Solved BLU-107s hit short in U3?
-
Confirmed. I tested with U2 as well. Same behavior.
I will dive deeper in it and report to internal dev bugtracker.
-
-
-
@Tumbler31 Understood
-
@LorikEolmin - just for clarity, these were CCIP not CCRP.
@Tumbler31 - And so that I understand, with this being marked as “solved” what does that mean? Does it mean this is the intended behavior or that this is a bug that is known and being worked on or what? -
This post is deleted! -
@Zeus said in BLU-107s hit short in U3?:
@LorikEolmin - just for clarity, these were CCIP not CCRP.
@Tumbler31 - And so that I understand, with this being marked as “solved” what does that mean? Does it mean this is the intended behavior or that this is a bug that is known and being worked on or what?I think it means it’s a duplicate of or related to the issue linked by LorikEolmin.
-
From what can be read in Loriks thread FCC code doesn’t handle BLU-107 ballistics yet. So I guess it applies both to CCRP and CCIP delivery modes.
-
@Zeus in this case it means, it’s not a regression (something that used to work ok but now doesn’t) that we track as a tech-support topic.
it’s just functionality not implemented yet, or, idk maybe there’s a case to be made the real weapon system avionics don’t support this either?
these things have drag parachutes and rocket motors… and intended to be ripple-fired down the length of a runway. I could easily believe they’re intended to be dropped in “manual” mode. of maybe the FCC is calibrated for a very specific speed and agl release? anyway, as it stands it’s more a “general discussion” topic than an open problem being investigated.
-
@airtex2019 - yep, thanks. And thanks to all for commenting. I would have sworn that this worked not all that long ago but having spent some time testing today on all the old releases I could get my hands on, it looks like it has been this way for much longer than I would have guessed. I would still swear that they worked at one point but I couldn’t find a version that worked. Maybe I just wasn’t that picky in the past and was simply happy to hit the runway at all!
-
@airtex2019 said in BLU-107s hit short in U3?:
@Zeus in this case it means, it’s not a regression (something that used to work ok but now doesn’t) that we track as a tech-support topic.
it’s just functionality not implemented yet, or, idk maybe there’s a case to be made the real weapon system avionics don’t support this either?
A caveat in the -1 manual could be useful and/or in the tactical reference? Then it is declared somewhere that use of BLU107s is at ones own risk
-
@jayb said in BLU-107s hit short in U3?:
@airtex2019 said in BLU-107s hit short in U3?:
@Zeus in this case it means, it’s not a regression (something that used to work ok but now doesn’t) that we track as a tech-support topic.
it’s just functionality not implemented yet, or, idk maybe there’s a case to be made the real weapon system avionics don’t support this either?
A caveat in the -1 manual could be useful and/or in the tactical reference? Then it is declared somewhere that use of BLU107s is at ones own risk
I will add a note for the -34 if not fixed with U4
-
@Micro_440th said in BLU-107s hit short in U3?:
@jayb said in BLU-107s hit short in U3?:
@airtex2019 said in BLU-107s hit short in U3?:
@Zeus in this case it means, it’s not a regression (something that used to work ok but now doesn’t) that we track as a tech-support topic.
it’s just functionality not implemented yet, or, idk maybe there’s a case to be made the real weapon system avionics don’t support this either?
A caveat in the -1 manual could be useful and/or in the tactical reference? Then it is declared somewhere that use of BLU107s is at ones own risk
I will add a note for the -34 if not fixed with U4
Durandal falling short is not new? Darn. I must have been so lucky.
-
@LorikEolmin Since my latest durandal tests end of 2022 for sure something changed. Or not.
-
@Micro_440th I would agree. Our wing qualifications include a low alt attack using the BLU107s in CCIP and when I flew it back in Feb of 23 on version 4.36 it seemed to work as expected.
-
What is the prescribed window of AGL alt and speed, to drop these? Not seeing it in the -34 … that might be useful to add.
I did a quick test and it looks like higher and/or faster seems to result in an initial impact closer to CCRP aimpoint.
What tactic do people employ with these? For CCIP … is the idea simply to target the middle of the runway and let half the bombs ripple down on either side? With a spacing of, say, 500 ft?
-
No there are no weapon release parameter in the -34. Good idea though. I will add a general section.
Durandels can be used all between 200-1000ft. Ccip/Ccrp. Spacing as desired. Speed is life, 500+ kts
-
@Micro_440th ikr … the Durandal is simultaneously one of the coolest but most ridiculous weapon systems. developed before the age of the manpad, and radar-guided aaa, I suppose.
wikipedia mentions deployment speed up to 630 kts … but that might be for F-111 … seems likely F-16 or F-15 would have used a lower deployment speed
-
@airtex2019 Durandal has been designed for french fighters (mainly Mirage F1 in mind attack profile like 200ftAGL/600+Kts), but not deployed in French Air Force (the chosen runway bomb has been the BAP100 with same attack profile for Jaguar, Mirage F1 and M2000)
It has eventually been deployed by USAF, but at that time, only the F-111 was able to follow the attack profile this munition has been designed for.
And, even with modern manpad of radar guided AAA, an aircraft flying at 600Kts below 200ft is quite safe.
-
@airtex2019 said in BLU-107s hit short in U3?:
@Micro_440th ikr … the Durandal is simultaneously one of the coolest but most ridiculous weapon systems. developed before the age of the manpad, and radar-guided aaa, I suppose.
It most certainly is not that old
Agreed about the ‘coolest’ part!
-
@Micro_440th yup i used them this summer in the training program and they sure did work pretty sure they is a video lurking somewhere and i know there was some pix of bda too but yes it worked. Hawg