I think Derby can be mounted on the belly still, so that does mean 4+2 or 2+3 or something is probably possible.
But compared to the FA2, no BOL & No Mk106 engine. Its a straight downgrade
i always ask myself why can the harrier carry 8 missile, i know there is a lot of variants, but 2 belly, 2 inner wing, 2 double rail as we see it now and maybe 2 wingtip
that is 6-8 fox3 and 6 ir missile
You mean the GR7/9?
There was a proposal for a Sea Harrier MK3 which was a Harrier II turned Sea Harrier. Which probably would have had some of that capacity. But never happened unfortunately. Instead we bought the Fail-35
yep, gotta feel bad for britain, thier power was completly lost since ww2, long live the british empire but if only the gov can take care itself first rather then sending more debt war
1 Like
Made a forum about the Harrier III a while back, look on my profile for it, there is same nice stuff. TL;DR of the Harrier III/ Sea Harrier 3, a GR.5 with Blue Vixen, or the 2000s one is a GR.9 with Blue Vixen and can carry 8 missiles.
@Morvran could the Sidewinder pylons on the GR.5+ carry a weight like the AIM 120? or is max ASRAAM? Wondering how many missiles a theoretic SHar 3 could carry on belly and wings
1 Like
I doubt the weight would be an issue.
If I’d hazard a guess. Probably would be very similar to AV-8B+
2+4 or 4+2 (and still leaving the station for fuel tanks) with the belly free for either mission equipment, guns or extra missiles
If the pilots wanted to go full intercept mode, I’d imagen that they would bring (inside going out) Belly AMRAAMs, Inner wing AMRAAMs, Sidewinders/ASMRAAMs, AMRAAM, AMRAAM but maybe guns tanks and 4x AIM 120 and 2x Fox 2 is more realistic