not planned or correct for version BLU-107/B Durandal

[AbuMuqawama]

The US had given over 500 BLU-107 Durandals to Turkey in the 90s. The only aircraft that can carry it in Turkish service is the F-16, this would include their F-16CM BLK 50s.

 

 

 

While not in use by American F-16s, both the Durandal and the F-16CM BLK 50 are in use by Turkey. I admit, this might be a long shot, but it would be nice if the DCS representation of the F-16CM BLK 50 would include the option to arm it with Durandals.

[amalahama]

BLU-107 anti-runway bomb?

 

Hi,

 

Apparently F-16 was certified to carry this store

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9622

 

It might not have been used profusely in operation, but the peculiar drop profile makes it a very exciting tool for our virtual missions.

 

Thoughts?

[RaceFuel85]

Hi,

 

Apparently F-16 was certified to carry this store

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9622

 

It might not have been used profusely in operation, but the peculiar drop profile makes it a very exciting tool for our virtual missions.

 

Thoughts?

 

The BLU-107 is not a cleared or valid store for the CM circa 2007, and I’m not sure it was ever cleared for the Block 50

[AbuMuqawama]

If the CMANO database is correct, then the Turks with their F-16CM BLK 50s can use it, along with all earlier F-16 versions that they have. Apparently the F-16 is the only aircraft in Turkey's inventory that can carry it. Granted that doesn't say anything about if Turkey still has the things around after 2+ decades.

 

 

As I said in my thread, its a long shot, but it would be nice to have it.

[=Panther=]

We are getting a USAF F-16CM Blk 50 from 2007.

[umkhunto]

Doubtful. Not that matters though, runway denial weapons have no practical use in DCS. Damage to runways are client side, so if a runway has a hole in it, you just rejoin the server, then the damage is gone.

[schurem]

Doubtful. Not that matters though, runway denial weapons have no practical use in DCS. Damage to runways are client side, so if a runway has a hole in it, you just rejoin the server, then the damage is gone.

 

Heh yeah because the multiplayer side is all that matters.

 

I hope we get durandal, I have great memories of bombing runways with those in falcon 3.0 and 4.

[SGT Coyle]

+1 for Durandal.

And another for runway damage model that works for MP as well as SP.

[Donut]

I have great memories of bombing runways with those in falcon 3.0 and 4.

 

Ha, same here! I vividly remember flying on the Panama map and bombing the runway at an enemy airbase. There was something very satisfying with lining up down the runway and dropping the Durandals.

[amalahama]

For some reason my post about the BLU-107 has been closed but yeah, absolutely in for Durandals - maybe not operational today but I doubt the capability has been removed from 2007's Blk50 OFC.

 

Regards

[backspace340]

Doubtful. Not that matters though, runway denial weapons have no practical use in DCS. Damage to runways are client side, so if a runway has a hole in it, you just rejoin the server, then the damage is gone.

 

This isn't true anymore - it was fixed a couple of months ago. Runway damage is now synced.

[Highwayman-Ed]

+1

[umkhunto]

This isn't true anymore - it was fixed a couple of months ago. Runway damage is now synced.

Oh? I guess it's time to dust off the Viggen.

[Alpiinoo]

Can different ammunition such as BLU-107 Durandal be added in the future? 

BLU-107 is anti runway bomb. F-16 Can carry.  Used in Desert Storm.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Alpiinoo

[Iron Sights]

I loved that weapon in EF2000.

[raelias]

I'd LOVE to have this on the viper

[Bananabrai]

I can understand that they would not invest time in making this weapon and allocate resources to it, people are waiting for a lot more other stuff.

Though I think it would be a nice addition, probably the aircraft treats it like the other unguided munistions just with other performance tables.
At least that would make sense, as it probably uses the same dimensions attachments as a Mk-82.

I would love to use it, as the Mk-82Air/SE is not really suitable/realistic for runway attacks (talking about low level).

