Talk:Mikoyan MiG-29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Russia / Technology & engineering / Military (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
WikiProject Soviet Union (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iraqi MiG-29 shot down RAF Tornado ?[edit]

Any proof ? Informations ? Source ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The source is a webpage that may not be a particularly reliable source, ZA467 was not lost on the 19 January but on the 22 January the RAF said There were several potential causes, including aircraft malfunction, hostile action, aircrew reaction and aircraft handling, but the lack of any firm evidence makes it impossible to reach a positive conclusion, and in each case the cause must remain undetermined. MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

on 19 january there wasa Tornado loss, it was said it was shot down by a SAM both pilots were taken prisoners so hardly there is evidence it was indeed a SAM besides pilot recolection because there is no blackboxes, the 22 january has no witness so from the western side is pure expeculation, so there is no way it was not an iraqi fighter what it shot it down —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are right ZA396 was lost on the night of the 19th Hit by SAM 7 during low level ground attack mission on Tallil Air Base, Iraq. and as the crew saw the missile I dont think they could have mistaken a ground launched sam for an aircraft. So still no evidence. MilborneOne (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
There needs to be a another reference for the SAM part. The current references in the article only say shotdown on 19 Jan, without giving any more details. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The article cant decide which a/c was shot down or what day and most of the references in this article dont support any Mig-29 involvement other than guesswork! Suggest the Tornado bit be removed as speculation without a reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
  • No argument from me. I'm just trying to keep make sure the text matches what the sources support and hopefully balanced. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not more guess work than saying the Tornado shot down on the 22 was not shot down by an Iraqi fighter because both pilots were killed there is no pilot recollection, no black boxes and yes pure specualation of what shot it down, the 19 January Tornado it is said it was shot down by a SAM but both pilots were POW, but while Russian sources say Iraq did claim more than one air to air victory, the most western historias disreagard the Iraqi claims as propaganda, and even disregading them as unrelaible, i ask you why all the readers have to listen just one version? they should listen both.

The SAM version comes from Western sources, most Russian sources say Iraq claimed several dozen air to air kills by Iraqi pilots and the Mig-29 at least shot down one Tornado see the at least means probably more were shot down

The interesting thing is of course they did not confuse an aircraft for a SAM but it is easy to confuse a SAM for an AAM specially a MANPAD—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

One can argue which to believe until everyone is blue in the face, or just put the claims there, marking sources, based on what evidence, and leave it for the reader to decide who to believe. However we seem to have a couple of fanboys here who insist on removing parts of the data that would show how just how little credibility the claims have in this particular instance. (To say nothing of the fact that claims should always be treated as considerably less reliable evidence than loss records of the supposed "victim" side, due to the all too common trend of inflated kill claims, particularly by poorly trained air forces, as witnessed by countless conflicts over the time...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Iraqi air force cross referenced all claims for kills by pilots, and these were all matched against losses admitted by the allies. No pilot in the Iraqi air force was given a confirmed kill based on JUST Iraqi claims. (on the other hand the allies did claim 35+ kills against Iraq, of which the Iraqis only can account for 23). So perhaps the claims for "inflating claims" are not limited to "poorly trained" airforces ;). The final point, with regards to confirming kills. The air force losing the plane can very well confirm their loss. But the air force making the kill, can confirm much better how that loss was incurred! So in these examples, the RAF confirmed the loss of the planes. The Iraqi airforce confirmed the kill and it was awarded to an air force pilot in a MiG29 (the air defence command would have loved to get the confirmation for that kill, but it was awarded to the pilot). Hayderaziz (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, where can the Iraqi documentation on this be found then? -Fnlayson (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

this would be a good start (for english speakers) - and I am sure you'd "trust" an official US source more than an "arab" one, so here you can see the official US military translation of some of Iraqi air force's documents from 1991 (captured in 2003)

further information can be gained (but from a "non published" source) from the ex-iraqi military officers who write on (but that would not meet wikipedia standards I guess?) Hayderaziz (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Another Russian claim was that a MiG-29 shot down ..."[edit]

