Talk:Mikoyan MiG-29K/Archive 1

Archive 1

Range / radius

Hi,

I would again like to suggest the Author, not to undermine the Combat Radius at Higher Altitudes which is more than 1,650 Km i.e 2,000 Km (MIG Official site:http://migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_K_KUB_e.htm). If you check specs. of other A/Cs on wikipedia, you will find max range specified not the lowest; 850 Km range undermines the combat capabilities of this aircrafts to the reader as "Its capability to fly longer range is one of this platforms achievements".

Sources:

http://migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_K_KUB_e.htm

http://www.deagel.com/Strike-and-Fighter-Aircraft/Mig-29K_a000357003.aspx

http://www.defenceforum.in/forum/album.php?albumid=1&attachmentid=114

Regards, Tutu1234 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The forum page is not a valid reference on wikipedia (see WP:RELIABLE). So you are mainly saying the combat radius is wrong? The value may come from the Gordon & Davison book. I'll have to check my copy tonight. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice that MiG list the 2,000 km and 3,000 km distances as Ferry ranges, NOT combat/mission radius. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Try and understand Max Range without Drop Tanks is 2000 Km and with Drop tanks is 3000 Km. Can have this under Separate Headings or atleast mention "2000 Km (Without Drop Tanks)". Why I am emphasizing at the range (leave radius) without drop tanks is that, this particular range is an integral part of any A/C, and MiG-29K with range of 2000 Km is unique for this Platform with new avionics and fly-by-wire systems. Thanks.Tutu1234 (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Ferry ranges of 3,000 km with drop tanks and 2,000 km without are listed in the Ferry range fields. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Then lets mention it in the article on MIG-29K. Tutu1234 (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Photo captions

Edited 2 picture captions. MiG-29KUB at MAKS 2007 -> MiG-29K. That is correct. 195.98.172.182 (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What reason do you have to question the photographer's identification of the aircraft as a MiG-29KUB? - BilCat (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly because the origional Russian captions on Commons appear to refer to a Mig-29K - I beleive that the single seater now uses the same canopy as the KUB - certainly there appears to be a lot of equipment where the rear seat should be if it was a two-seater.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

MiG-29K 9-41 has the same canopy as MiG-29KUB 9-47, except the second pilot is replaced by fuel tank. And MiG-29K was flying on MAKS 2007, not KUB.195.98.189.96 (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Who copied and pasted?

From the Radar Reduction section of this Article:

"Survivability is an important feature of the MiG-29K design. It does not rely on low-observable technology, such as stealth systems, to the exclusion of other survivability factors. Instead, its design incorporates a combination of stealth, advanced electronic-warfare capabilities, reduced ballistic vulnerability, the use of standoff weapons, and innovative tactics that cumulatively and collectively enhance the safety of the fighter and pilot."

From the Radar Reduction section of the F/A-18E Superhornet Article:

"Survivability is an important feature of the Super Hornet design. The US Navy took a "balanced approach" to survivability in its design.[25] This means that it does not rely on low-observable technology, such as stealth systems, to the exclusion of other survivability factors. Instead, its design incorporates a combination of stealth, advanced electronic-warfare capabilities, reduced ballistic vulnerability, the use of standoff weapons, and innovative tactics that cumulatively and collectively enhance the safety of the fighter and crew."

Who copied and pasted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victory in Germany (talk • contribs) 16:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidently the text was copied F/A-18E/F article and reworded here. The MiG-29K article is only about 1.5 years old, while the Super Hornet article is much older. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The text here has been reworded and shortened some. The text in the 2 articles should not look similar now. This stuff reminds me of Who Made Who from the movie Maximum Overdrive, btw. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Number of Russian MiG-29K? / Number built? cleanup needed

