okay thanks, so do you think it would be possible for any AV 8B+'s to have the ability to have AMRAAMs on all six pylons and would this photo be enough proof for that? its not much but I can only find forums for other things briefly discussing what the photo is and no conclusion on what it could be.
Probably not currently, no. The outer pylons don’t have the MIL-STD-1760 wiring that the 4 inner pylons received during OSCAR when things like JDAM and AIM-120 were added, so haven’t been treated to the same standard when it comes to the stores management and data bus. The inner 4 can definitely carry AIM-120 though.
The USMC set out their ambition to have 1760 added to stations 1 and 7 in 2017 (pg.59). But it was still pending in 2022 (pg.78)
5 Likes
Hi, I appreciate you taking the time to post these sources and going through each page as well for us.
Can you explain what “probably not currently, no” means. When asked if all 6 pylons can be utilized for Aim-120 capability.
I assume you meant probably means its technically possible. Further adding that the USMC even set out to procure the 1760 and implement it, but as far as we know is was still pending in 2022.
Is that correct?
So being that its technically possible.
Giving the capability to the Harrier in War Thunder would not be any more fictional than giving an IRST system and CM dispensers to a prototype aircraft called the Yak141 that never had the capability, nor was it ever planned in any literature or official documentation. Yes?
I guess it would all come down to whether developers see it appropriate for balance reasons, BR placement etc. Right?
It meant it’s not technically possible unless the Harriers have actually had the outer pylons wired for MIL-1760.
2022 was the most recent update on planned upgrades for USMC Harrier and there was no clear evidence that this planned upgrade had been carried out at the time of posting. Since the upgrades were first planned in 2017 and evidently had not been carried out for the 5 years between 2017 and 2022, it was most likely that the status quo has continued and AV-8Bs are not technically capable of launching AIM-120 from the outboard weapon stations. Or indeed other payloads that require MIL-1760 such as AIM-9X, or advanced 70mm rockets such as APKWS and those with programmable fuzes.
Through 2023 there had been no press release or imagery from the USMC relating to the AV-8B indicating the wiring changes or other changes mentioned concurrently in the upgrade plan such as AIM-9X and AIM-120C integration, have taken place. USMC Harriers are still only flying with AIM-120A or B and AIM-9M in recent media.
i.e. the wiring upgrade was unlikely to have been carried out because the other planned enhancements had not. And as of Feb 2024, there is still no evidence that any of those upgrades have been carried out.
The 1760 wiring for the outboard stations are primarily intended for AIM-9X and APKWS integration, rather than AIM-120 carriage anyway. When you see an AV-8B with AIM-9X on the outboard stations, then you will know the Harrier is technically capable of launching AIM-120 from those stations.
1 Like
Thanks for following up!
Having not physically done the modification (as we know it) is not synonymous with the upgrade being technically impossible.
You indicate the USMC placed an order to equip MIL-STD-1760 on station 1 & 7 and was still pending as of 2022. Yes?
The Marines would have never placed the order had it not been technically possible.
Why or if the upgrade took place should not be relevant.
The ever-changing combat doctrine of the Marine Corps as new threats emerge, budgets constraints & the Harrier II being phased out etc. can all be factors.
Or… the order was delivered and implemented, and we just do not know it. Hardly a massive effort worthy of a press release for an aircraft being phased out.
One can argue since the order was made. It was purchased beforehand. It is safer to say it was implemented rather than it never happening because we personally do not know of it.
The truth is, it is technically possible. The upgrade could have already taken place.
It is also tactically feasible since the Marines put the order in in 2017 and would have never done it in the first place had it been not.
That is a logical assumption. But an assumption it is none the less.
I am only interested in if its technically possible, not whether its tactically feasible for whatever mission setting the Marne Corp assigns it. The mission setting that would entail equipping the Aim-120 on the outer pylons may have not arisen publicly therefore you have not seen it.
Obviously, the Marine Corps felt there is a need to place an order. How specialized that need is could vary.
Thank you again. I cannot wait for the jet to come out! Love the Italian one a lot.
It says CY (calendar year) 2022.
That does not mean upgrades will take place 2017-2022 and if you did not hear about within 5 years automatically assume it never happened.
Since when do they do a press release the exact moment any military puts a brand new combat capability in service? They already said the calendar year 2022.
Why would they telegraph that to the world and adversarial nations?
Are your a 100% positive not a single upgrade took place because you did not personally hear of it, see it on social media? Therefore it never happened?
Again, what military has a press release the moment a new combat capability goes online and in service?
Year 2022 implementation. The Marine Corp and pentagon was rushing these planned upgrades.
Do you have any actual evidence every single planned upgrade for 2022 in the page above did not taken place so therefore the STA 1 and 7 1760 Cable upgrade – CY 2022 did not happen like you stated above?
Pentagon Requests Funding To Accelerate Harrier Data Link Upgrades - USNI News
USMC accelerating the installation of Link 16 on AV-8B – Alert 5
Not true.
