| Revision as of 03:06, 21 March 2018 edit2a02:a03f:4ee3:de00:68c8:9470:ac56:8661 (talk) →Global Service Ceiling← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 07:46, 4 May 2024 edit undoMaikel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,526 edits →Frogfoot |
| (111 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown) |
| Line 13: |
Line 13: |
|
|action2oldid=154176100 |
|
|action2oldid=154176100 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=A| |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell| |
|
|
{{WPMILHIST|class=A |A-Class=pass |Aviation=yes |Russian=yes |Weaponry=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=A |A-Class=pass |Aviation=yes |Russian=yes |Weaponry=yes}} |
|
{{WPAVIATION|class=A |A-Class=pass |Aircraft=yes |Soviet=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject Aviation|A-Class=pass |Aircraft=yes |Soviet=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject Russia|class=B |importance=mid |mil=yes |tech=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Russia|class=B |importance=mid |mil=yes |tech=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|class=B |importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|class=B |importance=Mid}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=e-e|style=long}} |
|
{{Press |
|
{{Press |
|
| title= Could this old warplane really shoot down MH17? A weak theory about a strong plane |
|
| title= Could this old warplane really shoot down MH17? A weak theory about a strong plane |
| Line 33: |
Line 34: |
|
| quote2= The Russian fiction that a Ukrainian fighter jet had fired the missile ran into the problem that the jet could not fly at the altitude of MH17, so Russian hackers then changed a Misplaced Pages entry to say that the jets could briefly do so. |
|
| quote2= The Russian fiction that a Ukrainian fighter jet had fired the missile ran into the problem that the jet could not fly at the altitude of MH17, so Russian hackers then changed a Misplaced Pages entry to say that the jets could briefly do so. |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|Sukhoi T-12 Shturmovik-90|Sukhoi T-12 Shturmovik-90|10 September 2022}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2023 == |
|
== Service ceiling == |
|
|
Service ceiling now is incorrect- wrongly calculated feet vs meters. Doesn't make sense. Please correct it. ] (]) 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. -] (]) 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. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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".] (]) 05:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: The specs on "UKROBORONSERVICE" also says this: ''Max. combat height: 5,000 m.'' ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Could you, please, lend credible argument in which specific case there is astroturfing, thanks? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The page was fully protected yesterday. No one but admins can edit the article. - ] (]) 16:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I also have a suspicion that the editwar will continue as soon as the protection expires. - ] (]) 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?). ] (]) 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 ] (]) 17:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*<b>Ucroboronservice</b> (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) <b>reveils</b> the same "secrets" on Su-25 <b>service ceiling: 7,000 — 10,000 meters.</b> 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 ] (]) 11:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Service ceiling is wrong, should be 10,000 plus. The change to 7,000 is very suspicious ] ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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.] (]) 09:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting ] ] 10:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Then a man says that flew above 10km without problems: http://rt.com/shows/documentary/197540-mh-17-crash-ukraine/ 118.210.196.217 13:12, 27 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 ] (]) 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.<ref>http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su30mk/lth/</ref> 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 Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 21:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Did you read the discussions above, and do you understand ] '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 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''? ] (]) 23:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Time I think to stop this as it is unlikely to change the current consensus, thanks. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 ] campaign ]. 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. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 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? ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 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 Misplaced Pages. 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? ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages and promote the interests of certain eastern European counties. There is plenty of proof that Russian trolls are working here on Misplaced Pages and your edits may result in you being blocked if an admin judges that you are here to disrupt Misplaced Pages for national reasons. Take it at that and as per the cited Arbitration Committee decision refrain from pursuing this any further. - ] (]) 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 , 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 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. ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 12:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Feel free to discuss this at ]. 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. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 12:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::Paranoid Russophobic conspiracy theories. Most of the evidence demonstrating a 10km loaded flight ceiling predates the crash, such as the reference work "Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot" by Alexander Mladenov published in 2013 (1 year before the crash), or cockpit video footage of a loaded Su-25 in flight at 8.7km from 1996 and uploaded in 2010, 4 years before the crash (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY_2NoHdNso&t=5m33s) or indeed this very wikipedia page itself at least until 2010, 4 years before the crash (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sukhoi_Su-25&oldid=403682927#Specifications_.28Su-25TM.29). Those Russians must be conspiring with the Reptilian alien overlords to access time travel technology! Conspiracy theories invoking time travel truly are the most bizarre, good to see that Misplaced Pages decided to pander to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Su-25 shootdown == |
