AV-8B Harrier Thread

[Ratcatcher]

Worst case they could use the "place holder skins" canopy texture and reflection map for early access. I wouldn't care. :D

Oh dont get me wrong, the odd canopy effect certainly won't stop me from getting this baby as soon as it drops!

 

I'm sure they will get it looking right one way or another. :thumbup:

[near_blind]

Because DCS does not have the F. We will have to make our own but for now it will use the D.

 

 

 

Would it not be more logical to use the AGM-65G? It and the F are pretty similar, use a similar seeker, and have the same heavy warhead.

[Gunny Highway]

Has the Harrier been shown at E3 yet? Or did I miss something?

[Zeus67]

i too would want to know what sensors are more modern than the A10C exactly. The A10C suite 3.1 is from around 2006-07. Whislt the Harrier here, it was stated a few pages ago they were using a 2001 Natops manual.

It certainly shouldn't be the Countermeasures and missle warning related systems because according to This they say the A10C has the best CM system of any 4th generation era fleet.

 

http://media.jrn.com/documents/A-10C_Capes_Nov_13.pdf

 

 

Im no harrier expert but the only thing better at lest on the surface related to ground strike combat capabilities on the Av8B NA harrier seems to be the SEAD missiles.

 

AV-8B NA last upgrade as stated by the NATOPS 2011 version was around 2010. All DA were converted into NA. Software was improved in all versions. capabilities remain the same.

 

I am not comparing A-10C vs AV-8B. That what all of you are doing. I am comparing between versions of AV-8B: DA vs NA vs Radar.

 

If you want to see which is the best CAS platform then make another thread and have your flame war there.

 

As for weapon management: Yes, the AV-8B handles weapons differently than the A-10 but that is true of all aircrafts. F/A-18C handles weapons differently from the A-6, AV-8B, A-7, A-10C, F-111, F-117, F-15E. That is why you cannot expect an A-7 pilot to jump into the cockpit of an A-10C and expect him to be an expert on A-10C systems without first undergoing a familiarization process.

 

The reason to mount a radar into the AV-8B was to increase All-Weather performance at the expense of accuracy. The DMT system is nothing new and analogous systems are used by the following aircrafts:

 

SEPECAT Jaguar

 

Harrier

 

I am not sure if the Mig-27 uses an similar device, but it does have the camera on the nose tip.

 

So, the DMT is a very mature high precision targeting system.

 

But, as all optical based systems, it is not capable of being used in all weather conditions. In this case the USMC decided that having an All-Weather version was paramount even if the accuracy was degraded but for to counter that they can always use the TPOD.

 

BTW, the Tactical Manual indicates that the correct nomenclature for the LITENING II Targeting Pod is TPOD. At least for the US Navy and USMC.

[Zeus67]

Has the Harrier been shown at E3 yet? Or did I miss something?

 

We were told that is was shown to the press but not to the general public. E3 is ED's marketing program so they are the ones who decided how to show the aircraft. All we were asked was to provide a close-to-beta demo for E3.

[iLOVEwindmills]

Mig27 uses only laser designator without camera aimed through HUD like Su25A, K variant added a camera system.

 

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fighter/mig27k/mig27k-8.jpg

 

Anyways, it sounds like the Litening isn't as integrated into the systems as it is with the A10C, but if you aren't familiar with how it works for that plane it might be hard to make the comparison.

 

Appreciating the info anyway, ARBS certainly sounds like a very capable system and should be really cool to use as well.

[Zeus67]

Mig27 uses only laser designator without camera aimed through HUD like Su25A, K variant added a camera system.

 

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fighter/mig27k/mig27k-8.jpg

Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure but I was aware it used some kind of optical system.

 

Anyways, it sounds like the Litening isn't as integrated into the systems as it is with the A10C, but if you aren't familiar with how it works for that plane it might be hard to make the comparison.

 

Appreciating the info anyway, ARBS certainly sounds like a very capable system and should be really cool to use as well.

I cannot say what is the current integration of the Litening with the AV-8B avionics, but at least in 2002 it was little more than an auxiliary system. The main aiming systems were either radar or dtm.

 

From the tactical manual (emphasis mine):

"The TPOD system is employed to assist the pilot in acquisition, recognition and designation of surface targets. The pod's laser designation can be used for both autonomous and buddy delivery of laser guided or general purpose air-to-ground weapons. The TPOD system supports air-to-ground weapons delivery by providing laser designation for laser-guided weapons, performing laser spot detection for targets illuminated by external designators and computing target location from optical tracking by CCD, FLIR or laser spot detector sensors that the pilot can enter into the UFCS to create a system designation."

 

As this paragraphs indicates, the TPOD does not have any kind of direct interaction with the aircraft's targeting systems. It either uses a laser and the DTM tracks it, or the pilot enters the parameters indicated by the TPOD into the system via the UFC.

[SkateZilla]

ED is trying to simulate this effect:

 

 

The F/A-18s Have a Polarized Canopy Glass, It's Actually Pretty EASY to do if you set it up correctly, Especially in Deferred/PBR:

 

Colors Vary depending on the type, I've seen Blue/Green, Purple/Green, Purple/Blue, Orange/Yellow, Etc Etc..

