Talk:Mikoyan MiG-29/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The MiG-29 came out clearly short and willing

Why on wikipedia everyone's kind of trying to hide the sheer truth unveiled during the Ukraine war? The MiG-29 came out willing,, lacking in every area. It struggles to perform basic air defense tasks against, slow, non maneuverable and unarmed targets over uncontested airspace. Its very Ukrainian pilots have been begging the West to give access to (same age, yet admittedly, upgraded) F-16s, labelling them totally superior in every aspect. Why is there this mentality on wikipedia to "hide" these simple facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.255.14 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Youtube videos don't pass the standards needed for reliable sources, and neither of the Forbes sources state as you claim they do, that the success of Ukraine Air Defense [is due] to ground based systems. You need to provide actual reliable sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You literally have the guy saying the exact words. It's him in himself telling. And read the articles, it's all over the internet. Read www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone check on live videos, I posted several links. Just... just be real and understand what you are building up by hiding it, against what the reality is.

93.41.255.14 (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

No-one is hiding anything - if something is "all over the internet" then it should be easy for the person who wants to add the information to find reliable sources that supports it - and the Business Insider source doesn't say that most of Ukraine's successes are due to land based systems either.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It is ground-based air defence units that shoot down the vast majority of missiles and drones, not ageing warplanes, Air Force spokesman Yuriy Ihnat said — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.255.14 (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

"Juice says he has not shot down a single drone or missile in his MiG-29" reuters as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.255.14 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Malaysia disinformation

Nowhere in the link provided does it say Malaysia retired its fleet of MiG-29.

204.197.177.194 (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Engine (Klimov RD-33) section lacks accurate thrust data.

Page for MiG 29 has bogus engine thrust data. Other articles on jets with the same engine have slightly conficting data. WIki entry for the engine has its own data. Many sources (fas.org, globalsecurity.org, Klimov website, others) have conflicting data. Worst, least accurate entry is this MiG-29 article itself. AnotherMadPenguin (talk)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 69127955 2423259521118086 6086854203379023872 o-copy-copy.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Cheerleading, or simply edit collision?

The following section, paraphrased, seems to say "The Mig-29 has a nice helmet sight. However, it is also superior." Is there something missing here, or is there a better word to use that "However" in this location? Later on, there is an explanation of a regime where the Mig-29 is not superior. These could be massaged to make a more even-toned passage, or at least to use more sensible transition words.

The Federation of American Scientists claims... (big clip)  ... was superior to the AIM-9 Sidewinder of the time.

DulcetTone (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

"... covers previous text ..."

@Fnlayson about this - diff. The text in our article says: "Mikoyan also developed improved versions of the MiG-29, named MiG-29M/M2 and MiG-29SMT." Could you please provide a quote from the source you restored, that directly supports the text? Renat 00:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

MiG-29 SMT is listed in the bold text under the main image and later in article too. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ghost of Kyiv

Is the Ghost of Kyiv a worthy topic on this page? 47.221.3.229 (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Not yet. BilCat (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Notable accidents

Has this section been removed or was it never here? 82.132.244.112 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

still in production?

if this plane is still in production, it would be notable. In either case the article needs to be updated. Rmhermen (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Mig-29 Short range Myth.

I deleted the "short" range sentence, because: Combat ranges without droptank: F-14:930 km F-15:1300km F-16: 800-860 km F-18:740-800 Superhornet:930 km Su-27/33:1500 km

So the Mig-29 is not short range, max compared to the F-15 and Su-27+.

If you calculate the difference between the F-16 and Mig-29 with a fuel tank, for example, the difference is around 800 km, for the F-18 it's nothing. Szolnok95 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That's original research on your part, and not a valid reason to remove cited content. BilCat (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If someone spreads a myth and someone else quotes from that myth, does that make the myth true? Do you also want to argue with mathematics? Their numbers speak for themselves. Szolnok95 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Doing calculations on your own, and then claiming a published source is a "myth", is original research. Numbers, as with statistics, can be made to say anything. You can't take numbers, without even noting the models and other circumstances being discussed, and claim something is a myth. The claim under dispute is that "early model" MiG-29s were relatively short-ranged. If you can cite a reliable published source that this claim is not accurate, then we can add it, and note the claim is disputed. BilCat (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Sincerely. I took the data from wikipedia and the Early mig 9.12 had 3376 kg fuel (1983) while the late mig 9.13(1986) had 3493 kg.