|
|
Apparently, 2 Su-25 were shot down by rebel misslies today, per . How long before the Russians claim the Su-25s shot each other down? - ] (]) 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. -] (]) 03:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I was being sarcastic, ie, making fun of the Russian propogandists. - ] (]) 04:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Oh, I see - that would probably fall under ]/], but I won't tell on you :-P -] (]) 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. -] (]) 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 ;-) -] (]) 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... -] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2015 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Sukhoi Su-25|answered=yes}} |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Sukhoi Su-25|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Small grammar edit for the SU-25TM variant paragraph. "the container under fuselage" should be changed to " the container under the fuselage" ] (]) 23:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
|
:Thanks for your note. I changed it to "in an under fuselage container" as I thought that was an improvement. I hope that suits? - ] (]) 23:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
Rook is transliterated as gratch, but should be grach |
|
|
|
::Thank you! ] (]) 21:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 01:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> A quick Google search seems to agree with you (eg ). ] <small>]</small> 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? ] (]) 17:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have added it to the page, sorry it needs somebody clever to do the map. ] (]) 17:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2015 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Sukhoi Su-25|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
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). |
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 18:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Removed RuAF abbreviation. Since the Russian Air Force Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, including the ] page. Which is also what the title of the page, Russian Air Forces, is. ] (]) 15:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just added archive links to {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070806145244/http://www.vectorsite.net:80/avsu25.html to http://www.vectorsite.net/avsu25.html |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120520105340/http://en.rian.ru:80/mlitary_news/20120517/173508923.html to http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120517/173508923.html |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070210100345/http://www.scramble.nl:80/cz.htm to http://www.scramble.nl/cz.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=true}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers. —]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 15:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{Done}} - ] (]) 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 ] (]) 11:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090726012355/http://www.iiss.org/EasysiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=20268&type=full&servicetype=Attachment to http://www.iiss.org/EasysiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=20268&type=full&servicetype=Attachment |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081021053453/http://www.scramble.nl:80/gq.htm to http://www.scramble.nl/gq.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=true}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 03:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{Checked}} - ] (]) 17:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== wow == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article is full of propaganda, which is a standard in Wiki nowadays, but this is over the top: |
|
|
"According to reports of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights the pilot ejected safely but was shot and killed on the ground after firing on rebel soldiers with his pistol." |
|
|
The author probably wants to imply that the pilot's death was justified, because he shot at the terrorists first, right? Anybody who saw the videos from the terrorist themselves would know that they shot at him whilst he was still descending under the chute, so would you (whoever "owns" this article - probably some paid propaganda troll) mind rephrasing that nonsense to something more factual? Thank you so much! <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:The cited says: "A Syrian militant in the area told The Associated Press that the pilot was shot and killed when he resisted capture by opening fire from his pistol on the militants who tried to seize him alive." The says in translation: "The pilot parachuted and shot dead after landing." So the current text reflects what the refs say. We can change what the entry says, but you need to provide a ref. - ] (]) 15:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Pilot was not killed by rebels, Pilot was fighting against rebels on the ground, but later blow himself up with grenade to avoid capture. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Frogfoot== |
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/05/russia-rains-retaliatory-strikes-rebel-held-idlib-jet-downed/ |
|
|
|
Why this reporting name, and what is a frogfoot? Foot of a frog? Thank you, ] (]) 05:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
https://nypost.com/2018/02/05/russian-pilot-blows-himself-up-to-avoid-capture-from-jihadists/ <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
:OK, I did a li'l bit of research. The initial F stands for Fighter or Fighter/Attack, and the word itself is a two-syllable neologism. |
|
:Okay thanks for finding that, I will add it. - ] (]) 23:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Also, quote: ''"Frogfoot," the reporting name for the Sukhoi Su-25, references the aircraft's close air support role.'' ] (]) 07:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC) |
Small grammar edit for the SU-25TM variant paragraph. "the container under fuselage" should be changed to " the container under the fuselage" Largelizard (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
.png)
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
