Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 Fulcrum - History, Design, Performance & Dissection

I am sorry did you just ask (correct me if I am wrong)…

What does understanding combat doctrine & how technologies involved have to do with anything if things are outlined clearly in the user manual?



Those are open-source manuals you have… That is why I asked what you are referring to. They are filled with garbage. They are intentionally misrepresented in areas regarding critical capabilities before cleared for public distribution. This is a real thing called Military deception or information warfare. The Soviets & RuF are masters in it. Every nation does it. It is a literal military Soviet/RuF doctrine called Maskirovka. Look it up.

There is OSINT open-source intelligence & CSINT closed-source intelligence or “behind closed doors numbers.”
Understanding the technologies is critical to determining if what you are reading is total BS or not. An example of military deception? The R-27R & ER is once thought to be capable of Mach 5. Because Mach 5 is listed in a couple open sources & this speed randomly mentioned in regard to is rudder deflection on Vympel’s patent for the control unit & rocket rudders.

That is pointless & useless information The missile is never going to travel that fast ever, their motors do not burn long enough, as they both burn mere seconds. They are medium ranged missiles. even if it did, it is completely combat ineffective & still pointless information other than to generate fear. They neither have the aerodynamic shape, properties, materials & kinetic energy to break the hypersonic barrier. You would be subject to believing such nonsense had you not understood the technological capability of the Soviet Union at this time & what are the actual requirements for hypersonic flight. That missile is not going anywhere near Mach 5 I can assure you. It’s a Mach 4.5 missile.

Mach 5 is a number intentionally placed there for silly ignorant Westerners to argue back n forth not too sure if the missile is hypersonic or not. Can you imagine the kind of uncertainty, possibly fear information like that can bring during the Cold War? It is critical to understanding technologies& doctrine of your adversaries.

I am talking about some real Gangster Soviet-Russo military doctrine here. This stuff is fascinating (to me) it is literal military doctrine employed today. It is directly related to the models we research & discuss in WT.

You need to understand technology to sift through the garbage you find on the internet or to spot the garbage propaganda regurgitated over & over on the forum.

Just because we have user manuals does not mean anything. I have the Su-27 manuals English & Russian, there is always more to learn about them.


The Soviets relied on the intelligence branch to generate and control deceptions. Russia has a history of operating with a more complete inclusion of elements of political power and influence as well as Operational Art that ties combined arms to campaign objectives. Russia has dramatically expanded the theory and practical application of Maskirovka, making it a qualitative advantage Russia has over NATO, now and in the future.

It is so important to Russian doctrine, they have used and continue to use the term, Maskirovka — the art of deception, from the French masquer - to make invisible — to elevate the complete set of actions and conditions that fall short of war that enables battlefield victories to be decided before tanks and infantry close in battle. It is Maskirovka, and the complementary technological changes to the character of warfare now and in the future, that make Russia the significant resurging threat.

Critical questions for the deception planner include : “Are critical signatures associated with the main course of action being suppressed?” “Are deceptive measures filling the enemy’s information gaps?” “What do we look like to the enemy?” “How is the enemy reacting to all of this?”. Maskirovka constantly requires a variety, using each time new techniques that are not yet familiar to the enemy.

Deception includes those measures designed to mislead the enemy forces by manipulation, distortion or falsification of evidence to induce them to react in a manner prejudiced to their interests. Another definition suggests that deception is the deliberate misrepresentation of reality done to gain a competitive advantage. In any event, the successful deception results in luring the enemy commander’s operation to fit the desires of the deceiver. An oversimplified summary may suggest merely concealing the real and revealing the false. Or, more appropriately, “manipulate the real, falsify as necessary”.

here is a good read I am sure you can easily find.

What are you talking about??? I showed you one page lol.

it continues on.

list any page of the Su-27 manual right now. I have professional English translated so you do not even have to rely on me for translation & interpretation. I got you guys.

You’re writing a 50 degree roll limit.Although it actually says 50 degrees per second

1 Like

Just a little note, an observation. The English translation of the manual for the Su 27SK is very poor and incomplete, better to get a Russian one with the possibility to copy the text and translate via deepl.

1800/295.069=6.1 Mach

1 Like

Just a little note, an observation.
Mine is a direct publication from Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Plant (KnAAPO).

Both in Russian & English.
Good luck trying to downplay that that company bud. Straight up just stirring up strife huh.

What exact translation are you talking about? Though? :)

You know what, I am so down for a Mach 6 medium ranged SARH all day in WT.

That has my vote any day of the week.

I didn’t understand anything. But you can test it yourself to climb to a height of 15 km and a speed of 2M and see how the missile accelerates

I will do it in the SMT since this is the Mig-29 topic. It’s not going to go Mach 6 I can assure you.

While I do it, I might as well try the R-77s too. (doing it Afghanistan)

You know I really wish you hurry up & get these aircraft the only thing I trust of your opinion is the flight models.


1 Like

You guys want to see a Hypersonic Medium Range SARH High-Off Boresight Lock-On After Launch Extended Range Dogfight Missile with HMD Support?? First & only in the world?

@BBCRF I know I was not at the full 15km I got lazy flying around in circles trying to get a missile off. I was Mach 2.02 when I launched the speed did not register in replay.

I like to test in the most real conditions to avoid tamper. So, I found AI, launched and disengaged the track so it would fly straight but it still went for targets. It dropped down on its own toward a target.

Still interesting performance, it reached hypersonic 5.4 in about 7-8 seconds. Pretty sure it would have killed that AI had I left the track.

How is it underperforming again? Look at how fast it zips off. Pretty funny. Flew like 25km in like 10 seconds lol

Raise the target to the same height

alright. Maybe we can get it to Mach 6.

Will do Flanker because that was hard getting up to speed. Even though the SMT has better TTW min fuel. Then again, a Min fuel Flanker is ridiculous thrust regardless if lower TTW.

I like to try to keep everything in game as is no alterations testing.

I can verify there is some replay bug causing the launch speed to differ, but the missile speed is 1:1 it seems.

What I can also say is that according to all data points the R-27ER underperforms in top speed and range. It won’t go mach 6, though. Not from 2 mach launch at least.





1 Like