Weapons specialists needed => BLU-109
-
It can/could be put together as an unguided bomb. I have no idea why you would want to do that though as the very nature of its target requires high precision.
I know and agree.
But some ppl want it unguided (old fashion pop-up strikes).
-
Blu- 109/B always guided, blu-109 its a bomb
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/blu-109.htmThe BLU-109/B (I-2000) is an improved 2,000-pound-class bomb designed as a penetrator without a forward fuze well. Its configuration is relatively slim, and its skin is much harder than that of the standard MK-84 bomb. The skin is a single-piece, forged warhead casing of one-inch, high-grade steel. Its usual tail fuze is a mechanical-electrical FMU-143. The 1,925-pound bomb has a 550-pound tritonal high-explosive blast warhead. The BLU-109/B was always mated with a laser guidance kit to form a laser-guided bomb
-
The BLU-109 is a warhead, which when built up in a particular configuration becomes an end-item munition. The BLU-109 is a hard target penetrator version of the Mk84 warhead.
I’m pretty sure that the BLU-109 was developed by the USN and that unit is thermally protected - the BLU-109/B for the USAF is not. It is not always guided - they can be fit for free fall release, and I recall the USN retaining these configurations. In general they can be fit with any nose/tail kit that a MK84 can.
-
It’s a bomb.
It can technically also be put together as a GBU-10:
http://bulletpicker.com/guided_-gbu-10g_b_-gbu-1.htmlIt can/could be put together as an unguided bomb. I have no idea why you would want to do that though as the very nature of its target requires high precision. Would only expect to see it as a GBU-31v3 nowadays, maybe sporadically as a 24.
You would do this if you run out of guidance kits.
-
I see nothing in current docs that I have access to that have it referenced to anything other than in a GBU configuration for use (see -10, -27, -31, etc).
From what I understand, the heavy weight GBU types require some additional weaponeering by the pilot over just hammering the pickel button, assumption only, but probably could have to do with the attack profile and limitations that you are memtioning.
Doesn’t mean it hasnt been flight tested of course and “could” be authorized in a contingency.
-
I’m pretty sure that the BLU-109 was developed by the USN and that unit is thermally protected - the BLU-109/B for the USAF is not.
The BLU-109A/B differs from the BLU-109/B in the type of explosive filler, the addition of an externally installed hardback, and the application of an ablative (heat dissipating) thermal insulation coating to the exterior of the bomb body.
…
The BLU-109A/B is externally covered with an ablative thermal insulation coating (AVCOFM26(NA)) to delay fast cook-off, high temperature reaction time.
…
The BLU-109/B is painted olive drab. The BLU-109A/B bomb is initially painted with a blue primer. A gray ablative coating is applied over the blue primer.So the A/B is the “USN” version of the /B …
-
I see nothing in current docs that I have access to that have it referenced to anything other than in a GBU configuration for use (see -10, -27, -31, etc).
From what I understand, the heavy weight GBU types require some additional weaponeering by the pilot over just hammering the pickel button, assumption only, but probably could have to do with the attack profile and limitations that you are memtioning.
Doesn’t mean it hasnt been flight tested of course and “could” be authorized in a contingency.
Yes - USAF docs? Pretty sure the USN uses the BLU-109 in lieu of Mk80 series and is documented such. One would weaponeer this depending on mission target set.
Any freefall warhead configured with any type of guidance kit is considered a “GBU” in both USN and USAF parlance, AFAIK. USN and USAF don’t always inventory the same munitions/kits, I’m more familiar with Navy.
Yes - all weaponeering/attack profiles are dependent on target set, area defenses, collateral damage considerations, and what is actually available in the main mags. Forex: one may be going low and fast against a hard target (like a dam); in that scenario you wouldn’t want to “waste” a more high valued munition but still require the force of a penetrator warhead - so you’d mount something like a BSU85 RET tail kit and deliver as ballistic. You also have to factor number of munitions required to do the job - this can also be where the Ordies may or may not give you what you’d prefer…like a JDAM or LGB kit…because some other mission has priority over yours.
-
If you can drop it without guidence its a bomb , btw i have the idea that a warhead is always a part of a weapon not the weapon itself
-
Good grab, Dee-Jay.
Note that other than the two JDAM you depict, one can also configure a GBU-24 (2000# LGB) with either a Mk84 or BLU-109 warhead - at least I know the USN can do that, depending on mission requirement.
-
@vfp:
If you can drop it without guidence its a bomb , btw i have the idea that a warhead is always a part of a weapon not the weapon itself
In Navy parlance any un-powered (free fall) weapon is a bomb; guided or not. Anything powered is a missile.
EDIT; info -
GBU = Guided Bomb Unit
BLU = Bomb Live Unit
-
Hi Rainmaker!
I see nothing in current docs that I have access to that have it referenced to anything other than in a GBU configuration for use (see -10, -27, -31, etc).
When you say “current docs” … you mean official munition assembly docs?
