Page 4 of 6
Posted: 2007-12-17 20:24
by BloodBane611
Sweet model. Can't wait to call in some air support from that baby.
Posted: 2007-12-17 21:17
by $kelet0r
IRL the Harrier is not much good at close air support
Obsolete imo
Posted: 2007-12-17 21:59
by BetterDeadThanRed
Well nobody asked your opinion.
Posted: 2007-12-17 22:58
by CAS_117
The Eurofighter has a gun.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/cont ... s/mauser2/
Learned that one the hard way with the F-4. X(
Posted: 2007-12-17 23:48
by Bob_Marley
Well, if I recall correctly it does have a gun. Originally it wasn't going to, but the lump of concerete they were going to put in its place screwed up the wight distribution.
But the MOD didn't buy any ammunition for it.
Posted: 2007-12-18 02:03
by Viper5
Anyone know why they wouldnt put a gun/buy ammo on jets?
Posted: 2007-12-18 02:07
by BetterDeadThanRed
Because bureaucrats never learn.
Posted: 2007-12-18 03:24
by Teek
[R-PUB]Viper5 wrote:Anyone know why they would put a gun/buy ammo on jets?
Because Its the same story as in the 60s, we have 1337 hAx Missiles, we dont need a gun. Or
why bring a knife to a gun fight.
Just in case your pistol breaks.
Posted: 2007-12-18 13:58
by Glimmerman
How will the paveway system work on the harrier, will there be a spotter with a SOFLAM on the ground marking targets for the bombs to lock on?
Posted: 2007-12-18 15:38
by Waaah_Wah
Teek wrote:Because Its the same story as in the 60s, we have 1337 hAx Missiles, we dont need a gun. Or
why bring a knife to a gun fight.
Just in case your pistol breaks.
Didnt US get a little raped by Vietnams Mig 26's at the start of the war?
Posted: 2007-12-18 16:39
by Jedimushroom
They would of if vietnam had had mig 26s at the start of the war...
Originally it was Mig 17s which failed horribly against the F-4, but then the good old Bear gave them Mig 21s which evened things up a bit, wasn't much air fighting to late in the war as NV resorted to guerilla tactics.
Anyway, I heard somewhere that the Harrier cannot accelerate upwards, this seems slightly contradictive, anyone know why this is?
Posted: 2007-12-18 16:45
by Cp
Yes IIRC the harrier cant perform a vertical takeoff if its fullyloaded (fuel and armament), But it can still tilt the nozzles to shorten the takeoff distance needed.
Posted: 2007-12-18 16:53
by SuperTimo
woo RAF Rule harriers rule! Happy days!
Posted: 2007-12-18 20:28
by Viper5
WRT Vietnam:
Yeah, Navy Phantoms were only achieving somewhere around a 2-3:1 K/D Ratio. Because of this, Top Gun was created and a gun was added to the Phantom, which produced some say 20:1 K/D Ratios. Ultimately it settled around 12.5:1
USAF was somewhere around 4-5:1 I think
Not sure on USMC
Bottom line the US learned was always put a gun on the plane. Has saved a lot of men both on the ground and in te air.
Posted: 2007-12-19 00:51
by Waaah_Wah
Jedimushroom wrote:They would of if vietnam had had mig 26s at the start of the war...
Originally it was Mig 17s which failed horribly against the F-4, but then the good old Bear gave them Mig 21s which evened things up a bit, wasn't much air fighting to late in the war as NV resorted to guerilla tactics.
Anyway, I heard somewhere that the Harrier cannot accelerate upwards, this seems slightly contradictive, anyone know why this is?
Yeah they used Mig 21's not 26's. My bad
Posted: 2007-12-20 02:40
by Delta*RandyShugart*
pretty nifty.
Posted: 2007-12-20 10:04
by Kislorod
Oh my god!!
Posted: 2007-12-21 01:54
by Stigger
Ghost Dog wrote:I wish all these Dev Journal topics were closed... so I wouldn't have to check 10 pages looking for an update
.
Looks very good btw, can't wait for ingame pics
.
Good point, cos you just don't know what page a dev is going plant those updates!
Created new1000LB Paveway II guided bomb.
Fins flip out on drop.
Fuel tanks and sidewinders.
Last update before christmas.