Jump to content

Talk:Mikoyan MiG-29/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Specs data

The following can be placed back in the main page as and when they become known. I pulled them out of the main page because it looks bad when the majority of the article is full of blanks.

  • Powerplant: rated at ? kN military thrust and ? kN maximum thrust
    • Wingspan: m
    • Wing area: m²
  • Weight:
    • Empty: kg
    • Normal Takeoff: kg
    • Maximum: kg
  • Speed:
  • Range:
    • Air Combat (10 minute loiter): km
    • Air Combat (3 hour CAP): km
    • Ground attack (hi-lo-hi): km
    • Ground attack (lo-lo-lo): km
    • Ferry: more than km
  • Wing Loading: kg/m² at normal takeoff weight

--/Mat 20:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

US Fulcrums

Why is the U.S in the list of operatives? does it have Fulcrums and if it does does it have other Russian Fighters?

The US purchased some of Moldova's MiG-29s (reportedly to keep them out of the hands of Iran...) some years back. Not sure if any were ever flown "over here" before they were scrapped. - Aerobird 01:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about Aerobird's question, but the U.S. obtained many other MiGs (along with Sukhois and other models) by various means, including straight purchases, theft, defection, and other methods. Not that the Soviets didn't do similar things. Many of the Soviet Bloc fighters in Western museums were obtained in these manners. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

MiG 29 shipped to the US

I heard on the news yesterday that the Port of Hong Kong intercepted a Mig 29 inside a cargo container. The container was shipped from Ukraine enroute to the US. The Hong Kong authority is investigating the shipment because it lacked some paperwork. [1] Kowloonese 23:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like some warbird collector just had an "oopsie"... - Aerobird 00:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Australia

"Malaysian MiG-29s, upgraded with recent Russian and Western technology, fought mock air battles with Australian F/A-18A Hornets. The MiGs succeeded in downing all of the Australian Hornets during simulated air combat battles in both medium and short range combat" I can find no record of this, therefore inncorrect information

There's record of this exchange during 1996 - 1997. It happened in an air exercise held in Australia. The event was recorded by a Malaysian publication, Perajurit. The article is in Malay and unfortunately I don't have a copy anymore.
This was widely reported and i read about it in a Flight International article.

Description of Mig-29M and Mig-29K

Don't you think that description of newer versions is somewhat less. Though Russian Fighters have infinite number variants, Major variants should Still be described a bit more. Mig-29 is popular with many aviation fans. Good news for Mikoyan is they got some badly needed funds from Algerian Military deal and to develop Mig-29K Sucessfully.

I wanna raise one more point, why so much fuss about Americans aquiring Mig-29. Is it so important fact in a Mig-29 article, as if US is the major user of Mig-29. There are plethora of books and articles written about Mig-29s description, performance which can fill any encyclopedia article. Ajay ijn 13:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because a secret (relatively new) aircraft was taken to the (former?) enemy. --jno 14:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Combat Service

Why is someone taking out my statement: "Except for the shooting down of an unarmed civilian plane, all the MiG-29's eight air-to-air kills have been other MiGs, two of them being cases of friendly fire."

Those facts are not disputed by anyone. I am adding it in there because I think it is unique for that aircrafts combat service. Its main job is to shot down aircraft and this is it's combat record!

If you take it out post why!--216.52.73.254 15:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this may not be correct. Also, it seems that you are only trying to discredit the aircraft by that statement.

It's not discrediting the aircraft, it's stating the truth. the mig-29 isn't a bad plane, it just has a terrible combat record. the combat record depends upon the quality of pilots.unfotunately all the airforces possessing the mig-29 who saw action did not have trained pilots.so ur statement is vague cause u can't judge the aircraft by its combat record.The aircraft if given a experienced pilot will prove as a formidable opponent for its western counterparts.

The combat record depends upon the quality of pilots.unfotunately all the airforces possessing the mig-29 who saw action did not have trained pilots.so ur statement is vague cause u can't judge the aircraft by its combat record.The aircraft if given a experienced pilot will prove as a formidable opponent for its western counterparts.

MiG-33

Since "MiG-33" redirects here, shouldn't there be at least some mention of it in this article? Before I try to write something on it, does anyone know if there was ever a separate MiG-33 article (perhaps merged here) with useful material that could be recovered? Askari Mark | Talk 05:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I was right, I had earlier seen an article on the MiG-33 ... only it was a stub page under the incorrect name "Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-33". I've moved what little material there was to the proper page and added appropriate redirects. In any case, there's enough confusion over the MiG-33 that I'm going to write it up (in my spare time) as a separate article from the MiG-29. Askari Mark | Talk 05:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

R-77

The R-77 is described as "notorious" in the "Combat Service" section. Why is this?

Probably what was meant was something like "fearsome", but it's inappropriate in any case. (BTW, please sign your posts.) Askari Mark (Talk) 16:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There is lots of bad/mis-information in this article.

First, the Navy's "Top Gun" program is not an "aggressor squadron", nor does it have an embedded aggressor squadron inside it to fly against. "Top Gun" is the Navy's program to train instructors in their various combat aircraft, whom they then send back out to the fleet to help instruct everyone else. The US Navy uses a dedicated US Marine aggressor squadron that flies the F-5 Freedom Fighter aircraft.

