Vampyre Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I`ll skip the GR9 too,for the same reason. Its not a manly fighter jet without the cannon. Just so everyone is clear, the AV-8B(NA) and GR-7/9 are not fighters. They are ground attack aircraft that have limited air to air capability. I'm still not entirely sure what the differences between the two are beyond the roundels painted on the wings and the lack of a gunpod option on the GR.9. Externally the GR7/9 have a more conical nose, extra sidewinder rails at stations 1A and 7A, lack the scabbed on expendable countermeasures buckets on top of the aft fuselage like the AV-8B(NA) which, as a result of that modification, required the extension of the air scoop at the base of the fin. Also the antenna fairings for Zeus are mounted on the lower side of the nose below the ARBS (looks like tusks jutting out) and on the tail section. Everything else about the airframe is pretty much interchangeable between the two which is why the Navy snapped them up for a spares source. Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills. If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! "If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!"
Exile5121 Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 BII+ because radar. more systems to master = more to learn = more enjoyable in my book
ED Team BIGNEWY Posted January 15, 2016 ED Team Posted January 15, 2016 more important than which variant, do we get the stool? lol :) Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, PIMAX Crystal
void Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) Just so everyone is clear, the AV-8B(NA) and GR-7/9 are not fighters. They are ground attack aircraft that have limited air to air capability. Su-25T is a better example of a ground attack aircraft, but still Su-25 has the cannon and great air to air capabilities. Edited January 15, 2016 by void
Random Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Interesting... On Razbam's site they state the FSX version of the Gr.9 comes with the 25mm gunpod that was supposed to be fitted but never finished development. http://www.razbamsims.com/bae_harrierii_gr79.html Might see the same with the DCS one.
Einherjer Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Would be great, but there will be several people who don't want because it's "not realistic". But hey, let's have a good time with a good (virtual) plane, with or without gun
Random Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Agreed I'm not fussed either way. Though most people don't seem to mind the Mig21 having a few "fantasy" weapons loadouts! You don't have to use them after all. I'd still favour a Gr.3 though!
Talisman_VR Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I am a WWII enthusiast, but the Harrier would have tempted me if it had been the Falklands War spec GR3 and/or Sea Harrier. This could have paved the way for a Falklands War scenario with other aircraft that took part to deliver some historically based land and sea action. As it is, not interested in Harrier later versions, so did not vote. My request to developers is to think about producing aircraft that took part in historical conflict against each other and other air forces in a meaningful way. I am not a customer for the versions of the Harrier in the poll. Happy landings, Talisman
whiteladder Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I am a WWII enthusiast, but the Harrier would have tempted me if it had been the Falklands War spec GR3 and/or Sea Harrier. This could have paved the way for a Falklands War scenario with other aircraft that took part to deliver some historically based land and sea action. As it is, not interested in Harrier later versions, so did not vote. My request to developers is to think about producing aircraft that took part in historical conflict against each other and other air forces in a meaningful way. Surely by doing the GR9 they are doing exactly this, as many of the conflicts it took part in the opposing equipment is present. A Sea Harrier/Gr3 would need any of Mirage III/Dagger, Skyhawk, Super Etendard, Pucara, Turbo Mentor or Canberra as adversaries. I think the only aircraft from the Falklands conflict we currently have is the Hercules. Also apart from the SA7 none of the Air defence systems are present.
Vampyre Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 BII+ because radar. more systems to master = more to learn = more enjoyable in my book That version is not an option of this poll. RAZBAM has indicated that they will probably do the B+ when ED has successfully integrated ground radar into DCS. I'd expect it sometime after the DCS F/A-18C is released. Su-25T is a better example of a ground attack aircraft, but still Su-25 has the cannon and great air to air capabilities. LOL... you're kidding right? Su-25T is the prototype for what would have been a great Anti-tank/CAS aircraft but it's air to air capabilities are not great by any stretch of the imagination. I've killed the odd Su-27 and F-15 in the Su-25T but I don't go looking for a fight in one if it can be avoided... I'm more into using the proper tool for the proper job to effect mission accomplishment but I also understand that other's don't care about that and will play the game in ways other than how the actual aircraft and systems are meant to be used in real life. To each their own. Now a little history on the GR7/GR9 The Harrier GR7/9 was originally purchased as an interdiction aircraft. This was the primary driver for the different avionics fit of the second generation British harriers compared to their American counterparts. The GR7 was required to penetrate the FEBA, hit its targets and egress posthaste similar to the mission profile of a strike aircraft. An interdiction aircraft is meant to disrupt enemy troop and supply movement and communications thereby slowing an enemy attack/reinforcement/resupply/retreat by creating confusion/mayhem behind the enemy lines. There would have been no time to loiter and make gun runs within contested airspace which makes the gun useless to its primary mission. Hit and run is the name of the game. That is why the gun was never a priority weapon development for the GR7/9. The funds were never made available to solve the problems of the new 25mm ADEN revolver cannons and there was no attempt to even retrofit the 30mm ADEN's from the GR3 or the GAU-12 of the AV-8B even though it should have been technically feasible. Instead of the gun, the RAF opted for the use of CRV-7 and SNEB rockets in when it was doing CAS over Afghanistan. If you want to fight air to air in the Harrier the AV-8B+, Harrier FRS1 or Harrier FA2 will be the machine's with the best capabilities in that respect. The APG-65/Blue Fox/Blue Vixen Radar's, AIM-9's and (in the case of the B+ and FA2) AMRAAM's will even up the playing field but will still be lacking performance wise as air to air platforms against actual 4th generation fighters. Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills. If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! "If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!"
void Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) LOL... you're kidding right? Su-25T is the prototype for what would have been a great Anti-tank/CAS aircraft but it's air to air capabilities are not great by any stretch of the imagination. I've killed the odd Su-27 and F-15 in the Su-25T but I don't go looking for a fight in one if it can be avoided... I'm more into using the proper tool for the proper job to effect mission accomplishment but I also understand that other's don't care about that and will play the game in ways other than how the actual aircraft and systems are meant to be used in real life. To each their own. If you want to fight air to air in the Harrier the AV-8B+, Harrier FRS1 or Harrier FA2 will be the machine's with the best capabilities in that respect. The APG-65/Blue Fox/Blue Vixen Radar's, AIM-9's and (in the case of the B+ and FA2) AMRAAM's will even up the playing field but will still be lacking performance wise as air to air platforms against actual 4th generation fighters. :megalol: what a festival of a personal preferences whats possible or not... If Su25 can be loaded with air to air missiles thats "great" to make it more multirole fighter jet. Apparently AV-8B is described as a ground attack jet and GR9 as a mulirole fighter jet. So, who is right? Its a simulator not a real environment. I`ve always used the Su25t as a multirole fighter jet, and AV-8B will replace the Su25, whenever it will arrive. Edited January 15, 2016 by void
joey45 Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Multi-role as in A2G Multi-role... the sidewinders were there for self protection. GR = Ground Attack and Recce. The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. "Me, the 13th Duke of Wybourne, here on the ED forums at 3 'o' clock in the morning, with my reputation. Are they mad.." https://ko-fi.com/joey45
Vampyre Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 :megalol: what a festival of a personal preferences whats possible or not... If Su25 can be loaded with air to air missiles thats "great" to make it more multirole fighter jet. Apparently AV-8B is described as a ground attack jet and GR9 as a mulirole fighter jet. So, who is right? Its a simulator not a real environment. I`ve always used the Su25t as a multirole fighter jet, and AV-8B will replace the Su25, whenever it will arrive. :doh:Looks like you either didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote. It's not about who is right or wrong. It is up to the individual to decide how they want to use the aircraft in game. I don't really care how you personally want to use the aircraft as long as the aircraft are modeled as correctly as possible for realisms sake so I can fly how I like. If you want to pretend the Su-25T is a fighter then by all means, use it as a fighter. There is nothing wrong with either stance. You fly your way and I fly mine. Like I said, to each their own. As for the multirole label for these aircraft... The Su-25T is a ground attack aircraft, as are the majority of the Harrier family with the exception of the SHAR FRS1 and FA2. The GR7/9 is a ground attack platform as is the AV-8B. Their differences are in the types of ground attack missions they are optimized for. Slapping some heat seekers on a dedicated ground attack aircraft for self defense does not a multirole fighter make. It seems your personal definition of multirole is not consistent with the commonly accepted definition. Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills. If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! "If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!"
void Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 :doh:Looks like you either didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote. It's not about who is right or wrong. It is up to the individual to decide how they want to use the aircraft in game. I don't really care how you personally want to use the aircraft as long as the aircraft are modeled as correctly as possible for realisms sake so I can fly how I like. If you want to pretend the Su-25T is a fighter then by all means, use it as a fighter. There is nothing wrong with either stance. You fly your way and I fly mine. Like I said, to each their own. As for the multirole label for these aircraft... The Su-25T is a ground attack aircraft, as are the majority of the Harrier family with the exception of the SHAR FRS1 and FA2. The GR7/9 is a ground attack platform as is the AV-8B. Their differences are in the types of ground attack missions they are optimized for. Slapping some heat seekers on a dedicated ground attack aircraft for self defense does not a multirole fighter make. It seems your personal definition of multirole is not consistent with the commonly accepted definition. Alright, calm down. It looks like its impossible for you to think outside of the box. Self defense is an attack for me. Not everything has to be by the book or how the "officials" have said.
