Why does AV-8B has two less weapon stations then GR9?

[DmitriKozlowsky]

Why does AV-8B has two less weapon stations then GR9?

 

Harrier GR9 in UK service has(had) weapon station as part of outrigger , on each wing, where British AIM-9M/9X is carried. Freeing wingtip station for AG weapon. Photos show small GBU-12 LG bomb.

 

I am curious why American AB-8B is missing it?

[Zadren]

That sprang from the Harrier Force doctrine, when the RAF GR5/7 fleet was expected to be used by the RAF on the western front of a new European war. The idea was to hide them in dispersed sites and use them to try and stem the tide of Soviet armour until reinforcements could be airlifted into Germany.

To that end, you need to carry around more boom, so the outboard stations often flew with cluster munitions. The aircraft almost always flew with external tanks, and the intermediate pylons hefted something heavier like a 1000 pounder. You still need A-A insurance though, so an extra pylon was developed *just* for an AIM-9.

 

I can't honestly say why the jarheads never made this modification though. What marine wouldn't like more boom? I think it may have something to do with weight limitations when conducting mainly carrier ops. The RAF's mission was different at this time.

[mr_mojo97]

Nice piece of info. Thanks

[whiteladder]

It has to do with the history of the replacement for the GR3/Av8a. Originally there was 2 different development streams. The British requirement in addition to needing a bigger bomb load also had requirement for a higher rate of turn for an improved air to air capability.

They therefore were designing what was called at the time the big wing Harrier, basically the GR3 fuselage with a new wing, with wingtip pylons for Sidewinders.

 

In parallel with this the Americans were working on the Av8b, which they had a lower requirement for Air to Air. As is usual the Brits didn't have the funds to carry on a seperate program, so joined the Av8b program and while they had to accept a lower sustained rate of turn they did want to in improve the basic Air to Air capability. The design was past the point where the wing tip pylons could be incorporated, hence the pylons on the outfitters.

Edited December 23, 2018 by whiteladder

[DmitriKozlowsky]

The British version of AV-8B, the GR9, with either SeaFox or AN/APG-78 (from F/A-18) could carry four AIM-9L/M/X and two AIM-120.

That is about same Air-Air load as F-16C and Mig-29S/SMT.

Damn! Wish we had Plus or GR9 radar equipped variants in DCS as part of DCS: AV-8B. Oh well.

GR9 also carried SniperXR pod.

 

Can't help but think that GR9 or -8BPlus variants equipped with JHMQS, AIM-9X, and AIM-120D makes for a potent air-air fighter. Though without supersonic performance and lack of afterburner, it may not have had as many options in fight. But still.

[Shadow_1stVFW]

The British version of AV-8B, the GR9, with either SeaFox or AN/APG-78 (from F/A-18) could carry four AIM-9L/M/X and two AIM-120.

That is about same Air-Air load as F-16C and Mig-29S/SMT.

Damn! Wish we had Plus or GR9 radar equipped variants in DCS as part of DCS: AV-8B. Oh well.

GR9 also carried SniperXR pod.

 

Can't help but think that GR9 or -8BPlus variants equipped with JHMQS, AIM-9X, and AIM-120D makes for a potent air-air fighter. Though without supersonic performance and lack of afterburner, it may not have had as many options in fight. But still.

The USMC is going to upgrade it's Harrier fleet with data link, JHMCS and 9X over the next couple of years

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Shadow_1stVFW]

Also, the AV-8B is perfectly capable of carrying the outrigger pylons, it just never did. The USMC choose to not use them over the potential for the missiles to damage the outrigger gear tires.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[tea_cypher]

GR9 did not have radar, FA2 (Sea Harrier) did (blue vixen radar).

[p1t1o]

On top of that, the rails on the outrigger on the GR9 incorporated countermeasure pods into them.

 

 

But the answer really is just - the GR9 and the AV8B are completely different "builds" of the harrier, built for different customers.

 

 

 

Really short answer?

 

 

The GR9 is/was one of the latest models of harrier, and thus one of the most advanced, mature and well equipped.

