Talk:Sukhoi Su-30/Archive 1

Archive 1

old talk

Regarding the picture legend: it says "Indian Air Force Su-30MKI"; however, the flag the jet carries seems to be ITALIAN?

No, Italy isn't listed as one of the operators. The confusion lies in the fact that the Indian Air Force uses a flag that is very similarly to the Italian National Flag.User:gelato 04:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to violate NPOV. Much of it seems intend to convince the reader that the Su-30 MKI, apparently one of the best operational fighters in the world, is the equivalent of the Typhoon and F-22, even though the only widely published comparison rated it on par with the Rafale, better than F-15, but lagging Typhoon and F-22, apparently because of the lack of supercruise, poorer integration of avionics, and acceleration / climb rate due to thrust-to-T/O weight.

Randall rnicameron@yahoo.com

Randall, You are implying the Rafale itself lags behind the Typhoon. That in itself is highly ambiguous at best. Can't see how you can complain about this article violating NPOV then.

Asking for NPOV on anything to do with a boy's toy like the Su-30 is asking too muc. They are all like that. The most you can hope for is to tone it down. After all there are no neutral sources. The only evidence you are going to get is going to come from the employees of one or other plane producer and/or user. Lao Wai 12:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I did some minor grammar editing and I removed the part where it said the Su-30 could engage ballistic missles. No fighter aircraft in the world can do this. DarthJesus 23:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats true. There were a lot of inaccurate stuff in this article but thanks to your edits, the article is more factual now. --Spartian 06:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll be rewriting significant portions of the article so as to include data on all variants of the MKI and have it conform to a NPOV and Wiki's quality standards-- Archerblack.

Bunk comparison

The Su30 mki is being further modified to carry atleast 2 and atmost 3 Brahmos air launched cruise missiles with a range of 300 km. Jakes.

A reasonable comparison between the Su30mki and the F22 and/or the Typhoon can be made only after the USAF and RAF decide to put up these fighters in mock combat against the IAF's Su30mki's. I do know that the USAF's F15s and F16s were whipped by lesser variants of the mki like the Su30k of the IAF in mock combat, and RAF Tornados were mauled by the MKI. Perhaps at some point in the future, the Raptors and Typhoons would meet the MKI, but i doubt it because the results could be disapointing. It is also not conducive to economic wisdom as far as the future of these aircraft are concerned especially that of the Typhoon, therefore, diminishing export prospects. Jakes

I removed the comparison as it's bunk. The original source for it is [1], a submission by an Australian representative in Parliament (or whatever their title is), pushing to buy the MKI, and naturally it exaggerates the MKI's abilities and shortens its competitors.

Point by point:

• nuclear weapons - this is interesting and unique; moved it up to the description
• combat radius - the source actually says the F-22 and MKI have the same range (it's a wash anyway), whereas the Eurofighter is less by some 40%. It is also the only source claiming that the F-22 is speed-limited by stealth factors (which is how I found the piece), which I judge to be nonesense without a technical source for the claim.
• the DRDO avionics are discussed above; and no indication is given to whether or not it's superior to alternatives. It'd be difficult for any outsiders to discern anyway.
• per/unit costs are very misleading due to the low purchase number. The various SU-27 derivative prototypes probably have an extremely high per/unit cost as very few were ever built. Indications were that if exported, the /unit cost would have been closer to $168 million.

Even this piece admits it's a 4th generation aircraft; the heading attempted to imply otherwise.

Hey, it's a nice piece of kit; a good example of an export user modifying an aircraft beyond what i could originally do. But it's no super-jet, which is what Mr. Jensen was trying to sell it as. --Mmx1 00:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The DRDO avionics were found to be superior to the import alternatives at the point of time, the MKI was developed, and were indeed better in performance to what the Russians themselves fielded. For instance, the Indian radar data processors on the MKI have been retained in the MKM variants and are part of the package. It is true that some of the assertions made by Carlo Kopp are debateable, but then again, there can be no single authoritative source on the MKI as the data would be classified. - Archerblack

Now that's just totally weird...

