Talk:Sukhoi Su-30MKI/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Who the hell is this guy?

"India's Su 30 - Comments by Rahul Roy (rahulry@gmail.com)"124.82.8.49 20:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

AmEng/BrEng usage

There seems to be some despite over usage of American (AmEng) or British (BrEng) English varieties. There was an argument that an article which concerns a European topic is to use British English. However, no such convention exists; WP:ENGVAR makes no such statement. It does say that "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular national region uses the appropriate variety of English for that country.", but Russia does not have an appropriate variety of English. However, WP:ENGVAR does state "Where an article shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety—for example, by adding a word of distinctively British or US spelling—is equivalent to the first contributor in these terms". The first revision of Sukhoi Su-30MKI that was not merely a redirect page was created by Ajay ijn at 11:53, 8 July 2006. Referring to that particular revision, it is somewhat clear that that BrEng was used, as is discernible in section 1.5.1 with "b) Through the Colour Symbol Generator and Monochrome Symbol Generator Modules" (italics added). Therefore, I stand corrected and propose that that British variation be used on the basis of that point, not the incorrect justification "the usual 'convention' is that articles on European subjects use British spelling per WP:MOS". User:RideABicycle/Signature 04:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Angle of Attack Claims

I have serious doubts that this airframe can pull 180 degree AoA as claimed in the article. According to the Wiki article on Angle of Attack, the highest demonstrated alpha was 89.8 degrees for ten seconds by a Su-35. 24.61.36.80 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Does seem to be drawing a long bow. I've inserted a tag asking for evidence. Moriori 23:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just what would 180 AoA mean, anyway? Flying backwards? Doesn't make sense. It can do cobra-flips and double-somersaults, of course, like su-35, and in that sense, can fly backwards...

THE FULLFORM OF MKI

MKI stands for "Modernizirovannyi Kommercheskiy Indiski" meaning "Modernized Commercial India". THATS A FACT ABOUT SU-30MKI! WHY IS IT A PROBLEM TO WRITE IT IN THE ARTICLE??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samar60 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Total number of Su30MKI - 55 or 147?

Is there any source/logic for the "147 total" Sukhoi 30 MKI number that is posted on the main page? All the newspaper reports are saying 55 aircraft. Please post the details or I will change that to 55. IndigoIntentions (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tags

I suggest reducing the amount of tags on this article.Ar 5 tags really necessary? The whole article just looks ugly because of all those tags. --Fireaxe888 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess you haven't read the article - it's even uglier. Tags are there to encourage editors to fix the problems. There are so many problems that tagging every one of them would make the article nearly impossible to read. I thought I would give the regular editors here a chance to tackle the problems first, but if that doesn't happen, I'm perfectly willing to spend a day or to working on them myself. Experienced WP editors should have no problem identifying the problem areas on a quick read-through. The problems are far to many to list line by line. One major problem is that there is no attempt to even try to follow the WP:AIR.PC page content guidelines here. Also, the "Technical information" section dominates the whole article, and contains only a few sources - If I clean-up the article, I'll be removing almost the entire section, per WP policies on reliable sources and verififiabilty. Indeed, most of it reads like an advert, and should be removed anyway. WP is an encyclopedia, and articles are supposed to be summaries of the subjects, not detailed treatises. Until the problems are dealt with, please do not removed the tags. THanks. - BillCJ (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Name Change

the name of the article should be changed to HAL Sukhoi SU-30MKI as both sukhoi and HAL developed it and the MKI is more similar to SU-35 rather than the normal SU-30 Enthusiast10 (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Shenyang J-11 in comparable planes

Why is this being removed again and again?Atleast once by BillCJ and again and again by 59.95.34.40.Some logic please?EaswarH (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

since when does the indonasian air force use the MKIs???

the Indonesian Air Force uses the su-30MK and su-30MK2 and not the su-30MKI! or is there any citations showingt that they use the MKIs? afterall, MKI stands for "Modernizirovannyi Kommercheskiy Indiski" meaning "Modernized Commercial India". -samar60 (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I second that...removing the Royal Malaysian AF from the users. Thanks 20enlightened1 (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add The RMAF as an operator again. This article is about the Su-30MKI, the RMAF uses a derivative known as the Su-30MKM, which has already been added to the derivatives section.20enlightened1 (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

su-30MKI during red flag 2008

link to handicap of MKIs during red flag.

