Talk:Sukhoi Su-27/Archive 1

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

Unnamed section

How can the USSR-leaders have voted for a plane against the F-15 and F-16 in 1969; both US planes weren't operational at that time! A mistake in the year, or in the planes? Jeronimo 00:16 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)

erm, I just wrote what I read in a newspaper. Probably the names are wrong. wojpob

OK, it might be a really old question now, but they knew what was under development, of course, and acted to develop a reply, same as military planners always do.

The F-15 was being developed in 1969, but the F-16 wasn't developed until a few years later. The Russians may have had plans as early as 1969 for a plane that could mix it up with the F-15 but they would not have incorporated the threat the F-16 presented until the 70s.

I introduced some technical data from a Russian reference book "Modern Combat Aircraft: Reference guide", ISBN 985-6163-10-2). I think that as this information constitutes merely reference data that is otherwise in public domain, I do not violate the copyright. What do you think about it? --Uri

As far as I know, it is impossible to copyright facts, so you're safe here. On the other hand, the authors of this book have collected this data in a book, so it may be required to quote them as the source of these facts. That would be good practice anyway, since facts may differ between sources. Jeronimo 02:20 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)

Thanks, I did so. --Uri

On a different note, I have experimented before with some standardising of the aircraft pages at F-117 and Fokker Dr.I. So far, my idea of standardising has stopped at putting all the characteristics in a table. Does any of the editors to this page - Uri, WojPob, others? - have any other suggestions on this? Maybe we can work out some general template for this kind of pages. I've done something similar with the WikiProject Countries, and a pretty good template has come up for the country pages (see examples at Netherlands, Liechtenstein and United States). Interested? Jeronimo 02:30 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)

Yes, but too often the data is in different units as well, so we need to agree on these too. --Uri

Sure, that was one of the topics that need to be addressed. I just made up the table of specifications looking at those that appear most often; there are (many) more. Other topics:

Structure of the text; it may be useful to designate sections for the text that should at least be included.
Versions of the aircraft: I've for now included the different versions int he specifications table, but this may grow very large for some planes; maybe it's more useful to make a separate table
Differences between military/commercial aircraft

I hope to look at this topic later this week. Jeronimo

Has their been any comparative evaluation between the Su-27 and, say, the F-15 (which I gather would be the most directly comparable US plane). ISTR the Mig-29 was a better dogfighter than the F-15, but was unlikely to get the chance as the American plane's long-range missiles would have most likely destroyed it before they even saw each other. --Robert Merkel

I believe so. Your surmise sounds pretty-much spot on to me. (By the way, if you are interested in this stuff, Robert, especially with regard to Australian equipment decisions, email me. I have a very interesting thing I could dig out for you.) Tannin 10:21 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard about some trainig fights between Su-27 & F-15, but how trustable results are?

I've deleted this sentence: "The Su-33 is the only aircraft to have enough thrust to start from a carrier without the use of a catapult." This is clearly wrong, because any VTOL plane or helicopter obviously can. Perhaps this was meant to say "the only non-VTOL aircraft," but that would still be incorrect: Brazil flies A-4 Skyhawks from their carriers, and IIRC France flies the Alize from theirs. I couldn't figure out how to write the sentence correctly, so I struck it. -- Ortonmc 02:25, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've added a WikiProject Aircraft data table to the article. --Tomwalden 08:05, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The PFI program was motivated by Soviet awareness that the Americans had LAUNCHED what would become the F-15 program. The Sukhoi engineers said they actually waited at a couple of points to see what the Americans would do so they'd know what they were competing against! --ArgentLA 15:47, 15 Nov 2004

The F-15 plans could have been stolen Dudtz 8/20/05 3:16 PM EST

whats this "Pero" radar??? -PurCitron. phanx

Maneuverability

"The usefulness of the 'Flanker's' maneuverability in real-world combat is hotly debated, with some western experts claiming it is inferior to the F-22 Raptor and Eurofighter Typhoon. With the advanced capability of modern air-to-air missiles, its turn performance may be of little actual benefit in a real fight." This seems to be unsupported speculation. What 'western experts'? I am not sure if the debate over whether manuverability is important belongs in this article, but in any case, I suggest that these statements need to be supported/referenced or deleted. --Profhobby 22:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Pull it. The contributing editor bears the burden of proof. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 08:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging with J-11

