Talk:R-73 (missile)

Russian variants

Should we add Russian development variants info? See here: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/r73.htm -- Adeptitus 21:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think, yes. But I aint sure what does the E suffix mean here? Should it be read as "Russian: Э" (which I "translate" as "Ae", common suffix for export developments and sometimes used for "high energy" domestic versions)? --jno 08:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No, according to Yefim Gordon, the E stands for energovo'oroozhonnaya, "high-powered." It has a longer-burn motor that raises the weight to 110 kg and increases brochure range from 30 km to 40 km. ArgentLA 23:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

basis for claims of technical superiority

I have a disagreement with the statement, "The R-73 is a highly maneuverable missile that in most respects is believed to be superior to the United States AIM-9M Sidewinder, a fact demonstrated by the reunified German Luftwaffe winning all dogfight engagements with their MiG-29/R-73 combine against the F-16/AIM-9M combination fielded by the USAF,". The problem is that the technical superiority of the R-73 was not determined by the dogfights, in which no missiles were launched (for obvious reasons). The technical advantages were determined from careful examination of the missile and test-firing the missile. Pmw2cc (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Half and half. The engineering stuff is no doubt deciphered from test fires and examination, but it is through exercises that the tactical consequences of (for example) the off-boresight seeker is verified under the complexity of real conditions (or as close to it as possible). When they started losing most of the fights, they decided to make new missiles. --Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of truth to what you said. The implications of the off-bore sight capability are made more obvious from simulated combat. I'll add that in. Pmw2cc (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There are other aspects an exercise help to demonstrate. Without the stress of operating an aircraft etc. it can be hard to determine how good the onboard systems are and how significant an impact maneouvres and other counter-measures can have on simply a pilots confidence in attempting to fire. A missile could have high off boresight but poor guidance and the pilot might wait through lack of confidence. Or indeed it may have excellent guidance and the pilot may maneouvre in completely different ways. USAF doctrine into the 1990's was that bleeding off speed was suicide in a knife fight and perhaps thats still relevant but an Eastern bloc pilot might sacrifice speed for a firing solution if he's confident enough in his weapons and thinks the threat needs dealing with quickly. All these factors make tests on drones or in simulations of the missiles systems & performance equally relevant to pretend battles.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

AIM-9X influence

The article is very restrained (and rightly so) when describing the impact R-73 from East Germany had on AIM-9X program. I'll try to look for citations to clarify the extent of copying/reverse engineering that occurred. 212.188.108.117 (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

An interesting but possibly hard to reference possibility about reverse engineering and possibly stolen plans can be seen as paralleled with the development of the F-35 and the most recent yak. The engine arrangement was similar and called a few people to question exactly how similar. It turned out that when Russia was unable to keep funding a specialty branch of their aeronautics such as Yakolev a few of the engineers responsible for their newest prototypes engineers jumped ship to the USA to continue working where they loved ... on aircraft. I wonder if any missile engineers from the R-73 projects (which mind you must've been fairly large given the capacity they developed compared to the West) moved to US companies in time for the AIM-9X program. I don't know if there is anything 'significant' enough from an engineering perspective to justify this but still its possible.--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Questionable bias

The statement that "all Russian-origin missiles of both sides proved to be highly unreliable" doesn't quite sit well with reality. The only figure they cite is a 1/24 ratio with the R-27 as decidedly worse then the R-60 and R-73. This, surprisingly is not a terrible figure for guided missiles, even in the modern day and age and competes with the figures the USAF and USN were achieving in Vietnam. It's also notable that while the R-27 was fielded as the primary missile for the Su-27 and Mig-29, both aircraft fare better in a comparison against their own missile then they would against any high off bore sight thrust vectoring IR guided missile. Basically, the phrase is biased and the evidence flawed.--123.243.119.185 (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Reality is that almost half of India's R77 did not work : http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/nearly-half-of-russian-airtoair-missiles-with-iaf-have-homing-ageing-problems-cag-report/490055/ http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/iafs-air-to-air-missiles-are-faulty-report_547474.html Thats pretty bad in any criteria.

