This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The Frogfoot was unpopular with pilots? It was respected enough by the mujehadeen in Afghanistan that they called it 'the German product', i.e. a piece of kit that was so effective that it obviously couldn't be russian-made... Jakob 11:11, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There should be a mention of the Navalized two seater that was built for the Kunestov class Carriers as a trainer. -- Mtnerd 02:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
KINSHASA, June 30 (Reuters) - A Congolese air force fighter plane crashed during an Independence Day display on Saturday, killing the pilot, the U.N. peacekeeping force in Congo said.
...
Congolese fighter jet crashes during display
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.86.144.210 (
talk •
contribs)
Should a "Design" section have subsections like "Cockpit" or "Fuselage"? -- Eurocopter tigre 18:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I will put the new Design section in the article, in about an hour. Maybe you can advice me after you see it. -- Eurocopter tigre 18:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Question: Does shoulder-mounted wing mean the same as high wing? Also, what format should be used on commas and decimal points for numbers? Like 13,5% is used in Europe, I think. Whereas 13.5% is used most elsewhere. - Fnlayson 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, shoulder-mounted wing should mean the same as high wing, but I'm not 100% sure of it. In western aircraft, the high-wing term is used, while on Soviet aircraft, you can find the shoulder-mounted term (see Myasishchev M-50). Regarding the decimal points, I think european type should be used (13,5%). -- Eurocopter tigre 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that's a minor thing, I'll agree with it. -- Eurocopter tigre 12:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I have the info for each variant. I know you won't quibble, but if I propose this article for FA, somebody else will quibble. However, I will put this article on an A-class review at WPs Aviation & Military History. --- Eurocopter tigre 15:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the advices, I think it should remain like it is know, with the latest variant. I just put the article under A-class review on WPMILHIST, you might want to throw-in your opinion about it. -- Eurocopter tigre 16:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
On the map of countries that use the aircraft, Pakistan is in yellow, but there is no information about it in the list of operators. I'd suggest either adding a section on Pakistan or removing it from the map. JKBrooks85 15:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
JKBrooks85, I think you are confusing Pakistan with Afghanistan, Afghanistan being the one in yellow. -- Eurocopter tigre 20:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little unclear by this part in the Development section: "Having taken into account these problems, Pavel Sukhoi and a group of leading specialists in the design bureau discussed the idea of creating such an aircraft. They submitted their thoughts to Sukhoi, and suggested that preliminary design work should begin as soon as possible. Pavel Sukhoi approved the plan.."
Is this saying Pavel Sukhoi talked with the design team and the team went off and to work it. Then they submitted their concept/plan to Mr. Sukhoi (not the bureau/company)? Thanks. - Fnlayson 19:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, that's my mistake, sorry. After they discussed together with P.Sukhoi, the specialists submitted their plan to him, and he approved it. -- Eurocopter tigre 20:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to say your opinion in the WPMILHIST Su-25 A-class review. Tommorow, I will put this article under WPAVIATION A-class review also. -- Eurocopter tigre 21:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe Ground attack is a better, more general description for the Su-25. The includes close air support and air interdiction. They are all close enough to get the point across though, so no big deal.. - Fnlayson 18:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure about this. The air interdiction missions are usually assumed by supersonic fighter-bombers. I'm sure you wouldn't send a subsonic aircraft, such as Su-25, in the enemy territory, because it will be a very easy target. Also, on the cover of Gordon & Dawes book, the Su-25 is designated as a "Close air support aircraft". -- Eurocopter tigre 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Rather than tag each individual image I am leaving a notice here. If you have any comments please direct them at the PUI listing. Megapixie 11:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The quality it's not very good (year 1989 picture), but I won't say anything if you put it in the article. Until I'll have permission to put the new images in, all other pictures are welcome. -- Eurocopter tigre 16:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Just received the first permission from an Airliners.net photograph. Hope we are on the good way. -- Eurocopter tigre 18:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment — If you've talked to the original author of those Airliners.net photos, can you see if he'd be willing to upload them without the Airliners.net watermark? I'm pretty sure that's against some rule or another. Additionally, is the Israeli Su-25 the SM or KM model? The caption says SM, but the listing is KM. JKBrooks85 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
All the photographers contacted gave me the permission to use their images, if I use the correct credit and reference. That's exactly what I did. -- Eurocopter tigre 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Victor12, don't you think that the lead you just edited is quite small for A-class candidate article? Would it be posible for you to make it a bit larger? -- Eurocopter tigre 14:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I also think that the lead should be about two paragraphs longer. Victor, would mind throwing in your comment on the WPMILHIST A-class review of the article, because it will close soon. -- Eurocopter tigre 15:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This looks like the only thing that was in the Lead yesterday that's not covered in the Lead now is this.