The info box says Russia has 11 fighters. When were these ordered, built and delivered? In the text I find the following: "The Russian Navy ordered 24 MiG-29Ks in late 2009 for the Admiral Kuznetsov. Deliveries of the MiG-29K for the Russian Navy started in 2010. … Russia ordered 20 MiG-29K and four MiG-29KUB fighters in February 2012." Were the 11 aircraft which are currently in the Russian Army part of the first mentioned order, or was there another (initial) order? How many from the first mentioned order were delivered or are still pending? Is the second mentioned order independent from the first mentioned order? How many aircraft will the Russians have after all pending orders are served? 24? 48? 59? 217.237.63.139 (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Infobox lists 11 as the total number of MiG-29Ks that have been built, not just Russian ones. However, that total is probably be out of date. I'll update the numbers in service in the Operators section and see what else I can do. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hardpoints

13 hardpoints? As you can see in this video, there is just 9 hardpoints.

And the references about 13 hardpoints are broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aramaicus (talk • contribs) 02:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

MTOW on launch stations.

I have gathered that the MiG-29K can launch at MTOW from all three launch points off the Kuznetsov, and both launch points off the INS Vikramaditya? Can someone confirm this for me? I'd like to add it in, but I haven't been able to find much for sources on the regard other than doing the math on it.Aridantassadar (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Accidents section removal.

By the suggested criteria (Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents), the whole section must be removed from the article, so it seems quite logical that following this is a no-go in terms of keeping the article content-saturated. Moreover, if we decide to follow this recommendation (it's not a policy, as it says in the preamble) in this article, there's not a single reason why it should not be applied to all the other military aircraft articles, with the "Accidents" sections of those purged in a similar manner. Also, I would like to see an explicit explanation of why the restoration edits were reverted. Besides the "per WP:AIRCRASH" argument, obviously, since, once again, this is not a policy. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

None of these accidents seem particularly notable of the overall history of the aircraft - and we want an article that applies WP:DUE and gives a reasonable balanced coverage of the subject not an article full of snippets from news articles and making large scale use of unreliable sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"Seem particularly notable" is a value judgement and is misplaced here. Strict Wikipedia guidelines on the matter are non-existent. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

We make value judgements all the time - if we didn't the articles would be unreadable agglomerations of trivia and news items, which would be useless to the reader.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure who those "we" you're referencing to, since our approaches to editing clearly differ. The original opposition to the restoration of the deleted accidents was based solely on the previously linked recommendations, which are neither a Wikipedia policy, nor a feasible way of managing the military aviation articles due to previously stated reasons. If you disagree with this, it's fine, but your argumentation should at least make an attempt at being more objective and explicit than "they don't seem notable". -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• User:Nigel Ish is referring to the WP:Aircraft project, which this article falls under. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) We cannot include every single piece of information or the article will become unreadable, like the F-35 article was. This article also needs a major cull on crap sources - there is way too much of the article sourced to rubbish sources such as deagel or the dodgy Russian sites, and way too much use of news artcles - instead we should be using detailed books and long form articles - this is a well established topic so there is no excuse for the article not to use decent sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

And in reality the same principles apply to all articles - they should be balanced and use the best in-detail sources. This certainly be treated as trivia if the article was submitted to FA - although the sourcing would cause it to be thrown out anyway.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of the cluttering problem, and the F-35 example in particular, since I participated in the discussion there, but this is very different from what we have here. Here, a still valid information is being purged from the article without an explicit reason, while the reasoning behind the purging of the F-35 article was quite clear - it was filled with outdated stuff and, indeed, made the article unnecessarily massive and unfriendly to the reader. This article is probably six times shorter, as well, so by no means these two are comparable. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Dates and sequence

"The MiG-29K was developed in the late 1980s from the MiG-29M. " Mig-29M article says it first flew 2005 I'd not know, but M tends to follow K, no? Midgley (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The ORIGINAL MiG-29K was based on the ORIGINAL MiG-29M, which the MiG-29M article suggests, had six examples flying by 1990. Of course both articles are in poor state and don't indicate that the current versions are very different than the originals sharing the same designation.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)