Curious, is the struggle to get above 50kmh a thing even when spaded with the scimi 2? As I have seen CCs struggle to get above it too, and is that realistic with it?
AFAIK a full spartan was able to hit over 60-70kmh pretty handedly as a similar weight vehicle, so it seems odd a Scimi 2 cant get over 50 to me.
The Harrier GR7 performance isn’t even better than the Harrier T10 . Its RWR, engine, and even ordnance loadout are all roughly comparable. It’s only at 12.0 purely because of the AIM-9M. I would’ve thought it inappropriate for the Tornado GR4 to sit at 12.3, but now that ALARMs are available, things are different.And why are the thermal imaging pods on British Harriers not high-definition?
Yeah… They should be 1.5+ at least, but the TIALD uses the same thermal imager as the Chally 2s and that is modeled as Gen 2.
GRB… maybe. ARB though, makes no difference at all
Maybe in some future update we’ll get a reskinned GR7 with updated equipment, and it’ll probably require 400,000 RP to research. As for the Tornado GR.4 in ARB, Gaijin likely thinks its helmet-mounted sight paired with AIM-9Ms makes it overpowered. I suspect the devs haven’t actually flown the GR.4 themselves.
Yep, it will be called the Harrier GR9A.
etc etc
Will probably also get missing Gr7 buffs like 6x AGM-65 or 6x AAM Loadout configurations
Could even get ASRAAM
Tornado SLE is the same BR, which is just a Tornado RET8 with IRCCM. Doesnt even get BOL.
So its just Tornado IDS + More than the standard amount of CMs + IRCCM = 12.3 for some reason
So we can only hope they release the Harrier GR.9A soon, and pray there won’t be any underhanded nerfs. Look back at the GR.7 and GR.7A situation: the upgraded, higher-thrust GR.7A exists in real service, yet it never appeared on any dev server or devblog — Gaijin opted to add only the baseline GR.7. Besides, Gaijin’s balancing approach always only focuses on ordnance loadouts and aggregate stats.
I have been unable to locate any official RAF clearance documentation or operational photographs proving that the GR.7 or GR.9 can carry six AGM-65 Maverick missiles.
The inboard 1A and 7A pylons were restricted exclusively to air-to-air ordnance, and only four intermediate stations were cleared for AGM-65 carriage. Unlike the USMC AV-8B, the RAF never certified twin missile launchers for Mavericks on British Harriers, limiting the confirmed loadout to a maximum of four missiles.
GIven when it was added, and with only 9Ls. I dont think the Mk105 was actually the wrong choice, left a really clear upgrade progression for the GR9A.
The issue, is that the GR7 got 9Ms and moved up loads. I think that was a mistake. Should have kept 9Ls and the GR9A added with the 9Ms.
(and now the T-10 as the Mk107 engine even though it never had it… but that is an entirely different can of worms)
Its a Harrier, It has BOL and its British…
Those are a given.
In my opinion, even if the GR.7 were stripped of AIM-9Ms and downrated to 11.7, it would still fail to outmatch the Harrier T.10. Its RWR capability and engine performance offer no meaningful advantage over the twin-seat trainer variant. It strongly feels Gaijin placed the GR.7 at 12.0 solely to fill Britain’s gap for a top-tier strike aircraft.
I’m hoping the GR9A arrives in the upcoming update. Photographic evidence confirms the outboard hardpoints of the Harrier GR-series can physically carry individual AGM-65 Mavericks. If Gaijin uses the lack of operational mission footage as grounds to reject the 6×AGM-65 loadout, that would be inconsistent with their own precedent: the Tornado GR4 received the 6×ALARM configuration, another extreme limit setup with one missile per hardpoint and no twin racks.
Should the six-Maverick load get implemented, both the existing GR.7 and the upcoming GR9A would receive a substantial combat boost. The GR9A would additionally benefit from the upgraded Pegasus Mk.107 engine and improved avionics over the baseline GR.7.
Without 9Ms, would be 11.3.
The T10 imo replaced what the GR7 should have been, though the T-10 could remain as the premium version of the GR7 at 11.3. Though the T10 should loose the Mk107 engines or be renamed the T12.
But that wont happen. So for now. Im hoping the GR7 drops from 12.3 to 12.0 in air and 12.0 to 11.7 in GRB to match the T.10.
GR9A then coming at 12.3 with every possible upgrade available
9* and it never used twin racks with the ALARM.
Yep
Yeah, the 40mm slaps hard. Had a good time with the Strf90s, so the Jaguar and Ajax without the abysmal ready rack are big fun.
spartan alone weights like 8.2 ton, significantly less than what Scimi 2 is in game
Regardless Scimitar Mk.2 is 800kg too heavy (7%) too heavy with the Bar+jammer+Plasan weighs 12.2 tonne, not 13 tonne as in game
The Bar armour and all of that should be removeable, to bring it down to the 10 - 10.5 ton range, meaning at best, it’s 30% heavier than it can be
which is extremely significant mobility wise
It is heresy you speak of, me and my fat ass will be keeping it on at all times for the cool factor alone. Plus it seems to help tank rounds quite a bit (which is negated by the amount of atgms i have caught with it and been over pressured by lol).
Still, im debating if gaijin will make it so the composite is removed alongside the slat armour just to be extra vindictive. But then again, thats alot of work for a scimitar so probably not.
could have it work modifcation wise like these on the 2A4M CAN
Yes Gaijin have read the transmission and final drives are rated up to 13 tonne and decided to give it the absolute maximum weight the design can handle.
MoD and BAE both put it around 12.25 tonne.
Samaritan Mk.2 is the heaviest CVR(T) variant, and even that’s not 13 tonnes
Zorawar seems the best bet we dont really have any wheeled fast tanks.
Reported, DE&S sales brochure is a nice find cheers.
[uk_fv107_scimitar_mk2] Overweight by 728kg
The Kwk 40 reload buff bothers me more.
As long as we’re going for self promotion.
Spartan afaik when in full load with troops is about 10-10.5 ton, no?
“Battle Weight (MAX)” is stated as 8153.5kg
but that is the J60s that i dont think got bar armour and the such though
Smin is wrong here as well anyway. No Mk I Centurions had the 20mm, only certain prototype vehicles did and were also replaced later in their development.