I just added the last paragraph to the bottom of the Development section. There may be a better place for it. Is that supposed to be the upgrade to the KM variant? Thanks. - Fnlayson 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! It doesn't matter if they weren't in operational service, because the Soviets needed an attack aircraft for close air support, and they had projects only for fighters or fighter-bombers such as Su-17 and MiG-23 at the time. Also, that sentence does not necessary reflect the year 1968; it represents the early-1970s when serious actions about this project came-up. Regarding the lead, it's not necessary to have four paragraphs, I just gave you an example of the size it should have. Anyway, you are editing the lead, so you are deciding which size would be the best. -- Eurocopter tigre 17:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
"In addition, an Su-25KM prototype was developed by Georgia in cooperation with Israeli company Elbit Systems in 2001, but so far this variant has not achieved much success."
What kind of success? Successfully flying? Successfully destroying targets? Adoption by an air force? Commercial success?
"The flaps are mounted on brackets on the rear spar on steel sliders and rollers."
I rewrote this as "the flaps are mounted by steel sliders and rollers, attached to brackets on the rear spar." Correct? — Michael Z. 2007-07-11 22:57 Z
In early 1968, the Soviet Ministry of Defence decided to develop a specialised shturmovik armoured assault aircraft in order to provide close air support for the Soviet Ground Forces. The idea of creating a specialised ground-support aircraft came about after analysing the experience of shturmovoi (attack) aviation during World War II, and in local wars during the 1950s and 1960s. [1]
This is a bit repetitive, with "specialised" used twice in a row. It would be a little less awkward if one instance was replaced with "special-purpose", which means the same thing. Or better yet, just write "develop a shturmovik armoured assault aircraft", which is clearly specialised by this description. — Michael Z. 2007-07-11 23:09 Z
"Artist's concept drawing of the Su-25" makes it sound to me like this is a manufacturer's design drawing. But since this is from a US DOD source, I wonder if it is a rendering based on intelligence information. If this is the case, a better caption might be something like "[U.S./NATO] military intelligence visualization of the Su-25, used before photographs of the SU-25 were available". — Michael Z. 2007-07-11 23:51 Z
Direct source: Su-25 concept image on DVIC site It's described as an "Artist's concept" there. - Fnlayson 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The article finally became an A-class! Thanks and congratulations to all the users who suported me in the improvement of the article! -- Eurocopter tigre 23:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is now under A-class review on WPAVIATION. Please feel free to leave your comments in. -- Eurocopter tigre 00:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Article is also under review at WP:Aircraft assessment. - Fnlayson 23:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
"The Su-25UB trainer (Uchebno-Boyevoy) was drawn up in 1977...."
I think rendering the initials in a bold font to explain the designation letters makes them greatly over-emphasized. At the very most, italicizing should be used for emphasis, unless an element is important in the page hierarchy. (In this case, since they are in already-italicized foreign terms, the correct emphasis would be Uchebno-Boyevoy.)
But in every single case in this article, the initials have a one-to-one correspondence with the initials of the expanded Russian term. They are already visually distinguished in the term in two ways: by initial position and by capitalization. And they are further visually emphasized, because they are part of an italicized phrase.