This claim is taken from the Russian "Duel" newspaper, which used to write about such things as Moon landing conspiracy and Boris Yeltsin's alleged death in 1996. The author of the article is some Roman Zhdanovich. He is not known to be an expert in aviation or military history fields. His article contains some other dubious claims and suggestions about the 1991 war, such as:

  • F-15 was the lone Allied aircraft capable of dogfighting;
  • there were 15-20 F-16s lost, according to unspecified Arab sources;
  • F/A-18s had no aerial victories;
  • MiG-29s had 8 aerial victories, MiG-23s had 2 aerial victories;
  • Allied aircraft managed to destroy just one SCUD launcher during the whole war;
  • SCUDs were "a raining death" to American military compounds in Saudi Arabia and Israel (?!);
  • there were two OV-10 Bronco losses on the first day of the war;
  • for some reason he calls F-117 "Black kite", not Nighthawk;
  • two F-117s were shot down;
  • RAF lost 10 fighter-bombers;
  • Desert Storm ended on February 27th (???)...

I'm not sure if this "Duel" article could be named a reliable source. Creo11 (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

why it is not reliable? in 1991 7 F-16 were shot down all SAMs, two F-15 were shot down all SAMs, 8 Tornados were shot down all bt SAMs, all the Western losses are claimed to have been by SAMs, that is not what the Iraqi did claim according to the Russians. Yeah it is probably some might be propaganda, but why not consider all the aircraft lost by SAMs is also western propaganda?

One sides says all our losses were due to SAMs except a single F-18, the other says no we shot down more aircraft with fighters.

Both sides can be considered propaganda so both sides should be listen —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

"all the Western losses are claimed to have been by SAMs" - another claim unsupported by facts. Of seven F-16s lost, three were shot down by SAMs and four were non-combat losses. Of seven British Tornados lost, three were shot down by SAMs, one was shot down by ground fire (probably not SAMs), two were non-combat losses and one was lost for unknown reason. By the way, it would be nice to see Iraqi claims coming from more reliable sources than some Roman Zhdanovich... Creo11 (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough but the point is Russian accounts do not consider the western sources beyond propaganda, this is the same thing that happens in the West with Russian claims, Many of the so called sam kills or ground fire kills are basicly unconfirmed, the fact to say most likely by ground fire implies no certainty of what really did happen, then readinf a russian source can open another possible explanation —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the Iraqi Air Force's own internal records no F14A were shot down by MiG29s. the only MiG29 kill awarded officially by the Iraqi air force is the Tornado kill to Jameel Sayhood. He shot it down with an R60MK passive IR missile and acquired the tornado with his IRST which is probably the reason why the british presumed they were shot down by an SA7, no radar tracking from MiG29 or Radar guided missiles detected by RHAWS. Really the "end story" for the 1991 gulf war is neither coallition "guesses" about how aircraft were lost and how many they shot down, nor russian "newspaper reports" but rather iraq's extensive internal records that became public after 2003 and have been helpfully translated and released to the public by the US military Hayderaziz (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting but there is a simple thing you have to see history is written by the winners, russian sources say what was said in 1991 so try to judge what is a more reliable version a 2003 edited version or a 1991 edited version basicly both can not be trusted relying in a 2003 version edited by the winners well is as trustable as the defeated 1991 iraqi claims —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Hayderaziz is talking about Iraqi records, not US records. Look at the Iraqi Air Force article. The West is conceding that a couple aircraft were lost in air to air combat. The only aircraft explicitly mentioned as being shot down are an F-18 and Tornado. Other than that one not very good Russian source, most info available to us states the F-14 was part of a big package attacking a heavily defended base (Al Asad Air Base) on the 4th day of the war and was shot down by a modified SA-2 at medium altitude. That story makes the most sense (to me).Agsftw (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually there was only one confirmed air to air Coalition loss according to the US report I linked two posts down. I can't find the translated copies of the Iraqi records the report's based on online so I'm not going to pretend I have any idea of what else is on there. Still, the only source being provided is the article which, just based on so many of the poorly reported claims, I don't think is reliable at all.
  • I'm admittedly biased (anyone who says they aren't is a liar) but I'm trying to give this article a chance (I've read it 3 times now). Most of it is still very refutable...Agsftw (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think the article is reliable, and I can refute a bunch of the stuff in it if needed. The argument that the translated Iraqi records attained in 2003 by the US can't be trusted all because you believe details were left out is a weak argument. The author of the article makes many of his claims without stating where they came from, to include the F-14 claim.Agsftw (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In any serious combat aviation history the more reliable (not necessarily perfect, but least unreliable if you will) source of information is usually considered to be the loss records of each side. Very often more claims exist than what can be veriefed as actually lost. To take one side's loss records to be of equal authority to the other one's claims requires some extraordinary reasons. To think that information originating from a totalitarian regime like Iraq and spewed forth by people and media source of questionable character elsewhere without a shred of physical proof (wreckage analysis, gun cam films, even so much as pilot interviews) as even remotely as reliable as information from a democracy with freedom of speech and press and a tradition of investigative journalism is just utterly ridiculous, plain and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

