| Revision as of 13:22, 15 June 2010 editSaiga12 (talk | contribs)215 editsm →Su-25 x A-10 Thunderbolt II← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 07:46, 4 May 2024 edit undoMaikel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,526 edits →Frogfoot |
| (342 intermediate revisions by 92 users not shown) |
| Line 13: |
Line 13: |
|
|action2oldid=154176100 |
|
|action2oldid=154176100 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=A| |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Russia|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=A |A-Class=pass |Aviation=yes |Russian=yes |Weaponry=yes}} |
|
{{WPAVIATION|class=A|A-Class=pass |
|
{{WikiProject Aviation|A-Class=pass |Aircraft=yes |Soviet=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Russia|class=B |importance=mid |mil=yes |tech=yes}} |
|
|B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes|Aircraft-project=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|class=B |importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WPMILHIST|class=A|A-Class=pass|Aviation=yes|Russian=yes|Weaponry=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=e-e|style=long}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| title= Could this old warplane really shoot down MH17? A weak theory about a strong plane |
|
|
| author= Kelsey Atherton |
|
|
| date= July 23, 2014 |
|
|
| url= http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/could-old-warplane-really-shoot-down-mh17 |
|
|
| org= '']'' |
|
|
| quote= On Monday morning, someone from an IP address in Moscow edited the Su-25's Russian Misplaced Pages page to increase the maximum height the plane can reach by about 10,000 feet. |
|
|
| date2= July 26, 2014 |
|
|
| title2= A web of lies: Vladimir Putin's epic deceits have grave consequences for his people and the outside world |
|
|
| author2= ''Leaders'' |
|
|
| url2= http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21608645-vladimir-putins-epic-deceits-have-grave-consequences-his-people-and-outside-world-web |
|
|
| org2= '']'' |
|
|
| quote2= The Russian fiction that a Ukrainian fighter jet had fired the missile ran into the problem that the jet could not fly at the altitude of MH17, so Russian hackers then changed a Misplaced Pages entry to say that the jets could briefly do so. |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|Sukhoi T-12 Shturmovik-90|Sukhoi T-12 Shturmovik-90|10 September 2022}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2023 == |
|
== Shturmovik??? == |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Shturmovik" /Штурмовик/ from Russian "Shturm" means "Assault", "Storm". Yes, it's like words "Fighter", "Bomber" and so on may refer to many aircrafts.--] (]) 18:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Over-emphasis of initials == |
|
|
|
|
|
"The Su-25UB ] ('''''U'''chebno-'''B'''oyevoy'') 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 U''chebno-''B''oyevoy''.) |
|
|
|
|
|
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. ''—] ] <small>2007-07-12 00:04 Z</small>'' |
|
|
|
|
|
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. --] 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I personally like the bolded letters. I hadn't noticed that the Russian terms were the aircraft designation until I saw them, the first time I visited the page. ] 17:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Translation of model designations == |
|
|
|
|
|
Here's my best guess at the Russian: |
|
|
|
|
|
* ''Komercheskiy'', ‘commercial’ |
|
|
* ''Uchebno-Boyevoy'', ‘combat instructional’ |
|
|
* ''Uchebno-Trenirovochnyy s Gakom'', ‘instructional-training with hook’ |
|
|
* ''Uchebno-Boyevoy Palubny'', ‘combat instructional deck’ |
|
|
* ''Buksirovshchik Misheney'', ‘target craft’ |
|
|
* ''Tankovy'', ‘tank’ ] |
|
|
* ''Kommercheskiy Modernizirovannyy'', ‘commercial modernised’ |
|
|
* ''Uchebno-Trenirovochnyy'', ‘instructional-training’ |
|
|
* ''Razvedchik'', ‘reconnaissance’ |
|
|
* ''Uchebnyy 3-myestny'', ‘instructional three-seater’ |
|
|
* ''Uchebnyy'', ‘instructional’ |
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure about the nuanced difference between Uchebnyy, Trenirovochnyy, and Uchebno-trenirovochnyy. ''—] ] <small>2007-07-12 00:49 Z</small>'' |
|
|
|
|
|
== Iranian Su-25 == |
|
|
|
|
|
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/IRGC_Air_Force for list of the planes they have. They have them for a long time now. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
* Iran is already listed in the Operators section and the IRGCAF is mentioned there too. Is something mission or what? -] 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
** In the map provided Iran has been shown in Yellow and it has been mentioned that existence of SU-25 in iran is uncertain <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
*** OK, that explains what was meant. The map image creator will most likely have to fix that. -] 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Header style == |
|
|
|
|
|
I call for 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. ] (]) 04:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:As far as I can see, the style differences are negligable as the Wiki format normally compresses the spaces anyway. The only thing that your style change introduces is an extra, extraneous space that may be useful for editors, but certainly makes no difference to readers. The reason for not introducing extra spaces is that it artificially increases the size of the article and therefore will take longer to download. A few years ago, there was a huge "flap" about this and it was agreed that the extra spacing was to be discouraged. FWiW ] (]) 14:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
: Does not matter much to me. I prefer a blank line between the section label and the text and a blank line before and/or after image links. This helps with readablity on the edit screen. I don't think the MoS gets into this kind of detail, unless I've missed it. It does show some format examples and people may take the spaces or omission of spaces as policy. -] (]) 14:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Su-25 x A-10 Thunderbolt II== |
|
|
|
|
|
We must compare the Su-25 and ]. The A-10 was sold, until 1980 decade, only to the ] 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 ] is better, but it was more expensive and bigger than the Su-25.] (]) 13:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)agre22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An american pilot who flew this plane claims that "if you punch everything off it, it'll do mach 1". |
|
|
Therefore, should it not be listed as having a top speed of mach 1 and being supercruise capable? I'll check back in about a week to see opinions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Sukhoi Su-25|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Small grammar edit for the SU-25TM variant paragraph. "the container under fuselage" should be changed to " the container under the fuselage" ] (]) 23:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks for your note. I changed it to "in an under fuselage container" as I thought that was an improvement. I hope that suits? - ] (]) 23:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thank you! ] (]) 21:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Frogfoot== |
|
::@agree22 That's a really fact based argument against the Su25 and for the Thunderbolt, it was sold earlier, go and troll somewhere else. |
|
|
|
Why this reporting name, and what is a frogfoot? Foot of a frog? Thank you, ] (]) 05:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:OK, I did a li'l bit of research. The initial F stands for Fighter or Fighter/Attack, and the word itself is a two-syllable neologism. |
|
|
:Also, quote: ''"Frogfoot," the reporting name for the Sukhoi Su-25, references the aircraft's close air support role.'' ] (]) 07:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC) |
Small grammar edit for the SU-25TM variant paragraph. "the container under fuselage" should be changed to " the container under the fuselage" Largelizard (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
.png)
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