There is a contract ID/Order No. Even what Boeing facilities will carry out the upgrades.
The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is being awarded $29,867,702 for firm-fixed-price delivery order 1001 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-16-G-0001) to integrate a Link 16 Tactical Datalink capability into 73 Radar variant AV-8B Harrier aircraft in support of the Marine Corps, including terminal kits and accompanying aircraft wiring and installation hardware kits. Work will be performed in Carlsbad, California (70 percent); St. Louis, Missouri (20 percent); Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (5 percent); and Huntington Beach, California (5 percent), and is expected to be completed in August 2019. Fiscal 2016 and 2017 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $11,047,267 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.
Boeing to Integrate Link 16 into AV-8Bs | AFCEA International
Boeing got paid a crap ton of cash years ago.
$29,867,702 to do a lot of upgrades that have everything to do with the Aim-120 and you are saying that not a single one of those upgrades took place because we the public did not get a press release or a social media post?
Therefore, we must assume the STA 1 and 7 1760 Cable upgrade probably never happened?
No… Boeing has been upgrading the Harrier for years PER CONTRACT w/CONGRESS & deliveries to USMC 2022.
Regarding the cable.
GORE-DefAir-MIL-STD-1760-Datasheet-US-May23.pdf
This is an extremely cheap, simple upgrade to equip pylon 1 and 7 with Aim120 and Aim9X capability. It is literally a pylon cable.
The Marine Corps went through all the trouble getting the cash from congress, securing a contract & paying Boeing to update and integrate link 16 capability in the radar of the AV-8B including wiring and installation hardware kits.
All of which directly relate to the Aim-120 but we must assume they did not get the cables for pylon 1 & 7? Why?
Because there was no press release or social media post showing them off?
At least when it comes to it happening in game the standard for evidence would require proof the upgrade actually happened. So although it could have happened and lack of evidence doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. We would still need evidence that it did actually happen.
1 Like
March 9, 2017, 3:56 p.m. EST
The Naval Air Warfare Center - Weapons Division (NAWCWD) AV-8B Joint Systems Support Activity (JSSA) Integrated Product Team (IPT) in conjunction with PMA-257 have a follow-on requirement to support development of System Configuration Set (SCS) updates, Avionics and Weapons Integration, and Avionics obsolescence mitigation support for the T/AV-8B aircraft. The Boeing Company is the prime T/AV-8B aircraft designer, developer, and manufacturer and is the incumbent on current contract N6893612C0141.
*PROCUREMENT TYPE
The Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, CA intends to procure, on an other than full and open competition basis under the authority of FAR 6.302, only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency need. This is a follow-on procurement to contract N6893612C0141 for research and development for the AV-8B Joint Systems Support Activity (JSSA).
This contract will provide engineering support during the development of System Configuration Set (SCS) H7.0 and HX.0 updates, Avionics and Weapons Integration, and Avionics obsolescence mitigation for the T/AV-8B aircraft.
AV-8B System Configuration Set and Avionics Integration Support (highergov.com)
Gun, but there is zero evidence that the supersonic VTOL aircraft in the Soviet tech, the Yak-141 was ever equipped or “upgraded” with IRST or equipped with CM dispensers. There is not even a shred of evidence it was ever planned and would be on the completely imaginary serial production variant we currently have and never existed.
The Yak-141 model has completely shattered the previous standard of technically possible but in the name of balance. GJ modelled a IRST on the narrow nose without considering an IRST system may not even fit with its prototype radar. Additionally, GJ has completely guessed where CM dispensers would be placed.
There was never an upgrade for the Yak-141. GJ just gave it capabilities never planned or carried out on any existing prototype and made-up a serial a production variant that still has the prototype name.
I am not asking for the Yak-141 to be removed but it’s quite a double standard when there is plenty of evidence the AV8Bs were upgraded as planned 2022 per contract.
The NAVY paid Boeing for a multitude of upgrades, link 16 for capability with F-35s, Litening Gen 4 that was already carried out on (55) AV8Bs and deliveries of the MIL-STD 1760 CABLES were delivered in 2021 per contract above.
Of course, It’s really not a big deal, it’s just two pylons and was fun looking into it.
But I think it is fair to conclude that the 6x Aim-120 compatibility does meet all the criteria for implementation in the game. Except in regard to balance which is yet to be seen.
1 Like
No…We do not need to see an Aim9X on the outboard stations to know the station is Aim-120 capatible… We just need to see APKWS on the outer pylons because APKWS does in fact require the 1760 wiring in which you admitted.
L’US Marines Corps retirera du service ses AV-8B Harrier II en 2028 — avionslegendaires.net
Have I sufficiently proven the AB-8B Harrier II is capable of the Aim-120 on all 6 pylons?
Just because the Yak-141 exist and Gun may have forgotten about it like many people do does not mean he is complicit in how it was added to the game. I only brought it up as a reminder. I do not think he had anything to do with it.