The US Air Force's counterpart to "Top Gun" is "(Fighter) Weapons School" or FWIC/WIC (Weapons Instructor Course) for short. The US Air Force's Aggressor Squadron is made up of F-16C/D aircraft. This squadron is used not only for (some) FWIC sorties, but also for the large scale Red/Blue/Green Flag exercises.

Second, The cobra maneuver is described completely wrong. What is described is simply a tail-slide, and can be done in all western fighter aircraft without inducing a stall/stag of the engines (I have personally done it in an F-15E and F-18B) However, in most fighter aircraft (Including the Mig-29/Su-27) a tail slide will greatly increase the chance of a departure from controlled flight.

The actual cobra maneuver is described almost perfectly in the SU-27 Wikipedia engry. Not sure why these two entries differ on this point. Also keep in mind that the airshow birds were specially modified do perform this maneuver.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --Robert Merkel 23:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
About cobra (dynamic braking in direct translation from russian term) and MiG-29... MiG-29 does not perform it. There is a well known "manuever" named "viper of Taskaev" (by analogy of "cobra of Pugachev"). Mr. Taskaev (a test pilot) have attempted to perform the cobra on MiG-29. This resulted in flat spin and crash. Taskaev safely ejected. --jno 10:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for this? --Robert Merkel 12:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I afraid, no - just personal conversations with LII staffers. But I've seen a photo of that crash (and even found it somewhere on the net). --jno 14:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

First, the Navy's "Top Gun" program is not an "aggressor squadron", nor does it have an embedded aggressor squadron inside it to fly against. "Top Gun" is the Navy's program to train instructors in their various combat aircraft, whom they then send back out to the fleet to help instruct everyone else. The US Navy uses a dedicated US Marine aggressor squadron that flies the F-5 Freedom Fighter aircraft.

There is disinformation in this retort.....TOPGUN (no space please) is indeed not an "Aggressor" squadron in the USAF sense, but it has always utilized Dissimilar aircraft for DACT since its creation as an entity in 1968. First aircraft assigned were A-4E Skyhawks and then a borrowed USAF T-38 until F-5Es could be obtained. The Navy does NOT use the Marine "Adversary" squadron at Yuma for its primary DACT training although they can provide services if available. The Navy uses its own Adversary units (VFC-12 at NAS Oceana flying the F/A-18 and VFC13 at NAS Fallon flying the F-5E). A third unit VFC-111 has just stood up at NAS Key West as well. These units fly Adversary for fleet units. TOPGUN instructors now have their own F-16A assets to call their own to support the SFTI classes and NSAWC (their parent command) has a flightline of F/A-18s for NSAWC (TOPGUN is now a NSAWC Dept) instructor use that were used until the Pakistani F-16s arrived last year. BTW, I saw a couple of F-15s at Nellis a few months ago with Aggressor markings on them so I think USAF is expanding their Aggressor presentation portfolio HJ 04:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: Why does one get redirected to this article when clicking on Mig-33? Is it the same aircraft? if so.. why do both apear separately on the list at the bottom?

The MiG-33 is a deep modernisation of the MiG-29, with new engines and control system, but with very few external changes. It should really be noted in the article. Deadlock 11:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

A few sources say that the Mig-33 has(or will have) canards and thrust-vectoring, in keeping with other new-fangled Russian fighters. I dont know if that's still the case though. -Gooberliberation

MiG-29OVT do have thrust-vectoring. But the most common use of the "MiG-33" name is for "MiG-29M2". --jno 11:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to changed it, even to cite it to pronounce as MiG-29M/M2 instead of the old name 33. I hope someone could do that. ChowHui 20:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The article certainly seems to have some inaccuracies. I am an Israeli and I have not heard of air combat against Syria in 1989 and certainly not in 2001. 89.1.165.73 22:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Roy

I agree I Live in Israel and never heared of either one of these incidents 62.219.70.253 19:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Who posted that later in 2003 US AF prevailed over german Migs?? I see no reference for this also. Please put reference for this claim or do not post it please. Could you give a link if you have on about exercises. GAMESPoT 11:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, quite a few mistakes. For example in the intro, you state the '29 was designed to counter the Eagle and the Hornet. The Eagle first flew a year before the Mig, and the Hornet a year after. So its doubtful that any of its design charactoristics reflect either. Another point is the realization of the "FX" program by the Soviets regarding the F-15, when the FX program resulted in the F111 and the F14. Alot of the info is good though.

Mig-29 G

What about the so-called "MiG-29 G"? Is this an official name for a modified version which was flown in the german airforce between 1992 and 2003/2004 (sold to Poland)?. --Polarlys 11:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The G model is a greatly modernized version of the Fulcrum, with an increased fuel capacity, an internal jammer, and the ability to employ the active guided R-77 air-to-air missile. The model that the East German Airforce flew and now the Luftwaffe flies is the Fulcrum A, the model that debuted in 1983. Though I'm sure the Germans, in their constant struggle to always be the best at something, made some improvements along the way. (USMA2010 15:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC))
Any source on that? MiG-29G is a typical MiG-29 9.12 equipped with some navigation and communication equipment to met requirements of NATO and ICAO (just like on Polish and Slovakian MiGs) - nothing more. Seven aircrafts received additional underwing tanks and GPS (the variant like on civil aircrafts), no R-77, no jammer, no more internal fuel, no hi-G maneuvering when using uderwing tanks.--Corran.pl (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The "G" (do you mean Russian: Г?) suffix is traditionally avoided in russian/soviet aviation (for being the first letter of (and common acronym for) the russian word for "shit")... Hence, it's unlikely "official name" for an aircraft. --jno 08:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
After the re-unification of Germany the MiG-29 of East Germany were updated to conform to NATO standards. They were called MiG-29G. "G" is, of course, for "Germany" and is simply the standard designation for imported military equipment that has been modified to suit German military standards. --User:141.13.8.14
Well maybe. It's western mod to MiG-29 and west-born suffix. --jno 16:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It simply follows the German naming convention. The Starfighter for example was introduced into the Luftwaffe as the F104G, although it was only an enhanced and nationalised version of the F104C. As MiG was not involved, the MiG-29G designation is just a NATO affair. Modifications of the MiG-29G, however, were only minor (Western IFF and navigation systems, particularly GPS, improved aircraft reliability and maintainability).

