Please save the Mavs !

[Akula67]

Hi there !

 

I know that Razbam wants to remove all Mav variants except G and E 'cause they were not use in operations.

 

However, restricting the loadouts to what has actaully been used and not what the A/C is capable of seems like a big mistake to me.

 

Let me explain, if a group of Harrier II is to provide CAS from a FARP, I would like them to use the lighter D version so that they can carry 4 of them while retaining a decent combat radius (fuel).

 

IMHO, restricting the loadouts to those used in RL restricts the freedom and imagination of the mission makers and the number of scenarios in which the aircraft can effectively be used. :(

 

Please, for the sake of the community, let the mission maker choose whether they want to stick to the RL loadouts or use the aircaft's capabilities to thein full extent ! :joystick:

 

Akula, out !

[joey45]

No

[MrDieing]

Nope

[ChickenSim]

Operating from a FARP is intended to solve the combat radius and response time problems to begin with.

 

But that's not the point, the AV-8B computers only recognize LMAV and IRMV as available stores options, of which the specific USN/USMC variants (their weights, aerodynamic qualities, etc.) are accounted for when providing weapon/HUD symbology and by VREST stores weight and asymmetry calculations.

 

There are more factors to consider when determining which weapons Razbam decides to include than you may think. You'd be asking them to just make things up from scratch if they wanted to include CCD or non-USN/USMC weapons on the Harrier.

[Vfa-81 Fix]

Make a short Takeoff on the road

or

Refuel in the Air

if you really, really need to have 4 Mav´s.

[Kelevra9987]

I'm no SME on the Harrier but if they only used the Golf/Foxtrot and Echo Missiles, then they should be the only options on our Harrier too.

[lemoen]

Operating from a FARP is intended to solve the combat radius and response time problems to begin with.

 

But that's not the point, the AV-8B computers only recognize LMAV and IRMV as available stores options, of which the specific USN/USMC variants (their weights, aerodynamic qualities, etc.) are accounted for when providing weapon/HUD symbology and by VREST stores weight and asymmetry calculations.

 

There are more factors to consider when determining which weapons Razbam decides to include than you may think. You'd be asking them to just make things up from scratch if they wanted to include CCD or non-USN/USMC weapons on the Harrier.

 

Does the same thing apply to Spanish Harriers?

[Rlaxoxo]

While DCS has it flaws here and there when it comes to realism and realistic loadout ... It strives to be more realistic.

 

Anything towards that goal is a good thing.

[ChickenSim]

Does the same thing apply to Spanish Harriers?

 

Honestly no idea on Spanish/Italian Harriers. I can only assume it does since the U.S. Navy program office manages their Harrier programs too, but I don't know for sure.

[Tholozor]

AFAIK the Spanish Navy never received the Night Attack variant of the Harrier, their EAV-8B was an export model of the Harrier II after they upgraded it with the radar.

 

I'm completely fine with this change, if the other Mavericks were never used by the Harrier (within the scope of simulating the USMC Night Attack variant), I say limit it to what it should be carrying.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Tholozor

[SierraFox]

No.

 

you cant complain about DCS not being realistic for (reason) and then turn around and say that we should keep non-service weapons, because of "freedom"

[mvsgas]

I know that Razbam wants to remove all Mav variants except G and E 'cause they were not use in operations.

 

Sounds good, Only carry the weapons that the same aircraft carried operationally.

Edited May 29, 2018 by mvsgas

[lemoen]

Sounds good, Only carry the weapons that the same aircraft carried operationally.

 

Only carry the weapons the airplane CAN CARRY operationally. I agree with this change because the NA Harrier can not physically use other mavs in this case.

[Flummi]

For me the weapon Arsenal oft this Harrier should be as realstic as possible to the real life situation.

 

Just my two cents.

[deephack]

My vote would be to remove Maverick models not used IRL on the Harrier for sure. Especially given the fact that the software on the Harrier would be unable to launch them even if they were hung from a real Harrier.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

It's a good decision by RAZBAM. Just stick to RL.

[Buckeye]

However, restricting the loadouts to what has actaully been used and not what the A/C is capable of seems like a big mistake to me.

 

Then you might not be in the right spot, my man :joystick:

[Fri13]

If the aircraft is technically capable operate with given weapon but was operationally limited, then keep the given weapons.

 

If the aircraft is technically incapable operate with given weapon and operationally was limited to them, then remove the given weapons.