**@ALL:
The Contest: Try to find one picture or a video of a BLU-109 bomb mounted on an a/c (
) without any guidance kit (JDAM nor PII/PIII) …Good luck!**
-
Before searhing this is a video with a naked blu https://www.military.com/video/guided-weapons/guided-bombs/usaf-blu-109-bunker-buster/1102951849001
But they accelerate it somehow if i ll find from airplane i ll post -
@vfp:
Before searhing this is a video with a naked blu https://www.military.com/video/guided-weapons/guided-bombs/usaf-blu-109-bunker-buster/1102951849001
Imagine how it can bounce/ricochet if impact angle/velocity are not correct!
-
**@ALL:
The Contest: Try to find one picture or a video of a BLU-109 bomb mounted on an a/c (
) without any guidance kit (JDAM nor PII/PIII) …Good luck!**
Interesting - not sure I have seen one……a relevant F-16 USAF TO does describe the BLU-109/B as a Munition in its own right like the MK-84 essentially, but with different fuse etc and the -1 supp TO lists it as something that can be carried on 3 & 7 just like a MK-84 or BLU-107.
At the same time it lists the Warhead for the GBU-10A/B as being a MK-84 - so in that sense the BLU-109 presumably would also be considered a warhead when part of a guidance kit setup.
-
Hi Rainmaker!
When you say “current docs” … you mean official munition assembly docs?
**@ALL:
The Contest: Try to find one picture or a video of a BLU-109 bomb mounted on an a/c (
) without any guidance kit (JDAM nor PII/PIII) …Good luck!**
-34s, for a few aircraft
-
According to our haf its used as warhead which is combined with guidence kit https://www.haf.gr/arsenal/blu-109-b-bomb-live-unit/
Lets see if we can find naked blu https://www.haf.gr/arsenal/blu-109-b-bomb-live-unit/ -
@vfp:
Before searhing this is a video with a naked blu https://www.military.com/video/guided-weapons/guided-bombs/usaf-blu-109-bunker-buster/1102951849001
But they accelerate it somehow if i ll find from airplane i ll postThat’s the Supersonic Naval Ordnance Research Track (SNORT) at China Lake…rocket powered sled.
-
…so…I found some articles about Bahrain buying 500 BLU-109 bodies, but nothing about them buying any CCUs or tails for them. I’ll keep scratching…
-
Yes - USAF docs? Pretty sure the USN uses the BLU-109 in lieu of Mk80 series and is documented such. One would weaponeer this depending on mission target set.
Any freefall warhead configured with any type of guidance kit is considered a “GBU” in both USN and USAF parlance, AFAIK. USN and USAF don’t always inventory the same munitions/kits, I’m more familiar with Navy.
Yes - all weaponeering/attack profiles are dependent on target set, area defenses, collateral damage considerations, and what is actually available in the main mags. Forex: one may be going low and fast against a hard target (like a dam); in that scenario you wouldn’t want to “waste” a more high valued munition but still require the force of a penetrator warhead - so you’d mount something like a BSU85 RET tail kit and deliver as ballistic. You also have to factor number of munitions required to do the job - this can also be where the Ordies may or may not give you what you’d prefer…like a JDAM or LGB kit…because some other mission has priority over yours.
Yes to the USAF docs
I don’t know that you could consider the 109 body a “replacement” for the standard mk series weapons…different casing…different weapon effects, etc. That would be like us loading penetrator-type casings for CAS environment employment…wrong hammer for the job IMO.
From what I can, with respect to USAF, there is no designation for a 109 on an unguided munitition. For us, that would be a mk-84, but there is no option for a 109 body being used…and we don’t have anything like a MK-109.
With regards to the weaponeering, I am referring more to releases and laser operation that is desinged specifically for use with those weapon types. The perameters are more specific, so I have been told, for employing those types of LGBs over your standard 12s, 24s, etc
-
Yes to the USAF docs
I don’t know that you could consider the 109 body a “replacement” for the standard mk series weapons…different casing…different weapon effects, etc. That would be like us loading penetrator-type casings for CAS environment employment…wrong hammer for the job IMO.
From what I can, with respect to USAF, there is no designation for a 109 on an unguided munitition. For us, that would be a mk-84, but there is no option for a 109 body being used…and we don’t have anything like a MK-109.
With regards to the weaponeering, I am referring more to releases and laser operation that is desinged specifically for use with those weapon types. The perameters are more specific, so I have been told, for employing those types of LGBs over your standard 12s, 24s, etc
Actually, in the platforms I’m familiar with it’s far easier - looser release parameters - to employ an LGB or JDAM than a freefall weapon. If you’re doing it strictly by the book.
It’s “equivalent” to a Mk84 for the USN in terms of suspended weight only (remember that in the Navy bring back is a strong player)…not really a “replacement” because it has a differing punch from a standard Mk84. But I do know that both the GBU-31 and GBU-24 can be configured with either a Mk84 or BLU-109 warhead depending on what’s needed (and I would think the USAF would do that too?); in fact the “flange” or “skirt” at the base of the BLU-109 is so that a Mk84 series tail kit will fit on it - incidentally, the Mk80 series now also have “BLU” nomenclature…the Mk84 is a BLU-117, forex. At least AFAIK for the USN. This happened some years back and of course, drove everyone nutz when it did…
I can also believe the USAF may not consider/allow using a BLU-109 as a strictly freefall weapon, but then that also goes to mission for each Branch.