Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Recent Operational Use

Just to note that over detailed information on recent use of Mig-21s in particularly Indian use is not particularly noteworthy, on balance and weight of the seventy-odd years history of the aircraft. We dont list every mission that the Mig-21s has done over the seventy years so just because some of these are more recent doesnt make them more noteworthy in the history of the aircraft. There may be some mileage in creating some Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 in service type articles for the more noteworthy operators, of note we have no information on Soviet use. MilborneOne (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

REPLY: It does not make any sense to remove it. The fact that today the stories are detailed thanks to new technologies, media sharing, improved public awareness doesn't mean we should dump this advantage just because "once upon a time it wasn't like this"... too bad! then let's scrap the Wikipedia altogether and let’s get back to the caves painting on the walls our daily hunting in the wild! Remarks: In the region where the incident happened, there are around 1 billion and 500 millions people screaming about this thing that for some reason you don’t want to report here. There is more than enough evidence that this IS something to mention. On Wikipedia anything that is Western related is highly covered. In the case of US forces, we come down to names and units involved. That’s great! But that means we should give other countries the same respect as much as possible. I don’t see any reason why Wikipedia lists a detailed article about how a US Navy FA-18E shot down a Syrian Su-22 Ja'Din shootdown incident or how some US Navy F-14s shot down some Libyan fighter jets in the 80ies Gulf of Sidra incident (1981) 1989 air battle near Tobruk or how a US EP-3 had to land on Hainan Island after colliding with a Chinese interceptor Hainan Island incident, but for some unknown reason you really want to remove TWO important incidents involving the MiG-21 in a very volatile area with nuclear powers involved with around 1/4th of humankind living there. If you want to break it down, let’s do like the F-16: a dedicated service history page. Overall you are confirming a huge issue in the Wikipedia: Western bias vnkd (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Shame I was hoping for some rational reasoning why the incidents should be included or are important to the Mig-21. Also remember that the incidents are described elsewhere in Wikipedia it is the relevance to the history of the Mig-21 that is being questioned. Oh and please dont edit war on this as more than one user has removed or reverted the text we really need a consensus here thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

REPLY

As proven by all other restores that were done, this is no less important than all the other contents that are listed. It has to stay there as it has to stay there whatever detail the AA-1 F-35 prototype did. Over there (on the F-35 page) things like the first time it taxied with a specific weapon is important and reported. Why should two recent and noteworthy air to air aerial engagements be removed from this page then????? Just the fact that is was an air to air engagement in 2019 makes it very relevant since air-to-air action became quite rare.

Edit warring and being disruptive doesnt help, you still have not explained why it is important to the Mig-21. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you able to read? I made tons of points. 1. there are about 1.5 billions people talking about it 2. Just the fact that is was an air to air engagement in 2019 makes it very relevant since air-to-air action became quite rare. 3. most of the other history pages are plenty of facts which are much less noisy

YOu rather have to explain the reason you really want to remove these 2 things?

Please sign your posts, sorry but edit warring and being disruptive to prove a point still doesnt answer the question posed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"Experimental"?

The opening says that "a number of experimental designs shared the nose-cone intake" but then lists the Su-7 as an example. The Su-7 was very much an operational aircraft, as was the Su-9, which was almost identical to the MiG-21. The Soviets used the designand various parts of it on a number of aircraft, experimental, operational and design exercises alike. This sentence seems misleading to me.

64.223.105.229 (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree, in fact the whole paragraph is not referenced and doesnt actually make much sense in English either. MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

"Bison"

"Bison" is not introduced in the article (a nickname? A particular variant? When used by a particular airforce?).

--Mortense (talk) 08:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mortense: see List of Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 variants, this is an upgraded export version for India. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"Clean [sic]"?

What does "clean [sic]" mean in this phrase?: "clean [sic] at 11,000 m". Autodidact1 (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Autodidact1: clean, in aircraft lingo, means with no external stores (missiles, bombs, etc.) that reduce aerodynamic performance; a clean air frame. This is a term used throughout military aviation. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Where is the rest of the information?

