Talk:Air superiority fighter/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Erroneous reading of RAND report

RAND Report. Brief analysis here: Talk:F-14_Tomcat#Actually_reading_the_paper

Okay...so having been proven wrong on the F-14 page, you have to move here to spread your misinformation?

  • The term "air superiority" was not in common usage prior to the Vietnam War; in fact the article originally states that it was first used to refer to the F-15.
  • Prior to the Vietnam War, fighters took specialized roles; the term "air superiority" was never used in any official context. Fighters were "escort fighter", "heavy fighter", "day(light) fighter", etc. We have in depth articles on that terminology and they were in common industry usage at the time.
  • The term "air superiority" was coined to describe an aircraft equally adept at WVR and BVR. As the RAND study indicates ... ONLY the F-15 out of the teen series was designed as an "air superiority" fighter. It explicitly indicates that the Navy did NOT want an "air superiority" fighter in the VFX, later the F-14.
  • It's been argued on the F-14 talk page whether or not the F-14 was designed to be maneuverable. Reliable sources say otherwise.
  • The F/A-18E is not a "lighter aircraft" - it is 25% larger than the C model hornet and currently serves the "high" part of the high/low mix on our carriers. It's not an upgrade of the Hornet (despite the naming bondoggle), but a wholly new airframe. It's actually a bit worse than the C Hornet in a turning fight due to its larger weight; but has a newer AESA radar and other interesting "goodies" that make it more potent in BVR.
When (if?) the JSF comes online, all C model Hornet squadrons will be replaced with the JSF; the Super Hornet and JSF will continue to operate in a hi-low mix - the JSF is the "low" part of the mix.

--Mmx1 19:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Interceptor aircraft

Interceptor aircraft includes the F-14 saying it is Interceptor aircraft are a compromise between speed and agility. Doesn't that conflict with this article's assertion? --Dual Freq 14:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The F-14 was designed as a dogfighter first (VFAX). Including the Phoenix AWG-9 did not compromise this capability in any meaningful way. Other approaches such as the F-15 would see things differently, but that in no way affects Grummans design decisions. The F-4 was designed as an interceptor, not a dogfighter, but was found to be the best dogfighter DOD had overall (F-8 had better kill ratio, but was due for replacement by F-4) during Vietnam --matador300 17:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Hornet Mafia, Article Deletion Nomination

Hell, this term even appears on this Wikipedia discussion page.

An article has been created defining this term, and subsequently nominated for deletion by purists who have identified him/themselves there. If you believe that the concept "Hornet Mafia" is as real as "UFO sighting", or if you believe that WP should not have an article for anything that isn't the the Brittanica, please participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hornet Mafia --matador300 17:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mission vs. Classification

Let me lay it out. The reason I've been reluctant to work on this and similar articles is that there is a distinction between a Mission and Classification. An aircraft can perform many missions; even ones it's not designed for. But what determines its classification are its design considerations - the missions that influenced its design tradeoffs.

For example, the F-16 has taken many roles - anti-shipping, reconnaissance, ferry, strike, interdiction, CAS, etc. But it was designed as a light strike fighter and is characterized as such. Sending it out on a recon mission doesn't make it a reconnaissance plane all of a sudden, no more than sending it to ferry a pilot out to a unit makes it a passenger plane.

The RAND source irrefutably shows that the Navy designed the F-14 for fleet defense, and NOT air superiority, something that at the time was an Air Force concept the Navy wanted no part of. It took the role of "air superiority" (actually the mission nowadays is OCA, offensive counter-air) because it was the best fighter available for the job for many years. But it wasn't designed for that mission, specifically a subsonic turning fight. And any attempt to rewrite that is revisionism from people who've watched Top Gun too many times. The F-14 excelled in the recon role it took over from the RA-5 Vigilante, as well as the CAS role it took in the 1990's as it faced irrelevance with the death of the Soviet threat. But that doesn't make it a recce bird or CAS bird. It was just used in a different role.

