Potential mistake in MiG-29A FAQ about R-27ER and R-27ET

[quantum97]

      I’ve noticed a small inconsistency in the FAQ regarding the upcoming MiG-29A. In the section detailing the missiles that will be available for the aircraft, it states that the MiG-29A will be able to use the R-27ER and R-27ET. The issue here is that, based on available historical and technical information, no Warsaw Pact country ever equipped the MiG-29A with the R-27ER or R-27ET versions in its unmodernised version. The R-27ER and R-27ET were developed and deployed later, on upgraded MiG-29 variants such as the MiG-29S and MiG-29SMT, which featured more advanced radar systems and modernized engines. In Yefim Gordon's book "Mikoyan MiG-29. Famous Russian Aircraft" on page 371, there is a diagram confirming that the MiG-29 (izdeliye 9.12) did not carry these missiles. Additionally, on page 378, in the table comparing different versions of the aircraft, the last few rows do not contain any information regarding the R-27ET/ER; this is only included in the table for the MiG-29S (izdeliye 9.13S). In the manuals regarding MiG-29A, there is no mention of the R-27ET/ER, at least I couldn't find any references to them in any Polish or Czech language manuals. So, I would like to know if in the FF MiG-29A version for DCS we are bending reality, or if there was a mistake in the FAQ. I also understand that some people expect these missiles, but it seems to me that the module you release should be as accurate as possible to the original, and adding missiles and bending reality is something for modders to handle.

[MA_VMF]

Советский МиГ-29А мог использовать Р-27ЭР/ЭТ/ЭП

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

This has been discussed in depth already in other threads on this subforum. Have a read there :-) 

[Volator]

Edited June 14 by Volator

[quantum97]

As for the MiG-29 in the Russian version, it may be true, but ED itself said that it is making an export version. Regarding the other threads, I will review them, although it would be best to have a clear statement from someone at ED.

[AeriaGloria]

With software update BZPP-44 the MiG-29 can use these weapons even if the customer did not purchase them. This software update was seemingly available around 88-89 when many MiG-29s were being exported to say Germany or Yugoslavia. In addition a US exchange pilot confirmed that the German MiG-29 he flew did show the expanded DLZ of 27ER when the 27ER training plug was mounted. It is the same seeker and the same missile electronics after all. 

[quantum97]

What @AeriaGloria presented above are anecdotal pieces of evidence. We're talking about the MiG-29A here, not its modernizations, updates etc. Nowhere in the publicly available manuals that were provided to Warsaw Pact countries is there any mention of the R-27ER. Even in the scientific paper comparing the capabilities of the F-16 and MiG-29 from the Polish Air Force Academy, the R-27ER is not mentioned. Additionally, on airwar.ru, the MiG-29 in its A version is not listed as a user of the R-27ER. The fact that someone said something in the past is not proof of anything if we don't have confirmation from reliable sources. 

 

 

 

Sources: https://www.airwar.ru/weapon/avv/r27.html

The PDF contains the scientific article.

Analiza_możliwości_bojowych_samolot.pdf

[Esac_mirmidon]

Just imagine we have very kind mechanics on the base that are willing to update your Mig-29A and enjoy the E familty.

If not, just dont use those missiles in your missions.

Is just imagination. Like a war on the Cold War Germany Map, when in reality there were no conflicts at all on that terrain ever NATOvsWarPac. If we stick to pure reality we cant make any other mission on the Germany map except Recon and QRA, or training over friendly terrain.

Edited June 15 by Esac_mirmidon

[quantum97]

@Esac_mirmidon I understand your point of view, and I don't have any issues with the people I’m discussing this with. The only issue I have is with ED. On one hand, they claim to replicate the aircraft as accurately as possible based on available data and refuse to add, for example, the AGM-154-A1 to the F-16. On the other hand, they make such a mistake and plan to add a missile to the MiG-29A that wasn’t in service at the beginning of the aircraft's operational history because it hadn’t been upgraded to carry that missile yet. To me, this is pure hypocrisy on ED’s part, and they really need to decide exactly what they're doing and what we can expect from them.

