AV-8B is still pretty rough

[streakeagle]

I just mapped the controls and flew the AV-8 for the first time since I got my WinWing throttle last May. It is such a cool aircraft, fun to fly, and I love the pilot body for VR. But it still has so many flaws. It is closer to a very buggy alpha than a nearly finished beta release. The simplest control mappings have problems. If you map the jettison switch, there are no direct position maps and the turn left and turn right maps are backwards. The INS course switch map doesn't animate the toggle switch correctly when compared to the mouse and doesn't function correctly. It would really be nice if the HOTAS switches were animated to move when you press the associated buttons on your real-world HOTAS. A finished manual would be icing on the cake, but I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time on the manual until the majority of systems work correctly to avoid wasting time constantly updating the manuals to match the current functionality. I only fly it for startup/taxi/takeoff/navigation/landing and instant action air-to-air. I can only imagine the problems I might encounter if I tried to learn how to employ it correctly in its dedicated air-to-ground combat role. So, it goes back in the hangar until I see some meaningful update progress.

 

At least some progress continues to be made however slow. The AV-8 is way better than the abandoned VEAO Hawk and the paid-for-but-never-delivered P-40.

[cw4ogden]

Most of what you describe is cosmetic stuff or quality of life issues.  The harrier is very effective in air to ground role.  I find the module to be fairly complete by DCS standards.  Most of its bugs are actually features meaning what I'm convinced must be a bug turns out usually to be something about the aircraft I just didn't know.  

 

I am trying out the A-10 during the free to play with its vast weapon load, but the Av8b is no slouch in comparison, especially given how much quicker you can get to and return from the battlefield.  

 

All that said it took a long time to get comfortable employing it as a strike aircraft.  The systems are nuanced and at first it seems like pure voodoo the combination of switches and button pushes only to get no Maverick launch or a bomb miss, but as well these always turned out to be my misunderstanding or incomplete understanding of the system, not the module itself.

 

A datalink would be a nice addition, but the module feels very polished to me.

[jacobs]

The guy uses the Av-8 for air-to-air and complains about module being incomplete... LOL.

[Dragon1-1]

Actually, there is some pretty serious weirdness in both DMT and TPOD, so this is right. In AA mode you don't have to deal with that. Harrier, as befitting a British-designed aircraft, is seriously weird, but make no mistake, there are bugs, and some of them are pretty bad. Engaging moving targets, for instance, was pretty much impossible last time I tried (they might've fixed the TPOD in the last patch, but I haven't checked yet). The campaign works around these issues by not featuring anything that could trip the current version up, so it works, but for more complex air to ground work, I'd recommend until the sensors work as intended and the manual comes out.

[Fri13]

20 hours ago, jacobs said:

The guy uses the Av-8 for air-to-air and complains about module being incomplete... LOL.

 

You think that Harrier is just an attack aircraft?

It is capable to challenge even F/A-18C.

 

19 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Engaging moving targets, for instance, was pretty much impossible last time I tried (they might've fixed the TPOD in the last patch, but I haven't checked yet).

 

With what weapons you tried to engage a moving targets? As example GBU-12 is not designed to hit a moving target, why the GBU-48 was developed.

 

19 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The campaign works around these issues by not featuring anything that could trip the current version up, so it works, but for more complex air to ground work, I'd recommend until the sensors work as intended and the manual comes out.

 

I hope we would see the DMT/TPOD redone before that to happen. As so many things are completely unrealistic and incorrect that even simple basic A-G attack with a Mk.82 bombs is not properly possible be done.

 

[Dragon1-1]

13 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

With what weapons you tried to engage a moving targets? As example GBU-12 is not designed to hit a moving target, why the GBU-48 was developed.

I was trying to lock it with the TPOD. No weapon was involved at that point. GBU-12 is very much capable of hitting moving targets IRL, as is the LMAV, but that's a moot point if you can't get the pod to track. Nor the DMT, for that matter, which IRL allows you to land hits on moving targets with dumb bombs.

