As Mitchverr said, the first scheme in the 90s was the two-tone green familiar from the GR.5/GR.5A/early GR.7 ZH657 in 1995 (No.20 Squadron OCU)
Then by the late 90s they were in the kind of two-tone Dark Sea Grey+Dark Camouflage Grey Strike/Attack scheme we already have on the GR.7 ZH657 in 1998 (No.20 Squadron OCU) ZH657 in 2005 (No.1 Squadron)
The all-over Medium Sea Grey from the late 2000s that we see on the dev server T.10 coincides with the years when BAe were converting GR.7/T.10 to GR.9/T.12.
All 10 remaining T.10s of the 13 built, were converted to T.12 or T.12A (the three that didn’t, were ZH654, ZH655 and ZH658 which were written off in accidents before 2003). So twin-seaters very likely only got painted in that all-over medium-sea grey scheme during or after T.12 conversion.
The Harrier IIs only had full 800 NAS markings for short periods in early 2006 and then again in 2010, by which time the Navy’s remaining fleet was all GR.9/T.12 and no active GR.7s.
There was a period 2006 to early 2010 where the FAA operated a mixed fleet of GR.7/GR.9, but at that time they also had mixed 800/801 NAS markings for both squadrons of the Naval Strike Wing.
I believe the Navy’s Harrier IIs were all single-seaters until No.20 Sqn. OCU disbanded in 2010, and Naval Strike Wing was downsized again to just 800 NAS that same year.
At least, all the photos of ZH657 with 800 NAS markings are from 2010. It was in No.1 Squadron markings from 2003 to 2009, then in No.4 Squadron markings in late 2010 after 800 NAS disbanded.
I’m yet to find any earlier photo of a T.10 or T.12 operated by either Naval Air Squadron.
Very pretty, I do hope my suggestion thread in the dev area is noted too though. An Early/Late system to allow for a lower BR hitile Rapier at 9.3 would be great imo. (and it wouldnt require any changes i dont think, i am sure the thermals and other modifications came prior to the new missiles)
Im guessing Harrier T10 as a premium (has been leaked as a premium) as a premium version of the Harrier Gr7 and a direct equal to the AV-8B(NA) and so hopefully armed with only Aim-9Ls and not Aim-9Ms
Harrier Gr9A should take the role of the “late” TT Harrier II with MMW Brimstones if/when they become an option. I think only the Gr9 got the HMS.
For the SQV im guessing Sea Harrier FRS51 from India as a 13.0 ARH SQV for Britain
So, are the British getting a broken air defense system at the same BR as the Tunguska again?
Anyway, I actually wanted to ask—how do you launch the PGM 2000 so that it doesn’t drop halfway to the target? And why does it just kill me when launched from low altitudes?
Oh, now i get it. PGM are not missiles, they are bombs with engine strapped to them. They also lack wing surface, that is why they primary fall, with boosters just slowing it down and boosting range, they will not go up like for example KH38.
Treat them like bombs with more range, not missiles.
If you want to hit a target, that is around 10km away you need to be at least 1,5km up.
It looks like I figured it out. The problem is not with altitude but with the carrier’s speed at launch. Something has been changed in the missile’s drag and booster efficiency, and at low speed, it raises its nose and starts losing velocity. Notably, when the booster is turned off, it behaves the same way and literally drops like a rock near the target. Most likely, Gaijin nerfed it a long time ago without really looking into the results and then forgot about it.