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3988 -samar60 (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides that, Red Flag isn't designed as a dogfight or air-to-air combat exercise, or even as an air exercise at all, but as a combined forces exercise. The point of Red Flag is to see how the forces work together in a combat theater, not to see how individual weapons, planes or vehicles perform. There are a lot more restrictions than they slapped the sukhois with. Though they usually let planes use chaff and flares. Not being allowed countermeasures is a terribly unfair restriction. There's not many opportunities to break formation and dogfight in red flag, especially in the canyon. 75.170.51.236 (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

--For one thing the article is clearly biased and favors then Indian fighters. Also the Indians couldnt use the datalinks because Sukhoi's datalinks arent compatible with NATO ones. And Red Flag is all about dogfighting, and they take place at high altitude with a false floor; meaning that if you fly too low it simply counts as a crash. There are numerous press briefings on Red Flag if you dont believe me. Nem1yan (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

More maneuvers needed

Almost the whole point of a fly-by-wire OVT super-sukhoi is the extreme maneuverability... only maneuver mentioned is the cobra, though, and as an afterthought to a comment about sustained AOA, which has little to do with pulling a cobra anyhow. I can't reference the following moves, because the only place I've seen them described technically is in a Russian ad video, but they include: cobra roll, a cobra ended by turning sideways, effectively a quick 90 degree turn; somersault, which is like a cobra that keeps rotating 360 degrees so the plane keeps going forward; double somersault, a controlled double backflip with the plane moving slowly backwards; accelerated turn, a climb, roll and 180-pitch move; vertical turn, a climb to stall/tailslide which the pilot immediately shifts to a downward path in the chosen direction; and accelerated half-loops, a way to quickly reverse direction without using a stall maneuver. A couple of the maneuvers appear effective for close combat, and the ad claims they're used in exercises. Maybe someone with a text link could add these maneuvers 75.170.51.236 (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

su-30mki is not derived from the su-35 but from the su-27

the su-35's first prototype came after the su-30mki went into production —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.233.14 (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Operation History

The following unsubstantiated editorialization was removed:

Skeptics note the IAF would enjoy a brief yet exciting existence in any simulation against the air combat units the US would actually deploy into real-world hostilities, and that the Pentagon wanted to lose Cope 04 to lobby for the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II.

The above writer/vandalizer did NOT supply any references to back up the above statement, which is therefore categorized as unsubstantiated speculation bordering on a conspiracy theory as well as childish sour-grapes by an individual of dubious maturity.70.83.175.116 (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

While most reasonable people would agree that the comments attributed to USAF COl Gre Newbech were way to generous and flattering towards the Indian Air Force and over the top, most reasonable people would also agree that the USAF has top-of-the-line capabilities. However, it does not follow that the US combat game defeats at Cope India 04 were necessarily deliberate and dishonest self-sabotage on the part of the USAF; i.e. designed to convince/scare the US Congress into approving funds for the F-22 and JSF programs. It is far more likely, that regular USAF F-15 combat squadrons whose AAMRAM missiles were jammed would likely lose in 90% the air engagements if they had to face 3 times as many enemy combat planes, including F-15 killing Su-30s, manned by competent pilots who are lead by a competent airforce command,70.83.175.116 (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

True that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.57.88 (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Is it me or does the lead just look like a random jumble of facts and not a summary of the article. A large section of the lead does not appear in the main body. MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thrust/Weight

The ratio seems to be calculated incorrectly. The actual ratio based on thrust and loaded weight is closer to 1.00 Nem1yan (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide a valid citation to support it, I feel you should make the change. --Gremaldin (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

-Neither of the sources listed for its stats contain the thrust/weight ratio. The information is correct but someone calculated wrong. Also the Su-30 page uses the same information cited from the same two sources and has the thrust/weight ratio listed as 1.00Nem1yan (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Actually I just matched all the stats against the sources and many of them are exaggerated. The thrust/weight, maximum speed, range, and rate of climb are all inconsistent with the sources cited. Nem1yan (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Then go ahead and make the necessary changes. --Gremaldin (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Article Protection