This article is about classifications, just as heavy fighter, escort fighter, night fighter, and day fighter discuss classifications of fighters, not just aircraft that were sent out at night. Discussing missions is too broad and really not of particular interest as a general subject. --Mmx1 20:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

Hmmm. Uncited statment, Navy never had an air superiority fighter. Article photo, Grumman states, F-14 is an air superiority fighter. Somebody ought to fix that, and stop deleting other peoples pages while he's at it. --matador300 14:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Also note that Mmx1 has since conceded that all of the above is essentially incorrect as a result of mediation. The F-14 was a) designed for the maeuvering air superiority mission and b) as 1969 Flight International proves was first post F-4 fighter called an A/S fighter. Editor has since posted further complaints and AFDs against this editor.--matador300 17:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Readability and wording?

Any help wanted to proof read or offer a third-party non-plane person edit? Let me know within a week.Starstylers (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

soviet fighter

guys, there does not appear even ONE soviet/russian fighter here!!! thats ridiculous!! --Philtime (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This entire article is skewed towards an American audience. The mention of the Air Force and Navy does not specify which country they belong to. Should be expanded to include talks of other countries. 99.255.242.87 (talk) 05:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)anonymous

Verifiable evidence the F-14 is an Air Superiority Fighter

How does inclusion of the F-14 intertwined with the F-15 in the search for a generation of air superiority fighters not make it an air superiority fighter? How does the Navy's tasking of the F-18, which replaces the F-14, as an air superiority fighter make the F-14 not an air superiority fighter? How does the increase of wing area for agility make agility not a design goal? What we have here is a POV problem, and there are other ways about it than simply reverting good quality factual information. An short open source paper that omits the term "air superiority" does not the conclusion make, "the F-14 is not an air superiority fighter".

Entries by Mmx1 appear to be the only claims in print or the web that the F-14 is not, nor was intended to be an air superiority fighter. They are not verifiable elsewhere, and thus must be considered to be POV. Any attempt to find a link between the F-14 and air superiority or deliberate maneuverability has been excised from the WP by one or more individuals, a matter of grave and serious concern given the importance and significance of the F-14.

F-14 Tomcat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ... F-14 Tomcat was a United States Navy supersonic, twin-engine, swing-wing, two-seat interceptor fighter jet. The Tomcat's primary missions were air superiority

Military Factory - F-14 Tomcats Grumman&nbspF-14 Tomcat. Carrier Borne Air Defence / Air Superiority Fighter. KNOWN OPERATORS: United States of America (B and D models) Iran (A model) BASIC INFORMATION: Designation: F-14 Tomcat ... against ground targets, air superiority, and fleet air defense.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0216.shtml ... F-111 was not optimized for air superiority as the F-14 had been The "Hi" end was represented by the long-range, high-speed F-14 Tomcat dedicated air superiority fighter.

F-14 Tomcat 7th District American Legion of Wisconsin ... The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is a United States Navy supersonic ... missions are air superiority, fleet air defense, and precision strike against ground targets. The first F-14 flight was ...webpages.charter.net/.../F_14_TomCat_Era_Ends.htm - 39k - Cached - More from this site - Save

F-14 Tomcat ... The F-14 Tomcat, a combat-proven air superiority fighter, continues the U.S. ... of fleet air defense, fighter escort, tactical air reconnaissance and air-to-surface strike fighter ...www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/navy_products/f14/f14.html

Welcome to The F-14 Tomcat VF-211 : Fighter Squadron 211. The F-14 Tomcat. The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. ... are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike against ground targets. Features: The F-14 has visual ...www.military.com/HomePage/UnitPageFullText/0,13476,700906,00.html - 18k - Cached - More from this site - Save

F-14 Tomcat - QuickSeek Encyclopedia ... The Grumman F-14 Tomcat (the F-13 designation was skipped ... missions are air superiority, fleet air defense, and precision strike against ground targets. The first F-14 flight was ...f14tomcat.quickseek.com -

