Talk:Beriev A-50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A-50 vs SKIP[edit]

oops.

The picture is not for A-50, but for SKIP.

and the text 

 A-50 looks much close to the SKIP aircraft (the fore cockpit should have no glass).

defines the difference!

How to fix??

--jno 14:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Further to this, there were three types of telemetry aircraft:- Izdeliye-676, Izdeliye-776, Izdeliye-976. (Aircraft-676 etc.), converted from Il-76 airframes.

They were never officially given Bureau prefixes, which were assumed by western observers, before factual information became available. Izdeliye-676 and 776 were quick modifications to replace the Il-18SIP (prototype Il-20RT), which had to be retired unexpectedly from its telemetry duties at LII. Izdeliye-976 (SKIP) was produced as a joint venture with Beriev and five aircraft were converted, from brand new Il-76MD's. The fuselage was virtually stock Il-76 except for the added radomes and aerials, wingtip pods contained more equipment. Colour scheme is standard Aeroflot with "976" in place of Il-76MD on the nose. Nato :- 'Mainstay-C'. A model of an Izdeliye-976 variant, titled Il-76SK, was shown at MAKS-95 and Farnborough 96.

Hope this is a bit clearer, maybe it can be worked into the article? Petebutt (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more aircraft was modified for unknown duties as Izdeliye-1076. Petebutt (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuselage length[edit]

This article states that the A-50 has a fuselage extention and is longer than the IL-76 and the IL-78, yet the dimensions are the same for the 3 aircraft. I was not able to find any evidence supporting that the A-50 is any longer than IL-76MD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hudicourt (talk • contribs) 21:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Engines[edit]

I do not think that the A-50 has PS-90 engines. These are fitted on the IL-76MF and on the IL-76MD-90 but I think that the A-50 has the same D30-KP engines as the IL-76MD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hudicourt (talk • contribs) 22:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The Indian Air Force A-50s have PS-90 enginesHudicourt (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cargo Doors[edit]

In the text it is stated tha the doors were "welded up". This is a very poor choice of words. Welding of Aluminium Alloy primary structure is unheard of due, to issues with phase of the Alloy/heat treatment.

A better wording would be "deleted" or "faired over" Petebutt (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Izdeliye 976 etc.[edit]

I have editted the variant section to show the proper designations of the Izdeliye conversions. Strictly speaking they should be moved to the Il-76 page as they had/have no relation to the A-50 other than the rotodome fairing. Discussion anyone? Petebutt (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a-50 picture[edit]

can someone upload a newer pic of the a-50, this current pic is ancient. there have been upgrades done to the new version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beriev A-50. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beriev A-50. 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:

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) 07:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A -50 shot over the sea of Azov[edit]

