian military history task force North American military history task force Canada: Military High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the joint Canadian military and military history task force

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The ScaEagle does not fall under the Air Wing TFA, it is an army unit under the Bde and therefore has nothing to do with the Wing itself other than sharing airspace from time to time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.219.235 (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just looking at [1] and there are some pretty major differences between it and our list. Where did wikipedia get its list from? Does air command still operate Dash 8s and Silver Stars? Which numbers are right/most recent? -Lommer | ^talk 22:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I would suggest updating using the list provided in your link. I reformated the page recently, but did not change the original text for that section. Astrotrain 22:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the statement about the Eurocopter Cougar originally being chosen as the MHP winner, but then cancelled. This is untrue. There may have been confusion with the EH-101.

If the aircraft photo section is meant to reflect current roles it needs some changes. The Voodoo has not been in service for about twenty years, and the CT-133 hasn't been used for training since the seventies.

--Tedd 00:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps a category for retired Air Command aircraft would be in order? It could list aircraft in service after 1968 that have been subsequently retired...

--Voodude 17:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The C-17, Chinook, JSF, and C-130J should not be mentioned under "Aircraft on Order" since a contract has not been signed yet for any of them - each is simply one of several candidates for their respective projects. Once the deal is actually done, then OK. Until then, leave them out, or alternatively place under the heading "probable future acquisitions" or some such thing.

--Aardvark114 04:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where did the reference to the CF-22 Raptor come from? Is there any outside reference or actual information relating to this or is it purely speculation on the part of the author?

--Anonymous, 25 November 2006

I've prepared some userboxes for different Air Forces freaks - if you would like to use it, feel free to copy & paste following code in your Babel Tower or another place:

((User:Piotr Mikołajski/Userboxes/RCAFhv))

or

((User:Piotr Mikołajski/Userboxes/RCAFlv))

First one is high visibility roundel (and colours), second one is low-vis - see examples below. --Piotr Mikołajski 07:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user edits RCAF related articles

This user edits articles related to Royal Canadian Air Force

The Canadian military plans to replace the Buffalo, Twin Otter, and the SAR Hercules with the C-27J Spartan in the near future. The aircraft will be placed in a SAR role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.110.157 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does Canada not operate any dedicated attack choppers? I know they fly/flew the Bell 205, 212, and 412, but I have never seen any of these models in any other mode than transport, and always devoid of pylon-mounted weapons. I would figure the later model AH-1 Cobras (AH-1F, AH-1S, AH-1W) or the AH-64. Any ideas? Ocn169 02:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Ocn169 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocn169 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the CF has never had dedicated attack helicopter. The CH-146 is sometimes flown with armament, but are not really the best platform. There has been some talk this year of purchasing some dedicated attack helicopters, but as far as I know, the CF hasn't pu it up for tender yet. - BillCJ 03:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is a list of retired aircraft really important for this article? IMO, what's important is what is being flown now and what is being planned for the future. We also have to be careful that the article does not become a collection of laundry list sections.--BC 05:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that Fire Services trucks (even if it is a really interesting subject) are not within the scope of this article. Before adding it again, please discuss it on this page. Germ 13:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Fire Services is not notable or truly relevant to the article. It's unnecessary detail. There are lots of services in AC, and if they are all included, the article will become inordinately long and will lose its focus - the focus being the nature of Air Command, it's history, duties, general structure, roles and goals, but not how it happens to fight fires. BC 16:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed active since 1924 to active since 1975 because this article is only about Air Command, which was instituted on Sept. 2, 1975. Indeed, Canada's air force known as the Royal Canadian Air Force was active since 1924, but it disappeared in 1968. Air Command, although now "Canada's air force" is totally separate. If the article had been about Canada's air force (or forces), the article would need to include the RCAF and Air Command. However, it would probably also need to include the Canadian Aviation Corps (1918), the CAF (1918 - 1920), and the homefront CAF (1920 - 1924), in which case 1924 would still be incorrect.BC (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image Image:Ch-149 Cormorant.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Sikorsky H92.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is now a really ugly article. Actually, we shouldn't call it an article. It's a conglomerate of lists and tables. ŦħęGɛя㎥ 01:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. This article could use some wikifacation. I suggest many of these lists be broken down into side article lists and short introductions with the appropriate links at the top of the section. It'll help reduce the size and make it more encyclopedic about the department rather than aircraft specifications. Mkdw^talk 08:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would suggest that the images in the aircraft tables are not really needed they just being used for decoration and make it bigger. Some of the aircraft images are not Canadian examples and should be removed anyhow. The retired aircraft and some of the aircraft details could be moved to List of aircraft of the Canadian Forces Air Command. MilborneOne (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed.BC_{talk to me} 17:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done! However, a fairly inexpericed user who thinks I'm a troll has reverted me! I've re-reverted. - BillCJ (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL! --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 16:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Created List of aircraft of the Canadian Forces Air Command and left a summary behind. Should start to make the article less ugly and table bound. Appeciate any help in tidying up both this and the list article to get the balance right between the articles. Probably room in this article for some more images now!! MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article has too many lists. Look at the USAF article: It is possible to have lists in an article without being too long.

