Talk:Mikoyan MiG-29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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. [1], [2] --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)

[edit] 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. [3] Kowloonese 23:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Azerbaijan

According to several news sources they confirm that Azerbaijan Air Force DOES have a MIG-29's. See the two weblinks below for evidence, somebody needs to update this article and the map please: http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=23434 http://today.az/news/politics/38475.html 145.83.1.6 10:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

  • Well remove it then. It was added without a reference. -Fnlayson 13:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • OK. ChowHui 14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If anyone wants to re-add that, provide a reference to support it. Thanks. -Fnlayson 17:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Armenia doesnt have any MIG-29's

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)

[edit] 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)