This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sukhoi Su-57 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sukhoi Su-57. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sukhoi Su-57 at the Reference desk. |
Sukhoi Su-57 was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article currently uses words like "confirm" when describing supposed combat actions by the Su-57 over Ukraine, but these claims are coming out of Russian media and figures, which have dubious credibility at best, and no evidence has been presented thus far. Either this should be noted, or verbiage should be changed so that it doesn't look like it has been independently confirmed. Steve7c8 ( talk) 21:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/09/su-57-may-not-be-built-with-quality-workmanship-says-vietnams-mod/ What should we make of this? These images show screws on the airframe and Vietnam reports no radar absorbent material is present. These claims in addition to the complete lack of expected foreign sales could be taken as damning evidence that most of the serial production is not effectively stealth. The airshow photos do not appear to have screws in the airframe, but Russia has demonstrated that their military does not have sufficient inventory for more than parades. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KiII_2qabk 2601:802:8301:54B0:E936:4D59:83FD:E168 ( talk) 01:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Is there any actual verification that the SU-57's internal bays are functional. There don't seem to be any images that actually show it carrying weapons internally and whenever it has flown in combat it's carrying externally. In addition all of the videos purportedly showing it firing from the bays are super grainy or shot from an angle where you can't see the bays. YEEETER0 ( talk) 00:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
What is currently footnote 180, https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-says-upgraded-su57-stealth-jet-finally-made-debut-flight-2022-10, is being used as the source to substantiate the claim that no evidence of an Su-57 shooting down a Ukrainian Su-27 with an R-37M missile has surfaced. However, the linked article does not discuss this at all, and appears to be unrelated. Perhaps we should ask for a better source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:9880:1A48:AA:2D1C:376F:59B5:1190 ( talk) 02:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I think noting that the Su-57 has a large internal payload capacity is warranted in the lead. The patent for the aircraft configuration specifically cited having a large tandem internal weapons bay compared to the F-22, with the aircraft capable of carrying up to four 700 kg ordnance, and for all of the Su-57's flaws, the internal payload capacity is one of its few redeeming qualities. From a purely statistical perspective, the Su-57 is capable of carrying more numerous large munitions internally, four compared to two for the F-22 and F-35. Steve7c8 ( talk) 21:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
"Su-57 is often questioned about its stealth but the aircraft was not meant to be as stealthy as American fighters but the aircraft's stealth should be stealthy enough to be a threat."
This sentence generally doesn't read well, and I recommend splitting it into several sentences. At the current moment, this is not very coherent. Furthermore, I recommend changing the wordage from "American" to "other fifth-generation fighters" to be more inclusive, as China and others are working on / have stealthier fighters that should be acknowledged. 2600:8803:97F2:2:65C3:5BF0:7B94:885E ( talk) 03:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
There is a common misconception about how Russian aircraft are supposed to be pronounced. The "Su" in Sukhoi aircraft is not an acronym. It is Су from Russian transliterated into English. As such, this aircraft along with all other Sukhoi aircraft with Су in their aircraft designation are pronounced like "sue" in English. Note that all the aircraft pages have an uppercase S and a lowercase u. That's not standard for how acronyms are used anywhere in English so I don't know why some of you think this is a special case. It's not. It's pronounced Su just like how it's spelled. Not S.U. By Russian convention it is an abbreviation of the manufacturer. They pronounce it like they would the first part of the full word. If you want to claim it's actually an acronym what does it even stand for? If you can't even come up with an explanation stop reverting my correct edits. 24.233.97.244 ( talk) 13:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The SU-57 is an at best, reduced visibility, 4.5 generation heavy jet fighter. (Recorded RCS puts its signature at roughly the same as a naked F/A-18 Hornet). It does not possess supercruise capabilities, nor does it use the engines designed for it due to manufacturing and material science issues (it currently uses two Saturn AL-41F1 jet engines, which are not only underpowered for the size and mass of the aircraft, but prone to failure and not even remotely capable of supercruise). Unsure of maximum speed and combat capabilities since its never actually seen combat outside of essentially being an aerial catapult for long range missiles, which proceed to completely miss their targets or get intercepted by the Patriot system. It can be tracked by pretty much any targeting radar on the planet, except for maybe Russian ones, the missiles its meant to carry have been proven in battle to be about as competent as anything else Russia has built since the second world war, and frankly unless they figure out how to start packing radar absorbent putty into their recessed bolt holes like every actual fifth gen stealth fighter on earth does, theyll never succeed in getting past a 4.5 gen aircraft. per 99.183.234.109 ( talk) 11:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I reviewed all of the citations this article is built on - in candor, I do not think many of them meet WP standards - see - Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
It is a challenge to obtain such citations - many are obviously propaganda and the Russian language ones - a lot of chatter and opinions - but there are not a lot of reliable sources of information. BeingObjective ( talk) 16:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I think adding lots of low quality citations - around 258 might make the article look robust - a terse examination of these sources suggest the vast majority do not meet WP standards - see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources
Removing the low quality sources and maintaining those that meet a credibility threshold - might be a good exercise - 258 is a large number, but it does not mean the article is really robustly supported. BeingObjective ( talk) 16:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I did look at these, I did consider the challenges of how many robust citations are likely among these - that meet WP standards.
