MiG-29A FF: capabilities and how will it fit into the (meta)game?

[bies]

31 minutes ago, F-2 said:

Correct the 33rd fighter wing was carrying AIM-120 from at least 1989 and they were delivered in 1988

Exactly. Short test serie for evaluation squadrons of both AMRAAM and R-27ER were tested since 1988 during the final phase of the Cold War. Though both entered operational service in 1991, they are for completely different scenarios in a different world, when Desert Storm ended, USSR collapsed.

[Harlikwin]

19 hours ago, CrazyGman said:

For me it's about immersion. I actually like it when tweaks are made on a module that actually make the system less effective. Like the changes to the radar in the Mirage 2000. 

Currently the FC3 radar (while good for the time it was developed) is now very behind with what DCS is currently working with. Locking up targets in the MiG-29 currently feels lacking, and the instananeous IFF.  requires a large dose of suspension of disbelief. I suspect that there will be some tweaks to the flight model, like the negative effects of having only one R-27 missile on one wing and it limiting your max AoA allowed.

IMO it going to make the module feel more alive, and closer to an actual simulator, which is the appeal fans are looking for.

 

 

Yeah exactly. I expect the FF mig will actually be "harder" for most players to use compared too the over simplified FC3 stuff. Which well is a good thing, aero-quakers and the "my capabilities" crowd aside. The radar IF modeled well (and I have serious doubts here based on the current trajectory) should be far harder to use from both a switchology and human engineering standpoint, and it should have a variety of issues such as clutter down low, and also in lookdown in certain terrain, the signal processing computer on the base 9.12 would overload in various situations which I hope is modeled, but I doubt it will be. 

Also if its modeled correctly, (again doubts/reservations), the KOLS should be significantly less capable than the magic IRST it is in DCS. According to RL pilots the IRST functionality was mostly useless due to various issues such as clutter, its also a PbSe sensor which means its gonna be limited/problematic/glitchy when dealing with frontal aspect targets. What KOLS was actually good at was cueing missiles to targets via the HMS and providing passive gun solutions. Which is what it was actually designed to do, not work as some sort of uber-IRST. Also for this to work at all ED will have to put some serious time into improving their entire IR simulation, which again I have my doubts will go well.

Overall if the sensor modeling is actually good, it should put an end to the various cockroaching FC3 memes we see in MP. 

I do also expect some improvements (or maybe downgrades in reality) to the FM as well, there were various limits on the jet that aren't represented in the FC version. And honestly ED does IMO make pretty good FM's for their modules in general.

In the context of the DCS environment and MP. I think its just gonna depend on the server and server owners ultimately. While this jet will be more capable than most red jets, its not a modern jet, so its going to suffer there. I think it will work very well on pre-fox3 servers like tempests/blueflag that limit the fox3 side of the game. And I think the 29 will be lethal at the merge as it was IRL.

At any rate I'm excited for it and the 23.

 

42 minutes ago, F-2 said:

Correct the 33rd fighter wing was carrying AIM-120 from at least 1989 and they were delivered in 1988

https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a-33rd-tactical-fighter-wing-f-15c-eagle-aircraft-makes-its-landing-approach-052343

https://picryl.com/media/a-33rd-tactical-fighter-wing-f-15c-eagle-aircraft-passes-along-the-coast-during-6e48c5

https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a-33rd-tactical-fighter-wing-f-15c-eagle-aircraft-pulls-into-a-climb-during-3b7ff0
 

https://www.alamy.com/a-33rd-tactical-fighter-wing-f-15c-eagle-aircraft-banks-into-a-turn-during-a-flight-out-of-eglin-air-force-base-fla-the-aircraft-is-carrying-two-aim-9-sidewinder-missiles-on-each-wing-and-four-aim-120-advanced-medium-range-air-to-air-missiles-amraams-on-its-fuselage-weapons-stations-country-gulf-of-mexico-image504289865.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=PWMFAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA836&dq=33rd+fighter+wing+amraam+ 1989&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjpqaDQ5NCDAxW-LFkFHfSjBvkQ6AF6BAgOEAM#v=onepage&q=33rd fighter wing amraam  1989&f=false
 

 

 

Interesting. However they couldn't get AAMRAMs to desert storm for live fire testing? At least this is what recall hearing. 