Anyway, I just proven the wiring needed for aim-120 on the outer pylons was delivered in 2021 and is implemented currently.
APKWS integration requires 1760 cable. @da12thmonkey states this as well.
There is a picture of it equipped on SA 7.
No, it’s definitely not Gunjob at fault, he is actually one of the best moderators simply because he is active with the community and contributes to bug reports. I’m just saying that what he wrote perfectly describes how hypocritical the developers are.
But considering the AV-8B doesn’t have outriggers that its technical manual specifically describes as being possible for installation and that it has wiring needed for AIM-9s (and AGM-122), yet they aren’t in-game because the devs can’t be bothered to search for 1-2 hours to find that info, I doubt that it will have more than two AIM-120s. I can’t even bug report the outrigger pylons because the manuals are export restricted.
2 Likes
Yeah… well all we can do is continue to research and discuss and hopefully mods and devs will make it happen.
I know Gj is planning to implement the late model harriers in all their glory. They have been laying the foundation for some time. Placing a Sea harrier to grind out of and work for if you want the good one to come, Italian AV8, GR7 Aim9ms. Prolly GR9 too
I do not believe they want to copy paste each and make these jets blah. I’m pretty sure they want to add APKWS capability.
But to do so would mean 1760 wiring in the outer pylons. Thus by default making 6x Aim-120 a possible loadout. (It legit is).
Or what? Allow APKWS integration but not aim-120?
That would really piss people off. Knowing the Yak-141 exist. A supersonic vtol aircraft, a gaijin made up prototype of a soviet prototype? Capable of of active missiles and R73s too. They will definitely revive the Yak141 when active missiles come as well.
I guess we will have to wait and see.
Your uploaded photo shows NATM-9, APKWS cannot be mounted on LAU-7.
It is also not possible to mount only one APKWS/Hydra-70 rocket on a launcher.
APKWS/Hydra-70 has requires LAU-3 or LAU-68 for mounting.
That photo is doesn’t prove anything
Some AIM-9M-8 will be configured to the NATM configuration when ordered from the supply system. A firing version of the Sidewinder tactical missile with the warhead replaced by telemetry section. The NATM is used for test, evaluation, and specialized aircrew tactical training on instrumented firing ranges. Telemetered data is analyzed to determine captive flight target acquisition and tracking, missile launch, and target intercept missile performance characteristics.
1 Like
ok scratch the photo.
Everything else is sufficient and you got nothing on it. Deliveries took place.
Can you prove anything regarding the Yak141?
It’s magical IRST? It’s magical countermeasures?
I mean I have pocurement deliver dates and literally when the wiring harnesses for the aim9X down to the order and contract made by the navy to Boeing… Will that suffice ? I have a feeling it won’t.
You want a picture. Huh?
Can you provide a picture any German mig23 with MLD cm dispensers? Ok what about a mig23 MF?
Can you show me a one single picture of a yak141 with IRST?
Ok how but one written source?
No?
You can’t provide me anything but you want to make this harrier pylon issue such an uphill battle. Why?
I just want to be clear Global security is good for you right?
Developers were always the same about prototypes, they implemented them into the game in the they assumed it would be finished.
- Ho229
V3 version in the game was originally unarmed, the armed version was the V6, but the war ended and it without ever being built.
- J9Y
Same, the actual built was not even armed with 30mm, it used the weaker thrust Ne-20 (in game it is shown as Ne-20, but the thrust is from the Ne-20 Kai)
- Yak-141
And here’s Yak-141. It is equipped with IRST for the same reason as above .
You have failed to provide any evidence at this time, even mistaking the armament.
Also, do you have any evidence that the MiG-23MF cannot be mounted with the PKWP-23? It’s one thing to be unable to use it because the wiring doesn’t exist, it’s another to be able to use it but not use it.
This is also applies to MLA’s WP-50-60 Dispenser.
What does it matter if the material was uploaded to globalsecurity? As long as it wasn’t written by globalsecurity, the material is fine.
2 Likes
Irrelevant.
Nice, “prototypes exist.”
That is obvious.
That is your argument?
But did the H0229 get a PD radar my guy? Did it get a heads-up display? Did it get night vision?
What technology did it receive that it never had that is the equivalent literally modelling the actual system on the aircraft and its fuction?
Do you have ANY evidence that upgrades did not take place in 2022 as planned for the AV8B and paid for by the US, Congress, department of defense, the NAVY and ultimately the Marine Corp?
Do you have a single piece of written evidence that a pylon cable was not upgraded in the AV8B?
Completely Incorrect example, PD radar technology did not exist at that time. However, at the time of the Yak-141 development, there was an IRST available for the Yak-141.
You have not proven the technical availability of AIM-120 on AV-8B’s outrigger pylons. If the wiring existed, even if not certified, we could consider it, but the wiring does not exist and the upgrade has been consistently delayed.
Rather, I would ask you, all the evidence to this point proves that the upgrade never happened. The evidence should be presented by you.
1 Like