AV-8B Harrier Thread

One would also take note that DCS AI are relatively simplistic when it comes to players performing SEAD and DEAD missions--they're not simulated well; they don't turn off their radars at all. ("Uh, hello. Magnum?")

 

If anything, as said previously, the AGM-122 are like almost too literally self-defense against ground targets. It's almost as if they took an A2A frame body and re-purposed it to engage ground targets. Lmao. /sarcasm

 

EDIT: Minor additions

Edited October 29, 2017 by Whuping

It's almost as if they took an A2A frame body and re-purposed it to engage ground targets. Lmao. /sarcasm

 

Ahem, that is pretty much exactly what they did! ;)

They re-purposed the AIM-9C variant with a radar seeker hat.

Tweaked the frequency band and voilà a cheap and light "mini-ARM"...

 

Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-122_Sidearm

Edited October 29, 2017 by shagrat

 

Er...YES!

 

In a more serious note/question, could a Harrier equip a half-half type of deal? Ex: One wing having the AIM-9 and on the other the AGM-122? Best of both worlds I'd think. Though understandably I could anticipate some sort of system confliction when attempting to choose which to fire, let alone selecting.

 

Er...YES!

 

In a more serious note/question, could a Harrier equip a half-half type of deal? Ex: One wing having the AIM-9 and on the other the AGM-122? Best of both worlds I'd think. Though understandably I could anticipate some sort of system confliction when attempting to choose which to fire, let alone selecting.

 

According to the new loadout chapter in the pocket guide yes it can do exactly that. From what I understand to manually select a AGM-122 you have to cycle through the gun mode selector on the STRS page on the MPCD until it is selected.

Razbam version is JDAM capable??

Yup. GBU-38.

Question is will the harriers different IR signature setup in comparison to other planes, due to the exhaust placement be modelled ?

What make you think the IR signature is so different?

 

Both exhausts are at both sides of the airframe, well visible in normal flight.

Question is will the harriers different IR signature setup in comparison to other planes, due to the exhaust placement be modelled ?

Should be, for IR missile acquisition it's actually very hard for an aircraft to get a lock on the nozzles as they're hidden by the wings if attacking from above IRL so hopefully it'll be modelled.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

What make you think the IR signature is so different?

 

Both exhausts are at both sides of the airframe, well visible in normal flight.

 

because the nozzles are hidden under the wing and the cold nozzle blows cold air in the stream of hot air from the hot nozzle behind it.

What make you think the IR signature is so different?

 

Both exhausts are at both sides of the airframe, well visible in normal flight.

...unless you put them down in flight. Then the wind blowing 40° to 90° perpendicular over the nozzles disperse the heat quickly. In combination with flaps in Auto-Mode the flaps will more or less completely mask the exhaust if you want to.

 

Commander Ward describes it nicely in his description of the training fights against the F-15C in the book "Sea Harrier over the Falklands".

...unless you put them down in flight. Then the wind blowing 40° to 90° perpendicular over the nozzles disperse the heat quickly. In combination with flaps in Auto-Mode the flaps will more or less completely mask the exhaust if you want to.

 

Commander Ward describes it nicely in his description of the training fights against the F-15C in the book "Sea Harrier over the Falklands".

Yes, it's a fantastic book and an interesting view in the war! Hopefully it'll be modelled well then.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Yup. GBU-38.

Also 32 and 54 (LJDAM).

I think the Harrier shooted down in Goradze by a Strela and the other three in Iraq by manpdas are not telling the same story.

 

It seems very weak, indeed.

 

Edited October 30, 2017 by Esac_mirmidon

Little comparison with the F-35.. difference is quite big :P

 

Using a FLIR image isn't really that accurate as far as missile seekers go. FLIR systems typically operate in the far infrared region (8-12µm wavelength), while the seeker on an AIM-9 is sensitive to mid-infrared (2-6µm). Or TL;DR: FLIRs can detect lower temperatures than the missile seekers. If the missile seeker was able to display an image like that (which most of them aren't; focal plane array seekers in missiles are still quite rare, IRIS-T and AIM-9X being some of the exceptions), you would basically just see parts of the jet efflux and the puffer jets.

Thing is front aspect vs rear aspect is a big difference in IR spectrum. Emission power is one thing, that mainly determines at what range you can get a target recognition.

 

The spectrum the hot metal from exhaust does emit in is way easier to tell apart from flares in general which is a big part of the reason why a rear aspect shot on a standard plane is a bigger problem to actually spoof then a front aspect one, same engine setting at that.

 

Since the Harrier has exhaust nozzles on both sides basically side aspect behaves as rear aspect for your day to day standard engine config, while front and rear are more comparable to side aspect on a "normal" airplane. :)

 

 

The overall signal strength so to speak is not what I meant, since I know you can model that in DCS already. :)

True.

 

But the heat seekers of the Aim-9M or the R-73 are better than the Falklands Aim-9L.

 

Of course Harrier´s infrared signature could be masked by some degree, and could be even lower than other similar planes but by no means this is some kind of black magic making the Harrier invulnerable to IR missiles at all.

 

The pilot can max the IR reduction using some tactics, movements and measures but in no way a modern Aim-9M/X R-73/74 - IR SAM could be spoofed so easy like someone could think.