Mig-29 on display

There is a Mig-29 on display at the Nellis AFB redflag agressor museum Drew1369 15:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Drew.

True, and to add, MiG-29 inside the Nellis redflag aggressor museum is actually MiG-29S "Fulcrum-C" from the Moldova purchase. Incidentally, the Moldovan defense minister was sentenced to ten years in prison for selling those MiG's to the US. Purchase happened in 1997, but the Moldovans did not try (and jail) the former defense minister until 2005/2006. As to MiG-29’s on display, the one on display at the Air Force Museum (Wright Patterson AFB Ohio) is a older “MiG-29A” (sometimes these two are confused). After I assemble better references, I will try to specify this on the MiG-29 pageBwebb00 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of NATO reporting names

There is a tendency to use NATO reporting names over the official designations given by the design bureaus and manufacturers in all Russian aircraft articles. These reporting names are in no way official names for these aircraft, and I have removed many references of "Fulcrum" from this article where the official name of the aircraft and/or variant should be used. --Russavia 08:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The NATO reporting names are used because probably a lot of people know the aircraft as the MiG-29 "Fulcrum" and his variants are known as "Fulcrum-A", "Fulcrum-B",etc, in the NATO (or other western) countries. --Eurocopter tigre 09:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course these aircraft are known as Fulcrum in NATO terms in some countries, but this isn't the NATOpedia, nor the westernnationpedia. The Indians, who actually operate many of the Soviet/Russian aircraft, and their names for these aircraft are mentioned merely in passing, and this should be the case for NATO names too. Unfortunately this isn't the case, and in some cases unofficial names take precidence over official names, a prime example is Tupolev_Tu-95#Variants, where the various Tu-95 derivatives are merely an after-thought to NATO designations. It also sets the stage for confusion as these NATO names do not distinguish between various versions of aircraft, an example is MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB, which both share unofficial 'Fulcrum-D' reporting names. --Russavia 17:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Replacing Fulcrum with MiG-29 in the text seems like a fair change to me. Looks like the NATO names are explained in the text to help someone to corelate the two if needed. -Fnlayson 16:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The tendency is due to the way they became known in the West, which was by the NATO code names. However, the Cold War is behind us now. My own tendency in Russian aircraft articles has been to introduce them in the intro or with first use of other aircraft mentioned in the article. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Of note, the Soviet/Russian aviation industry had a tendency to make significant modifications to aircraft without assigning them a different designation (most famously, Yak-1 vs. Yak-1b, the latter being totally fabricated for convenience). While I agree that the NATO names should not be used for the aircraft ("Fulcrum this and Fulcrum that" makes for very informal writing style), it is important to note and fully delineate these designations because this is an English-language Wikipedia and should address how the aircraft were known in the Western world. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is insulting to name the aircraft NATO way instead of the origin given name. Please give respect to the Russians/Ukrainians. NATO name can only be assist/reference. BTW, you are right, here's Wikipedia, you are wrong too, this is not Anglo-Saxpedia ChowHui 02:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wait a minute. Nobody said the NATO names take the place of anything. Just that they should be mentioned. The way they are mentioned here now seems OK. Aren't the Russian/Ukrainian names mentioned first? -Fnlayson 04:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mig-35 has nothing to do with Mig-29OVT

MiG corporation had their first official international Mig-35 presentation during the Air India 2007. Apparently Mig-35 is a further development of the previous Mig-29M. Mig-29OVT is related, however a rather independent project as a thrust vector engine demonstrator. I separated their statements in the article. ChowHui 03:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The MiG-35 basically combines the MiG-29OVT's technology with that on the MiG-29M1/M2 (and a few other elements). The MiG-29OVT is not being offered for sale, though; it was a technology demonstrator. It's the MiG-35 that is being offered for sale. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Well do you mean what I changed in the article or just a reply for this topic? If it is for the article, I did some cut and paste. I intent to keep left the "potential export" because "potential" means there can be anything to happen, which is exactly what the MAPO-MIG trying to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChowHui (talk • contribs)

So what's with the Russian Air Force giving out new designations to planes that look essentially identical? The MiG-17 could easily have been just a Mig-15 upgrade, and ditto for 23/27, 25/31, 29/33/35, and all the Su-27 variants. Whenever the U.S. put a new plane into an old airframe they just gave it a new letter and a modified name Masterblooregard 08:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest MiG-29M to have a big topic