Here we have an example of ED's hypocrisy: 

I personally hope that the MiG-29A in DCS will be modeled as accurately as possible, which is why I participate in the forum and do so to prevent ED from making any glaring mistakes. I hope they will approach this module with the same care they have shown with previous ones, at least in terms of making it as realistic as possible. As for unrealistic missiles, we have modders who do an excellent job. I think the implementation of the R-27ER by modders for the MiG wouldn’t be a problem, and they would do it on the first day after the release, especially since we already have the R-27ER in DCS.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Sometimes ED takes license to add things like 4 Harms on the F-16. Technical it is possible, but never fielded on operational use. For the Mig-29A as some has told us, is also possible as an upgrade for the Mig-29A. Not fielded but think about a war in Germany, that retrofit could be hurried up for the Fulcrum A fleet.

I feel confortable sticking to reality on modules, not fancy scifi things, no impossible weapon combos. But certainly an ER or ET on a Fulcrum A is not scifi. Is just and opportunity on a What If scenario that is credible because it was possible at that time. Just think about Ukraine Mig-29A upgraded to use Harms, GBUs, etc. Now is realistic, not in 1989. But what if we want to fly a UKR Mig-29A attacking Caucasus Novorossysk Harbour with GBU?

Those are opportunities that play a role inside what is realistic for a Mig-29A capabilites. But i understand your point also, purism on modules is a good thing but at the end DCS is only a sandbox for fun so ET/ER on an upgraded Mig-29A fielded on Damgarten against a NATO invasion? Why not?

[quantum97]

It seems to me that the best solution to this problem would be to give people a choice, just like in the Ka-50 III module, where in the mission editor we can select either the 2022 or 2011 version. A similar approach could be applied to the MiG-29A, where one version would be in line with the official documentation provided to the Warsaw Pact countries, and in the other version, they could, for example, allow the integration of the R-27ER or even the HARM, which are weapons that were actually used on this platform but not on the unmodernized version. Especially since it doesn't seem like we'll be getting a newer Russian fighter anytime soon.

I think this would leave no one unsatisfied.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Thats a wise choice

[pjbunnyru]

1 час назад, quantum97 сказал:

It seems to me that the best solution to this problem would be to give people a choice, just like in the Ka-50 III module, where in the mission editor we can select either the 2022 or 2011 version. A similar approach could be applied to the MiG-29A, where one version would be in line with the official documentation provided to the Warsaw Pact countries, and in the other version, they could, for example, allow the integration of the R-27ER or even the HARM, which are weapons that were actually used on this platform but not on the unmodernized version. Especially since it doesn't seem like we'll be getting a newer Russian fighter anytime soon.

I think this would leave no one unsatisfied.

and same, please, for f16/f18/f15. i think many will like this, but its fantasy scenario.

[okopanja]

2 hours ago, quantum97 said:

It seems to me that the best solution to this problem would be to give people a choice, just like in the Ka-50 III module, where in the mission editor we can select either the 2022 or 2011 version. A similar approach could be applied to the MiG-29A, where one version would be in line with the official documentation provided to the Warsaw Pact countries, and in the other version, they could, for example, allow the integration of the R-27ER or even the HARM, which are weapons that were actually used on this platform but not on the unmodernized version. Especially since it doesn't seem like we'll be getting a newer Russian fighter anytime soon.

I think this would leave no one unsatisfied.

There is no need for this as we discussed this in other places the version giving KMOD is the same version which gave R-27ER/ET. So artificial nerfing you advocate is not needed.

The only unclear thing is if we will get P version or not. I am pretty sure ED would like to add missile at some point in the future.

[apolloace]

The Mig29A in game is very limited in capability in all aspects compared to western counterparts. An ER/ET won't Harm anybody, if you know what i mean.

[quantum97]

Maybe you're right.

[okopanja]

34 minutes ago, quantum97 said:

Maybe you're right.

written in manuals, and same revision in 2 manuals, where one tells you ER/ET is there. 

[AeriaGloria]

8 hours ago, quantum97 said:

What @AeriaGloria presented above are anecdotal pieces of evidence. We're talking about the MiG-29A here, not its modernizations, updates etc. Nowhere in the publicly available manuals that were provided to Warsaw Pact countries is there any mention of the R-27ER. Even in the scientific paper comparing the capabilities of the F-16 and MiG-29 from the Polish Air Force Academy, the R-27ER is not mentioned. Additionally, on airwar.ru, the MiG-29 in its A version is not listed as a user of the R-27ER. The fact that someone said something in the past is not proof of anything if we don't have confirmation from reliable sources. 

 

 

 

Sources: https://www.airwar.ru/weapon/avv/r27.html

The PDF contains the scientific article.

Analiza_możliwości_bojowych_samolot.pdf 397.74 kB · 5 downloads

The BZPP-44 update is not anecdotal. It was in base MiG-29A and 29B of many export customers. 
 

As Okapanja mentions, the same update gives KMOD function, and ED’s store mentions KMOD as a function.

 With websites don’t list it as a weapon? Maybe because those export customers didn’t buy ER. Why buy a missile that easily outranges the radar?

The fact that these customers didn’t buy ER, and this websites list it as not a weapon, is not proof of incompatibility. 

Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Pavlin_33]

16 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

Why buy a missile that easily outranges the radar?

Because if your opponent has the same or similar weapons range as you do, your missile will get there first, which is why the ER was developed in the first place: not to fly further, but to get there faster than the R variant would.

Edited June 15 by Pavlin_33

[AeriaGloria]

1 hour ago, Pavlin_33 said:

Because if your opponent has the same or similar weapons range as you do, your missile will get there first, which is why the ER was developed in the first place: not to fly further, but to get there faster than the R variant would.

And what do you think your chances are of convincing a government that becuase of this they should buy it in large enough stocks? 
 

Yeah it might help, but try convincing the politicians of that! 

[Esac_mirmidon]

Because there is a fictional war in the Germany Map 

The Goverment will understand it

[draconus]

15 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

Why buy a missile that easily outranges the radar?

Because head-on high-alt high-speed is not the only possible use scenario.

[Karon]

As a sidenote, remember that an upgrade at a certain date does not immediately upgrade your weapon / aircraft stock to the newer version (anyone else misses Leonardo Da Vinci's workshop from Civ II? lol).

For instance, if you want to play a semi-realistic mission in Germany 1980s as a redfor, you will be facing fundamentally only F-4s, with only one TFW in all Europe sporting F-15s, even though the F-15 was technically introduced in 1976. Similarly, AIM-7F from the 70s were still around in the 90s.

Personally, if I ever feature one of these MiGs in a mission I design, it won't have an R-27ER/ET unless it's Russian/Soviet. Still, DCS is a sandbox, and airquake/casual servers or players who do not want to stick to reality may benefit from the ability to choose.

So... AIM-152 and AIM-120 to the Tomcat when?

[sunwolf]

old version only R-27R+R-60

 

[apolloace]

48 minutes ago, Karon said:

As a sidenote, remember that an upgrade at a certain date does not immediately upgrade your weapon / aircraft stock to the newer version (anyone else misses Leonardo Da Vinci's workshop from Civ II? lol).

For instance, if you want to play a semi-realistic mission in Germany 1980s as a redfor, you will be facing fundamentally only F-4s, with only one TFW in all Europe sporting F-15s, even though the F-15 was technically introduced in 1976. Similarly, AIM-7F from the 70s were still around in the 90s.

Personally, if I ever feature one of these MiGs in a mission I design, it won't have an R-27ER/ET unless it's Russian/Soviet. Still, DCS is a sandbox, and airquake/casual servers or players who do not want to stick to reality may benefit from the ability to choose.

So... AIM-152 and AIM-120 to the Tomcat when?

Since you are on the ED Team, how long since we get the first glimpse of the Mig29 from Wags?

Not looking at a release date, but some kind of an update.