Seaeagle

Not quite. There are two launchers available for the R-27 range of missiles - the APU-470 rail launcher and the AKU-470 ejector rack. The AKU-470 ejector rack is only compatible with the radar guided variants of the R-27(-R and -ER) and therefore has no coolant bottles for the IR variants - it is used for launching the radar guided R-27R/ER missiles from fuselage stations on the Su-27. The APU-470 rail launcher is compatible with both the IR and radar guided variants of the R-27 missiles and has coolant for the IR ones - it is used on wing stations on the Su-27 and MiG-29. It can only be used on inner wing statons on both the Su-27 and MiG-29. The launcher is detatchable and only forms part of the "pylon"(which also comprise wing adaptors on which the launcher is attached). So as AeriaGloria said, the APU-470 rail launcher itself does not preclude use of the R-27T, as its compatible with this as well as the R-27R - rather it has to do with what weapons the aircraft's weapon control system is set up to use Perhaps you should . The source you quoted also states that the two-seat MiG-29UB can use the same range of weapons as the single seat MiG-29. But the -UB doesn't have a radar and therefore obviously cannot employ the radar guided R-27R(although it has means to simulate it in order to train pilots for the single-seat MiG-29). The -SMT has an entirely diffferent WCS and can employ all sorts of weapons that aren't compatible with the baseline MiG-29.

Technical ones too.

Well that would be a little odd considering that ED never seems to take such things(relevance to maps/scenarios, timeframe or available opposition) into account when deciding on an aircraft module and its modification(variant and upgrades). They do however, tend to be very ademant about keeping strictly to the specific features of their chosen variant - I don't see why liveries should be exempt from that philosophy.

No I don't mind liveries for other sub-variants either. In the grand scale of things(MiG-29 versions), the technical differences between 9.12/9.12A and 9.12B are miniscule anyway.

In that case I think you are contradictinhg yourself a little with your suggestions . IIRC ED stated that the specific variant they will be modelling is the Warsaw Pact export 9.12A - in which case prioritising accuracy and realism for liveries, the most needed would be: - Poland - DDR + Unified Germany(Luftwaffe) - Czechoslovakia + Czech Republic and Slovakia - Romania - Bulgaria ...i.e the nations(past and present) that actually operated that specific variant. Second priority(since the Soviet 9.12 is all but identical to the 9.12A) would be; - Soviet Union + Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova etc Third priority (operators of the lower spec 9.12b export variant); - Hungary - Yugoslavia + Serbia - Iraq - Iran - Syria - Cuba ..etc

Another video with the MiG-29M2 and MiG-29K (9.31 no 312) flight displays - cobra in both .

Yes it is . The "M2" in the video is the fourth 9.15 airframe(no 154), which was used as prototype for the tandem seat design and later also became the prototype MiG-35. Well the extra seat will obviously add some weight, but apart from the modified forward fuselage/cockpit, its essentially the same airframe

Well there is the one in the post by MA_VMF just below the one you quoted.

On the subject of IFF check out this cockpit photo of a Hungarian 9.12b..

No in their announcement, ED very clearly spcified it as the 9.12 variant exported to Warsaw Pact countries - i.e. 9.12A. As Foxbat155 said, this variant has the triple pin antenna beside KOLS and a triangular orange antenna(for "Parol" IFF) on the underside of the fuselage, while the 9.12b has the triple antenna in both places.

Not off hand - unfortunately these days authoritative sources for the Hungarian airforce tend to be all about their new Gripens. But IMO its common knowledge. The 9.12B is often referred to as the "MiG-29B" - don´t know how official that designation is, but if you look around you should find lots of references to that in relation the the Hungarian airforce.

Stop reading Yefim Gordon The Hungarian MiG-29s were indeed delivered as part of a debt settlement with Russia, but this was after the Warsaw Pact was dissolved and the MiG-29s they got were the 9.12B variant.

Hungarian 9.12B.

Yeah so I guess it would be a case of practical ability to exploit maximum detection range better when under GCI, rather than there being any technical diffferene in mean detection range, since this is down to general radar specs(antenna size, output power, PRF) and target parameters RCS, aspect), which remain the same. My thoughts exactly.

Yeah it sounds odd to me too. The only difference I have come across has to do with detection being faster - i.e. when under GCI control, the radar scans a in more narrow sector, because the general location of the target has already been established by GCI and the onboard radar cued to look in that direction prior to activation.