Talk:Sukhoi Su-57

No evidence thus far regarding Su-57 combat action

The article currently uses words like "confirm" when describing supposed combat actions by the Su-57 over Ukraine, but these claims are coming out of Russian media and figures, which have dubious credibility at best, and no evidence has been presented thus far. Either this should be noted, or verbiage should be changed so that it doesn't look like it has been independently confirmed. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

More specifically, EurAsian Times needs to be a deprecated source, given its poor reliability and almost no verification of information tp back its tabloid-like headlines. Steve7c8 (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

UK MOD says they are using them in action. https://www.twz.com/su-57-felon-fighters-are-flying-ukraine-combat-missions-uk-intel Liger404 (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Vietnam disputes stealth capabilities, most foreign buyers drop bids, new images surface

https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/09/su-57-may-not-be-built-with-quality-workmanship-says-vietnams-mod/ What should we make of this? These images show screws on the airframe and Vietnam reports no radar absorbent material is present. These claims in addition to the complete lack of expected foreign sales could be taken as damning evidence that most of the serial production is not effectively stealth. The airshow photos do not appear to have screws in the airframe, but Russia has demonstrated that their military does not have sufficient inventory for more than parades. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KiII_2qabk 2601:802:8301:54B0:E936:4D59:83FD:E168 (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

If these claims are included, the entire tone of the article may have to be changed 2601:802:8301:54B0:E936:4D59:83FD:E168 (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The first question to ask here is if globaldefensecorp.com is reliable published source per WP:RS. Ditto for the video producer. That's something that has to be proven first before we start redoing an article based on these sources. BilCat (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

These photos are just and endless recycling of the T50 prototype and not reflective of the production version. You can see pictures of the production aircraft, they are very smooth. The SU57 is not currently available for foreign purchase, its only just barely in service in Russia and its proper engine is not ready yet. Its not for sale because its not really finished and Russia itself only has a handful. Liger404 (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of payload capacity

I think noting that the Su-57 has a large internal payload capacity is warranted in the lead. The patent for the aircraft configuration specifically cited having a large tandem internal weapons bay compared to the F-22, with the aircraft capable of carrying up to four 700 kg ordnance, and for all of the Su-57's flaws, the internal payload capacity is one of its few redeeming qualities. From a purely statistical perspective, the Su-57 is capable of carrying more numerous large munitions internally, four compared to two for the F-22 and F-35. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

See above but there’s no verification that the internal bays work. YEEETER0 (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

No, what we need is verification that they don't work, not speculation. BilCat (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn't how burden of proof works. There's a duty to prove before a duty to disprove. The way I see it the page has 2 choices:

A.) What it is doing now, assume unverified claims are true until they are proven false

B.) What I believe it should do. Use language like "claimed" or "unverified" when speaking about the bays YEEETER0 (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Why would the bays not work? That's nonsensical. But anyway, we actually don't have to state whether or not they work at all. We just state what reliable published sources state, which is that the aircraft has internal bays. BilCat (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

What reliable published source has said that the bays do work? there's no pictures and no videos. The only thing to suggest they do is the word of the Russian government. YEEETER0 (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to russia I strongly disagree. The russian government has a proven track record of literally making stuff up and lying through their teeth. Same goes for russian state media. For example; Sukhoi's own patent for the SU-57 states the RCS of the aircraft will be between 0.1 m2 to 1 m2. At best this is 10% that of the F-16, at worst it's essentially the same. The thing literally has screws on the airframe, which are a MASSIVE source of radar reflection. Yet I've seen the russian government claim that it's somehow stealthier than the F-22. With exposed screws on the airframe. Hm. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

These wood screws are only seen on preproduction aircraft, and likewise the document probably states the airworthy flight control system testbed. A good analogy would be to determine the F-35's capabilities based off of the X-35. The problem being that Russian air forces dont really have a tri service naming scheme equivalent where the role of the aircraft is stated in the same breath as it's purpose.

If you were to look at new production aircraft you would see a much nicer stealthier surface.

The Russian government is not the first nor the largest liar of their vehicles capabilities, I'd wager pretty far from it in fact. BleachedDog (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

And what does the patent say of the stealth for the F22? Such things are classified, the advertised RCS is for sure not the real RCS, and the RCS changes depending on the frequency of the radar and the orientation of the aircraft. If you would like to see the best open source assessment of the SU57 stealth, its can be read here. And also as has being said, these tiresome endless ranting about the screws on the prototype is thoroughly debunked by the factory footage of the new smooth skinned aircraft. https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2022/09/26/su-57-radar-scattering-simulation/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1SsiId80xPXDXP-OIwaSmXGUUEI_ov4xT7d5IxlU3C-i-Br7KbjrHBX_k_aem_gZlp7ayhKDwQiSCo-SakvQ Liger404 (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a reasonable argument. It is normal to expect a vehicle to function, and there has been no reporting that the bays do not work. Russia says they do work. This is like claiming there is no evidence that the B21 bay doors work. Yes thats true, but the USA says it works and so we take that as true unless there is some evidence otherwise. All the rest of Russias bomb bay doors work, it is reasonable to expect the reports that they work to be true. We do have video evidence of the SU57 firing a missile now, it shot down that drone. Liger404 (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Issues with the last sentence in the stealth section

"Su-57 is often questioned about its stealth but the aircraft was not meant to be as stealthy as American fighters but the aircraft's stealth should be stealthy enough to be a threat."