F-16 C (1984) 3249 kg.

F-18 C (1987) 4900 kg.

So again, you can't fudge the numbers.

Before you get into the fact that the F-16 has 1 engine and can go farther, here's a figure again:

JF-17 uses 1 Mig29 engine and with 2325 kg fuel has a combat range of 1200 km.

So please don't call the mathematical calculations "my research", at most I'll accept that I noticed it. When that should have been the job of the experts instead of myth fabrication!

And about myths:

And I would like to point out that I have reviewed a lot of myths about WW2 tanks. I know what I am talking about. Szolnok95 (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Szolnok95 unfortunately, this is original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You may also be interested in that link Verifiability, not truth. So in short, to make that change, you need to provide a reliable source that makes that claim. Nothing can change without it. --McSly (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

First of all, let me be honest:

This bureaucratic system is pretty much "stupid", especially, as it contains double standards, because "somebody" decides what is "own research" and what is not.

And on other wikipedia pages/topics "own research" is allowed, but not here. The very thing I want to delete should not be up there either, because:

What I have deleted is copied from a READER magazine...which in itself raises questions of credibility.

(Sotham, John, "Solved: The mystery of the MiG-29", Air & Space, September 2014,)

Two, I'm going to look for a source and delete it based on that.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) Szolnok95 (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of sources, you are still treating every MiG-29 variant as equal, as you are with your comparisons. The specs section needs to clearly state what variant is used for the specs, which it didn't beforehand. I'm not sure what you mean by a "READER" magazine, but in general, Air &Space Smithsonian is acceptable as a reliable source, TMK. Gordon Yefim is also a relaiable source, if a bit biased, and he often deals with so-called "myths" about Russian and Soviet aircraft. If his books on the MiG-29 specifically dispute and counter the early variants short range claim, then you'd habe a much stronger case for removing the disputed claim. BilCat (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the source in question: The Truth About the MiG-29. BilCat (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

"Reader" magazine: https://th-thumbnailer.cdn-si-edu.com/0Ue2Adx7X8yj6tRFRgD2x2k6v-M=/fit-in/330x440/filters:no_upscale()/https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer/c4/e3/c4e3c2d6-7987-4f88-90e5-4dac49aaff74/sep2014_as_webcover.png

This is the source what is used. Check the source list on the Mig-29. I copied it from there.

Pages from Gordon Book:

https://imgur.com/a/YOLhWcs

9, 28, 32, 66, 376 (to see which variant), 377. Szolnok95 (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

P. 66 verifies that range was an issue an the early variants, and that there were efforts to increase its internal fuel capacity. This accords with the Air & Space article comment. I still don't understand what you mean by a "Reader" magazine, as it's not a term common in American English. As I said, Air & Space is a reliable published source per Wikipedia's policies. BilCat (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You really driving me nuts. Page 66 says, the range was 700-800 km. WHAT IS NOT SHORT compared to F16, F18. Short compared to f15, su27, but same for f18, f16! I wrote in my previous comments what is the different the 9.12 and 13 variants.

The Mig29m and smt was designed much later with greater fuel capacity.

So please undo the text, because I proved it wrong.

Early variant: 9.12. So this short range thing is a myth and subjective!!

What I meant "reader" magazine: Its like discovery channel top ten tanks show, where the T 34 was the first and m1 abrams was the second. J O K E... by objective, professional perspective, but that show throught it seriously.

Szolnok95 (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The Air & Space article was written by an experienced aviation writer who interviewed pilots who actually flew the MiG-29. All you've done is copy ranges and make comparisons without regard to operational limitations, variants, etc, which, again, is original research. BilCat (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you read English?