Additionally bold-facing them takes the formatting over the top, distracting the eye from across the page. It also doesn't show much respect for the reader's basic reading comprehension. — Michael Z. 2007-07-12 00:04 Z
I think bold initials should remain, as the readers would observe what those designation actually mean. It doesn't really matter for me in which form they are bolded (italicized or not), so do however do you think it is best. -- Eurocopter tigre 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's my best guess at the Russian:
Not sure about the nuanced difference between Uchebnyy, Trenirovochnyy, and Uchebno-trenirovochnyy. — Michael Z. 2007-07-12 00:49 Z
IRGC Airforce operates several su-25s. I have personally seen pictures and a video of them. Also take a look at IRGC's air force page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRGC_Air_Force for list of the planes they have. They have them for a long time now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.56.253 ( talk) 05:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I call for this edit to be reverted. It is extremely difficult to read and edit headers when they are close to the text and when there is no separation with the wikitext tags. Please tell us which header format you prefer, to see whether we can build a consensus for changing the headers from the current hard-to-read awckard state to a more user-friendly, editor-friendly, easy-to-read, neat, and clean state. NerdyNSK ( talk) 04:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
We must compare the Su-25 and A-10 Thunderbolt II. The A-10 was sold, until 1980 decade, only to the USAF and sells only used for other users, whyle the Su-25 is in production since 1970 decade until today and was sold (new) to many countries. The A-10 Thunderbolt II is better, but it was more expensive and bigger than the Su-25. Agre22 ( talk) 13:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)agre22
Would anyone be interested in including the schematic as seen at the Russian article? – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 20:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
What size should the diagram be? It's a little crowded at the current resolution (400px). 600 to 700 px should be big enough to see and still fit on all or nearly all monitors. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The diagram legend (item 1) designates the cannon as "SPM-17", while the specifications (as well as the references) has the cannon as GSh-30-2. A similar divergence appears in the Russian version. I'm not familiar enough to know if this is an error or is intentional. Robert Hiller ( talk) 03:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It is completely incorrect to say that it is referred to as "sturmovik" after IL-2. The Russian word "strurmovik" is a general term that designates the entire class of ground and sea attack aircraft (somewhat similar to USAF A-xx aircraft). It includes dedicated strurmovik designs as well as, say, diving bombers made in strurmovik versions. There are many aircraft in that class, IL-2 being one of the WW-II sturmoviks (also Pe-2 and Tu-2) and Su-7, Su-17 and Su-25 as post-war sturmoviks. The word is not supposed to be capitalized.
Using the word "Sturmovik" to designate IL-2 specifically is something that the authors of the well-known computer game made up themselves. It has no connection to reality.
Pe-2 and Tu-2 are not sturmoviks in the russian terminology, they are classificated as bombers. 95.52.62.75 ( talk) 12:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
See WP:NOTFORUM. Doc talk 15:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The 4 Su-25 of the Macedonian Air Force were never sold to Georgia in 2005. They are still at the military part of Skopje airport. They can bee seen in Google earth current imagery dated from 2013 41°58'30.40"N 21°37'20.61"E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.215.122 ( talk) 19:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sukhoi Su-25 kompo vers2.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 24, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-05-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey everyone. Just a heads up, the Bulgaria section is repeatedly being moved and content is being haphazardly deleted despite attempts to contact the editors responsible for the change. I can't revert the changes anymore as I will violate the 3RR rule. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 07:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
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:
\bairforce-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf 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 NotifyOnline 09:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Can someone edit the map to switch Iraq back to blue? They're now active operators again, as noted in the article. - Helvetica ( talk) 17:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The page has been repeatedly vandalized during the last hour or so by ip users attempting to change the service ceiling specs so they'd be in accordance with allegations by some Russian officer who suggests it was a Su-25 that brought down MH-17. Maybe a temporary protection would be in order. Rocknrollsuicide ( talk) 16:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
( 200.84.90.220 ( talk) 18:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC))
The Sukhoi web page with the specs for the Su-25 is here: http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/ Even if the Su-25 could climb to altitudes above its service ceiling - "absolute ceiling" - the laws of aerodynamics should tell you that it can only do so at the expense of speed, and the Su-25 is not terribly fast to begin with. Its maximum speed is only about 50 mph faster than the cruising speed of a B777, and when fitted with external stores it's even slower. A Su-25 really doesn't have a chance in hell to intercept an airliner in cruise, even if Putin himself were flying it. Rocknrollsuicide ( talk) 19:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
( 200.84.90.220 ( talk) 19:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC))
could someone verify, that the quoted data by the manufacturer, which are, as the URL already proves, related to the Version of the SU-25, which is exported (SU-25K), are also true for the other versions of the plane? As this Page is already used for narratives on both sides, we should work precisly, as it is common, that exported versions are not state of the art and cannot compete with the original version.
isn't this somehow a problem in this situation? it is obvious, that this article is quoted in the thousands in the current situation, but the source for the claim, that the SU-25 cannot reach the claimed high, is backed by a weaker variation of the SU-25, which is not in use by the ukrainian airforce.
