al531246

Are you sure about that?...

RAZBAM has already announced their intention to add APKWS to the Harrier. Because ED are adding it as one of the weapons for the F/A-18C Hornet, RAZBAM have said they will wait for ED's implementation. Once ED have added it in, RAZBAM just need to code it onto the Harrier.

This is the tail end of the GR.7. I don't think is a MLWS like the A-10C has but more a sensor that links in with the RWR to detect guidance commands. I can't say for certain tho.

Whenever I see talk of restricting weaponry it really triggers me! There is no legitimate reason for doing so - the exception being if you're trying to create a period server i.e. ACG Cold War If you keep getting killed by R-27ET's or AIM-120's it's not the fault of the missile for being 'too OP' - it's your fault for lack of SA. The same people who complain about AIM-120's are the people who sit with their eyes glued to 1 of 2 displays; the radar or the RWR. Looking out of the window never crosses their mind.

A1-AV8BB-NFM-000 - https://info.publicintelligence.net/AV-8B-000.pdf Page 2-77 Page 2-78

Yeah, exactly that. In my experience that either isn't happening or is simulated to such a marginal extent that it's unnoticeable.

The current issue lies with the accuracy / dispersion of the GAU-8 in DCS. The dispersion value is far too high and has been demonstrated to be more times than I care to mention. The USAF has run numerous evaluations on the performance of the GAU-8 and it's all documented and public information so there's no excuse for it's current state. As for the damage inflicted to the target, this is a limitation of DCS. The idea behind the GAU-8 is the a mission kill - a critical part of the vehicle is damaged so much so that the vehicle is inoperable. This could be for example the barrel of a tank, the engine, detracked, injured crew and so on and so forth. DCS is limited in this regard as a vehicle can only occupy 1 of 3 states; 1) full health 2) burning about to be blow up 3) destroyed. There's no room in there for damage to individual parts of the vehicle and as such a mission kill is impossible. You have to outright destroy the vehicle which is a tall order for the gun alone. It is possible but it's gonna take up most of gun ammo, if not all of it.

Is your GEN switch set to ON?

I believe the standard loadout on the Sea Harrier FRS1 in the Falklands War was ; 2x AIM-9L 2x wing mounted external tanks Gun pod The Harrier GR.3's usually mixed it up a bit depending on their mission but I believe they still always carried external tanks on the inner pylons.

Nope.

I believe they're waiting on ED to implement it as it's coming with the F/A-18C. Once ED sort it it can be added to the Harrier. I think the RWR simulation on the Harrier is very much WIP at this point. It's more a placeholder than an accurate simulation. The entire Sounds\Effects\Aircrafts\Cockpits\RWR folder has been copy pasted into the Harrier's folder and I don't know why because it doesn't use them. Also they've got the .lua's necessary for a simulation similar to the A-10C's RAE mod but it's not yet coded out. But it's definitely there. I think it's safe to assume all will be sorted once RAZBAM get around to it.

Remember even if the warhead failed to explode the Sidearm would fly straight through the radar emitter. Thus destroying it (or at least putting it out of action).

Only AV-8B Harrier Plus (radar version) carries AGM-88. Apologies for discussion.

If this 'every 3 days you must confirm' rumor is true it's a REALLY poor idea. When I moved house I was without internet for 2 weeks. Under the new system that would render the game completely useless if all the modules were under that system. Once a month would be a better idea or even better still; not at all!

+1

It's out my dudes! https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=196546 EDIT; Disregard! It's been announced but download link not yet posted.

Zeus, What's the word on any UK liveries for the AV-8B NA? Can we expect some in the future or are you only creating US liveries?

Could I request a copy from you?

I believe the charts are for the -220 engine, a lot of the F-15E's now use the -229 engine. I don't think we have the charts for the -229 although I could be wrong.

I don't think the kit is nearly as classified as some are making it out to be. Sure F-15E's fitted with an AESA will have nearly everything linked with the radar behind closed doors but I doubt we'll be getting an AESA aircraft so it's nothing to worry about anyways. There's plenty of documentation publicly available for the F-15E (and all the other F-15 models) if you know where to look. There's no need to approximate displays and their relevant functions given this information has been freely available since 1992! The g-limits of the airframe, HOTAS functions, electrical wiring diagrams, caution envelopes and stores capability etcetera are all in the -1's and are already known. The only real difficulty I see RAZBAM having is programming the flight model. AFAIK the performance appendix's for the 15E are still classified. RAZBAM will either have to pull some strings or use approximations from the F-15C FM.

There shouldn't be any debate here. The AV-8B Harrier N/A does not have the necessary capacities to carry and make functional use of the AIM-9P5. I have all the documentation, anyone here is welcome to a copy. It's all declassified documentation. As for the person above who said some technical information is not included in official documentation, please ignore that post. That's demonstrably untrue.

AFAIK the AV-8B is not equipped to carry the AIM-9P series. Only the AIM-9L and AIM-9M. Correct me if I'm wrong tho.

Amalahama, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4trG-BSRgI4

Found a document detailing the changes between the AIM-7M and the AIM-7P. N88-NTSP-A-50-8008C&A.pdf