[Fri13]

21 hours ago, cw4ogden said:

Most of what you describe is cosmetic stuff or quality of life issues.  The harrier is very effective in air to ground role.  I find the module to be fairly complete by DCS standards.  Most of its bugs are actually features meaning what I'm convinced must be a bug turns out usually to be something about the aircraft I just didn't know.

 

Just don't read the NATOPS of the Harrier as there is lots of thins differently than what NATOPS says them to be. Slowly getting even status "future implementation" is a victory.

 

21 hours ago, cw4ogden said:

I am trying out the A-10 during the free to play with its vast weapon load, but the Av8b is no slouch in comparison, especially given how much quicker you can get to and return from the battlefield.  

 

The A-10C is not as capable as the AV-8B is. Similar thing is with the Hornet and Viper, they are not replacing the Harrier capabilities that V/TOL does. And especially how the Harrier cockpit is designed. Some Harrier pilots say that they do not plan to go through a transition to F-35B as it is "a unicorne" that is not so capable as that what makes Harrier so great on battlefield.

 

21 hours ago, cw4ogden said:

All that said it took a long time to get comfortable employing it as a strike aircraft.  The systems are nuanced and at first it seems like pure voodoo the combination of switches and button pushes only to get no Maverick launch or a bomb miss, but as well these always turned out to be my misunderstanding or incomplete understanding of the system, not the module itself.

 

I actually prefer the Harrier method to do things, compared to example A-10C or F/A-18C. There are few small things, like one could think that you could fire the TPOD laser with the trigger, as the trigger is only to launch A-A weapons and gun, and if you are in A-G mode and you don't have a gun selected but TPOD is active, why not have it to turn laser On/Off similar way as in the Hornet? But it is a nice safety feature to push a MFCD button to start firing a laser. Far nicer than Hornet LTD/R switch that goes constantly On/Off, even middle of the weapon guidance.

 

21 hours ago, cw4ogden said:

A datalink would be a nice addition, but the module feels very polished to me.

 

Harrier actually has the datalink, but it is only for the JTAC. So basically it should go that you contact JTAC and report in, and then JTAC knows they can send you the 9-line to the CAS page. You would either accept or recline the sent data, you can ping-pong it with the JTAC until you are happy with it, like change a value in it and send it back to JTAC and if they accept it then they send it to you and you accept it, but point is that you would be required just to press "Accept" and then "Use" the CAS and you just select the target point, you have all the course lines, target points and so on set ready for the mission.

There as well should be the datalink capability to see ground units locations on the map and in the HUD. So you know where your troops are located (at least their transmitters) and then be able use that as your CAS missions as you can be better contact over radio to troops on ground and help them.

In reality,

In 2023 the AV-8B is funded to have a JHMCS integration and Link-16. So that is when we likely would see the A-G designation possibility just by looking a target.

 

[Hodo]

16 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

You think that Harrier is just an attack aircraft?

It is capable to challenge even F/A-18C.

 

 

With what weapons you tried to engage a moving targets? As example GBU-12 is not designed to hit a moving target, why the GBU-48 was developed.

 

 

I hope we would see the DMT/TPOD redone before that to happen. As so many things are completely unrealistic and incorrect that even simple basic A-G attack with a Mk.82 bombs is not properly possible be done.

 

It can only challenge a Hornet if the Hornet has managed to get to close and the pilot forgot his autopilot was still on and went afk.  

 

Sorry but the Harrier as good as it is, is no match for the Hornet, Falcon, 21, Eagle, Fulcrum, Flanker, Thunder or Mirage.  

 

There is a reason why it is designated the AV8B and not F/AV-8B.   

 

In BVR it is useless, in ACM it hemorrhages energy, it has pretty poor sustained turn rate and it's limited gun with the even further limitations of the AIM-9M.  Even using "stoopid Harrier tricks" it can't pull off much more than the surprise one in ten win against any dedicated fighter or multi-role fighter built after 1965.  

