Talk:Sukhoi Su-57/Archive 5

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 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

There's considerable text in this article about a potential deal with HAL. I'm curious what this means, and the articles don't really clarify things. India has recently announced they're buying 160-odd Rafael's, and it appears the purchases discussed in this article are referring to the same thing. Is this the same deal? Is the PAK out of the running? Can someone clarify? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Russia and India seem to still be planning/working on a 2-seat version (Sukhoi/HAL FGFA) for India long term. I guess it is a large fighter similar in size to the Su-30MKI, while the MMRCA program is a medium-size fighter to replace MiG-21s, maybe MiG-27s, and possibly others. I don't know much detail on FGFA though. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The sourcing I've seen is that India will build parts for the export version to Russian designs, make the mods for a second seat, and write the software for at least their own version and possibly the export version. I'm still looking for a ref that clarifies the export to third parties bit of this as the Russians have been burned by the PRC exporting Russian designs to third parties without permission before. Hcobb (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt that HAL and Su have some sort of deal in place, but the article goes far beyond that - it states in several locations, including the lead, that India is planning to buy 200 of these. However, when I look at the references it's always "I believe..." statements and similar. The only ~200 fighter program on the books in India today is the one that the Rafael just won, so I think we need to update this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There are no firm orders for this aircraft, because the finished version does not exist. But other than being mythical, it's fine. Hcobb (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hcobb, that it is still in development has NOTHING to do with receiving orders or not. The 787 received orders long before it first flew. Drop. The. Attitude. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hcobb said that there are no firm orders for this aircraft.

Is this a statement of fact or not?

The article currently claims "200 each for Russia and India and 600 for other countries", but I believe all documentary evidence suggests that the first number is currently zero, the second is definitely zero today and in the future, and the third one is simply wishful thinking on the part of Pogosyan.

Cobra, do you have any documentary evidence to suggest otherwise? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The competition won by Dassault for 126 medium multi-role fighters, the Indian MRCA competition is completely diffrent from the one for the production of Sukhoi/HAL FGFA, which will begin after the Sukhoi PAF FA is developed. You can refer to BBC Article Russian president seals Indian defence deals and BBC Article India to buy advanced fighter jets from Russia. You can also refer to the page Sukhoi/HAL FGFA for complete details of India's aircraft. Anir1uph (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.beta.rian.ru/infographics/20120216/171345395.html

RS enough for this article? (That's only two bombs less than a full Raptor load of 2xSidewinder, 2xAMRAAM and 8xSDB.) Hcobb (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

except it carrys the double internally. raptor is not stealth with external hardpoints and cannot carry out missions without using them. on the other hand pak fa can.)

What are you talking about? The Raptor has 8 hardpoints with the ability to add 2 external hardpoints. The Raptor doesn't need to use the external hardpoints to reach it's maximum capabilities. They are going to build a stealth aircraft with internal bays, but they have to use external hardpoints all the time? What are you saying?--98.243.198.124 (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

2xSidewinder, 2xAMRAAM and 8xSDB is all internal on the F-22 interceptor. Hcobb (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL 2xAMRAAM is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.246.18.228 (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pak-fa-completes-initial-refuelling-approach-trials-375688/

The flight testing is going so slowly on this bird. Not worth a mention yet, file away with paint drying. Hcobb (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&gl=ca&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=PAK-FA&oq=PAK-FA&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i400.4180.5582.0.6051.6.3.0.3.3.0.129.298.2j1.3.0...0.0...1ac.1.deo93aqPgfw See what I did there? You're ALL welcome. Zoele (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The implication I got from the Russian sources was that the aircraft refueled twice along the way. This makes sense as the total trip length exceeded the aircraft's range, it has yet to be refueled in midflight, and landing and takeoffs cost a lot more fuel than level flight.

I don't get was so unusual about this trip, as obviously T-50s have in the past somehow gotten from the factory to Moscow. Were the previous trips carried in a larger cargo aircraft or did they overnight to replace engines before? Hcobb (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

All previous ones were disassembled and shipped in an An-124 for reassembly at the Gromov Flight Research Institute. Starting with T-50-4 the plan for upcoming transfers seem to be to have the aircraft carry it out itself and the T-50-4's take on this constitute the longest flights of the program so far. I don't see the point of IFR within this scheme though - the ferry range of the aircraft whilst flying economically is presumably around the 4000km mark which for the Komsomolsk-LII trip would necessitate at least one stop along the way without IFR. So why no IFR? Well, at the same time the aircraft, being a single seat combat jet, has no onboard facilities for basic human needs. It simply makes more sense doing it with a stop along the way. It's not like we're talking a large bomber with extra crew facilities, a small short-range aircraft, loitering and flying with combat loads etc, all situations where IFR makes perfect sense for extended endurance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.216.65 (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The plane is claimed to have 20000+ lb of fuel, but its loaded weight is only 17000 lbs more. Seriously, these numbers are pretty meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.2.85 (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be a poor source for the data. Hcobb (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's guess how powerful it is...180.194.249.227 (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked over the article's Infobox? That should be mentioned in the text though. Note Wikipedia talk page discussions are supposed to be about improving the article per

WP:NOT#FORUM, not about how good or other the article's subject is. -Fnlayson (talk

) 15:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There also appears to be two stages to this. A T-50 configuration to be followed at a later date by a true 5th gen, but I'm not sure the current article is as clear as is needed on the topic. Hcobb (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you really believe the Sukhoi PAK FA is a true 5th generation jet fighter? Because the whole program cost is only several billion dollars, while F-22 program is 60 billion dollars.180.194.251.251 (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The T-50 is clearly not, and that is the next stage of production. There are plans to follow up with a fifth gen aircraft and the $10+ billion for the FGFA seems to point in that direction. Hcobb (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

T-50 is first JF, which can be certainly called "The Fifth Generation Fighter" unlike flying srtaight only F-22 or F-35. The monstrous programm coast shows only monstrous corruption and general low level of brainpower in the American Air Forces. By the way, FGFA is the inferior version of PAK FA.

To be fair, its not like the cost of a program is a good indicator of its effectiveness. Given that assumption, the F35 is twice as good as the F22! Also remember the Russian Air Force is still tightly controlled by the state, so that should keep costs down to a bare minimum... --Gamerk2 (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this is intial investment, if count all the investment, then T-50 could be a fifth generation jet fighter!180.194.251.97 (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

http://indrus.in/articles/2012/05/14/putin_boost_to_indo-russian_defence_ties_15745.html “We are very actively working with Indians on the transport plane. They have joined us full swing in the work for the Perspective Aviation Complex for Frontline Aviation (PAK-FA), T-50,” he said.

That's Vlad Putin in a direct quote calling the PAK-FA a joint project with India. If this is an insufficient source, then who exactly shall we call on to testify about this issue? Hcobb (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Your source says he was talking about the FGFA, just as we do. So... nothing new. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

What part of "They have joined us full swing in the work for the Perspective Aviation Complex for Frontline Aviation (PAK-FA), T-50," says FGFA to you? (Yes, the source does state (outside the quote) that this is exactly and precisely the same aircraft as the FGFA, but this is not news to anybody (outside of Wikistan of course)). Hcobb (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The source does NOT say that it is the same aircraft, and it is

WP:VERIFIABILITY. Now, would you care to tell me exactly how you think your proposals will be accepted by this community when you cloth it in an attack on the community by resorting to name calling? Drop. The. Attitude. --OuroborosCobra (talk

) 06:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Look at the primary source here, Vlad Putin, T-50 is a joint project. The only mention of FGFA is from an Indian reporter. There is no purely Russian fifth generation jet fighter, according to the president of Russia. Hcobb (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• T-50 is not a joint project, it is russian project from the very beginning to the very end. The joint one is FGFA - perspective fifth generation jet fighter for Indian Air Forces, based on PAK FA, but a bit inferrior to the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Челдон (talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers secondary sources precisely because we are not experts in interpreting primary sources. Find an expert source supporting your position. The president of Russia never said "there is no purely Russian fifth generation jet fighter," by the way. He just didn't use the name you would have preferred to prove otherwise. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

...and frankly, you sit there attacking the source as only "an Indian reporter," but you're just a semi-anonymous Indian wiki editor. This is why we use secondary sources. We are not experts. You can't put words into Putin's mouth that he didn't say and you can't ignore what your own source says just because you disagree with it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Putin is as valid as Obama over F-35. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.246.28.222 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2013-03-01/russia-india-describe-next-gen-fighter-plans

Pogosyan further insisted that both Russian and Indian versions "will be based not only on the same platform, but also have identical onboard systems and avionics."

