announced DCS MiG-29A

[bies]

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

80s/90s BLUFOR would be much easier, they'd probably get finished faster, they'd be far easier to source material on, their weapons would be more simplified (i.e namely Fox 2s and Fox 1s).

 

Exactly.

(Maybe the word simplified is used in unfortunate way - here meaning simpler and realistic rather than simplified.)

 

AIM-120 is (and it has to remain) very much grossly simplyfied,

• with simple guidance logic which IRL was extensively upgraded and changed in every single variant with different algorithms for different situations - all of that strictly classified,
• generic arbitrary ECCM capabilities,
• lacking MPRF/HPRF active radar modes and their respective capabilities and limitations,
• how RL mid course update works,
• how pre selected tagret discrimination algorithms work,
• probably some one way/two way datalink functionality
• and with many more similar capabilities which we are not even allowed to know they existed and overall obvious and understandable guestimation due to all real parameters being strictly classified for obvious reasons.

Not even mentioning R-77 which was mostly just a prototype not even officially accepted by Russian Air Force untill recently and with different variant with every single parameter strictly classified all would have to be guestimated and made up.

 

Contrary 1980s AIM-7, R-27, AIM-9 up to M, AIM-54, R-73, R-60M, R-23, R-24 etc. are mostly declassified, shown their real effectiveness in real warfare as a point of reference, used A LOT simpler guidance logic with very simple electronics and all can be recreated in reasonably realistic way, incomparably more realistic than AMRAAM/AMRAAMski.

 

And - contrary to 1980s close maneuver air combat and variety of different but limited in effectiveness weapon systems with known capabilities - 2000s air combat depends solely on AMRAAM(ski), if this one system is guestimated, and it has to be for obvious reasons, the whole 2000s air combat is guestimated and questionable at best (and arguably far less attractive/varied/eventful/skill dependable/engaging at the same time).

 

That's why i think 1980s MiG-29 9.12 will be a gem  like all other similar timeframe modules Mi-24P, A-7E Corsair, A-6 Intruder, Mirage F.1, MiG-23MLA, Bo-105 and current F-14, Mirage 2000, Huey, Viggen etc.

Edited February 8, 2021 by bies

[Northstar98]

I absolutely, 100% agree @bies

Edited February 8, 2021 by Northstar98

[Dudikoff]

1 hour ago, bies said:

Not even mentioning R-77 which was mostly just a prototype not even officially accepted by Russian Air Force untill recently and with different variant with every single parameter strictly classified all would have to be guestimated and made up.

 

I agree with the need to push DCS to add more 80s options, but this is not really factually correct. IIRC, the missile was chosen by Soviet Air Force and the initial order of 200 missiles was made. But, Soviet Union collapsed and with it the financing of all the advanced fighter variants which would have used the missile (e.g. MiG-29M/K, Su-27M, MiG-31M, Yak-41, etc.). So, without money and any airplanes which could have used it (apart for about two dozen MiG-29 9.13S airframes), all the missiles made afterwards went to export as RVV-AE (to China, India, etc.) and Russian Air Force used its small stock for operational testing and integration (e.g. Su-27SM3, MiG-31BM, etc.) while waiting for more airframes to enter service and for the Russian companies to be actually able to produce the somewhat updated R-77-1 in any significant numbers because most of the Soviet missiles were produced by Artem in Ukraine and thus Russia had to develop their own production capabilities for them (TMC).

 

So, it wasn't really just a prototype, but being mostly exported should make it somewhat more likely to gain reliable data on it (perhaps when some of the smaller operators drops the carrying aircraft from service).

Edited February 8, 2021 by Dudikoff

[bies]

54 minutes ago, Dudikoff said:

 

I agree with the need to push DCS to add more 80s options, but this is not really factually correct. IIRC, the missile was chosen by Soviet Air Force and the initial order of 200 missiles was made. But, Soviet Union collapsed and with it the financing of all the advanced fighter variants which would have used the missile (e.g. MiG-29M/K, Su-27M, MiG-31M, Yak-41, etc.). So, without money and any airplanes which could have used it (apart for about two dozen MiG-29 9.13S airframes), all the missiles made afterwards went to export as RVV-AE (to China, India, etc.) and Russian Air Force used its small stock for operational testing and integration (e.g. Su-27SM3, MiG-31BM, etc.) while waiting for more airframes to enter service and for the Russian companies to be actually able to produce the somewhat updated R-77-1 in any numbers because most of the Soviet missiles were produced by Artem in Ukraine and thus Russia had to develop their own production capabilities for them (TMC).

 

So, it wasn't really just a prototype, but being mostly exported should make it somewhat more likely to gain reliable data on it.

 

 

I agree, i intentionally simplified things not wanting to dive deeper to avoid digression.

In reality of Russian air force it was just a short evaluation serie, USAF also receiver some ~100 AIM-120A in 1987, but also for evaluation, they didn't use them in Desert Storm inspite of having small number in the inventory.

 

I just can't agree only with one last statement, because we can't gain any reliable data for R-77 (or AMRAAM), not different guidance logic modes and algorithms used in different situations, now how mid course update work, no even close radar parameters or PRF modes, not it's microchip capabilities or memory used and algorithms for ECCM, not any probable IFF features, not it's datalink capabilities, no preselected target discrimination algorithms nor even precise kinematic performance. Namely nothing what is really decisive when it comes to it's real life effectiveness.

We also don't have access to the most important data: real life effectiveness in real life air warfare against real enemy as a point of reference.

R-77 is in active service is some air forces of today and disclosing any of that could ruin it's practical effectiveness in combat.

What we can have is AMRAAM/(ski) working like Cold War missile but with active radar - and in 2000s scenarios all air combat is hanging on this one guestimated simplified classified system.

Edited February 8, 2021 by bies

[TotenDead]

Are we going to have MiG-29 (9.12) or MiG-29A (9.12A)?

[Max1mus]

3 hours ago, bies said:

 

• lacking MPRF/HPRF active radar modes and their respective capabilities and limitations,
• probably some one way/two way datalink functionality

Not even mentioning R-77 which was mostly just a prototype not even officially accepted by Russian Air Force untill recently and with different variant with every single parameter strictly classified all would have to be guestimated and made up.

 

MPRF/HPRF is on the DCS AMRAAM. Notch filter for example is different within 20 and 10km distance.

 

Two way datalink is only on F-35 and the latest AIM-120Ds.

 

R-77 has been exported all the way through the 90s and 2000s. It was very widely used in the thousands.

[Dragon1-1]

Yes, but not by the Russians. In fact, was a common theme until late 2000s, if you wanted to pick a fight with a military equipped with modern Russian weapons, your best bet was to start a war with India. The tech they sold for abroad was far more advanced than what the bulk of they used at home, and only a few elite units had up to date equipment. Between the fall of USSR and Yeltsin's mismanagement, the Russian armed forces were very much stuck in the late 80s/early 90s until about 2010, when they put into practice the lessons from the war with Georgia.

[Max1mus]

4 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

As for GCI slave? What do you think BLUFOR are AWACS slaves? Link 16 slaves? Just more nonsense.

 

BLUFOR 4th gen aircraft were always able to build their own SA picture. AWACS could help them out, but their radar has a wide cone AND CAN SEE TARGET ASPECT AND SPEED WITHOUT LOCKING. Without this, you cannot lead a flight on your own, and as such MiG-29A integrated into NATO were "never leading a flight" when used in operations.

 

The soviets have had these GCI slave tactics and specially designed GCI datalinks to decrease pilot training cost (50-60 hours flying time per year) and because for a long time, they did not need an independent air superiority fighter. This only changed with Su-27 and MiG-31, which were built to patrol Siberia, which lacked EWR coverage.

 

But every plane before Su-27P/S, especially MiG-23, MiG-25 and MiG-29 were built to purely execute GCI commands. To the point where MiG-23 pilots died because they did not want to eject without GCI permission.

 

I dont think most people asking for 9.12/9.13 here are aware what they're getting into. Youre not getting a plane that you can just take off and fight with, it only works as an integrated asset in the IADS, as a SAM carrying missiles and guns if you will.

[GGTharos]

10 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

MPRF/HPRF is on the DCS AMRAAM.

 

There's no PRF simulation at all.

 

10 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

Notch filter for example is different within 20 and 10km distance.

 

Notch filter is just one parameter that may be affected by PRF.

 

What lacks in all DCS missiles is the target search phase, with all of its details - that means the initial upload of target parameters, the subsequent update of them and the missile's seeker looking for those.  If you had those, you could begin thinking about HPRF/MPRF simulation for the 120.

 

What we have in DCS is the missile receiving which object (as in object oriented programming) should target, not target parameters (closure/range/angle gates).   This is also a bit reason why ECM/ECCM is simplified IMHO.

[Max1mus]

5 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

There's no PRF simulation at all.

 

 

Notch filter is just one parameter that may be affected by PRF.

 

What lacks in all DCS missiles is the target search phase, with all of its details - that means the initial upload of target parameters, the subsequent update of them and the missile's seeker looking for those.  If you had those, you could begin thinking about HPRF/MPRF simulation for the 120.

 

What we have in DCS is the missile receiving which object (as in object oriented programming) should target, not target parameters (closure/range/angle gates).   This is also a bit reason why ECM/ECCM is simplified IMHO.

 

You definitely have an app or something that tells you when people mention the word "AMRAAM" on the forums. No wonder you dont fly with a full time job like that.

 

Watch how AMRAAMS behave when launched on targets that go cold and dive, theyll loose lock and reaquire, or be driven into the ground while in memory mode. Thats a new thing with the new API.

[GGTharos]

1 minute ago, Max1mus said:

You definitely have an app or something that tells you when people mention the word "AMRAAM" on the forums. No wonder you dont fly with a full time job like that.

 

You sure about that?   Maybe I just don't care the public online mess, I've done it for quite a few years.  Maybe I don't fly under this nick  (I almost never have, actually) :).  Maybe you should also keep those comments to the missile threads as well - and the attempts at personal insults just generally off the forum.

 

1 minute ago, Max1mus said:

Watch how AMRAAMS behave when launched on targets that go cold and dive, theyll loose lock and reaquire, or be driven into the ground while in memory mode. Thats a new thing with the new API.

 

This doesn't change what I've said above.  Losing lock and reacquiring is old, we've seen it before.  'Memory mode' is the only new thing here, and that may have to do with the new FM introducing the autopilot.

[bies]

Yes, we already went too far from the topic. No point discussing AMRAAM here in this topic named: MiG-29A.

[Northstar98]

 

55 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

BLUFOR 4th gen aircraft were always able to build their own SA picture. AWACS could help them out, but their radar has a wide cone AND CAN SEE TARGET ASPECT AND SPEED WITHOUT LOCKING. Without this, you cannot lead a flight on your own, and as such MiG-29A integrated into NATO were "never leading a flight" when used in operations.

 

And?

 

Quote

The soviets have had these GCI slave tactics and specially designed GCI datalinks to decrease pilot training cost (50-60 hours flying time per year) and because for a long time, they did not need an independent air superiority fighter. This only changed with Su-27 and MiG-31, which were built to patrol Siberia, which lacked EWR coverage.

 

But every plane before Su-27P/S, especially MiG-23, MiG-25 and MiG-29 were built to purely execute GCI commands. To the point where MiG-23 pilots died because they did not want to eject without GCI permission.

 

I wonder how the hell any of those aircraft work in DCS right now, where D/L GCI, IADS and basically EW are all completely absent. Maybe the people flying them are deities or something...

 

Quote

I dont think most people asking for 9.12/9.13 here are aware what they're getting into.

 

No, I think we have a pretty decent idea, we're just not solely driven by absolute singular capabilities. We're also probably not into the MP airquake fest...

 

Quote

Youre not getting a plane that you can just take off and fight with, it only works as an integrated asset in the IADS, as a SAM carrying missiles and guns if you will.

 

Once again, we already have the aircraft for FC3, we can already go out and demonstrate that this is nonsense. We've had a simplified MiG-29 for years without any form of IADS/GCI D/L or anything along those lines. The same goes for the MiG-21bis, another aircraft designed to be used as part of a layered air defence network.

 

But pretending aircraft are completely useless without it just isn't the case. But even if it was, I'm hardly interested in capabilities... 

Edited February 8, 2021 by Northstar98

[Hodo]

12 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Actually what it will/should add for the mi29A is frustrating radar control, magically self jamming radar, and a shitty man-machine interface (I guess you can still bind stuff if you're "that" guy). What I do hope they add is some sort of semi competent GCI component....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who in gods name is doing a mig21 bison? (this is the modern indian one) or do you just mean bis?

As you can see by my bolded comments its even worse for "cold war blue", though we will get a cold war Mirage F1 hopefully soon. As well as several other models in a few years.

 

Yes true... Granted I have played online with a semi-compitent GCI. Or to be more honest a very good GCI.  And they had my Mirage anywhere it was needed.  I can only imagine how well it would have worked with a MiG of Su.  

 

The Bison sorry my auto-correct on my phone does that when I type fast and don't catch it.   But I do like the name Bison for the 21... It just works because it is almost everything but a Bison.

 

[Seaeagle]

3 hours ago, Dudikoff said:

 

I agree with the need to push DCS to add more 80s options, but this is not really factually correct. IIRC, the missile was chosen by Soviet Air Force and the initial order of 200 missiles was made. But, Soviet Union collapsed and with it the financing of all the advanced fighter variants which would have used the missile (e.g. MiG-29M/K, Su-27M, MiG-31M, Yak-41, etc.). So, without money and any airplanes which could have used it (apart for about two dozen MiG-29 9.13S airframes), all the missiles made afterwards went to export as RVV-AE (to China, India, etc.) and Russian Air Force used its small stock for operational testing and integration (e.g. Su-27SM3, MiG-31BM, etc.) while waiting for more airframes to enter service and for the Russian companies to be actually able to produce the somewhat updated R-77-1 in any significant numbers because most of the Soviet missiles were produced by Artem in Ukraine and thus Russia had to develop their own production capabilities for them (TMC).

 

So, it wasn't really just a prototype, but being mostly exported should make it somewhat more likely to gain reliable data on it (perhaps when some of the smaller operators drops the carrying aircraft from service).

 

Yup - IIRC the R-77 was actually officially adopted for service by Russia in 1994, but they just didn't buy any(aside for a small test batch) for the reasons you mentioned.

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Max1mus said:

But every plane before Su-27P/S, especially MiG-23, MiG-25 and MiG-29 were built to purely execute GCI commands. To the point where MiG-23 pilots died because they did not want to eject without GCI permission.

This was only true of PVO fighters, particularly the Su-15, but also PVO-specific versions of MiGs. VVS were a lot more independent, with pilots having actual say over their own tactics, and better training than the PVO. In fact, VVS pilots didn't hold PVO ones in very high regard because of that difference. MiG-29 had a new datalink suite, and like all VVS fighters, was able to operate in conditions where EWR coverage was absent or degraded, albeit not as well. The reason they never led the fight when used with NATO was that the Russian datalink was incompatible with NATO ones, not to mention by the time NATO got them, they weren't exactly new, it'd be like handing a command role to an F-16A.

 

BTW, covering Siberia was a PVO job, one they did well enough. They did have EWR coverage out there, just not a whole lot of SAMs. MiG-25 and the earlier Tu-28 were used to defend these parts, working with long range radars.

[Max1mus]

32 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Once again, we already have the aircraft for FC3, we can already go out and demonstrate that this is nonsense. We've had a simplified MiG-29 for years without any form of IADS/GCI D/L or anything along those lines. The same goes for the MiG-21bis, another aircraft designed to be used as part of a layered air defence network.

 

PVO MiG-21bis had a GCI Datalink too, though all that one did was change a waypoint, so we dont miss it too much when we recreate the way the real thing was meant to fly. That is, in Multiplayer. Singleplayer GCI will not put you and your comrades into a position, from which you can surround the enemy aircraft, make you hide from F-14 radars etc.

 

Su-27 has F2F datalink, can see aspects without locking and has a wide cone for scanning. Its built to fight more like a western fighter, independently, and as such when put into a NATO doctrine environment in DCS, it does a bit better. Though it suffers from the lack of 1990s missions and aircraft too.

 

MiG-29A and S however will have all the problems of the DCS MiG-21 amplified by x10. Even its 80s opponents have very good situational awareness and slightly superior BVR weapons (AIM-7>R-27R), and as such the lack of GCI Datalink and a tactical and stragetical GCI will be absolutely detrimental to the flying experience.

 

Think of all MiGs from 23 to 29S as SAMs with missiles and guns attached. SAMs dont work well when you just maddog them roughly at the enemy, they need to be guided at the right target at the right time, perhabs even in a stealthy way (SAM trap).

Edited February 8, 2021 by Max1mus

[Max1mus]

3 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

MiG-29 had a new datalink suite, and like all VVS fighters, was able to operate in conditions where EWR coverage was absent or degraded, albeit not as well.

 

BTW, covering Siberia was a PVO job, one they did well enough. They did have EWR coverage out there, just not a whole lot of SAMs. MiG-25 and the earlier Tu-28 were used to defend these parts, working with long range radars.

 

MiG-29A and S datalink was purely GCI based. They did not have F2F, or even a proper tactical scope.

 

MiG-31 was developed exactly because Siberia lacked Early Warning assets and they needed an aircraft that could protect large areas with small numbers. MiG-25 and MiG-29 did not have the long time on station and capable radars to be able to do that. Because they were designed as SAMs with AA missiles on them.

[Max1mus]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

This doesn't change what I've said above.  Losing lock and reacquiring is old, we've seen it before.

Please read my post properly. It never lost lock on cold (A term for "running away", when the target is showing you its rear) targets when they were inside 15km.

[Dudikoff]

4 hours ago, bies said:

I just can't agree only with one last statement, because we can't gain any reliable data for R-77 (or AMRAAM), not different guidance logic modes and algorithms used in different situations, now how mid course update work, no even close radar parameters or PRF modes, not it's microchip capabilities or memory used and algorithms for ECCM, not any probable IFF features, not it's datalink capabilities, no preselected target discrimination algorithms nor even precise kinematic performance. Namely nothing what is really decisive when it comes to it's real life effectiveness.

We also don't have access to the most important data: real life effectiveness in real life air warfare against real enemy as a point of reference.

R-77 is in active service is some air forces of today and disclosing any of that could ruin it's practical effectiveness in combat.

What we can have is AMRAAM/(ski) working like Cold War missile but with active radar - and in 2000s scenarios all air combat is hanging on this one guestimated simplified classified system.

 

I never said we have access to it now, but said that because it was relatively widely exported, there is a higher chance we might get some data (like pilot weapon employment manuals with some performance graphs) when the given airforce retires its carrier aircraft (e.g. various obsolete MiG-29 export variants of the 9.12S/9.13S).

 

But, all the minute data you mention there, we don't have it for any of the missiles in DCS, nor would DCS be able to use most of it.

Edited February 8, 2021 by Dudikoff

[bies]

When it comes to GCI it was more complicted than that. Yes Soviet doctrine was based on GCI command and coordination, but it was not the only one way of operation.

 

First there were two air force commands in Soviet Union: 

Soviet Air Defence Forces (counterpart of US Aerospace Defense Command)

Soviet Air Forces (like United States Air Force)

(Later in 1980s they were reorganized but it would be too detailed)

 

When it comes to Soviet Air Defence Forces, PVO

• The PVO's principal role was to shoot down United States Strategic Air Command bombers and air reconnaissance aircraft if they penetrated Soviet airspace. 
• Operating classic interceptors like Yak-28, Su-9, Su-11, Su-15, Tu-128 MiG-25, MiG-31 built specially for PVO.
• And also more universal fighters like MiG-17, MiG-19, MiG-21, MiG-23, Su-27 - in slightly modified variants named "P" (like perekhvatchik) - interceptor.
• PVO's interceptors - like their US counterparts F-106A/SAGE - operated with strict cooperation with GCI, being commanded and later even flown remotely by GCI commands, GCI radio commands were even used to steer radar antena and compute dynamic launch zone for the missile (that's why in Soviet fighters you don't see, as a pilot, what exact area do you scan like in 4th generation US fighters i.e. from 20,000 to 40,000ft at 40 miles, you simply didn't need to know).
• There was always calculaton - the link can be jammed - that's why interceptor pilots were also trained to complete the task in this unvafourable scenario and why both Soviet and US interceptors F-101B, F-106A used IRST and additional thermal guided missile.
• That being said US counterpart F-106A/SAGE operated in very similar manner. The difference was, due to completely different geography, US needed only small air defence force when Soviet Union needed massive one. (US on remote island-continent placed vertically on the globe, shielded by Canada, very hard to attack from SU over the North Pole - USSR on a huge landmass, surrendered by potential opponents, not shielded from the north, horizontally placed on the globe for many potential routes from the North Pole and easy to atack from US and it's oversea bases)
• Long range interceptors Tu-128 and later MiG-31 were both designed to operate over the north pole, beyond the reach of Tall King and similar ground-based GCI radars. The purpose was to shoot down American bombers before they could launch cruise missiles.
• Interestingly enough MiG-29 did not serve in PVO.
• PVO pilots did't train maneuver air combat or ground attacks but interceptions

When it comes to Soviet Air Forces

• It consisted of Frontal Aviation operating in tactical depth supporting ground forces, Transport Aviation, Long range aviation (long range bombers)
• Frontal Aviation operated fighters like MiG-17, MiG-19, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-29 also tactical attack planes and medium bombers
• It also used GCI to coordinate and command but to a lesser degree since obviously flying in close proximity to the front creates hardly predictable situations
• It's pilots were trained to operate in both ways - caged to GCI what increased their effectiveness and independent if situation needed that, except for interceptions they trained also maneuver air combat, especially in 1980s and basic ground attacks

 

There is a great book Fulcrum: A Top Gun Pilot's Escape from the Soviet Empire by Alexander Zuyev 1992. He was Soviet MiG-23 and MiG-29 pilot and defected to US via Turkey in 1989.

In the very interesting book he discribes his training, mock dogfighting, both Soviet fighters flight characteristics - and how Soviet Frontal Aviation fighter pilots made fun of Air Defense PVO pilots acting like computers rigidly under the orders of the GCI blaming that fact for shooting down of KC 007 over Sakhalin.

 

 

Full book available to read for free here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141107052257/http://scilib.narod.ru/Avia/Fulcrum/Fulcrum.html

 

That being said - i hope together with MiG-29 9.12 ED will make at least rudimentary API for Soviet GCI control which will be used by MiG-21bis and MiG-23MLA also and make their operations more realistic.

Or maybe the new Integrated Air Defense module will make it to the DCS.

Edited February 8, 2021 by bies

[jojyrocks]

1 hour ago, Seaeagle said:

Yup - IIRC the R-77 was actually officially adopted for service by Russia in 1994, but they just didn't buy any(aside for a small test batch) for the reasons you mentioned.

 

 

It looks like only during Syrian civil war time around 2015 did they officially STARTED to buy and equip R-77. They never adopted the base version, mostly gave it for exports as maybe slightly degraded or modded RVV-AE.

 

They only adopted the R-77-1 and decided to finally start use it more after that Su-24 shootdown by Turkey. Until then, Russia was not probably expecting air to air combat much. After the shootdown of Su-24 they've finally decided to officially adopt the R-77 as standard and slowly phase out the R-27 SARH types. That incident was Russia's wakeup call to start updating their forces to some degree.

Edited February 8, 2021 by jojyrocks

[Seaeagle]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The reason they never led the fight when used with NATO was that the Russian datalink was incompatible with NATO ones, not to mention by the time NATO got them, they weren't exactly new, it'd be like handing a command role to an F-16A.

If you are refering to the Luftwaffe MiG-29s, then they didn't have one - the Lazur datalink was removed from the aircraft before Luftwaffe got them.

[Seaeagle]

13 minutes ago, jojyrocks said:

It looks like only during Syrian civil war time around 2015 did they officially STARTED to buy and equip R-77. They never adopted the base version, mostly gave it for exports as maybe slightly degraded or modded RVV-AE.

They did adopt the original R-77 officially, but like I said they didn't buy any. It could be that this offical acceptance was in order to support potential export orders. The RVV-AE is not "downgraded" - its just the export name and apparently assembled with imported components.

13 minutes ago, jojyrocks said:

They only adopted the R-77-1 and decided to finally start use it more after that Su-24 shootdown by Turkey. Until then, Russia was not probably expecting air to air combat much. After the shootdown of Su-24 they've finally decided to officially adopt the R-77 as standard and slowly phase out the R-27 SARH types. That incident was Russia's wakeup call to start updating their forces to some degree.

 

No thats just a coincidence - the development of the R-77-1 and general rearmament program started long before that.

[killkenny1]

6 hours ago, TotenDead said:

Are we going to have MiG-29 (9.12) or MiG-29A (9.12A)?

 

I expect it to be 9.12A, as ED most likely has access only to Warsaw pact export variant documents.