Talk:Sukhoi Su-25/Archive 2

wow
This article is full of propaganda, which is a standard in Wiki nowadays, but this is over the top: "According to reports of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights the pilot ejected safely but was shot and killed on the ground after firing on rebel soldiers with his pistol." The author probably wants to imply that the pilot's death was justified, because he shot at the terrorists first, right? Anybody who saw the videos from the terrorist themselves would know that they shot at him whilst he was still descending under the chute, so would you (whoever "owns" this article - probably some paid propaganda troll) mind rephrasing that nonsense to something more factual? Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.26.143 (talk)


 * The cited CBC ref says: "A Syrian militant in the area told The Associated Press that the pilot was shot and killed when he resisted capture by opening fire from his pistol on the militants who tried to seize him alive." The SPIEGEL ref cited says in translation: "The pilot parachuted and shot dead after landing." So the current text reflects what the refs say. We can change what the entry says, but you need to provide a ref. - Ahunt (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

[UPDATE] Pilot was not killed by rebels, Pilot was fighting against rebels on the ground, but later blow himself up with grenade to avoid capture.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/05/russia-rains-retaliatory-strikes-rebel-held-idlib-jet-downed/ https://nypost.com/2018/02/05/russian-pilot-blows-himself-up-to-avoid-capture-from-jihadists/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:2BFB:D900:40AD:3AF1:2834:A3A7 (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for finding that, I will add it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Service ceiling, again
Are we free yet to discuss why this article is using the "Practical Ceiling" value for "Service ceiling" in the Specifications? I was previously blocked for asking if editors were able to discuss this question before any changes were made. Some editors were opposed in this Talk Page to even discussing the issue, but it looks like the discussion by other editors has been removed. So the question appears to be ready for discussion again. Or is the issue still very sensitive? Santamoly (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been "removed" it has been archived. Unless you have anything new to add, the matter is closed. - Ahunt (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Cold feet/cold hamburger alert. - BilCat (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Why has the service ceiling in the article been lowered? Why has the notice that the source used pertains to an old export version been removed? Why are talk page comments referencing sources predating the MH-17 crash removed? Why are Russians routinely called racist slurs such as "Putinbots" in the edit summaries, for no other apparent reason than trying to revert the service ceiling back to the original specs? Why are editors who bring up such issues intimidated with sanctions and blocked?

