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

[Karon]

18 minutes ago, apolloace said:

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.

I'm a closed beta tester, but only for Heatblur - which does not mean that I don't raise issues for other products if I run into them.

I am not following the Fulcrum much at the moment, since it's de facto a post-CW aircraft, but I'm curious since the -29 is the first FF redfor released in years.

Updates will come as soon as there is more to share. For example, recently, there was news about the Corsair.

[Dragon1-1]

The 9.12A is very much a Cold War aircraft, a contemporary of our F-14 variants. That it didn't change much into post-CW era is another matter, but in a mid-2000s Fox 3 fight, it's outclassed, even if the R-27ER can give it a surprising bite against sloppy NATO jet drivers. 

Edited June 16 by Dragon1-1

[AeriaGloria]

4 hours 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?

It depends . We can verify that Yugoslavian MiG-29B delivered in 1989 could fire R-27ER if mounted because there manuals mention KMOD and the radar features that come with the BZPP-44 update. 
 

I believe most MiG-29s were only exported after 1988, and including German MiGs that were later modified by MiG for wing tanks. So it’s conceivable to believe that any other MiG-29 that was delivered or upgraded from 1989 to later would be able to fire R-27ER

4 hours ago, sunwolf said:

old version only R-27R+R-60

 

There is a specific MiG-29 manual that specifies all the different software updates. It gives me the impression that the Soviets and Russians did not update the software of their MiGs very often. There’s also the impact of procedure, if they save ER for other platforms, why right it in the manual even if it can technically carry it. I would think both possibilities could happen 

Edited June 16 by AeriaGloria

[Karon]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The 9.12A is very much a Cold War aircraft, a contemporary of our F-14 variants. That it didn't change much into post-CW era is another matter, but in a mid-2000s Fox 3 fight, it's outclassed, even if the R-27ER can give it a surprising bite against sloppy NATO jet drivers. 

The 9.12A was delivered to Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany in 1989/1990, at least according to sources on wikipedia. Other sources say that, for example, the first East German MiG-29s were delivered in mid-1988 and became fully operational in 1990.

The Cold War ended in 1989, with the last step in the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. We can argue that it started its final phase when someone took the relation between the two blocks out of the freezer a couple of years earlier, in 1987/88. Ergo, not really "very much a Cold War aircraft", but an aircraft that, in the version we are getting, arrived post-CW and, even in its original Soviet form, was relevant for what, 1-2% of the duration of the entire war? 

Ref the ER, I find "game balance" as the justification for having weapons that "in theory" could be used quite laughable tbh. Everyone can do what they want with the game, of course, but just be conscious that looking for balance means throwing out the window any semblance of plausibility. War is a race; there is no balance, otherwise both Iraqi and Serbians would have complained with the admins right away in DS and Kosovo ( /s, in case someone has not realised it).

4 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

It depends . We can verify that Yugoslavian MiG-29B delivered in 1989 could fire R-27ER if mounted because there manuals mention KMOD and the radar features that come with the BZPP-44 update. 
 

I believe most MiG-29s were only exported after 1988, and including German MiGs that were later modified by MiG for wing tanks. So it’s conceivable to believe that any other MiG-29 that was delivered or upgraded from 1989 to later would be able to fire R-27ER

There is a specific MiG-29 manual that specifies all the different software updates. It gives me the impression that the Soviets and Russians did not update the software of their MiGs very often. There’s also the impact of procedure, if they save ER for other platforms, why right it in the manual even if it can technically carry it. I would think both possibilities could happen 

Good info, thanks mate.

Do you have solid numbers about the ratio between R-27 and ER/ET versions? Because what I have (chats / interviews) indicates an almost complete usage of "plain" R-27. However, we know how anecdotal sources are...

[AeriaGloria]

8 minutes ago, Karon said:

The 9.12A was delivered to Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany in 1989/1990, at least according to sources on wikipedia. Other sources say that, for example, the first East German MiG-29s were delivered in mid-1988 and became fully operational in 1990.

The Cold War ended in 1989, with the last step in the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. We can argue that it started its final phase when someone took the relation between the two blocks out of the freezer a couple of years earlier, in 1987/88. Ergo, not really "very much a Cold War aircraft", but an aircraft that, in the version we are getting, arrived post-CW and, even in its original Soviet form, was relevant for what, 1-2% of the duration of the entire war? 

Ref the ER, I find "game balance" as the justification for having weapons that "in theory" could be used quite laughable tbh. Everyone can do what they want with the game, of course, but just be conscious that looking for balance means throwing out the window any semblance of plausibility. War is a race; there is no balance, otherwise both Iraqi and Serbians would have complained with the admins right away in DS and Kosovo ( /s, in case someone has not realised it).

Good info, thanks mate.

Do you have solid numbers about the ratio between R-27 and ER/ET versions? Because what I have (chats / interviews) indicates an almost complete usage of "plain" R-27. However, we know how anecdotal sources are...

I have never seen sources on ratio of different variants. I’ve seen rough numbers for ER given without source. It’s very possible that practically no one knows except those in Russia. Not many users used all different versions. 

[Dragon1-1]

9 minutes ago, Karon said:

The 9.12A was delivered to Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany in 1989/1990, at least according to sources on wikipedia. Other sources say that, for example, the first East German MiG-29s were delivered in mid-1988 and became fully operational in 1990.

Yeah, it came at the end of the Cold War, but it is a Cold War aircraft. It went into service with the Soviets in '83 and changed little from 9.12 to 9.12A. Yes, most of its service wasn't during Cold War, but its avionics and performance are representative of the era. It represents the last batch of truly Cold War era designs. It is an 80s aircraft at the core.

Also, the Cold War ended in 1991. What started in 1989 could have ended very differently if it wasn't Gorby leading the USSR. Indeed, that transition period is quite a fertile source of alt historical timelines when the USSR wasn't accommodating of its satellites revolting as it was IRL, so to speak.

[Karon]

OK, look, we are going nowhere here. I just leave those here. 3 results out of the top 5:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/27/malta-summit-ends-the-cold-war-archive-1989

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/3/newsid_4119000/4119950.stm

https://coldwar.unc.edu/theme/end-of-the-cold-war/

Also, I would argue that the last batch of CW designs is possibly the Eurofighter, which arrived late precisely because the CW ended.

> What started in 1989 could have ended very differently if it wasn't Gorby leading the USSR
And, as we say where I'm from, "if my nonna had wheels, she'd be a wheelbarrow". Ergo, if you change something (history in this case), you get different results (AIM-120 and AIM-152 for the Tomcat, so go for it). You should have warned me that we were theorycrafting here; I wouldn't have entertained this conversation.

[TotenDead]

4 часа назад, Karon сказал:

the last last batch of CW designs is possibly the Eurofighter, which arrived late precisely because the CW ended.

 

Who cares why? Entered service in ~2003? It did. Good day to you sir then

[Karon]

7 hours ago, TotenDead said:

Who cares why? Entered service in ~2003? It did. Good day to you sir then

Keyword here: "CW design". Not "CW-operational aeroplane" or "aeroplane that flew in the CW".

FFS, sometimes I wonder if people read or are just in a hurry to reply 

[NytHawk]

3 minutes ago, Karon said:

Keyword here: "CW design". Not "CW-operational aeroplane" or "aeroplane that flew in the CW".

Just to be extra pedantic, the EAP first flew in August 1986. The YF-22 even first flew in 1989.

[Karon]

1 minute ago, NytHawk said:

Just to be extra pedantic, the EAP first flew in August 1986. The YF-22 even first flew in 1989.

LOL I really wanted to mention the F-22, but I skipped it because I was concerned people would miss the point. Although, reflecting on it, for the F-22 it's more that its raison d'être dates to the CW (reaction to new Soviet tech, MiG / Su, A-50, etc), but the tech and the design were futuristic for the era.

The Typhoon still fits in the CW thought process, but, unless we are playing an European Cold War version of The Final Countdown, I don't see it fitting an 80s scenario 

Anyway, we are totally OT now...

[F-2]

14 hours ago, Karon said:

 

Also, I would argue that the last batch of CW designs is possibly the Eurofighter, which arrived late precisely because the CW ended.

 

I say you could make an argument that the Eurofighter, F-22, F-2, and J-10a since all four of them were built explicitly with new generation Soviet aircraft in mind. They all have different first flights and in service dates.

[TotenDead]

3 часа назад, Karon сказал:

Keyword here: "CW design". Not "CW-operational aeroplane" or "aeroplane that flew in the CW".

FFS, sometimes I wonder if people read or are just in a hurry to reply 

 

I'm sure you got what Dragon1-1 was saying by " It represents the last batch of truly Cold War era designs.". But for some reason decided to add some unnecessary juvenile wit to the conversation

[SAM77]

Aah ED just make a MiG 29S and the problem is solved.

[okopanja]

On 6/16/2025 at 10:00 PM, AeriaGloria said:

Yugoslavian MiG-29B delivered in 1989

First batch of Yugoslav 29 pilots went on training just 1 month after first batch of Germans. From pilot interview who was there. Technical stuff was on separate location.

[AeriaGloria]

8 hours ago, okopanja said:

First batch of Yugoslav 29 pilots went on training just 1 month after first batch of Germans. From pilot interview who was there. Technical stuff was on separate location.

Yes, so it makes sense why both would have the update. 

[Merrek]

On 6/15/2025 at 8:18 PM, apolloace said:

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.

Good sense of humour.

Anyway, I can beat the highest AI (and many human players as well) using just R variant against an AMRAAM. You see - about 90% of blue pilots are lazy, too much used to having superior airframes, avionics and missiles. They can only do a Split-S or an "out" maneuver and launch at max possible range, thereby wasting their missiles. You can evade an AMRAAM launched even at 12-15km head-on, if you know what to do. No mountains, no notching, no cheating (head-on high-G barrel roll bug, exploiting proximity fuze). Only using MiG's capabilities - speed, acceleration, thrust-to-weight ratio, turn rate.

I have trained (for years) 1v1 FC3 MiG-29A (2x ER) against F-16C equipped with 6 AMRAAMs, flying over water, starting at same altitude and speed. Trust me, there is a winning strategy. Statistically, I should be dying 90% of the time, but it's the other way around. The winning strategy keeps changing because of updates in the flight model, missiles, AI, etc., but I'm yet to see a case, in which there is 0 chance to succeed. Lately, I've been trying with R variant. The odds are worse, but still doable.

Don't even start with ET. You can creep upon an enemy using notching, mountains or flanking. They never expect it. They don't preflare, only top virtual pilots. T/ET is an excellent weapon, but using proper tactics, radar variants are more than enough.

I'm not saying it works every time against everyone. Of course not. If the blue pilots were doing the same stuff I'm doing, I'd have zero chance. But they're not doing it. I haven't flown the F-16 in years now. Feels like cheating, once you get the hang of it and possess the same missile as the opposition. The only proper challenge (and satisfaction) is having much inferior missiles, slightly inferior aircraft, no GCI, no AWACS, no EWR and still winning/surviving.

Cheers.

P.S.: Why doesn't the AI fly faster or turn cold? Because he'd lose even quicker and he knows it. If he turns cold against my 29, he's dead. Faster closure against my ER is also to his detriment. He's doing what he can. BTW this gif is from 2 weeks ago, since then, they changed the AI and the missiles (again). Tactics have changed, the outcome is still the same.

[draconus]

3 hours ago, Merrek said:

Anyway, I can beat the highest AI (and many human players as well) using just R variant against an AMRAAM.

Man, good thing ED's making F-35 so we could stand a chance against MiG-29

btw: I like how the AMRAAM does 180 and still chases you.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

10 minutes ago, draconus said:

Man, good thing ED's making F-35 so we could stand a chance against MiG-29

[BIGNEWY]

folks please stay on the topic of thread 

thank you 

[jeventy26]

I think he's just asking if ED is bending the rules... not if we need to accept it or not.  ED can you clarify if you are bending the rules or not? 

[NineLine]

5 hours ago, jeventy26 said:

I think he's just asking if ED is bending the rules... not if we need to accept it or not.  ED can you clarify if you are bending the rules or not? 

What rules?

The bottom line is this: based on our research into this aircraft, we have deemed it would not have taken much to allow the usage of these weapons. Because we added the ability to restrict and control loadouts in missions and multiplayer, we feel the additional missiles adds more to this aircraft without hurting the realism. It's very similar to the HARM thing, as someone pointed out. More Options, More Better as long as it's within the realm of possibility, which we have determined this is. Thanks!

[EricJ]

17 hours ago, NineLine said:

What rules?

The bottom line is this: based on our research into this aircraft, we have deemed it would not have taken much to allow the usage of these weapons. Because we added the ability to restrict and control loadouts in missions and multiplayer, we feel the additional missiles adds more to this aircraft without hurting the realism. It's very similar to the HARM thing, as someone pointed out. More Options, More Better as long as it's within the realm of possibility, which we have determined this is. Thanks!

This.

I mean okay it may be "unrealistic", but overall when you go with what you have, it doesn't hurt anything if they have ET/ER variants. Just don't use them and so on. Simple as that.

[jeventy26]

17 hours ago, NineLine said:

What rules?

The bottom line is this: based on our research into this aircraft, we have deemed it would not have taken much to allow the usage of these weapons. Because we added the ability to restrict and control loadouts in missions and multiplayer, we feel the additional missiles adds more to this aircraft without hurting the realism. It's very similar to the HARM thing, as someone pointed out. More Options, More Better as long as it's within the realm of possibility, which we have determined this is. Thanks!

Then why don't we add the R-77's to the SU-27/SU-33?  Furthermore are all variants in FC3 going to be upgraded to "within the realm of possibility weapons"?  

[MA_VMF]

40 минут назад, jeventy26 сказал:

Then why don't we add the R-77's to the SU-27/SU-33?  Furthermore are all variants in FC3 going to be upgraded to "within the realm of possibility weapons"?  

The Su-27 and Su-33 could not use the R-77

Edited yesterday at 01:32 PM by MA_VMF