AV-8B Harrier Plus DCS version

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Cheers :)

 

I haven't been able to find anything supporting that it has.

 

I found this though, interesting 1997 document with specs for HMDs of that time. It mentions the AV-8B which was testing for JAST, which eventually went into the JSF programme (page 113) but that's as far as it goes. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a331767.pdf

[Jona33]

Just to confirm, the RAF Harriers are not AAMRAM/ALARM certified, are they?

 

So, advanced NATO mixed USMC & RAF/RN deployment. The AV-8Bs+ perform SEAD, CAP and Escort duties while the GR.9s go in and do the dirty job. UH-1H two-ship on stand-by for CSAR. Would that be realistic enough for a nice MP session? :D

 

No, the FA2 was AMRAAM certified but was retired yonks ago.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Thought so. If in desperate need I suppose we could just repaint those AV-8B+ and pretend they're good for it :D

[joey45]

The FA.2 's were a completely different kettle of fish...

[robmlufc]

Plenty of differences between the GR9 and AV8B+ too, not just a repaint!

 

I think the FA2 carried ALARM aswell?

[joey45]

Fighter only with limited Ground Attack.

 

F - Fighter

A - Attack

 

GR is

 

G - Ground Attack

R - Recce

[robmlufc]

Limited indeed but ALARM capable apparently.

 

http://www.fleetairarm.com/exhibit/british-aerospace-sea-harrier-fa2-xz499/1-29-49.aspx

[Lucas_From_Hell]

All are pretty different indeed :) Just thought the AV-8B+ would work as a "fake" Sea Harrier (kind of like how the UH-1H is working as a 412) as both are radar-fitted fighters (oh the desperation), while the GR.9 is, as mentioned, Ground & Recce (a role which should be pretty interesting to perform as well).

 

As far as I know, it did carry the ALARM (and Sea Eagle too), although it seems to be impossible to find a single photo of it carrying them.

 

EDIT: Beat me to it :)

[porky_pig]

 

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Beautiful shots :)

 

P.S.: Going off-topic, am I the only one who didn't see this before? :doh: Seems like we're getting a Tornado GR.4 as well :D:D:D

 

See here: https://metal2mesh.com/store/index.php?main_page=page_3

 

End of the year update.

Hello Well behind the scenes (few months now) we have been working on a MiG-29 model. We felt it was time to inform everyone of this. Just last week, we decided to also announce a new Tornado GR-4 Project we just started. We figured probably best since surprize of the MiG, we might as well just get it out there too. The MiG-29 will not be in DCS, but will make it's way to FSX and maybe P3D. On the other hand, the Tonado GR-4 (Tonka) is already signed up for DCS and will showcase in FSX as well. Here are a few renders, enjoy.

 

Also, for those having trouble finding in-game external screenies of the AV-8B+ on this thread (I am, at least :music_whistling:), here's a compilation of shots:

 

http://metal2mesh.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=30

 

[robmlufc]

That's a lovely looking model! :)

[schroedi]

Here are some photos of a Sea Harrier FRS carrying a Sea Eagle and a AS-37 Martel, one where you can see the front part of the Sea Eagle on a Sea Harrier FA2. And a stupid photo of a Harrier GR7 with an ALARM missle laying in front of it (should that show that the Harrier in general could carry it - I don't know). Plus a Harrier with a WE177 nuclear bomb. I don't have any photos of a Harrier with a ALARM on a pylon.

By the way can the Harrier AV-8B carry Sidearm ARM? And can the AV-8B plus carry AGM-84 Harpoon?

Edited May 16, 2013 by schroedi

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Later models of the AV-8B can carry the AGM-88 HARM, including the AV-8B+ RAZBAM's modelling :)

 

Thanks for the photos, interesting finds :)

 

Perhaps it's babysitting the ALARMs until they bring a Tornado over? :D

Edited May 16, 2013 by Lucas_From_Hell

[arteedecco]

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fa2-sea-harrier/

 

FA2 Sea Harrier is apparently ASRAAM and ALARM capable.

[nick10]

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fa2-sea-harrier/

 

FA2 Sea Harrier is apparently ASRAAM and ALARM capable.

 

Any model harrier will be an instant buy for me. More so than even the strike eagle. so many more mission types to run.

[joey45]

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fa2-sea-harrier/

 

FA2 Sea Harrier was apparently ASRAAM and ALARM capable.

 

Fixed it for you...:thumbup:

[arteedecco]

Fixed it for you...:thumbup:

 

Lol! Thanks... :thumbup: Tenses... easy to mix up, big impact. blarg.

