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.
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.
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.
V3 version in the game was originally unarmed, the armed version was the V6, but the war ended and it without ever being built.
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)
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.
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.
Ok, a simple pylon cable exist for the AV8B… and there is a literal picture of the aircraft with all its pylons with Aim-120s.
Do you have a picture of an IRST on the nose of any prototype Yak141?
So with your logic because IRST exist today. That means you can slap it on any jet you wish correct? Why can’t you just slap a pylon cable on SA 1 & 7 for Aim-120 in the Harrier?
would you like a picture of one?
Dude there is nothing that makes the Yak-141 more qualified to have IRST and CM over the Aim-120 on SA 1 & 7 of the Harrier II. There is absolutely nothing, no picture, no documentation, no order, no upgrade.
There is not even a serial produced version of it. The Jet does not even exist. Its a ghost of a ghost.
No, it doesn’t exist. You’re constantly trying to find something that doesn’t exist. You continue to ignore material the “2017 Marine Aviation Plan” and “2022 Marine Aviation Plan” that shows that the wiring upgrade still hasn’t happened.
I kept saying above, this is assuming it’s complete. This was the same for all prototype aircraft. Harrier is actually a production, and no upgrades have actually been made to it.
Because the upgrade never actually happened, you’re constantly ignoring the fact that the wiring doesn’t exist.
Lol what do mean it does not exist? the cable exist, the modification has been done before on the same exact jet. The order was placed. 2022 was the date.
You just want a picture of it.
You have no proof that. I have proof it did happen.
Legal contracts, government contracts, procurement orders, delivery dates and completion.
How is the burden of proof on me? You are saying the US government is lying because you have not seen it on social media.
Why do you believe the cable exists? You have not provided any evidence.
So far all you have brought is a picture of a NATM-9 that does not require MIL-STD-1760. So what the does this have to do with the AIM-120 being mounted on the 1/7th pylon?
So this contract from 2017 is your only evidence?
This is invalidated by the “2022 Marine Aviation Plan” which mentions that MIL-STD-1760 is not wired until 2022. And there is still no mention of MIL-STD-1760 being wired. No source mentions it and you are the only one claiming it.
it was delivered in 2021.
It was delivered because MIL-STD-1760 is in the other pylons (2/3/5/6), but even in 2022 they mention that there is no MIL-STD-1760 in pylon 1/7.
So, this is invalidated by the “2022 Marine Aviation Plan” which mentions that MIL-STD-1760 is not wired until 2022.
Therefore that contract is a separate contract that has nothing to do with MIL-STD-1760 wiring in pylon 1/7. You need to find the right source.
What I shared is the order number for the cables. its not the contract. Its directly related from the contract if you follow from where you shared.
No, I have other stuff and acquisition for 2021. Aim9X wiring harnesses are set to arrive in 2024. Probably why we have not seen it on the Harrier.
I just did not think It was going to be like trying to apeal a life sentence to get two missiles on a pylon for a jet that is probably not going to be all that anyway.
Can we start over please. I will provide a better comprehensive case then. I need sleep.
There is also BR placement / balance to consider. The more it has, the higher it will be, 2x Aim-9M and 4x AMRAAM is already a pretty potent loadout, especially when you consider it’s direct contemporary, the Sea Harrier FA2 will probably only be used with 2x AMRAAM most of the time. Whilst it can take 4, you’d not have any Aim-9M at all.
It having 6x AMRAAM might force it to higher BR where it’s other capabilities then result in it not being massively viable.
But that is the point, the ordnance is probably never going to be revised (due to said BR concerns), or a later variant added with the missing ordnance so it will never get access to all of its full potential , while I don’t mind this so much for A2A missiles. A2G ordnance matters much more.
For example
2014 LJDAM(GBU-54 & GBU-55) series
And there is of course the AGR-20, with its actual Anti-Tank warhead
Yeah, though hopefully, they will have to do something, to increase its A2G capabilities. Gr7 (my only harrier 2 experience) doesnt seem massively worth it for CAS at 11.7. I can only imagine it would be even worse at 12.3/12.7. So some major enhancements to give the AV-8B+ an edge in that regard are definetly going to be required, otherwise it will be an CAS jet never used for CAS. Hopefully Gen 3 T-pods too.