Edited October 28, 2021 by Bananabrai

[Asturo]

I was hoping to propose the idea of BLU-107/B Durandal's being added to the F-16C block 50. I have a couple of sources for the production time of the F-16C block 50 and I have another website containing information to the BLU-107/B and its USAF timeline with sources on the website. It'd be nice to see more runway destruction ordinance being introduced to DCS. I truly hope this gets added. 

"The U.S. Air Force first evaluated the Durandal in 1982. It was subsequently procured for operational service as the BLU-107/B, at least partly because the USAF's own BLU-106/B BKEP (Boosted Kinetic Energy Penetrator) program suffered from delays (and was later cancelled). The BLU-107/B was used in Iraq by F-111E bombers during Operation Desert Storm in early 1991. After retirement of the F-111, the F-16 became the only USAF platform for the Durandal." 
"The first Block 50/52 F-16 rolled out of the Fort Worth facility on October 31, 1991 (#90-0801). Production of this version is still ongoing and will be expanded well beyond 2005 with the latest aircraft delivered to Greece and Israel."

Sources:
https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html#:~:text=The first Block 50%2F52,delivered to Greece and Israel.
https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/blu-107.html

[exhausted]

On 10/28/2021 at 5:44 AM, Bananabrai said:

I can understand that they would not invest time in making this weapon and allocate resources to it, people are waiting for a lot more other stuff.

Though I think it would be a nice addition, probably the aircraft treats it like the other unguided munistions just with other performance tables.
At least that would make sense, as it probably uses the same dimensions attachments as a Mk-82.

I would love to use it, as the Mk-82Air/SE is not really suitable/realistic for runway attacks (talking about low level).

 

Priorities, right? Thank god we got the TF-51D!

[Bananabrai]

10 hours ago, exhausted said:

Priorities, right? Thank god we got the TF-51D!

Nice, thanks, always like completely random comments.

[exhausted]

8 hours ago, Bananabrai said:

Nice, thanks, always like completely random comments.

Sequiturs are not random. 

[Dragon1-1]

TF-51D was a simple offshoot of the Mustang. BLU-109 would require significant coding, though anti-runway weapons do exist in DCS. It might not be correct for the Block 50 specifically, though, I think it was more of a Block 40 and earlier thing. Block 40 was a low level night striker, Block 50 was primarily a SEAD variant. Of course, they could fill other roles, but that's what they were focused on. 

[Jojothebox]

On 2/22/2023 at 5:08 PM, exhausted said:

Priorities, right? Thank god we got the TF-51D!

three things of note here. we have the Durandel with a high poly model working on the MB339 and the mirage F1. it currently does less damage than the Mk82 Air/SE which have been used in runway strikes but that makes no difference to AI flights. secondly, why mention the TF-51D? it hasn’t received an update larger than a bug fix in forever. finally the BLU-107/B isn’t on the roadmap for the 16. the model we have never used it. it’s not a priority for the ED team because it’s not going on any of their modules. would it be cool? i mean sure. but i haven’t seen a picture of an F-16 with more than four so meh. but you’re complaining about something that isn’t a problem 

[exhausted]

8 hours ago, Jojothebox said:

three things of note here. we have the Durandel with a high poly model working on the MB339 and the mirage F1. it currently does less damage than the Mk82 Air/SE which have been used in runway strikes but that makes no difference to AI flights. secondly, why mention the TF-51D? it hasn’t received an update larger than a bug fix in forever. finally the BLU-107/B isn’t on the roadmap for the 16. the model we have never used it. it’s not a priority for the ED team because it’s not going on any of their modules. would it be cool? i mean sure. but i haven’t seen a picture of an F-16 with more than four so meh. but you’re complaining about something that isn’t a problem 

Historicity never has been the driver of focuses or priorities, so I am expressing that priorities are indeed driven by internal decision and on occasion, by request. The TF-51D shows that the devs will deliver modules/features with arguably little, if any, demand and forget those which are actually in demand. We are getting a Eurofighter for example, so accuracy and access is not the requisite.

Edited February 24, 2023 by exhausted

[NineLine]

The title = BLU-107/B Durandal

I think it's safe to say this thread has sufficiently gone off the rails. Locking.