Since MiG-29M is quite a mile-stone for the series, I suggest it deserved a notable statement like the MiG-29S/SE/SD/SM. I felt quite messy to write it long under big title "Variants".ChowHui 03:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Design section

Seems like this seciton should be further up in article, like before the variants. Details should be cut back. -Fnlayson

This article should be rewritten from the beginning because there is a lot of mess. Description of technical details is mixed with description of few versions. Variant section has long description of version which has their own article etc. IMHO all these technical details should be moved to separate article. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 06:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The article does look more clean, thanks for the effort! BTW, why is the Fulcrum B&C list behind Fulcrum D? It there a special reason? Regards ChowHui 11:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Looked like the variants were listed in order by product number. Is that Mikoyan's numbering? I don't know. Switch the order to something more reasonable if you want. -Fnlayson 16:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I try to work out the sequence but fail at the Fulcrum C. If someone could organize them accordingly or present in the best way? I am lack knowledge in early models. Regards ChowHui 07:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The last edit, "The powerful doppler radar is a copy of an American design. The KGB paid a CIA agent $120,000 for it during the cold war." Its a vandalism. Regards ChowHui 14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What was the original powerplant?

I recently came across this doubt when I rewrote the RD-33 article. According to Klimov official description, development of RD-33 was in the mid 1980s while the MiG-29 had its maiden in mid 1970s and entered service in early 80s. So, what was the initial powerplant in the 10 years between mid 70s until mid 80s? Does anyone has a answer? Regards ChowHui 16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

POV

"Part of the United States motive to purchase the Moldovan MiG-29s, was to prevent these aircraft from being sold to rogue states, especially Iran." "Rogue states" is definitely POV, I think this should be tweaked a little. --Jammoe 19:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I neglected to note on 5 September that I made changes which I believe fixed this. Let me know if you think it needs further tweaking. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

weasel words. mig-29 "betterness" not clear.

"Many pundits, such as the Federation of American Scientists, assert that in an individual dogfight, the MiG-29 is potentially better than the F-15 Eagle or F-16 Fighting Falcon. "

(1) Many pundits and potentially better are weasel words.

(2) The link to FAS link given does not mention anything about mig-29 at all. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-29.htm appears to be a better link. This article compares the f-29 to the f-15 only. It states the f-15 is superior from >10 miles (better avionics); where the mig-29 is superior from <5 miles (helmet sight and maneuverability). There is no reference to the f-16 whatsoever in this article.

(3) The f-15 went up against mig-29s in the 1991 gulfwar. F-15's shot down 5 mig-29s; No F-15s were damaged. (http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/avc/avc.asp). The ranges were not given in the link (ie, <5 miles etc).

(4) The only link of the comparison between mig-29 and f-16 is the "buzzards" article http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/Buzzards.html. The f-16 pilot describes the mig 29 strenths as: " MiG's greatest strength is its thrust (the plane has two engines to the F-16's one), Archer heat-seeking air-to-air missile system and helmet-mounted weapons sight". And its drawbacks were "ergonomics and avionics" and "we (f-16) were able to outpower the mig-29, which made me real happy". In the end, its not clear which airplane is superior. I could not find any record of f-16 vs mig-29 in actual combat.

(5) In conclusion, I would propose this entire paragraph be re-written, and replaced with facts as opposed to personal assertion. I would do this, but some questions remain. What is meant by "better avionics"? It would be nice if a aircraft expert could help here. Divbis0 12:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

MiG-29A / MiG-29B

Why article is using designation like this? Those are not proper names of the aircrafts. The original names for production variants are like MiG-29 izdielije 9-12 for the first production variant, MiG-29 izdielije 9-13 for the variant with minor changes (jamming device), MiG-29S izdielije 9-13S for the variant with upgraded radar and R-77.

What is MiG-29S-13? Never heard of. The MiG-29 9.12 upgraded to standard similar to MiG-29S 9.13S is called MiG-29S 9.12S

The article is not using an original names and this creates some confusing, for example the original MiG-29K izdielije 9-31 is the one designed for for Soviet carriers in 80s, the new aircraft for India is a MiG-29K izdielije 9-41 - totally redesigned (for example it has different wings, new avionics etc.). Stay at the proper designations and

There were at least three different variants of MiG-29SMT – the izdielije 9-17 (the first one with big CFT, created with Russkaja Avionica, shown on MAKS in 1997, not in production), izdielije 9-18 (variant without CFT, production variant) and izdielije 9-19 (with new, smaller CFT but not affecting flight characteristics).

Ad there is a whole another story about “users designations”. MiG-29AS is a Slovakian MiG-29 9.12 upgraded to MiG-29SD standard MiG-29G is a German MiG-29 9.12 upgraded with TACAN, VOR/ILS and new radios (the producer designation was MiG-29ICAO or MiG-29NATO) MiG-29BM is a Belorussian MiG-29 9.13 upgraded to MiG-29SM standard

I know what western sources write about Soviet designes but wester sources (like Jane's) are very unreliable when it comes to eastern equipment.--Corran.pl (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The article does not use MiG-29A/B or such designation in all the description paragraph. It only appears in the variant list with the accompany of both NATO code name and Mikoyan production code. The MiG-29A or MiG-29B-12 such designation were also widely used by the Russians and other source around the world. Take for example, Malaysia ordered 18 MiG-29N in 1998. Official document from both sides clearly shown they are upgraded MiG-29B-12 models. As for the K model, it had already stated clearly a redesign from an existing model, i see no problem with it. ChowHui (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Mikoyan-???