  • According to this US report these records were a serious and honest attempt to determine their anti air warfare effectiveness during the conflict and are very believable. The Iraqis estimated a total of 44 Coalition aircraft were downed by all assets (aircraft, surface to air missiles, AAA, etc.), which doesn't seem like a huge overestimation at all. The report states that the total from reports from the units ended up being in the hundreds, but they used a decent system, logical system (to include finding wreckage and information from Western sources even) to determine their findings. That's impressive even by Western standards where we tend to believe unit accounts without question.Agsftw (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm going to remove the claim unless someone can convince me that the sources used to validate it are reliable. The first source used to support the claim ( doesn't even mention the F-14, so it's automatically gone. Though it does mention F-16s and F-15s supposedly getting shot down by the MiG-29 in other theaters... The second link ( isn't much better. It does mention an F-14 getting shot down by the MiG-29, but the sentence preceding it so inaccurate that it pretty much delegitimizes the entire article for me. It states the CDR Speicher F/A-18 shoot down occurred over the ocean on the second day of the war, which is basically completely wrong if you have any familiarity with the incident. That can be proven wrong just based on the fact that his remains were found well inland in Al Anbar Province...As well, there are several other ridiculously inaccurate passages. If no one can find a reliable source supporting this claim, I'm removing it.Agsftw (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • So, is anyone going to dispute the reliability of the article? If not, I'm trashing it. A good article, even if it's utterly biased, will state sources (at the very least with language like: "according to" or "based on"). This article, written by a random, probably freelance/amateur journalist, gives absolutely nothing to back almost all of its claims, so it's impossible for anyone to corroborate any of the information in it. This isn't coming directly from a government/military, witnesses, or units involved (primary sources), it's coming from some random journalist so his source should be stated (and, in good journalism, the source should be reliable too).Agsftw (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I just read the article again. The author does say he gets his information from "unofficial sources", which is an easy way out for a lazy journalist trying to push an agenda. He's Russian, there should not be a reason at all why his source is unattributable. Even if there was a reason (like his source is a friend that works for a Western intelligence service who has proof of something and wants to share it with some random freelance journalist who writes for what looks like a tabloid paper, but doesn't want to reveal his identity), he can do what many journalists do to give credibility to their anonymous sources by, and quoting the journalism sourcing article, identifying them in general terms, (e.g., "a U.S. government insider"). That way there's at least a starting point for a third party to corroborate the information. This article is just poor on so many levels and, in my opinion, is in no way credible. I'll keep waiting for someone to argue for it. :) Agsftw (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and removed it, along with the suggestive wording in an apparent attempt to imply that more than one F-14 was shot down. Please explain why the article can be considered a credible source, or provide a reliable source that supports MiG-29 shoot down claim here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsftw (talkcontribs) 03:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've just read the article but it is as you say, mostly gibberish and can't be used as a reference but the claim still needs to be given and refuted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC).
  • The only source given that explicitly states a MiG-29 downed an F-14 is the article. I don't think the argument is whether an F-14 was downed, that much I think is understood based on many sources, and reliable ones, that are out there. So the claim, at this point, does not need to be given. Otherwise, you can make similar claims on any other page based on similarly dubious sources.Agsftw (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • At least one of the sources you are using to support the claim doesn't state exactly what shot the F-14 down. The Tomcatters Association link doesn't work.Agsftw (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • And what needs to be refuted? Without a reliable source, the claim shouldn't be on the article per Wikipedia's rules.Agsftw (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The sources used to support several of the other MiG-29 combat achievements are not reliable either in my opinion. The source for the F-16 claim is based on the site this article is on, which uses Serbian reporting during the 1999 conflict to say the MiG-29 downed 6 aircraft (3 F-16s, 2 F-15s, 1 F-117) to 5 losses, and damaged a number of other NATO aircraft. The site collects articles from pretty much anyone who writes in this vane: Russian equipment and tactics have performed great against the West, and that the NATO conflicts in Yugoslavia didn't play out so well for NATO. The writers are clearly amateurs and clearly biased. I think that, ideally, if someone wants to give alternative accounts to what's popularly reported that are reliable/citable, he/she needs to be an established expert, have some sort of close affiliation with whatever the subject is (e.g. primary source), write in a reputable publication, or clearly state what sources they used to get their information. I don't spend that much time on Wikipedia so I don't know if seasoned Wikipedia contributors generally accept these kinds of sources as meeting Wikipedia standards. If that's the case please let me know...Agsftw (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to say that only Western sources can be reputable, if it can be proven that these websites or authors are considered reputable sources for this type of information in their own countries then that would be sufficient, IMO. Agsftw (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