[WildBillKelsoe]

Projects flow?

 

Hi, I would like to know your road map. is Harrier the 2nd or 3rd in line?

[Lucas_From_Hell]

According to Prowler earlier on this thread, it is 3rd, after the T-2 Buckeye and (I believe) the Corsair :)

[EchoMasterMind]

So the F-15E is last? Oh maaaan. Well, maybe that will ensure better quality of it though?

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I'll do a little search in the threads; as said before I'm not sure if it's the Corsair (back when it was said Prowler said the second module was unannounced). Skimming through, I saw that a couple of weeks ago it was announced that the Harrier was moved in the development schedule.

 

I'd say it's best if we wait a bit and get some information from RAZBAM members themselves, they've been (like all other developers here, we're pretty lucky) a very friendly and interactive bunch all along, whatever information they can give us, they will give us :)

 

Also, whatever time they take to finish a module, it's for the sake of realism - they've said over and over that they're only talking about A-10C-level realism and nothing less.

 

They have different teams for each aircraft so they're mostly independent from each other and, unless we get official word on the order of release, it can be said it's all up in the air (and that the F-15 may come sooner, later, or in the middle). It all depends on how much challenge is each aircraft putting up for them (e.g. the Harrier has vertical flight/vectored thrust dynamics which need to be studied and done, the Eagle has two seats and advanced avionics and etc.)

[WildBillKelsoe]

Purchased AV-8 II plus.

 

Will post a vid here soon!

EDIT: due to RL commitments, I will now post my review of the Harrier II plus version.

 

As I mentioned, I don't own acceleration pack, so my MPCDs were not functional.

 

The avionics suite is very simiilar wih A-10C, it even features yaw pitch and roll SAS channels, and the throttle mapping was easy (CH Products).

 

Starting off, I was overweight by default flight config, and every time I tried to get the VTOL config for weight, the FSX manager over-rode me. I quit and deleted all flights saved, loaded a cess, changed the config using razbams manager, and finally was in the VTOL fig.

 

Takeoff was easy, slammed throttle forward and lowered nozzles to 70 degrees, she started to ascend quickly. I reduced throttle and she came to near stall, but I found the sweet spot and hovered looking at myself with spot view near to a tower. The stream of hover is a good eye candy, but exterior lights need some work. I had trouble shutting the engine down and even did not know what the water was for (I'll take a wild guess for a weight balance)

 

The other worry, is the nav. I need both MPCDS apparently, but even an old plane like this must have analog backups, which I did'nt find. I don't even know how long should INS take to align, as I was getting NAV in the warning lights panel. Flight model wise, I am very happy with the vectoral thrust model you guys developed, but I want better in DCS world. Transitions go smooth, except if you reach AS 0 quickly, where there is a sudden flip back. Don't know about the real craft.

 

One more shortcoming, was the manual. There was no index ot TOC at start, and I had to use the ipad search function to locate items like DECS.

 

i'm very optimistic with RAZBAM, their work is awesome, but can be better if they come to DCS world. I thank Larry Zambrano, Ron Zambrano for their support, and wish you guys all the best, and I can't wait to get DCS AV-8B Harrier Plus.

 

Cheers,

WBK

Edited June 1, 2013 by WildBillKelsoe

[robmlufc]

 

Takeoff was easy, slammed throttle forward and lowered nozzles to 70 degrees, she started to ascend quickly. I reduced throttle and she came to near stall, but I found the sweet spot and hovered looking at myself with spot view near to a tower. The stream of hover is a good eye candy, but exterior lights need some work. I had trouble shutting the engine down and even did not know what the water was for (I'll take a wild guess for a weight balance)

 

 

Nice one Bill :)

 

With the Mk105 and 107 engines the water is mainly there as ballast unless operating in high temperatures and/or altitudes. Otherwise, the water is used for water injection when the aircraft is set to 'Short Lift Wet' or 'Lift Wet' mode for hover and short take offs/landing. The engine is temperature limited so to get some more power the water is sprayed onto the turbine blades and around the combustion chamber to assist cooling and allow more fuel to be pumped in. The pump is air driven from engine bleed air, gives you about 90 seconds hover time.

Edited June 2, 2013 by robmlufc

[joey45]

FSX is VERY limited to what the devs can do to the Flight Model and systems.

 

DCS = next to unlimited capabilities..

Edited June 2, 2013 by joey45

[Paradox]

Yeah. I just pray that razbam know what parameters the Harrier should have to make an accurate FM.

 

And then systems and avionics are a whole other matter..

 

I tend to be cynical about these things since a lot of documentation isn't available to non-military personnel.