So it looks like it's well past time to merge the two articles, as there is only one aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a known fact that in Dec. 2004, the PAK-FA max speed requirement was lowered from Mach 2.15 to Mach 2 by Sukhoi's request to then RuAF Commander Vladimir Mikhailov. There has been no indication that it has since increased, so Mach 2 is probably the most correct and reliable max speed figure at the moment.

http://paralay.net/pakfa/pakfa.html

Also, same general also set the requirement for 6 internal hardpoints, as shown in another interview. I'll go dig for the source. T-50's capabilities here are so exaggerated it's not even funny.

SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• A more reputable source than Paralay which says the same thing. http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2006/01/18/99775.html SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

So RT.com provides, via Youtube, an interesting new video of PAK-FA at MAKS-2013 International Aviation and Space Show, in Zhukovsky, outside Moscow. Does the fact that the video not have audio commentary mean it is not suitable now as a reliable source now, even though the footage would seem to confirm so of the capabilities discussed w/in the article? Azx2 21:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice video. We're not supposed to interpret primary sources ourselves, and I think we should treat a video without commentary as a primary source. I don't think we should worry though. I think it's likely that reliable sources will soon comment on the plane's performance at the event. We've just got to sit tight until then.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Zvezda's video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7w4iOnWkBc (news article "Групповой пилотаж ПАК ФА") BSErus (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this:

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2013-09-20/various-obstacles-confront-russias-t-50-project

A RS on the status of the AESA radar project? Hcobb (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Factual errors. Radar is N036, not N050. Engine is not the 117S as used on the Su-35S, but the 117. Factual errors detract from credibility, which is why I don't think it belongs here. That said, there's no doubt the program is suffering setbacks. Despite what government and Sukhoi officials say, it's almost certain that the program is behind schedule and an IOC of 2016 is laughably optimistic. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 issue of Air International is a much more credible source that talks about PAK FA program difficulties. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

We should remove the trash article about X-38, russians/soviets never used 'X' designation and there is no mention of it anywhere. Even if it's legit, 'X-38' is likely PR term, not a real designation. Quite possibly translation error from cyrilic, a2s missiles are generally designated Kh, and there is indeed a missile designated as Kh-38.

Not really giving any reliablity to source though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.108.182 (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The article (which is from the Voice of Russia website) appears to be about the Kh-38 air-to-surface missile (designed for use on the PAK FA) which is written X-38 (or technically possibly Х-38) in Cyrillic. I have frequently seen the Kh- series designations transcribed into English as X-. What is strange is that this is been done by a Russian source - which also talks about the MiG-29 CMT, another curious mix of cyrillic (Миг-29 СМТ) and latin (Mig-29 SMT) scripts.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I believe it's exactly the oposite 'X' can be transliterated from cyrilic into latin as 'ch' or 'kh'. Mistakes of this character doesn't really add credibility to the article, at least in my mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.108.182 (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

>On 14 March 2011, the aircraft achieved supersonic flight at a test range near Komsomolsk-on-Amur in Siberia.<

It's not Siberia neither by administrative division of Russia neither by geography. It's Russian Far East.

>Two projects were proposed to meet this need – the Sukhoi Su-47 and the Mikoyan Project 1.44.<

Su-47 was just experemental plane and is not related to T-50. I doubt if it ever was taken seriously because of some limitations of forward-swept wing scheme. All serial FSW planes are subsonic and many of them are gliders. Su-47's top speed is restricted to 900 km/h. 217.173.18.179 (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The article for Republic of Korea's fighter acquisition program has significant developments that strongly contraindicate ROK purchasing any fighters from Sukhoi... are there any other developments in regards to exports? I'm not particularly knowledgeable. --Spacepotatoes (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the article should be renamed Sukhoi T-50. The PAK FA is the name of the program to equip the VVS with the next generation of fighters to succeed the Su-27. The aircraft that resulted from this program is the Sukhoi T-50, and it has yet to receive a Russian Air Force designation. Right now, this page's name is like naming the F-22 page "Lockheed Martin ATF". What should be done is to rename this page the Sukhoi T-50 and, if there's enough information, create a separate article specifically for the PAK FA program, similar to how the F-22 and the ATF have their separate pages. Once the official Russian Air Force gives an official designation, then the page name can change accordingly.

SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

But the program and aircraft are interlocked. I see no real need for separate articles on them. The ATF has a separate article since it covers the competition and testing of the 2 prototype aircraft (YF-22 & YF-23). -Fnlayson (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that unlike the ATF program, the PAK FA didn't have a Dem/Eval stage that required technology demonstrators. Still, just like how the ATF program didn't just involve Lockheed, the it wasn't just Sukhoi who submitted proposals for the PAK FA RFP, since Mikoyan and Yakovlev also sent in submissions. In any case, the page is currently more about the T-50 aircraft than it is about the PAK FA program. I suggest that the page should be renamed the Sukhoi T-50. Otherwise, it would be like the Su-27 page being named "Sukhoi TPFI". SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The article as it currently is is really messy and badly organized. The Flight testing section should be compressed and fall under Operational history.

) 01:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The "analysis" pumped out by these two individuals are frankly not reputable, with the former have no clue what he is talking about and the latter being heavily biased and skewed his results with extremely optimistic or pessimistic claims to suit his agenda. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ahem. On what basis do you say this? Carlo Kopp is well qualified - as well as any - to comment on the PAK-FA, as is his colleague Peter Goon. Kopp is a systems designer by trade and an academic in the area of electronic engineering. He has also written extensively on aviation subjects for a couple of decades now and was involved in the Rand report. Peter Goon is ex-RAAF.

Is there anyone you could suggest who you think is better or less "biased"? What would you say is David Axe's "agenda"? If I may borrow a quote here: "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." - George Orwell. Flanker235 (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/18-08-2011/118783-pak_fa_raptor-0/

Would this article be sufficient to clear up the issue? Hcobb (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything different on the subject than our existing source, so nothing is cleared up. Or, if you think it is, be more specific as to your meaning instead of link dumping. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

http://rbth.ru/science_and_tech/2013/07/07/russia_close_to_completing_its_f-22_aircraft_rival_27587.html Here it actually says "artificial intelligence", so what more is needed to resolve the ref issue? Hcobb (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

For starters, it might be helpful if someone were to actually invent artificial intelligence first NobodyMinus (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe we ought to remove the 350 m/s climb figure for the PAK FA, because the only source to claim it is Carlo Kopp of AirPowerAustralia, who has absolutely NO inside information, and it's purely his (and APA's) guess based on pictures a month after the first flight, and that's to suit his agenda of getting F-22 for RAAF. In other words, it is not a reputable source or figure at all. In contrast just about every other figure on here came from respected and reputable sources. 164.67.21.149 (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The figure for the rate of climb is speculative and based on an educated guess. We can apply exactly the same metric to the F-22, since the real figures are still classified. We already know the power of the engines. Any aeronautical engineer worth his salt could make a good guess of the airframe weight and the likely fuel load, making a rough calculation of the PAK-FA's climb performance a relatively simple matter. Aside from that, I have already outlined why Kopp is as reliable a source as we are likely to have outside of Russia. The trouble is that a lot of people are getting all wet because it's actually possible this aircraft might have some design points worthy of our attention.