Edited June 16, 2017 by SkateZilla

[iLOVEwindmills]

Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure but I was aware it used some kind of optical system.

 

I cannot say what is the current integration of the Litening with the AV-8B avionics, but at least in 2002 it was little more than an auxiliary system. The main aiming systems were either radar or dtm.

 

From the tactical manual (emphasis mine):

"The TPOD system is employed to assist the pilot in acquisition, recognition and designation of surface targets. The pod's laser designation can be used for both autonomous and buddy delivery of laser guided or general purpose air-to-ground weapons. The TPOD system supports air-to-ground weapons delivery by providing laser designation for laser-guided weapons, performing laser spot detection for targets illuminated by external designators and computing target location from optical tracking by CCD, FLIR or laser spot detector sensors that the pilot can enter into the UFCS to create a system designation."

 

As this paragraphs indicates, the TPOD does not have any kind of direct interaction with the aircraft's targeting systems. It either uses a laser and the DTM tracks it, or the pilot enters the parameters indicated by the TPOD into the system via the UFC.

 

Interesting, so that does mean the extra step of manually giving coordinates to JDAMs, and spotting your own laser for a CCRP solution for LGBs.

 

This is starting to sound like a lot of work haha

[Zeus67]

Tomorrow is target lock and missile firing test day:

 

[Sport]

Are there any targets in any of those images? Really highlights the poor IR modeling of 1.5.x

[Dudikoff]

I am not comparing A-10C vs AV-8B. That what all of you are doing. I am comparing between versions of AV-8B: DA vs NA vs Radar.

 

If you want to see which is the best CAS platform then make another thread and have your flame war there.

 

You've posted that the AV-8B NA is a more modern platform than A-10C and that it's a more precise strike platform than AV-8B+.

 

Since the AN/ASB-19 ARBS system used on the AV-8B and NA seems rather old and the later added targeting pod is not fully integrated with the WCS unlike on the A-10C, I was curious about knowing more detail about what systems make the AV-8B NA more modern than A-10C and more precise than the AV-8B+. Because I'd expect that a newer targeting pod integrated with the WCS on the A-10C (and at some point on the AV-8B+) to be more capable than the older system.

 

Where do you see a flame war?

Edited June 16, 2017 by Dudikoff

[Zeus67]

You've posted that the AV-8B NA is a more modern platform than A-10C and that it's a more precise strike platform than AV-8B+.

 

Since the AN/ASB-19 ARBS system used on the AV-8B and NA seems rather old and the later added targeting pod is not fully integrated with the WCS unlike on the A-10C, I was curious about knowing more detail about what systems make the AV-8B NA more modern than A-10C and more precise than the AV-8B+. Because I'd expect that a newer targeting pod integrated with the WCS on the A-10C (and at some point on the AV-8B+) to be more capable than the older system.

 

Where do you see a flame war?

 

I made that comment in answer to another who was stating about the differences in weapons management between the A-10C and the AV-8B. I guess I worded it poorly.

 

As for the AV-8B Radar, or plus if you like but that is not its true name, yes, the NA is more precise in bombing runs than the Radar, specially when using unguided munitions. The USMC knows this but they decided to increase All-Weather capability over precision and thus the AV-8B Radar was born.

 

The APG-65 was optimized for ground attack but it still is capable of air intercepts.

 

The USMC never bothered to demand AIM-120 capability, because they were never interested in making the AV-8B a fighter. AIM-120 capability is something that other AV-8B Radar users requested because they are interested in a Multi-role aircraft not a CAS one.

 

The AV-8B NA handles better than the Radar. It is a bit more agile and I'm told that pilots like it over the Radar. Specially when landing since the weight of the radar equipment makes the AV-8B Radar nose heavy.

 

As for the flame war, I made that comment because I felt that you were a little too confrontational over a perceived disparaging comment about the A-10C.

 

For the record, the A-10 design is older than the AV-8B. something you can see in their respective instruments panels:

 

 

 

All the engine gauges that the A-10C has have been replaced by a single page view in any MPCD. Same with the RWR, etc.

 

This is a F-15E pilot's instrument panel as well:

 

So both the AV-8B and the F-15E have a glass cockpit vs. the A-10's steam one.

 

Yes, it has been modernized and kept top of the line but it still remains an older design.

 

As for TPOD interface, I can only use publicly available documents. The only available document for weapons handling and management, including sensors is dated 2002. That's 15 years ago. The aircraft was upgraded in 2010, so it is very likely that TPOD integration is complete and it can directly interface with the weapons. But for me to code that would be nothing more than WAGUESS, so I'd rather use the old document that details how it was done as opposed to guess how it is currently being done.

[Zeus67]

Are there any targets in any of those images? Really highlights the poor IR modeling of 1.5.x

 

No. There are no targets. It is a video test.

Targeting tests will be carried out tomorrow.

