When the MiG-29s were first added, they were denied their historical main armament, the R-73. This was fair- at the time, over three years ago. But now IRCCM are ubiquitous. There are a myriad of 4th gen 13.0s with IRCCM, the French F-16A and F-16OCU are both 12.7 with AIM-9Ms, and Gaijin has even made the absurd decision to move the F-15s to 12.7- the same BR as the MiG-29s despite having better missiles, more missiles, and better flight performance!
And now Gaijin is giving the 9.13 R-73s and moving it up in BR, with a new MiG-29 at 12.7. Which is nice for the Soviet tree, I suppose, but it’s putting duct tape over a very patchable hole. Italy will still be left without R-73s and at this point what reason is there against simply giving the MiG-29s their proper armament: R-73s and no R-27Es? This would fit the MiG-29s into 12.7 compared to the current BRs of e.g. the F-16OCU though 13.0 if recent compression of that BR range are not considered.
Anyways, what are your thoughts? How do you think the MiG-29s should be implemented?
Note: the MiG-29N and MiG-29SMT are a different situation, the MiG-29s in question are only the 12.7 and 13.0 first-gen MiG-29s of the 9.12, 9.12A, 9.12B, 9.12G, and 9.13 standards.
- Keep current Dev Server implementation
- Give all MiG-29 9.12/13 historically accurate R-73 and no R-27E, BR 13.0
- Give all MiG-29 9.12/13 historically accurate R-73 and no R-27E, BR 12.7
- Give all MiG-29 9.12/13 R-73 and R-27E, BR 13.0
- Give each nation one MiG-29 at 12.7 and one 13.0 (e.g. R-73 and R-27ET for MiG-29 Sniper)
- Something else (comment)
6 Likes
i think gaijins justification is “any pylon that can take the R27R can take the R27ER”
I think this is the best option, but both Russia and Germany should keep their 13.0 Mig-29s just to add a bit more and differentiate them slightly.
2 Likes
r60mk+r27r→12.3√
r73+r27r→12.7√
9 Likes
i dont think the f15a has better missiles other than the 9M than the 12.7 mig29 because those R27ERs are free kills with the mig29
We don’t really need more compression. It should go 13.0 if it gets them. In my opinion, Russia can/should have the “early” MiG-29, representing the period in 1983 when it was in service without the R-73 being in service (entered service in 1984) which would have R-60Ms and no ER/ET this could sit at 12.3 — while the other ones should be either 12.7 or 13.0 with access to the R-73 and ER/ET. But I lean to 13.0 for obvious reasons.
2 Likes
Not with N019 and against anything that isn’t a zomber. Rubin is very easy to notch, which makes R-27ER quite mediocre on a MiG-29.
Why even pick 13.0 MiG-29 if you have 13.0 Su-27 and Su-33 that are literally better in every conceivable way? The only thing that MIG-29 has over them is the size that might make multipathing a bit easier. But you trade flight performance, countermeasures, 4-6 R-27ERs and radar that doesn’t get notched by accident.
2 Likes
I haven’t had an issues with the R27ER on the MIG29 personally. I haven’t flown them a whole lot, just about 300 matches total with the MIG29/MIG29G, but in those matches I’ve rarely had any issues with missiles not hitting.
Does the historically accurate armaments also include removing R-27Ts from the East German fulcrums?
Neither do I, I am talking about my experience against MiG-29s. They are very easy to notch and trash their R-27s
best option but keep the 13.0 Soviet 9.13 and MiG-29G with the R-27ER/ET + R-73 loadout to basically not get two duplicate jets in each tree. and folder them under their R-27R/T + R-73 12.7 variant
3 Likes