Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by exhausted

  1. I am trying to set up a mission where CH-53s land and spawn a group of infantry after 30 seconds. After 7 minutes, I want the CH-53s to take off and I want the infantry to disappear. Ideas?
  2. Using mission editor, can you set your laser in a Harrier to guide GBUs from an AI F-5?
  3. I'm designing a mission where I want a Hornet flight and a Harrier flight to both spawn. When the mission starts, I want the player to select which flight he wants through a dialog box. Either the player takes the Hornet to provide an extra bit of a2a protection, or he takes the Harriers, praying the Hornets can protect him. Either way, i need both flights to spawn. How?
  4. I was messing around with a mission I'm developing, and I managed to go into a really strange spin. I caught it on video -- right at the 30:30 mark. No need to watch the rest of the video, as it is just a mission test recorded for trouble shooting. 30:30
  5. Following the directions in this video and I cannot get the TGP to designate multiple targets. Each is overiden by the next. Also, not sure how to move the pod around in ATRK mode. What am I doing wrong?
  6. exhausted

    AV8B II Plus

    It would be nice to see work to implement the AV-8B+ begin already. The Harriers can defend themselves in real life with AMRAAMs, though these are not widely deployed due to the nature of real life fighting.
  7. AV-8BNA Let's see, I have all three and I can say the AV-8B NA is the best module. - In terms of completeness, it sits between the polished A-10C and the developing FA-18C. - In terms of attack, it is more capable than both the A-10C and the FA-18C. - This is the best aircraft for night ops; the night vision hud and the Litening pod turn the night into your domain - The weapons are fantastic, and you will be able to strike targets with great accuracy - Harrier is much easier to learn than the A-10C and the FA-18C; the FA-18C needs constant monitoring but the Harrier lets you get right to business - It is more deployable than both, so you can get around fast to places the other fixed wing aircraft will have to wait and plan for. Cons: The only cons are 1) it does not do A2A as well as the Hornet does A2G; but it is better at A2G; 2) it does not do antiship strikes as well as the Hornet But there you have it. The Harrier is a better bomber than the A-10C and the FA-18C, but it is a worse fighter than the FA-18C.
  8. exhausted


    Not sure if you're always like that. But if you only count what Fri13 said, I'd say we both got good information, or at least more than we had before he posted. And he's right -- Razbam needs to communicate to us on the B+. It it senseless to see the progression go the Sea Harrier, as going to the AV-8B+ is a smaller leap than whichever version of the Sea Harrier. People aren't going to get much mileage out of the Sea Harrier compared to the B+. With the newest AV-8 you get the Harrier's versatility combined with greatly enhanced capability for air and ground attack. As Fri said, it is seriously opening up an entire new chapter on this under explored corner of modern air combat. But just because I don't see the sense in devoting much to the month-long Falklands scenario doesn't mean anybody should be deprived now that the announcement has been made. We just need to sit back and see if Razbam will prioritize the Harrier B+
  9. exhausted


    Nobody ever mentioned copy and paste, nor do we abide by your expectations. Those are yours and yours alone. They say you need to strike when the iron is hot; the iron's getting hot now that the APG-65 is getting its A-G modes. They said they'd do the B+ and now I'd like to hear Raz speak for themselves on it.
  10. exhausted


    are these guided bullets? -- in flight, or they only fire within parameters?
  11. exhausted


    Don't jump the gun just because you don't remember it -- they said it was coming out when the Hornet got its radar. As has been said already, the B+ variant does not require most of the work of a new aircraft -- just like in real life. IRL the B+s are largely recycled airframes with a fiber nosecone. Same engine as the B Night Attack, only difference is the greater amount of bleed air redirected to cool the avionics. RAZBAM, please bring the B+ as soon as you can.
  12. exhausted


