Talk:Sukhoi Su-35

Unreliable sourcing

This article, which claims to be a Good Article, makes extensive use of unreliable sources (RT, Sputnik, (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for both and bmpd.livejournal.com (a blog - see the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#bmpd.livejournal.com). As such it fails GA criteria 2b - "all inline citations are from reliable sources" - blogs are specifically excluded. How can we fix this article so it is reliably sourced?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, you just go through all the "bmpd" links, search for a reference to a source there and replace the "bmpd" links with those sources. And if you are unable to find a source in a particular "bmpd" article, you start googling, trying to find an "official" article on the matter from a "reliable" source. It's that easy. As to the "RT", it's not blacklisted, and pay attention to the phraseology - it says "generally unreliable", pointing to the propagandistic nature of the company. So, the solution there is to remove all the politically-coloured "RT" links (if you would be able to find such there) and keep all those pointing to some procurement-related or technical information. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

As an example, the RT cite is about Russian operations in Syria, which is about as political subject as you can get, and is exactly the sort of thing that we cannot trust bad sources for. Of course non of this helps when editors are determined to keep bad sources in - for example reading the RT source when it wasn't needed as I found an actual reliable source (the Air International article) to replace it.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course it isn't necessarily just those three sources that may be the problem? What makes Defenceweb.co.za a WP:RS? What about some of the other Russian language sources such as avia.pro - do they pass WP:RS?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Just get on and delete the unreliable cites, leave behind what you can case-by-case until better sources come along. This article is now on my watchlist. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Sheer factology does not leave any space for polititcs. If, for example, some "RT" article is telling that on a date X some plane of a model Y performed some operation in Syria, or that on a date X a system Y was deployed there, it's not politics - it's nothing other than a report, and there's no reason to remove it whatsoever. Especially if it's verifiable through other sources, which is usually the case when it comes to military operations in Syria or elsewhere. So, simply having a particular "questionable" source provider in a supposedly political section is not really a justification for purging. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, purleeeze! Of course reporting on the battle minutiae of a politically-charged war is itself politically charged, don't treat us as simpletons here. The cite has to go. The claims it supports must be taken case by case. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"Politically-charged war" is a value judgment and is misplaced here. You are an editor on Wikipedia, you're not supposed to pick sides, and you are certainly doing so by automatically classifying any Russian sources on a particular topic as propaganda. Which is understandable to a degree, but at the same time disgusting. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Almost two hundred notes for a not especially long article - it looks as if a lot of the content has been challenged for one reason or another. Glancing through it there is still a fair amount of cruft that would be better cut out - wordiness for its own sake, excessive discussion of minor merits, editorial commentary, etc. I just trimmed the lead here to show what I mean. To get to the point, it is firm policy on Wikipedia that content which is not supported by RS has no place here and should be deleted. This article has an air of over-enthusiastic bigging up without adequate sourcing, countered by not quite enough encyclopedic cold water - as yet. If content is not reliably sourced and not core to the article, it is best cut out, and that will also much improve overall focus and readability. A site like RT should not be cited unless it is transparent that propaganda is not an issue in the particular instance. Stuff that is obviously core to the topic, say performance figures or unusual design features, and is likely to be available from RS elsewhere, can be cn tagged rather than deleted - but the dodgy cite should go straight away. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC) (updated 20:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC))

I'd speedy fail any GAN which uses obviously unreliable sources like RT and Sputnik as this violates GA criterion 2b. The use of such sources is usually also associated with other serious problems with articles. As such, this article doesn't meet the GA criteria at present, and re-assessment seems sensible. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

On the claim that Rafale successfully jammed Su-35 in war game, that pointed to Global Defense Corp. The site itself, cited Breaking Defense, which has zero mentions about the incident. Here is the original article. Also, Global Defense Corp's section "What We Do", explicitly mentions about its political agenda - against Putinism, Russian propaganda, ...,etc. Which is far from "unbias." Duqus (Talk)

Supermanoeuverability

The quote in the article on supermanoeuvrability appears to be going off-topic. Although it originated with the pilot's experience of flying this plane, it comes across not as about the plane but about supermanoeuvrability in combat. Also the boxout is mannered, unsuited to assisted readers and not what we usually do. If the quote is to be kept then it needs to be integrated into the main text and the relevance to the article explained. I have copied it (inline) to the article on supermanoeuverability, but in this article should it stay or should it go? I think it should go. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course, it should stay: firstly, it originates from the interview given right after the airshow with the Su-35S, secondly, it clarifies why with the Su-35 the emphasis is made on supermaneuverability and how a pilot may utilize these plane capabilities in combat. So, it's not off-topic by any means. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Query about weapons loadout/configuration