The aircraft has a normal service ceiling of 7,000m (22,960ft). This is usually stated as 'clean' (without external stores), though Alexander Mladenov, in Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot, Osprey, Oxford, 2013, ISBN 978-1782003595, p.27, gives the same ceiling with 4x500kg bombs and 2xR-60 Aphid AA missiles. Mladenov also (p.28) claims a 10,000m (32,800ft) ceiling for the T/TM model, which is odd since these variants, of which only 16 were built, unique to Russia, are 2 tonnes heavier and have the same wing and engines. Elsewhere in the book Mladenov mentions that Su-25s over Afghanistan would begin attack dives from 24,000-28,000ft, the high climb being dictated by local terrain height, but he also mentions that neither the aircraft nor the pilots took well to going that high. Above 7,000m/23,000ft the pilot must switch from air-oxygen mix to pure oxygen, due to the unpressurised cockpit, and pilots don't like breathing pure oxygen WW2-style, and they also experienced considerable pain and discomfort at the decompression above the rated service ceiling. The original Wikipedia article did credit the Su-25 with a 10,000m ceiling, and the Ukrainian arms-export site advertises the Su-25 (they have about 30 aircraft in storage that they are offering for sale) with a '7,000-10,000m' ceiling, but the higher figure represents absolute ceiling, where neither the aircraft nor the pilot is going to be much use. Vladmir Babak, who designed the thing, told German TV in 2015 that an Su-25 could not intercept an airliner at 10,000m, because at that height the Sukhoi isn't fast enough and its stability is so marginal that it would go out of control if it fired a weapon. Babak also observed that the damage to MH 17 was consistent with a BUK (SA-11) missile and not with the R-60 sometimes carried by the Su-25, which isn't capable of bringing down an aircraft the size of a Boeing 777. https://nltimes.nl/2015/03/11/buk-missile-took-out-mh17-russia-military-expert/ Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's useful to review some basic terms here. I don't really want to get into the matter of flight MH17, and hope we can stick to the numbers shown as "Service Ceiling". The Su-25 is definitely a unique plane in that it has two powerful fighter jet engines, but has an unpressurized cockpit.  It may be the only plane in the world with this configuration. It's a cheap, low-altitude, tank-buster, nothing more. Thus, it's abilities are limited by the pilot's ability to stay conscious and functional in a low-oxygen environment as the plane climbs. On the other hand, the Service Ceiling of an airplane is defined in certification as the altitude at which the rate of climb drops below 100 fpm.  At this altitude, the engines are overheating and it has run out of climb ability. In an unpressurized cockpit, at an altitude above 7,000m, the flight crew would be unconscious because on-demand (facemask supplied) oxygen can't supply the crew because the partial pressure of the oxygen is too low. Thus the ceiling of the Su-25 has to be limited to that level where the flight crew remains conscious, or below approximately 7,000m.  Since this the only airplane in the world with this configuration, Sukhoi had to impose a different ceiling, which they call the "Practical Ceiling", i.e the level beyond which the crew would lose consciousness.  If one reads through the aircraft's documentation, one can see that the military generally insists on crews staying below the "Practical Ceiling" even though the plane is easily capable of blasting way past that altitude, up to the "Service Ceiling".  Now, if someone were to make an Su-25 with a pressurized cockpit, the numbers would of course change.  But that's a different topic, not what we're discussing today.  The point of this note is that what is called the Service Ceiling in the article is not the Service Ceiling, it is the Practical Ceiling.
 * FWIW, the Su-25 Chief Designer, Vladimir Volodymyr Babak, says that the technical characteristics of the Su-25 allow it to climb to an altitude of 11-12 kilometers, and the ground attack aircraft could reach the level where Boeing was flying (over 10 kilometers), Ukrainian sources report. However, climbing above the Practical Ceiling would cause the crew to lose consciousness. There's lots of engineering sources on this specific topic, so we shouldn't be reluctant to discuss it in a polite and civil manner.  The entire point to be made is that what is shown as the Service Ceiling ought likely to be explained as the Practical ceiling.Santamoly (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The above is incorrect. The Practical Ceiling is the Russian name for Service Ceiling. The problem is that the oldest production batch of Su-25's had an open cabin and used R-95 engines. The upgraded R-195 engine was a secret project, only revealed after the collapse of the USSR. The export version (Su-25K, produced from 1983 to 1989) was hence still built with the old R-95 engines, whereas the domestic (Soviet) Su-25 fleet had R-195 engines, and some had their cabins sealed. The 7km figure is for the old export variant and for any Su-25's of the earliest production runs which might not have been upgraded yet.


 * My copy of Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot by Alexander Mladenov gives the operational tactics in 1987 Afghanistan as sometimes being to initiate bombing runs from no less than 9km (29,500 ft). Since one can't do a bombing run without being loaded with bombs, this alone shows the Su-25 capable of flying loaded at >9km. My copy also makes no mention of the "aircraft not taking well to going this high", all it says is that the pilots didn't take well to it, given the open cabin.


 * The 5km loaded ceiling in the article is also wrong, this figure is the combat ceiling, which is the highest altitude at which certain horizontal maneuvers can be performed without loss of either altitude or speed. It's not particularly relevant for ground attack planes anyway, it's mostly relevant for fighter jets.


 * This Talk topic tends to become a shambles of bickering, especially when editors are sniping from the sidelines without SIGNING their contributions! Can you please sign your comments? It keeps the discussions at a polite and civil level. Thanks! Santamoly (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

