[2021] Proposal for Harrier Gr1 back to 9.7

Lets at least be clear here please, nowhere is it advertised that the Harrier makes "2x more SL playing this plane".

Premiums are very clearly advertised:

All of the above factors are correct for the GR.1.

If you play any vehicle poorly and die, naturally you are going to earn a loss because you are not doing anything to earn SL. No premium vehicle in game has ever been advertised to make you a profit even when played incorrectly or poorly.

You do not "keep loosing money" with a premium account and premium plane if you actually play it properly.

You can loose money with any vehicle in game no matter if its premium or not and no matter you account status if you play it incorrectly.

Nowhere is it said that premium account + a premium plane is a guaranteed profit if you are not actually using the vehicle to its advantages and how it is intended to be played.

Thats not just for the Harrier GR.1, but all premiums.

They grant increased SL and RP earnings, but only if you are actually ma

There is no such external pod compatible with the Harrier GR.1. The GR.3 has streamline launchers that are inserted into the fuselage structure. Unlike the F-5A/C pods which can be externally retrofitted.

If you can back that up with source material to show the Gr.1 had the ability to mount them in the same area and wire that into the c*ckpit too, then it can be considered. But it sounds like just an assumption not based on any material as we have already checked for that and the ability didn't exist. Otherwise we would have considered it.

It isn't the same case as the F-5A/C (which is proven to be retrofittable to any F-5A family member) and has no relation to what's being discussed here it what I was responding too.

We only do something if it can be backed up. Unlike your argument for the Gr.1 which is not supported by any material. Just an assumption about the space in the fuselage. So the two matters are not the same and as you can see, this isn't a "whishy whashy" matter. It's in fact supported by proper material and the ability to do something, unlike the GR.1.

We don't have preferential treatment for any nations. Providing something is technically possible and supported by sources, it can be considered. It's the very reason why the Swift F.7 has guns or the very aircraft in this topic, the Gr.1, has its SRAAMs.

In the case of the PFM, it wasnt even technically possible on the variant we had in game as many of the things being raised related to a different radar, engine or variant entirely. Not only this, but as explained at the time and subsequently many times, the PFM event vehcile was spesifcally made clear to be representing the Soviet version of the plane which could carry Xh-66 with the export related versions covered by other variants.

We also explained clearly at the time that because the aircraft had Xh-66, that meant its modification and thus possible upgrades were clearly defined.

You can indeed go back through the PFM thread and find answers to all of the main points raised and why the aircraft is why it is. Technical possibilities are considered for balance and when we also don't have a clearly defined version that is in a certain configuration.

We have also explained that the GR.1 and F-4F both have multiple source elements supporting their weponary. So the situations do not compare.

The aircraft is performing suitably for its current BR which the majority of the community also supported it being raised too.

As previously mentioned, if you have source material to support the claim that the Harrier Gr.1 did or could even be retrofitted with flare pods, feel free to submit them for consideration. However as I mentioned previously, this has already taken place and no such pods or modifactions exist for the Gr.1.

The standard has always been the same. If it was technically possible to do so on whatever variant in question in the absence of any sources clearly defining it cannot, then it's possible the developers would consider it on those grounds or in the case of balance unless it was a clearly defined version that meant its configuration was known and therefore predetermined.

In the case of the PFM, as above, its a Soviet service one with Xh-66. Therefor what it has in game is all it could based on that configuration it's in (radar, engine, etc).

Weponary has never been limited to what was used in real life. Otherwise half the tanks in game wouldn't exist with the shells they do and many aircraft would loose their weponary.

Ultimately it's down to the developers final decision based on if the aircraft was actually able to do something, the configuration it's in and balance.

In the case of the Gr.1, it could carry SRAAMS but had no possible flare pod.

The standards have not changed. As explained it's always been down to the developers final decision on whats actually possible, supported by material of some kind and then down to the developers final decision based in balance.

All nations make use of these standards. Every nation has tanks and/or aircraft with shells or weponary not used in combat, just tested or even were technically capable off.

Even for minor nations the same standards and balance considerations are applied (such as with the F-104S) unless it's known that the particular variant simply did not / could not.

On the contrary, were it not for these standards, then all of this time, as an example, Italy would have been stuck with AIM-9B as their top missile until just this update as well as many other additions big and small.