 

18 hours ago, DisplayName said:

The MiG29A doesn't use the E variants of the R27s. At least, that is what I thought; I don't think I have ever seen an image or evidence of a MiG29(A) with E variant R27s. . I could be very wrong here, but I think that is the case.

It absolutely could and did. There are interviews with USAF exchange pilots using the training plugs for the ER/ET in the 90's with the E. German 9.12s. Now the E. Germans didn't buy any ER/ET, kinda like the CZ 9.12s only carried R60M, but the 9.12 could use ER/ET.

 

17 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

Even if A used ET/ER in Russian service, still it should be definitely removed from G variant, neither Germany nor Poland had access to ER/ET, ED had this thing right,as default loadout is 2xR-27, 2xR-73 and 2xR-60M

 

E. German 9.12 had training plugs for the ER/ET. So they could use them, just didn't buy any. 

 

Edited January 9, 2024 by Harlikwin

[Exorcet]

17 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

Even if A used ET/ER in Russian service, still it should be definitely removed from G variant, neither Germany nor Poland had access to ER/ET, ED had this thing right,as default loadout is 2xR-27, 2xR-73 and 2xR-60M

 

I think capability is what matters because DCS is not a strictly historical simulation. If you want to simulate real world 1980's/90's Germany/Poland, restrict ER's. If you want to simulate alternate history Germany/Poland where the USSR exported ER's, allow them. The plane itself should only be limited by its physical configuration.

The historicity is up to the mission creator in DCS, as it should be. As a sim we can explore hypothetical or completely made up situations and I think that is a good thing.

[F-2]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yeah exactly. I expect the FF mig will actually be "harder" for most players to use compared too the over simplified FC3 stuff. Which well is a good thing, aero-quakers and the "my capabilities" crowd aside. The radar IF modeled well (and I have serious doubts here based on the current trajectory) should be far harder to use from both a switchology and human engineering standpoint, and it should have a variety of issues such as clutter down low, and also in lookdown in certain terrain, the signal processing computer on the base 9.12 would overload in various situations which I hope is modeled, but I doubt it will be. 

Also if its modeled correctly, (again doubts/reservations), the KOLS should be significantly less capable than the magic IRST it is in DCS. According to RL pilots the IRST functionality was mostly useless due to various issues such as clutter, its also a PbSe sensor which means its gonna be limited/problematic/glitchy when dealing with frontal aspect targets. What KOLS was actually good at was cueing missiles to targets via the HMS and providing passive gun solutions. Which is what it was actually designed to do, not work as some sort of uber-IRST. Also for this to work at all ED will have to put some serious time into improving their entire IR simulation, which again I have my doubts will go well.

Overall if the sensor modeling is actually good, it should put an end to the various cockroaching FC3 memes we see in MP. 

I do also expect some improvements (or maybe downgrades in reality) to the FM as well, there were various limits on the jet that aren't represented in the FC version. And honestly ED does IMO make pretty good FM's for their modules in general.

In the context of the DCS environment and MP. I think its just gonna depend on the server and server owners ultimately. While this jet will be more capable than most red jets, its not a modern jet, so its going to suffer there. I think it will work very well on pre-fox3 servers like tempests/blueflag that limit the fox3 side of the game. And I think the 29 will be lethal at the merge as it was IRL.

At any rate I'm excited for it and the 23.

 

Interesting. However they couldn't get AAMRAMs to desert storm for live fire testing? At least this is what recall hearing. 

 

It absolutely could and did. There are interviews with USAF exchange pilots using the training plugs for the ER/ET in the 90's with the E. German 9.12s. Now the E. Germans didn't buy any ER/ET, kinda like the CZ 9.12s only carried R60M, but the 9.12 could use ER/ET.

 

E. German 9.12 had training plugs for the ER/ET. So they could use them, just didn't buy any. 

 

 

They did take 52 AMRAAM to the gulf. The 33rd carried them for scud hunting. Initially they were going to leave them at home till the bugs worked out but brought (I guess AMRAAM has superior qualities to Sparrow against ballistic missiles?)