My question is this: Why would the Ukrainian Air Force use a ground attack aircraft with no appreciable air-to-air capability to shoot down an airliner when they have MiG29s and Su-27s that are designed to do the job? The obvious answer is that they wouldn't, so whatever its service ceiling is or isn't is totally irrelevant to this talk page. It's time to just delete the obvious trolling on sight, and get the talk page protected if we need to. - BilCat (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. There is nothing new here. This has been examined in the mainstream media reporting on Wikipedia, at Arbcom and in several blocks. WP:DROPTHESTICK. - Ahunt (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, this discussion has nothing to do with Ukraine or shooting down airliners with a ground attack plane. It's a simple aircraft engineering question that's being muddled for unrelated reasons.  It's puzzling why uninformed types would want to stifle discussion of a technical definition that they're unqualified to discuss.  There doesn't seem to be any need to protect the main page - or even this Talk page, since there's nothing much happening other than a discussion of some arcane certification terminology used throughout Wikipedia. Can we try to focus on the technical question rather than bringing other unrelated issues into the discussion? If it helps, here's some related definitions from the  Department of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering at Virginia Tech:
 * Definition - Absolute Ceiling:
 * The absolute ceiling is the altitude at which the (maximum) rate of climb goes to zero.
 * Definition - Service Ceiling:
 * The service ceiling is the altitude at which the maximum rate of climb is . . . 500 ft/min (2.5 m/s) for jet powered aircraft.
 * Are these definitions a useful place to start? The next step would be to locate the standards and definitions used in the certification process to help us avoid equating apples and oranges in an encyclopedic article. Santamoly (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Santamoly, you have absolutely no idea who in these discussions is or isn't "uninformed", and honestly, it's totally irrelevant. As to your suggestion that "The next step would be to locate the standards and definitions used in the certification", that's original research, and in the end unnecessary. Wikipedia simply cites reliable sources. We don't investigate how they arrived at their information, as that's not our job here. - BilCat (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Santamoly, no matter how much you insist that this has nothing to do with MH 17, it emphatically does. Otherwise, nobody would care, and there would be no pressure to find a way to redefine the practical ceiling as an ceiling that coincidentally matches the ceiling needed to make the conspiracy theory about the Su-25 and MH 17 work. We are all well aware that a given airplane can, under some circumstances, operate at a higher ceiling than that published, provided it carries less fuel, or a lighter payload, or subjects its crew to unusual conditions, or is unstable, or takes an impractically long time to get there. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for original research or for printing unusual or marginal cases as commonplace fact in service of conspiracy theories.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Luckily we have (or rather had) a Ukrainian academic source from 2013 looking into exactly this question (Analysis of ways of modernization of the Su-25 aircraft with the purpose of improving its operational characteristics. A.N. SOROCHKIN, V.V. LOGINS, A.V. ELANSKY - Aviation and Space Technology, 2013, Nr 7 (104). ISSN 1727-7337). It gives current service ceilings as and concludes with an overview of possible further engine upgrades to the Su25's of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.109.130.71.213 (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Su-25: 7,000-10,000 m
 * Su-25T: 10,000 m
 * Su-25UTG: 10,000 m
 * Su-25SM: 10,000 m
 * Su-25TM: 10,000/12,000 m
 * Su-25KM: 10,000 m
 * The consensus among those with administrative power seems to be that "whatever its service ceiling is or isn't is totally irrelevant" but then what about the Wikipedia users who would be interested in the real data? You can't just assume that everyone looking for data such as the service ceiling of a jet aircraft is interested in numbers designed to serve the various conspiracy theories you (BilCat, Ahunt, Acroterion) are occupying yourself with - such as that the 10km figure was raised ex post facto (which would make ArgentLA not just a Russian Agent but a Russian Time Agent). It appears that consensus among those same is to keep deleting talk page comments presenting reliable data and lock the talk page. But doesn't that still leave the issue that data can still be recovered from the edit history of the talk page (it's how I found it)?109.130.71.213 (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, ArgentLA is a Russian Time agent. I received an email from him last week explaining that the Russians will invent time travel in 2033, and will use it to try to undermine the West to avoid the 2029 NATO invasion led by U.S. Emperor Donald II in 2029. - BilCat (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Obviously, as are Sorochkin, Logins and Elansky. It still doesn't solve your problem though, after your proposed operations of continuing the deletion of talk page comments and locking the talk page it still remains true that the data is accessible through the edit history of the talk page. And people who aren't yet aware of the vast and powerful extent of the (Russian) government's conspiracy, such as the ability to manipulate time itself, would still be inclined to believe a Ukrainian academic source predating the MH-17 crash over nationalist yellow journalism postdating the crash (such as prominently displayed at the top of the talk page).109.130.71.213 (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Several things to note:


 * The link to the paper was added by a Russian IP in the midst of the discussion of altered and falsified sources following MH 17. That doesn't bode well. We will need unequivocal evidence of the paper's existence before 2014 in an independent archive, rather than a place on the Internet chosen by a suspect IP.
 * We need a reliable English translation. Machine-translated text is bad at parsing tenses, and we don't know if the paper represents a proposal, as the title would indicate, or whether it represents something that was accomplished. The "current service ceiling" statement needs a definition.
 * The title indicates that an Su-25 is deficient in performance at altitude and needs or needed special measures for improvement to reach the altitudes proposed. This is consistent with previously reported statistics. What changes were made in later models to get another 3000m? I haven't found mention of more than minor powerplant improvements - most models appear to have been upgraded with new avionics or weapons capabilities rather than engine upgrades.
 * We need reliably sourced confirmation that upgrades were taken on operational aircraft. Such measures are expensive and time-consuming and there should be other documentation of such an upgrade program actually taking place, or how airframe and powerplant were changed to produce such a significant claimed improvement.
 * We need reliably sourced confirmation that such measures were applied broadly, i.e., to a large number of Su-25s, since the push on this talkpage has been to change the broad definition of the airplane's ceiling. We don't report one-offs or special cases as applying to the whole class.
 * The source should be run through RSN for broad comment from the community.

Beyond that, if it gets that far:


 * Any change must note the context of the change: i.e., MH 17 and the widely-reported efforts to change documentation on this singular issue to support a conspiracy theory.
 * The proposed change must go through an RfC for broad community participation, not through a consensus of two editors (one blocked) and a series of Belgian IPs that think The Economist is "nationalist yellow journalism," and that notice in the press of the gaslighting campaign that post-dated the crash is somehow peculiar because it post-dates the crash.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * As to your first point:


 * "The link to the paper was added by a Russian IP". I'm pretty sure my IP wasn't Russian, so do you have some evidence to support that fanciful assertion? And so what if it were? Are for example Su-25 pilots/ground crew/engineers/... or the Ukrainian university's faculty themselves etc some sort of persona non grata on Wikipedia due to their (suspected) nationality?
 * "in the midst of the discussion of altered and falsified sources following MH 17". Nobody cares about your conspiracy theories. And if the purported government conspirators are so incompetent as to fail to master the use of a proxy server (and hence can be identified by IP location) then how did they get to be so competent to master time travel?
 * "That doesn't bode well". Can you link me to some policy clarifying about editors of which national or ethnic groups (it can't be just Russians, right?) are considered a priori suspect? Does it for example include Jews as well, for example an editor from Israel (as determined by IP location) would be considered a priori likely to be engaged in manipulation and conspiracies?
 * "a place on the Internet chosen by a suspect IP". I chose that particular place because it is the official Ukrainian government site (gov.ua). If you would rather, say, have it directly from the university (Kharkiv Aviation Institute) itself then of course that is also possible.. Can you explain why I am considered "suspect" for this? Are you accusing me of being part of one of your purported government conspiracies?
 * The rest of your points seem to be about the reliability of the source, but academic sources predating the MH-17 crash trump yellow journalistic sources postdating the crash, it's that simple.2A02:A03F:4E02:B900:459A:88B9:959A:E99A (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about your IP, which has consistently been in Belgium, I was talking about the original source of that link. I'm outlining a possible course of discussion within Wikipedia guidelines concerning the proposed source, but if you're going to stick with the "yellow journalistic sources" line I don't see any reason for further discussion with you.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am the original source of that link and just explained to you why I chose that particular internet location (because it's the official Ukrainian government site). And if you're going to stick with your paranoid Russophobic conspiracy theories (again bringing up the national location of my IP as if that has something to do with anything - apparently I'm in a non-suspicious national/ethnic group, Belgian, jay!) then I don't see any reason for further discussion with you either.2A02:A03F:4E02:B900:459A:88B9:959A:E99A (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel like we're making progress on this topic. BilCat holds that we can only accept Reliable Sources in this matter, and that manufacturer's certification data is in the realm of "original research".  Fair enough.  So can we then focus on which sources are acceptable as Reliable Sources?  After a brief search, I have found two sources offering detailed technical data on aircraft of the world, published 15 to 20 years ago, long before the Su-25/39 became politicized, and I can offer them to this group for discussion:
 * https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-25sm3-specs.htm (lists a 10,000m "Service Ceiling")
 * http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/su25t.html (lists a 10,000m or 18,000m "Practical Ceiling", and an 5,000m "Combat" ceiling;
 * Is this a good place to start discussion? I mean to ask, can either of these sources can be considered as a "Reliable Source"?  If, not, can we consider other sources for the "Reliable Source" test?  There appears to be dozens of publications with this type of information, so surely some must be "reliable"?  Please let this page know, one way or the other. Santamoly (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