Meanwhile, would you like to suggest someone you consider an authoritative source on he matter? And please sign your posts. Cheers. Flanker235 (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Rate of climb of the T-50 is classified. I don't think we should include a preliminary estimate of a figure here, especially if that figure came from a (biased) analysis from Carlo Kopp/APA that has since been superseded by more recent information. In contrast, the other figures in this article at least originate from reputable sources like Aviation Week, Flight International. These journalists are more reputable and often have insider connections, like Piotr Butowski. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

We've already been over this before. A lot of this article will be, to some degree, speculative. I also suggest that the use of words like "biased" reveals as much about your position as it does about that of Carlo Kopp, particularly in respect of your relative positions. You, like everyone else, are entitled to your opinion but you need to be able to divorce yourself from it a bit better than that. People are not very good at predicting other people's motives so words like "agenda" are subjective rather than objective. While I agree that Kopp's position on the PAK-FA was rather optimistic, he a provides useful counter to a lot of other information we receive which run the other way. It is entirely possible to write this article using APA as a source without presenting it as anything more than the speculative information it mostly is. That is not the same thing as being wrong or biased or having an agenda or any other subjective judgement you throw at it Flanker235 (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

For crying out loud, how many times does this have to be said in aviation circles: AusAirPower is NOT a reliable source of information. Carlo Kopp, Peter Goon, even Nigel Pittaway, have no association with the projects they write about, no first hand experience, and deliver no peer reviewed research on defence industry matters (having each other check their own work doesn't count!). Their articles cherry pick 'facts' and are too opinionated to be considered as actual research, with these opinions compromising the bulk of their work. Commentators they may be, but experts or 'informed sources' they are not. Anyone can be a commentator, If globalsecurity.org is considered a dubious source of information due to it's poorly sourced materials and lack of citations, how can AAP be considered 'legit' when it's just as dubious?? (CJT 9k) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.48.65 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this notion. APA should generally be avoided. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Please suggest an alternative. APA's people have been writing informed stuff for a long time, including involvement in the preparation of the Rand report. Flanker235 (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course there are alternatives. Performance info is currently from Aviation Week and Flight International, two reputable and respected sources. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Kopp has written for many international publications, including but not limited to Air International, Airforces Monthly etc. In an area where there is a massive vacuum of information, it would be nearly impossible to say with any certainty that he is wrong or unreliable. You're suggesting that the only sources we should trust on this should be those directly associated with the project, which we will not get. That means we are limited to those who can make educated guesses. Trying to write something like this is difficult because the people who do it have to rely on secondary sources at best and that means talking to industry experts - which Kopp and Goon both do. I accept fully that what he writes about the PAK-FA is largely speculative but with a project like this, you have to accept it. Flanker235 (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There are informed estimates and deliberately skewed estimates. Journalists like Piotr Butowski and Bill Sweetman belong to the former category. While their writings shouldn't be taken as gospel truth, they are generally reliable writers whose writings are peer reviewed and have insider connections to the program. They attend events like the MAKS airshow and speak to actual people involved in the program. Kopp and APA fall firmly in the latter category. Their predictions of the performance of Russian equipment is incredibly optimistic and they are prone to cherrypicking the best figures and treating them as fact. All this is meant to serve their agenda for F-22s for Australia. I love the T-50, and you can tell from my username that it's my favorite aircraft. But Kopp's portray of the 10 ft tall monster that is the PAK FA is downright laughable, even for me. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I read all those guys and have never seen any reference to them being peer reviewed. Flanker235 (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Publications like Flight International and Aviation Week are both well established and widely recognized, something that can't be said about APA. Some of APA's figures are complete speculation. For instance, their analysis claims 1400 KTAS (2600 km/h) max speed, when we know for a fact that in 2004, the RFP speed requirement dropped from the initial 2500 km/h, to 2300 km/h, and finally to 2135 km/h by Sukhoi's request due to weight concerns. With the second stage Izdeliye 30 engines, the original RFP speed requirement may be achievable.

"12.2004

В.Михайлов сообщил, что снизил на 0,15 число "М", заданные в тактико-техническом задании характеристики скорости нового самолета".

"К примеру, задана характеристика 2,15М, чтобы самолет летал с такой скоростью, однако это число - 0,15 влечет за собой необходимость усиления киля, увеличение веса самолета", - сказал главком.

По его словам, "анализ эксплуатации самолетов типа Су-27 и МиГ-31 показывает, что эти самолеты, хоть и способны ходить примерно на этих скоростях, но редко на них выходят".

"Зафиксировано всего лишь несколько полетов летчиков-испытателей на таких скоростях, это влечет сотни проблемных вопросов по усилению хвостового оперения и плохо сказывается на других характеристиках самолета", - сказал В.Михайлов."

"12.2004

Mikhailov said that the mach number has reduced with 0.15 "M", set in the tactical and technical characteristics of the job rate of the new aircraft. "

"For example, given a description of 2.15 m, so that the aircraft was flying at such a rate, but the number - 0.15 leads to the need to strengthen the tail/stab, and increased weight of the aircraft," - said the commander in chief.

According to him, "the analysis of aircraft such as the Su-27 and MiG-31 shows that the aircraft, though able to fly at around at these speeds, but they rarely do."

"Only a few test pilots flying at such speeds, it involves hundreds of problematic issues to strengthen the tail and has a bad effect on the other characteristics of the aircraft," - said Mikhailov."

Further evidenced here. http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2006/01/18/99775.html

Similarly, rate of climb is a measure of specific excess power, and that is a function of thrust, drag, and weight. This number is obtained through simulations and flight testing, and predictive calculations require knowing the airfoil, engine thrust at different speeds and altitudes, etc. There is NO way of obtaining this figure by looking at pictures, which is precisely what APA did.

Their analysis also claims that the PAK FA is meant to accommodate a much larger aperture than the F-22 or YF-23, which we know is not true as the areas of the N036 and AN/APG-77 are very similar and both have roughly 1500 T/R modules. They also claim that the wing leading edges are radar for detecting enemy aircraft. Yeah, good luck with azimuth control...

They also cite themselves in their bibliography. There's no unique information from APA that we need, and the ones they have are superseded by more recent and accurate figures, as well as checking program history. Kopp and the rest of APA are freelance bloggers without any access to classified information or individuals within those programs. Their "analyses" (I consider them biased interpretations) are at best secondary sources. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Not seeing anything about "peer review" here. You have also not addressed the dichotomy that Carlo Kopp has written for all those publications you described as "well established" and yet he is the co-founder of APA. It's probably worth pointing out that the article you seem to be referring to was written in 2010 and so is quite old. More information has been forthcoming since then. You also keep going on about speculation yet seem to miss the point that there will always be an element of speculation in assessing an aircraft like the PAK-FA, about which we don't know that much. As I said earlier, a competent aeronautical engineer can make a pretty good guess at the airframe weight and probable fuel load. Since we know what the engine power is, calculating specific excess power is not that difficult, yet you have gone off onto a tangent about aerofoil thickness etc. which have nothing to do with SEP. A Saturn V rocket weighed 5,000,000lbs and produced 7,500,000lbs of thrust. It's a bit more complicated than that but not much and since nobody can provide exact figures for L/D or aerofoil thickness, it's pointless to complain that it's only a ballpark figure. An approximate figure for ROC is not that hard to work out, even if by your measure, APA got it wrong. By the way, if the PAK-FA was designed to use the same size radar dish as the Su-35, the radome would be larger than that of the F-22A or YF-23. Flanker235 (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't claim that APA is always wrong, or that we should never use their information. However, their blogs and analyses are far too biased to be treated as a primary source. For the PAK FA in particular, their analysis is outdated and has been superseded by more recent and accurate information, so I don't think it's needed as a source. By the way, you do need information on airfoil for calculating SEP, since it factors into drag. In level flight SEP is thrust power minus drag power, and that drag also include lift induced drag. Either way this isn't something that can be estimated using pictures. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