 

I have managed air to air kills with the Harrier but nothing I would dare say was because the plane.   

[Fri13]

5 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I was trying to lock it with the TPOD. No weapon was involved at that point.

 

The TPOD target tracking gate is likely wrong. It shouldn't be so difficult to get it to lock on contrast by zooming in/out to get it proper sized.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

GBU-12 is very much capable of hitting moving targets IRL, as is the LMAV, but that's a moot point if you can't get the pod to track.

 

Laser Maverick is totally different kind than GBU-12. The GBU-12 has a "bang-bang" guidance and it doesn't have a proportional navigation system. The guidance system only does full deflection of the fins until it gets the bomb pointing at the target. It doesn't know is the target moving or is the bomb turning or what. It can not take any intercept point where to fly.

This is a huge problem if you start firing laser too late or too early, as the bomb has no lift or kinematic energy to turn toward target. IRL the GBU-12 is even required to be aimed off-site from the target toward the wind. You needed to take a wind count and direction and then move the laser pointer X meters toward the wind to have the bomb drop on the target. And that changes by the laser timing and bomb trajectory etc.

Then for a moving target, you would need to aim the laser a lot ahead of the target future point to get the bomb there. So if a target moves like 20 km/h it is already very long prediction point forward, for a target moving a 50-60 km/h it is pure luck almost.

  That is why GBU-48 was developed as it has a proportional guidance system where it knows its altitude, target prediction point and it can calculate as well the target intercept point and guide itself toward that instead toward target.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Nor the DMT, for that matter, which IRL allows you to land hits on moving targets with dumb bombs.

 

The ARBS is capable handle moving targets as it is like a wind. It can calculate the release point for the bomb by performing the own prediction point. But once the bomb is released, there is nothing that is changing its course than the wind. The bomb will fall in a curve toward the point and have a possibility to hit it if target keeps heading and speed constant.

 

With the GBU-12 the bomb own guidance unit is its enemy, as it always just try to turn bomb straight toward the laser spot.

Why even in a normal stationary target if you fire laser too soon when the bomb is in a trajectory flight, it will turn bomb straight on the target instead "overfly". And that means the trajectory changes and bomb will drop too short and even sideways as the guidance unit try to just point bomb on target. We do not have proper GBU-12 flight modeling even, but it guidance system is like perfect one.

 

 

 

[Fri13]

17 minutes ago, Hodo said:

It can only challenge a Hornet if the Hornet has managed to get to close and the pilot forgot his autopilot was still on and went afk. 

Sorry but the Harrier as good as it is, is no match for the Hornet, Falcon, 21, Eagle, Fulcrum, Flanker, Thunder or Mirage.  

 

In reality the Harrier pilots beats Hornet pilots because Harrier has superior acceleration capability and better turning capability. The Harrier still holds the record in climb speed to 15000 ft, and only then it loses to F-15C that then climbs faster to altitude.

 

It is more about the pilot than the aircraft that does the difference.

 

Quote

In BVR it is useless, in ACM it hemorrhages energy, it has pretty poor sustained turn rate and it's limited gun with the even further limitations of the AIM-9M.

 

N/A is useless in BVR, but not the + variant.

 

Quote

  Even using "stoopid Harrier tricks" it can't pull off much more than the surprise one in ten win against any dedicated fighter or multi-role fighter built after 1965. 

 

https://youtu.be/1545Cbdumg0?t=2990

 

You can challenge that as you want.... You need to know what you are against (Harrier) even when flying Hornet, as otherwise you get surprised what the Harrier can do, even more with attitude "It can't turn well, it can't maintain its turn, it is capable only win 1 of 10 against any fighter or multi-role fighters since 1965".

Edited February 8, 2021 by Fri13

[Hodo]

Again.  I am not knocking the Harrier but even that pilot said he would usually defeat inexperienced Hornet pilots in 1 v 1.  