Because of the frequent edit wars, I think that this article should be semi-protected so that only autoconfimred users can edit it. Does anyone else agree? --Gremaldin (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, nobody feels like constantly cleaning the page because random people have an exaggerated and disproportionate idea of the plane's performance and specs. I could see if this was a new plane like the PAK FA where information is likely to be updated, but the specs for this plane, besides the radar and avionics systems, are highly unlikely to change. --Nem1yan (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Uncited changes to cited data

Can everybody please remember to properly cite changes and to discuss changing cited information on the talk page. Some of the recent changes to the article are not supported by the cites claimed, which is why they keep getting reverted. In particular, the changes to the specifications do not reflect what the KNAAPO and Sukhoi references say, and none of the sources say that the IRBIS radar has actually been adopted by India .Nigel Ish (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is really only one person who continues to change the specs. The page needs to be protected and constant offenders just need to be blocked. This has been going on ever since the specs were reverted back to Sukhoi and KNAAPO standards. --Nem1yan (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had requested temporary semi-protection for this page, but the request was turned down. It seems there isn't enough recent vandalism for the page to be protected. Maybe we can try again after a month or so. --Gremaldin (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

'British Typhoons Whacked India's Sukhois in Joint Exercises'

http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=109428 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.7.77.31 (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

JF-17 Comparable to Su-30MKI????

Discussion closed due to personal attacks

Some user(probably Pakistani) has been editing the page and referring JF-17 Thunder as an aircraft comparable to Su-30MKI. Su-30MKI is a 4.5 Generation Air Superiority Long Range Fighter-Bomber while JF-17 is a medium range moslty Day multirole fighter. In spite of reverting the change once, the user again refers it. It should be not added again as they are not comparable on any grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikarkashyap (talk • contribs) 13:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Vandalism? Despite of warning many times, still some Pakistani users add JF-17 Light Weight Single Engine Fighter as a comparable Aircraft to the Su-30MKI. I have already mentioned it previously that they are not comparable on any grounds. Therefore, I request the admins to block such users and see that JF-17 is not added as a comparable aircraft in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikarkashyap (talk • contribs) 15:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC) These edits are not vandalism per WP:Vandalism. There are as many or more uncited edits changing the number built or some specs that seem more unhelpful. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I've removed the similar aircraft field in an attempt to reduce the nationalistic "my plane is better than your plane" edits. Lets see if this removal helps to calm things down.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Thats a good thing. But we are not sure how many days it remains the same. So far, it was Pakistanis adding JF-17, but now-a-days its Taiwanese adding their 13000 kg MTOW air superiority fighter to compare the 38800 kg Su-30MKI! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikarkashyap (talk • contribs) 16:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC) It should not be nationalistic "MY PLANE IS BETTER THAN YOURS" but the more realistic view is that jf-17 ,f-16 or jas-39 are not comparable to su-30 mki they are much better than it . let us see what the more neutral Americans have to say . watch and learn http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZZGD4esp78 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.5.17 (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Current consensus is that the comparable aircraft list is not required, please do not re-add the section without gaining agreement here, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC) I agree with MilborneOne. @116.71.5.17 or better say a pakistani patriot. You might be thinking that your answer was very clever, but it was foolish! You say that JF-17, a 4th Gen fighter that can hardly carry 3700KG of ordnance with its 7 hardpoints is superior to a 4.5 gen, 8000KG ordnance carrying fighter. Anyway...since u say that JF-17, F-16, JAS-39 are comparable....lets check.it. But if it is proved that Su-30MKI is superior to those aircraft referred by you, then you should never add those aircraft as comparable ones. Okay?? Oh I forgot...Su-30MKI has 14 hardpoints..double of your JF-17.. Specification Su-30MKI JF-17 F-16 JAS-39 Tejas Length 21.935 14.93 15.06 14.8 13.20 Empty Weight 18400 6586 8570 6800 6560 Loaded Weight 24900 9100 12000 8500 9500 MTOW 38800 12383 19200 14000 13200 No of Engines 2 1 1 1 1 Total Thrust 246KN 84.5KN 127KN 80.5KN 85KN Top Speed Mach 1.9 or 2.0 Mach 1.6 Mach 2+ Mach 2 Mach 1.8 Ferry Range 3000km (5000 with Drop tanks) 3482km with drop tanks 4420 with drop tanks 3200km with drop tanks 3000km Rate of Climb >300m/sec (some say 355m/sec) Between 200-250m/sec 254m/sec 200-300m/sec 200-250m/sec Thrust/Weight Ratio 1.0 0.95 1.095 0.97 1.07 Radar Range 300km 75km 150km 120km 150km Hardpoints 12 (can be extended to 14) 7 11 8 8 Total Ordnance Carried 8000kg 3629kg 7700kg 5300kg 4000kg So, it is evident that in every aspect, Su-30MKI and all the other aircraft are superior to JF-17. Su-30 wins over JF-17 by a superb margin in every aspect. But if you still feel that JF-17 matches it, here are some links of course neutral. http://stratodefense.blogspot.com/2009/11/blog-post_22.html http://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/04/pakistans-jf-17-vs-indias-lca-tejas.html http://www.defenceaviation.com/2011/01/comparing-light-combat-aircraft-with-gripen-jf-17-and-f-ck-1-ching-kuo.html http://www.asian-defence.net/2011/04/pakistani-jf-17-thunder-or-blunder.html It is interesting to know that JF-17 is hardly comparable to HAL Tejas, India's additional fighter! So,even after checking this, if any user adds it again, then either he is <removed text>...</removed text> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikarkashyap (talk • contribs) 10:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Range