I seriously think the 258 can be dropped far fewer truly reliable citations/sources -
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.
In this article - most citations are not very robust, many do not support the claims. most are far from authoritative - many have been added to pad the article -
In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article (see WP:INLINECITE and WP:inline citation).
BeingObjective ( talk) 16:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
One can debate this - and I know someone will.
This is an actual citation from this article:
There are many very well written GA military articles, and why this document has so many citations that do not meet even common sense thinking is rather a mystery - the tag is legitimate - removing it will not change the problems with this article. BeingObjective ( talk) 19:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
According to the GUR, on 8 June, 2024, at least one Su-57 was severely damaged or destroyed at a Russian airbase in Astrakhan. This has been reported by CNN [1], Forbes [2] , UK Defence Journal [3] , Newsweek [4] and many other credible second-party news media outlets. Bricology ( talk) 10:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the section "Accidents" to "Accidents and incidents" and add the June Ukrainian drone strike against the Su-57 on the ground to that section, instead of just being in the Ukrainian War section. (see the talk page section #Apparent destruction of 1 or 2 Su-57 at Ukrainian hands directly above this one) -- 64.229.90.32 ( talk) 14:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sukhoi Su-57 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sukhoi Su-57. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sukhoi Su-57 at the Reference desk. |
Sukhoi Su-57 was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article currently uses words like "confirm" when describing supposed combat actions by the Su-57 over Ukraine, but these claims are coming out of Russian media and figures, which have dubious credibility at best, and no evidence has been presented thus far. Either this should be noted, or verbiage should be changed so that it doesn't look like it has been independently confirmed. Steve7c8 ( talk) 21:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/09/su-57-may-not-be-built-with-quality-workmanship-says-vietnams-mod/ What should we make of this? These images show screws on the airframe and Vietnam reports no radar absorbent material is present. These claims in addition to the complete lack of expected foreign sales could be taken as damning evidence that most of the serial production is not effectively stealth. The airshow photos do not appear to have screws in the airframe, but Russia has demonstrated that their military does not have sufficient inventory for more than parades. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KiII_2qabk 2601:802:8301:54B0:E936:4D59:83FD:E168 ( talk) 01:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Is there any actual verification that the SU-57's internal bays are functional. There don't seem to be any images that actually show it carrying weapons internally and whenever it has flown in combat it's carrying externally. In addition all of the videos purportedly showing it firing from the bays are super grainy or shot from an angle where you can't see the bays. YEEETER0 ( talk) 00:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
What is currently footnote 180, https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-says-upgraded-su57-stealth-jet-finally-made-debut-flight-2022-10, is being used as the source to substantiate the claim that no evidence of an Su-57 shooting down a Ukrainian Su-27 with an R-37M missile has surfaced. However, the linked article does not discuss this at all, and appears to be unrelated. Perhaps we should ask for a better source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:9880:1A48:AA:2D1C:376F:59B5:1190 ( talk) 02:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I think noting that the Su-57 has a large internal payload capacity is warranted in the lead. The patent for the aircraft configuration specifically cited having a large tandem internal weapons bay compared to the F-22, with the aircraft capable of carrying up to four 700 kg ordnance, and for all of the Su-57's flaws, the internal payload capacity is one of its few redeeming qualities. From a purely statistical perspective, the Su-57 is capable of carrying more numerous large munitions internally, four compared to two for the F-22 and F-35. Steve7c8 ( talk) 21:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
"Su-57 is often questioned about its stealth but the aircraft was not meant to be as stealthy as American fighters but the aircraft's stealth should be stealthy enough to be a threat."
