Talk:Sukhoi Su-25/Archive 1

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

Unpopular?

The Frogfoot was unpopular with pilots? It was respected enough by the mujehadeen in Afghanistan that they called it 'the German product', i.e. a piece of kit that was so effective that it obviously couldn't be russian-made... Jakob 11:11, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Naval Variant

There should be a mention of the Navalized two seater that was built for the Kunestov class Carriers as a trainer. --Mtnerd 02:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Congolese Su-25 jet crashes

KINSHASA, June 30 (Reuters) - A Congolese air force fighter plane crashed during an Independence Day display on Saturday, killing the pilot, the U.N. peacekeeping force in Congo said.

...

Congolese fighter jet crashes during display
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.144.210 (talk • contribs)

  • Replaced most of text with link to article. Please don't copy & paste large parts of articles. That can be a copyright violation. -Fnlayson 12:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Design

Should a "Design" section have subsections like "Cockpit" or "Fuselage"? --Eurocopter tigre 18:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • That'd be the place for those type sections. Paragraph(s) or sentence(s) on those aspects would be fine if that's all you have. The A-10 and several other articles do paragraphs without subsections. Hope that helps.. -Fnlayson 18:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will put the new Design section in the article, in about an hour. Maybe you can advice me after you see it. --Eurocopter tigre 18:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: Does shoulder-mounted wing mean the same as high wing? Also, what format should be used on commas and decimal points for numbers? Like 13,5% is used in Europe, I think. Whereas 13.5% is used most elsewhere. -Fnlayson 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, shoulder-mounted wing should mean the same as high wing, but I'm not 100% sure of it. In western aircraft, the high-wing term is used, while on Soviet aircraft, you can find the shoulder-mounted term (see Myasishchev M-50). Regarding the decimal points, I think european type should be used (13,5%). --Eurocopter tigre 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, shoulder-mounted and high-wing usually mean the same thing, and I've seen them both used in Western sources. - BillCJ 04:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's a minor thing, I'll agree with it. --Eurocopter tigre 12:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • What about the two newly done sections? Are they covering enough, or are they too complicated? Are they better organised?

Specs

  • What about the specifications? Should they be from the earliest variant, or from the latest variant (Su-25TM)? Maybe if the Design section describes the basic Su-25, the basic Su-25s specifications should be in the article... Thoughts? --Eurocopter tigre 12:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Generally, the specs should cover the most common/numerous, well-known, or important variant, but it's also limited to which variant one can find the most comprehensive info for. As far as I'm concerned, just pick one, I won't quibble. - BillCJ 15:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have the info for each variant. I know you won't quibble, but if I propose this article for FA, somebody else will quibble. However, I will put this article on an A-class review at WPs Aviation & Military History. ---Eurocopter tigre 15:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The latest variant and maybe an early one for comparison. If you want to list more than two, I suggest a table instead of multiple Aircraft Spec templates. However, if the basic dimensions (length, span, height) don't change, adding notes in the template may cover the changes. -Fnlayson 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advices, I think it should remain like it is know, with the latest variant. I just put the article under A-class review on WPMILHIST, you might want to throw-in your opinion about it. --Eurocopter tigre 16:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan Usage

On the map of countries that use the aircraft, Pakistan is in yellow, but there is no information about it in the list of operators. I'd suggest either adding a section on Pakistan or removing it from the map. JKBrooks85 15:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

JKBrooks85, I think you are confusing Pakistan with Afghanistan, Afghanistan being the one in yellow. --Eurocopter tigre 20:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That appears to be the case. Next time, I'll look more closely. Sorry. JKBrooks85 22:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary design description question

I'm a little unclear by this part in the Development section: "Having taken into account these problems, Pavel Sukhoi and a group of leading specialists in the design bureau discussed the idea of creating such an aircraft. They submitted their thoughts to Sukhoi, and suggested that preliminary design work should begin as soon as possible. Pavel Sukhoi approved the plan.."

Is this saying Pavel Sukhoi talked with the design team and the team went off and to work it. Then they submitted their concept/plan to Mr. Sukhoi (not the bureau/company)? Thanks. -Fnlayson 19:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, that's my mistake, sorry. After they discussed together with P.Sukhoi, the specialists submitted their plan to him, and he approved it. --Eurocopter tigre 20:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks Eurocopter. That's minor. I could have done the same on something I was very familiar with. -Fnlayson 20:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to say your opinion in the WPMILHIST Su-25 A-class review. Tommorow, I will put this article under WPAVIATION A-class review also. --Eurocopter tigre 21:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft role

I believe Ground attack is a better, more general description for the Su-25. The includes close air support and air interdiction. They are all close enough to get the point across though, so no big deal.. -Fnlayson 18:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure about this. The air interdiction missions are usually assumed by supersonic fighter-bombers. I'm sure you wouldn't send a subsonic aircraft, such as Su-25, in the enemy territory, because it will be a very easy target. Also, on the cover of Gordon & Dawes book, the Su-25 is designated as a "Close air support aircraft". --Eurocopter tigre 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A large number of images from this page have been listed on WP:PUI

Rather than tag each individual image I am leaving a notice here. If you have any comments please direct them at the PUI listing. Megapixie 11:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

All the possible unfree images were removed and will be replaced very soon. --Eurocopter tigre 15:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you able to get all the images need from the DoD DVIV site? I hadn't thought of looking there, duh. Looks like you got all the good ones from that site. Let me know if I can help. -Fnlayson 16:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This looks like a good one: Su-25 underside view showing araments What do you think? -Fnlayson 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The quality it's not very good (year 1989 picture), but I won't say anything if you put it in the article. Until I'll have permission to put the new images in, all other pictures are welcome. --Eurocopter tigre 16:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • No, it's not the best quality, but seems OK as a thumbnail. It can be replaced with a better, similar image later. -Fnlayson 16:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just received the first permission from an Airliners.net photograph. Hope we are on the good way. --Eurocopter tigre 18:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment — If you've talked to the original author of those Airliners.net photos, can you see if he'd be willing to upload them without the Airliners.net watermark? I'm pretty sure that's against some rule or another. Additionally, is the Israeli Su-25 the SM or KM model? The caption says SM, but the listing is KM. JKBrooks85 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It really doesn't matter if it has the watermark or not. The images have a perfect viable copyright license, and that's all we need.
  • The Su-25KM is the Georgian-Israeli variant, but that image shows the Su-25SM (an upgraded variant for the Russian Air Force), which is described in the "Su-25T" section. --Eurocopter tigre 06:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There are two problems with the watermark: First, editors acting in good faith in future will see it and think that there's a copyright problem to address here. Second, it sets a very bad example - some editors will see that image and think that airliners.net photos are fair game, not realising the issues involved.
    • Furthermore, what permission did the photographer give? If it was just permission to use the photo on Wikipedia, that's not sufficient. Having the photographer him/herself upload the photo to Commons leaves no question about the status of the image. --Rlandmann 20:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