 

 

[Fri13]

3 minutes ago, Hodo said:

Again.  I am not knocking the Harrier but even that pilot said he would usually defeat inexperienced Hornet pilots in 1 v 1. 

 

Read again, when you do not know what you are against to.... You are easy target as the difference maker is the pilot, not the aircraft. When you are surprised and you don't know what to do, you easily lose. That is almost regardless what fighter you are flying as pilot makes the difference... It is not that "That pilot doesn't know how to fly a Hornet" but "That pilot doesn't know what he is against....".

 

 

[Hodo]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

Read again, when you do not know what you are against to.... You are easy target as the difference maker is the pilot, not the aircraft. When you are surprised and you don't know what to do, you easily lose. That is almost regardless what fighter you are flying as pilot makes the difference... It is not that "That pilot doesn't know how to fly a Hornet" but "That pilot doesn't know what he is against....".

 

 

I never forget the basics.  

The Art of War -Sun Tzu.

Dicta Boelcke - Oswald Boelcke.

And Malan's Rules.  

 

Lastly but not least, Murphy's Law's of combat.

 

Now with that said.  Two equally skilled pilots in ACM one in the Harrier the other in the Hornet.  The Hornet will win that fight.

[Fri13]

3 hours ago, Hodo said:

Now with that said.  Two equally skilled pilots in ACM one in the Harrier the other in the Hornet.  The Hornet will win that fight.

 

But the fact is, world is not equal.... That is why equally skilled pilots can end situation where Hornet pilot will lose.

 

Remember, you started with: "The guy uses the Av-8 for air-to-air and complains about module being incomplete... LOL." and continued with: "it can't pull off much more than the surprise one in ten win against any dedicated fighter or multi-role fighter built after 1965." and "It can only challenge a Hornet if the Hornet has managed to get to close and the pilot forgot his autopilot was still on and went afk.".

 

Meaning your assumption is that Harrier can't turn, it can't maneuver, it can't by any means win regardless who is the pilot.

 

The real limitation (that everyone can agree) for air-to-air combat is that it has just a Sidewinder, so no BVR combat. Not even good WVR combat as you can't get a bearing to enemy so easily as you don't have a radar in N/A model.

And we do not even talk about the AIM-9X with JHMCS that would put big benefit for Hornet, but that are all non-related to the airframe.

 

The AV-8B N/A and + is funded by the US Congress to get a JHMCS and AIM-9X II upgrade in 2023. The + variant is to receive Link-16 and AIM-120C/D capability.

It is not a slouch aircraft at all to go against in air to air combat. It is not a F-22 or even a F-35 with their sensor fusions and so on, but the AV-8B+ has same radar as Hornet, same radar modes and all. The difference is that the Harrier radar has just slightly smaller diameter so it could be fitted to the nose.

 

In a equal starting conditions, Harrier has as much changes as Hornet does. That means AIM-9L or AIM-9M + gun and going for just a boresight aiming (radar Off, until we get the AV-8B+ once ED has finalized the A-G radar for Hornet).

 

Equally skilled pilot doesn't mean that the other pilot can respond to every move and counter every move correctly.

There is a reason pilots is wanted to train and get experience against all kind different targets, that they learn that how different aircraft can perform, but more importantly they learn different pilots tactics and behavior as regardless the aircraft everyone is flying, the pilots matter even when equally skilled.

 

[jacobs]

19 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

You think that Harrier is just an attack aircraft?

It is capable to challenge even F/A-18C.

 

 

Yeah, but that's not the point. A Harrier going against a Hornet, or a mig-21, or a mig-29 is an emergency situation. I'm sure a well skilled Harrier pilot would hold it's own. But air-to-air is not the bread and butter type o scenario of the AV-8B. The guy that opened this thread seems to use the Harrier as air-to-air just because he thinks the module is buggy. Makes no sense at all.

[exhausted]

This is silly. There is no such thing as two equal pilots. Each person is unique. The Night Attack Harrier has no BVR, but it no slouch in a2a.

