Talk:Sukhoi Su-34/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Su-34 + bomber + the interceptor

Based on Su-27 Flanker, it is designed for precision strikes, including strikes with nuclear weapons by air, ground and sea targets, at any time of day. And aerial reconnaissance. To act independently or in groups. To pinpoint attacks against, stationary and moving targets. Equipped to deal with interference, false targets, firing response.

this is a very good source says 89.105.158.243 (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oborona is not a reliable news site. (Hohum ^@) 12:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

OKEY) is the official site of the developer in English now89.105.158.243 (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC) http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su32/

Unfortunately, the text you have added is in such poor English as to be incomprehensible, also, please stop edit warring. (Hohum ^@) 20:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The IP being used by the editor is in Russia, so the editor probably understands Russian well, but makes mistakes in English. He/she is also making mistakes because he/she seems to be in a hurry. Can I suggest that the IP editor uses the talk page to say what he/she wants, giving citations, and we can work together to build up the text.

If we are going to add significantly more information to the text, then issues of structure and repetition are important. These can be address on the talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You know, there is a Russian language WP that this user can contribute to, asuming they are fluent in Russian, and have not been blocked or banned on Russian WP. People shouldn't make other editors spend hours trying to figure out what they mean. I speak a little Spanish, but not fluently, so I don't contribute there. Perhaps I'm just naive, but I expect others to show the same sense here on English WP. I know it's the largest WP, so many people fell the need for whatever reason to try to contribute here, even if it's incomprehensible. But WP:COMPETENCE is a good idea. - BilCat (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Russian aircraft are loaded with exotic innovations that are difficult to track by non-Russian speakers. It's not difficult for us to sort out good info posted here on the Talk Page, even if badly-written by non-English speakers. The Su-34 is over 20 years old and we still know very little about it. Sure, it can be a little extra work, but it's often worth it. Santamoly (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph that needs rewriting

I have moved the following paragraph to the talk page so that it can be rewritten in the English language and developed into something useful.

Radar system of the Su-34 can warn of the attack behind the attack and respond without turning the aircraft. The radar can simultaneously attack the 4 goals (in the air, on land or on the water). Has 12 dots for carrying weapons. Able to bear air to air missiles R-77 (pcs 6) and R-73 (still 6). Maximum weight a single of the munition 4000 kg, the maximum range of the munition for the attack 250 km. Maximum range for flight and attack of 4000 km, and with refueling in the air 7000 km. The cockpit is a continuous capsule of armor. Maximum detection range of targets in the air 200-250km.

I suspect that the information should be split into different paragraphs. It seems to miss out all the important stuff - for example the forward radar is a passive electronically scanned array radar. "Dots" should say "hard points".-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Maximum detection range of targets in the air for forward radar is a passive electronically scanned array radar 200-250km. Radar system of the Su-34 can warn of the attack behind the attack and respond without turning the aircraft. The radar can simultaneously attack the 4 goals (in the air, on land or on the water).

Has 12 hard points for carrying weapons. Able to bear air to air missiles R-77 (pcs 6) and R-73 (still 6). Maximum weight a single of the munition 4000 kg. The maximum range of the munition for the attack 250 km.

Maximum range for flight and attack of 4000 km, and with refueling in the air 7000 km. The cockpit is a continuous capsule of armor.

?this is permissible? 89.105.158.243 (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Radar question

It can simultaneously engage four targets, is there any information as to how many targets it can track and scan, and whether it can simultaneously track, scan and engage?-KTo288 (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 Russian military intervention in Syria

Local aid agencies report strikes against civilian and rebel (not ISIS) targets. The section claims only ISIS targets have been attacked.

I hope we don't see an edit war here. However I'd like to add balance to this section. Any thoughts?

Edit: I removed the claim, the source is not reputable, often doing things such as claiming grain silos are ISIS controlled oil facilities.

Development, Original research

In the first half of the article, if briefly mentions a "new nose" in a single sentence. It discusses the different radar stinger, different this, different that, but never anything about the major structural modification required to make the nose; if not for the photos, I'd be picturing a simple modified Su-27 variant, not one with a two-seat cockpit grafted to the front. This ought to be covered at greater length in the text. As it is, it doesn't discuss the new cockpit until the very end of the article, yet I'm sure the new cockpit was very important from a design and development point of view.

Next, in the section discussing Syria, I'm sorry, but I don't think "carrying what appears to be a FAB500 guided munition" is acceptable. That sounds very much like original research. It's not up to the person editing the article to evaluate and decide what the aircraft was carrying. If you can find an account where a creditable person says that Su-34's in Libya carry such weapons, fine, but "because I saw it with my own eyes" is not considered a proper reference. Now, if a creditable defense analyst says that he believes that he has identified Su-34's carrying such weapons in an article, then you can write that he claims that they did. DYI weapons spotting = no-no. AnnaGoFast (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Strike Fighter, NOT figher/bomber/attack aircraft

The Su-34 was built with the primary mission of attacking land and sea targets, with the capability, but not primary purpose, of a fighter. This would make it a strike fighter, not a fighter/bomber/attack aircraft. A fighter/bomber is a fighter aircraft that has been modified into the bomber role, and an attack aircraft is usually a purpose built attacker that does not have real fighter capability. 65.78.179.166 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)3/12/2019, 11:33a, Vince

Based on what sources? Such specifics need reliable sources per Wikipedia policy, e.g. WP:V and WP:CITE. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Duckling

