From the GR7 manual;
2 Likes
Except Phimat replaces a 9L. and the main threat for the Harrier, Especially with its MASSIVE IR signature issues, which are getting worse this major update., at that BR, Are from IR missiles, not SARH or ARH weapons. On the FRS1 I usually run mostly flares anyway. (perticularly in SB where I can avoid the main SARH threats by picking the right bracket)
So if I want a decent loadout of Chaff, I have to sacrifice an A2A/A2G hardpoint, which is only going to be occasionally useful. Given the AV-8B(NA) at the same BR has both a better engine and triple the CM count. This “balancing decision” is rather stupid.
From an Air main perspective. This decision without a BR reduction to 11.0, has more than likely killed the deal and you’ve lost at least one sale by this decision. I doubt I will be alone.
8 Likes
The MAW also does work properly anyway
Yeah, but with only 60 flares and no ability to control MAWS release patterns, that is 1 or 2 threats at most. I think Id rather take Radar + IFF + EEGS of the FRS1 at 11.0 than I would the PD MAWS at 11.3
4 Likes
Does the MAW even use PD? I thought it was still a C&P of the F111’s MAW
It should have been fixed this major update, or at the very least bodged to wrok correctly, At least that is my understanding
No its all new on the dev server, the RWR also now helps the MAW ID the missile if its IR/SARH/ARH/SALCOS etc
Did the T.10 ever use TERMA?
I have no idea. Gunjob would probably know if its listed in the manuals.
Would likely be a GR.9/T.12 thing since they were only observed on single seaters along with DJRP and/or Sniper and Paveway IV
Don’t think we ever did no, GR7 is just 65E
2 Likes
Disappointing.
I thought so, shame, that would be another option to fight for if 2x BOL is considered insanely OP for 11.3
You do realise this “balancing decision” is the EXACT reason people cry nation bias. It probably ISNT, but when the american one is allowed to not only have 180countermesures (without sacrificing ata, nobody is using the Phimat in airRB) AND the better engine / lower weight… i just dont understand the “NO BOL, balance” view point
5 Likes
“Balancing Decision”
- UK can’t get AIM-9L to almost all of their planes
- Brimstone needs to be SAL only for balance (sadly sounds a bit fairer now after Typhoon came out)
- no BOL for Harrier T.10.
- No AIM-9L or unhistorical AIM-7F for F-4J(UK)
- Of course, F-4J(UK) needs to have worse RWR and no HMS than F-4J/S(USN) because it is historical.
- Tornado GR.1 needs to be stuck with a worse Mk.101 engine because it is an early version. if you need Mk.103 on GB Tornado IDS, then play GR.4
- Americans are free to get AIM-9L (look at A-10A and A-6E ‘when it was 10.3’)
- haha Kh-38MT goes brrrrr
- Ofc, best harrier is US harrier, BAE sucks badly compared to MD. right?
AV-8A with 240CM, AV-8B+, and AV-8B(NA). compared to Harrier GR.3, Sea Harrier FA.2, Harrier T.10 - F-5A/C can receive AN/ALE-38 CM pod with no problem even though USAF dumped their F-5C to VNAF before upgrading them. (Showing bug report about ROCAF F-5A as reason)
- F-15E what we were trying to implement was an earlier version than F-15I. That was the reason we didn’t give PW229. But we are hearing feedback, and we decided to upgrade them to PW229.
It would be great if Gaijin showed how the balancing decision works a bit clearer than it is now.
I am well aware that British insiders on Gaijin are maybe throwing their best for making a better British jet, and it really needs to be respected.
(For example, the New FM of harrier 1 may not have reached 100% full potential which she had. but still, obviously better than the old one)
In the meantime, some "balancing decisions’ are quite disappointing, and (With some hyperbole) it feels like ‘Hearing Feedback’ features are only limited for US/USSR mains.
Sometimes, current balancing decisions are a bit too iffy.
If we consider Harrier T.10 is a dual-seater one compared to AV-8B(NA) which is a single seater.
I don’t think giving 50% capacity of BOL (giving two of 4 pylons) won’t hurt too much.
9 Likes
Very well said. The AV8B(NA) was also UPGRADED after release because it was “NA” standard with the better engine… Which is fine, but how was THAT not rejected as “balancing” decision when:
T.10 denied BOL
GR.1 Tornado is stuck with 11.7BR and the worse engines on a Tornado
BUT:
SU27SM gets its upgraded engines
F15E was given its upgraded engines after US mains cried “but we used the fast engines” when Israel NEVER used anything else.
and thats not even factoring BOL itself. Unless a total overhaul is planned very very soon. Its 1/4 the strength it should be and imo, 320 BOL (what we’d get from 2x BOL rails) would equal around 80-100 regular CMs. Combine with the 60 internals, that is still overall less than the AV-8B(NA).
Their decision on a broader front rather than just comparing the 2 harriers, fails to recognise the glaring and extreme issue regarding the heat signatures of aircraft and their “thrust to flare ratio” which screws over the Harriers already, but is actually made worse with the increases in thrust we are getting. Even with 4x BOL, the T-10 and the AV-8B(NA), AV-8B+ and SHars are all going to suffer notably, with footage from the dev server showing that it is no longer possible to pre-flare an Aim-9P in the FRS1.
So with aircraft like the A-10 and Su-25 very very welll equipped in the CM department at or near the same BR. Let alone everything else they have, its baffling how they came to this conclusion. The Phimat pod we are getting helps a little, but is overall not all that helpful and a nerf for the T-10 just as much as its a buff
6 Likes
The US tree has a bunch of it’s own issues;
The US F-4E for example is a franken-plane held to no specific configuration in particular and arbitrarily has and does not have features according to Balancing and efficiency to maintain it’s Battle Rating ;
List of but a handful of incongruities
- ASX-1 TISEO (in game on Kurnass-2000)
- Access to M206 (11 " flares, not the MJU-7/B 12" as would be contemporary to the period)
- RWR has the most potential variation (being in one of at least 6 potential variants)
- GBU-15 , but no AGM-130 (and lacks the AWW-13 /AXQ-14 / ZSW-1 datalink pod)
- Entirely Lacking either the Pave Tack & Pave Spike Targeting pods, and subsequent Laser Guided PGMs
- 6x AGM-65, on LAU-88 not 4x as it is limited to for combat sorties (also should have access to the AGM-65D).
- Lacks Later Sidewinder & Sparrow missiles
- No access to AIM-4 Falcon
- Partially loaded MER & TER required for sufficient spacing of stores for release are wrong or do / do not, also take neighboring stores into account (separate issue to needing multiple configurations of downloaded TER / MER pending loading config to be faithfully implemented)
- No M118E1 or GBU-9/B (3000lb variant of GBU-8/B)
- Release speed of “Snake eye” High-Drag kit is too high, should be 500kts or 0.75Mach whichever is lower.
Honestly basically every single US airframe above ~ BR 10.0 or so has significant issue and an impossible configuration, I’m sure it’s not particularly unique in that way either.
1 Like
Remember that it is an old plane, not bringing in huge amounts of layers to want to get it, it’s also not a premium so ofcourse it’s going to get ignored and forgotten