"However, their blogs and analyses are far too biased to be treated as a primary source." The articles are biased in your opinion. Now we have to accept that you honestly hold that opinion and that you may have good grounds for believing it. But I reiterate; much of the information about the PAK-FA is speculative and will remain so for the foreseeable future. APA have their opinion and you have yours. The source of conflict is that your word "biased" suggests that you believe they hold that opinion because they have an agenda. The implication I'm getting is that you do not believe they honestly hold this opinion but express it for other reasons. I don't think we're in a position to make a judgement like that for the simple reason that humans are not very good at predicting what other people's motivations are. It's not Wiki's job to do that in the article but it's fair enough to discuss it here.

"For the PAK FA in particular, their analysis is outdated and has been superseded by more recent and accurate information, so I don't think it's needed as a source." I think we probably agree on this. My point is that it's not the same thing as being wrong or biased. APA need to do an update on the article because, at a range of four years, it's simply out of date. To some degree, Wiki authors/editors need to place value judgements on source information but that doesn't mean it should be dismissed out-of-hand because we don't agree with it. Some weighting of material needs to take place but on its merit rather than its origin.

Aerofoil data would be handy for SEP but not essential to a "ball park" figure any more than drag coefficients would be. Flanker235 (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone think there needs to be a separate section about this? It looks like just another bun-fight over cost overruns and performance shortfalls. Admittedly, the Business Standard article provides no expert commentary and the program has its detractors but it does highlight the fact that high-tech/high-risk projects all suffer from the same problems. Despite some assertions that India is about to get out of the PAK-FA program, there is no evidence that they have any real intention to do so. In fact, it seems to be just a case of the Indians being prudent and making sure they get what they pay for.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/russia-can-t-deliver-on-fifth-generation-fighter-aircraft-iaf-114012100059_1.html

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2014/01/24/gunning_for_the_pak-fa_what_the_iaf_really_wants_32535.html

http://in.rbth.com/economics/2014/02/07/russia_fulfils_fgfa_obligations_with_india_-_alexander_kadakin_32917.html

If it does rate a mention, I suspect discretion needs to be the order of the day! Flanker235 (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a separate article for this. See: Sukhoi/HAL FGFA Hcobb (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou! Flanker235 (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, empty weight is stated as 39,000lb and loaded weight is stated as 55,000lb, with fuel load stated as 22,000lb roughly. This doesn't add up.Z07x10 (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

So called NTOW, normal takeoff weight, isn't at full fuel. Seeing the Su-27 page. It's loaded weight is also not at full fuel.

talk

) 23:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, regarding air-to-air missiles, the PAK FA will be using a heavily upgraded variant of the R-77 (Izdeliye 170) called the Izdeliye 180. This missile is not the same as the RVV-SD (Izdeliye 170-1), which is also an upgraded R-77, but not as capable as the Izdeliye 180. The PAK FA will NOT be carrying the Izdeliye 170-1, only the Izdeliye 180.

) 03:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this article meets that criteria right now. Working on getting this to GA status.108.228.145.163 (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The T-50 has a lot more in common with the F-22 than the Su-27.

Therefore a comparation - e.g. in a table - of the T-50 with the F-22 would be useful. --178.197.226.211 (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not usual to compare aircraft types in these articles it is not considered to be a function of a encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

http://in.rbth.com/economics/2015/03/25/russian_air_force_to_buy_fewer_pak_fa_fighter_aircraft_42179.html 173.71.174.20 (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Only the initial order.Total number to be taken into service not yet determined.Beware misleading headlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.59.185 (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I took a look at the russian version of this page,there are some specifications which are not stated on this page like,rate of climb,and also the maximum speed is listed at 2600km/h more than here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.127.27.218 (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Did the Russian wikipedia cite sources? Some of their figures are also plain wrong. Head of Sukhoi Mikhail Pogosyan said that the supersonic range of the T-50 is 1,500 km and subsonic range is 3,500, but the Russian article inflated that to 2,000 km and 4,300 km respectively. Frankly, how can we trust any other number it has? 75.82.181.255 (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of the stealth section we have the phrase "...high frequency (between 3 and 30 MHz) radars, usually found on other aircraft." The 3 to 30 MHz range as stated is way too low for typical aircraft radar which should be using GHz frequencies and higher. Perhaps someone knowledgeable about this plane's design and radar can correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.19.72 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Fighter radars usually operate in the 8-10GHz band. A typical radar the T-50 would like to hide from is the

AN/APG-65. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.24.115 (talk

) 21:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Photo caption

"PAK FA Prandtl-Glauert singularity at MAKS-2015".

) 17:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this article altogether coherent?

First there is a section detailing problem after problem with this aircraft, then the next section claims: "The PAK FA is . . . the first operational [emphasis mine] stealth aircraft for the Russian Air Force." Is the article self-contradictory??? (EnochBethany (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC))

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111004175747/http://narod.ru/disk/25867315000/2010.10.09_Smotr-15.avi.html to http://narod.ru/disk/25867315000/2010.10.09_Smotr-15.avi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120916123435/http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065930093 to http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065930093

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

:Online 13:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101023064535/http://narod.ru:80/disk/25867315000/2010.10.09_Smotr-15.avi.html to http://narod.ru/disk/25867315000/2010.10.09_Smotr-15.avi.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131202221751/http://warfare.be/?lang=&linkid=2280&catid=255 to http://warfare.be/?lang=&linkid=2280&catid=255

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

:Online 05:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101023064535/http://narod.ru:80/disk/25867315000/2010.10.09_Smotr-15.avi.html to http://narod.ru/disk/25867315000/2010.10.09_Smotr-15.avi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

:Online 06:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see these sources for details.^{[1][2][3] [4]}

--2602:306:B8BF:C0:7D22:6BA9:4B09:DFBC (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Sukhoi/HAL FGFA variant has its own article, so the information doesn't belong here, as you've been told several times already. - BilCat (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

laugh. Looks like russia through its "useful idiots" is trying to sanitize criticism on wikipedia yet again by stuffing criticism into the comparably little read HAL/FGFA page even though by rights they should be treated as the same programme. The reality is that russia drastically cut down its orders for this turkey after the reports of its failings came in AND it is now selling it as a bomb truck instead of a fighter world beater. Anybody with eyes can see that it's a turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.134.144 (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason the articles are separate is mostly because patriotic Indian editors want it that way. If you genuinely think the articles should be merged, you're welcome to propose it, and see what happens. - BilCat (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This article mentions the HAL FGFA and the collaboration between India and Russia to develop it in two places. Patriotic NPOV-pushing aside, if you mention Russian/Indian collaboration on FGFA at all, you have to mention when that collaboration is in trouble. That's how you get

WP:NPOV. Presenting just positive developments on that relationship in this article is POV-pushing and not permitted in wikipedia. loupgarous (talk

) 20:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Climb rate from questionable source

The source given for the climb rate is from a SputnikNews article,[1] which references to another Russian language news article,^[2] and the source of that figure comes from a Facebook post.^[3] I'm sorry, but I'm not at all convinced about the reliability of the source. 131.179.41.158 (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