    I have been out of the loop for a couple years but I keep going back to the Harrier. A couple years back I saw they were going to release an AV-8B+ (with radar nose) when the Hornet was developed. Reason being is they could use information used to develop the APG-65 for the Hornet. Adding AV-8B+ would bring Spain and Italy into the mix, as it is the version of the Harrier they use. AMRAAM-Harriers would offer better fleet defense and be more capable in MP. Do there continue to be plans to introduce the AV-8B+?
  13. I was an AV-8B maintainer for the west coast. Sounds interesting, but maybe I lack time.
  14. Sounds like an accessibility issue. You can switch it on it you need it, so it's not mandatory. A server could switch it on if the gameplay requires it, once again it's not mandatory. The only argument against it is people who don't have color blindness or fly at high resolutions don't see the need. Well the feature clearly was not directed at them so they have the least say of all. The developers should listen to the people who used it and prefer it return. It's super simple when your purpose is all but to be a pain in the butt about something that won't affect you.
  15. Strange. That last Harrier pilot I talked to told me you should find the target being lased, and then lase it yourself for self guidance. He said you never rely on outside lasing for Mavericks.
  16. Looks like another Harrier fan!! Without doubt, a GR.7 or 9 would add something that is sort of missing... Now sure what you meant by the "bits dropping off the UK aircraft" though. :pilotfly:
  17. The problem is the scope of naval operations. The British fleet ops with Harriers were significant for a while, but in their prime they were small in scope compared to USMC MEU operations, which as I said earlier are fully integrated land/sea/air ops with a WIDE scope of vehicles and aircraft. Going for the GR-anything over the Night Attack Harrier is a poor trade in naval ops.
  18. The nose of the NA has an optical sensor and a laser range finder, but both the + and the NA use FLIR through LITENING pods. The + has extra cooling in the engine which allows the use of the same radar as the F-18s for Harpoon and AMRAAM capability. Generally the + and the NA have the same capabilities today, save for the radar.
  19. There is a good bit of misinformation here. Primarily, there's a lot of hogwash going around that the Gr9 has a bigger engine than the AV-8BNA. This is false because the same engine was used in both planes, though it was called the F402-RR-408B in the United States, Italy and Spain. It's regulated down to maintain some 24,000 lbs of thrust and the only difference in this engine when used for the Night Attack and Plus versions is the addition of additional cooling tubes from just rear of the firewall. There are issues with the weapons set as well. In real life, British Gr9s didn't carry too many different types of weapons operationally and many of them are highly classified. The AV-8BNA carried, and still carries, a hefty assortment of munitions, many of which would be new to DCS! The AGM-65 variant the Harrier uses is laser guided, and has the capability to be launched with guidance from a JTAC! Additionally, the AV-8B would introduce a new JDAM type, the 1000 pounder. Mk-77s would introduce an anti-personnel weapon on par with Napalm with the AV-8B. The GAU-12 is a highly capable cannon that is a nice stop gap between the GAU-8 30mm and the M61 20mm. The AV-8B has several chaff and flare spots located on 3 different spots on the rear fuselage, which is more than adequate when supported with other suppression assets. The AV-8B carries an external ECM pod as well. Lastly, the LITENING pod provides AV-8B Night Attack Harrier IIs with the same capabilities as the A-10C, which allows for LGB, JDAM, Maverick guidance. From the 1980s to the present, Harrier IIs have operated from US Navy assault ships, which would be a great addition to the DCS world because introducing the Marine Expeditionary Unit concept into the DCS world would add a sorely missed factor in modern conflict, which is the constant projection of American power through the use of its Marines. The MEU is a mostly self-contained unit that consists of thousands of infantrymen, Abrams, LAVs, CH-53s, UH-1s, AH-1s, MV-22s, and AV-8Bs ready to deploy in and support any operation, coastal or inland. No modern scenario with coastline feels anywhere near complete without the MEUs factored in. Or do all these different weapons and airframes sound like too much? No problem, in 2002 US Navy assault ships deployed with over 40 Harrier IIs (mix of Night Attack and +) to act solely as Harrier Carriers. All in all, the AV-8B Night Attack Harrier would have been the best choice for the new module in this poll because of its variety of new weapons, the historical record and ongoing service, and the added dimension of the MEU through aircraft carrying assault ships. The Night Attack Harrier shares many weapon choices with the A-10C, but adds new dimension with additional integration with infantryman. The gun is also a necessary addition, as recent engagements have shown. Lastly, without the Night Attack Harrier, the upcoming Harrier II+ will be incomplete because every USMC unit has a mix of AV-8B Night Attack and AV-8B+ radar birds. You couldn't realistically depict any scenario without them both. It's sad to see that we went with the option to resurrect a retired bird that lacks as many operational weapon loadouts as the Marines' Night Attack version. We are giving up a wide scope of naval operations because there will be no British ship comparable with the US landing assault ships. I'll pass on this module, though I was originally excited to see that DCS had a chance to add so much to the series with the Harrier.
  20. Please, only serious responses from now on. You guys didn't even read through my post. Ask yourself if what you're about to post is going to actually be helpful before you click "submit." The problem seems to be that when DCS 1.2.3 detected my setup it never made a spot for my pedals. Without a column of its own my set of pedals cannot be assigned anymore functions, i.e. differential brakes. This needs to be fixed. How do I fix it?
  • Create New...