russian inventory[edit]

i thought the russians had 190, not 447. please double check. ty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

From where did you get "190"? If you cannot provide concrete evidence, then it is likely that "190" is not the correct figure for MiG-29s serving with the Russian Air Force. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Radar capability revealed[edit]

The MiG-29 is no longer in hungarian AF service since end of 2011 due to Gripen introduction. The russian airframes go on sale as non-flying and thus the specs are no longer classified. A freshly maintained and regulated NO-19 radar was officially accepted if a HunAF MiG-29 flying at 1000 meters altitude could discover an An-26 twin turboprop cargoplane flying at 4000 meters, from a distance of 120km and lock on it from 98km. If the target was closer than 98km at the beginning, the radar should lock on "almost immediately" after target discovery. (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The main reliability weakness of the NO-19 radar set is the lack of an "AZK" or sub-circuit breaker. Even if there is no EM radiation emission for intercept purposes, all blocks of the radar set were continously energized, except the waveguide and the antenna dish. This eat into the already comparatively short, power-on-hours based maintenance-overhaul intervals, making the nose of the MiG-29 a costly asset to own. It was easier to work on than the MiG-23's radar set, though. (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

map needs to color USA as well[edit] USA bought the weapons they need to be colored as well--Shokioto22 (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


Other than the ECM, does it have built in chaff/flare pods? (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

File:MiG-29 SRB2.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:MiG-29 SRB2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:MiG-29 SRB2.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Bangladesh Air Force Mig-29.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Bangladesh Air Force Mig-29.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 May 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bangladesh Air Force Mig-29.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

real Azerbaijan’s fleet[edit]

[1] source providenumber 49, but it also gives us source that Azerbaijan use JF-17 - which is fake, so how can we trust any figures there? --SojerPL (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sudanese Mig-29 confusion[edit]

The article talks about the Sudanese airforce having different Russian aircraft, such as helicopters and Su-25s, but no Mig-29 has been seen on their airfields... Then it says that a Sudanese Air Force Mig-29 was brought down by machine gun fire...TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The article says that no Mig-29s were seen on airfields in Dharfur - the (apparently confirmed) shootdown of a Mig-29 was during a rebel raid on Khartoum (i.e. not in Dhafur - hence the two statements don't actually conflict (although they probably could be worded clearer).Nigel Ish (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Algerian Air Force photo[edit]

MiG-29 Algerian Air Force

The photo which various editors are warring over its inclusion is of extremely poor quality, with no EXIF data and appears to be a screen grab. We don't need a photo of such poor quality to confirm that Algeria is a Mig-29 operator as we have WP:RS instead. I suggest that it should be removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I added this image above to clearly show the poor quality/bad view. From that angle/view it is difficult to tell that is a MiG-29. This article has several on ground and poor quality images. I just removed a couple of those, but left the Algerian image. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

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 necessaryily 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:

    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 NotifyOnline 11:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)