An overview of the content dispute before the current section


 * Consensus

From the time that the issue became contentious (July 2014) a total of 14 editors have expressed support for the original specs and a total of 5 editors have expressed support for the lowered specs. The ratio becomes 12 - 2 if we restrict to the discussion before the most recent round of the past couple of months.


 * Manipulation

Regarding the claims of manipulation: A total of 6 editors in favour of the original specs had their comments removed from the Talk Page by editors in favour of the lowered specs. There is no further evidence of manipulation of the content dispute. The sources that have been removed from the Talk Page through these removals include:


 * Statements by Su-25 air regiment commanders.


 * Analysis of ways to modernize the SU-25 attack aircraft to improve its operational characteristics. A.N. Sorochkin, V.V. Loginov, A.V. Elansky - Aerospace Technic and Technology, 2013 Nr 7 (104) ISSN 1727-7337.


 * Statements by the Chief Designer of the Su-25.


 * Su-25 "Grach" (War in the Air). Ivanov S. V 2001.


 * Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot.  Alexander Mladenov 2013.


 * Cockpit video footage from 1995.


 * Earlier versions of the article with the original specs.


 * Conspiracy theories

A total of 3 editors have promoted a conspiracy theory wherein the original specs are the result of a government conspiracy after the MH-17 crash in July 2014. There is no further evidence of editors promoting conspiracy theories.


 * Gaslighting

Regarding the claims of gaslighting: Gaslighting is a technique whereby negative reinforcement (ie punishment) is being used to make the subject say/believe something which is obviously, observably false. A total of 2 editors could be considered to have engaged in gaslighting whereby they threaten sanctions to make the subject agree that the original specs are a response to a plane crash in 2014. There is no further evidence of gaslighting.


 * Personal attacks and disrupting Wikipedia for national reasons

A total of 2 editors have expressed clear nationality based personal attacks against other editors wherein they call editors who they suspect of having a certain nationality "Putinbots" or manipulative trolls. The recent methodical attempts at trying to determine other editors' nationality and/or ethnicity to subsequently declare them "suspects" on that basis is particularly disconcerting.


 * Conclusion

It seems that the lowering of the article's service ceiling neither has consensus nor has had consensus for years. Consensus seems artificially maintained through Talk Page comment removal and (threats of) administrative sanctions for disagreement. Given this last point the numbers of those in favour of the original specs vs those in favour of the lowered specs should be seen as a lower bound for the former, since it seems reasonable that some editors won't risk getting their accounts blocked for expressing disagreement with the latter. 2A02:A03F:4E02:B900:28A3:A8F6:46B3:2AE (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Documented efforts to adjust Wikipedia content to maintain a narrative relating to MH 17.

Regarding the claims of documented efforts to adjust Wikipedia content to maintain a narrative relating to MH-17: A total of 4 editors have framed their arguments in terms of maintaining a narrative relating to MH-17, 3 of which expressed effort to maintain the narrative that a government conspiracy is responsible for the original specs because of MH-17, and 1 one of which expressed effort to maintain the narrative that a Su-25 plane can not fly at the altitude of MH-17, a narrative which the editor in question was apparently promoting on a different forum. The latter editor's efforts include quickly repeated edits to the article's specs and requesting the page to be locked (which was granted). 2A02:A03F:4E02:B900:28A3:A8F6:46B3:2AE (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The conclusions of editors long ago