First i think it shows very bad manners to accuse me of searching for a conspiracy, where i didn't. I asked for precision. As for the Source you can simply follow the article to the ukranian air force on this very site. It states wich versions of the SU-25 are in use.
Details: Russians Scramble To Edit Wikipedia So The Kremlin's Claims Make Sense -- Jaakko Sivonen ( talk) 20:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The airframe oft the Su-25 must be really bad. It has mostly the same power and weight of a Fairchild-Republic A-10 but its ceiling is 6.7km higher.-- 88.76.234.76 ( talk) 08:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sukhoi Su-25 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, In the performance section of the specifications, the service ceiling heights are incorrectly converted.
Page reads: Service ceiling: 10,000 m (22,960 ft) clean, 9,000 m (30,000 ft) with max weapons
Should read as follows: Service ceiling: 10,000 m (32,808 ft) clean, 9,000 m (29,527 ft) with max weapons
Thanks, Mike from OH 107.10.180.42 ( talk) 19:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The page actually says 7,000/22,965 which is referenced, you need to find a reliable reference and gain the consensus of other users on this page. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sukhoi Su-25 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to correct an error in the article on SU-25. It says that its maximum service ceiling is "7,000 m, or 5,000 m when fully armed". However, the Russian Chief of Staff Gen. Kartapalov today announced that a SU-25 can easily fly and operate at altitudes higher than 10,000 m. I believe the Russian Chief of Staff trumps Wikipedia when it comes to knowledge about Russian military planes. Thus my humble request to increase the ceiling to 10,000 m, or just in case - to 20,000, to avoid further requests. 212.5.158.253 ( talk) 19:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The figures in the article are referenced, you need to find a reliable reference and gain the consensus of other users on this page. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help) The service ceiling of Su-25T and Su-25TM (Su-39) is 10 km. The type of engines used dictates the service ceiling. All Su-25 variants equipped with
ru:Р-195 engines have 10 km service ceiling, while those using older
ru:Р-95Ш engines have 7 km service ceiling. References in
ru:Су-25,
ru:Су-25Т and
ru:Су-39 may also be useful. Unfortunately, most information on soviet-era hardware tend to be in Russian. This article might need an expert's help. The engine type and service ceiling currently listed in the article do not match. -
91.157.56.43 (
talk)
02:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)I believe we're all in agreement over the specifications section. It is reliably referenced, accurate and there is no reason to change to a different variant from Su-25K. But variants capable of higher service ceiling should be given due but not undue weight. Agree/disagree? - 91.157.56.43 ( talk) 16:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Service ceiling now is incorrect- wrongly calculated feet vs meters. Doesn't make sense. Please correct it. 92.40.249.67 ( talk) 22:12, 21 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 31.185.175.23 ( talk) 17:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Service ceiling is wrong, should be 10,000 plus. The change to 7,000 is very suspicious SaintAviator lets talk 10:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
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. Lklundin ( talk) 21:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I want to point out that an older version of the current page listed the service ceiling at 10km. 118.210.196.217 ( talk) 09:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Interesting SaintAviator lets talk 10:57, 28 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 !!
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 Antidyatel ( talk) 07:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, 2 Su-25 were shot down by rebel misslies today, per this. How long before the Russians claim the Su-25s shot each other down? - BilCat ( talk) 19:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
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,
This
edit request to
Sukhoi Su-25 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rook is transliterated as gratch, but should be grach 125.236.202.180 ( talk) 01:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
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? 2.24.53.166 ( talk) 17:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sukhoi Su-25 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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). 50.65.67.145 ( talk) 18:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Sukhoi Su-25. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
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 Kilon22 ( talk) 11:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Sukhoi Su-25. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The Frogfoot was unpopular with pilots? It was respected enough by the mujehadeen in Afghanistan that they called it 'the German product', i.e. a piece of kit that was so effective that it obviously couldn't be russian-made... Jakob 11:11, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There should be a mention of the Navalized two seater that was built for the Kunestov class Carriers as a trainer. -- Mtnerd 02:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
KINSHASA, June 30 (Reuters) - A Congolese air force fighter plane crashed during an Independence Day display on Saturday, killing the pilot, the U.N. peacekeeping force in Congo said.