This sentence generally doesn't read well, and I recommend splitting it into several sentences. At the current moment, this is not very coherent. Furthermore, I recommend changing the wordage from "American" to "other fifth-generation fighters" to be more inclusive, as China and others are working on / have stealthier fighters that should be acknowledged. 2600:8803:97F2:2:65C3:5BF0:7B94:885E ( talk) 03:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
There is a common misconception about how Russian aircraft are supposed to be pronounced. The "Su" in Sukhoi aircraft is not an acronym. It is Су from Russian transliterated into English. As such, this aircraft along with all other Sukhoi aircraft with Су in their aircraft designation are pronounced like "sue" in English. Note that all the aircraft pages have an uppercase S and a lowercase u. That's not standard for how acronyms are used anywhere in English so I don't know why some of you think this is a special case. It's not. It's pronounced Su just like how it's spelled. Not S.U. By Russian convention it is an abbreviation of the manufacturer. They pronounce it like they would the first part of the full word. If you want to claim it's actually an acronym what does it even stand for? If you can't even come up with an explanation stop reverting my correct edits. 24.233.97.244 ( talk) 13:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The SU-57 is an at best, reduced visibility, 4.5 generation heavy jet fighter. (Recorded RCS puts its signature at roughly the same as a naked F/A-18 Hornet). It does not possess supercruise capabilities, nor does it use the engines designed for it due to manufacturing and material science issues (it currently uses two Saturn AL-41F1 jet engines, which are not only underpowered for the size and mass of the aircraft, but prone to failure and not even remotely capable of supercruise). Unsure of maximum speed and combat capabilities since its never actually seen combat outside of essentially being an aerial catapult for long range missiles, which proceed to completely miss their targets or get intercepted by the Patriot system. It can be tracked by pretty much any targeting radar on the planet, except for maybe Russian ones, the missiles its meant to carry have been proven in battle to be about as competent as anything else Russia has built since the second world war, and frankly unless they figure out how to start packing radar absorbent putty into their recessed bolt holes like every actual fifth gen stealth fighter on earth does, theyll never succeed in getting past a 4.5 gen aircraft. per 99.183.234.109 ( talk) 11:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I reviewed all of the citations this article is built on - in candor, I do not think many of them meet WP standards - see - Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
It is a challenge to obtain such citations - many are obviously propaganda and the Russian language ones - a lot of chatter and opinions - but there are not a lot of reliable sources of information. BeingObjective ( talk) 16:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I think adding lots of low quality citations - around 258 might make the article look robust - a terse examination of these sources suggest the vast majority do not meet WP standards - see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources
Removing the low quality sources and maintaining those that meet a credibility threshold - might be a good exercise - 258 is a large number, but it does not mean the article is really robustly supported. BeingObjective ( talk) 16:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I did look at these, I did consider the challenges of how many robust citations are likely among these - that meet WP standards.
I seriously think the 258 can be dropped far fewer truly reliable citations/sources -
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.
In this article - most citations are not very robust, many do not support the claims. most are far from authoritative - many have been added to pad the article -
In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article (see WP:INLINECITE and WP:inline citation).
BeingObjective ( talk) 16:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
One can debate this - and I know someone will.
This is an actual citation from this article:
There are many very well written GA military articles, and why this document has so many citations that do not meet even common sense thinking is rather a mystery - the tag is legitimate - removing it will not change the problems with this article. BeingObjective ( talk) 19:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
According to the GUR, on 8 June, 2024, at least one Su-57 was severely damaged or destroyed at a Russian airbase in Astrakhan. This has been reported by CNN [1], Forbes [2] , UK Defence Journal [3] , Newsweek [4] and many other credible second-party news media outlets. Bricology ( talk) 10:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the section "Accidents" to "Accidents and incidents" and add the June Ukrainian drone strike against the Su-57 on the ground to that section, instead of just being in the Ukrainian War section. (see the talk page section #Apparent destruction of 1 or 2 Su-57 at Ukrainian hands directly above this one) -- 64.229.90.32 ( talk) 14:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)