So no one here wants to comment on the fact that this article essentially cited an unverified Facebook post for climb rate? Why does that even belong? 45.49.185.241 (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No one has responded. Honestly, this figure should be removed. It's not verified, and the original source for this claim has failed to provide any evidence that it's reliable. 45.49.185.241 (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

GJ with the reversion, I agree that the source was unreliable. F-16 Viper (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a problem (which I'll devote a new section to below) with other cites from Sputnik, too. Sputnik's heavily propagandistic and doesn't often meet

WP:QS for technical articles. I'd like us to get away from using them as a source in this article, which is about factual developments, not propaganda talking points. loupgarous (talk

) 09:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

See

WP:PUS, too - Sputnik News is specifically mentioned (under "State-associated news organisations") as unreliable for anything outside the claims of the Russian government. loupgarous (talk

) 20:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The section of the article Naval and other versions consists of two contradictory statements:

• "Navalized Sukhoi T-50 PAK FAs will be deployed on the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov and future Russian aircraft carriers.[130] There will be a competition between the Sukhoi, Mikoyan and Yakovlev design bureaus to choose the new naval aircraft.[5]"

The sources date to about the same time frame, so one's obviously wrong. Either a navalized PAK-FA was chosen or there's a competition ongoing to chose a navalized fighter for the Kuznetsov-class carriers. Both statements can't be true at once.

I'm inclined to distrust either one, they're both based on cites from Sputnik, which is overtly a Russian government propaganda site and has made inflated claims for PAK-FA's performance, its availability and the threat it poses to NATO forces for years, now.

In addition, the reflinks to each statement, when you click them, bring you to the current front page of Sputnik, not to a specific article. By comparison, the Russian version of the TASS article cited to support the remaining statement DOES link to the article in question (in the Russian version only, for some reason, when you click the English version of TASS and search for the article, it doesn't come up).

I'm going to delete both statements regarding the naval version of PAK-FA, based on

) 09:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Go for it bro. Sputnik News has never been particularly reputable anyways. AIN January 2016 has a pretty good article on the PAK FA that I think can be useful here. 45.49.131.170 (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on

for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160430075419/http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1871914.html to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1871914.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100617171306/http://www.brahmand.com/news/No-JV-with-India-on-fifth-gen-fighter-Sukhoi-chief/4136/1/10.html to http://www.brahmand.com/news/No-JV-with-India-on-fifth-gen-fighter-Sukhoi-chief/4136/1/10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on

for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113083852/http://marker.ru/news/365 to http://marker.ru/news/365
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120116024730/http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2011/03/india-planning-to-deploy-brahmos-on-pak.html to http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2011/03/india-planning-to-deploy-brahmos-on-pak.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparently the T-50 PAKFA is called the Su-57 now? [1] – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 12:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

afb

since is around 190 180 kN , for this class of jets , caN'T be 167 , so , is not less than 176 kN , product code izdl30 , it will be AL41something or AL51 (??) official one .
edit , supercruise , (without afterburners,) since is around 108 to 118 kN not less , for it , in that mode will be at least at 108 . --~~ fas

https://lenta.ru/news/2011/04/13/pakfa/

(is iz30 (not 129) (diff sources says * ) , al41f (mig 142) prototype naming iz20)

( * or the logic 117 117S etc > 129 , conflicting designations )

edit , rostec says (108 to) 110 kN cruise , 180 af (original AL41F , for mig 144 same)

btw , 22 + 35 = 57 ads , (27 > 37 >) 47 > 57 hop , jtpo

These details need to be

verify the data. Thanks, -Finlayson (talk

) 19:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Terminology

I believe we should try to keep the following in mind:

• PAK FA is the name of the program to develop a new generation fighter jet. American analogy: the Advanced Tactical Fighter program.
• T-50 is the designation of a small series of prototype planes built for the PAK FA program. American analogy: the Lockheed YF-22.
• Su-57 is the designation of the PAK FA program's final product that is expected to be accepted by the Russian air force after trials; the goal towards which the T-50 has been evolving. American analogy: Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

Except that unlike the American case, here all 3 notions are dealt with in one article instead of being split into separate articles.

So IMHO, it makes sense to talk about the Su-57 expected performance, combat capabilities, export potential, etc. – because those are what is expected from the final version of the plane. But photos of T-50 should be labeled T-50, and discussions of prototype test flights should use the appropriate designation: T-50. — Tetromino (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks to everyone involved for not taking any notion of my proposal, or reflecting the merits of it. i.e. completely disregarding the rationale given, not to mention the content of the references currently given. Especially nice as the initial move on the current name was made without any discussion, and with quite a dubious "explanation".--2A00:1028:83BE:4392:34EA:2D22:6331:F6D8 (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Using phrases like ‘putlerist "Telegraph agency of the Soviet Union"’ doesn't exactly do much to encourage one's opponents to take one's words seriously or to reflect on the merits of one's arguments… — Tetromino (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to call a spade a spade, no matter how "some people" are (claiming to be) offended by the plain truth. (And yes, TASS is an acronym for the "Telegraph agency of the Soviet Union" despite all inept attempts to deny this fact). Perhaps you should also note that I had not used that kind of speech (perhaps truly offensive to "some kind of people") in my proposal above, yet nobody actually bothered to take my words seriously. Suggesting that such was the case is a nice try, anyway. :-) -2A00:1028:83BE:4392:9956:A306:9A85:5A67 (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You're most welcome. And thank you for making a such weak argument that was so easy to disregard. - BilCat (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

What again are you calling a weak argument, specifically? I clearly stated my reasons (i.e. it's only designation for the future series production, not yet used). It was "Tetromino" who picked on the incidental mention about what TASS means and insinuated that he (or she) just doesn't have to take my proposals seriously. Although I was completely right - TASS is an acronym for "Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union". Not that I'd expect that "Tetromino" would be able to admit I was right and he (or she) was totally wrong.:-) -2A00:1028:83BE:4392:490D:91AB:8AE0:BFA6 (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

1,500 km (930 mi; 810 nmi) supersonic[104], 3600 km (max), 4500 km from 2 outboard fuel tank[185]

hardpoints= 16 hardpoints (8 × internal (4200 kg)[186], 8 × external)[187]  and provisions to carry combinations of:

Missiles: Air-to-air missiles:

R-37m 300 km for 6M speed, rang more 300.[188]

250, 500, 1500kg Guided bomb[189]

anti-tank "Drill" 30 km[193], 500 kg claster-bomb + active homing[194] Avionics

Byelka radar (400km, 60 targets of 16 hit)[195][196] ^[1] why did you delete these TASS Vesti RG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.124.231.84 (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

https://www.rt.com/news/419566-su-57-russian-jet-syria-video/
https://southfront .org/russia-deployed-its-state-of-the-art-su-57-stealth-fighter-in-syria-reports/ DerElektriker (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Need better sources than known propaganda and conspiracy theory outlets. 2600:1700:6000:9CA0:8052:E5BF:9B2D:D366 (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"Russia admits defeat on its 'stealth' F-35 killer by canceling mass production of the Su-57 fighter jet": [2]. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 23:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

See previous section. - BilCat (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it is time to nominate Sukhoi Su-57 to good article. It's stable, neutral, has a lot of media, mostly, if not all, grammatically correct, factually-accurate and well-written, and verifiable. Opinions? -

) 21:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This article reminds me of this cartoon https://i.pinimg.com/originals/55/b8/80/55b880750ec248deb17c16bfc2434c98.jpg YMMV Greglocock (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination had started. Place your bets. -

talk

) 01:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@

talk

) 02:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm seeing this nonsense creep up again. To repeat what I said when it was first posted, the source given for the climb rate is from a SputnikNews article,^[1] which references to another Russian language news article,^[2] and the source of that figure comes from a Facebook post.^[3] I'm sorry, but I'm not at all convinced about the reliability of the source. Steve7c8 (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Just replaced. -

talk

) 16:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov recently stated that "it does not make sense to speed up work on mass-producing the fifth-generation aircraft."