In the "Specifications" section it says "12 hardpoints, consisting of 2 wingtip rails, and 10 wing and fuselage stations with a capacity of 8,000 kg (17,630 lb) of ordnance, with provisions to carry combinations of: ...", then all the ordnance that an Su-35 can carry is listed. As long as the 8,000kg limit isn't exceeded, can any 12 weapons be chosen? And is it 1 missile per hardpoint or is it possible to fit more than 1 missile to one hardpoint? In the image at the top of this page https://world-defense.com/threads/f15-ex-overview-specification-performance.5825/ it seems that more than 1 missile is attached to each hardpoint or am I mistaken about that? If I'm correct, is the Su-35 able to do the same? Also what are the weight limits for each hardpoint? i.e. how much weight can each of the 12 hardpoints carry? This article https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/yes-russias-su-35-jet-fighter-one-best-ever-made-128082 says "twelve to fourteen weapons hardpoints". Can someone explain this please? What are the 13th and 14th hardpoints used for? There's a diagram here https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Su-35S-Flanker.html about a quarter of a way down the page that appears to indicate that the Su-35 can only carry 5 anti-ship missiles, but it also looks like it's possible to carry 2 Kh-31s in addition to 5 Kh-59s since the 2 Kh-31s can use different hardpoints, so that would make 7 anti-ship missiles, not 5. I find this all very confusing. If anyone could clarify any of the above I'd appreciate it. I also think the article needs tweaking a bit to make all the above a lot clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.117 (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Su-27M is a completely different aircraft

Current Su-35 and Su-27M are two branches of Flanker family but they are not connected. "The type was originally developed by the Soviet Union from the Su-27 and was known as the Su-27M. " - is about now cancelled Su-27M NOT about current Su-35. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XaHyMaH (talk • contribs) 15:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gregg, you are absolutely correct. Four SU-35’s did come to RAF Scampton shortly after the Gorbachev High Treason act, and flew an early evening display for the benefit of any airbase staff and families, which is how I came to see it. About 200 people were in attendance. Adam Cattle, you know SDS, 07434 287874 2A00:23C7:5F8C:2901:CCDE:3164:CB51:60BA (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Operations during 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine / Combat Loss

Photos have emerged of the burning remnants of what has been identified as a Su-35. Claims being made that this was shot down by Ukraine, likely on April 3rd. Reddit ORYX

Obviously an ongoing conflict, but maybe this should be added? Or maybe a section about hull losses more generally? 98.45.185.205 (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I support the above proposal. We need to add a section to give unbias coverage of the dozens of these airframes shot down during the unprovoked Ruzzian attack on Europe. We know of the following so far: 4 shot down by friendly fire, 6 shot down by the Ghost of Kyiv, 4 shot down by Patriot batteries, and 7 shot down by Ukrainian Heros via other air defense systems. That is 21 confirmed losses and a significant amount of their inventory. In addition, it should be highlighted that they can no longer be used in the conflict or enter Ukraine airspace due to a lack of pilots and fear of additional losses. We cannot allow this article to be overtaken by the Putin Bots and paid agents. We have to stay neutral and report facts as best we can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.64.107 (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It is reported on Popular Mechanics too. A recent example of one being blown out of the sky I would think is noteworthy. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 22:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Dubious source claiming technology transfer to US/UK?

There is a lot of misleading articles on this website (eurasiantimes) such as: I've found this claim nowhere else than on this website

https://eurasiantimes.com/category/south-asia/ The website is promoting a lot Indian technology and possessed Indian Air Force fighters

For the main claim of su-35 technology being transferred to UK and USA, i've found only one outlet talking about it, the express: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1597094/Russia-fighter-jet-putin-latest citing the RUSI think tank, meanwhile i've found nothing on RUSI about this claim

This should be labelled as a simple claim or thought to have been transferred, there is no reliable sources to make a direct claim that this transfer happened, beside a claim from theexpress which got relayed on that kind of website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsunet (talk • contribs) 10:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Su-35 crashed on 2023/05/13 in Bryansk Russia as part of Russian-Ukraine War

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5985387

Does Kommersant count as a reputable source? 2600:1700:B7B0:4D70:CD89:2013:75BC:2CDF (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Су"

There is a common misconception about how Russian aircraft are supposed to be pronounced. The "Su" in Sukhoi aircraft is not an acronym. It is Су from Russian transliterated into English. As such, this aircraft along with all other Sukhoi aircraft with Су in their aircraft designation are pronounced like "sue" in English. Note that all the aircraft pages have an uppercase S and a lowercase u. That's not standard for how acronyms are used anywhere in English so I don't know why some of you think this is a special case. It's not. It's pronounced Su just like how it's spelled. Not S.U. By Russian convention it is an abbreviation of the manufacturer. They pronounce it like they would the first part of the full word. If you want to claim it's actually an acronym what does it even stand for? If you can't even come up with an explanation stop reverting my correct edits.24.233.97.244 (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

See unified discussion at Talk:Sukhoi Su-57#Pronunciation of "Су".  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Air superiority fighter

@Sagar0311:, based on Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names we use the most common name, and that is air superiority fighter. -- Iri1388 (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)