Vampyre

Indeed, reading through the posts I'm not sure everybody knows what the difference between the GR7/9 and AV-8B are so here is a little info on them. The initial production AV-8B(NA) and GR7 are essentially the same thing. The primary differences were in equipment fit. Both used ARBS in conjunction with the nose mounted FLIR, as their primary targeting device for unguided bomb delivery for both day and night. The GR7/9 was upgraded with Zeus ECM system (jammer pod not required) and extra pylons dedicated to AIM-9 carriage. The gun for the GR-7/9 was a stillborn project that was never really required for its intended mission. The differences between AV-8B's- AV-8B is the initial day attack variant that used ARBS as the primary target designation device. AV-8B(NA) is night attack capable using a nose mounted FLIR improved HUD and NVG compatible cockpit. It also used ARBS. THIS IS THE VERSION IN THE POLL. AV-8B+ is the version that dispensed with ARBS in favor of the APG-65 radar. This is the only version that is capable of using Harpoon or AMRAAM. Weapons Harrier GR7/9 interdictor aircraft has eight under wing hardpoints plus three mounting points for targeting pods, countermeasure pods, a reconnaissance pod or LIDS under the fuselage for a grand total of 11 useable stations. The AV-8B(NA) CAS aircraft has six under wing hardpoints, a centerline mount for the ALQ-126 jammer pod, plus mountings for the GAU-12 25mm gun pod system or LIDS. This is nine usable stations with the GAU-12 taking up two of them by itself. Typical AV-8B loadout over Afghanistan (Pictured is the B+ but the B(NA) is similar) AIM-9 would be carried on stations 1 and 7. The short range of the Harrier requires the use of two 300 gallon drop tanks which reduces the bomb load to one GBU-12 LGB in addition to the single GAU-12 25mm cannon system with 300 rounds. Typical GR9 loadout over Afghanistan. Note the locations of the targeting pod and this particular machine carries a reconnaissance pod and countermeasures dispenser pod on the belly as well. This plane is equipped with 2 pods housing CRV-7 rockets and two GBU-12 LGB's. The BOL sidewinder rails carry additional expendable countermeasures as well.

Well, now they are asking which version, GR7/9 or AV-8B(NA), we would like to have.

With the GR7/9 you gain two extra sidewinder pylons plus an internal jammer. The AV-8B has to use a centerline external pylon for its ALQ-126C jammer pod and I'm not sure it can use it in conjunction with the gun seeing as the belt feed from the ammo drum crosses the belly where the center pylon is located. The equipment differences between the British and American Harriers highlight the different missions they were acquired for. The GR7/9 are interdiction machines and the AV-8B is a CAS machine. The gun is not really required for interdiction whereas it does have a use in the CAS role.

Seems like a legitimate air defense asset... Of course they could follow the trend setters in New Zealand as well...

GR7/9 because of two extra sidewinders on dedicated pylons mounted on stations 1A and 7A which also contain countermeasures dispensers. That and the ability to carry a targeting pod (TIALD, LITENING or SNIPER) and TERMA countermeasures pod on the stations 4A and 4B in place of the non existent gun's which also free up space on stations 3 and 5 for weapons carriage. Those would be far more valuable than 300 rounds of 25mm for the GAU-12. Stations 4A and 4B are far better positions for targeting pods than stations 3 and 5 on the AV-8B(NA) as they have a much larger field of view being mounted that low on the airframe. I voted GR7/GR9. my assumption being that RAZBAM will eventually do an AV-8B+ with the APG-65 in the future. Additionally, the choice of Harrier GR9 practically guarantees the inclusion of a targeting pod whereas the AV-8B Night Attack does not have that kind of guarantee as it spent the first half of its career without one.

A Harrier T10 or T12 would be rather useful in showing others how to fly the thing... plus they have all their pylons so could also be used as an honest to goodness combat aircraft in a pinch. both versions are directly related to the GR7 and GR9 respectively so if RAZBAM do a DCS GR7/9 they will have a good start to the systems and weapons modeling from the very beginning. Flight model and aircraft model will of course have to change plus the addition of two seat capability. That being said, I honestly doubt they will do a two seat Harrier for financial reasons. It would be a risky proposition to do a separate module with almost the same capabilities as an existing module.

Awesome update Cobra. Thank you and Happy New Year.

That really depends on what side of the HOT you are on.:music_whistling:

Two years ago I flew from Kuwait International to Washington Dulles... halfway around the world on one flight. That is what you need to bring in the large civilian aircraft virtual pilots to DCS. To successfully implement large civilian transports, large military transports and strategic bombers the maps in DCS need to be much larger than they are currently capable of making. They are just barely big enough for the aircraft we currently have. I do see a market for civilian helicopters, regional airliners such as the CRJ or SAAB 340, and back country bush planes like the Twin otter or Turbo Porter, tactical transports up to about C-130 size and maybe medium bombers like the Tu-22M3. Not all civilian aircraft interest me but I would definatly be in the market for modules that would be challenging to operate. A Pilatus Turbo-Porter would be awesome to try to land on the side of a mountain in Indonesia. Even a small twin like the Do-228 landing at Lukla Nepal or Fokker 50 into Ísafjörður Iceland ... and then theres the possibility of helitac and airtanker ops. If only there was some way to simulate fighting virtual wildland fires.