 

 

 

The case is this: Every modern soldier is given a knife, shovel and assault rifle. Regardless they are not given training to mount knife bayonet to assault rifle and use it, it is physically done so just by attaching it there. If something is going to be simulated realistically, it would as well need to mean that the soldier can mount the knife to their assault rifle barrel, regardless did they get training for it because in operational training rules denied the training for knife for safety and const reasons.

 

So who would say that when the situation calls, no one would be using the knife, because the major combat situations are done with other than melee weapons?

 

 

So, if the other Mavericks were technically impossible be used, then remove them.

If the other Mavericks were technically possible be used, but weren't needed to be used, keep them.

[lemoen]

If the aircraft is technically capable operate with given weapon but was operationally limited, then keep the given weapons.

 

If the aircraft is technically incapable operate with given weapon and operationally was limited to them, then remove the given weapons.

 

 

 

The case is this: Every modern soldier is given a knife, shovel and assault rifle. Regardless they are not given training to mount knife bayonet to assault rifle and use it, it is physically done so just by attaching it there. If something is going to be simulated realistically, it would as well need to mean that the soldier can mount the knife to their assault rifle barrel, regardless did they get training for it because in operational training rules denied the training for knife for safety and const reasons.

 

So who would say that when the situation calls, no one would be using the knife, because the major combat situations are done with other than melee weapons?

 

 

So, if the other Mavericks were technically impossible be used, then remove them.

If the other Mavericks were technically possible be used, but weren't needed to be used, keep them.

 

Eggggzactly.

[tom1502]

Not all of us are flying the Harrier as though it is the USMC version, some of us want to use it as though it was an RAF GR.7/9 and we're not that interested in what the USMC version can/can not do. If the aircraft can mount them then it should mount them.

[Esac_mirmidon]

You can use the Harrier as what you like but in the end is an AV-8B NA USMC version.

[firmek]

You can use the Harrier as what you like but in the end is an AV-8B NA USMC version.

And it's perfectly reasonable to have it modeled accordingly. The question though is not about keeping a weapons that it can't use. The question is if from technical stand point the weapon and aircraft systems are compatible and tested. If yes we should not rule it out just because the specific configuration hasn't been used in combat.

[Esac_mirmidon]

In the TAC 050 manual is ONLY described the use of E and F Mavs. No other version included

[lemoen]

I think this version of the Harrier is limited to E/F Mavericks, as has been stated. It is possible that the software literally won't be able to fire (or even detect) other versions on the pylons. I think most of the argument is around that little detail. Can it, or can it not?

 

The manual seems to say no, but that is by omission. It doesn't outrightly state that the others won't work. However, this is reasonable, the kind of maverick the plane they get is determined by A) what is available, B) The war planners' chosen target, C) the expected conditions at the target. The NATOPS for the USMC won't mention weapons the USMC never bought or used, but its not a definitive document about every little bit of weapons' compatibility. It only states the useful information the pilot needs to know.

[Fri13]

In the TAC 050 manual is ONLY described the use of E and F Mavs. No other version included

 

The AH-64 manuals doesn't either describe panties and all other modifications the ground crews were required to do, so what would such module do in the new Kuwait map when you couldn't fly it without dropping out of sky in minutes after take-off without such modifications?

 

The same thing with Soviet aircrafts from Mi-24 to Su-25 and so on, lots of field modifications in Afghanistan to be able operate more efficiently.

 

Lots of data doesn't never get in the official manuals, they are not "Totally true" if they mention something or they don't mention something.

 

If you want to know more, you need to go talk to engineers, all hundreds of them, all the teams and their members. As in development many teams do extras as they can and it doesn't impact negatively to the requirements, but they just future proof things or improve them from simple paint jobs to extra space for wiring or extra strengthening etc.

 

And manuals don't state anything about it, as the people who write the manuals are totally different people and they are written for the pilots who are wanted to do only specific things without any extra informations or hints, leaving out even important capabilities because anyone can go and get their hands on the manual and it is game over.

 

There is reasons why you need to get your hands to the actual aircraft, not for its manual, if you want to know for what it is capable for. And even then you need to know how to enable some disabled systems or to use it, even if you would have the manual.

 

The aircrafts pilots and engineers manuals are like cars manuals about the capabilities of the cars. More detailed yes, but still more like 70-80% of the aircraft itself, not 100%.