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

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