Talk:Sukhoi Su-34

Could the JH-7A be added to the See Also section?
As far as i know the JH-7A was developed after Russia denied selling SU-34 to china, therefore china developed its own aircraft to fulfill the air-to-ground capabilities. FSbiran (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Су"
There is a common misconception about how Russian aircraft are supposed to be pronounced. The "Su" in Sukhoi aircraft is not an acronym. It is Су from Russian transliterated into English. As such, this aircraft along with all other Sukhoi aircraft with Су in their aircraft designation are pronounced like "sue" in English. Note that all the aircraft pages have an uppercase S and a lowercase u. That's not standard for how acronyms are used anywhere in English so I don't know why some of you think this is a special case. It's not. It's pronounced Su just like how it's spelled. Not S.U. By Russian convention it is an abbreviation of the manufacturer. They pronounce it like they would the first part of the full word. If you want to claim it's actually an acronym what does it even stand for? If you can't even come up with an explanation stop reverting my correct edits. 24.233.97.244 (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See unified discussion at Talk:Sukhoi Su-57.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  16:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

"25 lost - Oryx"
It's over a year since Oryx was completely debunked as having even the tiniest hint of credibility. 3 separate analysts went over their "photo evidence" and found that over 80% of claimed Russian vehicle losses(they focused on tanks for simplicity's sake) were Ukrainian, doublettes or outright faked photos. Most common were someone slapping some paint on in the shape of a Z or similar, but photoshop jobs were also common. You can go verify this yourself, just look up how camouflage differs, how ERA differs, how external electronics or weapons differs, how cage armor differs(one nation uses vertical bars, the other horizontal) between Russia and Ukraine. I tried this myself and were easily capable of IDing at least 1/3 of "Russian" losses as clearly Ukrainian. Using Oryx as a source, you might as well just call yourself part of the Goebbels factory and be done with it. Heck, use North Korean newsmedia as a source, it's probably more credible.

Furthermore, if Russia had actually lost 25 Su-34, they should today have clearly FEWER than they had at start of 2022. And yet, all reports i'm seeing says they have MORE. And that they had more even before the latest batch was delivered recently. 178.174.137.13 (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Have you considered posting your sources to prove your claims or not? 2A04:4A43:586F:C998:8960:7C2B:2630:140D (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't even need any prove, Oryx once even considered by Wikipedia as unreliable source. I looked at some recent russian losses especially some aircraft such as recent Su-34, many "evidence" of it were mostly just text screenshot for example from pro Ukraine or even pro Russian telegram post claiming that Russian aircraft were shot down. For losses that were unknown immediately become Russians. For tank losses, it is very hard to verify which side lose tank especially unrecognizable Soviet era tanks that were completely burnt or destroyed, yet many of them were categorize as Russian losses due to bias and PR reasons. While oryx also do the same to the Ukrainian losses, they are still biased towards Ukraine as many of such "evidence" and visual proof is from more active pro Ukraine OSINT and baseless Ukraine MoD claims. And then after their dubious count and categorization they have the audacity to claim that the Russian losses "might be higher than oryx count". Dauzlee (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Not providing proof is both against Wikipedia's quality standards and what you have said above "it doesn't even need any prove", is as good as hearsay otherwise. I could make the exact same claims for Russian claims of Ukrainian losses. Dismissing sources out of hand because of how they are "biased" is subjective and showcases personal bias on these sources. Please review Wikipedia's guidelines on sourcing for future reference. ShanganiPatrol (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

V004 WP:REDIRECT to Sukhoi Su-34 ?
Hi all,

@EditorAnonymousU@CycloneYoris

I've recently redirected V004 ‎to Sukhoi Su-34


 * Was this a better option than outright WP:A3 deletion?


 * Was this particular Radar device fitted to any other aircraft?


 * Does it merit a stand-alone article?


 * Perhaps some other outcome, and if so what one?

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Please revert it, it prevents users from seeing the wikipedia page EditorAnonymousU (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * No, this is not true or at least not now for this article. &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)