...
Congolese fighter jet crashes during display
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.86.144.210 (
talk •
contribs)
Should a "Design" section have subsections like "Cockpit" or "Fuselage"? -- Eurocopter tigre 18:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I will put the new Design section in the article, in about an hour. Maybe you can advice me after you see it. -- Eurocopter tigre 18:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Question: Does shoulder-mounted wing mean the same as high wing? Also, what format should be used on commas and decimal points for numbers? Like 13,5% is used in Europe, I think. Whereas 13.5% is used most elsewhere. - Fnlayson 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, shoulder-mounted wing should mean the same as high wing, but I'm not 100% sure of it. In western aircraft, the high-wing term is used, while on Soviet aircraft, you can find the shoulder-mounted term (see Myasishchev M-50). Regarding the decimal points, I think european type should be used (13,5%). -- Eurocopter tigre 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that's a minor thing, I'll agree with it. -- Eurocopter tigre 12:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I have the info for each variant. I know you won't quibble, but if I propose this article for FA, somebody else will quibble. However, I will put this article on an A-class review at WPs Aviation & Military History. --- Eurocopter tigre 15:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the advices, I think it should remain like it is know, with the latest variant. I just put the article under A-class review on WPMILHIST, you might want to throw-in your opinion about it. -- Eurocopter tigre 16:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
On the map of countries that use the aircraft, Pakistan is in yellow, but there is no information about it in the list of operators. I'd suggest either adding a section on Pakistan or removing it from the map. JKBrooks85 15:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
JKBrooks85, I think you are confusing Pakistan with Afghanistan, Afghanistan being the one in yellow. -- Eurocopter tigre 20:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little unclear by this part in the Development section: "Having taken into account these problems, Pavel Sukhoi and a group of leading specialists in the design bureau discussed the idea of creating such an aircraft. They submitted their thoughts to Sukhoi, and suggested that preliminary design work should begin as soon as possible. Pavel Sukhoi approved the plan.."
Is this saying Pavel Sukhoi talked with the design team and the team went off and to work it. Then they submitted their concept/plan to Mr. Sukhoi (not the bureau/company)? Thanks. - Fnlayson 19:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, that's my mistake, sorry. After they discussed together with P.Sukhoi, the specialists submitted their plan to him, and he approved it. -- Eurocopter tigre 20:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to say your opinion in the WPMILHIST Su-25 A-class review. Tommorow, I will put this article under WPAVIATION A-class review also. -- Eurocopter tigre 21:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe Ground attack is a better, more general description for the Su-25. The includes close air support and air interdiction. They are all close enough to get the point across though, so no big deal.. - Fnlayson 18:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure about this. The air interdiction missions are usually assumed by supersonic fighter-bombers. I'm sure you wouldn't send a subsonic aircraft, such as Su-25, in the enemy territory, because it will be a very easy target. Also, on the cover of Gordon & Dawes book, the Su-25 is designated as a "Close air support aircraft". -- Eurocopter tigre 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Rather than tag each individual image I am leaving a notice here. If you have any comments please direct them at the PUI listing. Megapixie 11:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The quality it's not very good (year 1989 picture), but I won't say anything if you put it in the article. Until I'll have permission to put the new images in, all other pictures are welcome. -- Eurocopter tigre 16:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Just received the first permission from an Airliners.net photograph. Hope we are on the good way. -- Eurocopter tigre 18:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment — If you've talked to the original author of those Airliners.net photos, can you see if he'd be willing to upload them without the Airliners.net watermark? I'm pretty sure that's against some rule or another. Additionally, is the Israeli Su-25 the SM or KM model? The caption says SM, but the listing is KM. JKBrooks85 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
All the photographers contacted gave me the permission to use their images, if I use the correct credit and reference. That's exactly what I did. -- Eurocopter tigre 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Victor12, don't you think that the lead you just edited is quite small for A-class candidate article? Would it be posible for you to make it a bit larger? -- Eurocopter tigre 14:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I also think that the lead should be about two paragraphs longer. Victor, would mind throwing in your comment on the WPMILHIST A-class review of the article, because it will close soon. -- Eurocopter tigre 15:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This looks like the only thing that was in the Lead yesterday that's not covered in the Lead now is this.
