AV-8B Harrier Thread

[Zeus67]

Does anyone know whether the Mk-81 is still in service or when it was retired?

 

We just had a small discussion about that on the german forums because I thought it was retired from all US forces after Vietnam but I can't find a good source for that anymore.

 

It may have been the USAF only because it is still listed in listed in the "NAVAIR 00-110AV8-4" from 1986 (page 12) but I have no newer source than that available.

I wouldn't mind to be able to throw the old firecracker, I just wondered.

 

I think that small bombs are making a come back thanks to guidance packages. If you can consistently achieve a CEP of less than 2 meters then 250 kg of HE will do the job nicely and with less collateral damage than 500 kg.

[Aginor]

Yeah, they surely have their perks, that's why they developed the SDB and the GBU-29 (that last one was based on the Mk-81, it was canceled though).

Same goes for guided FFARs.

 

EDIT:

...although I wonder if that is true in DCSW. With the blast and fragmentation simulation we have now those would pretty much require a direct hit to do anything...

Edited February 13, 2017 by Aginor

[comie1]

I am working with GAU 12 at this moment.

 

Haha what were the chances :megalol:

[jojo]

Yeah, they surely have their perks, that's why they developed the SDB and the GBU-29 (that last one was based on the Mk-81, it was canceled though).

Same goes for guided FFARs.

 

EDIT:

...although I wonder if that is true in DCSW. With the blast and fragmentation simulation we have now those would pretty much require a direct hit to do anything...

 

Yep, in DCS World Mk-84 is mandatory :thumbup:

[iLOVEwindmills]

Splash even with the Mk84 is really poor. Carrying a similar weight in smaller bombs usually makes more sense, since you have a higher chance of at least one bomb landing close enough or scoring a direct hit.

 

I really really hope something is done about bomb splash damage in the near future.

[tombeckett2285]

Splash even with the Mk84 is really poor. Carrying a similar weight in smaller bombs usually makes more sense, since you have a higher chance of at least one bomb landing close enough or scoring a direct hit.

 

I really really hope something is done about bomb splash damage in the near future.

 

 

 

For some reason, ED use a power multiplier of 0.4 in the warhead lua file which means bombs are entirely ineffective compared to real life. Simply changing the multiplier to 1.0 offers a much more realistic blast radius for all non precision ordnance.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aginor]

Thanks, but I think we are getting increasingly off topic here.

So back to the Harrier:

I wonder what they really used those mk81s for. I mean, they are pretty ineffective, at least as dumb bombs.

I still couldn't find out if and when they stopped doing it.

 

So Razbam, I don't know if there were different sub versions of the Harrier over the years (between the NA and the plus), and I'd love to hear more about it. Are you aiming for a certain time frame, such as the early 90s or so?

[Paradox]

Regarding designating a point on the ground as SPI using the HUD

 

I think it is the LITENING that allows you to do that.

 

We find on the A-10C that this is entirely independent of the TGP, you can do it with it turned off or not mounted on the plane at all

Edited February 13, 2017 by Paradox

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Regarding designating a point on the ground as SPI using the HUD

 

 

 

We find on the A-10C that this is entirely independent of the TGP, you can do it with it turned off or not mounted on the plane at all

More than likely that it will not be a SPI tied into the HUD but a cursor box showing where the pod is looking. I'm are tho that on the av8b+ it will be very similar to the a10c

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[schroedi]

Isn't this a Gbu-16 on that AV-8B NA?

[

Edited February 15, 2017 by schroedi

[jojo]

Yes, I think so.

[iLOVEwindmills]

Something else, bombs under the outboard stations possible? Probably not a common practice, just have this picture of an older model.

 

Edited February 14, 2017 by iLOVEwindmills

[jojo]

I don't know for the Marines, but it was a common practice on British Harrier.

 

[OStateBandit]

Something else, bombs under the outboard stations possible? Probably not a common practice, just have this picture of an older model.

 

 

That is a pre-Night Attack airplane; generally referred to as a Day Attack. Notice the lack of NAVFLIR in front of the windscreen. The white canisters on the four outboard stations appear to be MK20 Rockeyes.

[iLOVEwindmills]

Sure, but the NA could not? Asking mostly because in all the armament variations posted earlier it always had AIM9 under the outboards.

[Hans_Dampf]

That is a pre-Night Attack airplane; generally referred to as a Day Attack. Notice the lack of NAVFLIR in front of the windscreen. The white canisters on the four outboard stations appear to be MK20 Rockeyes.

Isnt the one in the pic posted by jojo a NA?

[mattebubben]

I don't know for the Marines, but it was a common practice on British Harrier.

 

 

The British Harrier II (GR.5,7,9) is quite different from the AV-8B though

(Including a redesigned wing) so what the Pylons can carry what on a Gr.5 etc does not have much meaning on what a AV-8B is capable off carrying(The British Harrier 2 also has more hardpoints with 4 per wing instead of the 3 of the AV-8B).

[joey45]

That last one would be a GR7/9

Shame we couldn't get the gun working properly.

 

using mobile

[OStateBandit]

Sure, but the NA could not? Asking mostly because in all the armament variations posted earlier it always had AIM9 under the outboards.

 

The AV-8B wing is the same between the NA and DA variants, so I assume it still can. However, I don't think it is common given that the AIM-9 is essentially the only A2A self-protection either of those have, especially without the gun loaded.

Edited February 14, 2017 by OStateBandit

[al531246]

I don't know for the Marines, but it was a common practice on British Harrier.

 

US carrier operated harriers were recommended to ensure that the load be symmetrical (weight wise) or as close as possible for vertical landings.

[schroedi]

Here is a USMC AV-8B NA or Plus with a Gbu-32 jdam

Got it from this website https://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imageaviation.com%2FPublished%2FCA_12_9_7.JPG&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imageaviation.com%2FPublished%2FPublished.htm&docid=m34eNtWBMGJhqM&tbnid=EbYxkazkGpWXVM%3A&vet=1&w=300&h=200&client=ms-android-sonymobile&bih=511&biw=360&q=av-8b%20gbu-32&ved=0ahUKEwixvPzvgpHSAhUhG5oKHQWhBwMQMwgbKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8#h=200&imgrc=EbYxkazkGpWXVM:&vet=1&w=300

[jojo]

The British Harrier II (GR.5,7,9) is quite different from the AV-8B though

(Including a redesigned wing) so what the Pylons can carry what on a Gr.5 etc does not have much meaning on what a AV-8B is capable off carrying(The British Harrier 2 also has more hardpoints with 4 per wing instead of the 3 of the AV-8B).

 

I'm not sure about ED policy, so I won't give a link, but AV-8B flight manual is quite easy to find.

And the wing seems to be the same. The extra hardpoint of British Harrier exist on AV-8B, but the option isn't used.

Left wing = station 1A

Right wing = Station 7A.

 

Found: bomb on external point !

Edited February 15, 2017 by jojo

[1stBEAST]

would be cool the have the possibility to use the station 1a and 7a

on the razbam harrier. :-)

[Aginor]

Found: bomb on external point !

 

Do you know the year when that picture was taken?

[al531246]

I'm not sure about ED policy, so I won't give a link, but AV-8B flight manual is quite easy to find.

 

I think it's within the rules, it's public information after all.

https://publicintelligence.net/u-s-navy-natops-av-8b-harrier-ii-flight-manuals/