Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21/Archive 2

India image
India,extensively uses this plane,but still no image of Indian MiG 21?As far I remember,here was picture,some one removed it.Ovsek (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there is an image of it on this page, besides that regarding this actual page I have been trying to find one for some time now. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Obsolete
This jet is very old and very useless. Countries still using are very stupid. Why does India not use this scrapmetal junker as target practice already? Very obsolete and useless design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.143.25 (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry this is not a discussion forum, do you want to raise an issue with or suggest an improvement with the article? MilborneOne (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Price sheet.
Here is pricing info on the early MiG-21F-13 variant of the fighter jet, as it was exported to the WARPAC member country of Hungary in 1964: 16 million hungarian forints per plane, for a batch of three dozen planes. This is confirmed price from historic documents collected by the author of SAMSIM.

That sum was worth nominally 1.362.862 USD at the time (1USD was exchanged at fixed 11.74 HUF rate in the 1963-1965 era). However, that was a largely theoretical rate, since dollar bills were as rare as white ravens behind the embargoed Iron Curtain.

On the other hand, 1HUF of 1964 is worth ~ 53.6HUF in early 2014, based on purchasing power parity (due to decades of significant inflation). That should make 16 million HUF in 1964 equal to ~ 860 million HUF and 1USD was exchanged at 230HUF in early 2014. Thus, the price of a single Mig-21F-13 should be 3.739.130 USD, calculated on modern parity.

Anyhow, 1.3 to 3.7 million USD is still suprisingly cheap for a supersonic fighter jet, but the MiG-21F-13 early variant was rather primitive, it didn't even have a radar set or anti-skid brakes. On the other hand, socialist Hungary was a member of the WARPAC alliance that buffer-guarded soviet borders against "imperialist agression", thus the export price may be been calculated in a "comradely" way by the soviets.

It may be more indicative that an average workers' wage in Hungary was 1.757 HUF/month in 1964. Thus, it took an entire yearly wage of 758 working people to buy a single fighter jet.

Later era soviet warplane exports were significantly more expensive, however. The price of a single MiG-21bis (redesigned version with usable radar and CSR overdrive capable after-burning engine) was almost 4x that of the Mig-21F-13, a sum paid by Hungary circa 1975. The price of a single MiG-23MF, circa 1978-1979 was almost 6x higher than a MiG-21MF, therefore only a single MiG-23 squadron was purchased by Hungary!

(That is because the MiG-23 had a large radar dish with digital computer and swing wings and BVR missiles. On the other hand, that on-paper capability was confronted by utter unreliability in real life, both in mechanics and the discrete transisitor based electronics. That way the expensive and error-prone MiG-23 quickly fell out of use everywhere soon after the soviet block collapsed, while MiG-21MF/bis planes are still serving in Romania and Croatia, for example.) 91.82.37.193 (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

On the topic of price, $450,000 US for the important of a MiG for the civilian warbird market is utterly ridiculous. Registered aircraft with western radios and all paper work done can be had for less than $100,000 in the case of the Fagot, Fresco, and Fishbed. Prices will of course vary, but you'd be hard pressed to find one for anywhere near that price point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.3.104 (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Content Box Image
This is in reference to the lancer image in question, following a change between it and an Egyptian MiG-21 resulting in an edit war. This czechoslovakian Image got a neutral seal of approval and stayed live for a longer period of time. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21&oldid=640008309 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21&oldid=640061773  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.210.90 (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Howzit,


 * I am the original editor who added the Czechoslovak MiG image after noticing the infobox lacked one. I was only vaguely aware of the edit warring at the time; if in fact the dispute has ended then @User:BilCat, you're free to replace it with the Romanian image. It does seem rather preposterous to exclude an image from an article simply because one contributor didn't like it and kept adding something else in its place. If the dispute concerned something more serious, ie the copyright status of the image, or uncertainty regarding its subject, that would be another matter entirely. --Katangais (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well actually, the infobox didn't lack one. But rather was replaced by the Czech one during the edits. Plus MiG-21 with its classic unpainted chrome appearance has been synonymous with the aircraft with most units produced sporting the same appearance. 04:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.252.39 (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129015210/http://survincity.com/2013/01/mig-21-against-the-phantom/ to http://survincity.com/2013/01/mig-21-against-the-phantom/
 * Added tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20070716/ai_n19374004
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015202847/http://culak.blog.sme.sk/c/204730/Slovenske-vojenske-letectvo-v-roku-1993-a-dnes-v-cislach-a-obrazoch.html to http://culak.blog.sme.sk/c/204730/Slovenske-vojenske-letectvo-v-roku-1993-a-dnes-v-cislach-a-obrazoch.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707232025/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1971War/Soni.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1971War/Soni.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202195038/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/Atlantique.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/Atlantique.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140417162044/http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/lebanon-losses.htm to http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/lebanon-losses.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Multiple issues with source, claims and probable bias
There's a very large problem with one of the sources, on the number 41 http://survincity.com/2013/01/mig-21-against-the-phantom/. The author does not mention where he/she got those numbers, and reading it one can find various factual errors, including the most blatant, calling America "South America", and lots of translation errors. This feels very much a propaganda website than anything else. Here's a quote from aforementioned website:

South American naval aircraft entered the war with a carrier-based fighter F-4B,...

"South America" never owned a single Phantom or went to Vietnam.

Then there are other factual errors not corroborated, even by other wiki pages, where Israel was "convinced" to sign a peace agreement due to 2 losses from MiG-21s in the following section: However, Soviet MiG-21 pilots and SAM crews destroyed a total of 2 Israeli aircraft, which helped to convince the Israelis to sign a ceasefire agreement.

Next is this: Additionally, when more than half the fuel was used up, violent maneuvers prevented fuel from flowing into the engine (questionable),,

the word "questionable" gives an allusion to a comment, and bias. --Drmagnumwolf (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608192646/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter7.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter7.html
 * Added tag to http://aces.safarikov.org/victories/vietnam.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140722043626/http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2014/06/27/sukhoi-30mki_is_indias_fallback_fighter_36263.html to http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2014/06/27/sukhoi-30mki_is_indias_fallback_fighter_36263.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Air Force as MiG-21 former user...?
Please remove this from the article. This is an april fool stuff, which can be read from its source info too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BB:410:1C94:193D:6EF3:C80C:A76F (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed. Thanks for pointing it out.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No independent confirmation of F-16 shot down by India
During 2019 India-Pakistan Stand Off, Indian claim of downing F-16 was denied by Pakistan. No confirmation from any independent source. Asifanwar451 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asifanwar451 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The pictures that Pakistan put out saying it was the second Mig-21's is finally confirmed to be that of F-16's. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pakistan-f-16-downed-by-iaf-see-photo-1466931-2019-02-28 and that's the plane purchased from Jordan. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0ewbbYV4AA5dEL.jpg One of your pilot is also killed. Hope Pakistani military will acknowledge it or else will go the burial way without acknowledgement. Airtoairengament (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Please delete this post till the time there is no proof. Firstly, no F-16 was used, secondly JF-17s shot down two MiG 21 Bisons and thirdly Indians showing AMRAAM (which is actually sold to Taiwan as per ser no and contract details, , ) as a proof is like "A rape victim showing condom next morning to put forward her case" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billiejeanz (talk • contribs) 15:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2019
Please remove What was surprising that during this engagement between the fighter jets of Indian Air Force and Pakistan Air Force one of the IAF Mig 21 Bison intercepted and shot down the much superior F-16 of the PAF. The wreckage of the shot down PAF F-16 was found in Pakistan Administered Kashmir.

Reason: There is no proof that this actually happened. No where on the social media, no official channels. This article has incorrect information in section 2019 India Pakistan Stand Off where it states that a PAF F16 was shot down. This news does not have any base besides a few articles and news by Media. There is not even a single image of the crashed F16 nor there has been any casualty reported by PAF and all the pilots are accounted for. This untrue news undermines the capability of F16 and this section should be revised immediately and be fixed.Unless, actual images comes to light. Zafarfawad1 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done FYI, I have removed the comment/personal opinion in question (that is not found anywhere in the sourced reference links) and warned the offending party. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason why the Bison shootdown is mentioned twice in the article? Coverage of the incident does need to be rationalised.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2019
In the 2019 India Pakistan Stand Off section, the article says that MiG 21 downed the F-16 before being shot down. The article should mention that Pakistan Govt denied this. Here is a link from the New York Times mentioning the denial from Pakistan Govt- https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/world/asia/kashmir-india-pakistan-aircraft.html

Neutrality demands that the article should quote the denial from Pakistan Govt because in the same paragraph, the article mentions the denial of Indian Govt against Pakistan's claim of downing the 2nd MiG 21. Asifanwar451 (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pending-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —  Newslinger  talk   12:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Mig-21 shooting down F-16
This is the article from neutral source that can be put out as the details for Mig-21 shooting down F-16 The neutral article is here. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/02/inside-aerial-dogfight-took-nuclear-armed-pakistan-india-brink/ Once Pakistan acknowledges the death of the F-16 Pilot Wing Commander Shahzaz-ud-Din, we can add that too. http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2019/mar/02/pilot-who-fell-with-abhinandan-assaulted-by-mob-1945552.html Which i don't think may happen. As long as their own govt is not bothered about their fighters, why should rest of the world do. So now let's add the Mig-21 shooting down F-16 details.Airtoairengament (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC).


 * Please delete this post till the time there is no proof. Firstly, no F-16 was used, secondly JF-17s shot down two MiG 21 Bisons and thirdly Indians showing AMRAAM (which is actually sold to Taiwan as per ser no and contract details, ) as a proof is like

this has been debunked by neutral experts

F -16 was shot down and link below shows Pakistan army standing surrounding it. USA is in talks with Pakistan if it has violated the end user agreement by using it against India to down Mig-21.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2019
Mig21 Bison shot down a PAF F-16, later wreckage of Aim 120 c5 was recovered, contradicting Pakistan's claim of not using any F-16. 119.82.83.106 (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pending-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —  Newslinger  talk   12:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019
2019 India Pakistan Stand Off On 27 February 2019 during the 2019 India–Pakistan standoff, an Indian Air Force MiG-21 Bison[24] was shot down by an unknown Pakistani aircraft, speculated to be an F-16 or JF-17 [25][26] The pilot was captured and later released.[27]

The above section is a hotly contested one. The Indian MIG 21 had shot down an F-16. The Indian MIG-21 was brought down seconds later by a SAM fired from Pakistan side. The Indian MIG-21 was chasing away the intruders and so was at the tail of the last intruder f-16. There is plenty of evidence by way of electronic signatures and remains of an AMRAAM missile which could have been fired only an F-16. The official stance of Indian Air Force is that the Indian MIG-21, flown by Indian pilot Abhinandan, shot down an f-16 and the MIG-21 was shot down by a SAM.

Reference: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/wing-commander-abhinandan-piloted-mig-21-bison-shot-down-pak-f-16-have-electronic-evidence-mea/articleshow/68334783.cms Sunchil (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's not clear what changes you would like made to the article. Please make a specific request in the form "Change X to Y". Thanks, &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 13:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2019
Mikoyan-Gurevich Mig-21 SOVIET-99IND (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 2019 India Pakistan stand off On 27 February 2019 during the India pakistan standoff an IAF Mig-21 Bison was shot by an unknown Pakistani Jet before it brought down an pakistani Fighter Jet speculated to be an F-16 as claimed by Government of India


 * Already mentioned and referenced in article, both JF-17 and F-16 claimed to be involved. MilborneOne (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2019
The mph top speed of 1351MPH incorrect it is the 1.76M top speed at sea level, it should be ~1125MPH for mach 1.76 at 42,640 Feet Zuut23 (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 17:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The source is the NASA mach Calculator Mach 1.76 (the top speed of the Mig 21) is not 1351 MPH at 42,640 feet(13000 meters) 1351 MPH is mach 1.76 at sea level. Mach 1.76 at 42,640 feet is 1125 MPH like i said which is the top speed

Aerial combat victories 1966–1972
Do we really need a detailed table of Vietnamese claims, most of them already appear in the prose and I am not sure the clutttered and ugly table adds any value, thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * OK not comments in a week so I have removed the table, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)