Talk:Sukhoi Su-30MKI/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su-30mki-multirole-fighter-aircraft-india/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct wordings about Developement.

http://www.slideshare.net/HarshalTiwari1/hindustan-aeronautics-limited-ppt-on-fuel-tank

On page 13 , it clearly states that the Su-30MKI has been JOINTLY DEVELOPED by Russia's Sukhoi and India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. Please make the necessary changes with the above citiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.201.174 (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Excercises and deployments

Excercises and deployments are fairly standard for this type of aircraft, I dont think we really need to mention every time an aircraft leaves India unless it is really unusual or a first, adding the nth time the aircraft has been deployed to the same exercise doesnt add anything to the article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Citation regarding Indra Dhanush 2015 Exercise

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-air-forces-top-guns-score-wins-in-the-uk-1204336

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/08/07/423715/Russian-Jets-Beat-Typhoons-Indian- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.188.138 (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why the above links have been posted here - I have removed the bold text to prevent them from appearing like a new section.

Personally I believe for an aircraft that will probably not see combat a detailed history of joint training makes for interesting reading. Claims about 'victories' and 'losses' in training environments should be treated very cautiously as there is much room for tabloid reporting and "he said she said". I Have recently added the RAF response to the 12-0 claim in order to keep the article fair, but I will be keeping an eye on this article. It is already verging on bias but if this continues I will be removing performance claims from pilots of all nations (unless they agree)and instead base the section on official statements about the format and aircraft numbers involved in exercises. If people wish to continue claims and counter claims then they are welcome to create an exercise specific wiki page. STKS91 (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Disputed Performance claims have no place in the encyclopaedic page. standardengineer (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the consensus here is that we include the fact that Indian media claimed that they achieved this result, while the official response from the RAF was that these claim are incorrect. I have updated this little paragraph. The Australian Red Man (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is the max speed such an issue?

Seriously, what's up with people constantly increasing the listed max speed of this aircraft? Irkut and Sukhoi, the manufacturer and designer of these things, explicitly stated Mach 2.0 at altitude, or about 2,120 km/h at 10km altitude. In fact, we're giving this plane the benefit of the doubt since both sources state that canards bring the top speed down to Mach 1.9. Yet I see people continually trying to increase the top speed figure, sometimes with laughable reasons ("Su-30MKI is a specialized version!"). What's with this? Indian patriotism? 24.4.142.135 (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Untitled/unsigned

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_weapon Origin if for where the weapons was designed or first manufactured. In both cases this is russia not India.

National origin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_weapon Origin if for where the weapons was designed or first manufactured. In both cases this is russia not India.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.238.166 (talk)

You are confusing Su30 with Su30MKI which are significantly different planes and thus have their separate article pages. SU30MKI has India made changes which is why India has been added in the origin here. This is different than other entities. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This article doesn't use {{Infobox weapon}}, the instructions for that infobox are not applicable here. - BilCat (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

What is reliably sourced is that india produces these under license from russia, mki is just a variant of. The design and country of first manufacture is still russia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.238.166 (talk)

Please check the page for that. Also, as Bilcat pointed out this page does not use {{Infobox weapon}}. Please check what is being used and what are the rules before you have knee-jerk reactions. I would strongly suggest you resolve the issue you have with other articles before engaging in disruptive editing here. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to origin for su-30 and its variants for export the country is still russia, whether you use that template or not the section is the same.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.238.166 (talk)

Actually no. I was the person who added the "national origin " parameter to the Aircraft infobox, so I know how it's intended to be used. - BilCat (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It still russia, origin, country of origin, national origin its the same thing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.238.166 (talk)

No it is not. This is a variant article, and the parameter applies to the variant, not just the original type. - BilCat (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Of which is produced under licence from Russia, which is the country. That applies to this variant as well and all the others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.238.166 (talk)

Which is why Russia is included there already. - BilCat (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It should be the only one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.238.166 (talk)

While you're welcome to your opinion, you have no consensus to remove India here, and aren't likely to get it, for the reasons already explained to you. - BilCat (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Its not an opinion, the Su-30 and it variants are Russian produced by India under licence. The only reason there's no "consensus" is because of your stubbornness. There's nothing you have explained to why India should stay there unless you can source the design and development of the su-30 as Indian which you cannot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.238.166 (talk)

The only reason you're even arguing that India be removed is because you didn't get your way in another article. If it were really an issue for you, you'd be asking for Pakistan to be removed from National origin from the JF-17 article. But you're here instead. - BilCat (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a joint-venture, officially sourced. Su-30mki is produced under licence FROM Russia, because it is a Russian fighter jet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.238.166 (talk)

