Talk:Sukhoi Su-30MKM

File:RMAF-Su-30.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:RMAF-Su-30.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:RMAF-Su-30.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Sukhoi Su-30MKI

According to this article by RIA Novosti, the Su-30 is divided into two families, the Su-30MKI, ordered by India, Malaysia, and Algeria, and the Su-30MKK/Su-30MK2, bought by China, Venezuela, Indonesia, Uganda, and Vietnam. In that case, this article should be merged with the Su-30MKI, to consolidate WP's coverage of the confusing Su-30 family. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: It is used by Malaysia and is lengthy enough to warrant its own article. Being of the same family, (that too by just one article) does not mean it needs to be merged. Anir1uph (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge: With only five paragraphs, most of which are duplicates of details covered by the MKI article, there seems very little reason to keep a seperate article on this variant if not even the official sources sub-divide to this extent. Kyteto (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment is there a need for separate type articles apart from the main article Sukhoi Su-30, say with a subarticle Sukhoi Su-30 variants --- (and including Sukhoi Su-30MKM/Sukhoi Su-30MKI/Sukhoi Su-30MKK/ etc ) or if there is a need, shouldn't all the export versions converge at Sukhoi Su-30K ? -- 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I was contemplating merging all the articles about the export variants; however, the Su-30MKI and its derivatives and the Su-30MKK and theirs are significantly different from one another. The former have thrust-vectoring nozzles and canards, and are produced by Irkut and HAL, while the other are produced by KnAAPO. 21:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per User:Anir1uph and also, Su-30MKM is used by Malaysian Air Force while Su-30MKI is heavily customized for the use of IAF. These two jets may be of the same series but they have different purposes. Just as Su-30MKK is different from Su-30MKI and they are not identical, Su-30MKI is different from Su-30MKM. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 12:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, the Su-30MKM is used by the Malaysian Air Force (hence the second M in "Su-30MKM"). Yes, I understand the Su-30MKI is a heavily customised version for the IAF. Yes, the two are not identical. What I'm saying is that the Su-30MKM is a minimally-changed derivative of the Su-30MKI -- it retains the canards and TVCs of the latter, but differs in avionics. As such, a merge would be the appropriate action to take here.

Also, you are wrong by saying that they serve different purposes (they are both air superiority fighters), and that the Su-30MKM is different from the Su-30MKI just as the Su-30MKI is different from the Su-30MKK. Did you make that claim up or something? Didn't you read my statement above? "The former have thrust-vectoring nozzles and canards, and are produced by Irkut and HAL, while the other are produced by KnAAPO." Where did you extract this outrageous and originally-researched claim? If not, please provide several high-quality references to back up your supposed fact. I myself have numerous sources that say the Su-30MKM is a derivative of the Su-30MKI. Your oppose is like saying the F-15I should have its own article separate from the F-15E. Therefore, your oppose has no basis. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)