Afeared of reminding the English of historical trauma, I assume.
Only reason I can think of at this point.
Not really. Otherwise you’d have to remove the Sea Harrier due to it’s erm… impact upon the long-term career prospects of pilots unfortunate enough to try tackling the Fleet Air Arm.
Exocet wasn’t the biggest killer in the Falklands from the point of view of us Brits - that would be the A-4 Skyhawk with dumb bombs. Requiring the use of almost suicidal low-level anti-shipping runs.
It was a war fought many decades ago and thus firmly in the ‘water under the bridge’ category.
It was a joke. I am well aware of the history of the Falklands and the conflict therein.
Can never forgive the RAF for killing the harrier from that conflict.
1 Like
The Sea Harriers were not RAF - they were Royal Navy / Fleet Air Arm. They soon upgraded theirs to Sea Harrier FA2s which were running until the 2000s (20 odd years later).
The RAF Harrier lived on until 2010 - by which time a lot of the airframes were quite tired out. With F-35B which was ‘supposed’ to be in service just a few years later (spoiler alert - it took a bit longer) it seemed like a reasonable idea to retire the GR7s/9s.
Progress sucks sometimes, but it is progress.
The harrier was highly effective in the conflict, far more so than the Vulcan. Post conflict the Vulcan was reported as the greater asset, thus guaranteeing the death of harrier in the long run. Simplified, but accurate enough.
We could have had more harriers :(
In the grand scheme it doesn’t overly matter, just a bit sad such a good design was abandoned.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that take.
As a result of 1982 - the funding taps were opened on all the rebuilt Harrier IIs. Both RAF/RN were able to argue (pointing to the fantastic record) that these upgrades were worth it. If Harrier wasn’t viewed as a success - that money and programmes such as FA2, GR5, GR7 and GR9 wouldn’t have been a thing.
In fact you COULD even argue the one of the greatest legacies was that Britain went for STVOL for it’s F-35s precisely because the concept of using Harriers from ships had been tried and tested.
The Vulcan was the RAF trying to show it could lend a hand to matters (along with providing some GR3s plus pilots to the Task Force) but nobody I know has anything but the highest of praise for the Harrier family. 1966-2010 is a good run for a jet design which didn’t really change too much in overall concept.
1 Like
I’ll review that then. Much of what I’ve read has pointed to it being valued by the fleet primarily and with RAF trying to sell Vulcan’s capacity over it, post conflict.
1 Like
If you can ever pick up or borrow this book - it’s a brilliant window into the Harriers in 1982 and what came next.
2 Likes
Generally yes, most reports have been resolved now. Subject to change of course.
1 Like
I shall acquire this. Need a new book at any rate.
1 Like
thanks
it only took a premium version for the f14 to be fixed a bit, why am i not suprised.
It was directly asked for in feedback.
Now if only Chally wasn’t ignored given the feedback you lot have been getting for several years at this point. Ought not to forget the claimed rework came with a premium too, except in Chally’s case it left it more kneecapped than it started, in spite of provided documentation.
3 Likes
the 9M on the F14B has been long overdue for like 2 years now but of course we only get it when a premium one is added, same with the pheonix buffs, also if were taking feedback what about the overwhelming amount of people that want the F14D on the tech tree and not locked behind a paywall
3 Likes
Challenger 2 received a whole review of all of its existing reports and a seperate dev blog post at the time due to feedback: [Development] Discussing reports related to the Challenger 2 MBT - News - War Thunder
We continue to pass all new feedback on it as well.
this was from 2024, and the reworked challenger 2 we got on live server was some watered down thing compared to the realistic armour values it had on dev like the near perfect breech armour of around 580mm is now siitting around what 280mm on the current dev and how its still missing the dozer after it was on dev server for its rework and the ufp armour still under performing nd the ready rack etc etc etc
1 Like
Aside from the fact that well sourced reports were ignored on account of “We don’t believe it is so” where you lot could get away with it, and what little improvements were given were taken before it went live. Not to mention the sheer number of things you lot just neglected to comment on in order to avoid pretending to address the issues. Again, the only reason it got the attention was you lot trying to sell one. Which happens to line up interestingly with the behaviour around AIM 54 fixes and selling a carrier of the munition.
2 Likes
There is no forwarded report on this.