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 others 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 others 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)

First of all, all you have provided is a single source which supports you. Please provide more sources yourself. Then F-15I and F-15E are made by the same manufacturer and for the same users(s). That is not the case for Su30MKI and Su30MKM. Anir1uph (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

According to Take-off magazine, "The first contract for 18 Su-30MKM was signed by RMAF in 2003. It stipulated deriving from the Su-30MKI fighter [...]" Page 21 of an article from the same magazine says "The Su-30MKM fighter is a derivative of the proven Su-30MKI" According to ATO (last paragraph), "India has already ordered 230 aircraft of [the Su-30MKI] in the form of direct purchase and license agreement. In addition, 44 aircraft in the version of the Su-30MKA were purchased by Algeria, and to Malaysia were delivered 18 fighters in the version of the Su-30MKM." I could search the whole Internet for sources to assert my point. And what did you mean by F-15I and F-15E are made for the same users? The F-15I is a derivative of the F-15E produced for Israel. It lacks some sophisticated avionics found on the American version. I can search the whole Internet for sources that would assert my view. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge: There's not enough variant differences and not enough content here to truly warrant a separate article, imo. No Malaysian operational use is mentioned here either. Either merge it to the Su-30MKI article or the main Su-30 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Nothing harmful in having a separate article when there is enough info. ƊṨṫƦⓘ₭ϱ𝝨Ƌǥɭϱ ^Ω 14:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly not harmful, but convenience and the duplicate of information is another matter. This article extracts information, including the design and the specifications (which are virtually identical on the two articles). The only major difference between the two products lay in the avionics, which can be covered comfortably in two or three paragraphs, with four paragraphs tops. Also, the operational history, a vital aspect of an aircraft article, is absent in the article. Simply put, I cannot understand your simple and insensible rationale. Maybe I've misunderstood it. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge It seems that there are not many differences between the two.And as you said, no separate section about Operation is also a minus. ƊṨṫƦⓘ₭ϱ𝝨Ƌǥɭϱ ^Ω 04:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to say sorry for my use of the world insensible. It was not meant to offend. I couldn't think of any word that applies. I tried to say your view had no basis, or weak. Peace --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: How do you plan to merge the article? Create a section for Su-30MKM in the Su-30MKI article? If that is so, then I am open to merging them. Anir1uph (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it's going to be like F-15I and F-15K దṨṫƦⓘ₭ϱ𝝨Ƌǥɭϱ ^™ 04:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)