This sentence generally doesn't read well, and I recommend splitting it into several sentences. At the current moment, this is not very coherent. Furthermore, I recommend changing the wordage from "American" to "other fifth-generation fighters" to be more inclusive, as China and others are working on / have stealthier fighters that should be acknowledged. 2600:8803:97F2:2:65C3:5BF0:7B94:885E (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it does read poorly, re wording might work. "The Su-57s stealth qualities are often questioned, the aircraft was not designed to be as stealthy as American fighters. However it is expected that the aircraft's stealth should be sufficient to increase survivability and provide an increased level of threat.". Liger404 (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Supposed capabilities of the SU-57

The SU-57 is an at best, reduced visibility, 4.5 generation heavy jet fighter. (Recorded RCS puts its signature at roughly the same as a naked F/A-18 Hornet). It does not possess supercruise capabilities, nor does it use the engines designed for it due to manufacturing and material science issues (it currently uses two Saturn AL-41F1 jet engines, which are not only underpowered for the size and mass of the aircraft, but prone to failure and not even remotely capable of supercruise). Unsure of maximum speed and combat capabilities since its never actually seen combat outside of essentially being an aerial catapult for long range missiles, which proceed to completely miss their targets or get intercepted by the Patriot system. It can be tracked by pretty much any targeting radar on the planet, except for maybe Russian ones, the missiles its meant to carry have been proven in battle to be about as competent as anything else Russia has built since the second world war, and frankly unless they figure out how to start packing radar absorbent putty into their recessed bolt holes like every actual fifth gen stealth fighter on earth does, theyll never succeed in getting past a 4.5 gen aircraft. per 99.183.234.109 (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

On WP, we just report what reliable sources say on a given subject. Our own personal interpretation does not have the slightest relevance. You will need to provide those sources to backup any change that you want to make. --McSly (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

He is probably talking about how most of the sources on this article are not up to WP standards. MarkusDorazio (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

"The SU-57 is an at best, reduced visibility" 3rd party testing has shown it to have a low rcs (ignoring ram) under 0.5 on average. "It does not possess supercruise capabilitie" I have found no source that claims so. " nor does it use the engines designed for it due to manufacturing and material science issues" even at the time of this post this was untrue. "which proceed to completely miss their targets or get intercepted by the Patriot system" there have been no reliable sources for those claims. "It can be tracked by pretty much any targeting radar on the planet" gross exaggeration at best, lying at worst. "the missiles its meant to carry have been proven in battle to be about as competent as anything else Russia has built since the second world war" another baseless claim. "putty into their recessed bolt holes like every actual fifth gen stealth fighter" inaccurate claim about early prototypes of the su-57. You're clearly expressing extreme bias with everyone of your claims. Vamlov (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "3rd party testing"? As far as I'm aware, few outside the Russian military have had access to the Su-57, let alone the ability to reliably test the aircraft's stealth capabilities. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Computer based rcs testing, not exactly prefect but it can give a good rough estimate of the rcs. Vamlov (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for this? - ZLEA _T\^C 16:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2022/09/26/su-57-radar-scattering-simulation/ It likely can't serve as evidence of it being a stealth aircraft, but it's a sufficient model to demonstrate that the 0.1 average RCS claim is inaccurate and therefore cannot be used as proof that it isn't a stealth aircraft. Vamlov (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Disregarding the WP:BLOG issues, this test was clearly conducted by an amateur. Such unprofessional tests do not meet WP:RS and cannot be used to prove or disprove the aircraft's stealth capabilities. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The laws of physics don't change depending on if the person observing it is a amateur or not, and every other rcs test there that uses the same methods fits within the known rcs of those aircraft. Yes it the source itself doesn't work within Wikipedia's guidelines and shouldn't be used within the article but it undeniably disproves the claims above. This is unnecessary to argue about. Vamlov (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If we aren't going to discuss actual reliable sources, then this is a waste of time. I doubt any article improvements will result from the continuation of this discussion. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

What source gives you this RCS? Credible sources like RUSI and CSIS do not say the same as you. This is the best open source simulation available. I will also include a review of capabilities from a quality source, Aussie Aipower. https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html#mozTocId548526

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2022/09/26/su-57-radar-scattering-simulation/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1SsiId80xPXDXP-OIwaSmXGUUEI_ov4xT7d5IxlU3C-i-Br7KbjrHBX_k_aem_gZlp7ayhKDwQiSCo-SakvQ Liger404 (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Its RCS is unknown, supposed "open source" simulations are completely useless for estimating RCS on stealth aircraft, there is no point in linking those. Aussie AirPower is not a reliable source especially when your linked article is more than a decade old which misses a lot of newer developments. MarkusDorazio (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is there this assertion that Aussie Airpower, which has staff hired by both the US and Australian government for Aeronautical consulting is not a reliable source? Aussie Airpower is a radar specialist and consultant and US navy test pilot and engineer. I can't think of a more appropriate subject matter expert, certainly not one that would ever talk anyway. And yes the article is old, but there is no newer replacement from any kind of official source, I would offer it if there was one. Liger404 (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Carlo Kopp? Carlo Kopp is a Computer Science Lecturer at the Monash University Faculty of Information Technology, Clayton .

