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.

You are welcome .

The 9.13M didn't have(still don't) the re-designed cockpit layout of the -SMT and was based on the 9.13 airframe(without the large SMT hump). So the -SM was the first multirole upgrade for the baseline MiG-29 before the more refined -SMT one came along and is still being offered as a "budget" solution. ECM can be provided via external pods. BTW the -SMT also had the N019MP radar originally and only later got the Zhuk-M - at one point MIG operated with two -SMT standards("SMT-1" and "SMT-2"), for which the only difference was the choice of radars.

The MiG-29SM (9.13M) pre-dates the -SMT and was the MiG-29S with the addition of guided air-to-ground armament. This was achieved through further modification to the N019 radar (N019MP) with air-to-surface modes and OLS-M EOS (from MiG-29M). I have seen an old grainy photo of the cockpit once and it was just the original "baseline" pit with the IPV replaced by something that looked like a CRT MFD like the ones used for the old MiG-29M/K test aircraft. AFAIK the Serbian MiG-29s were indeed upgraded to a more recent -SM standard - i.e. involving a new EOS with a TV channel and presumably upgraded N019 radar allowing the use of TV and radar guided A2G armament.

I beg to differ . I don't know where you got that quote from, but its just not correct. For a start the 9.13, with which this feature was introduced only came about in 1987, so by 1989 it was definately not a common back-fit thing on 9.12s - the # 315 was accompanied on those trips by a MiG-29UB(blue 304) and it had the wingtanks too. What I meant in relation to airshows, was that for those taking place across "the pond", the wing tank mod was absolutely needed in order to get it there. The German Luftwaffe also purchased the wingtank mod for some of their MiG-29s for the same reason.

I am pretty sure it was the one. This aircraft was used by MIG for western airshow visits in that period(hence the wingtank modification). The above photo was apparently taken in august 1989 at Elmendorf AB in Alaska, where it made a refuelling stop prior to attending an airshow at Abbotsford in Canada. https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/29547 I know that the 315 also appeared at the Dayton airshow in 1990 as well as at Farnborough in the UK.

Yeah I know, but many other things about the 9.13 are too. I could be wrong, but my impression is that F2 hopes the information he has requested through FOI will reveal a level of information about the aircraft beyond what has previously been available.

Just checked up on this in the Luftwaffe manual: - the dial in question to set desired bingo state is labelled; "ТОПЛ ВОЗНР" (fuel return). - according to the luftwaffe manual the actual voice warning in the MiG-29G is; "BINGO FUEL - BINGO FUEL - BINGO FUEL"(but is obviously going to be something else in Russian).

Voice warning. As you know, the original fuel system has a fixed bingo state indicated by a red line at the bottom of the fuelgauge tape, which is accompanied by a voice warning saying "550 kilogram remaining"(or something to that effect in Russian). This remains on the modified fuel system, but in addition an optional amount can be set via a dial on the fuel selection panel(located on the left side of the fusebox behind the ejection seat) - when this amount is reached, it triggers a voice warning IIRC saying something like "fuel -fuel" . I guess the idea being, that rather than just being notified when you are about to run out of fuel, the additional warning can be set for a particular mission profile, so that the pilot gets a heads-up about when it is time to to start returning to base.

Sure, but then thats already very well documented - I am sure ED wouldn't have taken it on otherwise Yes if there is any information to be had - i.e. that the ECM installation was still there on those aircraft. I remember talking to a former MiG-29 technician of the Romanian airforce, who told me that Romania recieved a couple of 9.13 airframes from Moldova(IIRC as a gift). But upon examining them, they were dissapointed to find that the ECM components had long since been removed from them. Well fuel hump - its basically just an enarged version of fuel tank no. 1, but the fuel system as such was modified in a few ways, such as the possibility of carrying wing drop tanks, new fuel gauge to go with it as well as an extra feature for setting optional bingo fuel state(a dial on the fuel panel behind the ejection seat). But then this modified fuel system is already very well documented in the Luftwaffe flight manual, since its basically this that they purchased as a kit for their 9.12 aircraft.

The jets the US purchased from Moldova were of the standard Soviet 9.13 version though, which were left behind as the Soviet Union disintegrated and Moldova became an independant country. So its not the MiG-29S(9.13S) with the radar upgrade/R-77 compatibility and not an export item either.