AV-8B Harrier Thread

[Thor_HUN]

Dear Zeus,

 

did you receive any feedback from ED about the AV-8? How long was the testing period of the M2C module? I guess the lenght of the AV8 test period is going to be something similar like the M2C.I just curious about when the AV-8 arrives or when they will start the pre-sale.

[Flia]

Yes. Please tell us something. Dont play silent game as others Devs :)

[Vitormouraa]

I don't think they have anything to say... ED is testing the Harrier and that's it.

 

Btw, RAZBAM is known for being very open to discussion about their modules ;)

[Tread_Head57]

Yes. Please tell us something. Dont play silent game as others Devs :)

 

Google "NDA". Pretty sure that's your answer.

[Raven68]

Google "NDA". Pretty sure that's your answer.

 

^THIS^ All day and every day.

[Zeus67]

Yes. Please tell us something. Dont play silent game as others Devs :)

We are on track to release.

 

Google "NDA". Pretty sure that's your answer.

Yep. We are under one of those.

[Sarraceno]

As long as it is 2 real weeks....

[Harry.R]

We are on track to release.

 

 

Yep. We are under one of those.

 

 

Good new, thanks. :thumbup:

[Flia]

Very good :)

[MikeMikeJuliet]

Good to know.

 

We await further information in due time.

[sze5003]

Thanks for the update Zeus, looking forward to it!

[Knock-Knock]

If the Mirage pre-purchase and early access release is anything to go by, then I guess Harrier pre-purchase in October and early access in December. Wasnt the Mirage launched like that?

[Greekbull]

Thanks for keeping us informed Zeus. Really hope to see it soon.

 

Question, will we be getting the LHA upon release? Thanks!

[Prowler111]

Thanks for keeping us informed Zeus. Really hope to see it soon.

 

Question, will we be getting the LHA upon release? Thanks!

No..the LHA will be available during the constant updates till final release

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Greekbull]

OK thank you for that info.

[Soundwave197]

I just realised the AV-8B must have a great thrust to weight ratio. Is the max vtol throttle limited in forward flight or can we use full thrust and even with the watersystem activated for a 90° flight?

[Zeus67]

I just realised the AV-8B must have a great thrust to weight ratio. Is the max vtol throttle limited in forward flight or can we use full thrust and even with the watersystem activated for a 90° flight?

You can do whatever you want within the operational limits of the airframe and the engine.

[Zeus67]

AGM-122A Sidearm Test, against a Shilka and an EW radar.

 

Shilkas are tricky. I was shot down three times before I found an engagement procedure. Unfortunately you have to point the aircraft towards the threat, otherwise the missile won't find the radar source and lock. That is why I originally tested against EW radars, they don't shoot back. :smartass:

Edited October 8, 2017 by Zeus67

[Dudikoff]

Should the Sidearm be able to engage an EWR radar? That sounds rather odd, IMHO.

 

Also, it shows how DCSW vehicle damage effects need some work. IIRC, it had a very small warhead so it wouldn't destroy e.g. the Shilka, but mainly take out its radar (with some other potential damage by the fragmentation warhead).

Edited October 8, 2017 by Dudikoff

[shagrat]

Should the Sidearm be able to engage an EWR radar? That sounds rather odd, IMHO.

 

Also, it shows how DCSW vehicle damage effects need some work. IIRC, it had a very small warhead so it wouldn't destroy e.g. the Shilka, but mainly take out its radar (with some other potential damage by the fragmentation warhead).

Current damage model is likely not able to model "Sensor-damage" on ground vehicles. Let's wait what ED comes up with in 2.5 and later.

[ALF7]

AGM-122

SA-8,15,19?

DogEar?

Range launch alt-300-3000ft?

[Panzerfan]

Should the Sidearm be able to engage an EWR radar? That sounds rather odd, IMHO.

 

Also, it shows how DCSW vehicle damage effects need some work. IIRC, it had a very small warhead so it wouldn't destroy e.g. the Shilka, but mainly take out its radar (with some other potential damage by the fragmentation warhead).

 

Considering that a 11.3 kg warhead impacts the Shilka with around Mach 2 i believe the crew would have a "serious emotional event"

and don't forget the warjead would explode on top of the vehicle where the armor is thinnest.

I'd say that it would definitely be a mission kill if not a complete loss

[Hook47]

Agreed. The AGM 122 destroying vehicles is fine for now, until more advanced damage modeling is in place, because can feel assured that thing would seriously damage or destroy its target and likely kill crew.

 

Sent from my SM-J320V using Tapatalk

[Zeus67]

Should the Sidearm be able to engage an EWR radar? That sounds rather odd, IMHO.

 

Also, it shows how DCSW vehicle damage effects need some work. IIRC, it had a very small warhead so it wouldn't destroy e.g. the Shilka, but mainly take out its radar (with some other potential damage by the fragmentation warhead).

 

The shilka at first appeared undamaged, but after a while it exploded.

AFAIK, DCS has the following ground vehicle damage status: undamaged, damaged (based on HP), burning, destroyed. DCS does not have visual representation for a damaged vehicle, so it looks undamaged.

[Dudikoff]

The shilka at first appeared undamaged, but after a while it exploded.

AFAIK, DCS has the following ground vehicle damage status: undamaged, damaged (based on HP), burning, destroyed. DCS does not have visual representation for a damaged vehicle, so it looks undamaged.

 

Yeah, I understand this, hence why I wrote DCSW vehicle damage modeling needs work, I know it's out of your hands.

 

But, the main point was the seeker tracking the EWR radar emissions. Do you have any sources that back that this small missile's seeker is capable of locking up the VHF EWR radars?