All the photographers contacted gave me the permission to use their images, if I use the correct credit and reference. That's exactly what I did. --Eurocopter tigre 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But did they specifically say that they were releasing the images under the GFDL or some other compatible licence? --Rlandmann 11:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Victor12, don't you think that the lead you just edited is quite small for A-class candidate article? Would it be posible for you to make it a bit larger? --Eurocopter tigre 14:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll work on that. I just removed info which I think was irrelevant for the lead, I'll try to include some info from the operational history which is more important IMHO. --Victor12 15:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, also a long lead is not a must, check F-4 Phantom II which is a FA and has a one-paragraph lead. --Victor12 15:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The F-4's lead had been a few paragraphs about the time it made FA. Someone added the Overview section label in there somewhat recently to break it up. -Fnlayson 15:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. --Victor12 15:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure. I thought the F-4's lead was too long about a year ago. LOL. The lead here might could have a few words added back, but not much content, I think. Thanks for helping. -Fnlayson 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I also think that the lead should be about two paragraphs longer. Victor, would mind throwing in your comment on the WPMILHIST A-class review of the article, because it will close soon. --Eurocopter tigre 15:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just added my support at the A-class review. Do you want four paragraphs for the lead? BTW why did you added back the MiG-23 and Su-17 in Develpment section? The paragraph starts "In early 1968...", at that time MiG-23s and Su-17s were not in operational service. --Victor12 16:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This looks like the only thing that was in the Lead yesterday that's not covered in the Lead now is this.

... In addition, a Su-25KM prototype was developed by Georgia in cooperation with the Israeli Elbit Systems company in 2001.
The Russian Air Force operates the largest number of Su-25s, and has plans to upgrade older aircraft to the Su-25SM variant. However, this process has been slowed due to a funding shortfall, as of early 2007 only seven aircraft had been modified.

I just added the last paragraph to the bottom of the Development section. There may be a better place for it. Is that supposed to be the upgrade to the KM variant? Thanks. -Fnlayson 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The KM variant is an upgraded version developed by an Israeli company. As far as I know it has not been ordered by any air force. Thus, I think it is not relevant enough to be mentioned in the lead. --Victor12 18:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I had missed the mention of the SM variant before. -Fnlayson 18:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! It doesn't matter if they weren't in operational service, because the Soviets needed an attack aircraft for close air support, and they had projects only for fighters or fighter-bombers such as Su-17 and MiG-23 at the time. Also, that sentence does not necessary reflect the year 1968; it represents the early-1970s when serious actions about this project came-up. Regarding the lead, it's not necessary to have four paragraphs, I just gave you an example of the size it should have. Anyway, you are editing the lead, so you are deciding which size would be the best. --Eurocopter tigre 17:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, I think, that the paragraph refers to a 1968 decision to develop a new aircraft. At that time Su-17 and MiG-23 were under development. They should be mentioned as such, not as being "in service". As for the lead, my opinion is as good (or bad) as anyone else's. --Victor12 18:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions

"In addition, an Su-25KM prototype was developed by Georgia in cooperation with Israeli company Elbit Systems in 2001, but so far this variant has not achieved much success."

What kind of success? Successfully flying? Successfully destroying targets? Adoption by an air force? Commercial success?

  • Commercial succes. --Eurocopter tigre 23:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. It would be nice to be more specific. Is anyone interested? Have any been sold? —Michael Z. 2007-07-11 23:11 Z
  • Nobody was really interested, and none had been sold as far as I know. There were just few Georgian Su-25 upgraded to Su-25KM standard. --Eurocopter tigre 23:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"The flaps are mounted on brackets on the rear spar on steel sliders and rollers."

I rewrote this as "the flaps are mounted by steel sliders and rollers, attached to brackets on the rear spar." Correct? —Michael Z. 2007-07-11 22:57 Z

Minor wording: "specialized"

In early 1968, the Soviet Ministry of Defence decided to develop a specialised shturmovik armoured assault aircraft in order to provide close air support for the Soviet Ground Forces. The idea of creating a specialised ground-support aircraft came about after analysing the experience of shturmovoi (attack) aviation during World War II, and in local wars during the 1950s and 1960s.[1]

This is a bit repetitive, with "specialised" used twice in a row. It would be a little less awkward if one instance was replaced with "special-purpose", which means the same thing. Or better yet, just write "develop a shturmovik armoured assault aircraft", which is clearly specialised by this description. —Michael Z. 2007-07-11 23:09 Z

  1. ^ Yefim Gordon and Alan Dawes, p.6-7.

Concept drawing

"Artist's concept drawing of the Su-25" makes it sound to me like this is a manufacturer's design drawing. But since this is from a US DOD source, I wonder if it is a rendering based on intelligence information. If this is the case, a better caption might be something like "[U.S./NATO] military intelligence visualization of the Su-25, used before photographs of the SU-25 were available". —Michael Z. 2007-07-11 23:51 Z

I don't really now what to say here. The US DOD link doesn't give many details about the source of the drawing. --Eurocopter tigre 23:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The current caption is sufficient, until there is more information available. —Michael Z. 2007-07-12 00:07 Z

Direct source: Su-25 concept image on DVIC site It's described as an "Artist's concept" there. -Fnlayson 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This pic is one of those Cold War drawings made in the USA of how Americans though Soviet aircraft looked like (did that make sense?). Anyway, it's an American guesswork of the eighties, I think it was published in the Soviet Military Power series. As you can see, it has several details wrong, for instance it depicts the Su-25 as carrying a nose-mounted radar! --Victor12 00:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It states that it comes from the Soviet Military Power, pp 32-33 on the web link I posted. No question there. -Fnlayson 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A-class

The article finally became an A-class! Thanks and congratulations to all the users who suported me in the improvement of the article! --Eurocopter tigre 23:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. It really deserves it. I have left a couple of remarks here, but they are merely questions of style (I was about to add a vote for this article in the assessment). Cheers, and good work. —Michael Z. 2007-07-12 00:06 Z
Congratulations! Glad to see that you made it. Now there's only one thing left to do... go for a Featured Article! JKBrooks85 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I hate to be a stickler, but I looked through my copy of Gordon's book, and I noticed that some sentences in the article seem to have been directly lifted from the book. If no one minds, I will go through the article and change the wording of some parts to avoid any issues that may arise from this.--LWF 00:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind. It was almost imposible for me to rewrite every sentence. Your help is welcome! --Eurocopter tigre 08:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Other assessments

The article is now under A-class review on WPAVIATION. Please feel free to leave your comments in. --Eurocopter tigre 00:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Article is also under review at WP:Aircraft assessment. -Fnlayson 23:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Over-emphasis of initials

"The Su-25UB trainer (Uchebno-Boyevoy) was drawn up in 1977...."

I think rendering the initials in a bold font to explain the designation letters makes them greatly over-emphasized. At the very most, italicizing should be used for emphasis, unless an element is important in the page hierarchy. (In this case, since they are in already-italicized foreign terms, the correct emphasis would be Uchebno-Boyevoy.)

But in every single case in this article, the initials have a one-to-one correspondence with the initials of the expanded Russian term. They are already visually distinguished in the term in two ways: by initial position and by capitalization. And they are further visually emphasized, because they are part of an italicized phrase.

Additionally bold-facing them takes the formatting over the top, distracting the eye from across the page. It also doesn't show much respect for the reader's basic reading comprehension. —Michael Z. 2007-07-12 00:04 Z

I think bold initials should remain, as the readers would observe what those designation actually mean. It doesn't really matter for me in which form they are bolded (italicized or not), so do however do you think it is best. --Eurocopter tigre 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally like the bolded letters. I hadn't noticed that the Russian terms were the aircraft designation until I saw them, the first time I visited the page. JKBrooks85 17:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Translation of model designations

Here's my best guess at the Russian:

  • Komercheskiy, ‘commercial’
  • Uchebno-Boyevoy, ‘combat instructional’
  • Uchebno-Trenirovochnyy s Gakom, ‘instructional-training with hook’
  • Uchebno-Boyevoy Palubny, ‘combat instructional deck’
  • Buksirovshchik Misheney, ‘target craft’
  • Tankovy, ‘tank’ adj.
  • Kommercheskiy Modernizirovannyy, ‘commercial modernised’
  • Uchebno-Trenirovochnyy, ‘instructional-training’
  • Razvedchik, ‘reconnaissance’
  • Uchebnyy 3-myestny, ‘instructional three-seater’
  • Uchebnyy, ‘instructional’

Not sure about the nuanced difference between Uchebnyy, Trenirovochnyy, and Uchebno-trenirovochnyy. —Michael Z. 2007-07-12 00:49 Z

Iranian Su-25

IRGC Airforce operates several su-25s. I have personally seen pictures and a video of them. Also take a look at IRGC's air force page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRGC_Air_Force for list of the planes they have. They have them for a long time now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.56.253 (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Iran is already listed in the Operators section and the IRGCAF is mentioned there too. Is something mission or what? -Fnlayson 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    • In the map provided Iran has been shown in Yellow and it has been mentioned that existence of SU-25 in iran is uncertain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmadys (talk • contribs) 04:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, that explains what was meant. The map image creator will most likely have to fix that. -Fnlayson 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Header style

I call for this edit to be reverted. It is extremely difficult to read and edit headers when they are close to the text and when there is no separation with the wikitext tags. Please tell us which header format you prefer, to see whether we can build a consensus for changing the headers from the current hard-to-read awckard state to a more user-friendly, editor-friendly, easy-to-read, neat, and clean state. NerdyNSK (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the style differences are negligable as the Wiki format normally compresses the spaces anyway. The only thing that your style change introduces is an extra, extraneous space that may be useful for editors, but certainly makes no difference to readers. The reason for not introducing extra spaces is that it artificially increases the size of the article and therefore will take longer to download. A few years ago, there was a huge "flap" about this and it was agreed that the extra spacing was to be discouraged. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC).
Does not matter much to me. I prefer a blank line between the section label and the text and a blank line before and/or after image links. This helps with readablity on the edit screen. I don't think the MoS gets into this kind of detail, unless I've missed it. It does show some format examples and people may take the spaces or omission of spaces as policy. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Su-25 x A-10 Thunderbolt II

We must compare the Su-25 and A-10 Thunderbolt II. The A-10 was sold, until 1980 decade, only to the USAF and sells only used for other users, whyle the Su-25 is in production since 1970 decade until today and was sold (new) to many countries. The A-10 Thunderbolt II is better, but it was more expensive and bigger than the Su-25.Agre22 (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

An american pilot who flew this plane claims that "if you punch everything off it, it'll do mach 1". Therefore, should it not be listed as having a top speed of mach 1 and being supercruise capable? I'll check back in about a week to see opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.202.160 (talk • contribs)
@agree22 That's a really fact based argument against the Su25 and for the Thunderbolt, it was sold earlier, go and troll somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiga12 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Schematic

Would anyone be interested in including the schematic as seen at the Russian article? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Diagram

What size should the diagram be? It's a little crowded at the current resolution (400px). 600 to 700 px should be big enough to see and still fit on all or nearly all monitors. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Any larger than it is now, and it takes up the whole screen, displacing or making the specifications dissappear like it did at 800 px. If you want to make the diagram less crowded, then someone who is skilled at image editing needs to edit the diagram itself (which currently consists of the actual drawing and labels stacked on top of each other, with no linkage). If the labels were somehow added to the original drawing, then they could be scaled with the diagram, making it seem less cluttered. Maybe if you invite someone from Wikipedia:Graphic Lab to help?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Admittedly 800px like the Russian Wikipedia is a little big (could cause horizontal scrolling), but 600 px and centred would not cause any unsightly mashups with text. It falls down to whether or not there is a consensus to have such a size; I know some editors dislike a perceived large amount of white space. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The diagram legend (item 1) designates the cannon as "SPM-17", while the specifications (as well as the references) has the cannon as GSh-30-2. A similar divergence appears in the Russian version. I'm not familiar enough to know if this is an error or is intentional. Robert Hiller (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Shturmovik???

It is completely incorrect to say that it is referred to as "sturmovik" after IL-2. The Russian word "strurmovik" is a general term that designates the entire class of ground and sea attack aircraft (somewhat similar to USAF A-xx aircraft). It includes dedicated strurmovik designs as well as, say, diving bombers made in strurmovik versions. There are many aircraft in that class, IL-2 being one of the WW-II sturmoviks (also Pe-2 and Tu-2) and Su-7, Su-17 and Su-25 as post-war sturmoviks. The word is not supposed to be capitalized.

Using the word "Sturmovik" to designate IL-2 specifically is something that the authors of the well-known computer game made up themselves. It has no connection to reality.

"Shturmovik" /Штурмовик/ from Russian "Shturm" means "Assault", "Storm". Yes, it's like words "Fighter", "Bomber" and so on may refer to many aircrafts.--Oleg Str (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Pe-2 and Tu-2 are not sturmoviks in the russian terminology, they are classificated as bombers.95.52.62.75 (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Iran

See WP:NOTFORUM. Doc talk 15:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Operators: Macedonia

The 4 Su-25 of the Macedonian Air Force were never sold to Georgia in 2005. They are still at the military part of Skopje airport. They can bee seen in Google earth current imagery dated from 2013 41°58'30.40"N 21°37'20.61"E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.215.122 (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Sukhoi Su-25 kompo vers2.svg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sukhoi Su-25 kompo vers2.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 24, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-05-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-25 diagram
Layout scheme of a Sukhoi Su-25 (details), a jet aircraft designed to provide close air support for the Soviet Ground Forces and used by various countries. Since production began in 1978, the Su-25 has seen combat in several conflicts, including the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the Iran–Iraq War, and the Russia–Georgia War.Diagram: Altoing
Archive – More featured pictures...

79.100.17.88/79.100.27.27/User:Bulgarian96 continuously attempting to move Bulgaria from Former operators

Hey everyone. Just a heads up, the Bulgaria section is repeatedly being moved and content is being haphazardly deleted despite attempts to contact the editors responsible for the change. I can't revert the changes anymore as I will violate the 3RR rule. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 07:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The refs cited seem to indicate that the aircraft is still in service with this air force. What makes you think it is out of service? - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
It looks like this issue is now a moot point as the past and present operators have been combined into one single list. - Ahunt (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
That's fine I suppose. Thanks. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 16:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su25/
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - Iraq

Can someone edit the map to switch Iraq back to blue? They're now active operators again, as noted in the article. -Helvetica (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism by "Putinbots"

The page has been repeatedly vandalized during the last hour or so by ip users attempting to change the service ceiling specs so they'd be in accordance with allegations by some Russian officer who suggests it was a Su-25 that brought down MH-17. Maybe a temporary protection would be in order. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This changes appeared in russian Wikipedia after the aforementioned allegations. There they have been already subject to the edit wars, but only today, never before. This suggests that they are indeed intended to make specifications line better with allegations. This article is likely to be subject of vandalism in future as well.

(200.84.90.220 (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC))

And I have to admit to this whole edit was was probably caused by myself, as it started right after I commented on the Guardian's online forum, where I posted a link to the the page to back up my argument that the Su-25 is not well suited to intercept a passenger jet at 33,000 ft. Oh well... Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the challenged text and protected the article for a while to encourage discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.

The Sukhoi web page with the specs for the Su-25 is here: http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/ Even if the Su-25 could climb to altitudes above its service ceiling - "absolute ceiling" - the laws of aerodynamics should tell you that it can only do so at the expense of speed, and the Su-25 is not terribly fast to begin with. Its maximum speed is only about 50 mph faster than the cruising speed of a B777, and when fitted with external stores it's even slower. A Su-25 really doesn't have a chance in hell to intercept an airliner in cruise, even if Putin himself were flying it.Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This is besides the point. No matter what feat could be accomplished (or not) on the altitude higher than service ceiling, if some altitude have been consistently reported for years as service ceiling and still noted as such on the manufacturer's web page, that altitude and not some other should be on Wikipedia.

(200.84.90.220 (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC))

The service ceiling reported on the manufacturer's page is 7 km (22,965 ft) without external stores, which is exactly the same as mentioned in the article. So I really don't see what you're on about.
And by the way, why don't you just create an account instead of editing from a different IP address every 15 minutes?Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

could someone verify, that the quoted data by the manufacturer, which are, as the URL already proves, related to the Version of the SU-25, which is exported (SU-25K), are also true for the other versions of the plane? As this Page is already used for narratives on both sides, we should work precisly, as it is common, that exported versions are not state of the art and cannot compete with the original version.

We dont normally detail the specs for more than one version (in this case "Su-25/Su-25K, late production") unless for some reason it is a big difference and notable and then that is dealt with in the "variants" section. MilborneOne (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

isn't this somehow a problem in this situation? it is obvious, that this article is quoted in the thousands in the current situation, but the source for the claim, that the SU-25 cannot reach the claimed high, is backed by a weaker variation of the SU-25, which is not in use by the ukrainian airforce.

If you have solid reference for the existence of a more capable version being in use with the Ukrainian air force, you're welcome. Otherwise, your assertions are in the realm of the typical conspiracy website, which Wikipedia is not. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

First i think it shows very bad manners to accuse me of searching for a conspiracy, where i didn't. I asked for precision. As for the Source you can simply follow the article to the ukranian air force on this very site. It states wich versions of the SU-25 are in use.

Ok, here goes. The Ukrainian air force uses the following variants:
Su-25 (no suffix), the original version, most likely "inherited" from the USSR when it broke up, and most likely the oldest planes in the fleet;
Su-25UB, a trainer variant;
Su-25K, the current production model;
Su-25UTG, another trainer variant;
Su-25M1, a modernized version, only one built;
Su-25UBM, yet another trainer variant.
Which of these versions might be the one with "secretly enhanced capabilities"?
Please note that a significantly improved service ceiling would require significant modifications to the airframe, most importantly the wing, and to any experienced observer such modifications would be clearly visible. If such a version exist, JANE would most certainly know about it. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Details: Russians Scramble To Edit Wikipedia So The Kremlin's Claims Make Sense --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The airframe oft the Su-25 must be really bad. It has mostly the same power and weight of a Fairchild-Republic A-10 but its ceiling is 6.7km higher.--88.76.234.76 (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of the airframe being good or bad, it's a matter of design tradeoffs. For the designers of the Su-25 (and presumably its users), apparently a high ceiling was not important, after all it's a ground attack aircraft. The A-10 has a much higher ceiling, but therefore it needs (and indeed has) a much bigger wing which makes for a less compact aircraft. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 July 2014 #1

Hi, In the performance section of the specifications, the service ceiling heights are incorrectly converted.

Page reads: Service ceiling: 10,000 m (22,960 ft) clean, 9,000 m (30,000 ft) with max weapons

Should read as follows: Service ceiling: 10,000 m (32,808 ft) clean, 9,000 m (29,527 ft) with max weapons

Thanks, Mike from OH 107.10.180.42 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The page actually says 7,000/22,965 which is referenced, you need to find a reliable reference and gain the consensus of other users on this page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

7000-10000 per Ukrainian official webpage of Ukrainian government arms trading company http://uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25

Protected edit request on 21 July 2014 #2

I would like to correct an error in the article on SU-25. It says that its maximum service ceiling is "7,000 m, or 5,000 m when fully armed". However, the Russian Chief of Staff Gen. Kartapalov today announced that a SU-25 can easily fly and operate at altitudes higher than 10,000 m. I believe the Russian Chief of Staff trumps Wikipedia when it comes to knowledge about Russian military planes. Thus my humble request to increase the ceiling to 10,000 m, or just in case - to 20,000, to avoid further requests. 212.5.158.253 (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The figures in the article are referenced, you need to find a reliable reference and gain the consensus of other users on this page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow. A Wikipedia edit war is an actual propaganda misinformation war for a real shoot-em-dead-with-ak47 war. And I'm old enough to know a time when the word "Internet" did not exist. I feel like the South Korean lady who described how in her childhood her family lived in a hole in the ground. 88.112.50.121 (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I also believe the Russian Chief of Staff Gen. Kartapalov knows the capabilities of Russian military planes. Su-25TM (Su-39) has a service ceiling of 10,000 m [1]. However, it is a Russian Su-25 variant which the Ukrainian Air Force doesn't operate. Perhaps this service ceiling information could be added to the article under the Su-25TM (Su-39) section if necessary? - 91.157.56.43 (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It has a "maximum ceiling" (according to GS) of 10,000 m, the service ceiling is still 7,000 m.
Note that "maximum ceiling" is a somewhat vague term. It certainly doesn't imply stable flight at that altitude.
Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
There may be reasons why a Russian general might not be the most reliable encyclopedic source at this time. 88.112.50.121 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Russian general is not, but official webpage of Ukrainian government arms trading company is. See specifications of Ukrainian SU-25 as per Ukrainian military http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25 - Practical ceiling 7000-10000. Ukrainian military confirms what Russian general said. Unfortunately Ukrainian mass media are full of lies over 5000-7000 m ceiling of SU 25 for known reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.149.173.200 (talk • contribs)
I try to assume good faith even when edits are clearly motivated by politics. Further research continues to show that those "putinbots" aren't entirely wrong. There are Su-25 variants that have 10,000 m service ceiling. From the book references of this article: Bedretdinov, Ilʹdar (2002). Штурмовик Су-25 и его модификации (in Russian) (2nd ed.). Moscow: Bedretdinov i Ko. ISBN 978-5-901668-01-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) The service ceiling of Su-25T and Su-25TM (Su-39) is 10 km. The type of engines used dictates the service ceiling. All Su-25 variants equipped with ru:Р-195 engines have 10 km service ceiling, while those using older ru:Р-95Ш engines have 7 km service ceiling. References in ru:Су-25, ru:Су-25Т and ru:Су-39 may also be useful. Unfortunately, most information on soviet-era hardware tend to be in Russian. This article might need an expert's help. The engine type and service ceiling currently listed in the article do not match. - 91.157.56.43 (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The manufacturer's website states that the Su-25K is fitted with P-195 engines, and that it has a service ceiling of 7,000 m. So you'd assume the information on the manufacturer's site is incorrect? That seems unlikely, they build the plane after all. And with 30 years of engineering experience under my belt, this much I know: in case of contradictions on specs, go with the manufacturer's data - it's more likely to be correct. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Mind NPA:WP - No personal attacks, 91.157.56.43. Rather attempts to lessen ceiling of SU 25 are politically motivated, since modernization suggests improvements always. Ukrainian army officially sells SU 25 with ceiling 7000-10000. It's the fact. Anything else is simply the pot calling the kettle black.91.149.173.200 (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I really wonder who's the pot calling the kettle black here, as the service ceiling given in the article is consistent with the manufacturer's published data, and there have been no "politically motivated attempts to lessen ceiling", but rather the opposite. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
And I really wonder if Rocknrollsuicide would use outdated 1950-ies specifications for AK-47 rifle entry, pretending for being utmost correct and true? Oh, look, you could also mention Crusade agenda in current Pope entry, why not?
Please, indicate for which specific modification of Su-25 the data from manufacturer's website is applicable, huh? Could you also indicate for which specific moment this data was applicable? Wikipedia is not a simple copypaste from the original sauce... [Special:Contributions/91.149.173.200|91.149.173.200]] (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The specs given in the article are for the current production aircraft (Su-25K) as specified on the manufacturer's web site, which is linked elsewhere on this talk page but I'll repeat for convenience: http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/. That's as referenced as it can get. And lay off the personal attacks please. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
If there are modifications of Su-25 with ceiling of 10 000 m, then what prevents to write a range in ceiling entry of technical description in the article? There are no different specifications of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II modifications which, though exist. To reiterate - nothing prevents us from indicating range in ceiling entry of the article. 91.149.173.200 (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe we're all in agreement over the specifications section. It is reliably referenced, accurate and there is no reason to change to a different variant from Su-25K. But variants capable of higher service ceiling should be given due but not undue weight. Agree/disagree? - 91.157.56.43 (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I would agree for indication of range 7000-10000 as Ceiling in specifications per reliable source - Ukrainian government arms trading company. The same way it is done in other war airplanes entries in Wikipedia. To leave the old entry means then we need to indicate for which specific old modification of Su-25 this entry is applicable. 91.149.173.200 (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The specific variant described is indicated in the section name Specifications (Su-25/Su-25K, late production) in a manner that is consistent with WikiProject Aircraft § Aircraft specifications and other aircraft articles on English Wikipedia. Furthermore, the cited 7,000 m service ceiling attribute has a reference link, so that information should be very easily verifiable by readers.
What I see as a problem with the current article is that it makes absolutely no mention of the variants capable of 10,000 m service ceiling. Including that information in the relevant sections should hopefully calm any future editwarring over the service ceilings. - 91.157.56.43 (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd propose we'd leave this to an editor who has access to Jane's. If a more capable variant exist, Jane's will certainly have the specs. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that editing should be left to experienced, neutral editors who are experts on the topic. But I would also like to point out that you have been constantly ignoring valid sources or trying to invalidate them and now you are favoring one source. That is definitely not NPOV. - 91.157.56.43 (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter what the ceiling of the highest-flying Su-25 variant is unless we know what variant the mythical Su-25 near the airliner was. If there was an Su-25 nearby, it's more likely it was the intended target of the missiles, especially given that 2 Su-25s were shot down by missiles today. - BilCat (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I personally doubt the entire Russian story. Especially the implied claim of a lightweight air-to-air missile destroying an airliner like that is ridiculous. But whatever happened is irrelevant. Recent events should not concern this article outside its operational history section. More capable variants exist and sources already cited in the article confirm this. Denying them their due weight would violate WP:NPOV. Perhaps in the future those variants will have their own articles like they do in ru.wikipedia. But for now, their upgraded features should be included in this article. - 91.157.56.43 (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the efforts to include upgraded features began with the release of the Russian propaganda, which makes the timing highly suspicious. WP has no deadlines, so there's no hurry. Give it some time, and come back with reliable published third-party sources after this has settled down. But refusing to drop the WP:STICK won't help your case. - BilCat (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I can understand the suspicion - naturally, the interest in this was caused by said propaganda and reports of its effect on wikipedia. At first I was laughing at the editwar and tried to help stop it before the article got protected. But I honestly thought the point of the protection was to encourage talk page discussion and consensus with no ulterior motive of maintaining status quo on the article. I'm sorry to have wasted everyone's time with my comments. - 91.157.56.43 (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is video from 1995. Su-25 flying 8700. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY_2NoHdNso. Actually with weapon load - it's visible on 5:33. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.132.28 (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you know how an air pressure altimeter works? It only takes the turning of the adjustment knob to make it show whatever altitude you want to (within some limits). A film of an altimeter is no valid proof, see http://weatherjackwilliams.com/jacks-writing/aviation-autoracing/altimeter-lies/Skunkjobb (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I've seen that video, including the shot of the altimeter reading 8 thousand something. But here's the knocker: airplane altimeters everywhere in the world read in feet, not in meters. Even Russian military planes are no exception. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually no, it's definitely in meters. The Su-25 barometric altimeter gauge says "ВЫСОТА" (height) in "МЕТРЫ" (meters). But barometric altimeters aren't all that reliable. The more accurate radar altimeter below is also graded in meters, but it is capped at 1500, no doubt to facilitate the kind of terrain-dodging the aircraft is designed for. Anyway, the aircraft in the video are undoubtedly flying at substantial altitude, but any exact figures cannot be extracted from this material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2002:4E46:D841:E41F:4626:51F9:D75B (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Service ceiling