Range with aerial refueling is irrelevant. Range with either 1) internal fuel load 2) common external fuel load are what should be stated in the specifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkultala (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr Hkultala, range with aerial refueling is very relevant. It says a lot about aircraft performance and is very important when comparing different aircraft capabilities. I do agree that both should be included, as it is the case in this article. Don't forge to sign your comments. --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 23:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies Germ, theoretically, aircraft can stay airborne forever using aerial refueling, I cite the article itself:

In 1949 from February 26 to March 3 an American B-50 Superfortress Lucky Lady II of the 43rd Bomb Wing flew non-stop around the World in 94 hours, 1 min., a feat made possible by 3 aerial refuelings from 4 pairs of KB-29M tankers of the 43rd ARS. Before the mission, crews of the 43rd had experienced only a single operational air refueling contact. The flight started and ended at Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth, Texas with the refuelings accomplished over West Africa, the Pacific ocean near Guam and between Hawaii and the West Coast.

This first non-stop circumnavigation of the globe proved that, because of aerial refueling, vast distances and geographical barriers were no longer an obstacle to military air power. In 1949 four additional ARS units were organized by the USAF and both the 43rd and 509th ARS became fully operational.

This block of text shows that with aerial refueling, range is indeed irrelevant(∞ in range, is infinity relevant here? We're talking about a measureable amount of length the aircraft can fly, ∞ is not measurable). Therefore introducing max range with aerial refueling is very confusing, because there is no measureable max range. Gsmgm (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Sukhoi Su-30MKM

See Talk:Sukhoi Su-30MKM. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Minor point but most aircraft only have a finite range air-refuelled, nothing to do with fuel mainly to do with engine lubrication. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats true. Fuel is just one of the parameters which determines the range with air refueling. Engine lubrication, component fatigue and wear and tear of other parts are also important and that is what decides maximum range an aircraft can fly with air refueling. So maximum range with air refueling is relevant. Weather it is operationally important or not is different issue but I think that it is a good indicator of robustness of the aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.44.221 (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Re 'theoretically, aircraft can stay airborne forever using aerial refueling' , metal fatigue alone would destroy the a/c at some airborne point. (S. Reyna) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.90.106 (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• So all this being said, unless the actual w/aerial refueling range of the aircraft (with metal fatigue, etc. considered) remains irrelevant. Unless in an exhibition, an air force would never put a pilot(s) into a 90+ hour flight until the engine or other component fails.--Ctoshw (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft

Closed the above discussion as it has descended into personal attacks. Current consensus is that the comparable aircraft section is not included as it adds no value to the article that cant be added in the main body of the article. Please do not re-add the contents but reasonable requests to change the consensus can be made, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

First i am not Pakistani and i am not Mentally Deranged or is being payed by his government. like you biased and racist Indians. oh i almost forgot su-30mki has 14 hard points ,can carry more weight, has more engines, has more thrust and more range , makes me wonder how many hardpoints and weapons load can be loaded on an Antonov An-225 ,and since bigger plane in the air is so much better , why the HAL has been trying to make the tejas (mirage 2000 copy) for the last 30 (since 1983) years and with a programme cost of almost 3 billion dollars and counting, but still without a decent engine (F414-GE-INS6 being imported).

