Seaeagle

Maybe not, but according to some sources, the rounds were apparently ~30 years old, so maybe that had something to do with the high failure rate.

Yeah - I guess the atmosphere is always going to be rather tense in this sort of situation, but when you know about all the issues they had to deal with, it kind of put things into perspective.

Correct. In the late 90íes MIG offered the SMT as "SMT-1" and SMT-2" with the N019MP and Zhuk-ME respectively as the only difference. I don't know if the N019MP is still an option in this day and age, but given that SMT is really an upgrade package for the "baseline" MiG-29, it might be still be available as a cheaper solution(than Zhuk-ME). The "glass cockpit" was always part of the upgrade even with the 9-17 prototype. It certainly looks a lot better than the 9.19 anyway.

Well isn't it obvious why I find it funny? . The footage presents the interception of those drones as a great success and comes across almost as a sort of promotional video for the Danish defence("Forsvaret - fordi noget er værd at kæmpe for"), which is in stark contrast to the actual circumstances surrounding that incident - i.e that, during the attack, the ship's airdefence system was down and inoperable for half an hour(!) due to multiple system's falures with the crew having to resort to using the deck guns instead....which also largely failed because the proximity fuzing didn't work for half the fired rounds causing them to detonate shortly after leaving the barrels. It has been the main news story on Danish media for the past week and turned into a huge scandal that ultimately caused the sacking of the chief of defence.

Except that; - the 9.12A that we are getting is the Warsaw Pact export variant, which wasn't supplied to applicaple nations until the very end of the 80'ies and as such actually better suited for an early 90'ies scenario. - The Warsaw Pact nations were all in Eastern Europe, while nations in the Middle East(such as Iraq, Iran and Syria) that operrate MiG-29s got the lower spec 9.12B variant or/and got them later. Probably not the biggest realism omissions for your suggested scenario, but a "REAL 80's setup"......not quite.:)

LOL..

It is. The Su-27 and MiG-29 do not have a WoW lock for the landing gear and its not because the aircraft are old and crude, - it was a deliberate design decision. Besides, in the real aircraft, the gear handle is locked in the up and down position and you need to pull the handle out to release the lock before you can move it up or down. So you cannot raise the landing gear on the ground simply by accidently striking the handle with your hand.

Yes and I interpret that as in the original configuration, which in turn means the following country options: - Poland. - East Germany - Czechoslovakia - Romania - Bulgaria Poland got an initial batch as a Warsaw Pact memeber(and later bought both the former East German ones after having been operated and modified by Luftwaffe as well as the Czech ones, while Slovakia kept theirs). Like you said, the Romanian ones were withdrawn from service years ago. AFAIK the Bulgarian are the only ones still in the original 9.12A config. Yugoslavia was never part of the Warsaw Pact and therefore got the 9.12B variant. Hungaria was a Warsaw Pact member, but didn't get their MiG-29s in that capacity, but only later as part of a debt settlement with Russia and therefore also got the 9.12B variant. Moldova inherited a number of MiG-29s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but those were the 9.13 variant - I don't think they kept any of them(they were in bad shape anyway), but sold them all to the US except for a couple of airframes they gave to Romania as a gift.

There were two export variants of the 9.12 - 9.12A for Warsaw pact allies and 9.12B for other nations. The former is practically identical to the Soviet 9.12, while the 9.12B " commercial" variant is somewhat "downgraded" on a few areas. They did(both export variants) - and the picture shows this. The "full spec" version looks like this: Someone wrote "izd 9.13" caption on the photo, but I have seen this panel in a Soviet 9.12 as well.

I think that would depend on the altitude. Or(and more likely) how it affects the stability of the aircraft as such. Anyway, if you read the German Luftwaffe manual, overall airspeed limits and airspeed limitations for safe ejection of tanks are specified. Maximum allowed airspeed with CL tank is stated as Mach 1.5 Jettison speed limits: Min speed: 240 KIAS, max: Mach 0.85 Maximum allowed airspeed with wing drop tanks: Mach 0.9 Jettison speed limits: Min speed: 300 KIAS, max: Mach 0.9

Yeah I suspected I was confusing the two. On another note, looking at the "missile corporation" site, there are now 3 new versions of the missile on offer;' - RVV-MD with 60 deg off boresight designation angle - RVV-MDL - same as above, but with a laser fuze instead of radar, - RVV-MD2 with increased launch range and a different seeker with radio correction channel - i.e. LOAL capability! Продукция (ktrv.ru)

The 4,5 x 4,5 degrees is the immedeate FOV(cone) - when the seeker is looking in a particular direction, this is the area in which the seeker can pick up a target. 75 degrees is the gimbal limit of the seeker - i.e. the maximum deflection angle of the cone 45 degrees is the maximum off boresight angle at which you can designate a target, There is a difference between this and the above in order to ensure that the seeker doesn't "gimbal out" before the missile has time to align itself with the target after launch. BTW I believe that the seeker options in the chart are Ukrainian - IIRC the original seeker of the R-73 is called "36T" or something like that(or is that the seeker for the R-27T?...cannot remember).

CVN-76 and 77 are quite different from the previous vessels of the class and among other things use a 3-wire arrestor system - so apart from 3D modification work, a change to the code concerning this would also be required. ED said they want to include all five vessels of the Roosevelt subclass, which quite frankly should be more than enough variation for the Nimitz class of aircraft carriers - especially when you consider all the other things concerning the naval warfare aspect of the sim in dire need of attention. There are also many other ship types, which would add a lot more to the sim than yet more versions of the Nimitz class - e.g. for the US fleet I would much rather have more versions of the Arleigh Burke class(at least flight I) not to mention a supply ship like the Henry J Kaiser class.

I suspect what they meant was that they weren't able to get an agreement with MIG and don't want to risk getting into trouble without it, but if someone else with the right connections manages to get a license, then ED would be ok with them developing a MiG-29 module for DCS. I am pretty sure they never suggested this as a possibility because such a third party would be out of reach of Russian legislation.

I don't think they did - just that the community interpreted it that way.