So Harrier GR.9A with AIM-9M, Sniper ATP, AGM-65G-2 and brimstone I for sure ?
Officially I don’t know, but personally I’d guess so. Also again AGM-65G2 should also come to the GR.7 as it didn’t carry the D Maverick.
How will the G-2’s or F’s perform vs tanks? It is it going to be reserved for LAV’s and SPAA?
My understanding is it can destory any target. But has increased effectiveness against soft targets thanks to the fragmentation effect.
1 Like
Which does kinda make sense considering what the Gr7 usually encountered and was tasked with normally in the middle east. Few hardened targets like tanks.
To begin with they will be pretty bad, with only 80lb of explosive (I think it uses ?Cyclotol?), and a not great Re factor (TNTe multiplier) of somewhere between 1.3~1.6 (there used to be a list / datamine somewhere which gave the values that WT uses) its only on par with a Mk. 81 which has a 5 meter radius of damage, so for all intents and purposes a worse Kh-25MT(D)[200lb], let alone the Kh-29T[705lb] which is the contemporary system, and with the lack of a complex fragmentation model much of the actual advantage of having a design weighted towards fragmentation and kinetic penetration, instead of explosive mass will be wasted, at least in a direct comparison though there is still the AGM-84E, and other systems which should help close the performance gap in various ways.
But the advantages over the HEAT warhead should be obvious since as a GPHE warhead (its actually far closer to a straight up APHE or SAP calcification, at least based on fill ratio) design, it actually has a chance to gets its secondary damage modeling implemented, instead of it not actually being a bug that it is completely missing, but a design decision, let alone having accurate modeling.
It’s likely to be revised at some point when kinetic penetration is added to bombs. and as per a recent Q&A it is being worked on, so may be included in the revision.
as it has a comparatively low fill ratio at only 80/300 = ~25% and subsequently be actually useful against Ships, their intended target, and potentially some types of static AI targets if they also get their DM overhauled, fragmentation upped massively and the delay fusing allowing for a post penetration blast it will be be a good choice against specific targets vs smaller LGB’s (GPS/INS guidance is likely to only be seen at a much higher BR) as they are F&F and so free up the pilot for further tasking especially if the datalink and other post release control systems are modeled.
For the GR.7, and other airframes which are limited to only being able to carry the LAU-117/A (Single rail adapter) explicitly, against an armored tactical target there is little effective difference between the variants of AGM-65 outside which seeker they are equipt with, and its capabilities, and depending on when things are implemented / revised / planned.
The GPHE warhead should at very least be more consistent, especially in a multi / Clustered target encounter, and in dives if the fragmentation a pattern is modeled properly as the existing lofting mechanism doesn’t have a fixed angle of impact like it should of 15 / 20 degrees.
If the eventual revision to the seeker logic adds proper Correlation tracking modes(added with the -65F/G and later), so a point of aim on larger targets can be specified instead of being stuck with centroid tracking and so not be stuck hitting smokestacks, instead able to be aimed at the waterline / magazines it will become far more deadly especially against more modern ships that have an all or nothing armor schema(let alone those that only have Anti-Fragmentation) as it gains significant penetration capabilities when used in combination with the extended delay fusing option, instead of the superfast(instant) and short delay settings.
3 Likes
Awesome! Are those rocket pods on their side?
On each wing it’s carrying ALARM, 1000lb bomb with a proximity unit on the nose and r*tarding tail unit, AIM-9, and 1000lb Paveway II, plus a third 1000lb on the centreline
2 Likes
I thought GJN made a statement about how they wouldn’t be adding anti-radiation missiles, “because they aren’t good irl” (source: sekrit dokuments)
I hope we get ALARM some day, is definetly needed
idk Im a bit confused. I did some more testing with the AGM-65D on the Gr.7 and I achieved a tracking lock at 17km but only when the Chieftain Marksman were moving and also not reliably. Sometimes when I tried to lock them it locked the ground but then jumped to the Chieftains, idk I dont get it, its weird.
I only get reliable locks starting at 15km, when the TIALD can also lock ground targets.
That’s still insanely better than the Mav B to be honest. IR seeker performing sort of as it should.
Gaijin has said that about a lot of types of munition.
Personally i’d like them to add them for more variation in loadouts.
Slightly off topic, even though it would hardly be used, i’d like to have the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile available for the sea harrier. Would be fun to have it as an option & to take it into custom and do some anti-shipping.
1 Like
GR1B mod for the GR1 would be nice. Slap 4x Sea Eagle on it.
1 Like
Imagine a new AirRB map, with a coastline and ships, a carrier or two, that you could go wipe out with the Sea Eagle.
2 Likes
Adding to this (Im going to have to make a suggestion now arent i?)
Coastline map with ships to attack, taking out a carrier would be equivalent to taking out a Base.
2 Likes
This is kinda what we have in SB. Though carriers take quite a bit of ordanance and reward little. Though we do have maps with naval objectives.
Suppose with more ASM carriers the rewards could be adjusted. They’d also have to improve the ASM targeting logic, which is pretty pants right now.