The Diplomat published an article stating that Borisov had announced that the Su-57 would not be mass produced, and several edits were made to this Wikipedia article reflecting that interpretation. The Diplomat article did not actually cite any explicit cancellation announcement by Borisov, though -- it only referenced the aforementioned quote about not "speed(ing) up work", which is very different from cancellation.

A few days earlier, Aviation International News Online published an article referencing the same statement by Borisov, but interpreting it as affirmation of the status quo, and referring to the initial order of twelve Su-57s as "initial production aircraft".

Absent any more explicit statement from the Russian defense ministry, I don't think we can consider the Su-57 program definitively canceled; it's unclear at best. I've updated the article to reflect both AIN's interpretation and The Diplomat's.

Stephen Hui (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note also that there are a few other articles floating around which also assert that the Su-57 has been canceled, but all of the ones I've seen refer back to the Diplomat article and/or the same ambiguous statement by Borisov. I continue to maintain that it would be most accurate to state that the program's state is uncertain unless/until a more definitive reference is provided. Stephen Hui (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's the unmunged ref I was using http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-admits-defeat-su-57-not-going-into-mass-production-2018-7 I agree the Borisov quote is hard to take seriously but wiki prefers secondary sources, and the headline is "Russia admits defeat on its 'stealth' F-35 killer by canceling mass production of the Su-57 fighter jet" which is pretty definitive. I'll put my changes back in. If you can find more recent sources saying it isn't cancelled, great Greglocock (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the AIN Online article I linked above? Here's a yet-more-recent one referencing the Su-57 program as continuing: [4].

If there are sources stating that the program is canceled, and other sources stating that the program is not canceled, why do you think the canceled sources override the not-canceled ones? I had edited the article to reflect the ambiguous nature of Borisov's statement and the conflicting source articles -- I believe that your changing it to characterize the program as canceled makes the Wikipedia article less accurate.

I also submit that AIN Online, a publication devoted specifically to aviation, is a more credible source here than Business Insider.

@

Josephua: Also tagging other users who have edited this recently so that they can weigh in. Stephen Hui (talk

) 03:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Also marked the cancellation claim as disputed since, per the template, "there are reliable sources supporting two or more different claims". Stephen Hui (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to chase down every ref, but https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2018-07-14/russia-faces-military-aircraft-quandry (pity they can't spell) says "a Russian aerospace analyst in Moscow told AIN. “Not only is there not a constituency within the armed forces promoting the Su-57, but there are also no champions for it within Russian industry itself as there are no major orders for the aircraft, so–unlike Su-35–it has no possibility to generate positive cash flow.”" However I do appreciate the difficulties we have in wiki world where sources contradict each other. Can we not alter the article to reflect those contradictions? Greglocock (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"..does not make sense to speed up work on mass-producing the fifth-generation aircraft" really does not mean that the plane is canceled. It is silly to change this whole article because of the statement, that the work should not be speed up. The article should stay as it is and this statement could be inserted into developtment paragraph. If the Sukhoi officially cancel the plane mass-production, then there can be no doubt about it.Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Greglocock, I *did* modify the article to reflect these contradictions several days ago:

On 2 July 2018, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov stated that "it does not make sense to speed up work on mass-producing the fifth-generation aircraft". Borisov's statement caused confusion among observers, with some interpreting it as reiteration that the Su-57 program would continue as previously planned, and others interpreting it as an implicit announcement of the project's cancellation.

This is why I've objected to subsequent edits that have categorically stated that the project's been canceled. It's my continuing assertion that stating the cancellation as fact is less accurate than representing the uncertainty about its future. Stephen Hui (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I've requested temporary semi-protection of the page to tamp down on the edit-warring. Stephen Hui (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

So all statements in the article, including the infobox, about the future of the aircraft should reflect that uncertainity? That is, 2019 is NOT when it will be introduced into service. I see that edit has gone through. Good. Greglocock (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm now a bit optimistic about the

talk

) 21:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 21:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Not the way wiki works. I see no inherent reason to trust The Diplomat as being accurate and BI as inaccurate. Therefore we have contradictory interpretations, and therefore the article should reflect that. I assume you agree that mass production in 2019 is unlikely. As to the rest of what you wrote: Um whatever. Greglocock (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Josephua and Stephen Hui. I think that the current version best describes current situation, let's wait for another official statements. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 23:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 23:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

(

) 09:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Josephua right up there? Are you enjoying to spread fake news? As Josephua said, the FGFA is the exported aircraft variant, also there is only mentioned that there is no reason to speed up work (not cancel). From recent articles (July 24) it is clear that it is still planned that the first batch of 12 units will enter military service in 2019.1 First of twelve aircraft will be powered by the AL-41F1 engine and starting from 2020 all future batches will use the Isdeliye 30 engine (from the second prototype).2 Jirka.h23 (talk

) 04:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I did. I offered an alternative explanation based on experience with product development rather than fanboi selective interpretations of statements by politicians. Mass production would be defined as what exactly? I'm guessing 2 new a/c per year will be the maximum you see before 2021, if you want to call that mass production, go right on ahead sonny, no skin off my nose. Greglocock (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that two new aircraft per year should not be taken as mass production. But if we look at F-22 average production - 12 new aircafts per year corresponds with the planned delivery of 12 Su-57 in 2019. We'll see how will continue production in next years. Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

F22 production rates are irrelevant as it was never in mass production. You do understand that mass production is a technical term, it does actually have a specific meaning? Unless you have something more meaningful to say than fanboi regurgitation then my interest in this is over.Greglocock (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Problem is that here and here you stated that it is canceled at all. Why do not you do the same in the case of F22, if you said that it was also never mass produced. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

So after the order in June, it is 76 aircraft until 2028.1 Two aircraft will also be delivered in 2019 and 2020, respectively. So in eight years, Sukhoi will in serial production deliver approximately 10 aircraft per year. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Sukhoi Su-57/GA1

Since aircraft articles are gradually transitioning to the new template, I've made a draft for the Su-57, with the values transcribed in the proper fields as much as I could. With some adjustments and tweaks we can add it to the main article. As much as I could, I tried to consolidate sources from the same publication together.

Data from Aviation News,^[1] Aviation Week,^[2] Air International,^[3][4][5] Combat Aircraft^[4]

General characteristics

• Crew: 1
• Length: 19.8 m (65 ft 0 in)
• Wingspan: 13.95 m (45 ft 9 in)
• Height: 4.74 m (15 ft 7 in)
• Wing area: 78.8 m² (848 sq ft)
• Empty weight: 18,000 kg (39,683 lb)
• Gross weight: 25,000 kg (55,116 lb) typical mission weight, 29,270 kg (64,530 lb) at full load
• Max takeoff weight: 35,000 kg (77,162 lb)
• Fuel capacity: 10,300 kg (22,700 lb) internally
• Powerplant: 2 × Saturn AL-41F1 (initial production) turbofans with thrust vectoring, 93.1 kN (20,900 lbf) thrust each dry, 147.2 kN (33,100 lbf) with afterburner
• Powerplant: 2 × izdeliye 30 (later production) turbofans with thrust vectoring, 107.9 kN (24,300 lbf) thrust each dry, 176.6 kN (39,700 lbf) with afterburner

