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

[Flyout]

1 hour ago, Logan54 said:

Sadly no, only thing I know is downgraded radar range. But wait, seems Soviet radar had about 5 modes, WP` had only 3. And Yugoslavian/Serbian 29 is not WP MiGs, they were 29B afaik.

The export USSR avionics were supplied with a simplified counter-countermeasures system. But the radar range did not change.

[Pavlin_33]

9 hours ago, Logan54 said:

I did it myself according avaliable DCS radar range graphycs 

  Reveal hidden contents

GitHub - Quaggles/dcs-charts: A charts

And Yugoslavian/Serbian 29 is not WP MiGs, they were 29B afaik.

Correct

9 hours ago, Logan54 said:

I did it myself according avaliable DCS radar range graphycs 

  Reveal hidden contents

GitHub - Quaggles/dcs-charts: A charts

And Yugoslavian/Serbian 29 is not WP MiGs, they were 29B afaik.

Correct

9 hours ago, Logan54 said:

I did it myself according avaliable DCS radar range graphycs 

  Reveal hidden contents

GitHub - Quaggles/dcs-charts: A charts

And Yugoslavian/Serbian 29 is not WP MiGs, they were 29B afaik.

Correct

[okopanja]

On 7/17/2025 at 2:16 PM, Logan54 said:

Sadly no, only thing I know is downgraded radar range. But wait, seems Soviet radar had about 5 modes, WP` had only 3. And Yugoslavian/Serbian 29 is not WP MiGs, they were 29B afaik.

I was wondering have you compared the radar ranges given in soviet, german and yugoslav manual as well as number of radar modes?

[AeriaGloria]

Yeah, and only missing radar mode is SP which even domestic models were made without sure third batch. Radar, TP, CC, Helm, Opt, Fi0, toss, 6 modes!!

 Every manual I have read fire all the sub variants sure identical radar range

Edited August 7 by AeriaGloria

[Allesmor Obranna]

The question is not the R-27ER or ET, even if everybody talking about their compatibility. 

The point is: the MiG-29 9.12A and B versions, so as the 9.13 only had the R-27R. There were no R-27T for the MiG-29 serial production versions. The longer ER is a way different question, since their length simply did not allow to use the flap. Here is a ukrainan 9.13:

Here is a russian MiG-29SMT (which is very far from the 9.12):

But the 9.12A and B had no these weapons, or if they would have, that would be only the ER. The T and ET belongs to only the Su-27 family.

[AeriaGloria]

41 minutes ago, Allesmor Obranna said:

The question is not the R-27ER or ET, even if everybody talking about their compatibility. 

The point is: the MiG-29 9.12A and B versions, so as the 9.13 only had the R-27R. There were no R-27T for the MiG-29 serial production versions. The longer ER is a way different question, since their length simply did not allow to use the flap. Here is a ukrainan 9.13:

Here is a russian MiG-29SMT (which is very far from the 9.12):

But the 9.12A and B had no these weapons, or if they would have, that would be only the ER. The T and ET belongs to only the Su-27 family.

The flap isn’t blocked, we’ve seen 9.12/13 fly with R-27ER just fine. It’s very close! But apparently works. Your second picture shows it with ER and flap down. SMT doesn’t change the wing. It’s not that far from 9.13. 

Edited August 22 by AeriaGloria

[Кош]

R-27T was only a matter of procurement. APU470 is a cooled rail. Asked a MiG technician - yes it could use the T, no they didn't have them delivered. Model - baseline 9-12. Photos of APU470 preparation TBD.

Regarding Su-27 not being able to launch it from AKU - it's not about loosing lock, it's about AKU doesn't incorporate cooling system in the first place.

Edited August 22 by Кош

[okopanja]

1 minute ago, Кош said:

R-27T was only a matter of procurement. APU470 is a cooled rail. Asked a MiG technician - yes it could use the T, no they didn't have them delivered. Model - baseline 9-12. Photos of APU470 preparation TBD.

maybe we can remove the bottle since it's mass is stated in the manual...

[Кош]

Только что, okopanja сказал:

maybe we can remove the bottle since it's mass is stated in the manual...

Yup, and place a checkmark "Pilot is on diet"

[okopanja]

42 minutes ago, Кош said:

Yup, and place a checkmark "Pilot is on diet"

This later is difficult, since pilots are entitled to their flier's supplement. 

[Dudikoff]

9 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

The flap isn’t blocked, we’ve seen 9.12/13 fly with R-27ER just fine. It’s very close! But apparently works. Your second picture shows it with ER and flap down. SMT doesn’t change the wing. It’s not that far from 9.13. 

Even the first photo of a Ukrainian 9.13 shows an R-27ER, from what I can tell.

[Allesmor Obranna]

12 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

The flap isn’t blocked, we’ve seen 9.12/13 fly with R-27ER just fine. It’s very close! But apparently works. Your second picture shows it with ER and flap down. SMT doesn’t change the wing. It’s not that far from 9.13. 

Yes, you are right. The SMT is actually a 9.13 with a bigger back and some avionics upgrade, additional refuel probe and a modernized cockpit. Butt all the delivered SMT were actually a refurbished 9.13 airframes. And yes, it seems the flap was not blocked, my mistake.

[skywalker22]

On 8/22/2025 at 8:04 AM, Allesmor Obranna said:

What is that "hump" under the cockpit?

[F-2]

31 minutes ago, skywalker22 said:

What is that "hump" under the cockpit?

Aftermarket refueling prob

Edited August 23 by F-2

[PhantomHans]

On 6/15/2025 at 10:53 AM, 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.

This should be implemented FAR FAR FAR more often on order to help fill in the various gaps in available aircraft...

[okopanja]

On 8/22/2025 at 8:04 AM, Allesmor Obranna said:

The point is: the MiG-29 9.12A and B versions, so as the 9.13 only had the R-27R. There were no R-27T for the MiG-29 serial production versions. The longer ER is a way different question, since their length simply did not allow to use the flap.

Sorry to disappoint you, but we've covered this already on page 1.

[Cali]

Being able to carry the ER makes this 29A a little better. I was thinking it it only carried the R, that would have def hurt it against 120 eqipped enemies. I'm happy to see that people will be flying this online now. Most of the time all you ever see is 16's, 18's and a few 15's and jif's. 

 

Edited September 18 by Cali

[kotor633]

Hi,

I have a question about A2A loadout: In the book Jane's How to Fly and Fight in the Mikoyan Mig-29 Fulcrum - Jon Lake - 1998, page 39, it says the following:

null

I'm a bit surprised that mixing the R-27(E)T and (E)R is no longer allowed in the FF Mig-29 loadout. I don't know to what extent this was actually used in practice, of course. But according to this article, it should have been possible. Or is it because we have an export version in DCS, and it wasn't possible there? Can anyone here comment on this?

Edited 21 hours ago by kotor633

[AeriaGloria]

2 hours ago, kotor633 said:

Hi,

I have a question about A2A loadout: In the book Jane's How to Fly and Fight in the Mikoyan Mig-29 Fulcrum - Jon Lake - 1998, page 39, it says the following:

null

I'm a bit surprised that mixing the R-27(E)T and (E)R is no longer allowed in the FF Mig-29 loadout. I don't know to what extent this was actually used in practice, of course. But according to this article, it should have been possible. Or is it because we have an export version in DCS, and it wasn't possible there? Can anyone here comment on this?

I believe he is mistaken, mixing it up with salvo fire

[okopanja]

8 hours ago, kotor633 said:

Hi,

I have a question about A2A loadout: In the book Jane's How to Fly and Fight in the Mikoyan Mig-29 Fulcrum - Jon Lake - 1998, page 39, it says the following:

null

I'm a bit surprised that mixing the R-27(E)T and (E)R is no longer allowed in the FF Mig-29 loadout. I don't know to what extent this was actually used in practice, of course. But according to this article, it should have been possible. Or is it because we have an export version in DCS, and it wasn't possible there? Can anyone here comment on this?

There is only one switch to control 6 weapon stations which are divided in inner and outer. The meaning of these stations is relative and depends on present ocuppancy of stations. Yhey also have reverse fire ordering rule.

You may also affect it withel 1 komplet/0.5komplet switch. Also air/ground switch might also play role in mixed A/A A/G roles depending on what kind of load is hanged.

Still I do not see the way to toggle beetween R and T except that you hang only R and T, in which firing order rule would allow you to switch between them with inner/outer switch.

Edited 13 hours ago by okopanja

[kotor633]

So, the (E)Rs and (E)Ts on the Mig-29A can only be carried at stations 1 and 2 anyway. So what role this switch plays regarding the inner and outer stations is beyond me. And we're not talking about mixing A2A and A2G weapons here. This is exclusively about two A2A missiles. It's possible in the FC3 version, isn't it? Or is it implemented incorrectly there? And is it correct in the FF version?

[draconus]

5 minutes ago, kotor633 said:

It's possible in the FC3 version, isn't it? Or is it implemented incorrectly there? And is it correct in the FF version?

Yes, yes, yes.

6 minutes ago, kotor633 said:

So what role this switch plays regarding the inner and outer stations is beyond me.

You can have R-27 on inner pylons and R-73 on outer pylons and you'll be able choose between them.

[okopanja]

16 minutes ago, kotor633 said:

So, the (E)Rs and (E)Ts on the Mig-29A can only be carried at stations 1 and 2 anyway. So what role this switch plays regarding the inner and outer stations is beyond me. And we're not talking about mixing A2A and A2G weapons here. This is exclusively about two A2A missiles. It's possible in the FC3 version, isn't it? Or is it implemented incorrectly there? And is it correct in the FF version?

Inner/outer switch reverse order of launches.

You see it does not strictly select specific stations, but rather defines launch sequence, e.g. 1,2,3,4,5,6 for inner. If you select outer you reverse. The theory is that if you omit hanging 3-6, you will actually get inner/outer switch to select either 1 or 2.

This is a very specific case, and it might enable you to utilize R/T together. But this also needs to be checked...

Edited 9 hours ago by okopanja

[kotor633]

vor 10 Minuten schrieb okopanja:

Inner/outer switch reverse order of launches.

You see it does not strictly select specific stations, but rather defines launch sequence, e.g. 1,2,3,4,5,6 for inner. If you select outer you reverse. The theory is that if you omit hanging 3-6, you will actually get inner/outer switch to select either 1 or 2.

This is a very specific case, and it might enable you to utilize R/T together. But this also needs to be checked...

 
Yes, because information is scarce here...not so easy.

[kotor633]

This text, however, mentions the flanker. But regarding mixed seekers and BVR, it says the following:
"A competent Flanker driver gets the first shot with three or four round salvo of long burn R-27 variants, with mixed seekers, leaving one or two remaining salvoes of BVR missiles on his rails"
So, can we not rule out the possibility that it exists? The question is, is this something only used by the Russian Air Force? Or also in other countries that use the R-27 variants? For example, India? And was this possible with our FF Mig-29A?

Source: https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html#mozTocId611424