His primary research activities at Monash are currently in the areas of modelling deceptions in social and biological systems, perceptual and decision modelling, especially using information theory, and cognitive cycle modelling. He remains active in the area of ad hoc networks and associated propagation problems, and in distributed computing.

He has previously conducted research in operating systems, ad hoc networks and radio-frequency propagation, radar signature computational modelling, optical communications, and satellite navigation support protocols. His PhD project involved the adaptation of AESA radars for long range digital communications, and modelling associated tropospheric propagation problems for airborne platforms

Obviously your goto guy for aerospace. Rather like Tom Clancy, he occasionally makes some sense. Greglocock (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

He has done quite a bit more than that. But yeah radar and networking seems to be his top specialty. I would say unlike Clancy, he has worked in actual areas of military science and strategy. https://www.ausairpower.net/editor.html Liger404 (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

258 or so citations - likely 10 actual citations that meet WP basic standards.

One can debate this - and I know someone will.

This is an actual citation from this article:

https://gametyrant.com/news/bandai-namco-europe-launches-aircraft-focus-trailers-to-tease-ace-combat-7

There are many very well written GA military articles, and why this document has so many citations that do not meet even common sense thinking is rather a mystery - the tag is legitimate - removing it will not change the problems with this article. BeingObjective (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, the appropriate thing to do is to discuss the sources you think aren't reliable in the context that they are used - note that the source immeadiately above is used to reference that the aircraft is featured in a video game, so it isn't as daft as it may at first appear (whether it is a reliable source for video games, and whether the featuring in video games is due are different questions.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to become familiar with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden BeingObjective (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@BeingObjective OK, I've read it. Now, what point are you trying to make to @Nigel Ish with that policy? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s been months without you explaining why sources such as Butowski aren’t reliable. 2600:8803:F50F:7E00:1CAE:4A5D:8B67:5D01 (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

We're not likely going to get an explanation. BeingObjective was blocked in December for disruptive editing, among other reasons. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You are 100% right, also the insistent use of TASS and other propagandistic new channels as sourcing on the abilities of the aircraft is very short-minded. Preferably the information would come from either academia or a more neutral air related news articles or reputable mil-blogger. See WP:SOURCE if anyone is interested. MarkusDorazio (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparent destruction of 1 or 2 Su-57 at Ukrainian hands

According to the GUR, on 8 June, 2024, at least one Su-57 was severely damaged or destroyed at a Russian airbase in Astrakhan. This has been reported by CNN [1], Forbes [2] , UK Defence Journal [3] , Newsweek [4] and many other credible second-party news media outlets. Bricology (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I've expanded the paragraph covering the attack with these sources. Thank you. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change the section "Accidents" to "Accidents and incidents" and add the June Ukrainian drone strike against the Su-57 on the ground to that section, instead of just being in the Ukrainian War section. (see the talk page section #Apparent destruction of 1 or 2 Su-57 at Ukrainian hands directly above this one) -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Combat losses of military aircraft are not usually included in accidents and incidents sections unless they occurred under singular and unusual circumstances. A drone strike that damages or destroys a parked military aircraft almost certainly does not belong in the section. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2024

I request that stealth be removed to describe the SU-57 as it is not stealth and has the same radar cross section as an F-18. 96.245.165.120 (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The Bulgarian Time is hardly a reliable source nor are the claims is the article. Vamlov (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the issue is more that the actual info in the quoted source is already well reflected in the article, and certainly does not support the OP's change request. Lklundin (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

that is absolutely delusional considering the reported rcs of the 57 is 1m^2 and that's from an American news article, the design of the 57 itself is made to be as stealthy as possible and you shouldn't try to change a trusted website's info about it just because of your own whims Tuklon sane (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2024

More information about the equipment export info , production info and others things AlexanderMaestro (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 12:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2024

The number of su57s produced on the page is 32 and should be changed, according to multiple telegram channels ("Slavyangrad" and "WE THE FURY") another batch of su57s was delivered on September 12 2024 and confirmed by the website "airdatanews" according to the website "military watch" the number of those produced su57's is 20 Tuklon sane (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Not done... The first ref does not specify how many, and the second ref only mentions "scheduled to exceed 20". Please request again when the number delivered has been confirmed. And reading the article just now, it already states "another 20 aircraft are expected to be built in 2024", using the second ref (from January 2024). - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Use of ROE Su-57E product card