Service ceiling now is incorrect- wrongly calculated feet vs meters. Doesn't make sense. Please correct it. 92.40.249.67 (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Only 1 number is off due to rounding after unit conversion. The specs table lists 7,000 m & 22,966 ft for clean configuration, and 5,000 m, 16,000 ft (16,400 ft without rounding) for loaded config. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
According to Ukrainian government arms trading company (http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25) Practical ceiling of SU 25 is 7000-10000 meters. Governmental company "Ukroboronservice" lies? Specification of Su 25 on its site includes air-to-air missiles P60.
Cited 7000 meters are valid only per Su-25K modification and should also include reference (Service ceiling (without external ordnance and stores), km 7) as per its linked source (http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/). We may consider also introduction of "Practical ceiling" entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.149.173.200 (talk • contribs)
Please sign your comments with four tildes (~) in the future. If you can find a reliable source for any specific Su-25 variant specs, that would be useful. There is no need for "Practical ceiling" entry. "Практический потолок" is "Service ceiling" in English nomenclature. 91.156.198.38 (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Ukrainian army sells SU-25 with ceiling 7 000- 10 000 link is http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25. It's more than just official :) and per its description I cite: "UKROBORONSERVICE is a state enterprise which major activity is the realization of state interests of Ukraine in the field of export / import of products, military-technical and special-purpose services. The Company was found according to the decision of the President of Ukraine in 1993. During the time of its existence, the Company has established business contacts with state and private establishments and companies from more than 30 countries of the world and gained a reputation of a reliable business partner. High professional potential of the Company allows it concluding and fulfilling the contracts of any complexity and subjects within fixed terms and with a high quality level." http://en.uos.ua/o-kompanii 91.149.173.200 (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Technical specification of Ukrainian sold SU 25 on English http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25" Practical ceiling, m 7000-10000".91.149.173.200 (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The specs on "UKROBORONSERVICE" also says this: Max. combat height: 5,000 m. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It's the height from which it could fulfil the main mission - attack ground targets
Shooting with air-to-air is also a mission. 19:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe we are looking at a case of astroturfing and recommend the page be semi-protected. 178.166.71.96 (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Could you, please, lend credible argument in which specific case there is astroturfing, thanks? 91.149.173.200 (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, one very credible argument is that, out of the blue, a handful of anonymous editors have descended on this page, who have never before been actively editing wikipedia but do pretend to tell long time editors, with user accounts and in good standing, how to behave. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The page was fully protected yesterday. No one but admins can edit the article. - BilCat (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I also have a suspicion that the editwar will continue as soon as the protection expires. - 91.157.56.43 (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to state that I made the above comment as IP address 178.166.71.96 and apologize for missing that fact - since the lock was not displayed (MediaWiki bug?), I assumed it was unprotected. In any case, I believe the protection should be kept at least until the matter cools down (a week before trying to lift the restrictions?). Ericloewe (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a Tass interview online (but it's in Russian) where Sukhoi's director of attack aircraft, Vladimir Babak, seems to say that the Su-25K could just reach 10,000m, but he does not think it could shoot down a Boeing 777 at that height. The 10,000m figure seems to be absolute ceiling: the height at which the jet just stops climbing on an average temperature-and-pressure day. How long it takes to get there and how fast it can go once it's there... well, it's just not designed to cruise fast and high as the Boeing is. So 10,000m is *not* service ceiling. The 7,000m service ceiling, also mentioned by Babak and confirmed on Sukhoi's own site, would relate to practical, useable performance (like good cruise speed, good dash speed and good handling), and the fact that the cockpit is not pressurised. Service ceiling and absolute ceiling are by no means always the same thing. -HB 31.185.175.23 (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Ucroboronservice (a state enterprise which major activity is the realization of state interests of the Ukraine in the field of export / import of products, military-technical and special-purpose services) reveils the same "secrets" on Su-25 service ceiling: 7,000 — 10,000 meters. Look at its official site: http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25 . Should it be lower than 10,000 meters, consumers might sue it for false information on this product :))
In a RTR TV channel talk show of October 10, 2014 Mr. Alexander Rutskoy (former vice-president of Russia in 1991 — 1993 and Su-25 pilot and regiment commander in 1983 — 1986) also confirmed flying as high as 11,000 meters aboard his Su-25 (its maximum ceiling being 14,600 meters) before attacking the targets and on return flights in Afganistan. No surprise. Su-25 is propelled by the same pair of engines as MiG-21 with service ceiling of the later being 15,000 meters. But one does have to put on an oxygen mask higher than 7,000 meters, said the retired ace. Въ 95.220.89.115 (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Service ceiling is wrong, should be 10,000 plus. The change to 7,000 is very suspicious SaintAviator lets talk 10:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct, except you got it all wrong. Prior to the downing of MH-17, the service ceiling of the SU-25 was listed as 7km. Only afterwards started the very suspicious appearance of 10km+ altitudes. Lklundin (talk) 08:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Global Service Ceiling

A number of Wikipedias that I checked (English, Danish, Swedish, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Polish, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Chinese) agree on a Service Ceiling of 7000m (clean or unspecified).

Some of these articles also specify a lower ceiling of 5000m with weapons.

But the Russian article lists a "Практический потолок" which more or less means "service ceiling" of no less that 14900m.

Additionally it lists a "Максимальная высота боевого применения" which more or less means "combat ceiling" of 9600m.

As far as I can understand, both the Arabic and the Georgian language articles list a(n unspecified) service ceiling of 10000m.

It is a problem that different language articles on exactly the same aircraft can list completely different specs.