Performance

• Maximum speed: Mach 2 (2,120 km/h; 1,320 mph) at altitude
  • Supercruise: Mach 1.6 (1,710 km/h; 1,060 mph) at altitude
• Range: 3,500 km (2,200 mi, 1,900 nmi) subsonic, 4,500 km from 2 outboard fuel tanks^[6]
  • Supersonic range: 1,500 km (930 mi, 810 nmi)
• Service ceiling: 20,000 m (66,000 ft)
• g limits: +9.0
• Wing loading: 317 kg/m² (65 lb/sq ft) typical mission weight
• Thrust/weight:
  
  • AL-41F1: 1.02 (1.19 at typical mission weight)
  • izdeliye 30: 1.15 - 1.2 (1.36 at typical mission weight)

Armament

• Guns: 1 × 30 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-1 autocannon in right LEVCON root
• Hardpoints: 12 hardpoints (6 × internal, 6 × external)^[7][8][9]
• Air-to-air missiles:
  • 4 × RVV-MD
  • 2 × R-73
  • R-37M^[10]
• Air-to-surface missiles:
  • 4 × Kh-38ME
• Anti-ship missiles:
  • 2 × Kh-35E, 31 etс.
• Anti-radiation missiles:
  • 4 × Kh-58UShKE^[11]
  • 250, 500, 1500 kg guided bombs^[11]
  • Kh-59MK2^[6]
  • Anti-tank "Drill"^[12] 500 kg cluster-bomb + active homing^[10]

Avionics

• Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES)
  • Byelka radar (400 km, 60 targets of 16 hit)^[13][14]
    • N036-1-01: Frontal X-band active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar
    • N036B-1-01: Cheek X-band AESA radars for increased angular coverage
    • N036L-1-01:
      Slat L-band arrays for IFF
  • L402 Himalayas electronic countermeasure suite
• 101KS Atoll
  electro-optical targeting system^[15]
  • 101KS-O: Laser Directional Infrared Counter Measures
  • 101KS-V:
    Infra-red search and track
  • 101KS-U: Ultraviolet missile approach warning system
  • 101KS-N: Targeting pod
  • 101KS-P: thermal imager for low altitude flying and night landing

If this looks okay then I'll place it into the main article. Steve7c8 (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@

talk

) 22:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

E. I. Dinazar (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC) As far as i remember, 2nd stage prototype is a bit longer and wider.i'll search the ref first

That is correct. According to Air International September 2017 page 25, the length of the production Stage 2 airframes is 20.1 meters, while wingspan is 14.1 meters. I'll adjust the numbers accordingly. Steve7c8 (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

googled — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.126.129.55 (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done - 祝好，

聊天

) 14:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This article can use a thorough clean up, since some sections are bloated, while others are lacking some pretty important information. I propose the following changes.

Remove the list of prototypes: Seriously, this table just bloats the article and can easily be summarized by a paragraph or two. For instance, here is what I propose.

A total of ten flying and three non-flying prototypes were built for flight tests and initial combat trials. Five flying and two non-flying prototypes comprise the "first stage" aircraft design, with the two non-flying prototypes tested static flight loads and avionics integration. The first two flying prototypes tested flight characteristics, while the second two prototypes conducted airborne tests of avionics systems, including the radar and electronic warfare suite. The fifth prototype was heavily damaged by an in-flight fire, and the remains were combined with parts cannibalized from the sixth prototype in order to return to flight status. The starting with the sixth flying aircraft, five more of the structurally redesigned "second stage" aircraft were built, as well as one non-flying prototype. The last two prototypes were test articles of production aircraft.

"Second stage" aircraft: Multiple sources have now corroborated that the Su-57 aircraft has two "stages", the initial "first stage" prototypes (T-50-1 to T-50-5) and the structurally redesigned "second stage" aircraft (T-50-6 onwards). A short paragraph or statement about this should be made either in the Origins section or Flight Test section. Steve7c8 (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

There has been no sources stating that the Su-57 can function as a UAV. The Sputnik News "source" is the only one that even makes any kind of allusion to this, and quite frankly it's a best a tertiary source, as the individual stating this is not actually involved with the Su-57, and his statement regarding the g-loads is likely a blanket statement for UAVs in general. Given that complete lack of rigor in the citation, I would suggest removing this "15G" statement. Steve7c8 (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Since most Russian publications use the latter designation for the Su-57's current engines, I'll adjust the article accordingly. Steve7c8 (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"The third and fourth prototypes first flew in November 2011 and December 2012, respectively, and lack the pitot tube found on earlier aircraft" This is kind of vague and confusing. From the photos the T-50 has TWO pitot tubes, on either side of the fuselage below and behind the cockpit. Are you sure you aren't referring to the prominent air data probe mounted on the nose? This is probably not a production item. But it's not a pitot tube, it's for measuring yaw and pitch angles. Idumea47b (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I think your are correct, it is not acutally mentioned in the source used so I have removed the comment. MilborneOne (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Here are recent good quality images of the Sukhoi Su-57 to be used in the article that were taken from the MAKS 2019 show to replace images that of the prototype T-50. - 祝好，

) 18:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Apparently Algeria purchased or is planning to purchase them Al Farwazirip (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Su-57 has entered service with the AL-41F1, but the planned izdeliye 30 engines are still being tested and not operational and won't be for several more years, so why is it being used in the Specifications section? Shouldn't it only have operational engines in there? 2601:144:100:AA10:7116:6445:43C9:8E5D (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Find a source with the thrust to weight ratio for the AL-41F1, and add it. We report what is in reliable sources. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

T/W ratio for the AL-41F1 is already in the article, it's the number for the izdeliye 30 that I think should not be in the specification section, because the engine is not operational yet. 2601:144:100:AA10:D961:CA78:76F3:B10B (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Recently, Piotr Butowski's book on the Su-57 was published. It contains lots of important program information, historical background, and technical details missing from the article. I will be incorporating some of this information in the article. Steve7c8 (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a fine plan. Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Much of the information here is fluff, and the important ones, such as the aircraft being used to test new engines, is already captured in the prose. I would suggest that we delete this section. Steve7c8 (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree, anything of note can be put in the text. MilborneOne (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The linked TASS and Asia Times articles report a single aircraft delivered to one regiment, with four more reportedly to come in 2021. This isn't sufficient to count as "in service", it's certainly not enough for Initial Operational Capability, never mind Full Operational Capability, especially if it's supposed to be "in service" with _both_ the AF and Navy, as implied by the next lines of the data block. At best it's misleading the reader. There's not really sufficient production-standard aircraft for even an operational evaluation unit as yet. 86.8.177.103 (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

"In service" should mean the aircraft has been formerly approved for combat use (IOC or equivalent) or fielded into combat. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I've seen articles by the Russian media claiming that Sukhoi has made a "Su-75". Can anyone confirm this? (It's the Russian media and therefore, in my book, isn't very trustworthy). If it is in fact real, someone should probably start an article on it. Thanks in Advance, KinneticSlammer (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

P.S.: It also seems to be nicknamed "Checkmate".

Much of the content in these two sections appear to be speculation and opinions from journalists, with some citations bordering on editorials. I don't think this kind of analysis belongs, and I would remove them and integrate whatever factual information into the rest of the article. Steve7c8 (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems you and/or somebody already removed these sections yesterday. Thanks, -Fnlayson (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is

transcluded from Talk:Sukhoi Su-57/GA2

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I’ll use the GA criteria and give my reasons for why I don’t think this article qualifies in the respective criteria.

Well written

• In terms of the grammar and manual of style, it’s passable, though I think many sections are in need of a copy-edit.