While it shows up "current" logged in, earlier I looked at the page w/out logging in, and the text in the "Pugachev's Cobra" section that was changed yesterday was showing the old version.

• looks around for where that Twilight Zone music is coming from*

- Aerobird 22:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge requests

I have initiated a series of merge requests. You will note that some of them have practically no content at all (Su-30MKM), and the whole series either overlaps with themselves or the main article. I realize the MKI article seems long, but I don't think there's a huge amount of non-redundant text. The precedent for this should be the integration achieved at F-15E Strike Eagle. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The MKI is the only one on which there would likely be enough information for a breakout; the others, agree totally. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 00:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The MKI is definitely deserving of a separate article. A case can be made for the MKK as well, but it will require more research than has been applied to that article to date — until that's been done, you can flip a coin IMO. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Let it stay as it contains a lot of information on this particular one. Expand it with more information. Chanakyathegreat 14:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the MKM article contained practically nothing, and has already been "merged" in. It's clear that the MKI is pretty different. However, how different is the MKK from the standard Su-30? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time to go into it much right now, but off the top of my head, the MKK has been the main version the Russians have working on to add and improve precision-guided munitions capabilities, including antiship missiles and a range of recce and targeting pods. It also has some external feature changes based on the Su-35, principally the tailfins, retractable in-flight refuelling probes, and (according to some sources) radomes. As I said, I have no problem merging the MKK back into this article pending someone researching just what open source material is out there on the MKK's differences. BTW, since the MKI has its own article, the baseline aircraft used for the specs on this page should not be the MKI. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. (I'd just entered MKI as the variant not thinking about it...fixed). - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 20:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For most, support. For MKI, I clearly don't think it should be merged. It's a pretty extended version; the article also describes MKI, not just Su-30. MKK also, probably, deserves own article, considering there are at least two of them, but could be merged as well, due to lack of content. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency with dates

Someone fix the dates. The article says it was developed in 1996 but the inset says the maiden flight was 1989 and the development was 1992. This makes no sense at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.12.97 (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Ukraine?

At the bottom of the su-30 template it says Ukraine is an opperator of the su-30, yet nowhere on the page is that mentioned...any ideas? Bogdan 00:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the Ukraine mentioned — and I'm unaware of it having any Su-30. Recently the head of the Ukrainian Air Force said the country is going to fund development of an indigenous Gen-5 aircraft instead of buy Gen 4+ aircraft like the Su-30. (Good luck.) It may have been confused with Belarus' announcement a year ago that it was going to buy India's 18 Su-30K and upgrade them locally to the "Su-30KN" standard. I haven't heard anything more about them since. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Rumored Japanese Su-30s

I removed an uncited (and probably uncitable) note added by 87.74.21.193 regarding rumors of Japan having Su-30s and am filing it here. It reads (with some editing):

"Notes: There has been unconfirmed claims on the internet about Japan owning about 150 Su-30MKJ for enemy simulation roles; however, both KNAAPO and Sukhoi deny selling any to the JASDF."

The possibility of Japan "hiding" such a large number of Su-30s should make it obvious that this is untrue. This internet rumor apparently conflates current reports of the Su-30 being offered for Japan's forthcoming F-X competition and a 1997 offer by Russia to sell Japan Su-27s for dissimilar air combat training. Japan sent two pilots to Russia to train on the Su-27, but declined to place an order. Japan is in the process of planning to acquire replacements for its F-4s and later its F-15s; this could amount to ca. 150 aircraft, but only "up to 40" are currently being contemplated to replace the F-4s and a selection is expected to be made in the next couple of years. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cruise speed: 870 mph (1,300 km/h)

The SU-30 supercruises?