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was Not to merge the Shenyang J-11 article into Su-27. --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 13:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose merging the Shenyang J-11 article into Su-27 main article. The J-11 is a Chinese-assembled Su-27SK with Russian-supplied kits and I don't think there's enough variation it in to be a different aircraft. -- Adeptitus 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Support, the changes are minor enough to be put in this article and the Shenyang J-11 article is quite short. I've taken the liberty of adding the merger tags to the articles. - Dammit 18:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral I think we have a number of articles discussing the different variants of the basic Su-27. In such a case the Chinese version is rightfully considered a separate one. IMO we should take care to expand and create and inter-version navigation template, with possible development trees. Reducing amoung of variants is indeed inconsistent.

On the other hand if the current version is but a local designation then a more suitable family of articles would Flanker operations in China where this and other Chinese use of Su-27 family would be at length covered. --Kuban Cossack

20:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Support —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Itake (talk • contribs) 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

Oppose. It's an aircraft of Chinese airforce, and, while it's really Su-27, many people may look for it, and it deserves some explanation, being about the best (if no other Su-27 variant comes in) aircraft of China. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree, the J-11 maybe a variant, but it still is owned by China, and the Chinese version will have its diffrences from the SU-27, so it should remain on its own page.

Support.The Shenyang J-11 and the Mig 29 are the same planes, it's just that the Shenyang J-11 is a Mig 29 built in China and J-11 is the designation the Chinese use. As dammit has said, the J-11 page is quite short meaning that by merging them there will be a greater amount of information available on the J-11. User: Gazza 19:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"J-11 and the Mig 29 are the same planes" that is really funny sounding comment TestPilot 04:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The Shenyang J-11 and the Mig 29 are different planes. The Mig 29 and Su-27 was built using the same documents supplied by the russian government, but the two fighters are quite different. Also, the chinese J-11 is far different than the Su-27 in that it posses domestic engines and other equipment. They are not the same aircraft.

Oppose. I believe that J-11 and Su-27 shared alot of simliarity, but it's built by two different countries, the Russia and Chinese

Oppose. The J-11 is built with Chinese domestic equipment, and in the future the J-11 will possibly have it's own variants. Two seperate articles are appropiate

Oppose. I basically agree with all the 'Oppose' comments above. RPharazon 04:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I agree, it deserve separate article. TestPilot 03:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Yes, initially the J-11 was based on the Su-27, but as we watch the J-11 evolve over time (i.e. - the replacement of Russia components/avionics for PRC equivilents), it's important to keep the two distinguished so that there traceability is preserved. Furthermore, assuming the J-11 family of a/c is produced, there is the potential to have these two articles divided again when it becomes clear they should be two topics. Thus, in the interest of not merging then dividing the topics later, coupled with the fact that the two families of a/c are evolving in similar but very distinct manners, it is unwise to merge these two aircraft into one article. --Dand06 20:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed tag. Discussion seems to agree on oppose. TestPilot 20:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Putting bullets on target

I think there should be some supporting evidence as to whether or not the IRST gunsight is more accurate than a radar mode. Although this is largely irrelevant to much of anything, I find it difficult to believe that any difference between the two insofar as aiming a gun is significant.

JaderVason, the improvement is AFAIK in the accuracy of rangefinding. A typical radar is not really all that accurate in range (say about a hectometer), while the lasers are accurate to a few meters. This improves the accuracy of the ballistic calculation (better data). I'd see if I can scrape up some references along this line of thought when I get home. Kazuaki Shimazaki 03:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about the tale section

What is in the pointy thing that extendes beyond the engines is it ECM gear or something like that --Paladin 18:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a radome. Flanker is a one of those few aircraft that have backward-looking radar. --Khathi 15:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Iran deliveries

Deleted from the page as completely unreliable and unsupported by any source whatsoever:

Iran is said to be receiving Su-27 -under the contract made in early 90s with USSR- to complement the dwindling numbers of US aircraft, and complement the existing fleet of MiG-29 and Su-24; the fighter aircraft have been modernized but no data is available on the variant of these Flankers.^{[citation needed]}