Also, there is a lot of information that could be merged in one paragraph. For instance, the paragraph called Aircraft, Wings, Squadrons and Aircraft deployments are basically the same.

I guess I am asking here for an expert to merge those in a more "readable prose" article. --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 16:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right about to many lists and moving the aircraft to its own article and leaving behind a summary is just a start at tidy up. Remember Wikipedia is a always a work in progress and anybody is welcome to help improve the article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Had another tidy up and tried to remove duplicated information, some of it needs tidying up. Not sure what to do about weapons and retired weapons the only tables left. Not sure a list of ground handling equipment and aircraft tractors are notable enough for what is an overview article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where does the motto listed in the infobox come from? Even the Air Command website has the motto as "Sic Itur ad Astra" (Such is the Pathway to the stars). http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/hist/tradk_e.asp CU L8R AV8R ... J-P (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't remove the Proposed aircraft list ,the majority of this list is under strong consideration or ahead to be delivered or already delivered. Canada has contributed to the F-35 program but this does not commit Canada to purchasing the fighter in question. For more information... [2] Der Kaisser 06:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it was all speculation. Those that are already delivered aren't proposed any more! We don't generally include aircraft that a nation is only considering, just those that are firm orders. I've removed the F-35 for the same reason. I also removed the C-27J, as I have seen no confirmation that this as a firm order for several years. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the history section it says that in 1974 a CC-115 Buffalo was shot down, killing nine members of the Canadian Forces representing "single biggest loss of Canadian lives on a UN mission".

This seems to be inaccurate as many more Canadians have died in other UN missions, but I'm not entirely sure it would be appropraite to remove it, as I may just be misunderstanding the phrasing. Can someone with a bit more knowledge and/or experience tak a look at that section? AntarcticPenguin (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I interpret that as referring to the specific incident, rather than the mission as a whole. - Jonathon A H (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then perhaps it should be reworded to something like 'the biggest loss of Canadian Forces lives in a single incident while on a UN mission'... Although that's a bit of a mouthfull. Again, I'm not entirely sure of the facts in this instance, so I don't want to edit without first ensuring that it would be productive & correct. AntarcticPenguin (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a couple of sources I found after a quick internet search: CBC News (see Syria, Aug. 9: Nine dead) and Buffalo 461 a site dedicated to the incident. One or both could probably be cited as references in the article for the sake of clarification, if nothing else. - Jonathon A H (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the first of those two sites, it makes a lot more sense. The CBC article states that it is Canada's largest loss of forces in a single day since Korea. I will edit the article to clarify that, and add the reference. AntarcticPenguin (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canadian Forces Air Command is expected to change its name back to Royal Canadian Air Force tomorrow, according to the The Chronicle Herald. More information at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Back to the roots (RCN / RCAF / Canadian Army). Royal Canadian Air Force already exists. Should the two be merged? Cheers, CharlieEchoTango 19:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Air Command page should be renamed Royal Canadian Air Force, and the current RCAF page should become part of a History of the RCAF page. Just my 2 cents. -Brad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.40.24 (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Page should be Renamed from "Canadian Forces Air Command" to Royal Canadian Air Force — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.143.232 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It will be, in time. Just be patient. - BilCat (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are errors contained in the rank chart entitled "Former officer rank structure (to 1968"). In the RCAF to 1968, "student officers" were called Officer Cadets (just as they are now) and not Flight Cadets. The rank insignia displayed for OF-1 (Pilot Officer) is incorrect. The rank insignia of a Pilot Officer was identical to that of a Flying Officer (OF-2).

