Jump to content

Harrier GR3


redbat

Recommended Posts

I doubt it, since they decided for the much more complex and capable AV-8B NA as their first Harrier module. The Gr.3 wouldn't offer anything new. Other than the Sea Harrier, which is historically just as significant, has a radar and could carry the Sea eagle anti ship missile.

Though I would appreciate it to be proven wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+999999999

 

The Gr.3 is significant for a 'Cold War gone hot' Europe map and obviously the Falklands or similar island based warfare. Plus, with the only actual British aircraft being the BAe Hawk which is feeling sorry for itself and one version of the Spitfire hopefully we can see why it's important to at least some Brits.

 

I don't go for the 'not adding anything new' argument at all - by that logic we shouldn't see the MiG-19P, what can that do that the MiG-21Bis can't? Why do we have Spitfires/Bf-109s/FW-190s/P-47 coming, when they are superseded by more capable aircraft? Please don't take offence to this Cuncator, I am very biased in favour because it's one of my favourites of all time, which is a selfish reason but still. The whole 'doesn't add anything new' really is not a valid reason - plus think of the balance between REDFOR and BLUFOR; BLUFOR's most advanced aircraft is the F/A-18, REDFOR's is the MiG-21Bis - quite a gap, the 1st generation Hawker Siddely Harriers (Gr.1, Gr.1A, Gr.3, FRS.1, AV-8A etc) are really more suited to the current full fidelity REDFOR aircraft out there. Plus with modern aircraft, how long has the F/A-18 taken again? Yes it's brilliant, yes it's amazing, yes I am a fan of it, yes I'm incredibly thankful for it being interested in naval warfare (the F/A-18 being mainly a carrier based aircraft), I'm hugely thrilled and excited for it, yes I will definitely buy it at some point, if anything to give ED what they deserve for the fantastic products they deliver. But the workload, resources and time invested into it is staggering, and quite frankly isn't really 'sustainable' (that's probably not the right word, but hopefully you see my point) it will probably be the case for other modern aircraft in the near feature, which will require work to the core of DCS to be facilitated anyway.

 

Truth be told the Gr.3 is far less complex than a modern aircraft and would be perfected much faster - the Plus has new systems that need to be implemented, that we will have to wait for the F/A-18s actual release state (not it's early access 'released' state) first before it's systems can be properly explored (A/G) RADAR being a chief issue here. The British versions of the Harrier II have classified systems - it's secret and that's it, no documentation for you, going into unfriendly waters if you do. There are things not implemented even on the AV-8B N/A because of current DCS limitations and issues with implementing particular systems (NAVFLIR for instance). Simpler, older aircraft have none of those issues - they have far less to go wrong, they don't have classified anything; documentation, SMEs etc are easy to access and you don't have to worry about governments because the aircraft is out of service and superseded by at least 2 aircraft generations, let alone aircraft.

 

Sure I respect priority and it's what's best for everyone, and seeing as we don't have a Falklands map or any other island map where we can envisage a Falklands style campaign nor do we have a Fulda Gap/Germany map to really do a Cold War gone hot scenario so it's maybe not as appropriate right now.

 

But personally, a complete aircraft, with less bugs, with more properly implemented systems > a modern aircraft that has to be largely approximated/approximated to larger degree, with more things wrong with it, that takes longer to finish. That's why I love the MiG-15Bis as an example - it feels finished, there is literally nothing significant in even the remote sense wrong with it at all. So for me older aircraft are: easier to produce, easier on the developers once it's released, will probably be quicker to release in the first place and more systems probably implemented, implemented with greater ease with probably less bugs.

 

Just my thoughts :)


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'd be up for a Gr.3, but it'd be a completely different module from the AV8B (aka, Harrier II), so you're asking Razbam to start from scratch again.

 

I'd rather see them just come out with the Gr.7 they originally wanted to do, as it's not a full blown new module and we'd likely get it quicker.

 

Oh yeah of course, I respect that - I'm not saying do it for nothing. And yes it would be a different module. And because Gr.7s is a variant of the Harrier we already have it makes infinitely more sense. I'm just looking at it from a general perspective - but I am in favour of the Gr.7, don't think I'm not, it makes logical sense and I love my variants. I just disagree with "we've got a modern Harrier, so the Gr.3 is redundant"

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I quite agree with Lunatic98 with everything.

This plane is a very different beast from the other versions of the Harrier. It's systems aren't so advanced but doesn't means they're easy to learn or less interesting. As Lunatic 98 says, there are other "simpler" aircraft available for DCS World.

Personally, I like these analogic systems and also it's the only version of the Harrier I would buy. The looks also matter to me. Aesthetically I find it more interesting. It's profile with the continuous top line, from the canopy to the top of the fuselage, without that "bulge" from the canopy protruding of later versions. But of course, these are some selfish reasons, but still. It's a dam badass looking plane ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...