My Russian is not good enough that I can start this discussion on the Russian Talk page (and in case anybody is wondering I don't actually know Arabic nor Georgian), but since there could very well be other language articles that specify other ceilings as well, the English Talk page might be as good as any place to start a discussion about how to rectify any discrepancy regarding the SU-25 service ceiling across different languages. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd ignore the Russian site completely, and inviting them here to discuss what's a dead issue at this point, trolling aside, isn't good. The Russian site is probably going to stay biased, but if you want to tackle the issue there, go ahead. But please let it die out here. Enough is enough. - BilCat (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I am however thinking of a general, technical approach. In the case of very specific information (e.g. fields in info-boxes), it should be possible to let a bot flag (preferably visible directly in the article) specific information, which in a given language article is in conflict with the same information in a majory of other languages. This would be handy as a general detection of disruptive editing of specific information and serve as a warning to the reader in case the discrepancy cannot be resolved. After all, such cross-language discrepancies are a real problem for the trustworthiness of Wikipedia. Lklundin (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know anything about bots, so I haven't a clue if that's technically feasible or not, or even permissible. It's an interesting idea anyway. - BilCat (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I want to point out that an older version of the current page listed the service ceiling at 10km.118.210.196.217 (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting SaintAviator lets talk 10:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.sukhoi.org/planes/military/su25k/lth/ here su25k 7km here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S90iCLNZUVI height of 14600 and shows how there were so many and then after the disaster corrected to 7 km, http://uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25 here urosayt official 7-10km !!

  • You all know what the maximum height ** ** this is for example 20 km (MiG-25) but 37 km (record and the height but not the flight), 37> 20. If 7 km without a mask, but 10km mask for breathing. Of course that the absolute maximum is much higher / more, and possible to carry a weapon (gun, it weighs one hundred kilograms (and hidden inside in a housing, it does not remove) - plane did not explode, it weighs 10,000 kg) and ammunition.
  • This is true for every combat aircraft, your plane will not fall apart and do not bump into sky / cloud, and will not even resisting, if you go up higher than the maximum (standard). Same thing if you fly up to the wheels or release the landing gear. It is possible although it is not standard. You are still a long time will normally fly and your wheels do not break away / complaint.

If there are so many questions about the height, it is necessary to write the article. 7km su25 (version) 7-10 km su25 (version 2) + text, any plane can go higher than allowed, but with significant restrictions (no load (yes it is true actually) and / or for a long time and / or loss of speed and the ability to steer). It is well known and does not even require a data source, each plane as any other mig25 can rise higher than specified for the standard.

In 2012 the 10 km ceiling for modified SU-25 M1 was the main selling point for Ukrainian manufacturer. See website for 8th International Aviation and Space Salon AVIASVIT that was held in Kiev Antidyatel (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Several sources, other operators, and the manufacturer give ceiling as 12,000m to 15,000m. The manufacturer gives the service ceiling of the Su-25MK as 17,300m.[1] The Chief Designer of the Su25 Vladimir Babak has said that the Su-25 has a combat ceiling of 12,000m. It appears from discussion here that the ceiling has been bullied down to 7,000m? Am I wrong? What would be the reason for suppressing the performance of the Su25 on Wikipedia? Santamoly (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Did you read the discussions above, and do you understand why the subject is such a matter of debate and why Russian sources are treated with great care in this matter? Acroterion (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I read the discussion above. There's no reason for me to trust the "low-ceiling" voices above over the Russian manufacturer's information, or some of the comments above that support a higher ceiling. In fact, the Russian manufacturer sounds quite believable compared to the contrary sources here, especially marginal Ukrainian sources. The question remains: why has the ceiling been lowered to 7000m in the article when there's plenty of believable information supporting a ceiling twice as high? Santamoly (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Basically when the Russians blamed a Ukrainian Su-25 for attacking MH17 they forgot it was designed as a ground attack aircraft that had no need for a high ceiling, so hastly the "ceiling" had to be raised in Russian sources to match the story hence the current difference in russian and non-russian sources. As the international tribune concluded that it was not an Su-25 involved its perhaps best to leave it as is. MilborneOne (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Put another way, the ceiling wasn't lowered, it was raised ex post facto to fit the story that was being peddled about the shootdown. That's why nobody outside Russia is buying it. Acroterion (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, not many editors here are buying the low-ceiling argument, especially since there's plenty of evidence (here in this thread, for example) that the numbers were changed downward. There's always been several versions of the Su-25, and it appears that it's always been a no-brainer to upgrade the engines for higher performance. You're the one making allegations with no reliable sources to back you up. Why don't you bring forth some support for your fanciful assertion that the ceiling was raised ex post facto? Santamoly (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Time I think to stop this as it is unlikely to change the current consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Good idea, let's put it to a vote. One "consensus" seems to be amongst those who subscribe to the "fake news" (or manipulated numbers) argument, versus the other consensus amongst aviation/engineering types who read performance charts. Both schools of thought are evident here. So we might as well measure what the various factions are thinking. What do you think? Santamoly (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Reliable sources listed in the box that the top of this page state that this article has been the object of a gaslighting campaign [2] [3]]. That was the conclusion of editors long ago. We're not going to play along with such manipulation, and we're not going to reactivate that discussion. Acroterion (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Acro, aside from your puzzling remark about psychological "gaslighting", and your odd interpretation of the editing process ("the conclusion of editors long ago"), I'm sensing that you prefer "Popular Science" as a reliable source over the manufacturer's data. Am I correct? I don't see your view reflected in any of the discussion here, but there's some indication that you're in the minority. How shall we proceed with updating the Sukhoi information with something more current? Or do you have some unspoken interest in maintaining out-of-date performance data? Santamoly (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll rephrase it a third time: the manufacturer's data has been shown to have been manipulated in Russian sources to serve a role in the blame-finding following the downing of MH17, and Russian IPs followed up by manipulating the data using those sources on Wikipedia. Nobody but you and a few Russian trolls has ever made a case for incorporating the altered data into the article. Reliable sources have noted and documented this attempted manipulation of Wikipedia, which precludes us from taking any seriously argument to change to use of the falsified sources. Please stop trying to disrupt the content, and please stop pretending you don't know what this is all about. Acroterion (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Why are you messaging me on my Talk Page in such a manner? Your message sounds menacing, like an attempt to intimidate me. There's plenty of reasonable debate on this topic from users with technical experience. Am I correct? Are you trying to intimidate editors into silence? Since you're obviously not a technically informed person and apparently have no understanding of this subject, I'm left to wonder if you're trying to impose a political angle on a clearly technical bit of data, a single number. This is what you said to me on my User Talk page:
"This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing."
I have never seen such an uncivilized message from one editor to another on Wikipedia. Your comments sound clearly menacing - even threatening. That is, I may be sanctioned by you for discussing the service ceiling of a jet plane, and you, Acroterion, don't want me to raise this issue in public. Are you suggesting that I be silent on this topic for my own safety? Santamoly (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
User:Santamoly: it is obviously a template warning for users who are in violation of the Arbitration Committee's decision on users who are here to disrupt Wikipedia and promote the interests of certain eastern European counties. There is plenty of proof that Russian trolls are working here on Wikipedia and your edits may result in you being blocked if an admin judges that you are here to disrupt Wikipedia for national reasons. Take it at that and as per the cited Arbitration Committee decision refrain from pursuing this any further. - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm interpreting your words ("refrain from pursuing this any further") as an additional warning to me to leave this discussion. Sending messages like this to another editor, especially with the use of warning templates on my User Talk page is in clear violation of WP's civility principles [WP:CIVIL], in addition to the obvious paranoia and menace on display as you try to malign my participation. Since this unresolved question appears to be several years old, it's easily time to sort out the discussion. If you don't mind, I'd like to see a civil discussion of this particular performance number without your threats and intimidation. It looks to me like you and Arcterion have assumed an unwarranted color of right [WP:OWN] to this page and are trying to control any discussion, even though neither of you have any experience in aeronautics. In spite of your menacing manner, the uncivil use of templates, your attempts at intimidation, and your uncivil disrespect at all levels especially with respect to motives, I'm hoping that the discussion can be re-opened without requesting outside assistance from WP. Santamoly (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
"neither of you have any experience in aeronautics" - LOL. You can carry on in that vein if you like. I have tried to warn you that, as per the ArbCom decision you are risking a block, but you would rather play games. As per the above discussion, there is good evidence that the Russian govt pressured the manufacturer to change the SU-25's specs for political reasons, this rendering the current specs unreliable, consequently there is a consensus here not to rely on them. Given the Arbcom decision the onus falls on you to prove that these are suddenly reliable again. No one else here is buying it, so you have no consensus to reinstate them. - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to discuss this at WP:ANI. You are risking an arbitration enforcement action by pursuing a course of advocacy for content that has been shown by outside sources to have been deliberately falsified to manipulate WIkipedia. Acroterion (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Su-25 shootdown