Its time you Indians wakeup to reality and accept that there are others in this world who have better things than you and who play better cricket (Sachin Tendulkar can be out the very first ball) than you and are much better people than you INDIANS.

Kindly keep your prejudice to you self and leave wikipedia out , and stop making these racist remarks with your agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.30.86 (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly has an editor made such comments about mental illness or being paid by a government? -Fnlayson (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Srikarkashyap made the comment earlier but I removed it, I warned User:Srikarkashyap about attacking other editors and he/she took heed. Meanwhile the hopping Paksitan-based IP user keeps replying to the statement making further attacks on editors. Both users are at fault but one listened and has made no further statement and one keeps adding the same statement again and again (despite it being continually removed and getting one block for personal attacks). Difficult with a hopping IP we may need to protect the article talk page but that could be disruptive to other users. MilborneOne (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

@Everyone here except IP 116.71.30.86

• It was me who made those comments. I apologize for the words but I never meant them for a specific person. But IP 116.71.30.86 says that he is not mentally deranged. Who said he is?
• I never said that a bigger plane is better. But it is common sense that a Light Fighter cant match a heavy fighter in terms of payload and performance.That's a fact
• You cannot compare B-2 Spirit to F-22 or F-35 or PAK FA just because they are all stealthy. The same applies here too. You cannot compare JF-17 and Su-30 just because they are Fourth Gen Fighters.
• I never said that Su-30MKI was the best aircraft around. F-22 is better than it. But is is surely one among the best, much better than JF-17.
• JF-17 and SU-30 are of completely different classes. They can never be compared in any way. I have already mentioned it above.
• Regarding HAL Tejas...

30 years was quite a long time but considering it is your first advanced aircraft, it was worth that time. HAL Tejas is quite advanced in terms of technology now even it was initiated 30 yrs ago.Morever, Pakistan has never built its own fighter as of 2012 while India did it in 1961 itself.

• HAL Tejas is not a Mirage 2000 copy. If you think it is, then prove it with neutral sources. I repeat neutral sources.
• But a neutral source says that JF-17 is built on a modified MiG-21 frame. Agree to that?
• http://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/04/pakistans-jf-17-vs-indias-lca-tejas.html
• HAL Tejas engine produces more thrust than JF-17. So which has better performance?
• So Shahid Afridi or Inzamam Ul Haq can play for 1000 balls? Thats great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikarkashyap (talk • contribs) 14:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article on the Sukhoi Su-30MKI, not a forum to discuss your opinions on the relative performance of the JF-17 or HAL Tejas. Such comments, are un-necessary and unhelpful. And as for the talking about the Indian and Pakistan CRICKET teams - take these comments elsewhere. There is further discussion on the comparible aircraft field at WikiProject Aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User Nigel Ish|and thank him for his un baised

comments (unlike User MilborneOne).I think that with these Indians and pakistanis,it is always going to be "MINE BETTER THAN YOURS" futile discussion without end.Just look at the

• http://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/04/pakistans-jf-17-vs-indias-lca-tejas.html (UNBAISED AND NEUTRAL SUORCE) "yeah you got my vote for that".

I just wanted to respond to "insulting" comments made by those Indian editors,i do apologize if i had hurt anybodys feelings.

Hey that neutral source was given by me(Indian). Not Milborneone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikarkashyap (talk • contribs) 12:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Comparable aircraft" tends to refer to aircraft that perform a similar role and are of the same generation. It also refers to aircraft that are direct competitors on the market or as one editor put it on Wikipedia, "an alternative on the same shopping list". The actual aircraft performance isn't what the section is trying to compare.