I just added the last paragraph to the bottom of the Development section. There may be a better place for it. Is that supposed to be the upgrade to the KM variant? Thanks. - Fnlayson 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! It doesn't matter if they weren't in operational service, because the Soviets needed an attack aircraft for close air support, and they had projects only for fighters or fighter-bombers such as Su-17 and MiG-23 at the time. Also, that sentence does not necessary reflect the year 1968; it represents the early-1970s when serious actions about this project came-up. Regarding the lead, it's not necessary to have four paragraphs, I just gave you an example of the size it should have. Anyway, you are editing the lead, so you are deciding which size would be the best. -- Eurocopter tigre 17:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
"In addition, an Su-25KM prototype was developed by Georgia in cooperation with Israeli company Elbit Systems in 2001, but so far this variant has not achieved much success."
What kind of success? Successfully flying? Successfully destroying targets? Adoption by an air force? Commercial success?
"The flaps are mounted on brackets on the rear spar on steel sliders and rollers."
I rewrote this as "the flaps are mounted by steel sliders and rollers, attached to brackets on the rear spar." Correct? — Michael Z. 2007-07-11 22:57 Z
In early 1968, the Soviet Ministry of Defence decided to develop a specialised shturmovik armoured assault aircraft in order to provide close air support for the Soviet Ground Forces. The idea of creating a specialised ground-support aircraft came about after analysing the experience of shturmovoi (attack) aviation during World War II, and in local wars during the 1950s and 1960s. [1]
This is a bit repetitive, with "specialised" used twice in a row. It would be a little less awkward if one instance was replaced with "special-purpose", which means the same thing. Or better yet, just write "develop a shturmovik armoured assault aircraft", which is clearly specialised by this description. — Michael Z. 2007-07-11 23:09 Z
"Artist's concept drawing of the Su-25" makes it sound to me like this is a manufacturer's design drawing. But since this is from a US DOD source, I wonder if it is a rendering based on intelligence information. If this is the case, a better caption might be something like "[U.S./NATO] military intelligence visualization of the Su-25, used before photographs of the SU-25 were available". — Michael Z. 2007-07-11 23:51 Z
Direct source: Su-25 concept image on DVIC site It's described as an "Artist's concept" there. - Fnlayson 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The article finally became an A-class! Thanks and congratulations to all the users who suported me in the improvement of the article! -- Eurocopter tigre 23:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is now under A-class review on WPAVIATION. Please feel free to leave your comments in. -- Eurocopter tigre 00:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Article is also under review at WP:Aircraft assessment. - Fnlayson 23:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
"The Su-25UB trainer (Uchebno-Boyevoy) was drawn up in 1977...."
I think rendering the initials in a bold font to explain the designation letters makes them greatly over-emphasized. At the very most, italicizing should be used for emphasis, unless an element is important in the page hierarchy. (In this case, since they are in already-italicized foreign terms, the correct emphasis would be Uchebno-Boyevoy.)
But in every single case in this article, the initials have a one-to-one correspondence with the initials of the expanded Russian term. They are already visually distinguished in the term in two ways: by initial position and by capitalization. And they are further visually emphasized, because they are part of an italicized phrase.