Shouldn't the proper name for this article be "Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29"? Shortening it to "Mikoyan MiG-29" would be like shortening the "Bell-Boeing V-22" to "Bell V-22". --Askari Mark | Talk 03:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

These "proper names" are solely western inventions. Hence, it's just a matter of [local] convention. Historical reason for such a nameing is simple: after the death of Mikoyan the OKB was renamed to "... named after A.I.Mikoyan" without mentioning of Gurevich, while design bureau prefix (MiG) was retained. Russians never use such names, just "MiG-nn". Here, at wikipedia, these western names do good job by expanding the name space and preventing multiplication of "disambig page"s. --jno 11:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but this is the English Wikipedia and it rather begs the question for the non-cognoscenti of why "Mikoyan" is abbreviated "MiG" - not to mention why it's incorrect to use "Mig". --Askari Mark | Talk 03:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Try to search round here - there already was a discussion on that topic (Mikoyan vs Mikoyan-Gurevich). AFAIR, it has resulted in conclusion that "Mikoyan is proper" because of the use in some printed paper sources. --jno 10:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

To be precise, MiG-nn(any number) come from (Mi)koyan-(G)urevich whom person jointly create jet engine powered aircraft for soviet-union (RUSSIA) as far as i concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnp90 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Quoting from WP's Mikoyan page, "Mikoyan, formerly Mikoyan-Gurevich Design Bureau (Russian: Микоян и Гуревич, МиГ), is a Russian military aircraft design bureau, primarily for fighter aircraft. It was formerly a Soviet design bureau, and was founded by Artem Mikoyan and Mikhail Gurevich as "Mikoyan-Gurevich" and its bureau prefix is "MiG." Upon Mikoyan's death in 1970, Gurevich's name was dropped from the name of the bureau, although the bureau prefix remains MiG." So that settles the question, the official and proper way is to refer to the a/c as the "Mikoyan MiG-nn".HyeProfile (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

so soviet union learned from USA how to make airplanes??? US learned from soviet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.227.40 (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

MiG-29K

Folks, the K is not developed for India navy! It was developed years before that contract and was a (unsuccessful) competitor of Su-27K (now Su-33). Su-25UTG was another aircraft developed for just the same ship. The first version (9-17 based) was developed in 1978. The development of 9-31 (MiG-29M based) was initiated in 1984. [2], [3] --jno 14:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, and yes. The original K variant was developed for use aboard the Kuznetsov, alongside the Su-27K (still called the Su-27K, Su-33 is just another name).
| MiG-29K and Su-27K
However, the MiG-29K program was halted, and is now being brought back up to speed for the Indians, after the purchased a Kiev-class carrier with the intentions of making it a true aircraft carrier. (USMA2010 15:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC))
Not sure about related development for the Ex-Soviet carrier, but I have found a official explanation and updated them.ChowHui 16:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The original MiG-29K was designated 9.31, the new (for Indian Navy) is 9.41 (and 9.47 for MiG-29KUB - two seater). Those are two different planes. --Corran.pl (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

MiG-29 better than... (insert plane here)

Perhaps a better way to compare the MIg-29 to other aircraft is just to just list the features of the MiG-29 compared to comparables, ie, aiming system and missiles, avionics, etc? At least do away with editorials.

Just wondering if all of the "hand waving" comparing MiG-29 to other aircraft is necessary or even appropriate, as it provides little hard data. The data shows that the MiG-29 has a very limited combat experience with other aircraft. The best comparison is mock combat described in the codeon and buzzards articles. The pilots writing those articles focus more on methods of defeating opposing aircraft by utilizing their aircrafts' particular strengths over the adversaries particular weakness. They left us with no "tally sheet", only a rough subjective opinions.

Also, do we really need an entire paragraph on "friendly fire" engagements? Is this really important?

If you disagree with this, please argue here. be prepared with references; writing things like "everyone knows" or "its accepted that" followed by silly accusations of nationalistic bias to bully your point across is not effective. Divbis0 19:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Question, where is the paragraph on friendly fire? I only see 1 sentence in the paragraph that starts:

The MiG-29 first saw action in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war. In the Iran-Iraq War, the only Iraqi MiG-29 kill was the friendly-fire shoot down of another MiG-29. .... That does seem out of place by the way there. That makes it seem like only thing the -29 did in that war was shoot down a friendly fighter. -Fnlayson 19:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I just returned to this article after 6 months. It is encouraging to see that some worthless handwaving and nationalistic crap have been taken out. this aircraft has seen very few actual combat engagements, it is basically unproven, and that is what one concludes after reading the article. --71.117.67.145 (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad you are back. Regarding the "handwaving and nationalistic crap" people may have different definition and opinion, its always a dispute to define one. Anyways, hope you can clearly list out the ones your suspect, so that we can solve it out together. Regards ChowHui (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

PHOTOS

  • I have to say that I am very impressed at the amount and quality of photos that are in this article and I wish all Wikipedia articles had this many photos ... as they say, they are worth a thousand words ... this is just great!