"off-boresight" Capability

" "off-boresight" capability: the seeker can "see" targets up to 60° off the missile's centerline" - this phrase is repeated twice in the article. At first IOC in 1980's, what was the off-boresight at that point in time? My gut-reaction is this was significantly greater than other missiles in existence at that point in time, but less than it's current version - improved since the original. I suspect the 60° off is the CURRENT unclassified capability ( not the original) . Wfoj2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Operator Map

North Korea is listed as an operator, but isn't included in the map.MacroMyco (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/yak_130/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph removal by the Australian Red Man

I am starting this chain here to discuss the removal of the following paragraph from the page. User Oranjelo100 has reverted my previous removal so I am bringing it up for discussion.

"The R-73 is a highly maneuverable missile and mock dogfights between USAF and German Air Force MiG-29s (inherited from the former Air Forces of the National People's Army) equipped with the R-73/helmet mounted cueing have indicated that the high degree of "off-boresight" capability of the R-73 would make a significant difference in combat. The missile also has a mechanically simple but effective system for thrust-vectoring. The R-73 prompted the development of a number of western air-to-air missiles including the IRIS-T, MICA IR, Python IV and the latest Sidewinder variant, the AIM-9X which entered squadron service in 2003."

None of the references attached talk about former East German missiles being used in mock dogfights. There is also nothing in the sources that describes the missile as having a "mechanically simple but effective system for thrust-vectoring." Admittedly, one of the sources mentions that IRIS-T, AIM-9X and ASRAAM are designed to out preform the R-73. I would like to hear other peoples thoughts on this matter, but I think that you need a stronger source in firmer language to support the statement that the R-73 promoted the development of these other weapons, rather than as part of the design of the other missiles, the R-73 was considered.

The Australian Red Man (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

References

F-16 Kill confirmation

The page seems to confirm that the R-73 was successfully used to kill a Pakistani airforce F-16. However this is still widely regarded as a claim and not a confirmed kill. Furthermore, there is no reference given to support the claim.

If the admin would still want to include the alleged kill in the page, at least indicate that it is a claim by the IAF as of writing until substantial evidence can be found — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.238.24 (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

As of Sept 15, 2020 the article states that Indian authorities claim a Pakistan Air Force block 50/52 F-16 was downed. However the cited references do not mention which version of the F-16 was allegedly downed. I suggest replacing "F-16 block 50/52 " with simply "F-16".

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2020

I request the removal of all the unnecessary and nationalist content about the India-Pakistan dogfight, and replace it with just the Indian claim and Pakistani counterclaim, in a few sentences. The current content about the dogfight is not relevant to the missile; it should be on the page about the clashes and not here. 183.83.146.190 (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Seagull123 Φ 16:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Seagull123: but very few people see this page. How can I get a consensus? Please advise me on this. 183.83.146.190 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

IP, please read this page, especially this section. Seagull123 Φ 17:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Seagull123: i have started discussion below. But what if no one responds? Many discussions here have ended like this. And, as I said, that section was added by a disruptive IP, without consensus. 183.83.146.190 (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This section linked here explains how you can "attract outside editors to offer opinions". You may wish to ask how to get help for this issue at the help desk. Seagull123 Φ 16:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of irrelevant content

In the 'operational history' section, there is a large and unnecessary part about the India-Pakistan aerial clash. Can we remove that and put back the older version, which simply stated that India claimed and Pakistan counterclaimed? So much content about this secondary thing is not necessary on article about a missile. 183.83.146.190 (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the categories the RfC is in so YapperBot can recruit the right people. (Summoned by bot) I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 21:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support restoration of the more focused version, per WP:COATRACK, etc. We have wikilinking for a reason, and can link to another article where detail about the conflict belongs, for anyone who wants to explore that topic. It simply isn't pertinent to the article about the armament itself.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unclear on what you propose to remove. Most of the long paragraph there is about the missile "operational history" as I read it; maybe the last sentence or two is not. Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support trim to minimal claim&counterclaim, and further suggest removing any mention of the incident. Summoned by bot.[1] It is clear that this article is being WP:COATRACKed trying to litigate the India-Pakistan incident, and that the editwarring and page protection are a direct result of that coatrack. I checked how our other articles had covered this incident, and I did a brief but reasonable search&review of available sources to ascertain the WP:Neutral point of view on the matter. The most generous summary is that we have a claim and counterclaim between the two governments, but independent news coverage appears to generally discredit or reject the claim an F-16 was shot down. Example businessinsider news coverage. An incident which is disputed at best, and broadly discredited at worst, has little value in helping readers understand the R-73 missile itself. It does not well-serve our readers for this article to coatrack international squabbling, and I would suggest that it is WP:Undue weight for a weapons-system article to highlight claims that lack sufficient recognition by experts and the international community. I'm not asserting that that a F-16 definitely was not shot down, I am asserting that there appears to be insufficient international acceptance of the claim for it to warrant inclusion in this article. Considering the general case, if some misbehaving government were to spam hundreds or thousands of spurious claims, we obviously don't want our articles indiscriminately repeating empty propaganda and burying themselves under endless paragraphs of unsupported (and/or fictional) reports. Alsee (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe you or someone could link the version you'd like to go back to (more or less)? Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: This [2] is what i was suggesting. (I am the same IP; my address is dynamic.) 183.83.147.191 (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I see. I was looking at the more recent edit warring. Dicklyon (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Advice for editors who are not using a logged in account here

First, I invite and strongly suggest you create and log into an account here. See the links at the top for Create_account and Log_in. We allow people to edit without logging in, but it makes things more difficult for you. Logging in gives you additional tools and system-support, and in addition other editors tend to distrust people and edits if you don't log in.

Second, as you have experienced, persistently editing the article and arguing via edit-summary is generally not an effective way to resolve a disagreement. For every edit you make, the other person could just endlessly make the opposite edit. We call that Edit Warring. It doesn't work, we consider it disruptive, and we respond to editwars either by protecting the article so you can't edit it (as was done on this article) or we can block your ability to edit at all. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Disputes should be taken to the talk page (here) for discussion. We have many Policies and guidelines to help resolve many issues. When someone cites a relevant policy or guideline, and it provides an answer or assistance on how to resolve the dispute, the policies and guidelines should be respected. If editors in a dispute are unable to resolve their dispute on this talk page, we have Dispute resolution processes such as the Request for comments for uninvolved editors to help resolve things. (A Request for Comments was opened in the #Removal of irrelevant content section above). Sometimes a Request for Comments provides a clear or agreeable outcome, and may be ended early. In most cases it will run for a month, and it may take additional days or weeks for it to receive a formal closing result. Once a Request for Comments is closed with a consensus result, we expect that result to be respected. A consensus result is enforceable if necessary. Alsee (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alsee: Thank you for informing me about all this. About edit warring, dont worry, i won't do it again - I didn't know at that time, I was only thinking it was good to undo disruption by the other IP. Opening an account is not a good idea because then it will be single purpose account. Another editor (in this page itself) informed me about rfcs, which is why I opened one. I will respect the result of this consensus; i have no intention of breaking rules. 183.83.146.190 (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alsee: Would it be appropriate to trim now? because no one else has commented since, and those who commented are either neutral or supporting. (i am not asking you to do it; i can do it myself when the protection expires tomorrow.)

Non-existent sources

I would suggest deleting the following two sentences: "In particular, the R-73 was found to be both far more maneuverable, and far more capable in terms of seeker acquisition and tracking than the latest AIM-9 Sidewinder. This realization started the development of newer missiles to help compete, including the ASRAAM, IRIS-T and AIM-9X." In the first sentence cited, I can't find any relevant information that this note supposedly provides; the closest I can find is: "The Russian R-73 was a wake-up call for countries that had no access to Russian technology triggering the development of the Sidewinder AIM-9X, the IRIS-T, MICA-IR and the Python IV missiles". In the case of the second sentence, there's no source at all, and the source cited above doesn't confirm it either. For example, the ASRAAM programme was started much earlier, and there is no source that says that the development of any of these missiles was started because of the R-73. 89.64.53.20 (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)