Talk:Sukhoi Su-35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This article needs major changes. Mainly due to it being out of date and having a large amount of false information. I am preapred to write a new one from scratch.

Then please do. Just edit it from the topmost link, remove all content and start from scratch. Starcraftmazter 11:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm done listing the basic differences detween the Su-35(A) and the Su-35BM. Can someone clean up and organize neatly?

Contents

[edit] Crash

Wasn't it an Su-30MK that crashed at the 1999 Paris Air Show? Zaku Two 00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/28/1027497446606.html This should be enough proof to remove that Zaku Two 18:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"A Sukhoi Su-30 jet - a similar twin-engine design to the Su-27 - crashed at start of the Paris air show in 1999, but the two pilots ejected and no one was injured."
http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/msnbc001.htm This, too. To whoever added that: not everything with canards is an Su-35 or Su-37... Zaku Two 18:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Su-35 for PAF

The article cited for Su-35 for Pakistan does not even mention it. Whoever placed it does not read Russian as Viktor Mikhaylovich is talking about engines of future fighters, not orders to Pakistan.76.26.199.253 23:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 14 hardpoints?

I know the KnAAPO website states this, but is there any evidence besides that page? I believe it's just a mistake on their website since Rosoboronexport states 12 hardpoints. Also, logically the two extra hardpoints could only be under the nacelles, but there aren't any pictures of it carrying two pieces of ordnance there. - Dammit 20:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future of this article

The 'new' Su-35 was rolled out before MAKS 2007 and is shown to be a largely different aircraft from this article's Su-35. It has a new FBW system, new phased array radar, new IRST, new engines, etc. It's classified as a 4th gen++ aircraft and even outwardly looks different from the existing Su-35. So my question is this: Do we add the information of this new Su-35 to this article or do we split the two into seperate articles named(tentatively), say: first gen/second gen Su-35s. I believe there are enough differences between the two for seperate articles, just like the Mig-29/Mig-35, but I'd like to see what people are thinking about this. Don't forget to sign your posts. (Bobbo9000 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

It might be too early to make a knowledgable decision just yet. I'd say to go ahead and add the new info as it comes out. Later, especially if a new designation is assigned, then a split can be proposed. There no real reason to rush at this point. It's better to have two related designs ont he same page, with lots of information, then to split one off and have only a stub with scant info, no specs, and no pics. And since they are both currently called Su-35, the same link will bring them here. - BillCJ 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent non-productive edits

I have recently reverted multiple edits/additions/changes by User:Gxe65 and User:Historian info, who may or may not be the same person. (Hopefully not, as that is sockpuppetry, and a serious breach of policy.) As partially explained in my edit summaries, there are many problems with theos edits, so many that I ahve reverted wholesale rather than try to keep some. Some of the edits removed sourced information. Others added non-fields to templates, which will not work, and thus not show at all. Other changes were contrary to the WP:AIR/PC page content guidelines. Another problem was that each change was made as a separate edit, which made it very dificult to follow the changes, and no edit summaries were given. Please refrain from thowing out charges such as vandalism, or from just reverting. READ my edit summaries, and then discuss the page with me to find out what the problems are. Now that I've started tht process, maybe we can get down to improving the page, rather than making edits that don't do that. - BillCJ (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Total POV you have removed citations and removed other critical information this is serious vanadalism.--Historian info (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe not. At the risk of being accused of being POV again, I'll try to list the many problems I have with your edits tomorrow. I'd honestly try to keep your "critical information" while correcting your errors and mistakes, but since you don't seem to accept that you've made any mistakes, I'd probably be reverted for "vandalism" again. - BillCJ (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize for being a bit rude, because there is no need for that so sorry. However, the removal of the citations is just plain wrong.--Historian info (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Stop removing citing information and vandalising the article.--Historian info (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Now bearing in mind that I just "strayed" onto this page recently, IMHO, there does need to be some attention ot the article in regards to citations and reference sources. Using primarily electronic (Internet) sources is problematic and most authoritative works on Wikipedia begin with the consideration of peer-reviewed data, secondly, published material that is vetted by author, publisher and represents "expert(s)" then second-third person published material and finally periodical/journal sources. Electronic media is usually considered secondary and in the case of a contemporary or current topic may not be as reliable as other sources. FWIW, a "cooling down" of rhetoric also should be considered. If you made an intemperate statement that you may wish to retract, placing through the passage will indicate to readers that the statement was withdrawn. Bzuk (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Super" Flanker?

Who exactly calls the Su-35 the Super Flanker? Flanker is a NATO codename - Do NATO call the aircraft Flanker-E, or Super Flanker-E? If they don't call it the Super Flanker, and Sukhoi or the Russian Air force don't, then neither should this article. (And incidentally, shouldn't some context be given here - it isn't apparent from reading the article (and particularly the lead para) what the relationship is between the Su27, Su-27M and Su-35). Nigel Ish (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where that name comes from, possibly Sukhoi or the Russian Air Force; the aircraft's NATO reporting name is "Flanker-E" and I don't know of any verifiable sources for the name "Super Flanker," so I'd refrain from using it. ZakuTalk 20:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New article for the Su-35BM?