Regarding the appeals to conclusions of editors long ago: The only time before the MH-17 crash that the question came up on the Talk Page the conclusion was in favour of the original specs since the specs should reflect the later variants rather than the earlier ones (especially ones which haven't been in production for decades, such as the Su-25K). There is no further evidence of discussions or conclusions of editors on the Talk Page until the MH-17 crash in July 2014, after which there was never a (unanimous) consensus. 2A02:A03F:4E02:B900:28A3:A8F6:46B3:2AE (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Common Sense

Stumbling by accident onto this page I was bewildered and intrigued by this discussion. Obviously the discussion concerning the ceiling is ultimately about MH-17. And either side tries to support their theory / claim by promoting one or the other figure. Common sense would dictate, that the primary source for ceiling should be the manufacturer, with claims differing from the manufacturer be mentioned as such with an additional explanation as to why and how (incl. reliable sources, of course). The manufacturer (Sukhoi) stated on his own website the 7 km figure. Citing the figure previously used on Wikipedia is as reliable as the source used for that figure. 10 km or above might be possible, but again using common sense, we can assume, that a manufacturer will not understate or "undersell" its product's performance, unless its state's government demands it. Continuing to use common sense, we can safely assume that this is not the case as the aircraft is still in production and its manufactuerer actively seeks export clients. Also this aircraft has a very long production run and any Cold War secrecy surrounding the type (if ever any existed) is replaced by advertisement to help sell the type. In conclusion, unless their is no other reliable claim (including source and background), the manufacturer's own stats should be cited. ...just my two pennies --133.56.199.80 (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Russian IP
This diff which the Belgian IP found and refers to, was added by a Russian IP. That is the Russian IP to which I refer. You're making confused claims based on your misunderstanding of the IPs in question. Since you persist in saying things like "paranoid Russophobic conspiracy theories," along with characterizing coverage of the source of our concerns as "yellow journalism," I'm not interested in continuing any discussion with you, apart from reminding you that any changes will have to take place through a full request for comment, not through any local consensus, and that the RfC will have to discuss the broad context in which the technical issues have been raised. As I've said before, the technical issue of the ceiling is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned, and I have nothing to say concerning 7,000m versus 10,000m in and of itself - the issue is that extra scrutiny is required in light of documented efforts to adjust Wikipedia content to maintain a narrative relating to MH 17.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And for the sake of completeness, here is the archived pre-2014 spec sheet from the Sukhoi company with 7000m without external ordnance and stores.   Acroterion   (talk)   03:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, everybody knows that the export variant Su-25K (produced until 1989) and the earliest domestic Su-25's had less powerful engines. There is already a section on the technicalities of the service ceiling though, so to keep things organized perhaps sources on the technicality of the service ceiling itself should be provided there? This section is about the suspicion that a certain editor might have been a Russian and what that information should or shouldn't mean with regards to the content dispute.2A02:A03F:4E02:B900:28A3:A8F6:46B3:2AE (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And also for the sake of completeness, I don't think many people would take you serious regarding the technical issue of the ceiling anyway, since you are apparently not even aware that several variants listed in the Ukrainian academic source aren't Ukrainian in the first place, some are Russian or Georgian, when you claim: "we don't know if the paper represents a proposal, as the title would indicate, or whether it represents something that was accomplished." Furthermore, one can call yellow journalism or paranoid Russophobic conspiracy theories for what they are as much as one wants, but of course the more important point would be that the sources at the top of the Talk Page alleging such conspiracies should be thrown out for postdating the MH-17 crash.2A02:A03F:4E02:B900:28A3:A8F6:46B3:2AE (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is your claim: "The link to the paper was added by a Russian IP in the midst of the discussion of altered and falsified sources following MH 17. That doesn't bode well. We will need unequivocal evidence of the paper's existence before 2014 in an independent archive, rather than a place on the Internet chosen by a suspect IP."


 * Please state which "link to the paper was added by a Russian" and which "place on the internet was chosen by a suspect".


 * Explain why you are attempting to determine other editors' nationality (some form of doxxing?).


 * Explain why a Russian editor would be automatically a "suspect" but a Belgian one wouldn't.


 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPA, particularly this part: "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors."


