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 — 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." — 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 <!--comments--> --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)