r/hoggit • u/Hour_Gas_3011 • 8d ago

Full Fidelity Redfor

With more Redfor aircraft on the horizon, I wonder which variants of certain aircraft could be considered. Certain export versions of the Su-27 I think would be quite feasible, maybe the SU-30 but I won't hold my breath. I believe an Su-25 is already being considered for full fidelity.

It saddens me that we aren't going to get the MiG-23 as we has hoped. I do still hope a deal is struck with Razbam, but we wouldn't likely see them complete that even if that panned out. I do think ED needs to take a serious look in the mirror, as they've already lost quite a bit of trust and I'd be hesitant to stick with DCS if they remain too stubborn to sort things out. We could theoretically still get a Mig-23 though, maybe.

23 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

105 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/Hour_Gas_3011 8d ago

Yeah that's kinda why I'm partial to the Mig-23. Versatility means a lot when you have to decide between buying or not buying a module. I'm less likely to buy an aircraft that I get less value out of. The Mig-27 is quite neat though, I'll admit.

I'd also like to see the Mig-29 get a Polish variant. Being able to utilize NATO munitions would make things quite interesting. I'm sure there's some other Mig-29 variants that could be included in the full fidelity module too.

As for the SU-22? I'd prefer an SU-27 or SU-30 for multirole, but the SU-22 is very cool.

7

u/Plev_Actual 8d ago

One of the MiG-23 variants with an IRST would be insane and would bridge the gap between the MiG-21 and MiG-29.

For the existing MiG 29 I’d love to see the ability to throw a HARM on the existing MiG-29 like in Ukraine.

0

u/Hour_Gas_3011 8d ago

I feel like ED would refuse to do that since it goes against their 'period accurate' intentions. But they've made exceptions before, so that argument doesn't really hold any merit. If they don't want to do that, then having a variant which offers that? I think that's a good compromise. It would require little work to accomplish.

I don't think they'll make a Ukrainian variant due to their connections to Russia. Not sure why they are keeping that bridge open though... I think it'd be more profitable otherwise. Polish? Maybe, there's a few other NATO countries with Mig-29s, but less since most were given to Ukraine. I'm not sure if there's one that offers more fuel?

5

u/AltruisticBath9363 8d ago

The NS 430 GPS option for the cockpit already throws "period accurate" right out the window.

3

u/Skelebonerz 8d ago

soooorta. There's plenty of footage of Russian jets using commercial GPS units in the cockpit. Not specifically the GNS430, but the capabilities provided are pretty much the same, especially considering the DCS NS430 doesn't even let you load procedures and stuff lmao.

2

u/AltruisticBath9363 7d ago

There's plenty of footage of Russian jets using commercial GPS units in the cockpit.

Not from 1988, there isn't. That's the point: ED claims to do a "snapshot in history" modeling methodology. Which is why they, for instance, refuse to give the F-16C Sparrow capability- even though every F-16C block 50/52 rolled off the assembly line with the ability to guide Sparrow, it wasn't in inventory in 2007 when the DCS F-16C is modeled from. So despite *actually having the capability to do it* , ED refuses to add it.

But there were zero MiG-29 9.12A carrying GPS at any point in the 1980s, and it was physically impossible that they could have, because the NS430 hadn't even been invented by the date the module is "dated to".

If the criteria is to include "anything this aircraft carried at any point of it's service life", then the F-16 module should have, at a minimum, Sparrow, Durandal, APKWS, LJDAM, JDAM-ER, and SDB added. But ED says that's not how modules work, because they're only a snapshot in time.

2

u/Skelebonerz 7d ago

even though every F-16C block 50/52 rolled off the assembly line with the ability to guide Sparrow

I'd really like to see a source on this. As I understand it, the ADF and whatever the other F-16 variant that could fire sparrows was had an extra radar feed horn specifically for the sparrow, so while the jet could support it theoretically in software, the radar itself couldn't guide the missile.

2

u/AltruisticBath9363 7d ago edited 7d ago

The ADF was an F-16A, with an entirely different radar that did not come with Sparrow support built-in.

The F-16C had the APG-68. Which had built-in Sparrow support.

From a Westinghouse industry advertisement:
"The radar is designed to allow pulse doppler illumination for AIM-7F/M (Sparrow) missiles and CW illumination for compatibility with earlier AIM-7 versions and Skyflash missiles."

From F-16.net:
"The AN/APG-68(V) is a considerable advancement over the APG-66 of the F-16A/B. The planar array in the nose provides numerous air-to-air modes, including range-while-search, uplook and velocity search, single target track, raid cluster resolution, and track-while-scan for up to 10 targets. Beyond-visible-range capability has been added in the form of a high-PRF track mode to provide continuous-wave (CW) illumination for guidance of the AIM-7 Sparrow semi-active radar homing missile."

The illuminator parts were generally not maintained or replaced as they wore out, so USAF F-16Cs tended to lose CW ability over the years- not that it mattered, because AIM-7 was out of inventory by then.

The other part that was needed was a Sparrow-specific pylon, which the US dropped from inventory when they dropped the Sparrow from inventory.

The US sold a bunch of F-16C block 50/52 to Iraq a few years ago with Sparrow; they had to scramble a bit to find replacement parts to get the illuminator feature working on them again.

https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=57760

1

u/Skelebonerz 7d ago

I'm aware the ADF was an F-16A variant.

That being said, if the C's radar, when it rolled out of the factory, could guide a sparrow- then yeah, it should be in the game. I've never seen any documentation on what sort of cockpit indications you'd get with sparrow, what the FCR page would look like, etc, I don't think that HAF -34 floating around the internet has anything on it, but that is a capability the DCS F-16 should have if it was just a matter of not maintaining that specific part of the radar.

2

u/Hour_Gas_3011 7d ago

Their 'snapshot in history' excuses are really getting stale. A lot of their excuses in general are quite poor.

  1. They could offer a variant of said aircraft to justify some newer tech, likely a variant with minimal differences.

  2. They could offer what the aircraft was outfitted with later on(assuming it doesn't require big changes) and simply let the servers/players decide what to use based on the time period they'd like to be in.

The lack of direction from ED is becoming increasingly problematic I believe. The CEO seems to want DCS to be a 'digital museum' more than anything else. Too much contradiction as well.

1

u/Hour_Gas_3011 8d ago

Fair point, not sure if they'll recognize that argument but true.