MiG-29G

Allright, that´s what i thought it should be.. Will the status of the salvo mode be shown anywhere in the cockpit? The manual doesn´t show anything concering that...

Unfortunately no... there is no indication simulated in DCS apart from bombs and missiles when it goes for HUD (look at the pylon number). Gun none. In real jet it can be observed also by the switch position.

Interesting information (as I also got the wrong impression reading online that the R-27R1 designation was for the export and slightly downgraded variant).

 

There used to be a website about the German MiG-29 squadron and there were some pilot impressions on the missiles posted and I do remember it mentioning how they were disappointed with the R-27R range. They never mentioned the R1 variant, though.

 

Can you please comment if the plane could carry a mixed R-60MK and R-73 loadout (as I read that it wasn't possible, at least on the initial standard) and if so, how would you switch between those?

 

Also, if you can comment on the performance of the N019 radar compared to e.g. the APG-65 installed on the F-4F Phantoms later on?

As I mentioned earlier the R-27R1 came in the later years of MiG-29G service. If I had to compare it to a Sparrow variant I would say it is like an AIM-7F whereas the R-27ER is comparable to the AIM-7M in overall perfomance only with greater range. Keep in mind that this is a very rough comparison, of course. I chose this broad comparison only for a rough performance picture. The R-27 family underwent constant upgrades (just like the Sparrow) and there are much improved R-27ER1 and ET1s nowadays.

Concerning the mixed R-60MK / R-73 loadout I can say it is possible to load them in this configuration but only R-73s on inner pylons (stations 1 & 2) and R-60MKs on the outer pylons (stations 3,4,5 & 6) as the pylon selector in our G model allowed switching between inner and outer pylons only (two way switch). Personally, I never saw an G model in that configuration but it might have been loaded on the GT. The G normally flew with R-27s on the inner pylons.

The performance of the APG-65GY is covered pretty good in the aviation press. A comparison between the APG-65 and the GAF´s N019 (simplified) radar is interesting, though. A short example: in the N019´s Head-on mode (V-mode/Encounter) the detection range of a typical 3sq m target would be around 60-70 km in ideal conditions. Mostly you had 50 km. Tracking was possible between 40-60 km but mostly it was 40-50 km. Also, the target resolution was far from optimum. Group targets were only discernible when their seperation was 5-8 km. So, getting a good SA picture was pretty hard. The APG-65GY on the other hand is a whole different story. Even when used with the old radar display in the F-4F it had roughly 50% better detection range and the target resolution was far better. It also had a RAID mode which helped a lot to create SA. You can generally say a MiG-29G pitted in a BVR scenarion over open terrain against an F-4F with APG-65GY and AIM-120Bs stood no chance of survival when the F-4Fs did their homework. Furthermore, the APG-65GY had several AG modes which the N019 in the MiG-29G never had.

As I mentioned earlier the R-27R1 came in the later years of MiG-29G service. If I had to compare it to a Sparrow variant I would say it is like an AIM-7F whereas the R-27ER is comparable to the AIM-7M in overall perfomance only with greater range. Keep in mind that this is a very rough comparison, of course. I chose this broad comparison only for a rough performance picture. The R-27 family underwent constant upgrades (just like the Sparrow) and there are much improved R-27ER1 and ET1s nowadays.

Ah, OK, I wasn't thinking that the old stocks needed replacing and that there might have been subsequent purchases (e.g. from Ukraine which manufactured those).

Concerning the mixed R-60MK / R-73 loadout I can say it is possible to load them in this configuration but only R-73s on inner pylons (stations 1 & 2) and R-60MKs on the outer pylons (stations 3,4,5 & 6) as the pylon selector in our G model allowed switching between inner and outer pylons only (two way switch). Personally, I never saw an G model in that configuration but it might have been loaded on the GT. The G normally flew with R-27s on the inner pylons.

So, it wouldn't have been possible to carry R-27's (1,2), R-73's (3,4) and R-60's (5,6)?

I understand it's a two-way switch, but some older translated manual mentions that it defines the order of selection of pylons for the firing (i.e. inner - 1,2 then 3,4 then 5,6, outer - 5,6 then 3,4, then 1,2).

The performance of the APG-65GY is covered pretty good in the aviation press. A comparison between the APG-65 and the GAF´s N019 (simplified) radar is interesting, though. A short example: in the N019´s Head-on mode (V-mode/Encounter) the detection range of a typical 3sq m target would be around 60-70 km in ideal conditions. Mostly you had 50 km. Tracking was possible between 40-60 km but mostly it was 40-50 km. Also, the target resolution was far from optimum. Group targets were only discernible when their seperation was 5-8 km. So, getting a good SA picture was pretty hard. The APG-65GY on the other hand is a whole different story. Even when used with the old radar display in the F-4F it had roughly 50% better detection range and the target resolution was far better. It also had a RAID mode which helped a lot to create SA. You can generally say a MiG-29G pitted in a BVR scenarion over open terrain against an F-4F with APG-65GY and AIM-120Bs stood no chance of survival when the F-4Fs did their homework. Furthermore, the APG-65GY had several AG modes which the N019 in the MiG-29G never had.

Thanks for all the details. I'm not really asking directly about the APG-65 (which is still classified, I guess), but I'm more interested in just how much worse the N019 was and what issues it had (I mentioned the APG-65 as it's roughly from the same period as the N019 and you might have had experience with it in the GAF).

E.g. 5-8 kms resolution sounds pretty bad; so, on an intercept it could only lock on to the first contact in the group? Did the resolution improve as the distance got closer?

How usable was it in look-down mode regarding the lock range and stability?

I remember reading that its Ts100 computers couldn't really handle the TWS mode and would frequently overload and that this was corrected later on with Ts100M computers which were first introduced with the 9.13S, but were supposedly installed in the older variants later on during those big overhauls.

On our G version stations 3, 4, 5 & 6 had to be the same missile type. Firing order was automatically defined (wing closer to target fired missile). This was dangerous, however. You could end up with one empty wing and one full of missiles (thank god, you experienced such things in simulator training, only - absolutely no fun flying then). There is even a special section in the MiG-29G manual that tells you how to deal with that joy of flying...

And yes, the old Ts100 computers were bad. There were indeed problems with look-down and lock stability because they were simply overloaded with information input. They had a pretty low MTBF, also. When the TsVM was retrofitted you could make far better use of the SNP mode. With the radar in the G model you could expect to detect a very low flying target at 40km or below (depending on RCS) and tracking at 30km or below. On the plus side the TsVM improved the reliabilty of the N019 and the ECCM was improved, too. That package gave the MiG-29G at least a reasonable radar to work with. And yes, resolution got better the closer you came to the contact but concerning the fact that SNP went to auto-stt when in launch parameters didn't really help sometimes. You had to be good working with the N019. You had to learn a lot of lessons...

Great post, thanks.

I presume that before the aircraft were taken over by the GAF, that the datalink and IFF panels for WP were removed, right? Would that make it closer to 9.12B then or there were some radar differences between 9.12A and B (like ECCM and such)?

It's a shame that nobody's developing a DCS: MiG-29 (9.12A or B) module as I'm sure that ex-pilots like yourself could help them a lot to get it as right as possible (especially regarding the flight and radar model). I doubt that any performance details on the Soviet systems inside them would be classified still, right?

Great post, thanks.

 

I presume that before the aircraft were taken over by the GAF, that the datalink and IFF panels for WP were removed, right? Would that make it closer to 9.12B then or there were some radar differences between 9.12A and B (like ECCM and such)?

 

It's a shame that nobody's developing a DCS: MiG-29 (9.12A or B) module as I'm sure that ex-pilots like yourself could help them a lot to get it as right as possible (especially regarding the flight and radar model). I doubt that any performance details on the Soviet systems inside them would be classified still, right?

The EGAF standard MiG-29 had the then brand new and top secret russian Parol IFF system. These systems were deleted by russian technicians even before GAF personnel could get their hands on the aircraft. Therefore, we had a completely different system in the GAF for NATO use.

The 9.12B was heavily downgraded in terms of radar performance (look-down, range, processor capability, etc.), IFF, ECCM and so on. These aircraft can hardly be compared to Warsaw Pact country versions. Iraqi versions, for instance, were more like EGAF MiG-23MLs in terms of overall performance. So, the MiG-29G is far ahead, though still pretty basic like the russian 9.12 model.

Maybe someday there is a full fidelity DCS MiG-29. Would certainly be a dream come true for me. But then again hard data on radar and weapons remain classified, still. Surely it IS possible to obtain the data on all of this and I am sure ED which is already working with a real MiG-29 pilot has access to certain aspects of the more closer guarded secrets. The performance data they used for the new flight model is excellent in my opinion. You can even turn the aircraft only by rudder at low speeds which is something only a few people might know about that haven´t flown the aircraft. Anyway, we will see what happens I guess...

The EGAF standard MiG-29 had the then brand new and top secret russian Parol IFF system. These systems were deleted by russian technicians even before GAF personnel could get their hands on the aircraft. Therefore, we had a completely different system in the GAF for NATO use.

Yes, of course, I rmember reading that the Russians removed the datalink and IFF and such (like e.g. nuclear weapon arming panels for the types that could carry them, not sure if the 9.12A had those?). I was just wondering what were the concrete differences in systems between 9.12A and B.

The 9.12B was heavily downgraded in terms of radar performance (look-down, range, processor capability, etc.), IFF, ECCM and so on. These aircraft can hardly be compared to Warsaw Pact country versions. Iraqi versions, for instance, were more like EGAF MiG-23MLs in terms of overall performance. So, the MiG-29G is far ahead, though still pretty basic like the russian 9.12 model.

I remember there was an export version of the Ts100 processors and of course, there were no WP IFF systems nor the GCI Lazur datalink. Was the downgrade of the radar performance just due to the weaker processors/software or were there some other differences in the equipment that you're aware of?

Maybe someday there is a full fidelity DCS MiG-29. Would certainly be a dream come true for me. But then again hard data on radar and weapons remain classified, still. Surely it IS possible to obtain the data on all of this and I am sure ED which is already working with a real MiG-29 pilot has access to certain aspects of the more closer guarded secrets. The performance data they used for the new flight model is excellent in my opinion. You can even turn the aircraft only by rudder at low speeds which is something only a few people might know about that haven´t flown the aircraft. Anyway, we will see what happens I guess...

Classified as in e.g. classified in the German Air Force (who has such documents) due to other NATO countries operating them? So, for instance if Poland and Slovakia replace them in the near future, could such data be declassified or not? Or there are some worldwide considerations involved as well?

As far as I remember the downgrade for the 9.12B was indeed because of less capable software and processors with the above mentioned consequences. The same issue also affected the OEPrNK-29 EO complex which had shorter detection and tracking range and as far as I know there were differences in the navigation suite. The 9.12Bs (some of them, at least) had the older A-312 navigation system. I do not know which type of INS system software was used on these aircraft, however. The GAF MiG-29G 9.12A had the CWU A-340-071M v.2204/v.2205, for example. And the 9.12Bs IFF systems were of the old Kremni-2 type unless specified otherwise for the customer. Some countries like Iraq only got deliveries of early batch R-27Rs and apparently these had serious flaws. Furthermore, these 9.12Bs were fitted with early model RD-33 engines with considerably shorter engine life. If there are more things to add to the list somebody else might contribute to our little discussion here...

A short note on the data declassification issue. While considerations on that issue are indeed on a more global level I do not want to get into more deeply I think when Poland and Slovakia terminate their MiG-29 operations declassification on radar and weapon data might happen in the next years to come as was the case with available information about the MiG-23 and her "nifty" little secrets...

As far as I remember the downgrade for the 9.12B was indeed because of less capable software and processors with the above mentioned consequences. The same issue also affected the OEPrNK-29 EO complex which had shorter detection and tracking range and as far as I know there were differences in the navigation suite. The 9.12Bs (some of them, at least) had the older A-312 navigation system. I do not know which type of INS system software was used on these aircraft, however. The GAF MiG-29G 9.12A had the CWU A-340-071M v.2204/v.2205, for example. And the 9.12Bs IFF systems were of the old Kremni-2 type unless specified otherwise for the customer. Some countries like Iraq only got deliveries of early batch R-27Rs and apparently these had serious flaws. Furthermore, these 9.12Bs were fitted with early model RD-33 engines with considerably shorter engine life. If there are more things to add to the list somebody else might contribute to our little discussion here...

AFAIK on the 9.12B, the RD-33 "combat" regime was removed(engines can only run in "normal" mode), although I suspect that this might have had more to do with warranty - i.e. that the use of "combat" mode is rather detrimental to engine life and comes with heavy restrictions as to how much it can be used.

A short note on the data declassification issue. While considerations on that issue are indeed on a more global level I do not want to get into more deeply I think when Poland and Slovakia terminate their MiG-29 operations declassification on radar and weapon data might happen in the next years to come as was the case with available information about the MiG-23 and her "nifty" little secrets...

Well I don't know - sometimes that isn't enough. E.g. I have been looking for information on the MiG-29M(9.15)/MiG-29K(9.31) prototypes for ages, but despite these being nearly 30 years old and never put into production - let alone operational service, there is very little information to be found.

Whereas with the "baseline" 9.12, you can dig out an amazing amount - e.g. check this page(from a Ukrainian military institute):

https://studfiles.net/preview/5383872/

Its a study of the N019(and N001) radar, that goes into such excruciating detail, that you will hardly understand what you are reading, unless you are a qualified radar technician :D

Well I don't know - sometimes that isn't enough. E.g. I have been looking for information on the MiG-29M(9.15)/MiG-29K(9.31) prototypes for ages, but despite these being nearly 30 years old and never put into production - let alone operational service, there is very little information to be found.

It's not really a relevant comparison, IMHO. Those are prototypes that weren't even used, let alone exported so there are no operational manuals anyway. Plus, they're Russian prototypes where the radar system, WCS, etc. are probably closely related to those used on newer variants, plus the weapons are still used as well. Why would they release any information on those?

Compared to e.g. Polish and Slovakian MiG-29's which are in NATO so once no NATO nation is operating them, they don't really need to care if some pilots with operational experience talk about the capabilities and weaknesses of the radar and the weapons.

Nice link, though. If somebody could only be bothered to translate it to proper English..

It's not really a relevant comparison, IMHO. Those are prototypes that weren't even used, let alone exported so there are no operational manuals anyway.

Who said anything about operational manuals? - there is a difference between no information at all and a complete operator's manual with every system explained in detail and how to operate them. The point was that being old prototypes, there is no current operator to consider in regards to easing on the secrecy.

While I agree that the following..

Plus, they're Russian prototypes where the radar system, WCS, etc. are probably closely related to those used on newer variants, plus the weapons are still used as well. Why would they release any information on those?

...is the probable reason for this particular example, there are many other where the relationship between age/operation and declassification is less than obvious.

Compared to e.g. Polish and Slovakian MiG-29's which are in NATO so once no NATO nation is operating them, they don't really need to care if some pilots with operational experience talk about the capabilities and weaknesses of the radar and the weapons.

Well it seems to me that pilots with operational experience on the MiG-29 have already been doing that for ages :) .

Nice link, though. If somebody could only be bothered to translate it to proper English..

Yes that would help :)

Who said anything about operational manuals? - there is a difference between no information at all and a complete operator's manual with every system explained in detail and how to operate them. The point was that being old prototypes, there is no current operator to consider in regards to easing on the secrecy.

Is such data you expect readily available on western prototypes? E.g. YF-23? :)

I mean, I don't see who would release such information. Prototypes belong to private companies AFAIK, why would they release any info at all?

Is such data you expect readily available on western prototypes? E.g. YF-23? :)

Not quite the same thing though is it? :)

I mean, I don't see who would release such information. Prototypes belong to private companies AFAIK, why would they release any info at all?

Are you asking why a company, having produced an advanced product, would want to tell anyone about it? - who would otherwise?.

My experience is that you are much more likely to find good information from the companies that produce the equipment, than from military/government sources. In the past you could find detailed information on things like Russian radars and other equipment, while lately they all seem to have removed it stating only the most obvious superficial information and that its "world leading" with "no analogues". Of course it could just be down to them all having individually adopted a different policy in this regard, but it does suggest that something else is at play :) .

As I already explained the MiG-29 deserves more love, symbol of a success of Russian fighter plane..

The G model should have a very different cockpit !

As I already explained the MiG-29 deserves more love, symbol of a success of Russian fighter plane..

 

The G model should have a very different cockpit !

All three variants(currently in DCS) should have a dedicated cockpit. IMHO there is little point in having three moderately different variants, if those moderate differences aren't replicated.

I would suggest:

MiG-29(9.12): old style fuel gauge and only compatible with CL tank. No ECM and only the R-27R variant.

MiG-29S(9.13S): new style fuel gauge and wing drop tank compatibility. ECM and all variants of R-27 + R-77.

MiG-29G(9.12A): either type fuel gauge/with or without ext. wing tanks. No ECM and only R-27R variant. Cockpit with Imperial instruments, German voice warnings and other equipment modifications(graphic representation).

MiG-29G(9.12A): either type fuel gauge/with or without ext. wing tanks. No ECM and only R-27R variant. Cockpit with Imperial instruments, German voice warnings and other equipment modifications(graphic representation).

That sounds a bit too comprehensive for an FC3 add-on, especially the navigation add-ons. Not likely to happen, IMHO. I'd presume these modifications were done in phases? Perhaps they could represent some phase of the conversion to MiG-29G, definitely before the TACAN add-on.

But, they could easily add the 9.13, as well. Same external model as the 9.13S, ECM yes, wing drop tanks no, no extra A2A weapons over the 9.12.

That sounds a bit too comprehensive for an FC3 add-on, especially the navigation add-ons. Not likely to happen, IMHO.

Not sure what you are talking about Dudikoff. If you are referring to my "other equipment modifications", then I explicitly said "(graphic representation)" - as in just alternate 3D representation in the cockpit....not the associated functionality.

The rest - imperial read-out, German voice warnings are(or were) already there.

I'd presume these modifications were done in phases? Perhaps they could represent some phase of the conversion to MiG-29G, definitely before the TACAN add-on.

Thats what I am suggesting - hence my "either fuel gauge/with or without ext. tanks" - i.e. before or after the ext. wing tank modification. But again - doesn't really matter with the TACAN add-on since it would only be a 3D modification to the cockpit.

Eagle have already said a hundred times that they won't consider any further system's implementation/additions unless a full fidelity module is pursued(and that they have no current plans in that regard), so it would be pointless to suggest functional additions.

But, they could easily add the 9.13, as well. Same external model as the 9.13S, ECM yes, wing drop tanks no, no extra A2A weapons over the 9.12.

Wing drop tanks yes :) - these were introduced with the 9.13 along with the extra internal fuel capacity. The only difference between the 9.13 and the 9.13S had to do with the modified WCS and extra air-to-air armament.

Not sure what you are talking about Dudikoff. If you are referring to my "other equipment modifications", then I explicitly said "(graphic representation)" - as in just alternate 3D representation in the cockpit....not the associated functionality.

 

The rest - imperial read-out, German voice warnings are(or were) already there.

I know you've said graphical presentation only, but making all those changes in the cockpit and not to have them functional seems like a wasted effort.

Thats what I am suggesting - hence my "either fuel gauge/with or without ext. tanks" - i.e. before or after the ext. wing tank modification. But again - doesn't really matter with the TACAN add-on since it would only be a 3D modification to the cockpit.

Yeah, but there's more than just TACAN. There's the new IFF panel, new radio panels, anti-collision lights, etc. Too much work, IMHO. More likely they'll just keep it as it is or ditch the separate G variant and add an early Luftwaffe skin for the 9.12.

Wing drop tanks yes :) - these were introduced with the 9.13 along with the extra internal fuel capacity. The only difference between the 9.13 and the 9.13S had to do with the modified WCS and extra air-to-air armament.

Yeah, you're probably right. I quick checked on some webpage and got the information that it was retroactively fitted to some 9.12's and 9.13's..

I know you've said graphical presentation only, but making all those changes in the cockpit and not to have them functional seems like a wasted effort.

:huh: - then you could say the same about the current pit...no?

Yeah, but there's more than just TACAN. There's the new IFF panel, new radio panels, anti-collision lights, etc. Too much work, IMHO. More likely they'll just keep it as it is or ditch the separate G variant and add an early Luftwaffe skin for the 9.12.

When you have the pit as such, those modifications are not that hard to do ;) .

Yeah, you're probably right. I quick checked on some webpage and got the information that it was retroactively fitted to some 9.12's and 9.13's..

The 9.13 had the new fuel gauge and wing tank addition from the production line. It was an integral part(along with the increased internal fuel capacity) of the modifications from 9.12 to 9.13 in order to address the "short legs" of the MiG-29.

It (ext. wing tank modification) was back-fitted to a few 9.12ss - I don't know how many, but at least I remember a 9.12 and a 9.51 that went abroad for airshows in the early nineties - thats probably where the Luftwaffe got the idea for theirs :) .

:huh: - then you could say the same about the current pit...no?

 

When you have the pit as such, those modifications are not that hard to do ;)

Well, they had to make a new 3D-pit for the FC3 modules. They didn't have to make 3 variants of it for the FC3 modules since they're not in-depth.

But, of course, it does feel like a bit of a waste not to have fully developed modules out of these in the end. At least the MiG-29 9.12/9.13 are no longer in Russian Air Force service so perhaps they could develop a full module, at least the 9.12B.

Back to the cockpits, if it's not that hard to do, it could also be done by the community as a mod, then.

The 9.13 had the new fuel gauge and wing tank addition from the production line. It was an integral part(along with the increased internal fuel capacity) of the modifications from 9.12 to 9.13 in order to address the "short legs" of the MiG-29.

Yeah, got it. But, speaking of, IMHO it's not the best way of addressing them for an interceptor since they remove its primary weapons. And the increase of the fuel capacity from the spine is like minimal at best since apparently the not so useful jammer takes most of the gained space.

If the wing tanks could have been fitted to some other pair of stations, that would have been far better (though I'm not sure if there's enough clearance for the R-27's if the fuel tanks were mounted on the mid wing stations; maybe yes since they're rail launched and not catapulted, but probably too close for comfort).

They put the wing-tanks on so that the MiG-29G could do ferry flights. It was not meant to be for a "combat" loadout. Polish Air Force still use the MiG-29G/GT for air policeing and other tasks. Usually loaded with 2-4 R60MK IR missiles. No need to haul and stress more expensive R27 or R73 missiles on those kind of missions.

When the MiG29G came to be, the wall was gone. Soviet union was gone. Putting on extra tanks and make it NATO compliant made a lot of sense from a training perspective. Ofcourse MiG29G was also used in a air defence role, but that was not the reason it was modified to carry wing-tanks.

They put the wing-tanks on so that the MiG-29G could do ferry flights. It was not meant to be for a "combat" loadout. Polish Air Force still use the MiG-29G/GT for air policeing and other tasks. Usually loaded with 2-4 R60MK IR missiles. No need to haul and stress more expensive R27 or R73 missiles on those kind of missions.

 

When the MiG29G came to be, the wall was gone. Soviet union was gone. Putting on extra tanks and make it NATO compliant made a lot of sense from a training perspective. Ofcourse MiG29G was also used in a air defence role, but that was not the reason it was modified to carry wing-tanks.

Are you answering my post? If you read carefully, you'll notice it was referring to the 9.13 changes to improve the limited range; it was not questioning the MiG-29G mods since the type was kept mainly due to its training and intelligence value.

Ok. I thought you reffered to the MiG-29G in the MiG-29G thread ;)

But even when 9.13 has ability to carry wing-tanks, I still don't think MiG29 was meant to do interceptions or combat missions with the tanks on. It is a short range fighter, built to be heavily guided by GCI. It is supposed to operate close to home. Increased internal fuel on the 9.13 was probably an attempt to extend the flight time during combat missions while still retaining all hardpoints.

Well, they had to make a new 3D-pit for the FC3 modules. They didn't have to make 3 variants of it for the FC3 modules since they're not in-depth.

Then you could say the same about the Su-27/Su-33 or Su-25/Su-25T....don't see why not having accurate cockpits for each MiG-29 version is more acceptable.

Back to the cockpits, if it's not that hard to do, it could also be done by the community as a mod, then.

No it couldn't. The community does not have the MiG-29 pit in an open format to work on - ED does.

Yeah, got it. But, speaking of, IMHO it's not the best way of addressing them for an interceptor since they remove its primary weapons.

Well..

And the increase of the fuel capacity from the spine is like minimal at best since apparently the not so useful jammer takes most of the gained space.

IIRC its some 250-280 L extra - perhaps not much in the grand scale of things, but good to have. Who says the jammer is "not so useful"?.....some guy on the internet? :) .

If the wing tanks could have been fitted to some other pair of stations, that would have been far better (though I'm not sure if there's enough clearance for the R-27's if the fuel tanks were mounted on the mid wing stations; maybe yes since they're rail launched and not catapulted, but probably too close for comfort).

Considering the weight and drag, wouldn't it make more sense to make another pair of stations compatible with the R-27 though?

Then you could say the same about the Su-27/Su-33 or Su-25/Su-25T....don't see why not having accurate cockpits for each MiG-29 version is more acceptable.

 

No it couldn't. The community does not have the MiG-29 pit in an open format to work on - ED does.

Well, those are separate modules and this one is just MiG-29. It's not called "MiG-29G" which is kind of a relic from Lock On. I guess it won't be acceptable so it will simply be removed from the game when MAC comes out :)

But, you're right about the community cockpit mod, they can only change textures, of course.

IIRC its some 250-280 L extra - perhaps not much in the grand scale of things, but good to have. Who says the jammer is "not so useful"?.....some guy on the internet? :)

240 is the maximum reference I've seen and the most often quoted one, though some sources claimed less (from 75 liters to 240). Still, that's like what? 5% increase?

Regarding the jammer, there were some rumors that it wasn't really that reliable, but of course, no reliable information. On the other hand, it was retained on the MiG-29M IIRC which I presume wouldn't be the case if it was useless.

Not sure if any of the 9.13SE export customers bought the export version of the jammer? I'd presume these were removed from those Moldovan 9.13's (together with IFF systems and nuclear bomb panels) that were sold to US in the end.

Considering the weight and drag, wouldn't it make more sense to make another pair of stations compatible with the R-27 though?

I've seen a photo with an APU-470 on the mid station, but I guess there are some issues with that location since it wasn't introduced operationally.

If I had to guess, there might be stability issues with asymmetrical loadout (e.g. when one missile is fired) as the plane already doesn't handle such a situation on the inboard pylons very well.

Having the fuel tanks there wouldn't present such issues, but such weight might be too much to handle for those stations.

But, OK, the problem was solved with the 9.13S and R-77 missiles somewhat or the SMT modification (though, the original proposal with new wings with two extra stations was even better).

It's a shame that Soviet Union didn't last somewhat longer, as some much improved variants might have had entered service even in limited numbers (the original MiG-29M, Su-27M, MiG-31M, Yak-41, etc.).