 

This reminds me of how people thought the Zero was a superior fighter before Marines developed and used teamwork to win. In a dogfight, a good Harrier pilot will own your ass. Once the Plus comes out, you will be Amraamed.

[TLTeo]

You can't just attach AMRAAMs on an air to ground jet, and suddenly turn it into a world class air superiority fighter. In the case of the Harrier yes, the plus carries BVR missiles, but it's still a subsonic jet which puts it at a large disadvantage in BVR. And that's disregarding the fact that the radar it gets is nothing to write home about.

[Fri13]

4 hours ago, jacobs said:

 

Yeah, but that's not the point. A Harrier going against a Hornet, or a mig-21, or a mig-29 is an emergency situation. I'm sure a well skilled Harrier pilot would hold it's own. But air-to-air is not the bread and butter type o scenario of the AV-8B.

 

It is not for the AV-8B N/A, as those Sidewinders are of course for self-defense purposes. But the AV-8B+ is a different story. That is the point as well with the Sea Harrier having long before AV-8B+ got AIM-120's.

The UK used Harrier very well in the air-to-air combat, without zero loss and 23 kills. The 23:0 ratio with a 4:1 odds is great, as even when Sea Harriers were underdogs in amount, they ended victorious.

 

And Sea Harriers were against Mirages V's (Daggers), A-4's, Super Etendards and Mirage III's.

And the AV-8B has more powerful engine, better maneuverability etc.

 

4 hours ago, jacobs said:

The guy that opened this thread seems to use the Harrier as air-to-air just because he thinks the module is buggy. Makes no sense at all.

 

Well, I wouldn't use it as A-A interceptor, but harrier was designed to be capable for air combat to protect the fleet, just like it did in the Falklands war. Yet it was not designed at all as interceptor or a fighter like F-15, but it became a lot more capable for that when it got the radar. It basically is a "Hornet's little brother".

 

 

 

[Fri13]

25 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

You can't just attach AMRAAMs on an air to ground jet, and suddenly turn it into a world class air superiority fighter. In the case of the Harrier yes, the plus carries BVR missiles, but it's still a subsonic jet which puts it at a large disadvantage in BVR. And that's disregarding the fact that the radar it gets is nothing to write home about.

 

The radar is same as our F/A-18C Lot 20 Hornet has, it is taken from those and just the radar antenna is resized in smaller diameter to fit in the nose. You do not need such maximum detection range that Hornet has in AV-8B+ as it is not meant to be a Hornet replacement. But having capability to launch AIM-120B and AGM-84 will make it far more capable for Air-to-Air combat and Anti-Ship missions.

 

The Hornet in a 4x AIM-120B + 2x AIM-9 weapon loadout is a slow as well. Add the bags there even and it is very slow. Again same thing is with the F-16 or F-15 that once you start to load them up to the teeth, they will become slow.

This same thing can be seen on Harrier that you see people flying with a 10x Mk.82 bombs and they just barely get to pull up from attack dive. Have just a couple bombs and you cruise at about Mach 0.8-0.9 with 95% RPM.

 

Like any aircraft, the Harrier requires to learn its capabilities how to fly and fight. I don't take it against a fighters if I just can avoid, but it doesn't mean I need to ignore all the possible targets there are or run away from any possible threat there is. Years back I started training against a one MiG-21 and then later MiG-19P (when it got out) and then moved to two and three and four targets. In 3:1 and 4:1 situation it is fun but commonly one gets to good shooting position from the rear. 2 vs 1 situation is controllable. Going against one F/A-18C is doable, but against 2 it becomes such that it doesn't really matter much do you have Hornet or Harrier in use, yet it is doable. Only aircraft that I dare to go in 4 vs 1 against F-14, F-15, F-16 or F-18 is the Su-27, as there the aircraft makes the difference how you can fly and control the fight.  But those are just AI.

 

2 vs 1 situation with human players it is totally different than going against AI. In 1 vs 1 situation it is easy, as long you know what mistakes you can make and how you can correct your mistakes.