Did you read the 377th page I sent you?

I assume not, because then you would not have written what you did.

You don't seem very convinced by the facts.

And I'd like you to point out the big expert that compared it to the F-18,-F16, which Mig-29.

Because I already gave you the early type he is talking about which was the 9.12. But you would know that too if you had read the pictures properly. It's marked up with missiles on page 377, but you should know that if you've read it. And with relatively 6 missiles, 700-800 km is no small range. Because the fully equipped F-16 can only do so much. And instead of the continual reverting and invoking the air , I would now expect counter arguments, because I have made my arguments against the expert's arguments with figures to back them up.

Szolnok95 (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Here are the facts what you asked for:

https://imgur.com/a/gWTDH0c

Read the whole thing, not just the first sentence.

So please undo your reverting or prove me wrong.

Szolnok95 (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

None of that refutes actually refutes the statement in question, that the early MiG-29s were "relatively short-ranged". Instead, it proves that they were. BilCat (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I see...

1. Which is the early mig?

2. Which one proves that it has a short range?

Maybe just read the one you like?

"On internal

fuel only, however, the two fighters have almost

identical range - 1,600 km (993 miles) for the

F-16 and 1,500 km (931 miles) for the MíG-29."

Where is the "short" range?

"The F-16 has a much bigger combat radius

than the basic production MiG-29 (Fulcrum-A)

but, ín fact, this is due mainly to the use of larger

drop tanks."

"due mainly to the use of larger drop tanks."!!!!!

I am still waiting for a counter-argument. Szolnok95 (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I've answered you questions to my satisfaction, and to this point, you do not have a consensus to remove the cited content in question. You're welcome to disagree, but not to edit war. You are also welcome to follow the steps outlined at WP:DR, but if you continue to edit war, your block will be extended, and perhaps made indefinite. BilCat (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If a cited content proved to be wrong, cannot be removed, because you don't want it?

Why?

There is a claim=short range

There is my counter claim=it's not.

Then this is not my disagreement, but a refutation of a statement.

In this light, I will ask for permission from other competent people. It will not be decided to your liking.

And I like that you avoid answering my crucial questions.

More evidence: https://imgur.com/a/BjlbdTI

Early-Late Migs vs Early-Late F-16s: https://imgur.com/a/PyEfUMs

Szolnok95 (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

See my previous answer. BilCat (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

"None of that refutes actually refutes the statement in question, that the early MiG-29s were "relatively short-ranged". Instead, it proves that they were."

I see, then, that you are not a specialist in Migs. The 1983 was the "early" mig. It had the same range as the ealy and Late F-16s. Subject closed.

https://imgur.com/a/dNEgsxg

And in the future, stop threatening to block another person because you don't like their arguments.

PS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule says: "When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons."

Initially you asked for evidence, I gave it. Henceforth, you may only and only revert my edits if you can refute what I have proven.

Szolnok95 (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not "threatening to block another person because you don't like their arguments", but warning you that further edit warring against consensus will result in further blocks. BilCat (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus . Only your opinion here against my facts. Szolnok95 (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

See previous answers. BilCat (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Did. Still nothing from your part. Szolnok95 (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

See.previous answers. BilCat (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

While making routine calculations is one thing, using calculations to contradict sources is indeed considered original research. If you disagree with how certain sources describe the MiG-29, bring it up with the writers of said sources. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

What the hell? I already DID. Check out the imgur links. Oh My God.

"Mikoyan MiG-29 (Famous Russian Aircraft) by Yefim Gordon" I have shown several pictures from this book. If you had read the whole conversation, you would know.Szolnok95 (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Imgur is a user-generated source. Furthermore, we need sources which specifically state that the MiG-29 is not a short-range fighter. Because we have sources that state it is, routine calculations simply won't do. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you really kidding me right? How in the hell I could show you sides from the book if not with pictures?! Szolnok95 (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Where in the book does it say something along the lines of "The MiG-29 is not a short-range fighter"? We have sources which specifically state that it is a short-range fighter. Your routine calculations are not enough to contradict that. Go bother the writers of the sources with your calculations, maybe they'll retract their claims. Stop wasting our time. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, It Does: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szolnok95 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

https://imgur.com/a/YOLhWcs

https://imgur.com/a/gWTDH0c

https://imgur.com/a/BjlbdTI

https://imgur.com/a/PyEfUMs

Evidence that this is about early Mig, 9.12:

https://imgur.com/a/dNEgsxg Szolnok95 (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

In other words, you still only have calculations and no sources which directly contradict the existing sources. I guess some people will never get it. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The book is not a source?

How in the hell I put out a table from the book?

But wait I can copy, if the "imgur" is not okey.

Mikoyan MiG-29 (Famous Russian Aircraft) by Yefim Gordon page 431-434:

"ln strike rnode the F-16 is superior to the

early versions of the MiG-29 due to its higher

MTOW; For example, with 2,000 kg (4,410 lb) ·of

bombs and two R-60M AAMs the MiG-29 can

only carry a single drop tank; with a similar

ordnance load the F-16 can carry three drop

tanks· giving it longer range. Besides, the

F-16C, 370 km (229 miles} for the F / A-18C and

345 km (214 miles) for the MiG-29S. ln low-level

penetration mode {200 m/660 ft) with drop tanks

the fighters have a combat radius of 385 km (239

miles), 400 km (248 miles), 372 km (231 mlles)

and 340 km {211 miles) respectivély. Thus,

R.ussian and US fourth-generation light fighters

are similar as regards range."

The sentence, what I want to delete, is comparing the F-16/F-18 to the Mig-29. They have the same range, so it's false. Szolnok95 (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, well, I have to admit, I pretty missread the citation.

It's talking about the F-16/F-18/Mig-29 short range, not only about the Mig-29.

it's my fault. Excuse me. Szolnok95 (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Well then, I think we can call it a night. Not every editor is willing to admit their mistakes, but you did good. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience, and respect.

Good night! Szolnok95 (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course, this is a good example of why we need sources which directly contradict sourced content to remove said content. Calculations can easily be misinterpreted, but direct contradictions cannot. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

MiG-29 "air superiority" fighter?

"Air superiority fighter" by definition - and also by the corresponding Wikipedia article - means basically "a fighter intended to fight anything in the skies, including other fighters". MiG-29 is not such fighter. MiG-20 is a frontline fighter. It's intended targets are ground-attack aircraft such as A-10s, A-6, Apaches, etc, paired with Su-27 which was supposed to tangle with other fighters. MiG-29 simply doesn't have the endurance nor the situational awareness to tangle successfully with other fighters. It is supposed to operate from semi-prepared fields very close to the front line, use its awesome speed to arrive over the battlefield quickly (vectored from the ground), use its awesome maneuverability to position itself quickly, and then use the little fuel left to GTFO equally quickly, before enemy AMRAAMs arrive.

Yefim Gordon in his book never claims MiG-29 to be an "air superiority" fighter (see link, page 9 as referenced). The claim "mig-29 is an air superiority fighter" also contradicts not only every aspect of MiG-29 design, but also its combat history. No reputable source - including, again, the referenced book - claims MiG-29 is an air superiority fighter.

Therefore, I propose to simply remove "air superiority" references from the text because its not true, nor the referenced book makes such claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filip.vidinovski (talk • contribs) 12:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You are taking this far too literally. "Air superiority" means it has air to air capability, not necessarily great or super air to air capability. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Then every fighter in existence is an "air superiority" fighter, which renders the term meaningless. Furthermore, the provided reference for the claim "MiG-20 is an air superiority fighter" never says that. It seems to me, someone imagined MiG-29 to be an "air superiority" fighter and simply put that into the article, without a reference. Filip.vidinovski (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Bias against Tejas and non American/Germany/British aircraft's with Failed bids section

