Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Russia Portal
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Contradiction in Operators Section

The image and text at Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25#Operators appears to conflict. e.g. Russia is listed as a current operator in the text, while Libya and Egypt are listed as the former operators, those instances conflicting with the image (Image:MiG-25-Map-World.PNG). (not a complete list) -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 03:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Design description

Belenko particular aircraft was brand new, representing the very latest Soviet technology ??? in 1976, MiG-25 is 12 year old, next step is MiG-31 and Su-27 was in service.
The aircraft was built of a nickel-steel alloy and not titanium as was assumed (though some titanium was used in heat-critical areas). The steel construction contributed to the craft massive 64,000 lb (29,000 kg) unarmed weight. ???? F-12 is same time with MiG-25, is same purpose. F-22 made by 98% titan. F-12 excel MiG-25 ????
Thanks to the use of vacuum tubes, the MiG-25P original Smerch-A (Tornado, NATO reporting name Foxfire) radar had enormous power — about 600 kilowatts. Is 600 kilowatts ?????

............................ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huyphuc1981 nb (talk • contribs) 10:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Iran-Iraq War

You have no authority to you to decide if a source is good or not, this is your own personal opinion and that is against wikipedia rules. Also I must note that you have reverted my edits 3 times, Wikipedia has rules to prevent editing wars (which you are clearly starting), if you revert it a 4th time, I can report you and you will be banned. You have to go over the discussion instead of blind reverting of constructive, referenced edits, just because they are in confilct with what you so badly want to believe. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Mr. "Honorable", acig not being a credible source is not my opinion. Why don't you look at other articles that have tried to use it as a credible source. The one who is getting personal here is you. Just because it fits your nationalistic view and you so badly want to believe that your country's pilots were so good, does not mean that it is credible. All the information from the acig website, forums, or books about the Iran-Iraq War air combat comes straight from the stories of Iranian pilots, with little or no confirmation from the Iraqi side, or other countries involved in the conflict. I have talked to the author, T. Cooper, on the acig forums and he admitted this. If you want to be gullible and believe that, for example, an Iranian F-14 destroyed 3-4 Iraqi aircraft with one missile just because some pilot said so, then alright, but this does not belong on Wikipedia. YMB29 (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
And also acig is not an American source, shows how much you know about it... YMB29 (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But claims coming from Americans about downing Iraqi aircraft should be accepted? That's quite POV, isn't it? Also I see you've tried to delete the sentence by operators where it sais Iraqi MiG-25 were all destroyed during the Gulf War and Iran-Iraq War, meaning you want to deny a single MiG-25 was shot down... Also it is commonly known that American built F-14s outclassed Soviet built MiG-25s. Deleting this and leaving just no information at all is not an option, what however could be done is change it to "Iranians claim ....". If you find any Iraqi claims, you could add that.