Verifiable with no original research

• Here is where some issues start emerging. Wikipedia values verifiability, but not all sources are equally accurate, and in an article covering technical subjects such as an aircraft, mistakes from less reliable sources are quite apparent. For instance:
  • Until it’s recent removal, the article used a rate of climb figure from two other tertiary news-collecting sources (militaryfactory and deagel).
  • A good number of references come from TASS, which while acceptable for reflecting on the position of the Russia state such as signing of contracts, are questionable when used to cite some outlandish claims such as “sixth generation” capabilities.
  • There are also 6 “citation needed” tags, even more before I began revamping the article.

Broad in its coverage

• The article goes into some unnecessary detail, with the procurement and potential operators section reading like a chronological collection of news articles. The avionics section in particular has a paragraph about consumer Elbrus processors that serve no purpose. Plenty of sentences in the article that just quotes the statement of an official. The design section in particular goes well beyond
  summary style
  .

Neutral

• As mentioned earlier, some state-owned references like TASS are obvious issues when it comes to reliability, since some parts of the article takes their claims at face value, such as the stealth and armaments and Syrian deployment section. Some of the overtly negative news articles can also be removed.

Stable

• I’ve had to massively revamp the article, adding in notable information in the origins and testing & trials sections that should have been there much earlier.

Illustrated

• The amount of media is acceptable, although I find having a gallery of every sensor to be excessive.

Overall, I don’t think this article meets the GA criteria for the reasons listed above. Certainly I can fix them, and I have already worked through most of the Origins, Overview, and Flight Test and Trials sections. But the remaining work will be a rather involved and lengthy process that will result in an article quite different from what it currently is.

Until that is done I think it should be de-listed. If there is a consensus from the

community about this, then I can go forward with this.

Steve7c8 (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I've made some major revisions to the article, and I think the quality is much better than it was before. That said, a new book on the Su-57 by Yefim Gordon is coming out in December, and I would like to read that book to see what other important pieces of information can be added before submitting this article for quality reassessment. Steve7c8 (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a persistent attempt by a user to add information about the radar on the Su-57, and specifically the purported lack of AESA. The user linked an interview with NIIP director Yuri Bely about the N036 being dismounted from prototype Su-57/T-50 airframes, but this interview dates to 2014 when the aircraft is still in a rather early stage of testing. Furthermore, the user has attempted to use this to state that the aircraft doesn’t have an AESA or is using a PESA replacement, but upon reviewing the posted sources, they don’t verify these statements and appear to be an incorrect synthesis of information from various sources while making multiple errors. So far there is no reputable source indicating that the N036 is not mounted on production airframes, and using a source from 2014 does not reflect the current status. This is why these additions have been reverted. The user has reported me to the administrators and want to investigate my IP address and geolocation, for whatever good that will do. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It would simplify the article to not have so many translations into Russian. And the article would not lose much value. MCG 06:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that some of these are excessive. I'll remove a few of them. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

User:F1V8V10V6, where was the discussion regarding the infobox image for this aircraft? Can you link it? You state that there was a consensus, which I couldn't find. I think the current image does not show much of the aircraft wing planform, an important aspect in aviation. See the comparisons below.

Steve7c8 (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Those two images seem fairly similar but the proposed (2nd) image gives a slightly better view of the
  planform imo. -Fnlayson (talk
  ) 21:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Cannot verify supercruise claims

I've read over the citations given for the claim that this plane can supercruise and only one even mentions "supercruise": ainonline.com, which does not give a speed and mentions it only in passing. There is one reference I do not have access to verify, the 2021 Butowski book "Su-57 Felon". I think there is not enough evidence from these citations to support the claim that the Su-57 can supercruise, even if the Butowski book mentions it. The Mach 1.3 claim in the specifications section is similarly uncited. My own opinion: there is no trouble finding a wealth of quality information on, say, the F-22's supercruise ability and speed. So if the Su-57 really can supercruise, either Sukhoi or the Russian military are not being forthcoming. It's a paper claim, a dream, until there is substantial evidence to the contrary. So, does anyone actually have any substantial evidence they could cite? HarryKernow (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Butowski is a very well regarded source when it comes to Soviet and Russian aviation. Given that supercruise is one of the driving requirements of the PAK FA program, I would say that the aircraft is capable of it, even if it's a bit limited with the current AL-41F1 engines. Steve7c8 (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a copy of the book? I don't myself and it would be very expensive to purchase. No library anywhere near me has it. HarryKernow (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the comparison to the F-22 may not be warranted, as the amount of information on the F-22 capabilities is going to be far higher than that of the Su-57 by simple virtue of length of time. The production F-22 first flew in fall 1997 and the prototype in fall 1990. The Su-57, on the other hand, first flew in winter 2010. So, we have had between 24-31 years to have information about the F-22, and 12 years for info about the Su-57. Possibly less if you consider that the Su-57 first entered service in at the end of 2020, so less than 2 years ago, while the F-22 has been in service for 16 years. It is not the least bit surprising to me that we know more about the F-22 capabilities than we do the Su-57, and that's also ignoring things like language barrier issues (we are on the English language Wikipedia, and most anything about the F-22 is printed in English, while much about the Su-57 from official sources will be printed in Russian). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it just adds to the trouble of sourcing. Unfortunately for Wikipedia's purposes the F-22 is on equal ground to the Su-57; it should only say the capabilities as reported by reliable sources, which is why I'm asking about them. I can easily verify the F-22 claim, but not even Sukhoi's site contains info on supercruise. HarryKernow (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll note that even Russian news sources tend to post speculative or contradictory specifications for the Su-57, so I would consider a dedicated aviation journalist's report like Butowski's to be much more reliable. Furthermore, regarding service lengths, the F-22 has been in service since December 2005, at which point over 40 production aircraft had been delivered and a combat squadron had been equipped. This is not the case for the Su-57, where based on recent discussions, only 5 production aircraft have been delivered, and these are likely going to an evaluation squadron in Lipetsk. The first Su-57 regiment won't be equipped until 2025 or so, which would be more comparable to the F-22's service status when it was introduced. As such, even saying that the Su-57 has been in service for just over 1 year compared to F-22's 16 years is actually not accurate and an overstatement for the Su-57. In any case, I do have Butowski's book on hand, and the specifications are listed in page 75. Note that this isn't completely official or definitive, but Butowski is quite a reputable author on Russian aviation and very well regarded with a good track record. Steve7c8 (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

That you have the book and can verify is good enough for me, though I would be very interested in seeing it for myself. In my experience finding specific AND accurate performance data is nearly impossible, even with reliable sources. Secondarily the service life of the F-22 has nothing to do with what we know of its supercruise capability. The ATF program had this as a requirement from the very start and numerous sources have reported on both F-22's and its competitor's (YF-23) ability to supercruise, well before its official USAF introduction in 2005. This source gives an exact speed with quotes from the very pilot who flew the test mission, 1999, a whole 4 years before the first delivery in Jan 2003. HarryKernow (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean to vindicate the Su-57 with my statements about its service dates. It's clear that the production timeline and some of the original claims have been far too optimistic. I was merely highlighting the statement that the Su-57 wouldn't be "in service" by US or Western standards. If that were the case, i.e. the delivery of the first production aircraft, then the equivalent date for the F-22 would have been 2003 with the delivery of aircraft number 00-4012. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Butowksi 2021 is widely used as a ref for many made up numbers in this article, yet the actual reference is not identified anywhere. Unless someone can point me at a proper ref for it then a lot of this article will be disappeared. Greglocock (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Why doesn't "Butowski, Piotr (2021). Su-57 Felon. Stamford, UK: Key Books. ISBN 978-1-913870-44-7." count? BilCat (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, Ok I only looked in the refs section, hadn't seen the Bibliography underneath https://www.key.aero/article/su-57-focus-felon-loose is what I found which superficially matched the ref. Greglocock (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I've missed stiff myself more times than I care to remember! BilCat (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)