This isn't even remotely related in any way to what was being discussed. What you are referring to are related to problematic historical sources, which if you are referring to the Etendard here, you yourself know and stated that the manual itself is not even fully clear and only rough conclusions can be drawn. It isn't a full radar like others have in game, but a form of advanced gunsight.

None the less, this is not only off topic, but not at all even related in the context of the previous discussion which was the choice of weponary and what is possible, as well as how that's decided.

Because the Mirage F.1C in game is not the Greek export version and has the weponary choices of the French F.1s. including the Corail flare / countermeasures system that doesn't occupy a wing pylon like the Phirmat requires and as already stated, has the option of better French domestic missiles in the future after fully checking it's situation.

Mostly because American and Russian sources are very clear on what has and does not have CCIP from the get go.

Several Mirage F.1C issues that were reported have already been fixed and some deployed just today. As always you are welcome to report examples of bugs so that the developers can review them.

Those that were forwarded have already been fixed.

No words have been put in your mouth. As you mentioned, it's not a simple issue and not clear cut issue and the sources are also not currently conclusive. None the less this has no relation to this topic or any of the previous context. We are already discussing this via PM.

We have already explained why the Mirage does not have Greek weaponary and what options are open to it. Again, this isn't a Mirage topic or relivant matter to this topic.

If the sources were clear cut they would be resolved faster. There are historical reports pending for all nations, some older then then Etendards.

Again, let's please get back to the subject matter. This has gone off on a bit it a tangent not relsted to this topic at all.

The location of the rear bay is already known to the devs, but this wasn't sufficient to cover the modifications undertaken and fitting of the dispensers. When we checked for this at the time, with the exception of the storage bay being common, there wasn't any significant link rather than working back the improvements made from GR.1 to 3, of which are the very things that make the aircraft different. This drawing also doesn't detail the actual fit and mounting of the systems. Simply the existence of the storage bay.

Without any solid evidence of the modification being planned or taking place on the GR.1 and with a total lack of retrofittable evidence besides converting the aircraft to a GR.3, eliminating the need for that aircraft to begin with (unlike the F-5A / C) then its not considered the same situation. Mostly in those cases the decision is also made when we don't have or plan to have that specific variant in question (SPS-K etc). But we have both the GR.1 and GR.3 distinctly in game already.

To say this is loose is a bit of an understatement when pushing the "technically possible". In addition to the fact it then has to be considered for balance purposes, which the GR.1 currently does not have an issues with. If it was a more directly applicable mod or suspended pod, it would be more viable to consider.

We have already explained why the F-5C and A has its countermeasure pod, as its well documented they could be retrofitted. We appear to be going in circles here and whataboutism isn't going to change anything for the Harrier.

As I said, we welcome new sources on any Harrier countermeasures to be passed for consideration. But rehashing already well documented and explained examples is not going to progress the matter any further.

Data is always reviewed with the current up to date stats. We dont use previous old stats from a previous BR to define where it is now.

Even if we look at for example the last week or so since the patch release until now, its still played significantly more than the average aircraft between 9.7 - 10.3 by a considerable margin. Even with that, it remains in a good position for its BR without any direct need to go up or down, which is where vehicles generally tend to settle well at. There hasn't been a significant player drop really since its BR was last changed, even with all the new additions since.

The meta has changed, but the planes performance statistically has generally held solid for its current BR rating. As I also said above, there wasn't any drop off in the number of players using it despite the recent additions and meta additions. Seeing as it cannot fight 11.3s, it also doesn't face and isn't effected by most of those newer top jets from the previous few updates anyway.

You are free to believe anything you wish, I'm just here to provide the facts for those that want them. Using data from a period over a year ago doesn't serve any purpose to us. Any and all changes to economics or BRs are done via up to date stats and current figures.

The repair cost is reflective of what the aircraft is actually making.

The Sea Harrier FRS.1 is an entirely different aircraft, both visually and in many other aspects. We have only ever changed a vehicle in that regard when there was a model update that lead to corrections (F6F-3 > 5) or key historical model changes like most recently with the Combat Vehicle 90105 XC-8.

The Harrier GR.1 is in neither of these categories and there is no reason for it to be changed to an entirely different variant of the aircraft.