Apparently, 2 Su-25 were shot down by rebel misslies today, per this. How long before the Russians claim the Su-25s shot each other down? - BilCat (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually the rebels took full credit for today's Su-25 downings, but the Ukraine government says they didn't do it and blames Russia. -Helvetica (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I was being sarcastic, ie, making fun of the Russian propogandists. - BilCat (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see - that would probably fall under WP:Soap/WP:Forum, but I won't tell on you :-P -Helvetica (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • One sentence is not an abuse of either. There's nothing wrong with menitoning two Su-25 shootdowns and supporting article. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Fnlayson - It was actually more than one sentence if you want to be technical about it, and in no way was constructive in terms of improvement of this article. It certainly does violate WP:SOAP to use a talk page to make fun of people as BilCat put it. I personally don't really mind the use of talk pages for chit-chat if it's fairly limited and doesn't impede normal functioning. But I've seen people yelled at on here for much less - for instance asking a simple question on a low traffic talk page. In this case I was just teasing him - hence the :-P I would note though that there's been plenty of ridiculous propaganda from the Kiev side as well though - for instance accusations that the separatists are shelling their own cities! (Yeah, that might violate SOAP too, but apparently one sentence is ok ;-) -Helvetica (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I only took the last sentence of the original post above to be 'soapbox' like. Sorry, I just missed the :-P. I am just used to simpler ones like :) and ;) Carry on... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
"making fun of" in the sense of illustrating the absurdity of the propogandists on this page by being more absurd, not just being mean without reason. I can't comment on Ukrainian propoganda as I haven't seen any of that type on this talk page. I took Helvetica's comments and :-P to mean he was giving me some leeway as a regular productive user, as long as I didn't continue to posts such comments here, which I haven't. Note though that the propogandists have seemed to move on, so perhaps my comments served their purpose in precluding further propoganda. - BilCat (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
a qoute

Currently, the Ukrainian Air Force operates approximately 60 Su-25, Su-25UBs, and Su-25UTGs, which are operated by the 299th Independent Assault Regiment (299 OShAP) based at Kulbakino, Mykolaiv Oblast, and at Saki in the Crimea,

  • Saki link to a pen name right is Saky
  • i doubt ukraine "operates" any plane in Crimeria
  • today -5 Su25s , update count if any letf
  • "curently" was long ago curent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.128.136 (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2015

Rook is transliterated as gratch, but should be grach 125.236.202.180 (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Done A quick Google search seems to agree with you (eg [4] [5] [6]). Stickee (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Niger as a current user

According to the Niger wiki page they currently operate two SU25s, but this isn't reflected in the page or on the operator map at the bottom. Does anyone know why this might be? 2.24.53.166 (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added it to the page, sorry it needs somebody clever to do the map. MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2015

Su-25SM The Su-25SM (Stroyevoy Modernizirovannyi) is an "affordable" upgrade programme for the Su-25, conceived by the Russian Air Force (RuAF) in 2000.

should read

Su-25SM The Su-25SM (Stroyevoy Modernizirovannyi) is an "affordable" upgrade programme for the Su-25, conceived by the Russian Aerospace Force (VKSR) in 2000.

as VKSR is the proper abbreviation for Vozdushno-KosmicheskieSily Rossii (Russian Aerospace Force). 50.65.67.145 (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed RuAF abbreviation. Since the Russian Air Force Wikipedia page defines it properly, it is appropriate to remove the RuAF stylization. However, in American English (can't speak to other dialects), various countries' Air Forces are termed "country" Air Force. This is pervasive throughout English Wikipedia, including the Russian Air Force page. Which is also what the title of the page, Russian Air Forces, is. Inomyabcs (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Sukhoi Su-25. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hardpoints and fuel

Combat range: 750 km (405 nmi, 466 mi) at sea level, 4,400 kg (9,700 lb) weapons and two external tanks

I just saw a picture in the news because Russia is allowed to strike targets inside Iraq now and there is a pic without description and I looked in the list of active aircrafts which it could be, it is a Su-25 with 2 external tanks. Combat RANGE means 750km to the target (than attacking the target, means using all or most of the weapon weight) and than fly back with a much lighter machine (since fuel is consumed too and I guess the external tanks are used right from the start and dropped as soon as possible since they create a "aerodynamic drag" (I hope its the right word) and they have a small weight too and every kilometer range is important.

There are 11 "hardpoints" for a maximum of 4,000 kg load. Could there be 4 external, 2 on each side for a small increase in range? There would still be 7 hardpoints left...and how many fuel is usually in soviet designed external tanks.... 250 litres? 200? The weight is only 0.775 - 0.800 gram per liter of kerosene anyway, so 500 litres (in 2 tanks for example) got a weight of around 400 kg only...

Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sukhoi Su-25. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su30mk/lth/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sukhoi_Su-25/Archive_1&oldid=1104583871"