Naval Test Wing Atlantic - Platforms Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division ... Description: The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic ... are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike against ground targets. Features: The F-14 has visual ...www.nawcad.navy.mil/testwinglant/aircraft_details.cfm?platformID=12 -

Aircraft: Grumman F-14A Tomcat ... weapon system for fleet air defense, escort, combat air patrol, air superiority, and interdiction missions (2 CREW ... , AZ. The F-14 might not be the best aircraft ever build ...aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/grumman/f-14a.htm

Navy Fact File: F-14 Tomcat Information on hardware of the U.S. Navy ... F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority,

Grumman F-14 Tomcat - HOME ... shots of the F-14 let me first ... F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority, fleet air ...www.angelfire.com/stars4/f14tomcat

U.S. Military Fighter Aircraft Fighter aircraft used by the various branches of the United States Military Services. ... in a military campaign is more difficult. F-14 Tomcat Fact Sheet ... missions are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike against ground targets. F-14 Tomcat. The F-14 ...usmilitary.about.com/od/fighter

Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - F-14 Tomcat Grumman F-14 Tomcat history, specifications, schematics, pictures, and data. ... range air superiority fighter was accepted by the US Navy. This aircraft was ultimately accepted as the F-14 Tomcat, and ... wing geometry allows the F-14 to maximize range and ...www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f14

F-14 Tomcat ... The F-14 Tomcat is the navy's air superiority fighter. It is the plane to have if your playing ... an enemy can put in the air before they can shoot back ...members.aol.com/CIOFAM/f14.html


F-14 Tomcat ... Description: The F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place ... include precision strike against ground targets, air superiority, and fleet air defense ...cpf.navy.mil/.../RIMPAC2004/aircraft_pages/F-14tomcatfactpage.htm

F-14 Tomcat Aircraft The F-14 Tomcat Aircraft of the US Navy entered the fleet in 1973. ... F-14 Tomcat Description: The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is ... missions are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike against ground targets. F-14 Tomcat Features: The ...inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltomcat.htm

F-14 Tomcats - Military and Civilian Aircraft All about military and civilian aircraft, airplanes, jets, transports, passenger airliners and helicopters. ... Designation: F-14 Tomcat. Type: Carrier Borne Air Defence / Air Superiority Fighter. Contractor: Grumman ... strike against ground targets, air superiority, and fleet air defense. As a ...www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=63


F-14 Tomcat ... The Grumman F-14 Tomcat (specifications) is a twin engine, variable sweep wing, and air superiority fighter capable of ... simultaneously and attack six air-to-air targets with the AIM ...www.highironillustrations.com/commission_illustration/f14.html


'Top Gun' jets return from final combat Posted on 03/10/2006 9:33:43 PM PST by neverdem. ASSOCIATED PRESS. VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- There will be no more dogfights for the Tomcat. ... the past 30 years, the F-14 Tomcat has assured U.S. air superiority, playing a key role in ... 30 years, the F-14 Tomcat has assured U.S. air superiority, playing a key ...www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1594335/posts

Now does this mean the F-14 wasn't an air superiority fighter? 'Top Gun' jets return from final combat Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | March 10, 2006 | SONJA BARISIC ASSOCIATED PRESS There will be no more dogfights for the Tomcat. The F-14 entered service in the early 1970s to defend aircraft carriers from Soviet bombers carrying long-range cruise missiles.

REVIVAL OF THE AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTER (PDF) Chapter Five. REVIVAL OF THE AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTER. INTRODUCTION. The late 1960s and 1970s witnessed the development of two new Air Force. fighters—the F-15 and F-16—and two new Navy fighters—the F-14 and ... www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR939/MR939.ch5.pdf

http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/RANGEWEB/sectio14/sect14a.html ... the F-14 Tomcat aircraft are supersonic, tandem-seat, twin engine, swing-wing, all-weather, air-superiority, strike ... engine, all-weather, air superiority strike fighter and ...www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/RANGEWEB/sectio14/sect14a.html

