In the RusAF I'd assume it will arm the MiG-31BM at the least (the missile displayed at MAKS pretty much proves this point), with the PAK-FA likely and the Su-35 possible.
I would think it will be the new standard missile for the Foxhound, but I also think most of the Foxhounds will likely move from the Russian AF to the Russian Space and Air Defence Forces, along with a few upgraded Flankers and lots of other platforms.
I think in the next few years (2013-2016) we will see all new short, medium, and long range missiles designed specifically for the PAK FA to be revealed, but I rather suspect that the same effect on the Mig-29K vs Su-33 will apply with the R-37 vs KS-172 and that the 35 Flanker will be carrying this missile too.
However, given the work that's been done with the AAM-L and the FLANKER airframe, particularly recently with regards to a potential Indian AF sale, I wonder if they haven't done anything with the RVV-BD/FLANKER combination yet.
It will likely come down to whether the Indians want to spend the money to develop it.
The fact that the RVV-BD is now likely available perhaps that might kill suggestions of funding the KS-172.
Why stick something like this on the MiG-29 though? At combat weight the FULCRUM is a true Hornet equivalent: great weapons systems, excellent ACM performance (if you pop off the heavy stuff to turn and burn), but very lacking in legs.
Legasy Fulcrums might be difficult to justify, but remember this missile can engage targets pulling 8g so it is not just for use against large aircraft anymore... with its folding wing a Super Hornet is an 8g aircraft...
If you can get information from other platforms about Australian F-18s coming to attack, perhaps a ground based long wave radar or something then firing a couple of missiles to a projected intercept point might be a useful way to disrupt a potential attack.
What better time to justify upgrading older Fulcrums with a new 5 pylon wing, new radar and new SMT conformal fuel... the savings in operating costs alone would pay for itself in 3-4 years while the improved performance with the RVV range of new missiles will greatly enhance performance.
Sticking heavy AAMs like this on the FULCRUM greatly expands its reach, but yanks away one of its true assets: the ablity to go into a HOBS engagement out-turning the competition.
You don't need to carry more than two per aircraft, and while 500kgs is heavy for an AAM you need to keep in mind it would normally carry R-27s which at 350kgs each are not lightweights either.
For a short range interception, which would be normal for a Fulcrum it is unlikely they would carry them, but for longer range interception it would enable the Fulcrum to let the missile extend its range instead of using fuel tanks.
A flight of 4 old model Fulcrums with 2 RVV-BDs and 4 R-73s each operating with an Su-30Mxx which uses its radar to detect targets at long range and passes target info to the Migs is pretty much simulating two Foxhounds in terms of long range missiles.
The Migs could climb and accelerate and fire their long range missiles while the Flanker monitors the targets and sends updates to the missiles.
Reasonable chance of a kill with minimal exposure using old aircraft.
The most overlooked airshow routine of all time was the Su-30MK at Paris or Farnborough in the early/mid 90s: Western "experts" shouted that the FLANKER wasn't going to be nearly as impressive with a full warload. Russia's response? Load out the Su-30MK, fly routine, laugh.
I remember that... not just a heavy load, but bombs on MERs so it was draggy too...
The R-37M/AAM-L were likely intended to be the armament for the MiG 7.01, you weren't fitting a booster-equipped R-37M underneath a FOXHOUND-M.
I remember reading somewhere that the booster equipped R-37M was wing pylon mounted or two on the belly... In the ground attack role with 1,500kg guided bombs the Mig-31 was supposed to have the same configuration... 6 x 1,500kg bombs with two on the belly and one under each of 4 wing pylons for a total of 9 ton payload. It was the Mig-25RB equivalent or something.
Airborne ABMs are relatively pointless. Until the US comes up with a sensible arms reduction concept, I.E. one that includes the PRC AND Russia, relying on airborne systems is a great way to get yourself glassed. It's a good concept for a theater role against a limited threat like Iran or Syria, but not against a serious threat like Russia or the PRC where there are considerably more weapons to deal with.
I think perhaps you are thinking airplanes... and I think they are thinking high flying airships and other more exotic things including within their new Space and Air Defence Force structure satellite based radar etc.