But it is possible only in the situation where both have a gun and same level AIM-9 opportunities, as already explained.

 

I am going to purchase the AV-8B+ when Razbam develops it (as promised by them) as it will make the awesome Harrier even more capable combination as it opens up the Air-to-Air missions as well better attack missions, even when you scarifce the bombing accuracy and night attack capabilities.

[exhausted]

4 hours ago, TLTeo said:

You can't just attach AMRAAMs on an air to ground jet, and suddenly turn it into a world class air superiority fighter. In the case of the Harrier yes, the plus carries BVR missiles, but it's still a subsonic jet which puts it at a large disadvantage in BVR. And that's disregarding the fact that the radar it gets is nothing to write home about.

 

The Harrier is not just an air to ground jet though. Since the early 2000s it has used the same radar as the Hornet, and, as of 2011, it deploys on LHAs with AMRAAMs. The Harrier's acceleration to 350-400 knots is comparable with the fastest jets in DCS. With a large bombload and tanks it might be faster than a similarly loaded Viper. 

 

In BVR, which seems almost insignificant in the Harrier's role, a flight of Pluses should be able to go toe to toe with almost anything out there. WVR, a flight of Harriers stands a really good chance against the aircraft set we currently have in DCS. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by exhausted

[Hawkeye_UK]

On 2/7/2021 at 7:26 PM, cw4ogden said:

Most of what you describe is cosmetic stuff or quality of life issues.  The harrier is very effective in air to ground role.  I find the module to be fairly complete by DCS standards.  Most of its bugs are actually features meaning what I'm convinced must be a bug turns out usually to be something about the aircraft I just didn't know.  

 

I am trying out the A-10 during the free to play with its vast weapon load, but the Av8b is no slouch in comparison, especially given how much quicker you can get to and return from the battlefield.  

 

All that said it took a long time to get comfortable employing it as a strike aircraft.  The systems are nuanced and at first it seems like pure voodoo the combination of switches and button pushes only to get no Maverick launch or a bomb miss, but as well these always turned out to be my misunderstanding or incomplete understanding of the system, not the module itself.

 

A datalink would be a nice addition, but the module feels very polished to me.

 

Yes on the surface to new players it appears quite comprehensive.  However with knowledge of the real life functionality and how the systems flow work then you tend to lose that appreciation quite quickly.

 

I mean the TGP pod for a start is comical - good job there not like that in the real world otherwise the current collateral damage tally would be rookie numbers.  I mean just try and talk on another aircraft or ground FAC from features on the ground by giving ground stabilised bearings from a VRP.

 

Unfortunately also there are bugs with current implemented systems that are being marked as resolved and/or for future implementation instead of actually solving them.

 

As for the quality in ACM, i regular shoot down tomcats, vipers and hornets PvP in a high standard server (not GS lol).  If you have mountains and within visual against a skilled harrier player be careful thinking they are easy pray.  Once merged even in open surroundings your equally going to struggle, those nozzles have a value!

 

 

[Fri13]

12 hours ago, exhausted said:

 

The Harrier is not just an air to ground jet though. Since the early 2000s it has used the same radar as the Hornet, and, as of 2011, it deploys on LHAs with AMRAAMs. The Harrier's acceleration to 350-400 knots is comparable with the fastest jets in DCS. With a large bombload and tanks it might be faster than a similarly loaded Viper. 

 

While I can comment many things wrong in the Harrier systems modeling etc, one thing that I don't like to comment is the flight modeling as I think that I have zero knowledge about it. But just for the comment about acceleration and deceleration that two Harrier pilots have said is, that you can join a lead with 100 knots higher speed and use the nozzles to quickly decelerate for matching speed. In DCS I can't get that feeling as it requires air brakes, wheels and nozzles full forward to get some kind slowing speed from 300 knots to 200 knots... The other comment was reply to question that does the Harrier accelerate quickly, and it was "no, it does not". But that is out of the context as one doesn't know anything about the payload or speed range. Like it is world record that Harrier has faster climb time than even F-15, but those are of course in clean configuration. And as it is a air breather engine, I could think that acceleration speed at high altitude past 500 knots becomes slow, but as you say acceleration to 350-400 should be very fast and efficient in a common load.