How you know that it was not a friendly fire? 79.100.221.83 (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable, this seems to have been a known/regular patrol route. But it may be possible the Ukrainians managed to hack into the electronics communication of a radar station/SAM battery to mark these aircraft as enemy. How they managed to get these 2 a/c is a mystery as its out of range for Patriot or Partisan-fired Manpads. --Denniss (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That section should be removed until further information is available.
There's no visual evidence of the A-50 being shot down or any visual evidence of it's wreckage.
The Russian MOD says only an Il-22 has been damaged. The Ukrainian MOD haven't provided any proof of the A-50 being shot down.
There's no definitive confirmation from russian millbloggers.
All the shoot down methods are bizzare and speculative.
The intended purpose of Wikipedia is to provide well sourced information. At the very least it should be changed to "Ukrainian MOD claims to have..." Mhaf99 (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also noteworthy that ukraine AD has no means available that reach that far. Markscheider (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Ukraine have Patriot PAC-2 and S-200 missile systems. Both have range to hit that far. Both systems already used by Ukraine in last months. Slavic Positron Cannon (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
has never happened, but was still added without any viable source 2A02:2A57:5348:0:2165:B3F3:3E86:FFAE (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the IL-22 was never ever damaged by something - the tail looks like swiss cheese. The flight pattern of the A-50 was obviously known from previous actions (dumb if they dont change it) or at least similar to previous flights. If they have used Patriots the launcher must have come very close to the frontline and the A-50 must have flown a path that brought it into the edge of the Patriots range. The only other option would be something long range air launched. --Denniss (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that FEBA is 100 mls away from the Asow coast at the nearest possible location, they must've launched the missile without turning on their radars when the A-50 was on it's way to the near-coast turning point to met it there. This would imply external intel / guidance. For something long range air launched - what's the most long ranged AA missile in Ukrainian or western inventory and what could be an possible launch platform? Markscheider (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that it would be best to add "allegedly " and "it is claimed" to both sentencies regarding the A-50 allegged shotdown since both of them come from a pro ukrainian source and after two days there is still no actual proof of the shootdown having really happened. No photos of debris, no satellite pictures, no movement of rescue assets in Azov Sea Area, nothing. If actual proof later appear we can simply remove this phrases and add the pictures Marcorivignani (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those ranges are THEORETICAL MAX, against a maneuvering or even just a predictably moving target, they're utterly unrealistic.
The claimed shootdown location is over 190km from the nearest FRONTLINE. Patriot does not have that range at all. And suddenly when it's convenient, Ukraine has S-200 with rangeboost? If they did, we would have seen them before.
We have statements that the A50 wasn't even in the location where its claimed to have been shot down.
We have statements that BOTH PLANES HAVE LANDED. Moreover, the statements are that they landed on their homebases AS SCHEDULED. Meaning, that they stayed in the air after supposedly being shot down, completed their missions and THEN RTB. This is just one more of Ukraine's blatant fakeouts. It's not like we haven't seen literally thousands of them already. And wikipedia keeps on blindly repeating them, because they're reported in "reputable sources".
Western massmedia today is nothing but a propaganda outlet. And yet wikipedia is STILL treating it like they have any credibility left. Russia fought over a year against a numerically superior Ukraine military, defending from the biggest complex of fortifications since the Maginot line, and yet according to these same reputable western sources, the Russian military is incompetent and worthless in every way. 178.174.137.13 (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about we have statements, statements from who as I don't believe the Russian MoD has even said anything about this attack at all? Also we have pictures of an Il-22 at Anapa Airport with it's tail riddled with holes like swiss cheese and the probe from the top is missing so obviously something occured and also the Il-22's base is not Anapa so your point about them returning to base is false. The last part of what you said is something I expect of twitter not wikipedia and it's seemingly all you use wikipedia for unfortunately. Brandon Downes (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User with IP 178.174.137.13, don't cry. Even russian wikipedia have now information that A-50 was shot-down.
About distance it was shot down:
Because parts of the plane was fell down on ukrainian shore it means distance for rocket was LESS then 160 km. Also exact max distance of PAC-2 rocket unknown, it is MORE that 160 km.