PS, I see you've reverted it again, meaning you have officially violated wikipedia rules and you can get banned a sertain period because of this. I shall not report it this time, but the next reverting you do, I will. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And you can be banned for keeping on posting nonsense...
No claims are accepted without proof. American claims in the Gulf War at least have more proof than just their pilots telling how they shot MiGs down. It is very strange that Iran officially claims so little kills compared to what its former pilots supposedly told acig.
Where did I try to delete anything to deny a single shoot down? Commonly known that the F-14 outclassed the MiG by whom? Acig? Anyway this article is about the MiG-25, not Iranian claims. Only verified information should be posted. YMB29 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have provided a source for my claims, that was all I needed to do. And what proof do American claims have? Did the Iraqis confirm it? Normally on Wikipedia (in a situation like this) we'd put: The Iranians have claimed to shot down .... Foxbats, Iraqi claims are unknowm or something like that. Not just madly deleting it like you are doing. Also note that on articles about wars, ect. even claims by terrorist organisations such as the PKK are mentioned. Now we have to come to some compromise here so what about adding that these are Iranian claims? The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, acig is not real proof. Anyone can just post some things and give some internet website as proof.
Americans of course exaggerate their success, but the US military has more credibility than individual pilots or amateur historians. It is not like an American pilot told some reporter that he shot down 5 MiGs 20 years ago. I don't know exactly what proof the US has about each Iraqi aircraft shot down, but I know that this is accepted by credible sources (known publications).
I think saying that it is unclear is fair. To list the claims and counter claims is too much for this article. These acig claims are not even the official claims, so they will make the article look bad. An encyclopedia should be about known facts as much as possible. These claims should go into other articles, such as the F-14 combat history or the Iran-Iraq War. YMB29 (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
And I can report your 3RR violation also. YMB29 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not done a 3RR violation, I have reverted your edits 3 times, after that I have stopped (and for that reason), this is why I haven't re-added my edit. And I see ACIG sources used on many articles about fighter aircraft. Putting that it is unknown with a citation needed is not an option. We could (like on many other articles) say: According to an ACIG report: .... , or something like that and we can even add that these claims are disputed. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do you see acig claims being accepted by known credible sources?
I am not the one who put citation needed. Again, unofficial claims don't belong in this article. This is not a place to discuss speculation of some amateur researchers about the Iran-Iraq War. We should go to all articles about aircraft and say "according to acig's kill table..."?
And I have not done a 3RR violation also, while you have stubbornly put in unverified information and called me a vandal... YMB29 (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying "reverting vandalism" is not againt WP rules and is done very often. Look in the page's history to see you reverted my edits 4 times. Now again, the fact that you find the source unrelyable is your personal opinion, it is not a blog or forum post so you have no right to delete it. And as a matter of fact, I've seen ACIG used in many articles. You could add that the figures are disputed (though we'd have to add a citation needed to that unless you got one) or that it is based on what Iranian pilots say, whatever. If we can come to some agreement I see no reason to report the 3RR violation, if not there have to come an end to this editing war. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a vandal is against the Wiki guidelines and will count against you. You can report me; I did nothing wrong. Then I will report you also.
If it is not a blog or forum, then anything can be used here? I have to prove that the figures are disputed just because acig has them? How ridiculous is that? Acig is not considered a credible source by most here, especially when it comes to the Iranian claims. Acig information is often deleted or stated as claims.
Again, why should every article concerning the aircraft involved in the Iran-Iraq War contain "according to acig..." or "according to the stories of some Iranian pilots..."? These claims are already mentioned in other articles more relevant to the war, no need to spam them everywhere since they are unverified, unofficial claims.
We can mention briefly some information on how the MiG was used in the war according to acig, but not go into the unverifiable details and figures. YMB29 (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your deleting of Iran-Iraq War in the sentence "7 [Iraqi MiG-25s] fled to Iran, the rest destroyed during the Iran-Iraq War and Gulf War or burried during the 2003 invasion of Iran" means you deny a single MiG-25 was downed during the war, an absolute absurd claim, you should immedietly re-add that part even before the end of that argument. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The absurd claim is on you. I never tried to say that. When did I remove the sentence? Now it clearly says:
Two MiG-25s were shot down by USAF F-15Cs during the Gulf War. After the war, in 1992, a U.S. F-16 downed a MiG-25 that violated the no-fly zone in southern Iraq.
YMB29 (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about by the "former operators" section, where it sais what happened to Iraqi MiG-25s. It first said "7 flown over to Iran in 1991, the rest destroyed in the Iran-Iraq War and Gulf War or buried during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. You removed Iran-Iraq War from the sentence, meaning you are claiming that not a single MiG-25 was downed during the Iran-Iraq War. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no proof that any were downed. This is not absurd. Can you find evidence besides acig? I think there was one kill by an F-5 that has more proof than just some pilot saying that he shot it down; I can recheck this. YMB29 (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You have 10 minutes, revert your edit or I'm going to report the 3RR violation, this editing war has to come to an end. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am so scared...
I am not reverting anything. Like I said, you can add something about the war, but no details or figures of the claims. YMB29 (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No figures, ey, well, let's see what the admins have to say about it. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You think you will be allowed to put up your non-credible figures?
By the way, the 3RR violation is over 3 reverts in 24 hours. YMB29 (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget you made 2 reverts after each other, in one of them you reverted bit about the MiG's combat preformance during the Iran-Iraq War, in the other one you reverted me putting "The rest destroyed during the Gulf War (and some during the Iran-Iraq War). The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case you did the same thing. So now you are guilty of violating the 3RR rule and inserting unverified data because of your bias... YMB29 (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I will sson be contacting the Wikipedia Militar History Project to resolve this issue. And you are the who doesn't not want to accept a source because of your bias and personal hate against Iran. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would I hate Iran? It is not Iran that I hate, but the fact that many claims in wars are stated as facts just because of personal bias and preferences.
By the way, did you actually read acig's book on F-14s in Iran? YMB29 (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fastest successful ejection

I removed the following text:

  • Most MiG-25s used the KM-1 ejector seat; the last versions, though, used an early variant of the K-36 seat. The speed record for a successful ejection (Mach 2.67) is held by a KM-1-equipped MiG-25.

According the the ejection seat article, this record is held by an SR-71 which broke up at Mach 3.25. That statement is unsourced, however, so I can't vouch for the speed at which they were traveling. The incident definitely occured, though.--Adamrush (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)