AussieGhost789 Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 Alright, calm down. It looks like its impossible for you to think outside of the box. Self defense is an attack for me. Not everything has to be by the book or how the "officials" have said. Carrying a self defence armament doesn't really make it a fighter though. So in that sense, it isn't a multi-role aircraft. The A-10C also carries sidewinders but is not considered a multi role aircraft, it is a dedicated ground attacker. A true multi-role aircraft is something like the F/A-18 or Dassault Rafale. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Sweep Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 Alright, calm down. It looks like its impossible for you to think outside of the box. Self defense is an attack for me. Not everything has to be by the book or how the "officials" have said. I really don't think he meant that in a hostile way. This is a simulation of reality though (or at least the flight/combat element of it), so generally speaking you'd use similar terms to RL. That said, nobody here is going to stop you from defining things differently! Lord of Salt
flare2000x Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 AV - what? GR7/GR9 all the way, I need my British powah! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] DCS:WWII 1944 BACKER --- Fw. 190D-9 --- Bf. 109K-4 --- P-51D --- Spitfire! Specs: Intel i7-3770 @3.9 Ghz - NVidia GTX 960 - 8GB RAM - OCz Vertex 240GB SSD - Toshiba 1TB HDD - Corsair CX 600M Power Supply - MSI B75MA-P45 MoBo - Defender Cobra M5
joey45 Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 By a bigger margin then I thought.... Luckily I had the blueprints for Lusty [2005 refit] scanned today so we'll have something to fly her off from... The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. "Me, the 13th Duke of Wybourne, here on the ED forums at 3 'o' clock in the morning, with my reputation. Are they mad.." https://ko-fi.com/joey45
tobaschi Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 i buy both doesn't matter which you will deliver. However would be great if we would get a working Link 16, which can interact with A-10C and the upcoming F-18C
Python Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 I missed the pole, but would have voted GR.9 for sure! I'm pleasantly surprised to see that being the ultimate winner however. Maybe they will fly again soon enough after all... Bring it on :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
JINX_1391 Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 ......still going to spray paint USMC over the outer markings. :cry: [sIGPIC]http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn266/JINX1391/jinx%20f99th%20sig_zps2hgu4xsl.png[/sIGPIC] "90% of the people who actually got to fly the F/A-18C module there (E3 2017) have never even heard of DCS or are otherwise totally undeserving pieces of trash." -Pyromanic4002
Harry.R Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 Just pretend you're on exchange like quite a few USMC GR.7 pilots.. :)
Python Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 Well, regardless of the vote, it looks like we aren't getting the GR7/9, not initially at least as this was just posted to facebook. "Some bad news depending which side of the fence you´re.. Gents: As many of you are aware, i started a Harrier poll at Eagle´s DCS forums trying to decipher what the community was after "harrier wise", not surprisingly the Gr7/GR9 version was the absolute winner. BUT, we stumbled into a brick wall, a wall that might put the Gr7/Gr9 at least 2 years behind..and that is weapons systems. As you may know, the British version of the Harriers used a set of recce/targeting pods that are not available in the sim, being these the DJRP, Sniper and TIALD (which most if not all of it´s operational manuals are still classified). Not to mention also a pod carrying countermeasures in one of the 3 belly stations. Implementation of these pods could take us longer than expected, and i would really like to get a Harrier beta this year (fingers crossed). I just wanted to be honest with you, no BS statements will come from us, this is the current situation and i put it out as it is. So..as our 1st Harrier pack, we are going to create the AV-8B Night Attack version, this will allow us enough time to create the other system pods as we can get info on them and implement them in the sim. So the road map would be AV-8B Night Attack followed by the GR7/GR9 versions and hopefully the AV-8B Harrier II Plus after at the end. Of course..if during AV-8B Night Attack version, a fully viable A/G radar is available for us to play with..it could evolve into an AV-8B Harrier II Plus version.." [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
mattebubben Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 Well, regardless of the vote, it looks like we aren't getting the GR7/9, not initially at least as this was just posted to facebook. "Some bad news depending which side of the fence you´re.. Gents: As many of you are aware, i started a Harrier poll at Eagle´s DCS forums trying to decipher what the community was after "harrier wise", not surprisingly the Gr7/GR9 version was the absolute winner. BUT, we stumbled into a brick wall, a wall that might put the Gr7/Gr9 at least 2 years behind..and that is weapons systems. As you may know, the British version of the Harriers used a set of recce/targeting pods that are not available in the sim, being these the DJRP, Sniper and TIALD (which most if not all of it´s operational manuals are still classified). Not to mention also a pod carrying countermeasures in one of the 3 belly stations. Implementation of these pods could take us longer than expected, and i would really like to get a Harrier beta this year (fingers crossed). I just wanted to be honest with you, no BS statements will come from us, this is the current situation and i put it out as it is. So..as our 1st Harrier pack, we are going to create the AV-8B Night Attack version, this will allow us enough time to create the other system pods as we can get info on them and implement them in the sim. So the road map would be AV-8B Night Attack followed by the GR7/GR9 versions and hopefully the AV-8B Harrier II Plus after at the end. Of course..if during AV-8B Night Attack version, a fully viable A/G radar is available for us to play with..it could evolve into an AV-8B Harrier II Plus version.." Well with the F-18 due for this year it should bring the A/G Radar. And since the AN/APG 73 Radar in the F-18C is an upgraded variant for the AN/APG 65 fitted in the AV-8B Plus they are very similar. (the APG-65s for the AV-8B+ where taken from the F-18A's that where upgraded to the new APG 73) So depending on how cooperative ED is it could be quite easy to Remake the APG 73 from the F-18C into a APG-65 for the AV-8B Plus.
Recommended Posts