HOME OF M.A.T.S. - The most comprehensive Grumman F-14 Reference Work - by Torsten Anft! Zuni Rocket Pod. Usually, Zuni rockets (5-in FFAR = Folding-Fin Air Rockets) are not the weapon for an air-superiority fighter like the F-14. It's more a rocket for air-to-ground attacks and close-in support strikes.www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-zuni.htm

F-14 Tomcat ... at Air Expo '01 here May 26 and 27. The F-14 Tomcat demonstration team will take the aircraft ... Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike ...www.dcmilitary.com/navy/tester/6_20/local_news/7302-1.html

F-14 Tomcat ... The F-14 Tomcat today: The F-14 Tomcat continues to be a premier long-range strike-fighter as evidenced ... The F-14's critical role in maintaining air superiority and its ability ...united-states-navy.com/planes/f14.htm

Aircraft/UAVs ... Intruder air frame ... F-14 Tomcat The F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority, fleet air ...www.exwar.org/Htm/9000PopA.htm

And your evidence that the F-14 was not, nor intended to be an air superiority fighter would be... The wikipedia article defines an air superiority fighter as one with good close combat characteristics and maneuverability, no? Disagreement is certainly understandable, but POV has no place on WP. --Wiarthurhu 19:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting F-14 image. it's not a air superiority fighter, as listed on its article the f-14 is a multirole/ intercepter aircraft. --Brainiack16 (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Starting a separate section since your formatting is difficult to sort through. The term is clouded because "air superiority" is also used to describe a mission, and in general use as a general adjective, one which the F-14 did take for most of its service history. That's why I've shied away from improving this article because sorting the offical from the colloquial use is a mess. But in the context of industry design, it's clear the term was never applied to the F-14, nor the F-16 and 18 as you claimed in your earlier edits. And it is explicitly clear that it was not designed as such. From the Rand paper you repeatedly miscite:

As the Air Force struggled to hammer out a consensus on performance requirements for an all–Air Force F-X, the Navy tactical fighter community, allied with Grumman, increasingly sought to cancel the F-111B program and replace it with a new R&D effort for an all-Navy fighter optimized for fleet air defense and uncompromised by requirements for the Air Force strike-attack or air-superiority missions.

...

That same month, the Navy sent out RFPs to industry for a new VFX fighter, developed solely under Navy auspices and optimized for the fleet airdefense mission.

This paper, written by a PhD-wielding defense analyst, would trump any other colloquial usage of the term "air superiority". --Mmx1 19:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Every source on the web mentions F-14 and air superiority in the same sentence. You do not seem to be able to find another source that says "F-14" and "not air superiority" in the same sentence. You do the math. Are you the one responsible for the complete absence of any link between the F-14 and maneuverability throughout the WP space? That's a pretty significant ommision.--Wiarthurhu 19:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC) As the Air Force struggled to hammer out a consensus on performance requirements for an all–Air Force F-X, the Navy tactical fighter community, allied with Grumman, increasingly sought to cancel the F-111B program and replace it with a new R&D effort for an all-Navy fighter optimized for fleet air defense and uncompromised by requirements for the Air Force strike-attack or air-superiority missions.

...

"optimized for the fleet airdefense mission" does not mean "not air superiority", and your interpretation is contradicted by hundreds of web articles which evidently you'll need to go out and fix as well. Why don't you just drop this mission of trying to tell people that the F-14 is not and was not supposed to be an agile fighter and leave it at that? Why is it so important to make a point that no one else is recorded to have ever stated in so many words? --Wiarthurhu 20:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss the uncompromised by requirements for the Air Force strike-attack or air-superiority missions. part? --Mmx1 20:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Whoopee, you did a google search that indicated colloquial usage of the term. One of the links called the F-14 a strike fighter, too. Popularity does not determine accuracy; especially in a fan commentary-loaded area such as this. I've provided you with an industry analyst from the RAND corporation, with a PhD in European diplomatic and military history (actually which you provided but can't seem to read), who says that the F-14 was NOT developed under such auspices. Technically accurate trumps popular usage. --Mmx1 20:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Readability and wording 2

Placed the "additional citations" flag at the beginning of the article to make clear that almost the entire article lacks reliable citation. Also, Wikipedia does not count as a reliable source per its own rules.Agsftw (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


Article needs more non-USA info

The section "Current fighters" contains about half non-USA material, but the rest of the article is all USA. Can we add anything else from other countries? -- 189.122.29.43 (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Rafale-ec-1-7.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rafale-ec-1-7.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Rafale-ec-1-7.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


Proposed merger of Shenyang J-11 into Russia

The article states that Shenyang J-11 is an air superiority fighter of PRC.Actually, Shenyang J-11 is Su-27 locally manufactured by China under license from Russia.Almost all the electronics are of Russian Origin with a few local ones.I see that Su-30MKI is removed by the reason stating it is actually a Russian.If the same is considered here, even Shenyang J-11 can be merged into Russia. Thanks Srikar Kashyap (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

JF-17...An Air Superiority Fighter?

Some hopping Pakistani IP's keep adding JF-17 Thunder to this list of Air Superiority Fighters.

  • The JF-17 / FC-1 having a largely conventional configuration exhibits a substantially lower radar cross-section.The small bumps just forward of the engine air intakes form part of the diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) like the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

That was an impressive comparison but still, JF-17 is not an Air Superiority Fighter.Though it is being removed from this list,those Hopping IP's of Pakistan keep adding them again.I think the page should be Semi-Protected to prevent such Vandalism.

Srikar Kashyap<<Talk>>

ONE QUESTION, ARE YOU UNBIASED ENOUGH TO SAY "F-16" is an AIR SUPEROITY FIGHTER? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.36.2 (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon is a multirole jet fighter aircraft, as stated clearly in the first line of its article. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


I must say that that was really cute ,so by that definition, as given in the (" DOMINATED BY BIASED INDIAN EDITORS") Wikipedia pages,

  • Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet,
  • Dassault Rafale,
  • Eurofighter Typhoon,
  • Saab JAS 39 Gripen,
  • Mikoyan MiG-35,
  • Sukhoi Su-30,
  • Shenyang J-11,
  • General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon,
  • Chengdu J-10,
  • CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder,
  • Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle,
  • Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (stealth multirole fighter),
  • Sukhoi PAK FA (stealth multirole fighter),

are all multirole fighters,none of them capable of providing superiority against the enemy .So what (WTF),

  • Royal Australian Air Force,
  • Royal Danish Air Force,
  • Hellenic Air Force,
  • Israeli Air Force,
  • Egyptian Air Force,
  • Republic of China Air Force,
  • Turkish Air Force,
  • Belgian Air Component,
  • Royal Netherlands Air Force,
  • Royal Norwegian Air Force,
  • Pakistan Air Force, etc.

are going to do when they come face to face against the MIGHTY SU-30 MKI. Youtube video

I wonder (WTF) whats wrong with these professional Americans having no respect for the MIGHTY SU-30 MKI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.51.213 (talk) 12:12, July 22, 2012‎

  • Air superiority does not mean they are simply superior than other planes. Please read this article again. Its a classification of aircraft which are specialized in a particular role. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

P38

When the F15 was being developed, the USAF called it he first Air Superiorty fighter since the P38. Saltysailor (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

F-14 Defender of the fleet

The F14 was designed to be part of the layered defense of carrier battle groups. The swing wing would allow the F14 to loiter a low speed until enemy air threat was detected. It would then go supersonic to launch the Phoinex Missiles at BVR. If the threat got past the F14, the AGES ships would launch Standard Missels at the threat. Other less capable aircraft would attempt to intercept the threat as all aircraft were launched. If the threat broke throw to close range, Phalanx CIWS would engage the threat. The F-14 was designed as an interceptor to intercept aircraft and cruise mussels. The fact that it had guns and sidwinders for self defence does not make it an air supiriorty fighter. Having seen F14 attempt to dog fight, I can tell you it is not good at it. An A4 is a better dog fighter than the F14. I only wish we had built the F14 Bomb Cat as the F14 would make a great bomber. Saltysailor (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Su-30

Isn't the Su-30 and its variants multi-role fighter jets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.37.172.128 (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Su-30 is a multi-role fighter but Su-30MKI is a variant which is considered as a air-superiority fighter. Here are neutral references: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Please discuss any removal of content on the Talk page before taking uni-lateral actions or reverting edits. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I shall add Su-30MKM as it is also a variant like the Su-30MKI which is considered an air-superiority fighter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.37.172.128 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

SU-30MKM

The Su-30MKM is also an air superiority multirole fighter like the Su-30MKI. It states on its wikipedia page itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30MKM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.37.131.208 (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages cannot be used as references. Please provide valid references for this before you revert edits. Please do not engage in an edit war. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The Su-30MKM is a air superiority multi-role fighter like the Su-30MKI. Here are the sources to justify.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/malaysia/su-30mkm.htm

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su_30mk/

http://www.icym.edu.my/v13/about-us/our-news/general/769-sukhoi-su-30mkm.html

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/malaysia-receives-first-2-su30mkms-03336/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.37.131.208 (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Of all the 4 references, 2(global security and defense industry daily) do no mention it as a air superiority fighter, the ICYM is not a reliable source. One a single source airforce-technology mentions it. We need more independent sources to verify this. Please do not engage in an edit war and discuss this here. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


The source is the same one you linked me that the Su-30 is a air superiority multi role fighter. If you read the articles and the references from Su-30MKM you will know that the aircraft is developed and based on the Su-30MKI, Both aircraft have common airframe, thrust vectoring engines and digital fly-by-wire system. Please check the references and sources again and do more background research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.37.131.208 (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we need multiple sources which claim this not one. I provided at least 4 independent sources(not Indian media) which call it air-superiority. Please provide valid references if you want to add this. Again, wait for consensus before editing. There has been no consensus here.


The Su-30MKM is the same aircraft Russia has built for MKI for the RMAF , can we have someone other than adambager80 review this? http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-27/su-27_operators.htm http://en.take-off.ru/pdf_to/to26.pdf http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/malaysia-receives-first-2-su30mkms-03336/ https://sputniknews.com/military/201503171019603029/ http://www.malaysiandefence.com/sukhoi-su-30mkm-and-malaysia/ http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su_30mk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.36.90.213 (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes I am happy if other editors chime in as well. Until we do not reach consensus please refrain from editing the page. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Until then there is also no consensus to have adambager80's edit live on the page either. We need to wait for consensus to be reached and then we can post su-30.

Please try to understand what is under discussion here. There are at least 4 neutral sources which state Su30MKI is an air-superiority fighter, so this has to be included in the list. The point under discussion is whether we should include Su30MKM as well or not. Please do not engage in disruptive editing and wait for other editors to provide their points. the page remains as it is because currently it contains all cited content. Be patient for consensus to build up before you can edit. This can occasionally take some time. Alternately, if you have more reliable references then the one provided then please contribute to this discussion. You have already been warned twice and any other edits will result in 3RR and blocks for disruptive editing (as in the past). Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I have also provided several neutral sources for the Su30MKM, all content is also cited. If you refuse the MKM how can the MKI be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.178.140.221 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Because both are different planes. As I keep saying just because a plane is based on another plane does not make it have all the same properties. At times avionic suites, missile supported on those systems, radar capabilities could be different. Please wait for other editors to respond before you edit. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Section 'List'

What is the purpose of this section? Is it to list current air superiority fighter? If yes, where is the Su-27, Su-35S, MiG-29, F-15 and others? Perhaps this section should be removed all together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.127.221.45 (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Can I assume by the lack of responses that I can proceed to delete this section? It seems completely useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.127.221.45 (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of this list is to show currently active or deployed air-superiority fighters. The list is by no means complete and feel free to add to the list with reliable sourced but please do not delete it. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_superiority_fighter/Archive_1&oldid=1110184754"