Talk:Sukhoi Su-24/Archive 1

Archive 1

Primary Users...?

I understand why the Russian Air Force is considered a primary user (because it obviously has the most of these planes), but what makes Iran, Syria and Afganistan primary users and not Ukraine who has (according to the "Ukrainian Air Force" article) 200 Su-24s while Iran, Syria and Afganistan have next to none. bogdan 02:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

F-111 Copy?

I ran into a forum that claimed the Su-24 was built as a dead copy of the F-111, but Yefim Gordon's book basically shoots holes in that idea. The original T-6 prototype with the fixed wings clearly looked like a derivative of the Su-15 "Flagon", scaled up and with side-by-side seating, and the Su-24 was basically the same aircraft with the VG wings added. That the Soviets liked the idea of the VG wings and took considerable inspiration from the F-111 is not to be doubted, but the idea that the Su-24 was a copy doesn't fit the facts -- the two machines were completely different at the detail level. MrG 4.228.21.104 20:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, starting this project USSR wanted something similart to a TSR.2 when the aircraft was modiphied with VG. Not a copy, but a 'directly inspirate' and equivalent.(ok)Stefanomencarelli 15:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some thoughts that Su-24 was not just inspired by F-111 http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/526619 (if you don't know Russian use Google.translate). 83.237.10.176 (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia conflict

It seems like the Su-24 did indeed take part in the bombings. In this Washington Post picture gallery you'll see in picture #20 a Su-24: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/GA2008080802276.html?sid=ST2008081002626 Assuming the caption is correct, it is proof of the Su-24 being one of the bombers used in the conflict —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.167.60 (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Storozhevoy mutinity bombing

According to detailed article on Storozhevoy case, Yak-28 were used to bomb the Storozhevoy, not Su-24.

http://nvo.ng.ru/history/2004-08-20/6_bunt.html

Thebiggestmac (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies regarding Libya?

This article lists: "8 Su-24MK purchased for the Libyan Air Force, 6 still on inventory, one destroyed in fire."

However, the article Libyan Air Force mentions:

"The last major delivery of Soviet aircraft was 15 Su-24 Fencers in March/April 1989."

And:

"Sukhoi Su-24MK Soviet Union Long range bomber 4 One lost in fire"

-- 91.11.211.226 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Both entries are uncited, so they could both be wrong. Try to find a reliable source with recent numbers for Libya. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Footage confirming wreackage of aircraft from 1224 (Sirte) squadron

http://www.n-tv.de/mediathek/videos/politik/Lage-wird-immer-verworrener-article2776891.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/libya/af-orbat.htm has 1224 SQ with Su-22 but this is obsolete, see http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/libya/af-modernization.htm Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Operators of the Su-24.svg

Uzbekistan is a Former Operator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.215.57 (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

References

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/projects/su24/

  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 09:14, 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 19:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine crisis 2014 - Black Sea

On 12 April 2014, the USS Donald Cook was "buzzed", 12 times by a Russian Su-24 fighter jet. References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Donald_Cook_%28DDG-75%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.188.248.248 (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

But this bullshit from russian propaganda.

Maximum Speed

The value for maximum speed at altitude seems a bit low. German page say ~ Mach 2.1. --37.24.9.226 (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Accident vs. Incident

The incident in which a Su-24 was brought down by Turkey does not belong in the "accidents" section as it was a deliberate act. It should remain in the "operational history" section. IMO, of course. Brad E. Williams (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Sukhoi S-6 be merged with this article--Petebutt (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

May I ask as to why? Garuda28 (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The S-6 was the origin of the Su-24!!--Petebutt (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Support That seems like a pretty good reason! I initially got confused and thought you were talking about Su–6.Garuda28 (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no reason to merge these articles: design proposal is one thing and the actual combat aircraft accepted for service is another. Mutually wiki-linking them would be sufficient. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - From the model photo, they are completely different aircraft. The article has enough content to stand on it's own. - BilCat (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)