There are articles where Pakistan produces aircraft under license, but you aren't editing their either. And as I have explained you, variant aircraft articles in which an variant is produced under licence do generally list the licensee nation. I know that because I've added many of them. So what you're asking us to do is to make this article inconsistent with other similar aircraft articles so it can match a tank article where you lost an argument. Sorry, but no. - BilCat (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Which aircraft does pakistan produce under licence? The aircraft is produced under licence, its a variant of so why would it include the licence country? Its just an extension of the main article. Its only their because of personal bias. I will change the tank article don't worry about that, there is no argument there because everyone has avoided the talk page, but you indians know because your always there to reverse the edits. (watch ima change it using your logic and watch what happens ya'll be there in like 5 seconds)

Well, I've been called a Pakistani for disagreeing with Indian users on Wikipedia, but my national origin isn't relevant to the discussion. What you do on another article will is irrelevant here. As to what what oyjer aircraft Pakistan produces under license, there aren't that many, so you should be abke to find them. The licensee nation is included on the variant article because that's the way the aircraft project does it. - BilCat (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I don't know what to do beyond this, there is a lot of unfair activity on this site. Apparently anyone can come on establish a narrative and make changes and no one does anything, but when it happens somewhere else like here < ^ > than this happens. And I see you are active there as well, when something happened there you did nothing but you do here, do you see why that's not fair. No consensus was even built on the talk page.

Wikipedia is a large project, and English Wikipedia has over 5 million articles. All the editors can't watch all the articles, so articles are watched over by different sub-projects. Each sub-project has slightly different standards, because the topics are different. You chose this article because it's Indian related, and you wanted to retaliate, as evidenced by your "you Indians" comment. The correct place to deal with a dispute about a tank article when discussion in its talk page fails is not on an aircraft article talk page, but at WT:MILHIST. - . BilCat (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

There's not retaliation man whats wrong with calling indians, indians? The indiana article is an easy target. What just happened here is exposing the double standard and hypocrisy on this site. You are protecting this article, but have no problem when something happens over there even if its the exact same thing. The standard is the same, if that article was indian you would have undone that guys edit. But you have not.

I'm protecting this article so that it remains consistent with other aircraft articles. It's clear that you chose this article because it's about an Indian topic. That's probably enough to get you blocked for being disruptive to make a point. I'm not getting involved with the tank article~dispute because I'm not involved in writing Infobox weapons. I am involved in Infobox aircraft, which is why I'm keeping this article consistent with other aircraft articles. - BilCat (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

As I have just proven its the Indians that protect their articles and operate on wikipedia like this the most. And don't threaten me with a block man thats not going to do anything, so get that out of your head. If your not getting involved than why are you active there?

I am stating this for the last time. Please do not look at editors with the prism of their nationality. Bilcat has provided you with enough explanation. Wikipedia is not about making a point but constructively editing. I would highly recommend to keep this discussion on topic and behaving in a respectful manner. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

RCS

An editor has been removing the RCS value of 20 square meter from the article stating that "There is no mention of Radar cross section.Befor reverting,please do check the reference and visually confirm if there is anything mentioned in the reference link called RCS." The source is this article [1]. That link clearly states that "According to a defence ministry official, “It is an amazing looking aircraft. It has a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of just 0.5 square metre as compared to the Su-30MKI’s RCS of about 20 square metres.”" and that "[That means that while a Su-30MKI would be as visible to enemy radar as a metal object 5 metres X 4 metres in dimension, the FGFA’s radar signature would be just 1/40th of that.]". So it looks like that RCS number is properly sourced. Let me know if I missed something. --McSly (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Protect this?

Recent developments of Pakistan claiming to have shot down a Su-30MKI with a JF-17 might invite random Indians and Pakistani to mercilessly edit and mess up this page. It should be protected untill things calm down. DoomDriven (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

DoomDriven, page is already under semi-protection till 12 March. After that, pending changes protection will become effective. I don't see a date of expiry on that. —Gazoth (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't all the major accidents be mentioned?

I saw this edit of MilborneOne which removed details of most accidents of Su-30MKI because they were non-fatal. My point is that we should mention all the accidents which caused irreparable damage to the aircraft. Our article is based on Su-30MKI. So, the aircraft is more relevant for us than IAF pilots in this context. --Yoonadue (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Review the relevant project guidelines at WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION, specifically about military aircraft in Aircraft articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)