The Harrier Gr.1 is a plane that is sub-sonic and without CM. It in essence is no different than the Bucc S.1. That plane is at 8.7. However the Bucc gets to carry a lot more weapons.
The Gr. Harriers where designed as fast reaction ground strike aircraft yet in game they can not even be used as such as 9.7 is far to high a BR to allow them to even be useable due to the types of SPAA they will face at 9.7.
If the Gr.1 was put to 8.3 it would actually be fighting vehicles of its generation instead of SPAA from 2 decades in the future. It gets no guided weapons and only has dumb fire munitions so in no way shape or form would it be an OP CAS nightmare it would only become usable.
1 Like
Prolly shouldve opened with that you want it to move down regarding ground, not air
Its in the title? Could probably go down in air too.
the early harriers are too high either way. ground and air
Agreed, but I doubt any changes to them.
You do also have the air-battles tag. Is a little confusing
8.3 I think would be too low. Unlike the Buc S1, it does have quite a decent form of self defence against aircraft and is faster by quite a margin.
But Id say Harrier Gr1 should be 9.0 as its comrpable to performance to the HF-24 in terms of CAS and the Harrier Gr3 should drop down to 9.3 as we have no 9.7 line up to speak off.
I think they should remove SRAAM, or add a TT Gr.1 that doesn’t have them. Even at 8.3 most nations have a supersonic attacker with comparable weapons.
Well both I suppose, a great example imo is the alpha jet, 60CM ATA missiles and its only 8.7.
Why should a plane with no CM, no ATA missiles be at the same br?
A Harrier with no SRAAMs could be placed similarly, maybe.
Though I think most of our aircraft are just a mess in that area
Ahh yes the little jet from 1946-7 than can face the MiG-21 the venom
Britians BR ratings from around 7.7 to 9.0 I think need to be changed.