Yes, there are building targets in DCS. The F99th server has a mission called Deep Strike where the objectives are to take out supply warehouses and bunkers to win. The destruction of certain warehouses and bunkers will cut off supplies of aircraft armament and fuel so it has an important effect on the battle. DCS 1.5 broke some things on the various 1.2.16 maps so I am not sure if it is running at the moment but it is entirely possible to build missions for strike aircraft that involve striking high value targets.

The F-16 is definatly not on my list of must have modules for DCS. There will be an F-16 in DCS eventually but in my opinion there are much more interesting fixed wing aircraft that have not been modeled at all in a hi fidelity combat flight simulator. Presently, I am exceedingly happy with LNS who have taken on my top two favorites, the F-14 Tomcat and F4U Corsair. I'd like to see an F-4E/G, F-111D/E/F, A-6E, F-105D/G, Tu-22M-3 Backfire, Tu-22KD Blinder, B-1B, OV-10A/D, Jaguar GR1/3, Tornado IDS, MC-130H/AC-130H... Heck I'd even want a KC-10A Extender which has both hose and drogue as well as the flying boom refueling systems and can carry cargo before any version of F-16.

The F-117 was built for targets that are far more valuable than three or four platoons of tanks. Different airplanes for completely different missions. I'd still like to see a F-117A in DCS.

The L-39 seems to do ok off road. I accidently did that yesterday. Heavier aircraft with narrow cord high pressure tires have the most problems which is true to life. I can get a 30,000lbs A-10C to taxi out of the grass pretty easily but I haven't really tried anything much heavier than empty weight plus a splash of fuel. Here's something to ponder while screaming for ED to fix what in my opinion is not broken. P-51D max gross weight is 12,100lbs (10,100lbs normal TO) L-39C max TO weight is 10,362lbs A-10C max TO weight 51,000lbs F-15C max TO weight 61,000lbs The fix is to be a better pilot and not take your plane offroading.:thumbup:

It would be nice to have TARPS when the Tommy gets here if LNS deems it worthy of inclusion.

And the F-100 and F-110 engines are much wider than the RB199 as well which would require redesigned mid and aft fuselages to allow for higher air volumes to be supplied to the engines and to physically fit the engines into the fuselage. The EJ200 proposal to increase it's mid to high altitude performance would have more merit if the Tornado wasn't already so old. With only about 10 more years left until retirement of the GR4's, and a very limited defense budget the money would be better spent increasing the capabilities of the Typhoon.

Awww, c'mon Sweep, you know you want an F2 fully outfitted with the blue circle uno-mode radar.

The OP did allude to that in the first post. There is no real mission accomplishment/goals for reconnaissance at the moment either. Of course some of these types of aircraft could have a use at the moment such as AWACS, Wild Weasels and the battlefield observation aircraft.

Personally, I'd be more inclined to believe the F-5E was able to use the missiles pictured if they were flying and had actual war shot missiles rather than training shapes on the ground. With no other frame of reference these could very well be manufacturer advertisement photos of weapons fitment tests for the F-5EM upgrade. Those types of testing are used to ensure the weapons can physically fit on the aircraft. It doesn't prove they can actually be fired by the jet. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. The caveat to that is that, in the photos, you have to understand the context and content what is being shown in them to understand the true nature of the photo. **EDIT** It is interesting to note that the very first EM upgrade is FAB 4834.... the aircraft in the photo. This was the prototype for the EM program upgrade which further reinforces my assumption that this was weapons fitment testing. http://www.aviationpros.com/press_release/11368538/tap-me-brazil-delivers-the-first-f5-to-the-fab-after-performing-a-depot-level-inspection

The top of my want list is populated by the F-4G Wild Weasel, F-105G Wild Weasel, Tornado ECR, MiG-25BM Foxbat F, MiG-25RB Foxbat B, OV-10D+ Bronco and OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. While I would like to try my hand at flying the SR-71... we don't have a map in DCS big enough to operate it in. The current maps are far too small to even turn the thing around in at Mach 3.

Nope it's the mythical LRS-B.

IIRC, they were kicking around the idea of doing a GR7 or GR9 last year.

Seeing as I couldn't pick more than one, my want's are as follows: 1. CV-22B Osprey 2. CH-53E Super Sea Stallion 3. M/UH-60A/K/L/M/S Blackhawk/Knighthawk 4. MH-53J/M 5. Mi-26 Halo 6. CH-47D Chinook 7. CH-3E/UH-3H Jolly Green/Sea King

I would love to get my hands on a Marinefliger PA-200. Kormoran and HARM would be fun to employ.

LOL! Falling into the sea in flames in an antique airplane doesn't seem like a very good attack plan... but that's just my opinion. Burn away!:pilotfly:

Maybe when ED get finished with the F-117's first home, Tonopah, we will also have the F-117A to fly out of it.