 * As to the claim of "documented efforts to adjust Wikipedia content to maintain a narrative relating to MH 17": I believe all the documentation of such efforts has been provided above yet you are of course also free to provide more diffs showing such actions. 2A02:A03F:4E02:B900:28A3:A8F6:46B3:2AE (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Please stop personalizing the discussion. If you don't want your IP to be known, register an account - it provides a greater level of privacy. All editors are provided with whois tools for IPs, don't be shocked that they can be used. Then we can refer to you by your account name and you won't get confused about IPs. Stop the insinuations of prejudice. You're not being attacked, you're being asked to back up your claims in the context of Wikipedia process and policy, and in light of the history of this article and its interaction with the wider world. I think it's generally understood that later models have performance gains, it's a usual thing to be done. You've provided helpful data. What I don't understand is why this discussion is focused solely on altitude, to the exclusion of all other parameters that might usefully be included in an encyclopedia, such as range, speed, time to altitude, payload, avionics and weapons.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Please stop personalizing the discussion" says the editor who methodically attempts to determine other editors' nationality as a form of argument (even starts an entire Talk Page section on his suspicion regarding the nationality of a certain other editor). Answer my requests listed above.2A02:A03F:4E02:B900:28A3:A8F6:46B3:2AE (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Or don't answer the requests and just admit that 1. the nationality of another editor makes no difference and 2. that you are lying that the links to the paper (internet location gov.ua and internet location khai.edu) were added/chosen by a Russian/suspect editor.2A02:A03F:4E02:B900:28A3:A8F6:46B3:2AE (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And let's note for the record your attempts at misrepresenting my criticism. I don't care how public my IP address is. Furthermore, tools for checking IP addresses aren't just available to other editors but to everyone (such as). Indeed, most people wouldn't even need to do an IP check to conclude that the editor whose edit you link to is likely Russian, given that the edit consists of referencing Russian language sources in Russian. What is being criticized is your methodical attempts at determining other editors' nationality - irrespective of how you do it or how easy it is - and your subsequent accusations of some editors being "suspects" based on the result.2A02:A03F:4E02:B900:28A3:A8F6:46B3:2AE (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Acroterion asks:"What I don't understand is why this discussion is focused solely on altitude" The reason, Acroterion, is that this is one of the most interesting performance numbers in understanding the usefulness of an airplane. It's of prime interest to an aeronautical engineer or a pilot, and possibly completely uninteresting to a pharmacist or a botanist. For some unknown reason, the pharmacists and botanists have decided that this number has a political purpose, which mystifies the engineers amongst us who are just trying to sort out the absolute ceiling from the service ceiling from the combat ceiling. The "Service Ceiling" value shown in the article is for a 50-year old Georgian-produced version of the Su-25, and the chief designer says that this is the value for "Practical Ceiling", not "Service Ceiling".  Apparently, Soviet aviators have another ceiling: the "Practical Ceiling".  This is the dilemma facing all here.  This discussion will go on and on, ad infinitum, until the querulous among us, who want to block discussion of this topic, come to realize that the world won't end if we have this discussion. Unfortunately, if the technical discussion is blocked by a group of frightened ninnies, this becomes a really crappy Wikipedia article! Santamoly (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not frightened ninnies, (see WP:NPA), but this is well past WP:DEADHORSE territory. Vlad can't win 'em all. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Santamoly: spare us the name-calling. Yes, it is a very valid question to ask, which has never been answered. Why is the sole focus of interest on ceiling, when range, payload and avionics are of vastly greater military significance in a ground-attack aircreaft?  Acroterion   (talk)   13:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We have several independant third party sources cited at the top of this page, including Popular Science and The Economist that document how Russian agents have tried to subvert this Wikipedia article and change the Su-25's ceiling under orders from the Kremlin. We know that the manufacturer was forced to change his ceiling numbers, too. This whole subject is just more of the web of lies and deceit described in great detail in The Economist. I think on that basis alone we can set the whole attempt aside and close this discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Blatant lies from start to finish, as amply demonstrated above.87.65.164.127 (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, again as amply demonstrated above, the focus is on the service ceiling because that was the number that Rocknrollsuicide needed to be 7km in order support narratives on MH-17 on other forums. But by now 4 years have passed, and I'm sure the goal of promoting a certain narrative on MH-17 has been fulfilled, so why can't we just have the correct figures back?87.65.164.127 (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, just leaving it at the lowered 7km figure is fine. It stands as an illuminating example of why Wikipedia has zilch credibility.87.65.164.127 (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Acroterion, I can understand your confusion about the accuracy of technical matters if you're a non-technical person perhaps more interested in ethnic costumes than in aircraft performance numbers. But the accuracy of what's presented here in Wikipedia is important in that the reputation and credibility of Wikipedia suffers when editors with an agenda succeed in obstructing technical discussions for political reasons. For instance, Ahunt wrote above "Vlad can't win 'em all", and shortly afterward, you're suggesting that an engineer's interest in the term "ceiling" is irrelevant.  Of course I'm not suggesting that you and Ahunt are nervous ninnies or Ukrainian bots.  I would never do that. That would be very uncivilized. I have, for example, the greatest respect for your ability to spell correctly. But you do seem to be exerting an obsessive interest in turning this article into a political manifesto, rather than a good quality technical article.  As a result, this article continues to suffer greatly.  Santamoly (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Please correct
Wing area conversion in specifications is incorrect:

Wing area: 33.7 m² (323 ft²)

Should read:

Wing area: 33.7 m² (363 ft²)

Would correct but article is protected. 83.20.32.170 (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ✅ - Ahunt (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The engines are described as turbofans in the specifications, while they are actually turbojets. Would correct but article is protected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B07:5D32:7857:9DF0:CD30:FE2E:7240 (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ✅ - Ahunt (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

ISIL in Idlib and Khan shaykhoun?
In operative history, it says that it toke operation against ISIS in Idlib, but there were never ISIS in Idlib, only Syrian rebels.

That propaganda should be fixed Alaadino99 (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The cited ref disagrees. You will have to cite another ref that shows this one is wrong. - Ahunt (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The cited reference, Sputnik, has been depreciated due to being an unreliable source that publishes "false or fabricated information" Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources and should not be used as a source on Wikipedia. At the least the statement should be tagged as unsourced, to allow someone to find an actual source that Su-25s attacked targets in Idlib, if not just removed completely.Nigel Ish (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

RF-93026 Shot down over Ukraine
Maybe useful to add the photo from the Russian Invasion showing tail number RF-93026 before/after it got shot down. Looks like it was shot down on 2022-03-04. Not sure about source of images, or if there is a copyright free version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.37.26.246 (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * We generally cannot use photos unless they have been released under a free licence, so if you can locate any that are then you can upload them to Commons. - Ahunt (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Production
It's far from clear that the Su-25 is still in production. All recent models are upgrades and don't seem to involve actual production of new planes given that there's no mention of orders. The source cited in the statement that the Su-25 is in production dates back to 2004, hardly recent. In short, unless someone can present evidence otherwise, the article should be amended to state that the plane is no longer in production. Ecrm87 (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * To claim that it is not in production we would need a ref that says that. How about the factory website? - Ahunt (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I've found articles stating that production has ceased, I will amend the article accordingly. Ecrm87 (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * That is great that you found refs! - Ahunt (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Notable accidents
Please add:

- A Su-25 crashes while landing at the airport in north Mali city of Gao, on October 4, 2022

- A Russian Air Force Su-25 crashes after takeoff, on September 2022 Morelinho (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Neither one of those seem to be particularly notable, both are just routine crashes. Please see WP:AIRCRASH for the inclusion criteria. - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2022
requesting to add links of the countries listed on the national origin 67.218.121.149 (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * See WP:OVERLINK for why we don't do that, as that describes: the following are usually not linked: Everyday words understood by most readers in context ... The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of: countries (e.g., Japan/Japanese, Brazil/Brazilian). - Ahunt (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to Georgia (country), as it's both a small country and has an ambiguous name for most of our readers. BilCat (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, sounds reasonable. - Ahunt (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2023
Changing the years on something that is incorrect Sgtnugg (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to be more specific about what you think needs changing and provide refs that show it is wrong. - Ahunt (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)