Only in Wikipedia. The max Mach number (2.35) appears to come from Jane's, but the conversions are wrong. The cruise speed entries come from no source I have at hand, but do not appear to be dry thrust. The spec data all need a good combing through – and citing. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone probably mistook sealevel top speed for cruise speed, since that one actually is at 1350 km/h. - Dammit 08:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[2] 2135km/h in 11km is only 2,0 Mach. [3] 1,9 Mach with canard and 2 Mach without canard.--HDP 16:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparable to F/A-18E/F ???

There is not much problem to evaluate this statement in this way:the Su-30 is comparable to USA's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. But in the other way, I don't think "the Super Hornets are comparable to Russian Su-30" is suitable to say. They are not even in the same class. Regards ChowHui 02:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

High-Bypass AND Afterburning??

I don't think so. The article for the Saturn AL-31 gas turbine engine lists the BPR at 0.59:1. Hardly the 3:1 or so that would be the minimum to call a turbofan ``high-bypass--18.47.5.63 04:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Cobra and stall

I found this "The design incorporates a straked delta wing, with strake and body blending, also seen in the American F-16 Falcon. This allows the airplane to fly at extreme angles of attack without stalling -- illustrated in the so called "cobra maneuver"." passage rather disturbing. I think most would agree that a stall is either the condition that arises when angle of attack has been brought beyond the angle that gives maximum lift coefficient, or the condition that arises when airflow around the wings has separated from the wing. Both conditions are true during the cobra (as shown by numerous vidoes on the internet), so I don't quite understand what the passage I quoted is on about. --81.233.90.182 09:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is true wing blending does infact increase the angle of attack. But in the case of the Su-30 MKI there are other factors also responsible for the superior aerodynamics. The aircraft as a whole is odf very efficient aerodynamic design. I am an aerospace engineering student at British University renowned for computaional fluid dynamics and have been told by a competent source in the department(who of course I won't name) that CFD is overrated; i.e. you still have to experimentally test to know exact performance charecteristics. So, as far as the Su-30 MKI is concerned its capabilities are well known as it is almost similar to the Su-37 in performing manuoevers, and we all know what that can do! It might not have the high level of avionics integration of Western aircraft since they are multisourced and may not all be bespoke. But I wouldn't put too much importance on that(only it might not look as attractive a package),it does the job and anyway most systems are modular nowadays.137.44.1.200 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Tarun Khanna 7/02/2006

MKM variant

How about adding an MKM variant entry? - --124.82.15.15 14:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As in a seperate page, or a section? If you are willing to do the work yourself, you can give the section a shot. (USMA2010 19:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

MKK/MK2 Variants

The Su-30 MKK and Su-30 MK2 were developed by KNAAPO for the People's Republic of China.

Su-30MKI Article

I moved Su-30MKI info to the Su-30MKI Article as the Su-30 article was exceeding 32kb which was warned by wiki.Moreover Su-30MKI is most modern version and Most Advanvced Russian Fighter in active Service and is much different from other any other Su-30 Variant. The Aircraft came into news , primarily due to its capabilities compared to American Counterparts. All this leads to Su-30MKI dominating the whole Su-30 article.

Assessment of Su-30MKK/MK2 section

Assuming that this is a Su-30 article, I don't understand why we're citing JH-7/JH-7A and J-11? Also, the only J-11B exists in models. Production of J-11 has been cancelled after ~100 aircraft, and we have yet to see even 1 real J-11B prototype. Isn't it a bit too quick to assume that it exists (or will be produced)? -- Adeptitus 22:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

IRIAF Su-30s

Several conservative Israeli media outlets have posted articles on internet sites confirming Iran's acquisition of 250+ Su-30s recently yet agencies like Jane's, GlobalSecurity.org and various government agencies are only reporting that Iran is still looking for a long range multirole platform and that the Su-30 (or a derivative) is on the shortlist. Considering the heat manufacturers are taking from Western nations (particularly the US) for selling weapons to Iran, it seems very unlikely that a deal of this magnitude which would almost double the number of IRIAF's combat aircraft, could take place without any previous mention, not to mention without a peep from the US government considering the ramifications of such a deal. 31/07/07 2:32pm (+9:30GMT)

• Is just an INTENTION, why bother to list it in the variants? Regards ChowHui 05:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't even think it should since it's really just conjecture at the moment anyways. But someone else put it there, I just edited it. 31/07/07 3:56pm (+9:30GMT) Bobbo9000

• Why is Iran high-lighted as a user of the SU30 when they havn't even commited to buying any yet?