212.188.108.174 01:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Dietmar

Comparisons

"Given the purpose of this interceptor, one would say that its closest counterpart is the American F-14 Tomcat, whereas the MiG-29K 'Fulcrum-D' would be analogous to the F/A-18 Hornet."...How? I'm sure you're right it's just that people like me don't know exactly why. Bogdan 21:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe since they both fullfil the fleet-defense role? But then again, all four are basically multirole fighters capable of both air combat and ground attack. And the fact that it compares the canceled MiG with the Hornet doesn't really improve the comparison either. - Dammit 20:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

"The Su-27 is in a starring role in the SSI flight simulator games Su-27 Flanker and Flanker 2.0"

Please read this. "Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content before adding any "Popular culture" items. The aircraft must have a MAJOR or "especially notable" role in what is listed. Random cruft, including all Ace Combat, Battlefield, Video Games, dogfighting films, military channel appearances, Transformer toylines, Metal Gear Solid appearances and anime/fiction look-a-like speculation will be removed."

It said no anime or fiction look a like appearances. Why you put the Su-27 Flanker appeared in the Popular Culture section? You know that video games counts as minor appearances. Also flight simulation appearances count as a violation of all of above by putting it as a video game like appearance.(TougHHead 22:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

Incorrect. The page states that it is not right to list them all if it has many appearances, as to avoid having a lengthy list. It is not a cover decision, but one to be applied to specific aircraft. The Su-27 has few appearances compared to say, an F-16. Listing a few items is not a violation, expecialy in the case of the Su-27. Whoever stated the above information about the Su-27 and its inclusion to films and major games like Ace Combat and simulators is incorrect, as the list that would be produced would not be very large, and the average Wiki surfer would more than likely appreciate that information for research and entertainment. (Stuurm (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

I removed the reference to YSFLIGHT, HAWX, and Ace Combat, as the Flanker does not have a starring role in those games, unlike Lock On and the old Su-27 sim. The YS referece was stupid, too, as it is clearly just there to promote the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.76.219 (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

5 CONFIRMED VICTORIES!!!!!!!!!

Please don't remove the the REAL combat service for this aircraft. There is the source and "acig" is the most reliable source for aerial warfare. Sorry, but the American fighters aren't the only aircraft capable to shoot down other aircraft!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... and there are many more sources....

Please don't shout. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 22:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

5 Kills...

5 kills... 4 more then proven and reliable links... is it enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.106.79 (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the sources you provided are not reliable. Check the article on Verifiability. For example, look at the last 2 links you provided. The first is just a post on a forum and cannot be used, it also cite the second link as its source so it's actually one source there not two and furthermore the last article linked starts with the sentence Source: unverified Usenet military aviation discussion forum, so no the links are not reliable by any stretch of the imagination. --McSly (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

what about this?

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_192.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.122.161 (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

and this

http://www.aviationphotoalbum.com/FIGHTERS/MIG-29/MIG29_Fulcrum_Specifications/MIG_29_Fulcrum_Specifications.html

now it's your time to provide at least 2 more relible source that says "2 MiG-29 shot down". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.122.161 (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, first let me emphasize that I couldn't care less if the number is 2 or 5 or anything in between. It's not like if I had money placed on the outcome. The only important thing is to find the most accurate information.

So let's take a look at the second "source" you provided, the "aviationphotoalbum" one. Click on the link, select the "combat experience" tab and read the text again. That's all right, I can wait.

Now that you read it, did you notice anything special in the text? Anything struck you as weird? No? Here is a clue, go back to the link and do a search for the text [citation needed]. Yeah, that's right your "source" is a copy and paste of a Wikipedia article. Now, let's put aside the fact that "Aviation photo album" clearly violated the Wikipedia copyrights by just copying the text, not mentioning WP and putting its own copyright notice on the page. By definition, a source cannot be circular, you can't use a WP article as a source for an other WP article. So that "source" doesn't prove anything. I changed the text back to 2 kills but added a sentence for the reports of 5, hopefully we'll get some accurate numbers at some point. --McSly (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

...let's begin with 3... [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.122.161 (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Combat Service

The Su-27 was used on another conflict besides the Ethiopia-Eritea War.