 

12 hours ago, exhausted said:

In BVR, which seems almost insignificant in the Harrier's role, a flight of Pluses should be able to go toe to toe with almost anything out there. WVR, a flight of Harriers stands a really good chance against the aircraft set we currently have in DCS.

 

I do not see the BVR a problem for the AV-8B+ at all even when it has a APG-65 (Hornet upgraded APG-73) and smaller diameter, the BVR capability with the AIM-120 doesn't really differ. Detection ranges sure get shorter but if they are inside the AIM-120 maximum capabilities, it doesn't really matter so much as you have a fleet that does the long range detection.

 

And if in a BVR a doppler notching is so critical, it would be funny to try to just hover in BVR fight while lobbying AIM-120's at the target when it is completely incapable even see you while you are in hover or at so slow beaming speed. But that is just a fictional and hypothetical capability.

 

[Fri13]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye_UK said:

Yes on the surface to new players it appears quite comprehensive.  However with knowledge of the real life functionality and how the systems flow work then you tend to lose that appreciation quite quickly.

 

If the Razbam would just be communicating that what are their plans and roadmaps and future implementations, instead of just staying quiet about everything that they are going to release and fix.

 

 

1 minute ago, Hawkeye_UK said:

I mean the TGP pod for a start is comical - good job there not like that in the real world otherwise the current collateral damage tally would be rookie numbers.  I mean just try and talk on another aircraft or ground FAC from features on the ground by giving ground stabilised bearings from a VRP.

 

I could forgive that for the Razbam if they would have communicated clearly that what is their roadmap and schedule to upgrade from Litening II 1st Gen to Litening G4 (4th Gen), but there is like nothing to see. The transition time seems to be very long, where they broke the Litening in progress.

 

Like, I would have liked to see the old 1st gen targeting pod from 1996 as well as optional for some missions, as it already was there. And then have the 4th generation pod from 2008 as other option. So we could have flown a two different time era missions with targeting pods, as well fly the Gulf War missions without any targeting pods.

 

1 minute ago, Hawkeye_UK said:

Unfortunately also there are bugs with current implemented systems that are being marked as resolved and/or for future implementation instead of actually solving them.

 

That is a major problem. Customers can not stay on track that hat is fixed and what is not when bugs are moved as "fixed" (without fixing them) among all other already fixed bugs.

I have started to think that is just a PR method to confuse the customers that they can not find out that what is really broken and get the "feature completed" list look far nicer as you don't have to explain why so many things are broken for so long times.

Doesn't it sound familiar since 2017?

 

 

1 minute ago, Hawkeye_UK said:

As for the quality in ACM, i regular shoot down tomcats, vipers and hornets PvP in a high standard server (not GS lol).  If you have mountains and within visual against a skilled harrier player be careful thinking they are easy pray.  Once merged even in open surroundings your equally going to struggle, those nozzles have a value!

 

The nice thing with the human vs human is that there is actually meaning of the skills. Unlike when going against AI that either is superior human being pulling maneuvers you can never do and always seeing you no matter where you go, or then it is completely idiot that offers their head on plate with apple in mouth...

The human element is so critical, like the AI that has now been hyped somewhat beating real pilots, it is just unfair when the AI knows all the time the human pilot status (speed, angles, energy potential etc) so it doesn't need to try to solve the most difficult part of the air combat.

 

But totally agree that going against any target with attitude that they are easy pray can cost dearly. Why even experienced pilots who doesn't have experience against Harrier can find themselves victims for its capabilities. Why pilots train and train a lot against all kind pilots, against all kind aircraft and try to keep everything fresh in their minds. Like why it was so critical to get for training a real MiG's and Sukhois and great pilots to fly those as it put those F-4, F-14 etc pilots in trouble when they were challenged with real things instead already known airframes.