 

 

You can bet that if an aircraft is being simmed, its several generations behind state of the art. The amount of detail necessary to properly sim an aircraft to the detail we are used to means that in-service (or recently in service) aircraft are almost out of the question due to things being classified.

[Blaze1]

The amount of detail necessary to properly sim an aircraft to the detail we are used to means that in-service (or recently in service) aircraft are almost out of the question due to things being classified.

I'm not sure I agree with that p1t1o, with the exception of any agreements ED or 3rd party designers may have with the aircraft manufacturers/relevant services.

[fergrim]

It's not about agreement or not, though. It's simply true.

 

Any in service aircraft is not going to be eligible to be simulated to the degree that we expect from our DCS study quality simulation modules.

 

The necessary information for the requisite accuracy is simply not available.

 

This is why every aircraft available is going to be about a decade old at about the newest.

 

Find a single military flight simulator that goes into the level of detail that DCS does and models a completely new military aircraft. There simply isn't one and the reason is exactly as stated.

 

And neither ED nor any of our 3rd parties have agreements with any manufacturers in the field. There is small print to that effect right on the main screen of DCS and on every loading screen. It's simply matter of the requisite information being classified as newer things are released, it loses its classified status and becomes food for simulators.

[Blaze1]

It's not about agreement or not, though. It's simply true.

 

Any in service aircraft is not going to be eligible to be simulated to the degree that we expect from our DCS study quality simulation modules.

 

The necessary information for the requisite accuracy is simply not available.

 

This is why every aircraft available is going to be about a decade old at about the newest.

 

Find a single military flight simulator that goes into the level of detail that DCS does and models a completely new military aircraft. There simply isn't one and the reason is exactly as stated.

 

And neither ED nor any of our 3rd parties have agreements with any manufacturers in the field. There is small print to that effect right on the main screen of DCS and on every loading screen. It's simply matter of the requisite information being classified as newer things are released, it loses its classified status and becomes food for simulators.

The thing is, even aircraft that are long retired can (and often do) have classified elements about them, the F-14 being case in point. The newness of the aircraft is often not the determining factor in the classification of it's systems. The items on the F-15C that were classified in 1991 and earlier (TEWS, ECCM, EWWS, EID, NCTR, radar frequencies, radar performance, AIM-7M, 9M Performance etc) are still pretty much classified today. New systems which have emerged since then such as JTIDS/FDL, JHMCS, Sniper Pod aren't classified at the user operator level, save for the odd mode e.g Sniper Air-to-Air functions.

[Fri13]

And neither ED nor any of our 3rd parties have agreements with any manufacturers in the field. There is small print to that effect right on the main screen of DCS and on every loading screen.

 

And I remember that ED directly worked with Kamov and had license with them to make the KA-50. Same thing with A-10C and F/A-18C....

 

 

 

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

[Mars Exulte]

It's not about agreement or not, though. It's simply true.

 

Any in service aircraft is not going to be eligible to be simulated to the degree that we expect from our DCS study quality simulation modules.

 

The necessary information for the requisite accuracy is simply not available.

 

This is why every aircraft available is going to be about a decade old at about the newest.

 

Find a single military flight simulator that goes into the level of detail that DCS does and models a completely new military aircraft. There simply isn't one and the reason is exactly as stated.

 

And neither ED nor any of our 3rd parties have agreements with any manufacturers in the field. There is small print to that effect right on the main screen of DCS and on every loading screen. It's simply matter of the requisite information being classified as newer things are released, it loses its classified status and becomes food for simulators.

 

Except it's NOT true. The specific versions of A-10C, F/A-18C, and AV-8B NA we have ARE in service. The AV-8B+ did not replace the NA, it just supplemented it. The Hornet we have is a late model, as is the A-10. These are currently flying aircraft.

 

As has been said like 9,000,000 times now, classification is irrelevant. All these aircraft have classified systems. It is up to the governments and manufacturers involved whether they are ok with it and to what extent they will permit it. A system being classified doesn't mean you can't have it, it means you may be required to alter how you emulate it or perhaps omit something about it.

 

I really don't understand why people keep repeating this when the evidence directly in front of their face proves it's untrue o.O