Neither aircraft (Su-30MKI or JF-17) can really be said to be "amoung" the best in the world, you only have to dig into some publications by Flightglobal or Janes. SU30MKI for example is woefully lacking in stealth features that are standard on high-end 4th Gen fighters like the SU-35, Rafale or Typhoon. The Su-30MKIs thrust to weight ratio, max-speed and BVR capabilities are also poor in comparison. Another thing to take into account is the Su-30MKI is currently at its peak development, its not going to get any better. The SU-35, Rafale or Typhoon are still yet to reach their peak in terms of development and capability. I think most people here will agree with me when I say that the HAL Tejas is not "quite advanced in terms of technology", as is evident in the Indian Air Force, anything HAL touches ends up with serious defects.Talk^Woe90i 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sukhoi Su-30MKI/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is not an article: it is a series of tubes lists. Karl Dickman talk 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Total number

Each and every link ascribed to the numbers in the section refers to ~100 aircraft in service. Sample this: 1) The Asian military review pdf file (Citation 1), so ceremoniously attributed to the 180 number, nowhere has that number mentioned 2) The Mid Day article (Citation 8) which is mysetriously attributed to the 142 number in this Wiki page, actually refers to 100 in service Given the glacial pace of Indian Air Force's aircraft production and induction into service, the 180 number is misleading and incorrect. I challenge any poster, to refer to any source which explicitly states 142 or 180. Since Mid Day's article is the most recent (18th August 2011) and therefore the most relevant, 100 would seem the correct number at that time. Given that induction rate is ~2 aircraft per month, we would now be at +6 or +7 with -1 to be adjusted for a loss on December 13, 2011. To me, the best estimate is 105. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.82.34 (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read in many places that the total planned mkis are closer to 320+Zoravar (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several different estimates and claims on the number of aircraft in service on this page. Can someone provide a number from a reliable source so we can stop all the constant unref' edits. All the sources I use show lower numbers and I'd rather not start edit wars by adding it. -Nem1yan (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This link clearly says that close to 190 have been received by IAF out of the total 272. The writer is an Air Marshal (Retd) of the IAF, so he would know. If there are no objections, I will update the wiki in one week's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndigoIntentions (talk • contribs) 01:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

2500km/h - Mach 1.9?

In the specifications, the top speed is listed as 2500km/h.Then it has to be Mach 2.35 as stated in the Indian Air Force Website. So why is it written as Mach 1.9?..Any references to support Mach 1.9? Srikar Kashyap (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sukhoi's reference for the specification table lists Mach 1.9 with canards. The top speed is 2,120 km/h per the KNAAPO reference above the spec table. The latter has been corrected. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Cope India 2004

Advantage to the USAF

It flew against older generation fighters like Mig-21s

the Su-30s had their Radars off..

Advantage to the IAF

USAF agreed not to use their BVR missiles

IAF used more aircrafts as compared to USAF

So, overall, the parameters were fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.186.137 (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Making changes to articles based on rationale like that is considered Original Research on Wikipedia. We cover was is stated in reliable sources per WP:Verify. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Top Speed

Has anyone noticed that the source saying that the Top Speed is MAch 1.9 is actually talkin about the relatively inferior Su-30Mk and not the Su-30MKI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.193.190 (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Bogus T/W ratio

Straight from Sukhoi's website, loaded weight is 24900 kg and thrust is 12500*2. So T/W ratio is 12500*2/24900=1.00, and this is with 56% fuel, since loaded weight only contains 5470 kg of fuel out of a total capacity of 9640 kg of internal fuel. 164.67.21.17 (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide that Sukhoi link here? Is that for the Sukhoi Su-30, or the Sukhoi Su-30MKI? Those are not the same planes. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/military/su30mk.wbp This should encompass the MKI. 2607:F010:2E9:4:C115:991D:E512:EB81 (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No it does not. The Su-30MKI has thrust vectoring control, canards, and a multinational avionics complex. Without explicit citations, we cannot assume its specifications to be the same as the basic Su-30MK. The only one who knows the exact features of the MKI are HAL and the Indian Air Force, both of which have not listed such details on their websites. Can your provide any other reference? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 22:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't the Su-30MKI a subvariant of the Su-30MK? Look at Sukhoi's office site for the Su-30MK[[1]] In the footnotes it describes that the Su-30MK can be modified on the customer's request to include canards and TVC, which would seem to indicate the Su-30MKI is a variant of this aircraft. On the other hand, where did the 1.1 T/W come from? That wasn't cited anywhere either. 164.67.21.210 (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

i am not very sure if that is true. But i am not gonna change the current figure. Will try to find the exact figures if available, otherwise this seems fine. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The official report submitted to the Indian parliament. You can read here why the Su-30 MKI is not simple a variant. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)