Talk:Tupolev Tu-142

Comparable aircraft

I am not sure you can compare a P-3 Orion to a Tu-142... the more appropriate comparison and in fact comparable role is for Il-38 May. Though Tu-142 has antisubmarine role as primary mission, it has secondary Maritime strike bomber role (using any of the various ASCM) ...Swraj (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Furthermore, the comparable aircraft section under the Nimrod and P-3 Orion articles do not include the Tu-142, yet this article does. Wolcott (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Limitation as an anti-submarine weapon

I have read (unfortunately, I cannot remember where) that one of the limitations of the Tu-142 as an anti-submarine weapons system is that submarines can hear them coming. Does anyone have any documentation to confirm this? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC) perhaps it it the TU-95 page- tips of the propellers of aircraft- and it is perhaps nosiest in the world ! Wfoj3 (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Performed review/copyedit to end of Design and development for now. Looks pretty good to me, some comments/queries:

• "Tupolev initially studied the Tu-95PLO" -- "studied" doesn't sound right for what I assume was only a paper concept at this time; do you mean "designed" or "proposed"?
• "It was to carry 9,000 kg (19,841 lbs) with a maximum loiter time of 10.5 hours..." -- Should we clarify as "9,000 kg (19,841 lbs) of ordnance" or "a 9,000 kg (19,841 lbs) payload"?
• "On 28 February 1963, the Council of Ministers ... issued a directive to Tupolev requiring his bureau to develop a long-range ASW aircraft" -- how does this differ from "The Soviet government consequently ordered Tupolev and other aircraft design bureaux to study possible dedicated anti-submarine warfare (ASW) designs" at the top of the paragraph? If there were two orders/directives, need some explanation of how they differed, otherwise this looks a bit confusing.
• I've standardised to past tense in Design and development up to the last sentence or two describing current models/operators; think it flows better that way.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd have preferred it if you'd make the comments at my talk page, instead of here :P, but you're the boss now. As for your third point, the sources didn't say that the Council issue the first directive, but the (vague) "Soviet government". Anyway, I think more emphasis should be put on the second directive, which resulted in the Tu-142. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well I think it's easier to keep the comments with the article... ;-) As to the order/directive thing, perhaps it can be improved by a tweak to the wording, clarifying that the first order required Tupolev to study designs, and second ordered him to go ahead and develop one. Done so and will come back and go over the rest of the article in due course... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Further comments

• Is there a particular reason you italicise some marks of the Tu-142, put others in inverted commas, and leave others alone, e.g. "Tu-142MZ" vs. Tu-142ll vs. (among others) Tu-95LL?

• I'm not sure if there's a MoS guideline on this, but I italicise words that come after designated because: the words are being talk about; and they look correct. Do you want them all unitalicised, or what?

• Heh, I can live with the italicising where it's consistent with your reasoning above, however I'd switch the example(s) with inverted commas to italics. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• "...the ASW equipment and armament were removed to allow the carriage off the engines under the belly" -- Don't get the second half of this passage...

I think that about does me for this pre-assessment copyedit, hope it helps... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"allow the carriage of the engine under the belly" -- it's an engine tested bed; see File:Ту-142 ЛЛ с экипажем..JPG. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 22:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, well first of all we had "off the engine", not "of the engine", so that confused things, though I see you've corrected that now... ;-) Perhaps it'd be even clearer if you said "allow carriage of an engine test bed under the belly" (or "allow an engine test bed to be carried under the belly"). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Precedence of Tu-95PLO

The second paragraph says that Tu-142 "preceded the stillborn Tu-95PLO project, Tupolev's first attempt at modifying the Tu-95 for naval use". The sentence is contradictory. If the -142 preceded the -95PLO, then -142 was the first attempt. Later on, however, the text shows that -95PLO was indeed stillborn, that it was the first attempt and that the -142 was a subsequent design. The next paragraph shows what innovations the -142 had, but it never explicits that this new design was named -142. Instead, the reader is supposed to assume so, because later on the name -142 is used anew with no regards to the transition. I will now edit both pieces, not out of any knowledge I have, but only so that the text has internal consistency, whether right or wrong. SrAtoz (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tupolev Tu-142/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Σ (talk · contribs) 05:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):   

   "The resultant design was named Tu-142 and had features in common with the Tu-95RT. Where? It links to the header right above that link. See 2 for the concern on b.