• I removed Iran (dunno who entered it, it wasn't attributed) from the list of users. Until some hard evidence is released of them being in IRIAF service, it's just conjecture IMO. 07/08/07 11:43am (+9:30GMT) Bobbo9000

This news was spread by the Israeli gouvernment so that American will give them F-22s. The Honorable Kermanshahi —Preceding comment was added at 08:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Map

The map shows Angola and Ethiopia as users of this Sukhoi-family. Can you comfirm that?--Arado 08:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The map must've been borrowed from the Su-27 article as both of those countries operate the single seat Su-27, but I believe do not operate the Su-30.--Senor Freebie (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Cobra and maneuvers

Most experts will agree that the cobra and varients of it are worthless in combat. It would not allow a pilot to "dominate in a dogfight" as someone previously put under the article.

Since the F-22 has thrust vectoring and can perform a wide variety of maneuvers as well, is it still true that the Su-30 can perform many unique ones? I doubt that. --itpastorn 11:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the unique maneuvers is due to its unique design of combining canard and thrust vectoring control, nonetheless, the wing span too an important factor. You may want to see videos if you still think it is hard to believe. Regards ChowHui 13:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I've seen maneuvers by both. The F-22 does the cobra, kulbit, tailslide, etc. This Video should put an end to any argument that the Su-30 does "many maneuvers" that are unique! I see one, and that is multiple "somersaults". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_za3KfMFKLk What recent source reliably claims that the Su-30 can perform many maneuvers that no other plane can? Maybe one or two, but not many!--itpastorn 16:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This discussion seems a bit misguided. The Su-27 was the first to do the Cobra and it did it without canards and thrust vectoring. Its unique aerodynamic qualities were a combination of high thrust, LERX, large control surfaces and the configuration with 'hanging' engines. All of this resulted in a relatively impressive maneouvre which is most definitely useful in combat. They certainly are not unique to the Su-30. However the Su-30MKI, being the first production Flanker to have TVC and canards was able to perform additional maneouvres which the original Flanker could not. Many of the maneouvres of both aircraft have been replicated by the F-22A, but it is as of yet unclear how the engine handles the loss of air-flow at such high angles of attack.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela a primary user?

Would it be correct to state that Venezuela is a primary user of this aircraft?Lucky to be me (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor adjustments and corrections

I have changed references to engine thrust given in kgf to kN (kilonewtons) as there is no such unit as kgf (kg force). kg is a unit of mass while a lb is both a unit of mass and a unit of force (sometimes distinguished by lbf for force). An object having a mass of 1 kg resting on the ground will exert a force of 9.8 N to the ground at the surface of the earth due to the force of gravity.Mac160 (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong - there is such a unit as kgf Kilogram-force. kgf is not a SI unit and is not very common. However as the person who reverted my post stated, the engine thrust given by the prime reference are in kgf. Roll on the day when everyone finally speaks in SI.Mac160 (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

See the thrust values at the manufacturer's page: http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su30mk/lth/ Other units are listed so there's no need to remove the kgf data. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Total Indian purchase deleted from Indian section

I only added the details here because the article was (and now is again) several hundred short of the actual Indian purchase. Hcobb (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want the entry to get into pending orders and such, but listing the 230 total seems reasonable. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Pravda source