It was used in the conflict between Abkhazia and Georgia. However, it was not oficial, but several claim (in both sides) that Su-27s were involved. My source is another Wikipedia article, here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazia_Air_Force

Please Change the first photo!

Please, change the opening photo! That photo is orrible to introduce a fighter aircraft! - It the trainig Su-27ub variant - It's from the Russian aerobatic team, not a combat squadron - it's taken from a bad angle and it shows a little of the fighter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.130.10 (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Operators

Under section titled OPERATORS, I propose that the entries for Malaysia and other Su 30 operators be removed because these countries operate sukhoi 30s not Sukhoi 27s, otherwise all operators of all Su-27 descendants (including Su-30,33,34 and Su-35) should be included. The Malaysian entry should be moved to article titled Sukhoi-30.24.200.60.207 (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The Su-30, -33, -34, -35 & -37 all have separate articles that are more specific places for the info. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I think Mexico deserves a mention. I just discovered these Sukhoi Su-27 aircraft, which I found on the Mexico#Military page.

File:Mexicanairforce.jpg

Fake!

Images can be modified/doctorwd. Not a reliable source for that reason. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, this image is false. Mexico never had Su-27 and it does not have plans to purchase any. There was a brief interest in 2006 but it got filed in the trash in 2007: Here's the official purchase cancelation bulletin released by the Mexican Navy: [2]. If anybody knows how to delete this image from the databank please do so. I take this oportunity as well to ask the editors following this page to prevent posting Mexico as a Sukhoy operator. Thank you. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone already nominated it for deletion on Commons 2 days ago. It seems the uploader added a slew of copyrighted images, and this was one of them. See here for the discussion on Commons. As for the image itself, it looks like it's of Indian aircraft, with the Mexican flag added to the tailfins. The roundel on the nose appears to be orange, white, and green, which is India's colors. Mexico uses red in its "roundel", which is a triangular, not round! - BillCJ (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Merging of Su-27 and Su-30

Here is a thread from 2006, which I think is still relevant:

How many separate pages?

Jeebus, we have a lot of subpages here:

Sukhoi Su-27 ('Flanker-A/-B')
1. ~~Shenyang J-11 (China)~~ See previous concensus
Sukhoi Su-30
1. Su-30MKI (India)
2. Su-30MKM (Malaysia)
3. Su-30MKK (China)
4. Su-30MKV (Venezuela, linked to but not created)
Sukhoi Su-33 ('Flanker-D')
Sukhoi Su-34 ('Fullback')
Sukhoi Su-35 ('Flanker-D')
Sukhoi Su-37 ('Flanker-F')

As far as I can tell, this is the only place where they are all listed out. Should we consider simplification of this convoluted structure? There is a lot of duplicate info here. Some of the variants very obviously need separate articles (eg. Su-34) but I'm not so certain about the rest. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'd scrap the subtypes of the Su-30 and possibly the Su-35 and -37 (they were only prototypes/testbeds). I doubt that you'd get consensus for this though and the J-11 needs to stay either way, see above.

- Dammit 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. For instance, all of the variants of the F-15E Strike Eagle have been merged into the main article, and the various subarticles of F/A-18 Hornet and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet seem be be eventually making their way back into the respective main articles. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Pro-merger

I Support the merge of Su-27 with Sukhoi Su-30, Su-30MKI, Su-30MKM, Su-30MKK, Su-30MKV, Sukhoi Su-33, Sukhoi Su-35, and Sukhoi Su-37. I think we should follow the same guidelines as S-300 (missile) with each variant merged in one article. The S-400, which is quite different, has a paragraph that links to the main article. --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Support merging of the Su-30 articles only. At least merge the Su-30MKI, Su-30MKM, etc into a Su-30MK article. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Map

How come in the map of "operators of Su-27" Sakhalin, Novaya Zemlya et al are not in dark red? You mean those aren't in Russia or what? Wiki-loseria ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.157.235.211 (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Range incorrect

I found that the quoted range on this page was incorrect for this aircraft so I changed it. Original values were; Range: 1,500 km combat, 3,900 km ferry (930 mi / 2,420 mi) but Sukhoi's website states; Maximum flight range (with rockets 2xR-27R1, 2xR-73E launched at half distance): - at sea level, km 1,340 - at height, km 3,530 Source; http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su27sk/lth/ Additionally the page for the Su-30MK adds a further 3,000km per refueling operation and given that Su-27 variants can refuel each other this adds a certain degree of capability so claiming 1,500km on this page sounds like the result of anti-Russian sources.