S-200 max distance is 255 km. Ukraine do have S-200 - passengers and crew of Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 know that for sure. And the distance to that Tu-154 was 250 km. So calm down and stop crying please. Slavic Positron Cannon (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Patriot PAC-2 have 160+ km range. S-200, in upgraded version, have 240 km range. From russian wikipedia article about S-200: "for loitering AWACS plane - up to 255km". Slavic Positron Cannon (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, still waiting for any actual proof of the shootdown, a plane cannot simply disappear in the Azov Sea. Three articles that use the same sources of the Ukrainian ministry of Defence are not enought if the is no confermation from the other side or from any other place Marcorivignani (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putin's Russia will never officially confirm such a loss. Pro-Russian bloggers start to claim it was friendly fire "Ukraine would never have had the possibility to shot it down". So friendly fire seems less humiliating than having the enemy shoot down one of your most valuable air assets. --Denniss (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely true but ok, what I am saying is to provide any tangible evidence, any, that the shootdown really happened, anything apart from what the Ukranian MOD is simply saying (already half disproved by the fact that the Il-22 was able to land and did not crash). Some articles saying that a pilot allegedly saw a fire on the ground (again without any proof) is not enough to claim that it is true and happened. This sounds just like when Ukraine claimed to have shotdown two Il-76 during the battle of Kiev but nothing was ever proved. An aircraft like this can't disappear over the Sea of Azov without any trace. There isn't even any proof of any search and rescue action or a photo of even a single piece of debris. For what matters (same credibility as Ukrainian MOD in time of war) the Kremlin said it doesn't have any news about any such aircraft being lost. It is fine to cite what allegedly happened in the article but it must be made clear to the reader that the Su-30 pilot story and everything else is simply something said by one side and should be taken with a huge grain of salt until we have 100% proof that this incident really took place. Marcorivignani (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, our purpose is not to find the WP:TRUTH, but rather state notable information that a reader can WP:VERIFY via WP:RS. So let's not discuss here what we think actually happened, but rather what reliable sources report as having happened. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and it is for this reason that I am just asking for something like this:
The A-50 allegedly disappeared from radar and stopped responding to requests from tactical aviation. Later several sources reported that the pilot of a Su-30 aircraft of the Russian Air Force detected the fire and crash of an unidentified aircraft in the area, presumably the A-50.
It is simply to reiterate that we don't have any definitive proof of anything having taken place and this only what one side is reporting. And again the reliability of any party in a conclict can not be taken for granted both for Russian and for the Ukrainian. That's all Marcorivignani (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Later several sources reported that the pilot of a Su-30 aircraft .....
This should be changed to
Later several western and ukrainian sources reported that the pilot of a Su-30 aircraft ......
It is important to mention that this is a one-sided news. 118.103.235.163 (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me this is perfect, it does not invalidate anything but clearly points out that the information comes only from the Ukrainian side Marcorivignani (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, give up. Even in russian wikipedia article about A-50, there is information that plane was shot down. Slavic Positron Cannon (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, our colleagues at ru-wp are sourcing this entry with (only) an bc news article (in russian): Гибель А-50: как ВСУ могли уничтожить российский летающий радар? Surely you are aware how the saying goes about headlines with question marks? I've read it anyways. Lots of guessing, repeating what ukraine is saying, no actual proof; as expected. Markscheider (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, this situation happened many times before. Examples - Moskva, Novocherkassk landing ship, etc.
If you read a "TALK" page about this ships on russian and english pages - it same over again and again - "show me the proof", "we don't have photos", "it didn't happen", (crying a lot). Then, eventually, people cope and walk away. Slavic Positron Cannon (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "coping" to report the currently available information and then change it when more information becomes available. Brandon Downes (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8 A-50 active[edit]

8 A-50U active. The number is higher if both the baseline and U model are included. Also India operates 2 A-50s Mhaf99 (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you; maybe something like >8 or specify 8 A-50U would be more accurate Marcorivignani (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two less now. So 6? 2601:204:E684:11E0:CBB1:2272:FAC3:3A7C (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using Forbes journalist David Axe as source[edit]

He make a lot of dubious and unverified claims. Some of his source are from random Twitter account that wasn't even credible Dauzlee (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is apparently a repository of pro-Ukrainian rumors shrouded in the legitimacy of the concept of an encyclopedia. 67.80.185.174 (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A-50 shot down over Krasnodar[edit]

https://kyivindependent.com/russian-a50-plane-shot-down-over-azov-sea-military-says/

https://meduza.io/news/2024/02/23/v-vsu-utverzhdayut-chto-sbili-rossiyskiy-samolet-a-50-nad-azovskim-morem-rossiyskie-voenkory-pishut-chto-prichinoy-krusheniya-stal-druzhestvennyy-ogon

89.151.41.173 (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were any of the variant aircraft new or just upgrades?[edit]

Were all the variant aircraft just upgrades of the original A-50s built up to 1992, or were some new builds? Nurg (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beriev_A-50&oldid=1216337467"