I just checked out the Pravda source used to state that Malaysia has had trouble with support from Sukhoi and will be acquiring parts from China. The article contains some glaring factual errors, such as that the FC-1 and J-10 are "rip offs" of the Mig-29. They also state that Malaysia has had to cannabilise Mig-29's for spare parts for the Su-30's which is also quite dubious. Additionally, the cited part of the article says that Malaysia was open to the idea of buying parts from China, but they may be buying parts manufactured in Russia still or under license. If anything, this seems just like everything else in the article, an inflated attempt to accuse China of technology theft, something they have no official sources for.--Senor Freebie (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you expect from Pravda. Talk to any Russian and they will tell you that Pravda is crap. It used to be one the official newspaper of the communist party and they still have a bunch of weird articles, including UFOs and other stuff. So discard that source for any serious discussion. As for the Chinese copying stuff, well they have done it so much that Russia and China had to sign an agreement so that China will be facing huge fines if they do it again.

Colors of distribution map

Why are the colors of Chinese/Russian aircraft marked in red in the map? I see US-made aircraft articles marked in blue. Politics gets involved even when drawing a map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.82.206.14 (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Sukhoi Su-30 inflight.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sukhoi Su-30 inflight.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 17, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-05-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 16:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Sukhoi Su-30 is a twin-engine, two-seat supermanoeuverable fighter aircraft developed by Russia's Sukhoi Aviation Corporation. It is a multirole fighter for all-weather, air-to-air and air-to-surface deep interdiction missions. Its primary users are Russia, India, China, Venezuela, and Malaysia.Photo: Sergey Krivchikov

Eagle, not Hornet

Isn't this aircraft much closer in size, thrust and role to the F-15C than the F-18E? Hcobb (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

VPAF

Vietnam People's Air Force has 24 Sukhoi Su-30MK2V ,doesn't it ? Why we don't have any picture of Su-30MK2 in VPAF service ? Hoangprs5 (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There can only be so many pictures in the article. Nine countries operate various versions of the Su-30, we are not going to picture all of them. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

minor mistake

in the section "Performance", there should be a blank between "(1,620 nmi)" and "at altitude", but I was unable to insert it. Best regards.178.26.108.15 (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add it.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

India's Procurement Plan

It is reported that IAF is no longer interested in procurement of any further batch of Su-30. This information is being included in this article. The reasons why IAF is not interested is also mentioned in the news article. (Link provided) Sarvagyana guru (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong article. Specifics on India with sources belongs at Sukhoi Su-30MKI instead on this main S-30 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This was covered in the article. The text and source has been moved to the Sukhoi Su-30MKI article. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Operator section in infobox

Why is the Indian Air Force and People's Liberation Army Air Force is not being considered while Algerian Air Force and Venezuelan Air Force also flies different variants of the Su-30 aircraft but are covered in the infobox. Then what is the reason behind this ?

This article is an introduction to the other variants with more detailed information regarding specifics. But to not allow the two most significant countries having more aircrafts than the other mentioned is seeming very much partial.

I hope there's a much important reason for not including one party as they are included in another similar article. It will be great if the reason is being clearly stated inside the caution brackets. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Because India's version is covered at Sukhoi Su-30MKI. China's Air Force is similarly covered at the Su-30MKK article. This has been stated in a hidden note in the Infobox. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

India-Pakistan Standoff

On 27 February 2019 it was reported an Indian Su-30MKI was shot down by a JF-17 Thunder of Pakistan Air Force in Azad jammu & Kashmir as reported by India Today TV Channel. The event happened when Pakistan conducted surgical strike inside Indian Occupied Kashmir and one Indian Mig-21Bi and one Indian Su-30MKI tried to intercept that were shot down by Pakistan. Both pilots arrested by Pakistan.

This part should remain in the article as it clearly belongs to an Indian source. Not a Pakistani source. Also, the Su-30 MKI belongs to Su-30 family.