The use of the Su-57E product card from ROE should be valid in terms of air vehicle performance, because there is currently no difference in terms of air vehicle and propulsion between the Su-57 and Su-57E. Both use the same AL-41F-1 engines, with the main difference being the avionics and the removal of some domestic Russian avionics systems and modes. This is also in line with how Russian export aircraft have been distinguished in the past, where the difference is mainly in the avionics. As such, purely for air vehicle performance the Su-57E brochure should be applicable. This is similar to how the domestic Su-27S/P and the export Su-27SK are nearly identical in the air vehicle and propulsion, and the difference was in the avionics. Steve7c8 (talk) 08:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Without commenting on the content of the image used as source, I wanted to note that it is hosted on a eBay-domain, i.ebayimg.com. As such I have to wonder how long it will be accessible there. Lklundin (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

There is currently no difference in terms of air vehicle and propulsion between the Su-57 and Su-57E. The brochure does not make this claim, so this is WP:OR. Assuming this claim is true, then this is also a prime example of why we should avoid mixing sources for even the same variant, as they often contradict each other. I'm not sure why you are bringing up the Su-27SK and Su-27S/P as an example, since the Sukhoi Su-27 article does not appear to use Su-27S/P sources for its Su-27SK specifications (if I'm wrong, then that needs to be changed). - ZLEA _T\^C 16:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The specification section of the Su-27 is for the SK variant, but it uses sources for the SK, SKM, and a generic S/P variant.

With regards to the Su-57, Gordon & Komissarov 2021, page 367, states: "In parallel with the FGFA, the Sukhoi Holding Co. started work on an export version of the basic single-seat Su-57 which was designated Su-57E (eksportnyy - export, used attributively). It differed from the standard version primarily in having a different IFF system; the EFIS software would be rewritten so that instrument readings would be in Imperial units and the cockpit labels would be in English. Also, non-Russian weapons could be integrated at the customer's request."

The source is in the bibliography. I can send a picture as needed. Steve7c8 (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that's fair, but we should at least tag it with Template:Better source needed until a source that actually covers the proper variant can be found. As for the Su-27, I do not see any sources that cover the Su-27S/P, and the one source that is titled with "Su-27SKM" explicitly lists the specifications as those of the SK. If I'm missing something, feel free to point it out so it can be dealt with accordingly. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Steve7c8 I recommend self-reverting per WP:STATUSQUO until we can come to a consensus. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Lklundin If the source is deemed to be acceptable, then it can be archived. That said, the ideal solution would be to find the original PDF (or whatever) file online if it exists. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Number of serially produced su-57 needs to be updated

Number of serially produced su-57 needs to be updated the number displayed on the article is now contradicted by its own source. Madnow2 (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that we can cite for the total number produced/serialized? Even the source we use in the infobox now is lacking in many details or hard numbers (i.e. "a few" delivered in 2023 is not very encyclopedic). - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Done... as best I could with the current ref, we still need a better ref though... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Infobox not matching article

@Steve7c8 Hello, since you have restored the infobox parameter "number built", would you mind including this somewhere in the article body text? As it stands right now neither the 32 figure or the 10 figure is anywhere to be found. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article." TylerBurden (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is more about the detail of content (e.i. number of fields) that should be included in an infobox than anything else. While I agree that the information should be included in the article body, I don't believe INFOBOXPURPOSE alone is a strong argument for removing sourced information from the infobox. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Military Watch Magazine should be deprecated

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article has several references to Military Watch Magazine, and this source should be deprecated for consistently echoing Russian propaganda and their articles are almost always in line with the Russian government narrative. Furthermore, the site has no transparency regarding their origins and authors. Steve7c8 (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that Military Watch Magazine has ever been discussed at WP:RSN. Such a discussion should probably take place there per WP:DEPHOW. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll bring it up there. Another questionable source that needs to be deprecated is Eurasian Times, another pro-Putin and pro-Modi site with similar issues, often having editorialized or narrative-driven pieces posing as news. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Pro this or Pro that isn't actually a way to invalidate a source. I could say that the NYT is Pro Biden or Anti Trump, but what we need to depreciate a source is proof of inaccuracy. What has Military Watch said that we can prove is untrue? Liger404 (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

As I stated before, this is not the place to seek consensus on the reliability (or lack thereof) of Military Watch Magazine or any other sources as a whole. Such a discussion should take place at WP:RSN. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

"Military Watch Magazine" is biased according to sources:

• https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/military-watch-magazine-bias/
• https://militarnyi.com/en/blogs/military-experts-are-ecstatic-how-russia-uses-pseudo-experts-to-spread-military-fakes/
• https://voxukraine.org/en/fake-russia-strikes-ukraines-military-factories-with-kinzhals-and-air-defense-cant-intercept-them-military-watch-magazine

Sergiy.Kozyr (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help myself. But....

