Talk:Sukhoi Su-25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. A-Class
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. A-Class
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.

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...


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)