Talk:Tupolev Tu-141

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tupolev Tu-141 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: Aircraft / Soviet

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.
	This article is supported by the Soviet aviation task force.

Military history: Aviation / Russian & Soviet / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Soviet Union

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cold War

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Robotics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Ukraine only known operator

@Solipsism 101: The Guardian article attributes this claim to the War Zone magazine. I'm not up to date on military magazines, so I can't tell if that's a RS. Another source in our article states that some of these craft were captured by Donbass separatists. Daß Wölf 14:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough @Daß Wölf. The Guardian and The Financial Times both said Ukraine was the only known operator.[1] RSs can be wrong! The FT also mentioned Ukrainian sources rejecting this as their own because of a red star emblazoned on the wreck. Perhaps we could attribute these claims to the FT and The Guardian, so we have some context for Ukraine's refuting this being their UAV? Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have attribute it to The War Zone for now. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Ukraine is an only known operator" may mean "operator as a recoinassance drone", because the drone can be gutted of the cameras, placed in storage, and still be functional as a dumb flying decoy in the sense of a V-1 missile, and it had been suggested that was the use by the invading forces, to cover other launches and activate anti-aircraft and anti-missile defenses. Having some obsolete, partially gutted drones placed in storage doesn't necessarily mean you are an operator. Especially in the face of recent denials by the invading side. 178.143.105.168 (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The guardian article the everyone so enthusiastically waving here has no author and no source references to the official Croatian authorities. 5.176.53.38 (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI - not sure why people keep getting stuck on this - "known operators" means just that. It means countries/governments that actively use them for military purposes and in combat. It does not mean that country possesses every single item of that machinery in existence all within their country. There are several of these drones all over Russia in museums, in storage, in junkyards, all over the place that have been abandoned or on display as a decoration. Someone could easily have pulled it out of a storage depot and fired it. 2600:1702:4250:8470:994E:36C7:28A3:B81F (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect length?

This article states Length: 114.33 m, that seems incorrect. Does anyone have better data?

93.22.148.208 (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed by another editor. Solipsism 101 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terrain hugging function?

This is a very puzzling thing: do thse drones have terrain hugging function? Because when I chart the flight path, the mountains it has to overcome to come across to Romania where it will stay in the Romanian airspace for 3-4 minutes and then cross to Hungary... are far higher than the altitude it had been flying at!

It is 1600-1800m peaks in the mountains, while the drone is said to travel only at 1300m altitude...

What else does not make sense is: if this really is the MODERNISED drone, why would it be kept UNPAINTED when all the others Ukraine uses are PAINTED?

Or maybe: could be the drone programmed to fly initially at a high altitude and then slowly drop over time, to maximize its flight range?

Suppose the drone was launched by a saboteur out of a storage in ukraine, why would it be unpainted? Why did the russian TV show picture of a burned drone part, carelessly arranged ovver some pipes as "crash"? If they were the source of the drone flying over, to use it as a decoy, doesn't it mean it would have to fly all over Ukraine, for some 1560km? If we assume that the practical range WITH instruments and navigation and maneuvering is 1000km, is a flight path over some frigid winter air during night, lighter because of no photorecoinassance instruments and altered flight profile possible? Did the plane fly 700km/h over Hungary or was it 1000km/h? How is the maximum range affected by changing velocity? How exactly is the flight range improved/worsedned by changing the flight direction east/west to west/east? (earth rotates under the flying object)

Or: was the purpose to really fly to Yarun instead of Jarun, because Yarun area is blurred on satellite images in high resolution images. Along with a lot of area around, some of which is military training ground. But even in that case, the problem of range and altitude remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.143.105.168 (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

drone origin misleading

the drone found in mrch 22 is uniterally described as ukrainian despite allnews outlet claiming otherwise: this is clear russian propaganda. 93.9.63.42 (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresented source regarding owner/operator

Currently this sentence can be found in the "Usage and incidents" section: "The investigation conducted by the Ministry of Defence of Croatia concluded that the crashed drone had belonged to the Armed Forces of Ukraine and carried a bomb that was meant for striking Russia′s positions but it had strayed off course and crashed after it ran out of fuel." The source for that statement is: https://www.nacional.hr/jarunski-dron-pripadao-je-ukrajinskim-vojnim-snagama/ However, the source does not verify the claim that an "investigation by the Ministry of Defense of Croatia concluded the crashed drone had belonged to the Armed Forces of Ukraine". The source just claims that "Nacional [the news site that released the article] learned from a source close to the Ministry of Defense that the drone that crashed last week near the Stjepan Radić Student Dormitory in Zagreb belonged to the Ukrainian military and had a bomb intended to be activated at Russian positions in Ukraine." An unnamed source is in stark contrast to an official statement by the Ministry of Defense that is suggested in the sentence that is currently used in the article. I recommend to rephrase that sentence to make it clearer that the claim was made by an unnamed source and not by the Ministry of Defense of Croatia. MiBerG (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After no objection was made, I've changed the wording to be more in line with the detailed article for the incident. MiBerG (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Produced number 152 or 142

On the both wiki pages of Ukrainian and Russian, they both indicated the total produced number is 152. On the wiki page of English, it shows 142. Any source to check the produced number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 桃花影落飞神剑 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]