Talk:R-33 (missile)

Folks, I don't want to discuss historical things without proper sources at hands. I have listed the source used. I trust this source. The K-33 has had active radar homing while being under development. I know how Arkhangelski and Co work and I aint sure anyone else may have access to better sources than they do. If your "most sources" are like "Flight magazine" and "Jane's defense", please trust me. --jno 12:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is not written in readable English - much of what is said is unintelligible. I cannot edit to correct it, because it goes beyond cleanup. Largescale deletion and re-writing is what is needed. I don't know anything about the R-33 personally, but what is here is as good as useless. At present this article is just a list of random facts about the Vympel, with no coherent narrative linking them together. --Corinthian 13:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but i'm a russian. And not a novell writer. The text about its history is my traslation of quotes from the monography by Arkhangelski and Korovin. I've attempted to list the facts of R-33 development history. Am I wrong? If you can point me a good example or just state a ruleset, I may try to rewrite it. The only reason I was involved was my desire to clear some fiction from wikipedia. --jno 14:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Corinthian, first of all, please don't bite the newbie &mdash; make constructive criticism or don't bother at all. Jno, the article is very heavy with technical detail, I have attempted some small cleanup and will describe some further steps you can take below. - FrancisTyers 17:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
Ok, first of all, we have a good amount of information, but it is badly organised. This can be fixed. There follows some brief recommendations, please feel free to request further clarification.


 * 1) The lead is too short, it should ideally be a couple of paragraphs, or at least four lines. Give some more (non-technical) information about the missile, when was it developed, how long has it been in service, what are some good points and some bad points about it.
 * 2) The article really needs a section describing the capabilities of the missle, where it has been used, in what wars, what was it intended for. A good name for this section might be "Description", you can probably move some content from the "Development" section into here.
 * 3) The development section is comprehensive, but heavy on technical detail. Try and avoid "throw-away" comments, for example "The State trials started in March 1979 using MiG-31 №83210. They were completed in 1980." &mdash; What did the trials involve?, were they successfully completed?, what was the outcome of the trials? Either add more information or remove it entirely.
 * 4) The "Specification" section would probably look good as an infobox, you can have the Image of the missile at the top. Look at the infobox at T-34, the template is AFV, you can probably copy and paste this to create a template for missiles.
 * 5) I think at this stage it is probably best to drop the MiG №'s. It doesn't really add anything to the article and makes it slightly more difficult to read.
 * 6) Watch out for your tenses, you don't need to use "has" so frequently. This isn't a real problem, its quite easy to clean up basic stuff like that.

Thats enough for now, if you have any questions as I mentioned above, please ask below. - FrancisTyers 17:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! I've attempted to clean it up.
 * As for a/c numbers, etc, I tried to keep as much information as possible just to make things "more encilopedic". I've hidden them into &lt;!--comments--&gt; --jno 13:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely retain the Mig number in this article as the R-33 was designed to operate alongside the Mig-31. I believe the R-37 will be capable of being used on Sukhoi exports upon request from the customer but the R-33 is synonomous (spelling?) with the Mig-31, just as the AIM-54 is with the F-14.
 * It's quite uncommon for russian/soviet practice to have such a "synonimy". R-27 was designed for Su-27, but R-33 is not the case. --jno 09:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Just performed a cleanup. I have a slightly different philosophy than FrancisTyers. I agree with the idea of having more information, though I rearranged the wording slightly to hopefully make it more readable. So I scraped your information out of their comment boxes.
 * 2) I deleted many of the wikilinks. A link to a live link implies more information is available, but that is often not true (e.g. linking to aviation timelines). I also deleted all the "dead" links w/ no pages written on it. Unless someone knows more about Zhuralev (for example) than him helping to design the R-33, there seems little need to make a page for him. Of course, if someone comes up with something else, even if it is only his birthdate, then of course that's another matter.
 * 3) As a reader, my biggest question after reading the Development section is why was the semi-active head chosen. Kazuaki Shimazaki 16:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Inertial guadance + SARH was the best the soviet industry was able to produce to that point of time for such a missle - good accuracy, low vulnerability for jamming, relatively low cost given a good radar on the carrier. --jno 12:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My Sides
"It is the primary armament of the MiG-31 interceptor, intended to attack large high-speed targets such as the SR-71 Blackbird, the B-1 Lancer bomber, and the B-52 Stratofortress." I suppose "intent" is the key word there, but I was not quite ready for that. Then again, there's not a single source in the opening or... well, the entire body of the article, for that matter. 76.89.33.204 (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Picture's missing
The image in the infobox got deleted 177.10.67.102 (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)