VoxUkraine should be depreciated for consistently echoing Ukrainian propaganda and their articles are almost always in line with the Ukrainian government narrative.

It primarily draws its funding from foreign governments involved in the conflict, the EU via EUACI the USA via the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID and the DT Institute.

You see how this works? We could do the same for the BBC. Attack the facts not the source. If the facts are wrong we are more than happy to change them. Liger404 (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I just used your "mediabiasfactcheck" link to check your "militarny.com" link. Unfortunately Mediabiasfactcheck says Militarnyi is bias. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/military-honest-news-bias-and-credibility/ Liger404 (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Source depreciation is done on its own page. For this page you can see if you can confirm the claims elsewhere and add another reference you are more content with. However words like "Pro Putin" and especially the all new "Pro Modi" kinda make me feel you are a bit "Pro XYZ agenda" yourself. The question is not do you like these magazines and newspapers, but can you confirm that the information in them is actually incorrect on this occasion? Liger404 (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to add a reliable source.

Aussie air power is a think tank that I believe to be a reliable, professional source. They have several articles on the SU57. I was thinking of attaching this source in the stealth section, as that seems to be the area of greatest contention on this aircraft and there is a rather in depth discussion of the stealth performance and limitations in this article. At this stage I find the wording of the stealth section to basically be fine as it is, I just want to provide more support to what is a constantly contested issue. https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html#mozTocId548526 Liger404 (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

APA is absolutely not an objective source when it to aviation analysis. The author's primary area of expertise is in phased array transmitters and receivers, but their commentary on aircraft is not reliable and information in that article is already outdated and obsolete. Steve7c8 (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

We include news articles from regular reporters? Here we have a think tank with yes, a radar and data link expert (Seems rather relevant for stealth don't you think?). He writes for Janes, which is very highly regarded, worked as a research fellow at the Australian Defence Studies Centre, consulted for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and many others. SO his opinion isn't just held in high regard, governments pay for it. NOw when you say his commentary on aircraft is not reliable on aircraft, well he is he a current research fellow for the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, so clearly it is reliable. This article is also co authored by Peter Goon, aircraft engineer and RAAF officer, graduate of the US navy test pilot school with extensive military test flying and who has developed and certified many aircraft technologies. I do not accept that these men are not "objective" or reliable. What is that comment based on? As for the article being dated, it is, however I am not aware of any more recent expert work that is in the public domain, but feel free to link it? Liger404 (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Like look how much we lean on Piotr Butowski, his reference is used all over the place, but he is just a specialist journalist, not a subject matter expert and specifically writes about Russian aviation. Why is this more "objective" or "reliable"? Liger404 (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Number of internal hard points

This Wikipedia article officially says su 57 has 6 internal hard points but all the sources I can find the say the su-57 has 10 internal hard points[1] spread across 4 internal weapons Bays two main central internal weapons bays which can each store 4 missiles for a total of eight and two much smaller weapons bays on the wings that can each store 1 within visual range missile for grand total of 10 internal hard points.

Sources

1.     Su-57. (2019, January 24). www.key.aero. Retrieved December 11, 2024, from https://www.key.aero/article/su-57#:~:text=The%20Su-57%20carries%20its%20basic%20weapon%20payload%20in,the%20entire%20length%20of%20the%20fuselage%20ventral%20surface. Madnow2 (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure it is 4 full size internal and 2 IR missile internal in wing pods and anything else is external carry. Which is what it says right now. That's from the Book SU57-Felon. There are other sources saying the same as yours. I am trying to get some more research on this now. https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/su57-arsenal-unique-engagement-range Liger404 (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok I have looked at all my go to sources and just googled it. It seems basically Russia has never shown the inside of the bays. So 4 would be the minimum, some say 6 and some say 8. Everyone agrees the two mini bays carry one IR missiles each.

Now that book SU-57 Felon is used a lot on this page, so unless you can find another good source, over riding that might not be supported.

My feeling at the moment is that unless we can get some more info/sources, we might be best off to put internal carriage as "classified, estimated 4-8 BVR and 2 WVR missiles" or something like that.

https://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.html Liger404 (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok I am spamming at this point but its just a tad surprising we don't know the answer to this. I have another reputable source saying 4-6. So yes at this point it seems we should change it from a hard 4 to a 4-8?

https://www.twz.com/20434/no-the-su-57-isnt-junk-six-features-we-like-on-russias-new-fighter Liger404 (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Russia has shown off the SU 57s internal weapons bays we can visually confirm that the two central weapons bays can store 4 missiles each totaling up to 8 here's the image of that [1] then when you add the two infrared bays which can each store 1 missile that totals 10.