Well the more typical "combat radius" for modern fighters is about 500mi (about 800km). I don't think Flanker can be significatly better that this. Even 1500km sounds a bit too high.89.102.37.40 (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats because most modern fighters have little capacity for internal fuel. The original Mig-29's, F-16's, F-15's etc. have 9,600lb's, 7,000lb's and 13,000lb's respectively. Compare that to the Su-27's 20,700lb's of fuel and its rather fuel effecient engines (note they were designed later) and its combat radius ends up rather massive. Sure, the others all often carry external fuel and some have even been upgraded to have conformal fuel tanks or larger internal volume but the original Su-27 wins hands down even after all of that. Also, if you want to get into semantics its the current record holder for rate of climb etc. meaning it can boost itself up to high altitude faster to gain those fuel savings, not that using afterburners is a great way to get to a economic piece of sky.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia does not have Sukhoi Su-27s (CORRECTED)

Just to let you know, Malaysia does not have in use (or ever has had in use) any Sukhoi Su-27's, only Su-30's. So the map should be editted to remove the red labelling.

Thanks, Eug.galeotti (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The caption and image file name list Su-27 and Su-30. A map without the Su-30 operators would be better though. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Map has been updated since. Eug.galeotti (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Operator map needs to be updated to take Belarus off of the list of current operators, since they recently retired their entire fleet of Su-27s. Guy1890 (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Angolan Su-27

Article says: "It is reported that one Su-27 in the process of landing,was shot down by SA-14 MANPADs fired by UNITA forces on 19 November 2000". Russian news agency NEWSru reported this UNITA's claim on 15 November 2000 without specifying the date. Creo11 (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Iran Su-27SKM

Why did someone add the Iranin SU-27 issue? this is completely non relevant (for one the Su belonged to Su, not the Russian air force, and Iran has already apologized for the delay), and offers no valuable info in regards to the aircrfat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.166.150 (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Su-27sm

Anyone know whats been changed in it relative to the Su-27S? Im not just talking about things like new radar etc but more specific info e.g. the type of Radar etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.42.33 (talk • contribs)

Canard

Why do later Flanker versions have a forward canard? And does the forward canard on Flankers increase there rcs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically this isnt the place to discuss this but the canards were added to increase maneuverability and increase lift for the heavier PESA radars (like on the Su-30MKI and older Su-35). The canards have been removed on later Su-35S because the radar changed and they are deemed unnecessary. Also some say canards increase RCS but the Eurofighter and Rafale both have canards and fairly low RCS. The older sukhois high RCS can be contributed mostly to their relatively large size and lack of RAM and not necessarily to the canards. -Nem1yan (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Su-27M

Since the Su-27M (Su-35) flew in 1988, and it was obviously in development before then, should it possibly be placed in the "Soviet Era" category under Variants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.50.35 (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. The entry been moved up. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Abkhazians have 6 su 27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haniblus (talk • contribs) 17:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I may have undone someones edit-in-progress while doing cleanup on the Radar and sensors section. Sorry! Thermofan (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"aerobaticteams.net" black-listed by Wikipedia

As a result of the black-listing, there is a broken reference within "Notable accidents" sub-article, event dated: 12 December 1995. Reference is numbered 31. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltr,ftw (talk • contribs) 11:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I replaced it with the one used on the Russian Knights article.--McSly (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No trouble; thank you for such a quick re-action. Ltr,ftw (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect weight conversion

On the page under armament it states 4,430 kg (17,600 lb) on 10 external pylons That should be 9,766 lb, or I am missing something here. Thaiexodus (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. The Sukhoi source lists 4,430 kg, which 9,770 lb with rounding. This has been fixed in the article using the convert template. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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/news/newsexercise-pitch-black-2012-concludes
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 ^Notify_Online 13:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect distance conversion

In specifications under performance, the range is listed as "3,530 km (2,070 mi) at altitude". 3,530 kilometers is 2,193 miles, unless I'm mistaken something is off there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velvetsundown (talk • contribs) 19:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)