Jump to content

Talk:Sukhoi Su-57

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.defenceaviation.com/2014/01/indian-air-force-not-happy-with-sukhoi-t-50pak-fafgfa.html
  2. ^ https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-indians-hate-their-new-russian-made-stealth-fighter-d89b9ce721de
  3. ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/india-is-not-happy-with-fifth-generation-fighter-2014-6
  4. ^ http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2014/01/24/gunning_for_the_pak-fa_what_the_iaf_really_wants_32535
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Climb rate from questionable source

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
GJ with the reversion, I agree that the source was unreliable. F-16 Viper (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160220/1035076981/russian-stealth-aircraft-new-record.html
  2. ^ http://rg.ru/2016/02/19/pak-fa-rekord.html#/2704_0defc7dc/1/
  3. ^ https://www.facebook.com/airforceswordsofsky/photos/a.719419694791426.1073741828.718605114872884/1263498037050253/?type=3

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Su-57?

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

afb

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

https://lenta.ru/news/2011/04/13/pakfa/
(is iz30 (not 129) (diff sources says * ) , al41f (mig 142) prototype naming iz20)
( * or the logic 117 117S etc > 129 , conflicting designations )
edit , rostec says (108 to) 110 kN cruise , 180 af (original AL41F , for mig 144 same)
btw , 22 + 35 = 57 ads , (27 > 37 >) 47 > 57 hop , jtpo
These details need to be cited in the article so others can readily verify the data. Thanks, -Finlayson (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

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)[reply]

Requested move 14 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhoi Su-57 → Sukhoi 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose: Rename to PAK FA or keep it at Su-57. --Finlayson (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per general practice for Russian fighters, the military designation is used when known. - BilCat (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose – The service designation is almost always used for an article title, rather than the in-house designation. PAK-FA is the name of the development program (cf. LAMPS, ATB), not the name of the aircraft, and so should not be used either. Furthermore, the article you linked to quotes the commander of the Russian Aerospace Force as stating, "Su-57 is how we now call it". So it is clear that this is the designations that the Russians themselves are currently using. –Noha307 (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment

Thanks to everyone involved for not taking any notion of my proposal, or reflecting the merits of it. i.e. completely disregarding the rationale given, not to mention the content of the references currently given. Especially nice as the initial move on the current name was made without any discussion, and with quite a dubious "explanation".--2A00:1028:83BE:4392:34EA:2D22:6331:F6D8 (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using phrases like ‘putlerist "Telegraph agency of the Soviet Union"’ doesn't exactly do much to encourage one's opponents to take one's words seriously or to reflect on the merits of one's arguments… — Tetromino (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I prefer to call a spade a spade, no matter how "some people" are (claiming to be) offended by the plain truth. (And yes, TASS is an acronym for the "Telegraph agency of the Soviet Union" despite all inept attempts to deny this fact). Perhaps you should also note that I had not used that kind of speech (perhaps truly offensive to "some kind of people") in my proposal above, yet nobody actually bothered to take my words seriously. Suggesting that such was the case is a nice try, anyway. :-) -2A00:1028:83BE:4392:9956:A306:9A85:5A67 (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. And thank you for making a such weak argument that was so easy to disregard. - BilCat (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What again are you calling a weak argument, specifically? I clearly stated my reasons (i.e. it's only designation for the future series production, not yet used). It was "Tetromino" who picked on the incidental mention about what TASS means and insinuated that he (or she) just doesn't have to take my proposals seriously. Although I was completely right - TASS is an acronym for "Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union". Not that I'd expect that "Tetromino" would be able to admit I was right and he (or she) was totally wrong.:-) -2A00:1028:83BE:4392:490D:91AB:8AE0:BFA6 (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sukhoi Su-57. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sukhoi Su-57. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Used in Syria

https://www.rt.com/news/419566-su-57-russian-jet-syria-video/
https://southfront.org/russia-deployed-its-state-of-the-art-su-57-stealth-fighter-in-syria-reports/ DerElektriker (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need better sources than known propaganda and conspiracy theory outlets. 2600:1700:6000:9CA0:8052:E5BF:9B2D:D366 (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Differing interpretations of Borisov statement that "there is no reason for us to speed up work on mass production"

Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov recently stated that "it does not make sense to speed up work on mass-producing the fifth-generation aircraft."

The Diplomat published an article stating that Borisov had announced that the Su-57 would not be mass produced, and several edits were made to this Wikipedia article reflecting that interpretation. The Diplomat article did not actually cite any explicit cancellation announcement by Borisov, though -- it only referenced the aforementioned quote about not "speed(ing) up work", which is very different from cancellation.

A few days earlier, Aviation International News Online published an article referencing the same statement by Borisov, but interpreting it as affirmation of the status quo, and referring to the initial order of twelve Su-57s as "initial production aircraft".

Absent any more explicit statement from the Russian defense ministry, I don't think we can consider the Su-57 program definitively canceled; it's unclear at best. I've updated the article to reflect both AIN's interpretation and The Diplomat's.

Stephen Hui (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sukhoi_Su-57&oldid=850132063"