Bringing to attention the bias against non American/Germany/British aircraft's with Failed bids section. F-16, F-18, F-35 pages don't have failed bids section. Just like in the Eurofighter Tyhoon page, where its Sales and Marketing, suggesting changing the "failed bids" to "Sales and Marketing". Debate has been opened in the Tejas talk page as well. Kindly contribute to make Wikipedia pages neutral across pages rather than let such bias prevail. Mifiin (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you write the "Failed Bids" parts yourself? Filip.vidinovski (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Because that's not what he wants to happen. What he wants is to have the "Failed bids" section removed from the HAL Tejas article. See this removed talk section for the origins of the accusations. Note he's also spammed the same question on several other article talk pages. BilCat (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Is that not what he wants to happen? I want equality and not the bias like the Admins like you propogate. There cannot be one standard for American and British jets with no failed bids section and prominent Failed bids section for the rest of the world even though many of the bids are not even closed or concluded and pontiication and deliberate propaganda is unleashed against Tejas. why this bias is allowed in Wikipedia? Or is it that Wikipedia is the tool for propaganda? The biases gives you the answer. Mifiin (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no such standard. If there is no failed bids section in a fighter fighter article, it is because no one has taken initiative to add one with reliable sources. There is no conspiracy to unleash "deliberate propaganda" against Indian fighter aircraft as you seem to be implying. Allow me to provide examples of failed bids sections in American and British fighter articles: Eurofighter Typhoon procurement#Failed bids, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement#Failed proposals, General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon operators#Cancelled orders and failed bids, etc. As BilCat (who is not an admin, by the way) has said, find reliable sources and fix it. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Why not you? Atleast you do agree that there exist the bias that American and British jets even though they have lost out multiple contracts, there is not even a section called failed bids. Why not? Is this because those pages are not updated or kept upto standards? or is it that "Failed bids" sections are not allowed in pages for American and British jets? And its only applicable for the rest of the world fighters? Shows the biases not only exist but its deliberately applied and celebrated like you do with questions like why cant you add that? You try adding that and see how it gets purged immediately. You posted this comment in 2nd March 2023. Still the Failed Bids" section has not appeared in Western fighter pages. Why? Mifiin (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

So fix it. If it's removed without a good reason, such as no reliable sources, then you'll have proved your point. BilCat (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox picture should be changed

For ethical reasons and to fight with russian propaganda, i propose to change infobox picture of this article. MIG-29 is widely spread across a lot of European countries and there are a lot possibilities to find suitable picture from other Air forces - even in this article. Actually this article on different languages also have different infobox pictures lv, uk, lt, pl, e.t.c., so i see no reasons why it "Was better before" (ZLEA) and why we should keep propaganda. ComradeLV (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

We can't just change the infobox image because you don't like Russia. I'm not a big fan of the invasion either, but having a Russian-marked MiG-29 as the infobox image is not propaganda. The MiG-29 is a Russian fighter, built by Mikoyan in Moscow, and Russia operates more of the type than any other nation. If you want to change the image, you're going to need a better argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

As i previously mentioned, i see there an ethical reasons to change that picture, not just IDONTLIKEIT. This picture is a part of russian war propaganda, glorifying it's military capabilities. "Operates more of the type than any other nation" also is not a point, there is a lot of examples how exact same page looks in different language sub-portals: commonly it's shoot of domestic fleet piece. I'm more than sure that you will not come with the same argument to other portals and you will not change their domestic fleet pictures to the russian one just because "operates more of the type than any other nation".

I propose a compromise there not to use picture of current war sides, but a picture with a unit of a neutral fleet - like a Polish or Slovakian. ComradeLV (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The picture was taken in 2012 by a Russian plane spotter on Flickr, long before the invasion and before even the start of the Russo-Ukraine War. Your claims of the image being "war propaganda" do not hold up. Other language Wikipedias have different standards for infobox images, and I highly doubt they chose a different aircraft because the operator of this one was the "bad guy". Please do not waste any more of our time. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We're not here to fight Russia or show support for Ukraine, only to report the facts. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)