Talk:Kh-31

U.S. Tech used to improve Kh-31
Several accounts can be found on Google showing that U.S. Navy and American Engineers improved the Kh-31 only to have it sold on the open market. Yes, WorldNet Daily is a rabid right wing web site, but non-rabid information can be found. Lyta79 01:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The info is very clear, and if there was no US tech in the missile, why did the PRC buy and revese engineer the missiles in the first place? Lyta79 19:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Read my summary of those articles below. They represent the distilled NPOV facts that are left, as opposed to "rabid right wing" additions. We won't mind if you want to add a section based on facts salvaged from the article, but leave the opinions of what you admit as a "rabid right wing web site" out of it and take only the "non-rabid information". --Kazuaki Shimazaki 01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This information isn't very clear. What changes did thay made? What those flaws were, why is it dangerous, what does it mean "overweight" - if it is so then why American militarys choose it? The truth may be mixed with false or twisted here - may be it wasn't completely compatible American electronics or aircraft and this's what makes it dangerous to launch... So I decide to remove it untill more facts credible & clear facts will be found.--Oleg Str 11:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * They did twist it. Apparently, the safety problem was with the lanyard. During emergency jettison, sometimes the lanyard will stay with the plane and not the missile. Perhaps it is a aerodynamic compatibility problem, perhaps not. It is certainly not dangerous to fire because the lanyard should rip off the missile during live launch as one of the arming mechanisms. In the jettison case, apparently other safeties (electronic and the like) kept the rocket from firing, but that wasn't safe enough for the Americans, so they advised a change of lanyard and jettison method Kazuaki Shimazaki 06:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The "overweight" claims is probably from twisting the failure of Krypton to meet up with the USN's range requirement. This is really a problem with differing requirements. Krypton was a 600kg weapon primarily designed to defeat Patriot (~70km) as a ARM. 110km (~60NM) high altitude launch range was certainly good enough for this (counting in a reasonable improvement margin), as is the 15NM low altitude range mentioned in the article (consider the earth's horizon in NOE flying and so forth). The Americans wanted a Sunburn emulator with a NOE range of 50 miles. The old Vandal emulator (based on 7800 pound Talos) was much heavier (hushed by up the article) but met that requirement and the MA-31 could not. To be fair, a Talos sized missile was probably a better emulator for the 10000-pound Kh-41...
 * The Americans merely proposed aerodynamic and engine refinements (some of which may be optimizations because a drone does not have to compromise b/w several different seeker types), but the big one was probably the extra fuel. IIRC, the improved Kryptons have 200km range, which jives reasonably with a 42NM low alt range. This kind of prototype is very convenient for the Russians, who no doubt indeed took the work for a reference in creating the second-generation Kryptons. That's just business - sometimes the other side gets the last laugh... Kazuaki Shimazaki 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Then, people, someone should incorporate this into the article. Until so I will remove that part - it sounds toooo biased. --Oleg Str 12:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Bha, that version even isn't called Kh-31.

Someone who is making mindeless back reverting, would he be SO kind to discuss it first?--Oleg Str 11:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite
I started trying to copyedit this, to make it clear that it's not just an ARM, and to try and impose a WP:AIR-type structure on it, and ended up just rewriting the whole thing. But at least it's a bit clearer now, and I've tried to do a fair bit of work on the referencing, it must be close to GA standard now I'd guess. Of course there's a basic problem with contemporary weapons, that secrecy gets in the way of WP:RELIABLE sourcing - and in this case there seems to be a fair bit of confusion among Western authors about naming etc, so the Kh-31AD gets refered to as the basic Kh-31A model and so on. In some cases I've had to quote them on the grounds that a not-quite-correct WP:RS is better in Wikiworld than an unsourced statement that's more accurate - hopefully it will prompt people to dig up better info that has a reliable source. Frustrating but there you go. And I suspect that only the Chinese really know the difference between the YJ-91 and YJ-93 - the Wikipedia article should probably be called YJ-93 but YJ-91 seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME in the West.... On the same theme, I couldn't turn up any reliable information on what may or may not have been tweaked by MD during the MA-31 tests - but it's possible that you may be able to find something on .mil or .gov, there's usually quite a bit of info buried in Congressional reports and internal presentations. One of the .mil references now in the article mentions that they had no failures with separation from the F-4, but two post-separation failures attributed to the Russian propulsion system, and one to Boeing's URAP autopilot. I suspect that Russia's refusal to sell had more bearing on the ultimate decision than the actual spec of the MA-31.... And I'd suggest that it isn't really appropriate to dwell too much on US Navy politics in what is after all an article about a Russian missile - it might be better to refer people to a separate article on the SSST competition or the Navy's decoy requirements, as happened with eg Zumwalt class destroyer and United States Naval Gunfire Support debate when the WWII battleship fans were starting to overwhelm an article about a contemporary destroyer. Oh, and some better images would be nice, more close-up and without the clutter of other missiles, ideally showing them on active service rather than in static displays. You should be able to find some free-use ones of the MA-31 on .mil somewhere if nothing else. And there's a couple of small-but-significant facts that need hard references. I'm now feeling a bit frazzled on this subject, but if someone else wants to go for WP:GA, feel free.... 86.31.43.85 (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

US Navy Purchase
Should there be a section on the potential purchase of this system via Czech / Belorussian arms dealers? http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2005/03/05PRAGUE337.html

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Kh-31. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090202043721/http://www.janes.com:80/extract/jmr2005/jmr01502.html to http://www.janes.com/extract/jmr2005/jmr01502.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kh-31. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/air_craft/aircraft.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120821071032/http://bmpd.livejournal.com/290141.html to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/290141.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kh-31. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126154153/http://ausairpower.net/DT-Missile-Survey-May-05.pdf to http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-Missile-Survey-May-05.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kh-31. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114040628/http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2000_2003/pdfs/strat.pdf to http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2000_2003/pdfs/strat.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522133349/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004rangeops/17Nov04/Braucksick.ppt to http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004rangeops/17Nov04/Braucksick.ppt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522133701/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007targets/Day2/PatBuckley/Buckleynovideo.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007targets/Day2/PatBuckley/Buckleynovideo.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)