Talk:Mikoyan PAK DP

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Aviation / Russian & Soviet 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 met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Aviation: Aircraft / Soviet /  This article is supported by the aircraft project. This article is supported by the Soviet aviation task force.

Russia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This is a clear violation of

Operators and primary user are two different things, stop confusing it. Therefore your claim about violation of

Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG. Of his words, is obvious who will be the primary user of the aircraft. Source: RIA Novosti BlackFlanker (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

A primary user is a more specific category than operator, and falls into the same rules. A) How can it have a primary user if it does not exist outside of paper and b) if nobody is listing or claiming the Russian Air Force as an operator (which is the same thing as a user) than listing it falls into Wikipedia:No original research. Assumptions, such as the one being made about the user are clearly original research, as it is not explicitly stated that the Russian Aerospace Forces will operate it. It the same as saying that NASA was the primary user of the X-33 just because it funded it, even though it didn't get off the development stage. Furthermore your source cited does not mention that the Russian Air Force has contracted to buy it or operate it (or for that matter mention that it is funding its development), and it is from a company spokesman, not an official member of the Russian Armed Forces.Garuda28 (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then, to be more accurate the aircraft is planned for the Russian Air Force. The source clearly stated the MiG-41 will replace the current fleet of MiG-31s, what itself comes from main representative of the future manufacturer of the aircraft. This clearly pointing out the primary purpose of the newly developed aircraft and also who will use it. In technical stage of development, it's pointless to ask any signed contracts about the delivery. If you compare it for example with the B-21 bomber, you will get the same situation. USAF still didn't sign any contract for delivery, yet is already certain who will be the primary user of the bomber. Btw, Ilya Tarasenko is not any spokesman, but a general director of the MiG company, as I already said. See this. Therefore, there shouldn't be any doubts about the realiability of his words. BlackFlanker (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planned does not equate with primary user (or in fact any user or operator). The source also comes directly from MiG, not the Russian Armed Forces or Russian Air Force. The difference is that the the B-21 actually has involvement and intent from USAF (http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/486167/af-moves-forward-with-future-bomber/) (and even assuming, hypothetically that this was an identical case

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS still applies - making that point moot). There is no evidence that this is funded, endorsed, or otherwise has Russian Air Force involvement. The only source comes from the head of the company that is developing the aircraft, which still does not have any credibility with regard to the Russian Air Force as an intended operator. It is no different than if the head of Lockheed Martin were to say that the a new fighter would replace the F-15 - it wouldn't mean anything unless the USAF directly states something. Please provide a specific source from the Russian Armed Forces or government that this is intended for the Russian Air Force, because no source on this page states this. Speculation and assumptions is original research.Garuda28 (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

And remember this is an Encyclopedia

not a news site, we try to just state facts, not future newsy events - FOX 52 (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

To prove the involvement of the Russian Air Force in the program, Colonel General Viktor Bondarev stated the following "Since 2017, we are beginning to work with a long-range interceptor aircraft complex, which will replace the MiG-31. Now there are research projects, then there will be experimental design work, and until 2025, I think the aircraft will go to the troops." This was stated in 2014, when he was a commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force. Source: TASS. Russian Zvezda TV, that is run by the Russian Ministry of Defense, informed about the same in this article. Also, a State Duma Defense Committee member Alexander Tarnaev stated for the Interfax that "in response to an appeal by State Duma deputies to the country's leadership, it was decided to include the project of creating a promising high-altitude interceptor in a new armament program with terms of implementation by 2020" and "This machine will be the further development of the interceptor MiG-31, which is for decades ahead of time. We do not rule out that its development could begin before 2020, since such an aircraft is very necessary for our Armed Forces." Source: Interfax.

This and also the claims of the head of MiG company is enough to know the Russian Air Force clearly plans with an introduction of a new interceptor aircraft for its aviation regiments. BlackFlanker (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing in the sources is an intent to replace the MiG-31. MiG's proposal is the MiG-41, but there is no evidence you have provided that actually shows that the Russian Air Force will purchases the aircraft. This is all speculation and conjuncture without a reliable source. The MiG-41 must be directly mentioned by the Russian Air Force or government for this to be put in primary user. Garuda28 (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BilCat , Buckshot06, Steelpillow can you please help resolve whether is appropriate to put the Russian Air Force as the planned primary user of the currently developmental MiG-41 regarding to what is mentioned above? In particular, take a look at the sources I provided above which pointing out on the connections between this aircraft, MiG company and planned introduction of the MiG-41 to the aviation regiments of the Russian Air Force as a replacement for the MiG-31 fleet. BlackFlanker (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have met this issue a few times. My view is that this template field was never intended for planned sales. If there is no verifiable primary user, past or present, than it should be left blank so that it does not display. However, I am not sure whether this has ever been tested by wider consensus. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO: Above it states,

"It cannot have an operator as no Air Force has contracted it, bought it, or otherwise operated it (which is also impossible as it just exists on paper."

Now how does anyone know that no Air Force has contracted it? Trying to prove a negative is tough. Are there no secret contracts? Is it impossible that it exists in secret? However, indeed this article does seem to be highly speculative. Still, I am happy to read this speculation. (PeacePeace (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

How does the editor know that? He could know that he could not find information given the amount of time he spent trying, but has he examined every possible source? That is probably untrue. How about changing to "This editor has not been able to find much information"? (PeacePeace (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Speculation is not permitted on Wikipedia. All information must be verifiable. Garuda28 (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]