 

[cw4ogden]

3 hours ago, Hawkeye_UK said:

Yes on the surface to new players it appears quite comprehensive.  However with knowledge of the real life functionality and how the systems flow work then you tend to lose that appreciation quite quickly.

 

I mean the TGP pod for a start is comical - good job there not like that in the real world otherwise the current collateral damage tally would be rookie numbers.  I mean just try and talk on another aircraft or ground FAC from features on the ground by giving ground stabilised bearings from a VRP.

I did read the TGP North arrow is slated to be fixed next patch.  And I read the back and forth; seems it is more difficult to get a bug addressed or even acknowledged than it should be.

 

My comparison was indented to be along the lines of most modules have some issues, and to me the Av8b doesn't seem to be the shit-show to me, the forums would have you believe.  

 

I can't speak to it's full fidelity accuracy, or if modelling of systems is accurate, but I can say the module, to me isn't inhibited in it's ground attack role bug by rampant bugs.  There are annoyances and polish problems for sure.  But it can be employed quite effectively as an attack asset, as it is.  There is very little, if anything still, that is "game-breaking".

 

I'm not advocating it is complete, just that it is no where near as bad as some of the pile on crowd would have you believe it is.

[Hodo]

On 2/8/2021 at 5:23 PM, Fri13 said:

 

But the fact is, world is not equal.... That is why equally skilled pilots can end situation where Hornet pilot will lose.

 

Remember, you started with: "The guy uses the Av-8 for air-to-air and complains about module being incomplete... LOL." and continued with: "it can't pull off much more than the surprise one in ten win against any dedicated fighter or multi-role fighter built after 1965." and "It can only challenge a Hornet if the Hornet has managed to get to close and the pilot forgot his autopilot was still on and went afk.".

 

Meaning your assumption is that Harrier can't turn, it can't maneuver, it can't by any means win regardless who is the pilot.

 

The real limitation (that everyone can agree) for air-to-air combat is that it has just a Sidewinder, so no BVR combat. Not even good WVR combat as you can't get a bearing to enemy so easily as you don't have a radar in N/A model.

And we do not even talk about the AIM-9X with JHMCS that would put big benefit for Hornet, but that are all non-related to the airframe.

 

The AV-8B N/A and + is funded by the US Congress to get a JHMCS and AIM-9X II upgrade in 2023. The + variant is to receive Link-16 and AIM-120C/D capability.

It is not a slouch aircraft at all to go against in air to air combat. It is not a F-22 or even a F-35 with their sensor fusions and so on, but the AV-8B+ has same radar as Hornet, same radar modes and all. The difference is that the Harrier radar has just slightly smaller diameter so it could be fitted to the nose.

 

In a equal starting conditions, Harrier has as much changes as Hornet does. That means AIM-9L or AIM-9M + gun and going for just a boresight aiming (radar Off, until we get the AV-8B+ once ED has finalized the A-G radar for Hornet).

 

Equally skilled pilot doesn't mean that the other pilot can respond to every move and counter every move correctly.

There is a reason pilots is wanted to train and get experience against all kind different targets, that they learn that how different aircraft can perform, but more importantly they learn different pilots tactics and behavior as regardless the aircraft everyone is flying, the pilots matter even when equally skilled.

 

The A-4E Skyhawk was used as an aggressor fighter by TOP GUN and well it was no fighter.  This doesn't mean that in a real world fight or in a DCS "real world" fight that it is a fighter or a good fighter or even a mediocre fighter.  

 

The same goes for the AV8B NA.  I have the module I like it and I have used it for air to air.  But it is NO fighter.  

 

It hemorrhages energy in a turn fight, one circle or two circle.  It has horrible low speed and high angle of attack handling.  It has a pretty poor sustained turn rate when compared to true fighters like the Hornet or Falcon.  

 

It is like comparing the IL-2 to a bf-109F4.