Having all of these photos on this one really makes this page shine and stand out as a great article … this is exactly how you get people interested in reading the article all the way through – they look at a photo and then read that paragraph, look at the next photo and then read that paragraph and so on - not that people need a photo in order to get interested in an article, but it sure does help to be able to see what you're reading about - especially in such detail and from so many angles

I was planning on just skimming this particular article until I realized how many pictures it had in it, then I couldn’t resist reading it all the way through ... great work to whoever put this all together! - Ukt-zero (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

missing text about downed (KIA) pilot- MiG-29 in Yugoslav and Serbian service - missing text about pilot Milenko Pavlović

colonel Milenko pavlovic was shot down and killed on may 4. 1999. in Mig-29B 18109 in Valjevo, Serbia by nato air force; probably by netherland's fighters.... this pilot is missing in text with other downed pilots.... some sources says that maj. Slobodan Tesanovic flew 18110, not 18109

It is not missing, but you are suggesting to adding information. If you are aware of some valuable informations, do not hesitate to edit the article, with credible citation. ChowHui (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Passive detection sensors?

The "sensors" section does not cover the passive detection and missile warning systems. Only the radar - and it gives too much attention to the alleged problems with it's development.

Well, to who may concern, the passive sensors for example the ECM's characteristic is rather classified than those of active devices like the radar fire control system, for any fighter aircraft. As a result, if one may compare, he or she will find all other articles of the contemporary fighter aircraft are missing this particular information. Regards, ChowHui (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Main picture

The picture at the beggining says that the Mig-29 pictured in it is of the Ukranian air force. However, the picture shows the Mig with a red star, the Russian Air Force and Belorussian Air Force roundel, and it also has the Russian Federation flag painted on it. So, I think is more than clear that the Mig in that picture is not from Ukrania, it's from Russia. Someone should make the correction.

This MIG is ukrainian, and not russian

On the picture, this is a ukrainian MIG-29, and not a russian. This plane has colours blue and yellow, the colours of the Ukraine ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.171.226.216 (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As stated in the comment by 201.213.118.9 above, the pictured MiG carries the roundels of the Russian Air Force (and Belarussian Air Force) which is very distinctive and quite disimiliar to the Ukrainian Air Force insignia. There is also I think evidence at the front of the aircraft that suggests the aircraft is part of a Guards Regiment. I also contest the colours are blue and yellow. It's quite easy to see that the bottom colour could be either a murky red or a murky yellow, but the tail clearly has blue and white above it, really suggesting that it should be the colours of Russia. The aircraft is almost undoubtably Russian Air Force.--ZedderZulu (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

MIGs in Darfur

"On 10 May 2008, the Darfur Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) fighters mounted an assault on the Sudanese capital."

This isn't strictly related, but when you say "fighters," I assume you mean soldiers on the ground, not fighters in the aerial definition of the word? I ask because if there are any rebel groups out their with access to their own air force, I'd like to read some more about it. 147.9.233.254 (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the reference after that, "fighters" refers to "rebels". I changed it to troops so it is clearer and uses a neutral and different word from reference article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Urgent Map update

According to the Armenian Air Force page at: Armenian Air Force , 18 MIG 29's were delivered to the Russian army base stationed in ARMENIA, so these MIG's are owned by Russia not the Armenian state. An urgent update is required on the map, please remove Armenia from the map. Baku87 (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That's another Wikipedia page which in general may not be up to date and accurate. That has a reference (Armenia and Russia Reassert Bonds..) so no problem. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

avionics

The Fulcrum's radar may be not the hottest one, but that reported is not so true. I have on the contrary several articles (early '90s) in which it is well regarded, relatively insensible to ECM, too. More than this: 70 km agains a fighter size, for a '80s medioum fighters it's not too bad either. F-16s had rougly 40-50 km at the best, F-18 around 60-70 km, not more. The max range was not so different; about the firing range: in pratical sense, i doubt a lot that Hornet or Mirage 2000 or whevever could done better, apart F-15 and F-14 there was not a big difference either with western stuff.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Egypt

Did Egypt sign a contract to buy the Mig29 ? Mohamed Salim Nashwan - محــ سالم ــمد نشوان (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Mission

Mig-29 (as F-16) is not an air superiority fighter. Su-27 is. So, it's not surprising that Su-27 can defeat Mig-29 in air combat. Profhobby 18:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

MiG-29s can defeat Su-27s also. Are the kills of Ethiopian Su-27s over the MiGs verified?
Most modern aircraft can be shot down with a slingshot for sure (the only quirk is when and where to shoot at). Would you like to make a conclusion that slingshot is superior to any aircraft? --jno 13:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

To be safe, the best bet is to state that "Aircraft A has a higher probability of a kill (or computed kill ratio) than Aircraft B."HyeProfile (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mig 29 was originally designed to be an air superiority fighter, on the other hand Su-27 was a multi-functioned aircraft. Some features of MiG-29 include: cheap cost, lower price, quick take off, quick reload, small fighting radius, fast and lesser load of weapon and etc. The MiG-29 is superior when you fight your neighbors...that is you want each MiG-29 to be used in several times as there are extentive air battle and that is the situation suitable for MiG-29. There is only few other aircrafts as being reliable as MiG-29. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.216.253.69 (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Armenia doesnt have any MIG-29s

See the Armenian Air Force page, it says 18 MIG 29's were delivered to the Russian army base stationed in Army, so these MIG's are owned by Russia not Armenian state. Armenia doesnt have any MIG's, so I removed Armenia from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.213.29 (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is supported by Flight International's 11-17 November 2008 edition. The magazine edition has a world air force directory. No MiG-29s listed for Armenia. It listed MiG-25 (1), Su-25 (14), Mi-2 (1), Mi-8 (4), Mi-24 (8), and L-39 (4) in its inventory. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Well since its clear Armenia has no MiG 29s it should be removed from the given map aswell. Neftchi (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Are the RD-33 family of engines Turbofans or Turbojets?

I wish this article (and actually, Klimov, the RD-33 manufacturer) could get the story straight whether to call the RD-33 engines "Turbofans" or "Turbojets". I believe all of the RD-33's are actually fairly Low-Bypass Turbofans (correct)? Similar to the US F-18's F404 turbofans ... incorrectly nicknamed "Leaky-Turbojets" long ago because of the big engine core, and perhaps "turbojet-like" throttle response when compared to the older stereotype of (slower response) turbofan engines. Bwebb00 (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[4]

That appears to be a translation issue, much like the use of the word "aircrafts". All the section in the article that use the word "turbojet" are about the Indian version of the aricraft. We'll need to check some reliable sources to confirm that this is in fact an language error from presumably Indian or Russian wikieditors, and that the Indian version does not actully use turbojets. Good catch! - BillCJ (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill, Look at the Klimov factory and other Russian references, you will see where the confusion is coming from. Thanks ! Bwebb00 (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen several Russian aircraft company websites using "aircrafts", and I think this is a similar situation, assuming the English-language aviation media is right about the engine being a turbofan. - BillCJ (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The RD-33 is a low-bypass turbofan (0.49:1), not a turbojet! So says Janes Aero Engines. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

MiG-29SMT article

A separate article has been started on the Mikoyan MiG-29SMT. I don't believe there is enough info on the SMT variant itself to warrant a separate article. It's largely just an upgrade program. I suggest either redirecting that to this article; change the article to cover the MiG-29S variant and related variants (SD, SE, SM, SMT). Another option is to cover the carrier MiG-29K and related variants. I somewhat favor the MiG-29S option. What do you think? -Fnlayson (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mikoyan MiG-29K has also been created recently. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to do here. The SMT article was merged to Mikoyan MiG-29M months ago. The merge discussion is at Talk:Mikoyan MiG-29M#MiG-29SMT merge. -fnlayson (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Serbian MiG-29 losses ?

There is a discrepancy within the text that should be corrected.

It reads under "In service with Yugoslavia and Serbia" that "Whereas several MiG-21 aircraft were brought down by Croatian forces, no MiG-29s were lost during the war.", but in the next paragraph, it reads "A total of 6 MiG-29s were shot down of which 4 MiG-29s were shot down by USAF F-15C, 1 by USAF F-16CJ or friendly fire MANPADS and one by Dutch F-16AM.[30][31] Others were destroyed on the ground and one crash landed and was later destroyed as it was placed as a decoy.[32]"

This is a source telling about eleven MiG-29 losses: http://www.weaponsofwwii.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2279 91.0.236.163 (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It reads like it means 2 conflicts or time periods. One from 1991 and then the NATO intervention in 1999. I tried to clarify this by adding the years to the no loss sentence. Hopefully that takes care of it. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Manufacturer

Someone has changed the manufacturer in the box at the top of the screen - something about "Who cares, they're Soviets so its bad" - I would change it but don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.42.52 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That vandalism was undone by another user shortly after it was added. If it still shows on your screen, reload/refresh your web browser. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Photos as Refs?

I noticed that several of the refs in the ref list (namely #83-87) are just photos. I looked in the article and saw that they are pointing to the aircraft on display section... I'm not sure of the standard practice, but I think that those should just be weblinks in the article, not refs in the reference list. As it is now, I think a casual reader could think that this article has more citations (and is therefore more "correct" than it is. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been a week now, if no one has any objections or comments I'm going to remove them. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Generally agree, but leave #85 in place as it links to a large amount of information about the museum model on display. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

German Spitfires or German Mustangs anyone?

The main photo of one of the flagships of the Soviet airforce simply CANNOT have the german ironcross! How about publishing Spitfires or Mustangs in german colours? How will that look like?!!! The main Luftwaffe pix is insulting and embarassing to the Russian airforce and not appropriate. Nobody noticed that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.214.40 (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, until a better photo is found, the original photograph showed the MiG-29 in flight; the replacement is not a better choice. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC).
MiG-29s served in the Lufwaffe - that's historical fact. Get over it. - BilCat (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It might not be the best option but the other one is not appropriate. please change it back Bzuk. Hurricanes with german crosses? Spitfires with swastikas? Come on man, you know what i mean!! (as for the ignorant yankee's comment , i couldn't be bothered less, go herd cows sonny!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.214.40 (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I will try to find a more representative image, but the present infobox photograph seems to be the best one for now. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

Thank you very much Bzuk, preferrably one without Nazi connotations. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.214.40 (talk)

Bzuk, don't play his game. Bigorty and hatred have no place in choosing pics. - BilCat (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Bil, few images exist of the Russian MiG-29, but it doesn't hurt to look into it... My inclination is that the best image should predominate, regardless of its air force. Bzuk (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
FWiW, 77, the postwar Luftwaffe had no World War II connections. Bzuk (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The only other reasonable flying image is a Hungarian aircraft File:HuAF MIG29UB.jpg but I dont see any reason for changing a former East German machine for a Hungarian just for the sake of change. As BilCat says we are looking for the best flying image that shows the aircraft size and shape, the operator is not really relevant. Although if a free image of a soviet aircraft of comparable quality can be found then it could be considered. MilborneOne (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What about this one? http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Mig-29_on_landing.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.124.77 (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Or this one http://images.vunet.org/mig29-07.jpg 188.4.124.77 (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Fallen Angel

Oooow, I like this last one! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC).
Just a heads up, that last one is not a real photo. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Right you are, a good CAD image, though. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

MiG-29 with Iraqi service

How many MiG-29 the Iraqis had ? I read in one source they were 15 , other source mentions 16 plus 2 seaters , a third source mentions 40 . How many flown to Iran ? all sources I get indicate 4 , only in this wikipedia articles mentions 8. How many shutdowned in Gulf war ? 5 plus 1 crashed How many were stil possesed by Iraqis till 2003 ? CNN sais 29 , other source mentions only 9 .

Iraq received 41 Mig29s in 1987 including 35 single seater and 6 dual seaters. 3 were lost in air combat during 1991 and 13 destroyed/damaged on the ground. 4 aircraft evacuated to Iran.

Iraqis achieved two kills and two damaged with the MiG29 interceptors details can be seen on the Iraqi Air Force page.

The remaining aircraft remained in service until 1995 when engine TBO limits were reached and Iraq (being under embargo) could not overhaul them so they were withdrawn from use.

The Iraqi Air Force page has updated details based on captured documents from iraq's top secret archives and translated/released by the DTIC.MIL in 2008. That has the best open-source knowledge on the iraqi air force History. Hayderaziz (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

MiG-29SMT upgrade for India

Here are few links:

GOI Parliament press release: http://www.pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=54392

Russian Media Article: http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090918/156169883.html

General Information On The package: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/11/iafs-mig-29upg-upgrade-package-detailed.html Tutu1234 (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are OK for info and reading, but they are not generally reliable sources on Wikipedia (see WP:RELIABLE). The MiG-29SMT is also covered at Mikoyan MiG-29M. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, thats why I have given Government of India (GOI) Press Release and another article for reference. I usually give a descriptive blog as source (inclusive), so that interested people can do further research. I never post Blogs as a valid source in the main article; however in discussion pages, I post them as a "good to know descriptive information". Thanks, hope you understand what I am trying to convey.Tutu1234 (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Just wanted to point that out in case you (and anybody else reading) did not already know that. Carry on.. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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 114.167.60.80 (talk • contribs)

"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 114.167.60.80 (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 http://oai.dtic.mil/ 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 114.167.60.80 (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 duel.ru article which, just based on so many of the poorly reported claims, I don't think is reliable at all.
  • I don't think the duel.ru 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 duel.ru 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 157.24.9.146 (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 (http://www.wars.by.ru/files/stat1.html) 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 (http://www.duel.ru/200012/?12_6_1) 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 duel.ru 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 duel.ru 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 (talk • contribs) 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 duel.ru 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

i thought the russians had 190, not 447. please double check. ty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.11.101 (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

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. 82.131.210.163 (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. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

map needs to color USA as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mig-29_operators.PNG USA bought the weapons they need to be colored as well--Shokioto22 (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

ECM

Other than the ECM, does it have built in chaff/flare pods? 174.54.135.108 (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

File:MiG-29 SRB2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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

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

[5] 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

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)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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 necessarily 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:

  • http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mig29/
    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)

 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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Mikoyan MiG-29. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mikoyan MiG-29. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mikoyan MiG-29. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mikoyan MiG-29. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Mikoyan MiG-29. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mikoyan MiG-29. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Iraqi MiG-29 shot down RAF Tornado ?

Any proof ? Informations ? Source ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.246.12 (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 123.216.220.36 (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)

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 124.84.148.120 (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 157.24.9.146 (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)
The Iraqis claimed it was shot down at midday, early on in the conflict. The allies were flying night-only raids at this time. I think that resolves this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.181.164 (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The Tornado loss on 22nd is inconclusive from the RAF side. However, wrong date, 50km away attacking ArRutba with loft 1000lb NOT an airfield with JP233. Additionally this occurred at night. The claim for Tornado shootdown states midday. See Iraqui forum story, Napier operational history, and MOD website Tornado losses. The loss on 19th occured 600km from the claim. - sources Napier & MOD the wreckage was examined, conclusive Roland The RAF apart from 1 mission (Peters/Nichol 1000lb loft attack) did not fly airfield attacks during the day. No Tornado loss correlates with the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.68.36 (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Algerian Air Force photo

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)

Broken links are appearing when trying to get to the references (such as [4]). Ahmedafifkhan (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Add a {{dead link}} tag next to the dead web link inside the references where needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The codename Fulcrum in Soviet/Russian use

As per Zuyev's book, Soviets did use the NATO codename Fucrum themselves. But is there any information as to how they translated it into Russian? This article doesn't mention it either. I'd like to add this fact to the Russian Wikipedia, but if the current iteration may suffice for the aforementioned English articles, a translation would need to be specified in the Russian text.--Adûnâi (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to add but with reliable sources.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mikoyan_MiG-29/Archive_1&oldid=1134614857"