The chart containing the former RCAF rank insignia either should be placed before or after the chart containing the current insignia. Currently, it is placed between the insignia for officers and Non Commissioned Members (NCM's) which is confusing. Finally, as former RCAF officer insignia is included, it also would be useful to insert the old insignia for RCAF NCM's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.38.222 (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, the rank only became Officer Cadet after 1962. I have a copy of the RCAF dress regs printed in 1958 that specifically says "Flight Cadet" ink-amended in '63 to say Officer Cadet. I also have a copy of the CAP 488 RCAF General Service Knowledge Study Guide from 1962 that says: "Subordinate Officers - these are officers who are undergoing training as a candidate for a commission. They hold the rank of Flight Cadet - (F/C) who wears 1 row of narrow braid." If you want to add a "/Officer Cadet" to that, go ahead.

For P/O and F/O, from that same publication (and confirmed in the CAP-6): "Pilot Officer - (P/O) who wears 1 row of narrow braid." and "Flying Officer - (F/O) who wears 1 row of standard braid"

With respect to Ordinary Ranks (there never was an RCAF NCM pre-unification - that's a CF invention). I would have added it but there is a bit of an issue that I'm researching. The RCAF website and the book "On Windswept Heights" produced by the former Air Command, which the historical section of the website is based on, says that Leading Aircraftman (LAC) = CF Cpl; RCAF Cpl = CF MCpl; RCAF Sgt = CF WO; etc. This is wrong. First off, MCpl is not a rank - it's an appointment; a senior corporal. Secondly, Aircraftman (AC) is the rank; AC2, AC1 and LAC are all classifications within that rank. I have several rank equivalency charts (including one in the CAP 488) that has Aircraftman (all classifications) equal to Private (sapper, etc) equal to Ordinary Seaman/Able Seaman. If I put the rank chart as written in period documents, sure as shootin' someone's gonna come along and change it based on the error in that one publication.