Google translate I did not find an article translated by Google that pilots and the media call the plane "Duckling" because of the shape of the cockpit. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%83-34 "The flattened front part of the aircraft, nicknamed the" Duck, "is equipped with a two-seater cockpit, which implements methods of increasing comfort for the crew during long duration of flights." In the same place, link 18

Su-34 strike "Duckling": Russian Air Force will receive unique bombers - Zvezda TV Channel. tvzvezda.ru. Date of treatment: January 6, 2016. http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201503300910-iti0.htm

RUS Я не нашел переводя Гуглом статью, что самолет летчики и СМИ называют «Утенок» из-за формы кабины пилота. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%83-34 «Передняя часть самолёта приплюснутой формы, получившей прозвище «Утёнок», оборудована двухместной кабиной, в которой реализованы методы повышения комфортности для экипажа при длительной продолжительности полётов.» Там же, ссылка 18

Ударный «Утёнок» Cу-34: ВВС РФ получат уникальные бомбардировщики - Телеканал «Звезда». tvzvezda.ru. Дата обращения: 6 января 2016. http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201503300910-iti0.htm --2.132.83.245 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Untrustworthy claim: Operational history, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Claim of SU-34 shot down by old man with rifle, source cites Ukrainian governments claim and subsequent award of a medal to the man. The claim requires solid proof taking into consideration the extremely low probability of hitting the aircraft, the aircrafts high degree of survivability given it's nature of being a modern strike fighter (cockpit armour, twin engine, etc.). The source does not contain any such proof and is hard to classify as anything more than pro-Ukrainian propaganda. (This is my first contribution to a talk page and Wikipedia in general, please give pointers if I did something wrong) 5.56.146.200 (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC) Jon C. 5.56.146.200 (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• You did fine. This kind of entries just show what has Wikipedia become in recent years, in regards to modern political issues. And I had the opportunity to see it with my own eyes, since I have been editing for at least 15 years. An old man with an semi-automatic shotgun rifle, with an effective range to about 40 yards, has shot down an enemy fighter-bomber. I mean, who believes this crap:)? Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.123.254.10 (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  As explained elsewhere, Newsweek is a reliable source. You don't get to remove it just because you don't believe it. BilCat (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  The Wikipedia list of often discussed sources states that Newsweek articles from 2013 and onward are not generally reliable and should be discussed on a case to case basis. Context matters as well, as outlined on the wikipedia page regarding sourcing, so even if Newsweek was considered a reliable source it would still be completely within my rights to make the edit. It would be improper to use a reliable article that says "The Ukrainian government claims x happened, we have not verified the claim" as a source to a claim that says "x happened for a fact". If one wanted to use such an article as a source you would instead write "The Ukrainian government claims x happened, however this has not been verified", or some other variation of that. You don't get to post propaganda just because it makes you feel good. 5.56.146.200 (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Jon. C

  I didn't post it. I simply reverted its improper removal, as did several other experienced editors. I certainly don't make edits on the basis of how I "feel" about a subject, else I'd be removing half of what's on Wikipedia. BilCat (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  If you believe my edit is improper then you do as guidelines of Wikipedia instruct; Present an argument for why my edit is improper. I don't care how much time you've spent or how many bots you have installed, support your case or leave my edit alone. 5.56.146.200 (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  I have. It's not my problem if you disagree with it. BilCat (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  You're retarded. 46.32.47.219 (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Personal attacks are not welcome per WP:TALKNO. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The Newsweek article [1] is misleading and needs to be read carefully. Farther down it says, " 'Heroes among us,' officials said, adding that after Fedorovych fired at the jet with his rifle, 'the enemy fighter Su-34 was targeted and destroyed.' " So Fedorovych did not shoot down the plane but happened to shoot at it just before it was shot down by the Ukrainian military. I suggest deleting the item. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Finally, a reasonable response that didn't include screes about "propoganda" and "it's armored!" I agree with you, and unless some other editor objects, we can we remove it presently. BilCat (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed it and I agree with the statement that there is no proof the rifle shot was was brought down the plane. However, not sure if we still want to keep the event itself if it's notable. --McSly (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure either. BilCat (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@BilCat you should quit being an editor for the good of site. 46.32.47.219 (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Not planning to quit just to please a putinbot. BilCat (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

How original. 46.32.47.219 (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

So you've gotten that one before. Not surprising. BilCat (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Registration numbers and tail numbers

While reading the section 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, I came across mentions of tail numbers and registration numbers for SU-34's:

tail number Red-31 with registration number RF-81251

tail number Red 24, registration number RF-81879

registration number RF-95070

registration number RF-95010

registration number RF-95858 - Red 43

numbered Red 20 RF-95004

They didn't seem like very useful information for this article and I'm thinking of deleting them. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, I added to the section 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine the following

See also: List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War § 2.2 Russian aircraft losses

The parts about SU-34 in the list can be found with a search for SU-34 there. We might think about summarizing the section 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine of the current article, which is mostly a list of Russian SU-34 losses. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I rewrote the section as a summary instead of a list. [2] Bob K31416 (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It's much better now. BilCat (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Operational history with no operations

I've noticed the operational history section on the Russo-Ukranian war includes plenty of loss data for the Fullback,but very little to no information on specific operations, information about its performance, or what role they are employing the aircraft in. While I don't have any interest in throwing around accusations of bias/propaganda I do think this is relevant to include. Rsemmes92 (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)