Additionally bold-facing them takes the formatting over the top, distracting the eye from across the page. It also doesn't show much respect for the reader's basic reading comprehension. — Michael Z. 2007-07-12 00:04 Z
I think bold initials should remain, as the readers would observe what those designation actually mean. It doesn't really matter for me in which form they are bolded (italicized or not), so do however do you think it is best. -- Eurocopter tigre 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's my best guess at the Russian:
Not sure about the nuanced difference between Uchebnyy, Trenirovochnyy, and Uchebno-trenirovochnyy. — Michael Z. 2007-07-12 00:49 Z
IRGC Airforce operates several su-25s. I have personally seen pictures and a video of them. Also take a look at IRGC's air force page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRGC_Air_Force for list of the planes they have. They have them for a long time now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.56.253 ( talk) 05:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I call for this edit to be reverted. It is extremely difficult to read and edit headers when they are close to the text and when there is no separation with the wikitext tags. Please tell us which header format you prefer, to see whether we can build a consensus for changing the headers from the current hard-to-read awckard state to a more user-friendly, editor-friendly, easy-to-read, neat, and clean state. NerdyNSK ( talk) 04:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
We must compare the Su-25 and A-10 Thunderbolt II. The A-10 was sold, until 1980 decade, only to the USAF and sells only used for other users, whyle the Su-25 is in production since 1970 decade until today and was sold (new) to many countries. The A-10 Thunderbolt II is better, but it was more expensive and bigger than the Su-25. Agre22 ( talk) 13:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)agre22
Would anyone be interested in including the schematic as seen at the Russian article? – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 20:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
What size should the diagram be? It's a little crowded at the current resolution (400px). 600 to 700 px should be big enough to see and still fit on all or nearly all monitors. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The diagram legend (item 1) designates the cannon as "SPM-17", while the specifications (as well as the references) has the cannon as GSh-30-2. A similar divergence appears in the Russian version. I'm not familiar enough to know if this is an error or is intentional. Robert Hiller ( talk) 03:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It is completely incorrect to say that it is referred to as "sturmovik" after IL-2. The Russian word "strurmovik" is a general term that designates the entire class of ground and sea attack aircraft (somewhat similar to USAF A-xx aircraft). It includes dedicated strurmovik designs as well as, say, diving bombers made in strurmovik versions. There are many aircraft in that class, IL-2 being one of the WW-II sturmoviks (also Pe-2 and Tu-2) and Su-7, Su-17 and Su-25 as post-war sturmoviks. The word is not supposed to be capitalized.
Using the word "Sturmovik" to designate IL-2 specifically is something that the authors of the well-known computer game made up themselves. It has no connection to reality.
Pe-2 and Tu-2 are not sturmoviks in the russian terminology, they are classificated as bombers. 95.52.62.75 ( talk) 12:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
See WP:NOTFORUM. Doc talk 15:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The 4 Su-25 of the Macedonian Air Force were never sold to Georgia in 2005. They are still at the military part of Skopje airport. They can bee seen in Google earth current imagery dated from 2013 41°58'30.40"N 21°37'20.61"E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.215.122 ( talk) 19:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sukhoi Su-25 kompo vers2.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 24, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-05-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey everyone. Just a heads up, the Bulgaria section is repeatedly being moved and content is being haphazardly deleted despite attempts to contact the editors responsible for the change. I can't revert the changes anymore as I will violate the 3RR rule. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 07:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
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:
\bairforce-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf 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 NotifyOnline 09:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Can someone edit the map to switch Iraq back to blue? They're now active operators again, as noted in the article. - Helvetica ( talk) 17:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The page has been repeatedly vandalized during the last hour or so by ip users attempting to change the service ceiling specs so they'd be in accordance with allegations by some Russian officer who suggests it was a Su-25 that brought down MH-17. Maybe a temporary protection would be in order. Rocknrollsuicide ( talk) 16:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
( 200.84.90.220 ( talk) 18:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC))
The Sukhoi web page with the specs for the Su-25 is here: http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/ Even if the Su-25 could climb to altitudes above its service ceiling - "absolute ceiling" - the laws of aerodynamics should tell you that it can only do so at the expense of speed, and the Su-25 is not terribly fast to begin with. Its maximum speed is only about 50 mph faster than the cruising speed of a B777, and when fitted with external stores it's even slower. A Su-25 really doesn't have a chance in hell to intercept an airliner in cruise, even if Putin himself were flying it. Rocknrollsuicide ( talk) 19:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
( 200.84.90.220 ( talk) 19:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC))
could someone verify, that the quoted data by the manufacturer, which are, as the URL already proves, related to the Version of the SU-25, which is exported (SU-25K), are also true for the other versions of the plane? As this Page is already used for narratives on both sides, we should work precisly, as it is common, that exported versions are not state of the art and cannot compete with the original version.
isn't this somehow a problem in this situation? it is obvious, that this article is quoted in the thousands in the current situation, but the source for the claim, that the SU-25 cannot reach the claimed high, is backed by a weaker variation of the SU-25, which is not in use by the ukrainian airforce.