[Einherjer]

The point is, the AV8B NA primarily uses the DTM for air to ground work and can be used without the TPOD .

The TPOD is just a kind of Binocular (I know it's more)

There was obvious no need to integrate the TPOD that deep into the plane's system because it can work without it and it's not the primary device.

 

The A-10 on the other hand has no integrated system like this , even the pave penny is off since a few years. So it highly depends on the TGP .

 

All in all , this a just two ways to reach the same goal and both are working good

 

The A10s way is more a compromise, but a really good working. But it should not be compared with the AV8Bs way ... or the Hornet ...

[Dudikoff]

As for the AV-8B Radar, or plus if you like but that is not its true name, yes, the NA is more precise in bombing runs than the Radar, specially when using unguided munitions. The USMC knows this but they decided to increase All-Weather capability over precision and thus the AV-8B Radar was born.

 

I can understand that the ASRB system with a DMT lock is more precise than the vanilla AV-8B Radar presumably relying on a simple HUD designation and altitude readings as inputs, but I wouldn't expect this to hold true once a fully integrated TGP is added to it which should have more precise tracking and wider gimbal limits?

 

The AV-8B NA handles better than the Radar. It is a bit more agile and I'm told that pilots like it over the Radar. Specially when landing since the weight of the radar equipment makes the AV-8B Radar nose heavy.

 

I guess the (relatively heavy) radar was never a part of the Harrier design so it has to have some negative impact on the handling.

 

As for the flame war, I made that comment because I felt that you were a little too confrontational over a perceived disparaging comment about the A-10C.

 

That was not my intent, sorry if it appeared that way due to me quoting just those two statements. I was just surprised to read how the TGP on NA is only used to slave this older DMT system which sounded inferior to what the A-10C could do with a TGP so I was curious about what systems made the NA more modern.

 

For the record, the A-10 design is older than the AV-8B. something you can see in their respective instruments panels:

 

All the engine gauges that the A-10C has have been replaced by a single page view in any MPCD. Same with the RWR, etc.

 

Yes, of course, the A-10 was a very rudimentary plane, but after LASTE and Precision Engagement upgrades, it's a completely different plane in regards to A2G capabilities (with a TGP, naturally).

 

As for TPOD interface, I can only use publicly available documents. The only available document for weapons handling and management, including sensors is dated 2002. That's 15 years ago. The aircraft was upgraded in 2010, so it is very likely that TPOD integration is complete and it can directly interface with the weapons. But for me to code that would be nothing more than WAGUESS, so I'd rather use the old document that details how it was done as opposed to guess how it is currently being done.

 

Yes, definitely better to stick to what's available. So, NATIP for AV-8B is publicly available? Could you post where?

Edited June 16, 2017 by Dudikoff

[gabuzomeu]

Hello,

Would these be the tactical manuals you.re looking for?

http://aviationarchives.blogspot.fr/2016/05/av-8-harrier-tactical-manuals.html

[DAZnBLAST]

You know, the more time people keep Zeus67 talking about differences of opinion, the less time he is actually spending building the aircraft we all want to see implemented. This may be also why some devs decide to keep commenting on the forums to an absolute minimum.

[myHelljumper]

You know, the more time people keep Zeus67 talking about differences of opinion, the less time he is actually spending building the aircraft we all want to see implemented. This may be also why some devs decide to keep commenting on the forums to an absolute minimum.

 

I hope he have some free time too :D

[Dudikoff]

You know, the more time people keep Zeus67 talking about differences of opinion, the less time he is actually spending building the aircraft we all want to see implemented. This may be also why some devs decide to keep commenting on the forums to an absolute minimum.

 

It's kind of rude to suggest that such a competent developer (as he obviously is judging from his work) cannot prioritize and schedule his time, but gets easily sidetracked instead while his work suffers, you know?

Edited June 16, 2017 by Dudikoff

[Dudikoff]

Hello,

Would these be the tactical manuals you.re looking for?

http://aviationarchives.blogspot.fr/2016/05/av-8-harrier-tactical-manuals.html

 

I guess they are, thanks a lot for these :)

[Dehuman]

It's kind of rude to suggest that such a competent developer (as he obviously is judging from his work) cannot prioritize and schedule his time, but gets easily sidetracked instead while his work suffers, you know?

 

NO!! I demand Zeus and the rest of the RAZBAM team spend their every waking moment to working on modules! :P

[Zeus67]

Hello,

Would these be the tactical manuals you.re looking for?

http://aviationarchives.blogspot.fr/2016/05/av-8-harrier-tactical-manuals.html

 

Yep. Those are the tactical manuals we use.

[Manzanita]

Here's an interesting excerpt from the Harrier Boys book. (A really good read BTW)

 

 

My understanding is that during the Gulf War, when the first targeting pods were ever being used, having the ARBS/DMT system equipped was a huge advantage for Harrier pilots since radar attacks were apparently less accurate and targeting pods were scarce and still undergoing testing.

[Pheonix0869]

Just a heads up harrier boys is also on audible as well... If you have a long commute like myself...

 

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk