Talk:Tupolev Tu-28

Untitled

Please be advised that the correct designation for this aircraft is Tu-128, not Tu-28. Is there any way to change the article URL to correct this?

• Doesn't matter. Tu-128 redirects here anyway and the aircraft was initially known as Tu-28. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It's still an unofficial name. The article's title should be the official designation. JanxCer (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The official name of the aircraft, adopted in 1963 by the MoD, was only Tu-128 (it was known as Tu-28 on project stage). There was no "Tu-28P" variant, it must have been some NATO guess. I've corrected only most obvious errors, according to new Russian sources. All Tu-128s from the beginning carried 4 missiles. Pibwl ←« 23:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure exactly how to phrase this succinctly in the article, but just looking at the numbers the YF-12 was longer and heavier (though slightly smaller in other dimensions) than the Tu-128. It never went into production or operations as a fighter, though.Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Pelican

The trainer variant of this aircraft is referred to as "Pelican". I assume this is a NATO codename? Drutt (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No. NATO code names are assigned according to certain rules, specifically that the name of the aircraft must begin with the same letter as the word for that type of aircraft, e.g. fighters are given names beginning with F, such as "Fiddler", "Fishbed" and "Freestyle", and bombers are given names beginning with B, such as "Blinder", "Bear", and "Blackjack". Trainers, I believe, fall under the "miscellaneous" category and are therefore generally assigned names beginning with M, but in the case of a training variant of an existing fighter, it would probably retain the "F" name of the aircraft it is based on (this makes sense because training variants will often retain some combat capability and are therefore still categorically "fighters"). Either way, "Pelican" would not be an official NATO code name for an aircraft. It's probably just a nickname. Vicarious Tendril (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Spy Balloons?

The article talks about interception of spy balloons -- I've tinkered with that subject (http://www.vectorsite.net/avbloon.html) and there's an interesting gap between Soviet and Western sources on this matter. Soviet sources often insist that there were spy balloon flights over the USSR into the 1970s, while Western sources indicate that the US tried balloon overflight programs twice -- but only during the 1950s, and they didn't work worth a busted penny.

Given that the US had spysats by the 1960s, it's hard to think that there was much rationale for performing balloon missions, all the more so because they didn't work so hot in the 1950s. If there were actual programs, the only thing that comes to mind is that they were deliberate provocations to test Soviet air defenses. Otherwise I get the feeling the Soviets were busily shooting down stray weather balloons. MrG 65.102.200.136 (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tupolev Tu-28. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605015707/http://www.aviation.ru/Tu/ to http://www.aviation.ru/Tu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)