Despite still using the basic Flanker airframe and Su-35 name, I think the differences between the Su-35 and BM are distinct enough to warrant a new article, like we did with the F/A-18 and F/A-18E/F. The airframe itself has been changed in a number of ways and the avionics have been significantly improved. Besides, we're already seeing some confusion on this page (such as "the Su-35, does not possess the canard fins that the Sukhoi Su-30MKI has"). ZakuTalk 20:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zaku. I agree with you on a new article for Su-35BM.' Moreover, Su-35 has a another difference with the MKI apart from the canard fins - its a one seater not two seater like the MKI. Therefore, I happily concur with Zaku new article on Su-35BM.--Historian info (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Zaku please can you start the article, thanks.--Historian info (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
My thanks to Zaku Sukhoi Su-35BM.--Historian info (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question?

I have a question that I've had for a very long time and never really had a satisfying answer to it so I ask anyone here. Why do Russian military aircraft manufactures produce so many variants in comparison to other military aircraft manufactures in the world???--Historian info (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is really for discussing the article not for general questions, but I dont think they do produce more variants - have you looked at F-16 Fighting Falcon article! You can always ask the question and explain in more detail where you are coming from on the Aircraft Project talk page they may be for helpfull with off-topic questions. MilborneOne (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Su-35UB

I think some mention should definitely be given to the two-seat Su-35UB (http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/flankers_pages/su-35ub.htm), which is easy to confuse with the Su-30MKI.--N22YF (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The UB's been on my radar for a while, but I haven't dug up much info on it yet. Does anyone have a specifications listing or a useful article on it (not only filled with pictures)? So far, all we can do is say that it exists, if that's what you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.184.238 (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't seen too much info about it yet either, but I think its existence (at least) should definitely be included. Here is a specifications listing: http://www.airwar.ru/enc_e/fighter/su35ub.html
There are also a couple sentences here: http://www.deagel.com/Strike-and-Fighter-Aircraft/Su-35UB_a000320006.aspx --N22YF (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, we could add the VVS codenames (Not the NATO: Flanker codename) for these aircraft (translated). Su-27: "Little Crane", Su-37: "Terminator" ("Super Flanker"), Su-35UB: "Sabertooth" (as mentioned in the Sukhoi-affiliated movie Mirror Wars). I could dig up a listing with the other flanker variants, but I believe that most of them go by Little Crane (the standard Su-27 based ones) or Triplane (Canard-equipped Flankers). Although irrelevant, other codenames include: MiG-29: "Swift" ("Fulcrum" - although a rare case, the VVS commonly uses the NATO designation for the MiG-29, taking the name as an honor that describes the MiG-29's versatility), MiG-33(MiG-29M): "Super Fulcrum", Su-25: "Comb" ... etc. I also believe the Su-32 is called the "Platypus", but I'm unsure of that. Anyways, I think we can add the VVS codenames for these aircraft (since they don't usually used the NATO designations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.184.238 (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Su-35 Flanker.jpg

Image:Su-35 Flanker.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Su35cockpit.jpg

Image:Su35cockpit.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

Su-35UB.
Su-35UB.

Is the photo now in the inbox actually of the Su-35? It doesn't seem to have any canards - which according to the article the Su-35 has. In any case - if someone doesn't sort out the image in commons and add things like souces and licenses, there won't be a picture here.Nigel Ish 19:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The current picture is the Su-35BM, but I'm 99% sure it will get deleted since it appears to be from KnAAPO's website. The only free picture of an Su-35 we have is the one on the right of the Su-35UB. I'll see if I can write a paragraph about it this week so the picture would actually make sense. - Dammit 19:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armament: 2× wingtip rails for R-73... ???

Aren't the sorbtsyja (or how it is called) ECM-pods hard-mounted at wingtips? At least every photo of the su-35 suggests this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.185.164.137 (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The wingtip mounts can be used to carry IRMs, but it's not as simple as slotting in an IR missile after removing the ECM pod. It requires some specialist attention which means turn around time is usually a few hours. (Bobbo9000 (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Discrepancies: how many are in service?

The first paragraph states that "around five" are in service, but the box on the right says "150 are in active service", which is obviously wrong. Also, this article: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080220/99687166.html says "The new Su-35 Flanker-E multi-role fighter will be put into service with the Russian Air Force in two-three years, the head of the Sukhoi aircraft manufacturer said." Perhaps this article is referring to the Su-35BM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N22YF (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Libyan AF Su-35 deal.

I've searched the web and through online defense journals I have access to and I can see nothing more than Russia stating that it WANTS to sell Su-35s to Libya, but nothing concrete on a deal having been placed. Can we have some verification on this? (Bobbo9000 (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

K, so there's still nothing announced about any possible Libyan AF purchases and no link verifying any sales of the Su-35 so I've removed the reference (under operators) for the time being. (Bobbo9000 (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC))