how is this thing not 13.3 yet…
its not premium
1 Like
it also kinda flies like a rocketship because engines operate at 0% channel loss and constantly on emergency power. It will be kinda hilarious if it will be like that on release but i highly doubt it
They be pulling its CM containers like it owes them money and breaking its FM when it doesnt have no more
This is a great reference photograph and it actually highlights the exact root of the confusion surrounding the current Dev Server loadout.
The placard from Aero India 2025 belongs exclusively to the export Indian Navy variant (Project 9-41). This early integration package reflects the sub-systems and export-restricted missile suites (like the RVV-AE and R-73E) specified by India under their original contract, which also tailored the Fire Control System (FCS) away from standard Russian stock like the R-27 family.
However, we cannot conflate the export 9-41 with the domestic Russian Navy variant, the MiG-29KR (Project 9-41R) ordered later. The 9-41R utilizes the updated domestic Weapon Control System (SUO) and was specifically optimized for state-issue modern armaments like the multichannel active-radar R-77-1 (RVV-SD).
The unifed 4++ generation wing architecture shared between the 9-41R, MiG-29M, and MiG-35 physically features all 8 universal underwing hardpoints with reinforced structures and wiring to support the AKU-170 ejector racks. Restricting the Russian Navy’s 9-41R to the specific payload limits of an Indian export brochure means the game is currently modeling the wrong aircraft configuration.
I tried to bug report it (since they limited MiG-29 9-41R loadout to x6 R-77), but they just keep closing it for whatever reason.
The MiG-29K 9-41R we have in the game should have x8 R-77-1 to be historically accurate. Anything different would be just historically inaccurate and devs should be clear if there is any balance reason behind this choice, which i honestly think there is none.
Because they all carry only 6x r-77-1 and not 8x r-77-1
The manufacturer website for the mig-29k 9.41 says that it can only carry 6x.
It’s not based on Indian limitations, both domestic and foreign mig-29k 9.41 have this limitation
they weren’t its CM containers
The manufacturer’s website and marketing brochures list the baseline technical specifications for the initial export Project 9-41. Russian state procurement data and domestic military contracts are not updated on public commercial websites for operational security reasons.
The domestic Project 9-41R (MiG-29KR) entered service much later (2013+) and integrated the modernized domestic Weapon Control System (SUO), explicitly designed to utilize all 8 universal underwing hardpoints via AKU-170 ejector racks for full multichannel BVR engagements with state-issue R-77-1 missiles. This unifed wing and pylon architecture is structurally identical to the MiG-29M and MiG-35, which officially feature 8x BVR layouts. Citing an old promotional marketing webpage for the baseline export model doesn’t change the tactical reality of the Russian Navy’s specific 9-41R sub-variant.
There is a lot of widespread confusion about this because the MiG-29K that is advertised and discussed practically everywhere is the early model exported to India (Project 9-41), which is entirely different from the more recent variants developed specifically for Russia.
Also… look closely at the missile designations in your screenshot: “RVV-AE” and “R-73E”. The “E” stands for Export. This is the commercial marketing webpage for the baseline export variant (Project 9-41) sold to India in the 2000s, restricted to export-grade weapons. It does not represent the domestic state-procured Russian Navy MiG-29KR (Project 9-41R).
Furthermore, your table contains a massive logical contradiction to your claim: it states the aircraft can carry 8x R-73E. This officially confirms that the aircraft physically possesses 8 fully wired underwing hardpoints.
On the unified 4++ generation frame (shared with the MiG-29M and MiG-35), all 8 underwing stations are universal and rated for the AKU-170 ejector racks! While the early Indian export software (FCS) was configured to limit BVR loadouts to 6x RVV-AE, the modern domestic Russian 9-41R features the upgraded domestic Weapon Control System (SUO), allowing it to utilize all 8 existing pylons for modern, state-issue R-77-1 (RVV-SD) missiles.
You cannot use a 2015 export promotional archive to define the domestic operational limits of a Russian Navy fighter.
That is debatable because Russian Ks have differences in terms of avionics. You can even see it externally. Now is FCS on both of them is the same or not can’t really be said without proper docs, which are classified.
You are completely confusing airframe production with avionics/sub-system integration.
Nobody is disputing that both India and the Russian Federation ordered aircraft from the same unified MiG-29K/KUB production line to save manufacturing costs! Structurally, they share the same baseline 4++ generation airframe and wing geometry.
However, an airframe being built under the same factory order does not mean they share the same internal Weapon Control System (SUO), radar software, or wiring configuration.
The Indian Navy variant (Project 9-41) was customized with specific export-grade systems and restricted to export weapons like the RVV-AE and R-73E, which is exactly why the promotional website you cited earlier specifies those exact “E” (Export) missiles.
The Russian Navy variant (Project 9-41R / MiG-29KR) integrated domestic state-issue avionics, specifically tailored to communicate with the non-export R-77-1 (RVV-SD) across all 8 existing underwing hardpoints.
Sharing a production line does not mean sharing a software block. Citing the fact that Russia ordered them doesn’t prove the domestic version is restricted to the foreign export limits advertised on commercial 2015 webpages.
Even if everything you say is true - without good source it is impossible to prove. And, for now, export docs is the best shot that we have. This is just unfortunate truth. But, as i commented on R-27 bug report, it is hilarious that export Su-27S aka J-11 is not equal to Su-27S in the eyes of gaijin, but MiG-29K is equal to MiG-29KR
2 Likes
The J-11 / Su-27S double standard is the perfect example of why this kind of implementation is so frustrating to me. Gaijin acknowledges sub-variant differences when it suits them, but completely conflates them here.
And to make it even more ironic, on the current Dev Server, Gaijin restricted domestic MiG-29K (9-41R) to exactly 6x baseline R-77s, not even the modern R-77-1. This completely exposes that they blindly copy-pasted the 2004 Indian Navy export specifications (Project 9-41) featuring 1990s-era export “E” weapons, and just slapped it onto a modern Russian Navy airframe from 2013+.
Even if the state docs are hard to get due to classification (and of course i won’t leak anything classified), Gaijin’s own physical implementation creates a massive paradox that is purely a matter of logic:
The R-77 is launched via the AKU-170 ejector rack.
The MiG-29K physically possesses 8 underwing hardpoints.
All 8 of these hardpoints are fully capable of mounting the AKU-170 racks.
If the hardware, the pylons and the launch racks are physically present and functional on all 8 stations, restricting a domestic 2013 Russian fighter to 6 outdated missiles based on a foreign export brochure is a purely artificial nerf.
We shouldn’t need a leaked manual to point out the basic architectural unification of the 4++ MiG family (MiG-29M / MiG-35), which officially uses all 8 hardpoints for BVR.
Does anyone truly, honestly doubt the capability of operational Russian Navy MiG-29Ks to utilize the R-77-1, when it has been the baseline standard BVR missile for literally every single active fighter in their inventory for years?
Meanwhile F-15C GE at 14.3 with 12 AIM-120s even if the only F-15 capable of using 12 AIM-120s is the F-15EX. Makes perfect sense!
1 Like
There are “sources” that claim that 9.41 is just 9.31 with new “radio equipment” (internals) and if 9.31 could carry 8 R77 as seen by pics, we could say that 9.41 (non R) could be just ‘export’ limited to 6, while 9.41R could retain the 8 R77 as 9.31 could and thats why Mig29K first flight is considered to be in80s and not in 2004-2007 when the contract was signed (the 9.31 was flying in 2003~)
Nah thats to keep the BR sensible, sitting at 14.0 - 14.3 wont be good
Quantity of missiles and type of missiles is a bit of a different topic. Gaijin uses baseline R-77 as a way to keep aircrafts at a specific battle rating. Because in reality, anything domestic, outside of Su-27SM should use R-77-1 as a Fox-3 missile
If that’s just a game design choice to place it at certains BR they should be clear on that or ask the community how they want the MiG-29K implemented. Honestly i’d rather have it at 14.0 with 8 R-77-1 as a direct competitor to the F-15E. Both with M radar, both capable of 8 BVR missiles, both with good flight performances.
But mig-29k 9.41 has a new wing design compared to 9.31.
It’s why I think it has this restriction.
Kinda similar to how the flaps on su-27 are inoperative when carrying certain weapons because the weapons extend far beyond the wing and would interfere with the flaps
Nice edits, Rafale glazer
2 Likes
Folk
2 Likes
What’s funny though is that the Su-27SM we have in the game is 100% the SM3 variant as the SM3 variant is the only Su-27SM capable of carrying up to 12 missiles. And guess what? That very specific variant system was developed having in mind to use the “future” R-77-1, not R-77. But this Su-27SM in the game was added in a time where R-77-1 were going to break the meta, so adding it with R-77 was ok.
But now on the MiG-29K 9-41R i just can’t stand this nonsense, as even if it’d be historically coherent it wouldn’t change the meta in any way. This MiG-29K with its FM and x8 R-77-1 and M radar, wouldn’t and shouldn’t be any higher than 14.0. It would be the perfect “counter” to the F-15E at 14.0.
2 Likes