Talk:Sukhoi Su-33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSukhoi Su-33 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 30, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Specs[edit]

I believe I have added all specifications missing, if any are missing, please point it out and I will find the missing information and add it, as I did before owning an account. LWF 16:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro[edit]

"On September 5, 2005, one plane slid from the deck of the Admiral Kuznetsov" Does it have to be mentioned in the intro ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.242.5.107 (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Su-33 over MiG-29K[edit]

Does anyone know why the Soviet, and later Russian Navy chose the Su-33/27K over the MiG 29K ? At first glance,the smaller, lighter MiG 29K would seem better suited to carrier-borne service, particularly a carrier with a ski-jump deck. 63.152.13.173 13:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was chosen because the Su-33 was chosen over the MiG-29K was because the MiG-29K prototype was damaged during the tests and had to be left in a port for repairs. Ironically, the damage was caused by pilot error, not any fault of the MiG.--LWF 18:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing. The MiG-29 has always had the disadvantage of operational range. The Su-27 and its derivatives have a much bigger fuel reserve. Not to mention that the MiG carries only six weapons, as opposed to the Su-33's twelve. 70.59.150.74 (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Su-33[edit]

I cann't find the chinese sources relating the Su-33[1].--Ksyrie 01:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been articles in various magazines. I've personally seen it in both Air Forces Monthly and Air international, so count that as one since they're sister mags. I'll find the month and page references and post them here in talk. I can't remember exactly which month it was right now. As for the websites, I can't help at the moment I'm afraid. (Bobbo9000 (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Modernization[edit]

Does anyone have a list of what upgrades the Su-33 is getting? Will it be just upgraded avionics or a complete package like the -35BM? Zuranamee (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J-18[edit]

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90786/7354618.html Earlier this month, citing a report by Japan's Asahi Shimbun newspaper, Phoenix Television said the J-18 had completed a test flight at a field base in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. The report said the wings of the jet, similar to Russia's Su-33, a carrier-based multi-role fighter, could be folded, and suspected that it would be installed on China's future aircraft carrier.

So is the J-18 the same as the J-15? Hcobb (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Su-33 MTOW from carrier[edit]

In book Flankers The New Generation (writer: Yefim Gordon) it says;

"Even using the the station which afforded the shortest takeoff run of only 105m, the Su-27K could take of easily with a full fuel and weapons load. The ski jump was inclined 15deg; the normal glideslope angle during final approach was 4deg."

Is it worth mentioning? I ask because there are many speculations about this in the internet.

Also, I think the design part is too much comperative with MiG-29K. Maybe some more tecnhical background should be more informative, and comparison should be moved to another section?

"The infra-red search and track (IRST) system was placed to (where) provide better downward visibility" < this part is also missing. Thanks Andraxxus (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Sukhoi Su-33/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As the editor who successfully nominated the article for GA status in 2011, I feel, in retrospect, the nomination to have been hugely premature. At the time I thought the article had sufficient information to be classed as a GA; however, after having gone through all my sources, I concluded that the article is simply not broad enough in its coverage. For example, the "Design" section could be expanded much more, as can the coverage of the type's service with the Soviet and Russian Navies. I will address these issues, and because they are quite major, I think the best course of action is to demote it until I have finished my revamp of it. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

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

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

  • http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/sukhoisu-33/specs.html
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://wayback.archive.org/web/20110728174916/http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/sukhoisu-33/specs.html
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

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

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)== Interceptor or air superiority fighter? ==[reply]

Air defence fighter is vague, so it can either be Interceptor or air superiority fighter. The article has no references for air defence fighter--Arado (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GAR page[edit]

Hello. Back in 2013 I put up Sukhoi Su-33 for a GA reassessment, because at the time I thought the article was lacking some information. Fnlayson subsequently removed the inactive GAR notice from the article's talk page in July 2014, and said that the GAR was unneeded anyway. However, the GAR page is still live – should it be put up for deletion? Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issues should be discussed on the article's talk page before putting up for review. Being super complete as your GAR comments suggest is not a GA criteria. The criteria only says it has to be "Broad in its coverage". --Finlayson (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Sukhoi Su-33. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (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) 18:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Development from J-15?[edit]

Another Wikipedia page states, China developed J 15 from Su 27 and also studied the design of Su 33. How can the Su 33 be developed from J 15 then as stated in this page? SReader21 (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was added in April this year in this edit, which no-one seems to have spotted.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement[edit]

Looking at flightglobal's World Air Forces Directories, the Russian Su-33s seem to have been retired since at least 2021. Does anyone have any sources that would suggest this isn't the case? I wouldn't want to edit the page if it wasn't certain. Sides-Daren? (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sukhoi_Su-33&oldid=1210315605"