Yep, GR5A would hold some advantages, Still had MAWS and BOL I beleive but wouldnt have the JDAM spam, which is quite tempting.
1 Like
True
I fly the NA mostly air to air so MAWS would make it better. Interesting.
It’s just developers forgetting to add certain radars. Happens almost every update when a new (unique) jet radar is added, F-15A after the new radar was for some time “?”, Gripen when added was for some time “?”. Mirage 4k on release in fact was so unknown that it did not even give radar launch warnings.
Same goes for a lot of SPAA radar, but almost all of the “?” radars are for gun spaa, so it’s not hugely pressing. But in a way, some older RWR are better at classifying these than modern RWR because of this.
1 Like
I wanna see bigger maps in ground Realistic cause fighting in small maps in hightier makes no sense cause the armor is build for long Distanz and not for close fights the armor works better in long Distanz and if someone says we have than Cas Problems on bigger maps they are retarded cause also in small maps u have also cas problems so play better and stop crying
2 Likes
Yes, the current ground battle map is too crowded, it is difficult for us to spread out the formation, many bulky SAMs have nowhere to hide, and the small battlefield also makes the advantage of CAS too strong
3 Likes
what do you mean this is not the greatest top tier map in the game
6 Likes
Based on current evidence at least, GR.5 had no targeting pod and thus no guided munitions capability (without buddy lase).
So it’s not really on par with the NA.
3 Likes
Assuming that nothing gets delayed. And don’t forget the USSR got Izmail. So that leaves UK, Germany, Italy, and France.
We now often need to fight around narrow points A and B, in towns, in the streets, which are overcrowded
Many poorly protected countries are not able to find their comfort zone, which is all prepared for the “steel box”.
After all these years, we are still “attacking point A”, which is boring
There is no map depth, the activity space is narrow, the mission objectives are monotonous and boring, and it is difficult to hide in the face of air raids
Everything I’ve seen discussed on the forums to date indicates TIALD.
@lxtav Do you have a source for TIALD?
Even without that, AGM-65s dont need a TPod
The forum suggestion mentions it, but it’s not in the manual and there are no photos of it.
Going by dates it looks like TIALD was integrated from GR.7 onwards.
But counter evidence is always welcome.
1 Like
Harrier IIs are more american than they are British
1 Like
None the less, that just makes it a more viable premium to me. Lower GRB rating than even 11.7 (maybe even 10.7?) . But in air modes, with how massively Over-BRed the Gr7 is at the moment, a Gr5A at 11.3/11.7 would actually be fun. Especially in Sim where the Harrier Gr7 sits at 12.7 and defending against Mig-29s and F-16s gets old really fast.
Alternatively, there is always the Harrier Gr7A with Aim-9Ls instead of Aim-9Ms to achieve the lower BR.
F-15E (early) not advanced armament and not op. used AN/APG-70 radar was a 1980’s, 1st gen FLIR & laser designator pods, IR AIM-9L & AIM-9M, limited SARH BVR missile AIM-7F & AIM-7M and guided Air-to-Ground armament already in game except GPS guided
Since yesterday they even put airfields closer to the airfield for our convenience. Now you only have to travel 7km between the battle zone and airfield.
I had discussed this with several people (Inlcuding Smin) and it appears it was not integrated until the GR.7
several sources suggest them first being fitted in Yugoslavia or Granby, both of which are after the GR.5 was replaced by the GR.7
Ive just not had the chance to go back and remove it from the GR.5 suggestion yet, but will do now
1 Like
Fair enough, though Gr5A with no Tpod, but still with AGM-65s would just push it lower GRB as CAS. Maybe A-10A late BR range?
Would be fun to use alongside the Challenger DS/Mk3
I would quite like that. While the Jag is cool, I’ve always been more of a fan of the Harriers