Talk:Sukhoi Su-57

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Sukhoi PAK FA)
Jump to: navigation, search

India is not happy with the T-50 and is now considering withdrawing from the project, adding sources[edit]

Please see these sources for details.[1][2][3] [4]

--2602:306:B8BF:C0:7D22:6BA9:4B09:DFBC (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

References

The Sukhoi/HAL FGFA variant has its own article, so the information doesn't belong here, as you've been told several times already. - BilCat (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
laugh. Looks like russia through its "useful idiots" is trying to sanitize criticism on wikipedia yet again by stuffing criticism into the comparably little read HAL/FGFA page even though by rights they should be treated as the same programme. The reality is that russia drastically cut down its orders for this turkey after the reports of its failings came in AND it is now selling it as a bomb truck instead of a fighter world beater. Anybody with eyes can see that it's a turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.134.144 (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The reason the articles are separate is mostly because patriotic Indian editors want it that way. If you genuinely think the articles should be merged, you're welcome to propose it, and see what happens. - BilCat (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This article mentions the HAL FGFA and the collaboration between India and Russia to develop it in two places. Patriotic NPOV-pushing aside, if you mention Russian/Indian collaboration on FGFA at all, you have to mention when that collaboration is in trouble. That's how you get WP:NPOV. Presenting just positive developments on that relationship in this article is POV-pushing and not permitted in wikipedia. loupgarous (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Climb rate from questionable source[edit]

The source given for the climb rate is from a SputnikNews article,[1] which references to another Russian language news article,[2] and the source of that figure comes from a Facebook post.[3] I'm sorry, but I'm not at all convinced about the reliability of the source. 131.179.41.158 (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

So no one here wants to comment on the fact that this article essentially cited an unverified Facebook post for climb rate? Why does that even belong? 45.49.185.241 (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
No one has responded. Honestly, this figure should be removed. It's not verified, and the original source for this claim has failed to provide any evidence that it's reliable. 45.49.185.241 (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
GJ with the reversion, I agree that the source was unreliable. F-16 Viper (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
There's a problem (which I'll devote a new section to below) with other cites from Sputnik, too. Sputnik's heavily propagandistic and doesn't often meet WP:QS for technical articles. I'd like us to get away from using them as a source in this article, which is about factual developments, not propaganda talking points. loupgarous (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
See WP:PUS, too - Sputnik News is specifically mentioned (under "State-associated news organisations") as unreliable for anything outside the claims of the Russian government. loupgarous (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Naval and other versions section has two contradictory statements with severe source issues[edit]

The section of the article Naval and other versions consists of two contradictory statements:

  • "Navalized Sukhoi T-50 PAK FAs will be deployed on the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov and future Russian aircraft carriers.[130] There will be a competition between the Sukhoi, Mikoyan and Yakovlev design bureaus to choose the new naval aircraft.[5]"

The sources date to about the same time frame, so one's obviously wrong. Either a navalized PAK-FA was chosen or there's a competition ongoing to chose a navalized fighter for the Kuznetsov-class carriers. Both statements can't be true at once.

I'm inclined to distrust either one, they're both based on cites from Sputnik, which is overtly a Russian government propaganda site and has made inflated claims for PAK-FA's performance, its availability and the threat it poses to NATO forces for years, now.

In addition, the reflinks to each statement, when you click them, bring you to the current front page of Sputnik, not to a specific article. By comparison, the Russian version of the TASS article cited to support the remaining statement DOES link to the article in question (in the Russian version only, for some reason, when you click the English version of TASS and search for the article, it doesn't come up).

I'm going to delete both statements regarding the naval version of PAK-FA, based on WP:QS and because the reflinks don't actually bring you to the articles described in the reflist. loupgarous (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Go for it bro. Sputnik News has never been particularly reputable anyways. AIN January 2016 has a pretty good article on the PAK FA that I think can be useful here. 45.49.131.170 (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sukhoi PAK FA. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sukhoi PAK FA. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Su-57?[edit]

Apparently the T-50 PAKFA is called the Su-57 now? [1]Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 12:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

afb[edit]

since is around 190 180 kN , for this class of jets , caN'T be 167 , so , is not less than 176 kN , product code izdl30 , it will be AL41something or AL51 (??) official one .
edit , supercruise , (without afterburners,) since is around 108 to 118 kN not less , for it , in that mode will be at least at 108 . --~~ fas

Terminology[edit]

I believe we should try to keep the following in mind:

  • PAK FA is the name of the program to develop a new generation fighter jet. American analogy: the Advanced Tactical Fighter program.
  • T-50 is the designation of a small series of prototype planes built for the PAK FA program. American analogy: the Lockheed YF-22.
  • Su-57 is the designation of the PAK FA program's final product that is expected to be accepted by the Russian air force after trials; the goal towards which the T-50 has been evolving. American analogy: Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

Except that unlike the American case, here all 3 notions are dealt with in one article instead of being split into separate articles.

So IMHO, it makes sense to talk about the Su-57 expected performance, combat capabilities, export potential, etc. – because those are what is expected from the final version of the plane. But photos of T-50 should be labeled T-50, and discussions of prototype test flights should use the appropriate designation: T-50. — Tetromino (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 August 2017[edit]

Sukhoi Su-57Sukhoi T-50 – Proposal for move to Sukhoi T-50. According to the source currently given, the Su-57 designation would be applied to the future series version only, which is still rather distant from today.... 2A00:1028:83BE:4392:58B4:7FDD:C3E9:48BD (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: The Su-27 didn't have separate TPFI or T-10 articles. MiG-29 doesn't have a separate LPFI article. 67.207.98.113 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Su-27 is a 1970s design, Wikipedia hadn't existed then. Sukhoi T-50/PAK-FA is currently still under develepment, "Su-57" is only a planned designation for the future series model.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:58B4:7FDD:C3E9:48BD (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment: This move request is for renaming this article, not for splitting off related articles as you suggest. --Finlayson (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: Rename to PAK FA or keep it at Su-57. --Finlayson (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
No problem, Sukhoi PAK-FA/PAK FA would be perhaps even better article name than "Su-57" (according to the given source applicable only for the [future] series model).-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:58B4:7FDD:C3E9:48BD (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per general practice for Russian fighters, the military designation is used when known. - BilCat (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As explained by BilCat just above this comment, this other external link as well as the section Terminology prior to this discussion. The article should instead emphasize more about the T-50 being the current developing prototype, while Su-57 is the official name of the plane when it reaches operational deployment. — Tokamac (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)