References

This is obviously not a reliable source. So it cannot be included in the article. The removal of that section from the article was correct. --McSly (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

How is it not a reliable source? It is from an Indian TV Channel called India Today. Faraz (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• The 2nd ref is linked to a forum page. User editable pages like this do not meet requirements at WP:Reliable sources, section WP:USERG. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec)You have 2 sources listed. One is a Forum and therefore cannot be used. The second is a 15 seconds clip posted on a random (so not official) youtube channel with no context. This is about as unreliable as it gets. If that event actually happened, more reliable sources will cover it and we can re-add the section. --McSly (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

15 second clip is not random as I said it is from India Today TV channel. I agree on the forum part. However, the video is genuine as reported by India Today on 27th of February, 2019. Faraz (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The clip is a 15 second screen capture posted with no context on a random, non official youtube channel. For all we know, they may have said that the report was mistake later on the same broadcast. But since we just have a cherry-picked version of the it, we have no way to know. This is the very definition of an unreliable source. Again, if that incident actually happened, it will be reported in national and international newspapers. We just have to find those reports. Although, the fact that we don't seem to find any after 4 days likely indicates that it didn't. --McSly (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I notice that editors are now using references that do not mention the Su-30 at all to try to justify the continual re-adding of this rumour - this intentional attempt at deception is disruptive and is completely unacceptable.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The video appears to be false. India tv never reported this news in its official website or YouTube channel. Also even the Pakistani government acknowledged that only one indian pilot was captured. India government reported that no su30mki was shot down. So this news is just Pakistani propaganda and should be removed. Quanta127 (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not very well versed on the issue. I think we should keep the section on India blank for now. I propose something like this:

On February 27, 2019, the Pakistani Air Force reported that it downed an Indian Sukhoi Su-30 in an aerial skirmish. The Indian Air Force rejected the statement as a cover up for the loss of a Pakistani aircraft, and stated that all Sukhoi aircrafts dispatched returned safely. :

On March 4, 2019, an Indian Sukhoi Su-30 shot down a Pakistani drone in Indian airspace.

UPDATE: I have updated the page to use more reliable news sources and cover both sides more fairly.

Leugen9001 (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

References

The paragraph is mentioning Pakistani part of Kashmir as azad Kashmir and indian part of Kashmir as india occupied Kashmir. So this is a clear Pakistani propaganda paragraph and completely unacceptable here. Quanta127 (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Faraz: as noted above, unofficial YouTube videos and forum posts are unreliable sources.
• @Quanta127: Faraz's paragraph is not good from an editorial point of view, but calling it propaganda fails to WP:assume good faith. Leugen9001 (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing

Three sources were used to claim that Pakistan said it had shot down a Su-30 - of these sources, Air Forces Monthly [4] says that the PAF claimed that two fighters were shot down, but does not say that one of them was a Su-30, and does not say that its pilot was killed. It does say (attributed to an IAF official statement) that Su-30-MKIs, Mirage 2000s and MiG-21 Bisons were scrambled in response to the Pakistani operations. The "The News" source [5] credits the Su-30 shootdown to a tweet by "The News Editor Investigations Ansar Abbasi" - so the PAF hasn't claimed that a Su 30 has been shot down, a news editor of an unspecified organisation has done in a Tweet - this appears to be media speculation. The Third source, the Daily Telegraph [6] says that Su-30s were scrambled, but does not state any claim that Su-30s were shot down. The statement that Pakistan has claimed that it has shot down a Su-30 are not supported by the sources and without something better should be removed - there is reliable sourcing to indicate that Su-30s were scrambled in response to the Pakistani incursion.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

″The News Editor Investigations Ansar Abbasi Tweeted, “Wing commander Nauman shot down SU 30 while Sqn Leader Hassan Siddique hit MIG 21.”