 

apparently they always intended to be able to use the LRIP missiles if the need arose.

https://books.google.com/books?id=HqLVPFYIOJMC&pg=PA984&dq=amraam+lrip&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3tpyD_9CDAxVKFjQIHQ6NCA8Q6AF6BAgPEAM#v=onepage&q=amraam lrip&f=false
 

while it seems the missile deficiencies proved to not be a problem in actual practice.

 

 https://books.google.com/books?id=cNTioltU3N4C&pg=PA430&dq=amraam+carry+gulf+war&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiaxZrIgdGDAxU5GTQIHedZADQQ6AF6BAgGEAM#v=onepage&q=amraam carry gulf war&f=false
 

F-15 with AIM-120 in desert storm

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/f-15-eagles-were-the-deadliest-birds-of-desert-storm/

[Harlikwin]

9 minutes ago, F-2 said:

They did take 52 AMRAAM to the gulf. The 33rd carried them for scud hunting. Initially they were going to leave them at home till the bugs worked out but brought (I guess AMRAAM has superior qualities to Sparrow against ballistic missiles?)

 

apparently they always intended to be able to use the LRIP missiles if the need arose.

https://books.google.com/books?id=HqLVPFYIOJMC&pg=PA984&dq=amraam+lrip&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3tpyD_9CDAxVKFjQIHQ6NCA8Q6AF6BAgPEAM#v=onepage&q=amraam lrip&f=false
 

while it seems the missile deficiencies proved to not be a problem in actual practice.

 

 https://books.google.com/books?id=cNTioltU3N4C&pg=PA430&dq=amraam+carry+gulf+war&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiaxZrIgdGDAxU5GTQIHedZADQQ6AF6BAgGEAM#v=onepage&q=amraam carry gulf war&f=false
 

F-15 with AIM-120 in desert storm

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/f-15-eagles-were-the-deadliest-birds-of-desert-storm/

Neat, learned something today, thanks. 

[twistking]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

[...] I expect the FF mig will actually be "harder" for most players to use compared too the over simplified FC3 stuff. Which well is a good thing, aero-quakers and the "my capabilities" crowd aside. [...]

I know aero-quakers, but what's the "my capability" crowd? Please explain without derailing this thread and angering half of hoggit.

[WinterH]

Just now, twistking said:

I know aero-quakers, but what's the "my capability" crowd? Please explain without derailing this thread and angering half of hoggit.

It's usually used to describe people who tends to more or less think "only the variant with most capabilities matters", and in general enjoy aircraft that makes it easier to "win"

[CrazyGman]

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

It absolutely could and did. There are interviews with USAF exchange pilots using the training plugs for the ER/ET in the 90's with the E. German 9.12s. Now the E. Germans didn't buy any ER/ET, kinda like the CZ 9.12s only carried R60M, but the 9.12 could use ER/ET.

 

 

 

 

See I thought so, I had heard similar interview and references, and so was a bit unsure, because if you look at just on the development side then it seems the answer is no, but there are numerous anecdotes, on them training using the ER/T/and ET.

[Alfa]

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

It absolutely could and did. There are interviews with USAF exchange pilots using the training plugs for the ER/ET in the 90's with the E. German 9.12s. Now the E. Germans didn't buy any ER/ET, kinda like the CZ 9.12s only carried R60M, but the 9.12 could use ER/ET.

There is one interview with one USAF exchange pilot("Spanky") and if you watched it, he said that it was a modification that allowed them to simulate long-burn versions of R-27 and that  he had an oppotunity to fly with "the body" of a long burn R-27 at one point, but concluded that it "probably wasn't a go-to-war kind of thing"

You can mod all kinds of things - e.g.the Ukrainians recently managed to come up with a mod that allowed them to launch AGM-88 HARMs(albeit in a crude kind of way) from their MiG-29s - should we have that too then?

 

 

[Ironhand]

8 minutes ago, Alfa said:

You can mod all kinds of things - e.g.the Ukrainians recently managed to come up with a mod that allowed them to launch AGM-88 HARMs(albeit in a crude kind of way) from their MiG-29s - should we have that too then?

Absolutely. But only if you also purchase the DCS-branded bailing wire and duct tape.

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, twistking said:

I know aero-quakers, but what's the "my capability" crowd? Please explain without derailing this thread and angering half of hoggit.

What the other guy said, the crowd that wants the most modern most capable module. 

[twistking]

1 hour ago, Alfa said:

[...] You can mod all kinds of things - e.g.the Ukrainians recently managed to come up with a mod that allowed them to launch AGM-88 HARMs [...] from their MiG-29s - should we have that too then?

Yes! Please!

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Alfa said:

There is one interview with one USAF exchange pilot("Spanky") and if you watched it, he said that it was a modification that allowed them to simulate long-burn versions of R-27 and that  he had an oppotunity to fly with "the body" of a long burn R-27 at one point, but concluded that it "probably wasn't a go-to-war kind of thing"

You can mod all kinds of things - e.g.the Ukrainians recently managed to come up with a mod that allowed them to launch AGM-88 HARMs(albeit in a crude kind of way) from their MiG-29s - should we have that too then?

 

 

Yeah, thats the interview I'm referring to. And the fact there were training plugs for it means that the capability 100% existed if needed. And really thats all that matters for DCS. In reality, the germans never bought the ER/ET. The soviets were mostly using them on SU-27's and so forth, but "it could" if needed. I mean this is DCS after all and we have triple mav racks on our vipers for this exact reason.

Just now, twistking said:

Yes! Please!

TBH, the way the AGM-88B was likely used was just in a pre-plan mode. So literally all the 29 pilot did was fly to a WP, and yarf it off on a predetermined heading. 

[twistking]

6 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

[...] TBH, the way the AGM-88B was likely used was just in a pre-plan mode. So literally all the 29 pilot did was fly to a WP, and yarf it off on a predetermined heading. 

I already said, i find Fulcrum HARM intriguing, no need to sell it to me further.

Joke aside, i think flawed, limited systems make for good DCS gameplay and immersion. When going up against SAMs in your Viper with HARMs, HTS and a capable human wingman, you are constantly reminded that DCS AI is rather dumb and that your mission lacks the operational complexity in which modern SEAD would even make sense.
Fulcrum HARM DEAD against all odds seems more interesting imho.

[FlankerKiller]

On 1/8/2024 at 6:14 PM, Ramius007 said:

Mig 29 is best FC 3 module, FF Mig 29 need a lot to be hi in priority for FC3 owners, both systems modeling and capabilities, things that are not modelled in F3 are not that needed anyway in interceptor role, like nav system, except maybe point attack role that is barely used anyway. Instant IFF have no practical meaning with Mig 29 engagment ranges. First thing first, ED should fix FC3 Mig 29A and G loadout, ER and ET's should be removed, it would be weird if new Mig come less capable than old one.

Speak for yourself. I spent years loving this bird in LOMAC and flaming cliffs. But once I got used to full fidelity i just couldn’t go back. Being able to actually interact with the jet is going to be awesome. If it has more realistic capabilities if FF then LOMAC then so be it. I for one am beyond stoked to get to know this bird all over again. Plus it’s such a cool jet. One of the last pure dog fighters. It’s going to be able to go toe to toe with the M2000C but with no FBW. Maybe they will figure out roadside bases for us to fly from. 

[DisplayName]

I'm playing around with the FC3 MiG29 and the Su27/J11 in order to determine if I would end up liking the FF MiG29A. . . Comparing the two FC3 jets, the MiG29A sucks. Could I please get some assistance and recommendations for using the MiG29A in a way that it doesn't suck compared to the Flanker.

 

NOTE: Modern jets I do fly on the Growling Sidewinder server, because it appears that it is the only option (give me recommendations for servers?). I have found that the MiG29A bleeds off energy extremely fast in a similar turn and intensity compared to the Flanker; where I found that the MiG29 got so slow it felt like it was hardly moving (~500kph compared to the Flanker which is a very similar turn/intensity did not drop below ~900kph). The situational awareness is nill by (except for the RWR which I do like).

 

Questions: Considering that the MiG29 has a HUD and the other screen which appears to be a HUD repeater, is it possible on the real MiG29A (FF MiG29A) to have say the HUD set to a form of weapon employment mode (lets say BVR) while having the HUD repeater TV set to a Nav menu? Or, are there any MiG29As that have had a datalink installed that could be used within the ED MiG29A?

 

I want to like the MiG29, but, I just can't in comparison to the Flanker. So please educate me on how to use it, and I'll continue to try and practice with the FC3 MiG29A. I do tend to use the Flanker at low altitude, very fast, and only using the RADAR for IFF before firing an IR guided missile.

[twistking]

1 hour ago, DisplayName said:

I'm playing around with the FC3 MiG29 and the Su27/J11 in order to determine if I would end up liking the FF MiG29A. . . Comparing the two FC3 jets, the MiG29A sucks. Could I please get some assistance and recommendations for using the MiG29A in a way that it doesn't suck compared to the Flanker.

NOTE: Modern jets I do fly on the Growling Sidewinder server, because it appears that it is the only option (give me recommendations for servers?). I have found that the MiG29A bleeds off energy extremely fast in a similar turn and intensity compared to the Flanker; where I found that the MiG29 got so slow it felt like it was hardly moving (~500kph compared to the Flanker which is a very similar turn/intensity did not drop below ~900kph). The situational awareness is nill by (except for the RWR which I do like).

Questions: Considering that the MiG29 has a HUD and the other screen which appears to be a HUD repeater, is it possible on the real MiG29A (FF MiG29A) to have say the HUD set to a form of weapon employment mode (lets say BVR) while having the HUD repeater TV set to a Nav menu? Or, are there any MiG29As that have had a datalink installed that could be used within the ED MiG29A?

I want to like the MiG29, but, I just can't in comparison to the Flanker. So please educate me on how to use it, and I'll continue to try and practice with the FC3 MiG29A. I do tend to use the Flanker at low altitude, very fast, and only using the RADAR for IFF before firing an IR guided missile.

I think capability-wise the Fulcrum will just be the inferior aircraft, but it should hold it's own in a dogfight. I love the 29, but haven't flown it much in DCS, simply because of it being FC3 - so i don't know how exactly it will compare to other aircrafts. That said, the Fulcrum being lightweight with very good thrust-to-weight, good manoeuvrability and good nose-pointing-capability should make it roughly (!) competitive with both the Flanker and even modern blufor. If you struggle in dogfights, realize that the Mig-29 handles like a surfboard and will easily flip to become a huge airbrake when pulling the stick too hard. It's not fly-by-wire (hooray) so be double conscious of not overflying. When facing off against a Flanker try to leverage your superior (?) thrust-to-weight-ratio.
In all other aspects the Fulcrum is "worse". But that's capabilism and we do not want to engage in that here (we leave it to the aero-quakers).
The Mig-29 is beautiful and handles wonderfully. It's of historical significance and has a cool NATO reporting name. If that's not enough, then i can't help you. Oh... wait... have you heard about R77 (you might like R77)?

*edit* I'm also interested in the usecases for the cockpit screen. I would assume, that it has more functions than just being a HUD repeater, but i don't know.

Edited January 10, 2024 by twistking

[Wizard_03]

The MiG-29 is very dangerous in a dogfight. unless your in a viper or hornet, I'd kill it quick and far away. However its very hard to master energy management in the MiG-29 so most players won't be able to take it too its full potential. Its far to easy to over pull the stick in tight turns because the aircraft will very quickly give you more and more AOA unlike the viper which slowly looses speed when you pull to hard, or practice HUD BFM. But if you can find the MiGs sweet spot, don't cross control, and watch your AOA, you can out rate almost every jet in the game. staying on corner speed is the trick. Over speeding is likewise a no no and will get you shot down in a lot of situations. 

Once you do master energy management you can then intentionally Pull hard when you see someone screw up and take nasty snapshots the same way the hornet and flanker can (though not quite as dramatic), in lots of situations against the viper or any other dogfight monster. It not as punishing as the hornet when you get slow either you can dump the nose and get fast again real quick as long as your not on the deck obviously. Don't expect overshoots from the bandit though, that type of energy dump is do or die in the fulcrum down low.

But I feel most online players will be dead after the first few turns with the MiG for not managing their energy well. So i don't expect it too perform any better then it already does on the servers. But its a heck of a little airplane in the right hands.

Edited January 10, 2024 by Wizard_03

[draconus]

26 minutes ago, DisplayName said:

Seems like wasted potential - even if you could just cycling it through HUD modes to show the NAV on the HDD and a weapons employment mode on the HUD, that would at least be something. 

It's how the real MiG works - at least the versions we have in DCS - so it's exactly simulated that way. It's only job is to repeat the HUD when the HUD itself is not readable enough (due to sun blinding or malfunction).

[DisplayName]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

It's how the real MiG works

Yes, apparently. I can also read. I said it was wasted potential (which it is), not that is was incorrect.

 

The purpose of the question was to try and get some additional information from anyone who has read a real MiG29 flight manual; other than the Luftwaffenmaterialkommando GAF T.O. 1F-MIG29-1 (which I have, although it doesn't specifically answer the question, it just tells you the purpose of the HDD unit). Because that manual in no way, shape, or form states it as a HUD repeater in the sense of how it is modelled in the FC3 MiG29, just that the information displayed is essentially the same. Which does open the question if you could have the HDD in Nav mode while the HUD is in a weapons employment mode. And considering that it looks like the same display as the one in the Su27, there is no reason to suspect that it is hard fixed at the same display as the HUD.

 

EDIT: If the sun is making the HUD hard to read, put up the sun visor. I doubt the Soviets would put something like a HDD in for no practical purpose at all.

Edited January 10, 2024 by DisplayName

[draconus]

37 minutes ago, DisplayName said:

I said it was wasted potential (which it is), not that is was incorrect.

It also doesn't have EWR on top of the fuselage - seems like wasted space, right? It is how it is, have a read, no need to start another discussion:

[DisplayName]

2 minutes ago, draconus said:

It also doesn't have EWR on top of the fuselage - seems like wasted space, right? It is how it is, have a read, no need to start another discussion:

What are you on about? make sense. Why would you put an EWR on top of the fuselage? who is getting shot from orbit, and how would you display that on an archaic 2D display; and what does that have to do with my question about the HDD. . . 

 

How about instead of me reading the whole forum post that you linked, you just tell me what part of it I should be looking at specifically. Clearly you have read it because you linked it, but clearly it doesn't provide any answers or you would have noted a specific comment/source. So far the only evidence for the HDD been exclusively a HUD repeater with the identical page/data and having serving no other purpose at all is "trust me bro" - considering that the aforementioned manual doesn't even mention that it is a fixed application exclusive HUD repeater, just that it shows essentially the same information; which having a HDD in nav mode and the HUD in a weapons employment mode would still be consistent with the description in the manual, it would also be consistent with the fact that the same unit can run independently from the HUD in other aircraft using the same HDD.

 

Topic: "MiG-29A FF: capabilities and how will it fit into the (meta)game?" That is exactly what we are doing here, so, the discussion is relevant to the thread. There was no MiG29 specific threat at that point, and now there is. Makes sense to have a discussion now about MiG29 topics, considering information may have come out since 2016.

[pepin1234]

On 1/8/2024 at 2:54 AM, Tarres said:

Only one thing about CrazyGman said,  in order to use the R-77, R27T and 27RE and RT we need the 9.13S (around 20 delivered to the VVS).

9.13 was the one with the Gardenya ECM, more fuel in the spin, ability to carry underwing fuel tanks (retrofitted to 9.12 so maybe we can have it) and weapons payload increased to 4000kg (tandem FAB-500 in inner and medium pylons)

That 20 number is a nonsense 

[pepin1234]

On 1/8/2024 at 3:32 AM, addman said:

F-16A would be cool in early 80's scenario.

I don’t expect that. Mig-29S is a standard variant for Ukraine Air Force. If MiG-29A have been planed from public manuals. Mig-29S is possible as well. What mean public for ED? Someone shared the technical manual on the internet. 
 

Mig-29S and Mig-25 have been in NATO allies, some of them ex Soviets republics. Somewhere should be enough documentation for them.

[okopanja]

10 minutes ago, pepin1234 said:

I don’t expect that. Mig-29S is a standard variant for Ukraine Air Force. If MiG-29A have been planed from public manuals. Mig-29S is possible as well. What mean public for ED? Someone shared the technical manual on the internet. 
 

Mig-29S and Mig-25 have been in NATO allies, some of them ex Soviets republics. Somewhere should be enough documentation for them.

BTW: the manuals for all versions of Mig-25 have been "published" recently. The only operational Mig-25s were 3 airframes of Algerian Air Force, and I think they were supposed to stop flying by the end of 2022 or 2023.