DZShizzam

Not trying to be rude, but it was pretty clear that this was an Early Access release. Bugs and performance issues are to be expected at this stage. These things will be fixed as the Harrier moves closer to leaving Early Access status I am sure.

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Zeus saying multiple times that it would be released for both 1.5 and 2.1.

I think Combat Air Patrol 2 has a Strait of Hormuz map, but it's not a "simulator" to the same degree as DCS.

So... just for clarification, there will ultimately be training missions on Caucasus, but not right away, but no campaign releasing with the module. Eventually once Strait of Hormuz is released then there will be a paid campaign for that map. Do I have this right? If so, can't wait for SoH :D

I assume it's released on a Friday, as these things always tend to work that way it seems. They said it will be end of November. I assume that Nov. 17th is too aggressive to consider "end" of November, so my guess is November 24th. I wouldn't be shocked if they decided to do it on Dec 1st though. Hopefully we'll get an exact date in the weekly update tomorrow :D

I don't think that this is a game issue. The issue is that they're in a sunny desert with sunlight going directly into the HUD glass. IRL the HUD projection is going to be very difficult to view under such circumstances, and this is demonstrated in game. Try lowering your helmet's shaded visor, and that will help, or adjust graphics settings to turn down gamma should help as well. Try flying a mission just after dark and you'll see what I mean, the HUD will be much more visible.

The harrier is not "all done in 2.5". The harrier will be available for all versions of DCS... not sure what you mean here. And the Tarawa LHD (while not a full fledged carrier) will probably be out before 2.5 is released. I'd be willing to bet on that. IRL American Harriers like we are getting do not operate from aircraft carriers. They operate from LHDs.

Smh at this thread lol. People acting like minor aircraft variations are just a quick update to code that would take no effort. Just not how it works.

Very interested to know if the Tarawa will be available in early access. Haven't heard anything on that subject yet.

Obligatory "made my pre-order" post. Can't wait to try this thing out!

If by "our" harrier you mean the British harrier, yes. They fly the Gr.7 in that book. However that is not the Harrier we are getting in DCS. We are getting an American Harrier (AV-B NA) which has different systems and different weapons capabilities.

It will absolutely be more capable than the A-10C for SEAD since it actually has a missile that can home on radar signals. It will not be nearly as capable as the SU-25T. The AGM-122 the Harrier is getting is basically just good for suppressing short range SAM (SA-6/SA-8) sites and radar guided AAA. Something I think a lot of people here don't consider is that you don't need an AGM-88 to do proper SEAD, either, and stuff other than the technology that is equipped on the plane does matter. The Harrier is going to be significantly faster than the A-10C, and that will help tremendously with taking out radar sites. I can and have used terrain masking to kill well defended SA-11 sites in the A-10C in DCS, just using guns or rockets, even using Mavs. In fact the radar homing missiles like the AGM-122 and AGM-88 in real life aren't even reliable enough to get consistent hits. They are primarily used in self defense to get the radar operator to shut off the radar once they're fired at. I suppose what I'm talking about is DEAD more than SEAD, but similar concept. Take radars offline xD

No, it will only be able to utilize the United State's modern CBU series of cluster bombs. So CBU-87, 97, 103, 105 as I understand it. BL755 is a British weapons system, and this is an American Harrier. EDIT: I stand corrected, Mk20s only.

In practice harriers would never be used with 12x GBUs. In fact, I've never heard of a harrier carrying more than 4 GBUs at a time. I'm pretty sure 12x GBUs would make the Harrier far too heavy to actually take off, maybe unless your tanks were completely empty.

None of us plebs know if it will have a pre-purchase period. However, ED stated that it would in their newsletter a few weeks back. And I think Razbam did one for Mirage, although I could be wrong about that. I'm trying to keep my expectations realistic. I'm expecting 1-4 weeks of pre-purchase announced some time before the end of October, and hoping to have my hands on the Harrier before December.

Very neat, appreciate the update!

Loving all the progress on the Pocket Guide, Zeus. It's nice to have something to digest while we wait. Has a decision been made about whether the targeting pod will be available in early access?

No need to be confrontational man, I was just saying I had never heard of such a limitation of the AGM-122. My knowledge level is far from sufficient to make an analysis of the capabilities of the AGM-122. But is is strictly the size of the antenna that dictates what frequencies this missile can detect/target? Why is it unlikely that the radar receiver in the missile could detect EWR systems?

I think you're looking for Ultra MFCD: https://ultramfcd.com

Have you flown the A-10C? If so, you should expect very similar A/A systems. The onboard cameras (as well as the TGP I would presume) will have an A/A search mode, but it won't be nearly as effective as a radar. As far as A/A weapons go you'll have simple AIM-9 and guns. In terms of actual A/A capability, I think the Harrier N/A will be a lot more effective than the A-10C just because it is so much faster. If you're expecting to buy the Harrier to use in A/A combat though, I think you'll be pretty disappointed.

Do you have any source on the whole "not being able to lock EWR" thing? AFAIK the AGM-122 didn't have any such limitations in real life, although hitting EWR was not the missile's intended use.

Normally I try to take a fairly realistic loadout. TGP, 2xAGM-65D, 2xMk82 or CBU-97, 1xAGM-65G, 1x GBU-38, 1x GBU-12, sometimes a pod of WP or HE rockets depending on mission, ECM pod, and a full tank of gas. If I expect to see some helos or something I'll bring an AIM-9 as well.

Just my opinion, but I think way more people will play and enjoy your MP campaign if you don't use mods on existing maps to create the effect of a Norway/Caribbean naval theater. I can definitely suspend my disbelief enough to fly an American Harrier in the RAF, since it's a British designed airframe anyways. Much of the community that plays DCS have a high attention to detail, and even if you play on the maps we already have, just retextured to represent a different region... well, that could be kinda lame. The textures would be different, but all the landmarks will be the same. Something I think would be really cool? Having it set in the Normandy map that we already know and love. It is less beaten-to-death than the caucasus map we have gotten to know for the past half decade. The runways are unfinished so you could have the Harrier operate from a lot of FOBs and unprepared runways, which it was meant to do. It has great possibilities for naval ops. It actually includes part of the UK, the list goes on and on.

I love the idea of a multiplayer campaign. I'm a bit confused about the specifics you have laid out, including a dual-theater campaign in the Caribean + Norway (please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to accomplish). We obviously don't have a Caribean or Norway theater for DCS. A Norway theater is rumored, but it will be years before it is released. To have a dual-theater campaign you would need a DCS version that has 2+ maps, and the only such version we have is 2.1, and the only maps are Nevada and Normandy. How would this be done? Final question, I respect that you're an RAF Harrier veteran, but do you think it would be unrealistic to do an RAF campaign when we are getting an American Harrier, not a British version? Please don't interpret my critique as negativity. I love the idea of a multiplayer campaign, I just have some questions :)

The only one of these that would really make sense IMO is the F-104. The Yak-38 would be a very complicated aircraft to create, being VTOL, and very few (less than 300) were ever built, AND I don't think they ever saw action. Could be wrong about that last part. That said, if you look at the current lineup of planes that are announced, in progress, or already released, I think we need more 1970 and later era Russian planes. I would love to see a Tu-28 or Su-15.