As per The News link.Faraz (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That is not a claim that can be attributed to Pakistan - it doesn't come from the government or the PAF - but from a Tweet from a journalist. It cannot be used to say that Pakistan claimed the shootdown because it doesn't say that - it says that some journalist has said it.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't India refuting Pakistan's claim enough? IAF denied yesterday officially as stated in the links. So We have both sides POV. Faraz (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

No it isn't - the article is currently saying that Pakistan has claimed something without a source - that is not acceptable for what is meant to be an encyclopedia. We are not meant to merely repeat any random rumour that circulates, half of which appear to have been made up to stoke up nationalistic feelings on both sides or to boost circulation for news outlets.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not a nationalistic feeling when your own IAF has come forward to deny Pakistan's claim Faraz (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not my IAF - I am neither Indian or Pakistani - please do not make assumptions about other's nationality or reasons for editing. Some people are interested in producing a reliable encyclopedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Just read this as per news article from INDIA "Pakistan made false claims of shooting down an Indian Sukhoi 30 fighter jet to cover up the loss of their F-16, the Indian Air Force has said in an official statement on the air space violation by Pakistani Air Force (PAF) on February 27."

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pakistan-made-false-claims-of-shooting-down-sukhoi-30-fighter-jet-indian-air-force-1471065-2019-03-05

WHat is not clear in this? Faraz (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

According to this india tv article Pakistan made false claims about shooting down an IAF SU30-MKI. So, what is your point here? Do you think just because someone from Pakistan made a statement that it shot down an IAF jet, it became an authentic information? You will need proof for that. Then indian side of the story, claiming that the Pakistani news is false, should also be published. Don't you think? Quanta127 (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Look the Indian Air Force came out yesterday with a press release denying the claim. So we have both POVs on this page. Faraz (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:OR, Wikipedia is not qualified to try to investigate whether a SU-30 was really shot down. Instead, we must report what reliable sources say. Right now, people are making accusations and counteraccusations of propaganda. This is not constructive. Instead, all parties involved should WP:Assume Good Faith and make a real effort towards resolving the dispute.

User:Quanta127 insinuates here that User:Faraz does not want the Indian side's rejection of the Pakistani claim to be in the article. This misrepresents Faraz's proposals. Faraz's current proposed version is the one that explicitly includes the Indian side's reasons for rejecting the Pakistani claim. We must discuss the merits of the actual proposals rather than misrepresentations of them.

The truth of the Pakistani claim is not supported by the sources, but the existence and notability of the claim are. Insofar as it is reported as a claim and the rejection is covered with due weight, it is unclear how there is a problem. We cover the existence of untrue claims like flat Earth by describing them as claims that exist while providing due weight to the reasons why the claims are false.

The question, then, is whether we should cover the existence of the claim at all. Some policies like WP:FRINGE limit the coverage of false or discredited claims outside articles specifically about them. In this situation, however, it is WP:DUE because it is an allegation made by a nation state and the existence of the claim is notable. We also don't yet know if the claim is a roundly-discredited fringe idea so we cannot treat it as such.

Due to the ongoing content dispute, I would ask that User:Faraz avoid inserting information that has been challenged over lack of consensus.Leugen9001 (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I never insinuated that I don't want the Indian rejection in the article. To the contrary, I want both, Pakistani claim and Indian denial to be in the article as it is. My entire argument is based on inclusion of both claims. Faraz (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. Someone else insinuated something about what you support. I am not saying you are insinuating anything. Leugen9001 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The notability of this incident is questionable. Reporting seems to be confined to the local region. International media do not seem to be reporting on the issue as a significant dispute between India and Pakistan. Thus, given that this is a page about the plane itself rather than the Indo-Pakistan dispute, the limited notability means that I now think it should not be included. Leugen9001 (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This story has now been added in the accidents section. And no reference for the counter claim is given. This is not an accident. There is no wreckage. This is a claim made by Pakistan which is rejected by india. So even if this paragraph is included it should properly include both POVs with references from both sides. Quanta127 (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I believe it is time for us to have at least a mention of the incident in the page where Indian denial is placed. We already have multiple sources for this at least. Faraz (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)