Yeah I am saying it should be way easier to get a fox2 to connect on a harrier, not that it should be easier. :D

 

You basically get free rear aspect comparable shots on both sides. Like even shitty rear aspect aim9s can probably get tone on it in relatively high aspect since the nozzles are out on the side not on the rear. :)

Yeah I am saying it should be way easier to get a fox2 to connect on a harrier, not that it should be easier. :D

 

You basically get free rear aspect comparable shots on both sides. Like even shitty rear aspect aim9s can probably get tone on it in relatively high aspect since the nozzles are out on the side not on the rear. :)

Reality already proved that to be different though...

As I said a few posts above, it seems when you drop the nozzles and the flaps it pretty much disperses the heat and makes it much harder to get a lock.

 

So depending on missile generation it is more likely to get a lock, but in comparison to a "normal" jet it is still more difficult.

AV-8B Harrier Thread

 

Don’t forget though that unlike most aircraft, looking down at the harrier will show less exhaust but looking up (like a SAM) would show more. On a rear engined aircraft there would be less exhaust hidden or shown by vertical aspect of the aircraft.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reality already proved that to be different though...

As I said a few posts above, it seems when you drop the nozzles and the flaps it pretty much disperses the heat and makes it much harder to get a lock.

 

So depending on missile generation it is more likely to get a lock, but in comparison to a "normal" jet it is still more difficult.

 

Where is your proof. I do not see any.

 

The kicker here is that the mixing of hot and cold air as it may be done by full flaps and downward nozzle position, does not influence the fact that the hot nozzle itself is the biggest target.

Like IR radiation is the same as light. The little density turbulence created might indeed scatter it in a minimalisitc way, but not in any way shape or form enough to make up for you have a freakin multiple hundred degrees hot piece of metal on the side of your aircraft bit. :D

 

The hot nozzles will emit at the typical spectrum for exhaust pipe metal, which makes it a way easier target for any heatseeker and a valid target for a rear aspect one.

DCS does not model IR signature distributed across a 3d Object afaik, if it did, I would hope aircarft would look a hell of a lot more like aircraft on FLIR and we probably would not have the ground vehicle FLIR problem either.

So the point of wings covering up the hot nozzels for lookdown is valid and I would be universally happy if DCS did simulate that but I fear we just have a abstract value based system for this, if at all. About which I am not even sure, given that you can be looking straight into the engine exhaust of an mi8 with your heatseeker, nothing happens, as soon as you are rear hemisphere, you get tone.

 

 

About the signal strength, again, thats something I am not interested in in the first place. Razbam has stuck to DCS's modelling of that with the mirage as far as I can tell so I expect that from the harrier. And again, this is what "hard to lock" in the sense of "you need to get close" would be influenced by.

 

My concern is emission spectrum and my question was can DCS even support altered distribution of engine parts emitting in the IR spectrum.

Where is your proof. I do not see any.

 

The kicker here is that the mixing of hot and cold air as it may be done by full flaps and downward nozzle position, does not influence the fact that the hot nozzle itself is the biggest target.

Like IR radiation is the same as light. The little density turbulence created might indeed scatter it in a minimalisitc way, but not in any way shape or form enough to make up for you have a freakin multiple hundred degrees hot piece of metal on the side of your aircraft bit. :D

 

The hot nozzles will emit at the typical spectrum for exhaust pipe metal, which makes it a way easier target for any heatseeker and a valid target for a rear aspect one.

DCS does not model IR signature distributed across a 3d Object afaik, if it did, I would hope aircarft would look a hell of a lot more like aircraft on FLIR and we probably would not have the ground vehicle FLIR problem either.

So the point of wings covering up the hot nozzels for lookdown is valid and I would be universally happy if DCS did simulate that but I fear we just have a abstract value based system for this, if at all. About which I am not even sure, given that you can be looking straight into the engine exhaust of an mi8 with your heatseeker, nothing happens, as soon as you are rear hemisphere, you get tone.

 

 

About the signal strength, again, thats something I am not interested in in the first place. Razbam has stuck to DCS's modelling of that with the mirage as far as I can tell so I expect that from the harrier. And again, this is what "hard to lock" in the sense of "you need to get close" would be influenced by.

 

My concern is emission spectrum and my question was can DCS even support altered distribution of engine parts emitting in the IR spectrum.

I am refering to "Sea Harrier over the Falklands" by Commander "Sharkey" Ward, As CO of 801 Sqd. he most likely knows what he is talking about.

 

There must be a reason the boys called him "Mr. Sea Harrier".

The details are in the chapter were they train with the USAF Aggressors and the F-15 squadron. By the way, they did pretty well against both...and that was without the Blue Fox radar, which was installed later that year.

Maybe we have a misunderstanding here.

The nozzles are hot no doubt, but in a typical turn fight, the heatseeker looks at the wings and flaps if dropped. Now the only "heat" visible is the hot air dispersing under the flaps... It won't be a 100% and likely less effective against modern all aspect seekers, but in a dogfight together with viffing, it gives you an advantage.

1982 is a much more different IR enviroment than 21 century IR devices.