Sources

1.     Russia Su-57 will carry four missiles in internal weapons bays. (2020, December 28). www.globaldefensecorp.com. Retrieved December 12, 2024, from https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/12/28/russian-su-57-will-carry-four-missiles-in-the-internal-weapons-bay/ Madnow2 (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Not to be annoying, I think you are probably right that its 6-8 missiles and not 4. But I think that image may be CGI? Liger404 (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2025

It should now be 39 aircraft in total. 29 serial and 10 test 2603:8001:1DF0:85B0:7800:73C:60AC:1966 (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source for those new numbers. --McSly (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

29 is the number presented on the list of active Russian Air Force aircraft Wikipedia page So we could try to have the 2 pages say the same number. Madnow2 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Global Defense Corp

Global Defense Corp Was recently discussed On the Wikipedia reliable source notice board with the consensus being that it is at best unreliable at worst should be deprecated with the source having a long history of fabricating information this is relevant to this article because it cites it multiple times And should remove it as a source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Madnow2 (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Madnow2  Done - ZLEA _T\^C 02:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

su-57 image

Image of the SU57 presented is technically the prototype T50 and not the serially produced SU-57 Would it not be best if the main image of the plane presented in this article was a serial model not a prototype model.. Madnow2 (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Operators to be updated

Algerian TV has announced that Algeria will be the first foreign operator of the Su-57. News article: https://www.twz.com/air/algeria-says-its-the-su-57-felons-first-export-customer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simontaplin (talk • contribs) 21:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

No trusted source of Algeria buying Su-57

There is no trusted, reliable, and Algerian state source saying that the Su-57 was acquired by the Algerian Air Force. (https://www.twz.com/air/algeria-says-its-the-su-57-felons-first-export-customer) the source on this wikipedia page sources a tweet, https://x.com/clashreport/status/1889595300135727464. The article sources the tweet that says "Algerian TV confirms Su-57 fighter jet deal with Russia. Algerian pilots are training in Russia, and deliveries are expected this year. Algeria becomes the first Su-57 customer."

The article further reaffirms that the Algerian Su-57 order was provided by the country’s state television network, which also reported that Algerian pilots are currently undergoing training on the fighter in Russia.

This is not true, as just watching the actual video clip shows that the translation is totally false and that it was just a military general that went to India to be in an exposition of aircraft.

Here is the Algerian Ministry of Defense source which says nothing about Algeria acquiring the Su-57 in fact it just says he went to India for an airshow and saw advanced jets such as the Sukhoi 57 and F-35:https://www.mdn.dz/site_principal/sommaire/actualites/fr/2025/fevrier/cem210022025fr.php

In fact, the source of Algeria buying the Su-57 was the tweet by @ClashReport, which was total misinformation.

The request is to delete the part where it says Algeria has acquired Su-57 which are to be delivered. 79.77.194.92 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers secondary sources (news analysis) over primary sources (the Algerian government, in this case). State sources are not necessarily trusted or reliable when it comes to information about themselves because they have vested interests. Iiii I I I (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:V WP:RS

You did not read anything did you? Where is the source? The state tv was the quoted source from the ClashReport tweet and from all the news. The state tv clip clearly states the general went only to the air expo to look at the planes and did not acquire them.

Wikipedia generally prioritizes reliable secondary sources, that principle does not mean we must accept any secondary claim uncritically, especially when:

- The only “source” cited is a tweet from a non-official account (@ClashReport), which is not a reliable source per WP:RS, especially when it disseminates what is 100% misinformation.

- The "secondary source" (The War Zone) explicitly relies on that same tweet as its sole basis for claiming an Algerian acquisition of the Su-57. This creates a circular sourcing issue. The article fails WP:RS because it's echoing unverified claims from social media without independent corroboration. Again, you did not address this.

-The actual primary source (the Ministry of Defense) directly contradicts the claim. It clearly states the official purpose of the general’s visit was to attend Aero India 2025 and observe international aviation developments, not to finalize an Su-57 acquisition, again you did not address this (you addressed nothing)

-The video cited in the ClashReport tweet does not mention Su-57 acquisition nor confirm any deal. Native speakers can confirm the translation in the tweet is completely fabricated. This qualifies under WP:HOAX. (didn't address this too!)

Therefore, keeping the Su-57 claim in the article based on a tweet fake news reporting—when it’s based on a mistranslation and refuted by official documentation—violates WP:V and WP:RS

The edit to remove the claim is valid and fully justified. The tweet and its derivative reporting do not meet Wikipedia's sourcing standards, and there's no evidence Algeria has acquired the Su-57. 79.77.194.92 (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

As I said before, the Algerian government's statements should not be taken at face value. The Ministry of Defense not mentioning the Su-57 doesn't preclude TWZ's report from being true - it is possible to lie by omission. No country is going to announce exact details of its defenses.

In any case, I've added a citation from an RS, The National Interest, that reports the same thing and does not cite a tweet as its source. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The source isn't in the reliable sources list WP:RSPLIST.

The source you gave cites Algerian national media, but there is no report from the Algerian national media.

Your reasoning does not make sense as all the sources point to Algerian state media and then you say the algerian state media or the ministry of defense are lying by omission? If they never said it then how are all these articles citing a potential algerian state media source that says Algeria acquired the Su-57? As I said, this whole thing originates from the ClashReport tweet with the state tv clip which was mistranslated.

In any case, [rovide a RS that is in the WP:RSPLIST, which you haven't provided. 79.77.194.92 (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The source isn't in the reliable sources list WP:RSPLIST. WP:RSPLIST is not a "reliable sources list", but rather an incomplete list of popular sources and their level of reliability. A source such as The National Interest being absent from the list does not mean it is or isn't reliable, it just means that it hasn't been added yet. If you wish to discuss the reliability of a source and get it added to the list, you should bring it up at WP:RSN rather than an article talk page. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

(For anyone confused about this conversation: this is about edits made to Algerian Air Force, not this article.) Iiii I I I (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

no its not, this article also says Algeria acquired the planes. But I argue there is no reliable source for that and that the Algerian state tv clip is mistranslated and the origin of this hoax 79.77.194.92 (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing about which page we're arguing about? Iiii I I I (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

…

I explained why it’s not true and you didn’t comment on it just found another source that said “Algerian state tv” but not referencing the particular tweet. It’s very obviously talking about the clash report clip. If it’s really true, find a source that does not refer to Algerian state tv. 79.77.194.92 (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

While Algerian state TV may not be considered reliable, that does not mean that all information from it is therefore inaccurate. The National Interest is what we call a secondary source, which analyzes and (ideally) fact checks the information presented by primary sources (in this case Algerian state TV) and presents it without misinformation or bias. If you have evidence that The National Interest is failing to adequately do that and is therefore unreliable, then feel free to bring it up at WP:RSN. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Request to retract the claim that Algeria has ordered Su-57s: this is false. TSA (Tout sur l'Algérie) has fact-checked this: https://www.tsa-algerie.com/la-television-algerienne-a-t-elle-annonce-lachat-par-lalgerie-du-su-57/

TRUE OR FALSE. Has Algeria become the first country in the world to acquire the jewel of Russian 5th generation military aviation, the SU-57? The information has been reported by certain foreign media outlets and attributed to Algerian television. However, EPTV (formerly ENTV) has not made such an announcement. It even appears that there is blatant manipulation behind this claim.

It all started with an enigmatic page on the X platform called Clash Report. This page partially reproduced a report on the visit that the Chief of Staff of the ANP, Deputy Minister of National Defense, began in India on February 5.

The claim contained in the tweet was then picked up by certain foreign media outlets, such as La Voix du Nord, Al Qods Al Arabi, and BBC Arabic, which concluded that “Algeria is the first country to possess the Russian Sukhoi-57 fighter jet,” claiming that the announcement was made officially by Algerian public television.

Algerian news websites run by foreigners, such as Obervalgerie.com and DNAlgerie, picked up the story, falsely attributing it to Algerian television without any verification.

“Algerian television has confirmed the signing of an agreement with Russia for the purchase of Su-57 fighter jets. Algerian pilots are training in Russia and deliveries are expected this year. Algeria becomes the first customer for the Su-57,” wrote Clash Report.

The tweet is accompanied by a clip from ENTV's report on Army General Saïd Chanegriha's presence at the “Aero India” military aviation show on the sixth day of his visit to India.

During his participation in the opening of the show, “the army general and the delegation accompanying him watched a parade of the latest multi-role fighter jets equipped with stealth technology and smart radars, such as the Russian Sukhoi 57 fighter jets,” we hear.

There is no confirmation of the purchase of fifth-generation Russian fighter jets.

This passage in no way constitutes confirmation of Algeria's acquisition of this aircraft. But there is something even more serious: a grotesque manipulation.

Algeria's acquisition of the SU-57: a false claim attributed to Algerian television

In the report broadcast by ENTV, it was stated that Army General Saïd Chanegriha watched a parade of the latest aircraft, such as the “Russian SU-57 and American F-35 fighter jets.”

The same sentence is contained in the press release from the Ministry of National Defense (MDN) reporting on the sixth day of the visit, which was posted on its official website.

“During his participation in the opening of the exhibition, the Army General, accompanied by his delegation, watched an air show featuring the latest multi-role fighter jets equipped with stealth technology and smart radar, such as the Russian Sukhoi 57 and American F-35 fighter jets,” wrote the Ministry of National Defense. Curiously, in Clash Report's tweet, the mention of the American F-35s was omitted. Tarek lb (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Algerian purchase

Algeria bought 5 Su 57's in February and they are due to arrive this year. This needs to be updated. Maxsmart50 (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:RS are needed for updates, it isn't enough to just say that something has happened without providing sources. TylerBurden (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Here ya go

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/algeria-confirmed-first-foreign-client-russia-su57-how-many

https://www.twz.com/air/algeria-says-its-the-su-57-felons-first-export-customer Maxsmart50 (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2025

Add Algeria to the list of operators since an export deal was confirmed by Sukhoi then it was confirmed that Algeria was the country behind that purchase on national TV Onyxman6988 (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done - Algeria has not yet taken delivery of the aircraft, so we cannot call it an operator yet. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Its a t-50 in china, not su-57

It’s almost certain that the Su‑57 shown at Airshow China in Zhuhai was not a production model—it was an early prototype, likely T‑50‑4, serial 054 Blue. 147.161.217.25 (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I checked the existing sources in that paragraph and one did mention that T-50-4 was the aircraft on public display. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

look in china they have quite a few russian things

the AK-47 in china is the Type 56 so they change the name a 77.71.221.77 (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

typo

"Video taken of the aircraft, and up loaded to social media..."

Correct "up loaded" to "uploaded".

thanks! 2A0D:6FC7:621:AF29:90D4:47DC:FDF3:2A2 (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing it out. - ZLEA ^TǀC 18:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Amount produced

I think the number produced part needs to be updated as it was last updated in 2023 NASAfan575 (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, then provide WP:RS. TylerBurden (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

This one says 44

https://www.slashgear.com/1868536/russia-su-57-fighter-jet-numbers-how-many-have/ NASAfan575 (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Potential Indian purchase of Su-57

Could add India as the potential operator of Su-57 as the Indian Defence Ministry has said that it is "evaluating" the offer, and multiple other sources have said that India can possibly aquire 54-140 Su-57s (it depends on the source, no consistent info yet but a purchase highly likely). Adityakkhullar (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2025

The SU57 in media has been portrayed in the video games Battlefield 4, Battlefield 2042 and Battlefield 6. Mention those games alongside the Ace Combat series. 2409:40F2:129:504B:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. x2step (lets talk 💌) 05:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that not all appearances of a subject in pop culture is worthy of mention in said subject's article. See WP:IPCV for an explanation. - ZLEA ^TǀC 21:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Internal weapons bay capacity.

A new photo and new article in The Warzone have the internal capacity listed. 2 air to air missiles per bay, or one larger weapon. If you guys agree I will put in an edit request. https://www.twz.com/air/su-57-felon-brandishes-its-loaded-weapons-bays-for-the-first-time Liger404 (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Low quality citations. A work of fiction largely.

Two years ago as a fun project I reviewed all of the citations supporting this article. My thoughts as to the Quality of these citations against Wikipedia's standards is embedded in here.

As of 2025 I did the same thing. One can safely conclude the majority of this article is a fiction.

While any article about such technology is going to be questionable, this article is a true standout with citations from sources that in many cases are propaganda. ~2025-34086-12 (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok. So what changes are you proposing? --McSly (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Operation by Algeria

2 Su-57s have been delivered and are now in active service with the Algerian Airforce, with another 10 on order. Article should be updated to reflect that. Sterge08 (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

No reference provided, see WP:VERIFY. TylerBurden (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Here is a pretty good source covering the topic: https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/russia-su57-export-delivery-algeria/ NASAfan575 (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

So we are still talking about speculation, I'm not quite sure what the issue is with waiting for actual confirmation. TylerBurden (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

This article confirms it:

https://thecradle.co/articles/a-fifth-gen-frontier-algerias-su-57-signals-a-new-order-in-the-maghreb NASAfan575 (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Per the source: "When the head of Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), Vadim Badekha, went on record in November to announce that the first Su-57 fighters had been delivered to a foreign customer and were already on combat duty, he did not need to say “Algeria.”

He simply noted that the aircraft were “demonstrating their best qualities” and that “our customer is satisfied,” and left it at that."

Not only is the author Anis Raiss seemingly not any kind of authority on this matter, but WP:THECRADLE is literally a deprecated reference. TylerBurden (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-threatens-sanction-algeria-over-russian-su-57-purchase-ps-020726 i think this should work ~2026-84505-3 (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed NASAfan575 (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing in that source that says the plane is being operated by Algeria, making it WP:SYNTH. TylerBurden (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

While I think we're beyond the point of reasonable doubt for Su-57 operation/purchase in Algeria, the article only mentions the official warning Congress of the need to impose sanctions if Algeria acquires the aircraft. I think it would be credible enough for putting it under something like potential operators, but that article in itself isn't enough proof of operation.

I do think it's getting a little ridiculous that Algeria isn't listed as an operator but I digress. Realjospence (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Algerian acquisition

with diffrent sources confirming the Algerian acquisition of supposedly 14 units of Su-57 in 2025 which includes algerian television. And with recent sitings and videos of the aircraft over algerian territory. I believe this article should be updated to include the first international operator. ~2026-86234-8 (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Most reliable sources provided so far have been far too vague to support that claim. If you have any sources that directly and unambiguously confirm that Algeria has begun operating the Su-57, please feel free to provide them. - ZLEA ^TǀC 19:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2026

Operators

Algeria

• Algerian Air Force Rostec leaks confirm order of 12 SU-57E first 6 to be delivered by end of 2025 Algeria acquired its first 2xSu-57 5th generation aircraft as confirmed by footage that surfaced online of the aircraft Deceptecon (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)