I am surprised at how incomplete this article is, seeing as how the MiG-21 is such an important aircraft. I don't see anything at all about the early F variants vs the later variants and the bis variants. They don't even look the same. The MiG-21F has a distinct visual relation to the MiG-19 that is much harder to discern in the MiG-21bis. Nothing about the early craft being a cannon-(and rocket) armed plane with internal wing root cannon like the MiG-19 and Su-7, and the deletion of the port cannon when they added the K-13 missile capability. It ust says "Armament: one 23cannon". That's only true of the later variants, and only after they deleted the cannon entirely in the middle variants. There is a page all about the variants, but it doesn't do much for this either. It says the early versions had cannon, then says nothing at all until later when it says "a cannon was re-added with the addition of a 23mm gun ventral gun pod". Up until then the reader had no idea that the guns had been deleted. Nothing about the radar systems of the early variants vs the radar systems of the later, or what either was capable of. How about flight performance, how did it change and evolve over time? What was the purpose of the big dorsla fairing added to the later versions, which totally changed the appearance (along with the much larger shock cone and wider intake) as well as turning a cockput with quite good all-around vision into one with poor rearward vision, along with the heavier canopy framing in front.

It's like going to the page on the P-51 Mustang and having it kind of talk about all the Mustang variants, sometimes talking about the P-51A, sometimes the B or C, and sometimes the D, without ever really mentioning which it's talking about or why they are different, withut ever talking about how the plane was re-engined, re-winged, and then had the fuselage cut down and a bubble canopy fitted. The D model was drastically different from the A, and significantly different from the B and C, and the article makes it clear. Why does this one not do the same?

64.223.91.220 (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That information is not in the article because you have not added it yet. If you have good sources for the information please go ahead and insert it. Wikipedia articles are built by people just like you, so feel free to contribute. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2021

103.13.107.164 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC) X:During the 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes, the Pakistan Air Force had shot down a MiG-21 and captured its pilot.

Y:An Indian Air Force MiG 21 Bison, piloted by Wg Cdr Abhinandan Varthaman, VrC, shot down a PAF F-16 aircraft which was rapidly retreating towards Pakistani Airspace using a Russian-made R73 missile. The same MiG was then fired on, and subsequently shot down by another PAF F-16 fighter using an AIM-120C AMRAAM BVRAAM.

Provide a third part RS saying this, not an Indian one.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Badly structured section on service history in relation to kills and losses...

The section on MiG-21 kills and losses should be structured to present claims and admitted losses in the same location. That way data can be immediately cross verified instead of just showing the claim of one side without the admitted losses of the other side. Right now its a jumbled mess. You have to scroll back and forth to get any sort of answer when researching such data. I would like to restructure it to better represent this data in the format I described above, but since its a protected page I felt I should open a discussion about it first... CAG0001 (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Do we have a section on MiG-21 kills and losses?Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

CAG0001 What you can do is create a subpage of your sandbox and rewrite the section there. That's what I do when I intend to make a major edit to a page, especially if there is a significant risk that one mistake could break the page. It also allows others to get a better idea about what you are trying to do if you discuss it after finishing the sandbox version, and it allows others to give insight on any improvements you can make. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The article appears to be written in a very biased way with regard to Vietnam. In 1967, Operation Bolo heralded very effect USAF use of F-4 Phantoms; in Bolo, F-4s shot down seven Mig-21s with no losses. Between January and July, the USAF F-4's kill ratio was a ridiculous 14-1. However, the USAF switched tactics and began loading their F-4s with bombs. A combination of this and a lack of good radar support led to losses in the air from surprise rear quarter attacks. The article also mashes the Air Force and Navy roles together; after the first Top Gun trained Navy crews went into action in 1970, Navy F-4s dominated their opponents, easily shooting down MiG-21s with few losses of their own. The Navy, though, enjoyed better radar intercept and coordination by means of the Red Crown program. The Vietnam section of this article needs to be completely rewritten.

F-14

I have asked over at wp:rsn if this is sourced to an RS. Note that even if Tom Cooper is an RS, this is not by him.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If you scroll down further on the page it also says " Closer examination of these claims proved that only one of them can roughly be brought into connection with a loss of an Iranian F-14: this is the case of a loss of a single Tomcat near Khark Island, on 11 August 1984. This was confirmed by post-war investigation of the wreckage. All the other known Iraqi claims for downings of Iranian F-14s are posted here in order to show that ACIG.org knows about them but also that we know that they are unsubstained claims." - so the source doesn't back this up anyway.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It is also not just based on Data from Cooper, but seems to use multiple sources. So it is wrong to claim it is sourced to Cooper.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Escape capsule

Design section says "After ejection, the capsule opens to allow the pilot to parachute to the ground"

Is there any truth in this unsourced statement? I have no information on this aircraft except Gordon and Gunston Mig-21 Fishbed which doesn't mention it. ThanksPieter1963 (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Israel

Israel operated a Captured MiG 21 dubbed as "007" it was armed woth Shafir missiles and used against Egyptian Recon Aircraft. 45.44.46.194 (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

MiG-21BIS

MiG-21BIS is the correct spelling, all capital letters. It was one of the variants, and the letters do not mean the Latin word bis (better), as for example the modem V.22bis once did. That spelling is wrong in several articles. 62.78.251.132 (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

My copy of Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1982-83 spells it as lower case. Wikipedia articles usually follow the designations in the source, Jane's is generally not questioned for accuracy. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Jane's is wrong. In this video, MiG expert Jyrki Laukkanen preaches (in Finnish) that it should be written in all capital letters as stated in the manual and all manufacturer's materials. He berates aviation magazines for spelling it wrong in four ways. MiG-21BIS is the correct form. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAx_lgBE9Xw?t=4m20s --62.78.251.132 (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source (WP:RSPYT). This is the English language Wikipedia so terminology and spellings follow those used in English language sources, for example the article title of the German city Köln is Cologne, Köln redirects there for readers searching with the native language spelling. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Jyrki Laukkanen has also written that in his books MiG-21BIS. The name is misspelled in almost all English articles. All other MiG-21 variants have their names in capital letters. The mistake comes from decades ago, when V.22bis modems were common and the MiG-21BIS was the only commonly known variant in the West after the MiG-21F, and nerds thought the name was spelled the same as in modems, where it meant a better (faster) modem than the V.22.--62.78.251.132 (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Per wp:undue one source does not trump 3. Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no source for the correctness of the 21bis spelling. It is not enough that thousands of articles have been misspelling it for decades. The Finnish Aviation Museum https://www.ilmailumuseot.fi/tuotteet.html?id=20825/264306 spells the name correctly (page is both Finnish/English).--62.78.251.132 (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

That's true, but is there a reliable English language source stating that "BIS" is correct? - ZLEA _T\^C 13:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

"Bis" as a designation has been around for a lot longer than the modem, and it's spelling has also been variable for that long. When sources vary, we generally go with the most common format in reliable sources. In the end, it's a minor issue anyway. BilCat (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

How about original technical manual? [1] There it is written in MiG-21BIS. At one time these were classified documents, so I slightly degraded the quality of the image at the stamps. In the original manual, the name is spelled MiG-21BIS, as in all manuals for the aircraft and material from the manufacturer. On Russian fighters, the name of the design office comes first, then the model, and finally the type. Writing the type designation at the end in lower case would be odd, as all MiG-21 variants have their names in (Cyrillic) upper case. There are certainly many reasons for the misunderstanding, as the word "bis" is used, for example, in doctors' prescriptions, where in Latin it is specified how many times it can be renewed; once (semel), twice (bis) or three times (ter). There it is written in lower case. Later, this has been 'confirmed' certainly by the V.22bis modems, where bis is also in lower case, indicating that the device is twice as fast as the V.22 modem. Initially, my country's air force had MiG-21F-13 fighters (-13 comes from the K-13 missile), but the press avoided complicated abbreviations and referred to MiG-21 in general, as there were no other MiG-fighters in use. (The newspapers, of course, wrote this in the form of Mig-21 in general terms). Later, when MiG-21F-13 was replaced by MiG-21BIS fighters, those who knew the 'medical language' were sure that this was a second-generation fighter, i.e. bis comes from the Latin double word meaning second-generation MiG-21. Very few people knew how many MiG variants there had been in between. This is no small matter. In Air Force circles, if someone spells the end of MiG-21BIS in lower case, the professionals will know immediately that he is not an expert, but a person who has read up on the subject.--62.78.251.132 (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That manual's writing is not an English dialect I'm familiar with. There's no doubt in my mind that "BIS" is correct (in fact, I should update some of my off-wiki projects), but there are two main problems with using the original technical manual as an English Wikipedia source. First, it doesn't specifically state that "bis" is incorrect. Second, it's not in English. That said, it is sometimes acceptable to use non-English sources when there are no known English sources. However, since this is a matter of terminology in English, we cannot use Russian language sources. We need a reliable English source stating that "bis" is incorrect before we can do anything. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Note that Belyakov & Marmain's MiG: Fifty Years of secret Aircraft Design, co-written by OKB MiG's chief designer from 1970, uses Bis, not BIS. You would hope that the chief designer would know the designation.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)