First i think it shows very bad manners to accuse me of searching for a conspiracy, where i didn't. I asked for precision. As for the Source you can simply follow the article to the ukranian air force on this very site. It states wich versions of the SU-25 are in use.
Details: Russians Scramble To Edit Wikipedia So The Kremlin's Claims Make Sense -- Jaakko Sivonen ( talk) 20:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The airframe oft the Su-25 must be really bad. It has mostly the same power and weight of a Fairchild-Republic A-10 but its ceiling is 6.7km higher.-- 88.76.234.76 ( talk) 08:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sukhoi Su-25 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, In the performance section of the specifications, the service ceiling heights are incorrectly converted.
Page reads: Service ceiling: 10,000 m (22,960 ft) clean, 9,000 m (30,000 ft) with max weapons
Should read as follows: Service ceiling: 10,000 m (32,808 ft) clean, 9,000 m (29,527 ft) with max weapons
Thanks, Mike from OH 107.10.180.42 ( talk) 19:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The page actually says 7,000/22,965 which is referenced, you need to find a reliable reference and gain the consensus of other users on this page. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sukhoi Su-25 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to correct an error in the article on SU-25. It says that its maximum service ceiling is "7,000 m, or 5,000 m when fully armed". However, the Russian Chief of Staff Gen. Kartapalov today announced that a SU-25 can easily fly and operate at altitudes higher than 10,000 m. I believe the Russian Chief of Staff trumps Wikipedia when it comes to knowledge about Russian military planes. Thus my humble request to increase the ceiling to 10,000 m, or just in case - to 20,000, to avoid further requests. 212.5.158.253 ( talk) 19:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The figures in the article are referenced, you need to find a reliable reference and gain the consensus of other users on this page. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help) The service ceiling of Su-25T and Su-25TM (Su-39) is 10 km. The type of engines used dictates the service ceiling. All Su-25 variants equipped with
ru:Р-195 engines have 10 km service ceiling, while those using older
ru:Р-95Ш engines have 7 km service ceiling. References in
ru:Су-25,
ru:Су-25Т and
ru:Су-39 may also be useful. Unfortunately, most information on soviet-era hardware tend to be in Russian. This article might need an expert's help. The engine type and service ceiling currently listed in the article do not match. -
91.157.56.43 (
talk)
02:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)I believe we're all in agreement over the specifications section. It is reliably referenced, accurate and there is no reason to change to a different variant from Su-25K. But variants capable of higher service ceiling should be given due but not undue weight. Agree/disagree? - 91.157.56.43 ( talk) 16:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Service ceiling now is incorrect- wrongly calculated feet vs meters. Doesn't make sense. Please correct it. 92.40.249.67 ( talk) 22:12, 21 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 31.185.175.23 ( talk) 17:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Service ceiling is wrong, should be 10,000 plus. The change to 7,000 is very suspicious SaintAviator lets talk 10:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
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. Lklundin ( talk) 21:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I want to point out that an older version of the current page listed the service ceiling at 10km. 118.210.196.217 ( talk) 09:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Interesting SaintAviator lets talk 10:57, 28 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 !!
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 Antidyatel ( talk) 07:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, 2 Su-25 were shot down by rebel misslies today, per this. How long before the Russians claim the Su-25s shot each other down? - BilCat ( talk) 19:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
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,
This
edit request to
Sukhoi Su-25 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rook is transliterated as gratch, but should be grach 125.236.202.180 ( talk) 01:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
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? 2.24.53.166 ( talk) 17:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sukhoi Su-25 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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). 50.65.67.145 ( talk) 18:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Sukhoi Su-25. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
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 Kilon22 ( talk) 11:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Sukhoi Su-25. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)