Smin1080p

Once again, this is incorrect and misquoted.

You asked if we had enough data to implement Harrier T. 52, which we currently do not.

However there is more than enough primary source material that shows the SRAAM is also correct for the GR.1 as it was the intended aircaft. T.52 was only a technology demonstrator.

We did not put SRAAM on GR.1 because we did not have enough information to implement T.52. We pit SRAAM on the GR.1 because there is more than enough primary sources to back up the validity of it being proposed, intended and developed with GR.1 being the primary recipient for the RAF. To add, we also didn't just add it because of the single photo of it laid out in front, there is both primary and secondary sources from Hawker to back that up too.

Meanwhile the only sources so far on the PFM are not only secondary but also themselves don't a...

This is incorrect as they very much are, but are treated with lower priority than actual bugs and gameplay issues.

Not anytime soon. The number of pages is pretty much irrelevant as people just keep wishlisting rather than use the proper topics

It was fixed before on WIP client simply waiting deployment to live. Baring in mind patches have to be scheduled and co-ordinated cross platform.

Plus some minor fixes can still take place. What I meant was. Don't expect major changes over the next week and a half at least.

New Year smoke fix. Now works in all battles.

This is a GR.1 though as well as all the supporting primary documentation there is by Hawker, along with their marketing to also back it up.

Again, using the Harrier over and over again does not make the PFM case more valid when all that has been presented so far is 2 photographs of a claimed MiG-21PFM test bed development airframe compared to all the supporting documentation the SRAAM has by Hawker, various museums and the photos.

So yes, the two cases are different. More sources on the PFM are welcome, but for now, everything thats been presented is down to the devs to decide.

There is currently no primary documentation supporting it for a Soviet PFM. Only a photograph of a test best aircraft that is echoed in several books / websites.

Its now down to the developers to decide if that is enough.

If you read the very next line:

If the developers consider the current source material to be sufficient for the PFM to receive extra weaponry, then it will be done. That decision is entirely with them. My point being the reason why it was not done from the get go was because there is no source material showing historical Soviet PFMs (what was originally asked for) with them. The only sources so far are on a testbed aircraft that need further validation.

If the devs believe its correct, then its more than possible it can receive them.

Lots of vehicles in game have weaponry, shells, ordinance and other systems that were not necessarily "used" but either proposed, intended or directly linked by clear source material. Ho-229 for example in game has its Jumo 004D engines that were proposed, Flak Rak Rad has the VT-1 missile that was a developmental proposal as well as countless tanks in game that have shells they did not necessarily fire but were either capable off, linked too or proposed with. T-72 TURMS is capable of firing 3BM42 for example and there is also background sources that confirm its use. Lynx Ah-1 never actually operationally used all of the weaponry it has available in game. But it was proposed and proven by Westland on G-LYNX that it could.

The point being, if there is credible evidence to show it was possible, was done or was intended to be done, then its something the devs can consider. But at the very least, it has to be grounded in proper source material.
...

I believe it came down to the lack of availability of critical sources needed to model that particular variant that stopped the T.52 being possible. The aircraft itself visually is still available to see at the Brooklands museum. But for example its manual and other details are much more complicated. Perhaps one day it will be possible, but certainly not anytime soon.

It was demonstrated on T.52 for the purpose of mounting them on GR.1. Both the RAF and British Government funded SRAAM development and trials for use on their Harrier GR.1, but later scrapped the project entirely due to budget cuts and simply opted to buy off the shelf sidewinders and upgrade the rest of their GR.1s to GR.3 standard over time.

GR.1 was the intended recipient, was clearly linked both in photographic and literal sources as well as Hawkers marketing and was proven capable by the tests on T.52.

This is one example. The devs based it of documentation, literature and further sources from Hawker linking the SRAAM proposal to GR.1, its tests with T.52 and the intrigration with the Harrier airframe.

Laid out weaponry alone is never the sole source. It was the same case with G-LYNX where some weaponry shown here couldn't be validated:

On the contrary, it was directly linked to GR.1 and intended for use on it:

I have played it and in fact even met you in battle where you saw me get 2 kills

I also shared all my results from the games I played with it since it went up. After which, I was over 250,000 SL +

Spamming this multiple times a day isn't going to make it happen or possible im afraid.

Again, the complaints about the Harrier were only 1 half of the story. Its statistics at 9.7 showed it needed a BR change.

Thats a little bit contradictory to what you are also saying on Reddit at the same time to me:

Nobody is taking any historical nitpicking as precedence here and nobody said some of those things cant happen.

We are expanding flares for all aircraft over time like many ordinance options. If the Soviet PFMs had examples of flares or flare canisters, then that is worth reporting as a historical report.

R-3Rs and K-13Ms land solely with the devs to decide if the sources are strong enough of a link.

It was not what the developers used as a camo reference, it was another example of the same camo. It is a standard Afghan period Soviet Camo. Its also featured in game on the MiG-21Bis.

@Einherjer1979Already provided even better period examples:

The Hunter and Harrier are two separate aircraft and both strong in their own rights. The UK tree already has plenty of capable ground attackers in the Phantoms, Jaguars, Canberra's, Sea Hawk, Scimitar, Buccaneer and Meteor Reaper. We do not introduce aircraft designed to "fit" a specific BR as BRs are not a fixed factor, but a dynamic moving one.

There are jets on all sides that don't have flares and RWR at 10.0. The Harrier is no exception to this.

If we removed everything that was never used on a production vehicle in game, we would have to remove about 50% of all of the most interesting and used shells, payloads and weaponry used in game.

We have no plans to remove SRAAM since it was directly linked and proposed for GR.1 by Hawker themselves, tested on their company demonstrator Harrier and not adopted only based on the pollical situation at the time, which has no impact or barrier in game.

Its an example of other vehicles in game that are in the same situation as SRAAM and GR.1. Again, we are a game first. The developers always try to realise the maximum potential of a vehicle whilst maintaining balance, progression and relevance of a vehicle.

Lots of vehicles were never "actually" used at all. Nor were some shells, or some rockets, or some bombs or some configurations. Yet the game does not follow reality in a 1:1 sense.