I need to find a pre-68 NATO rank code chart to confirm I'm right. CU L8R AV8R ... J-P (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this article is beginning to lose its focus, which is about the current RCAF (post-unification, former Air Command). Some folks are beginning to include links (e.g. WD), the former flag, old officer ranks etc. that are relevant to the former (pre-unification, original) RCAF, and which are already included in the History of the Royal Canadian Air Force article. Should we be maintaining, what I think is the proper focus on the current RCAF, or start including stuff that is already in the history article, and more relevant to the "old" RCAF?- BC  _{talk to me} 21:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You raise an important point, IMO. I don't think we should be including a great deal of history, when it is already covered in the relevant article. The current coverage stretches summary style to the limit (though I think the history in this article is o.k., as is. I would suggest we not include the former ranks in this article. I would also like to see more narrative in this article about current operations, equipment, etc. Currently the article has the look and feel of a compendium of lists. Perhaps we could create separate lists and use summary style to describe, briefly, the subject matter of each list. We should, also perhaps, prepare an outline as to what goes in each of the articles. Sunray (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editors are getting confused about the RCAF in this article and the pre-unification RCAF. I don't think some editors realize that the history article even exists. I do think we should do some house cleaning (e.g. removing the officer ranks and the old flag) to ensure we stay on topic. Old history stuff will attract more old history. We don't want to duplicate what's in the history article (unless it's in good summary style). Your idea of some kind of outline or guide about what should be going into this article and the history one is a good one. I also agree that there is a list problem and that there should be a short description to provide context. BC  _{talk to me} 20:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've moved the pre-1968 rank structure to History of the Royal Canadian Air Force and removed the old ensign from this article (it is already displayed in the "History" article). Sunray (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also moved the Women section to History of the Royal Canadian Air Force since it was more historical in nature.- BC  _{talk to me} 06:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yet you didn't move seven paragraphs that are entirely historical in nature. Please explain. Norman21 (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The historical RCAF article is focused on the entire history of the Canadian air force (s). It was originally about the pre-unification RCAF and how it was formed. The present RCAF article is focused on the present (post-unification) RCAF. The reason the history paragraphs are included is to provide general historical context to the article. The general history of the air force was rewritten per summary style guidelines. As discussed above, even these summary paragraphs may be too detailed (as Sunray said, and I agree, the history is stretched to the limit). If readers want more detailed information (e.g. about women or the Cold War or about the Korean War involvement, etc.), they can go to the history article. The Women section, which talks about the WD during the war and the later involvement of women from the 50s onward, was moved because it was detailed rather than general context history that was more suitable for the history article.  BC  _{talk to me} 17:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but don't understand why you have "picked on" women. You have moved these two sentences to a section near the end of the history article. Don't you agree that women played a very important role in the RCAF? If so, don't they deserve a brief mention in the main article? Norman21 (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not picking on women at all. It was just detail that didn't fit within the general history summary context of this article. The Women section is not near the end of the history article; it's the third major heading. The section could easily have been placed somewhere else I guess; feel free to move it if you like. And, yes, I have to say that women did indeed play a very important role in the war and beyond. My own mother was a WD stationed at Camp Borden during the war. I've always been proud of her accomplishments. I also started and wrote most of the WD article, which I probably would not have done if I didn't think women were important. Perhaps there is a way we could briefly mention women in the RCAF in the main article, but again, I think we would be stretching the history out beyond a general summary. Perhaps others can provide some input into this. BC  _{talk to me} 17:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, let's see what others think. Norman21 (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving the short section on women to the "History" article seems like a good call to me. Summary style is really intended to be a short general summary. As such, I think that the History section is already stretching the limits of summary style and could probably be edited further. Sunray (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/drones+talk+back+sleep/7076295/story.html

Should this be a separate section, or part of fixed wing aircraft? Hcobb (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The Royal Canadian Air Force has approximately 391 aircraft in service, which is the sixth largest air force in the Americas, after the United States Air Force, United States Navy, United States Army, United States Marine Corps and Brazilian Air Force."

Looks like American nationalistic POV to me. Also, the Brazilian Air Force is a glorified history museum, still flying the F-5 freedom fighter and other obsolescent aircraft. The RCAF on the other hand maintains a large number of F-18s and modern strategic airlift and ISTAR capabilities. Size is irrelevant, a gold coin vs a 1,000 copper pennies.Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new RCAF badge was approved on 15 March 2013. Article should be amended to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DIG12 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unveiled Sept. 15, 2013. See [3]--  BC  _{talk to me} 19:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Royal Canadian 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130523092835/http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/16w-16e/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?id=8922 to http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/16w-16e/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?id=8922

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Royal Canadian 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://archive.is/20080117035732/http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/purpose/today5_e.asp to http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/purpose/today5_e.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522205229/http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/v2/hst/page-eng.asp?id=626 to http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/v2/hst/page-eng.asp?id=626
• Added ((dead link)) tag to http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=2816
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308144210/http://www.cefcom-comfec.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/fs-ev/2011/10/27-eng.asp to http://www.cefcom-comfec.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/fs-ev/2011/10/27-eng.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trying to source a uniform that my uncle would of been wearing ..431 sqdn .. He went down with his brothers with wc Dow on the night of the 25th july 1944 .. ..TED was an "ACE "..gunner .. Any leads would be great ..thanks Richpep (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed the F-35 from Inventory as highly premature. It's been selected, that's all - the Canadian Government still has to negotiate a contract with Lockheed Martin and the US Government, and sign it for it to be official. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion has been started at Talk:Royal Canadian Navy § Chain of command in infobox. Please contribute there. Indefatigable (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

There are now 15 wings in the RCAF. For more information : [4]https://www.canada.ca/en/air-force/corporate/wings-squadrons.html.

Thank you. BalinTaf (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]