   Removed. Sp33dyphil © • © 06:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

   This is awkward: his bureau to go ahead with development of a long-range ASW aircraft How about: "his bureau to develop a long-range ASW aircraft"? This is confusing: This consisted of the Nashatyr-Nefrit (Ammonia/Jade) ASW complex, which included the Zarechye sonar system. Besides the RGB-1A and RGB-2 buoys of the Berkut, the Tu-142MZ was compatible with the RGB-16 and RGB-26 buoys; when working with the ASW complex, these buoys cut sonobuoy usage by 1.5 times. I know what an ASW complex is, but ordinary readers won't have a clue. Also rewrite the sentences. What does the wire function as? but had provisions for a long trailing wire enabling messages to be relayed And rewrite the sentence to get rid of enabling. "that enabled" or somesuch. All flights of Russia's Pacific Fleet were suspended pending an investigation into the crash. Wouldn't this be better phrased as "All flights of aircraft belonging to the Pacific Fleet were suspended..." I've made a lot of copyedit type changes to the article. Go through them and see if they meet with your approval.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

   I'd suggest you add place of publication and fix capitalization issues in the bibliography. And if you're thinking about A-class, I'd suggest that you get a hold of either Gordon's Tupolev OKB history or his 2009 volume on the Tu-95/142 before you submit it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

   All of the parts with problematic phrasing have been re-worded; awaiting Phil's OK on the other copyediting changes, and any changes to the bibliography. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):   

   "...resulting in the Tu-142MZ, the ultimate long-range Tu-142 with highly sophisticated combat avionics and large payload", "It was speculated that the change to the idle plant was to find employment to the workers there", and "Even as the Tu-142MK entered service, its Korshun-K STS was already becoming obsolete". Do you have references? For the first one, I can't find expansion of its "ultimate"ness anywhere else in the article. (text decoration not found in article)

   Oh, it was the ultimate version because it was the most-capable and best variant of the Tu-142. I used the word because it means "final" and "maximum", not because it's the best. Geez, TV ads through around words like these too much, making them very POV. BTW, the speculated section is mentioned in Tupolev Tu-95/-142 "Bear": Russia's intercontinental-range heavy bomber.
   

   "It was speculated that the change to the idle plant was to find employment to the workers there. The move required many improvements to the plant and the surrounding area, including the establishment of new assembly shops, the installation of new machinery and toolings, the re-training of the workforce, and the building of a new airfield.[14]" Sp33dyphil © • © 06:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

   Done. Sp33dyphil © • © 06:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Need caliber and type of guns in the tail turret as well the armament payload in main body and infobox. Link bogey, fairing. What are acoustic-band sonobuoys and trigger devices? Were the Tu-142MRs newly built or converted from existing Tu-142s? What's the deal with the Tu-142MRT? It should be listed under variants as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

   They look like 23mm autocannons to me, but Phil should be able to confirm. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

   The books don't really talk much about the guns except that there are a few on the Tu-142. BTW, because the aircraft is neither a bomber or fighter, I doubt it is necessary to include such info. Sp33dyphil © • © 06:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

   I think basically they took away some of the guns the Tu-95 had, but kept the rest, right? So I think they are Nudelman-Rikhter NR-23. Anything at all that the sources say about things carried as payload (excluding sonobuoys, which are already mentioned at length) would be great, but doesn't matter if not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

   I disagree, the armament needs to be covered in a moderate amount of detail for an aircraft that carried an armament of any sort. Gun type and caliber are required here and a general statement about its armament payload (x amount/weight of bombs/torpedoes/missiles/whatever) is necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

   See pp. 59–60, 67 of the Aerofax book for the necessary information.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:   

   See 2. Until the claims are referenced, I cannot judge whether the article is neutral or not.

   Checked.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:   

   I'm not putting it on hold because I think it shouldn't take more than a day or two to resolve the issues, but as this is my first GA review, a more experienced editor may completely disagree with my assessment of the article. Good luck! →Στc. 05:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

   I contacted Sp33dyphil on IRC, who replied "the books don't talk about guns". As such, there may simply not be much more information on them. Thus, the coverage as currently seen in the article is adequate, and, with no other major issues, this is an excellent addition to Wikipedia's good articles. →Στc. 06:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

   Post-close note - Sp33dyphil has found and added the information on the guns, based on the page number Sturmvogel provided. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)