I guess AV-8B+ late or AV-8B+ (2023) would be 13.0 BR at rank 8 or rank 9, and gap filling between F/A-18C Hornet (1999) & F/A-18E Block I Super Hornet (2004)
AV-8B+ (2023) would be the most of Harrier jump jet series
1 Like
Just wanted to follow up with you on the harrier. Have not had the time to put more together. But I have not lost interest.
Also, I wanted to follow up on this reply.
I agree, I have no issue with any site/source as long as the material is fine.
I only brought it up because I noticed a few users on the forum have tried to make a trend by disregarding sound material only out of pride and petty effort to win arguments based entirely on a sites name. Actually, Global Security is one of them.
Anyway, I understand what you need for pylon 1 & 7 to be Aim-120 capable. I will see what I can do to satisfy that requirement.
Of course, even if your requirements are met, I understand that does not mean it will be implemented in the game when the jet comes either. Balance, BR placement etc.
I actually think that is probably the most ideal option GJ to go with from a balance, BR and monetary perspective.
They can add the prior version and then a (late) AV-8B 2023-2028 Give it the Aim-120s, datalink, SA 1 & 7 additional precision guided ground ordinance capability & carrying capacity expanded (Actual reason for the cable upgrade)
That is why you will not see the AV8 with aim-120s on the outer pylons much on social media, but rather more precision guided ground munitions.
Lastly, I want to touch up on this too. Those aircraft received weapons for balance and to make them playable in game.
The Yak-141 already had all the ability to defend itself and compete in WT at a high level and still does without it.
GJ modelled the IRST & HMS capability for absolutely no reason other than to give it an unfair advantage it never had in reality or was ever planned to have EVER by either Lockheed or Yakovlev.
it was not even stipulated or covered in the funding that entirely came from Lockheed Martin.
1 Like
I don’t even know where to start with that thing. It didn’t need to come to the game and it didn’t need to have the things it didn’t have. So yeah I would be more ok if they removed these things. The HMD and IRST.
1 Like
I mean object 292 literary breaks this rule. Also E-100 does not use it’s intended turret.
1 Like
292 is a vehicle that actually exists. I don’t understand what the problem is.
Also, this is the turret that the E-100 was originally intended to use. Are you thinking of the turret in WOT?
1 Like
Yes the vehicle actually exist but not in form if it was finished. There are armour blocks for weight simulation. That’s like if mirage 4000 would have solid block of metal in the nose instead of radar.
Yeah you are right E-100 wasnt probably the best example though my point still stands.
2 Likes
Object 292 was not developed for combat; it was a testbed for the 152mm and this is its finished form.
I don’t know what you want for a finished testbed and not an unfinished prototype
1 Like
A more direct example would probably be the Harrier GR. 1 / Hunter F.6 and the SRAAM, where neither are technically representative of a service configuration airframe(in the Gr. 1’s case it’s not even the correct airframe as its supposed to be a Harrier T2), it does at least seem a little inconstant.
Especially between things like the AN/AVG-8B & AIM-95 not being an option for the respective F-14 / F-15 / F-16 / A-7 / F-4 / A-6 / F-86H / F8 / F9F-8, etc. even though it clears the same bar as the SRAAM
2 Likes
GR.1 was displayed with SRAAM’s
6 Likes
US air (main) tree isn’t allowed prototype equipment, let alone prototype planes, for some reason.
2 Likes
Look at the post above
1 Like
I guess these don’t count then?
- YP-38
- XP-55
- XF5F
- XP-50
- BTD-1
- XA-38
- P-59
- A2D-1
4 Likes
No they dont thier not jets /j
2 Likes
I wanted to type that, but the only one here that is the true prototype YP-38, other are either Experimental or lost their prototype status.
1 Like
Conventienly left out the first part of my comment? Classic
2 Likes
So it might be jet aircraft prototype & demonstrator ?
New images from operations in the Red Sea this week show AIM-120C is a go for AV-8B.
No idea if this is still just bare bones AMRAAM capability (like with the 120A and 120B) and now 120Cs are used because they’re more available, or it’s showing signs that the datalink upgrades discussed in the budget sheets this thread are finally in for full AIM-120C capability.
Still only AIM-9L/M though. In this case STA 1/7 aren’t being used at all. Just asymmetric missile loads on STA 2/6
4 Likes
Is this basic AIM-120C? AFAIK the basic one is the same as A/B in performance
Recent addition, very likely to be C5 or greater.
1 Like