Jump to content

MBB-339 planned armament and other Stuff?


Silver_Dragon

Recommended Posts

As always, thank you for your answers, Automan. I'll have those 500 l tanks glued to my wingtips all the time I think!

It's a pity that DCS code doesn't allow to have pods that can release multiple weapons like the BRD-4-250, it would have been and interesting choice for training runs.

I'll gladly take the HD only config for Snake Eyes and BAT-120 and, if one day you'll verify that the 339 can drop them in both LD and HD and implement that with ED help, I'll even more gladly take that, too! 😉

And now, as always, more questions! 😄

I took another look at the weapons list and saw that we'll have the BL-755 (BTW, did you sneak them in later, with the Mk-81s?): if I understand correctly, it should be an equivalent of the CBU-97, minus the complex sensories of the latter, and well suited against armoured targets, right? And does that mean that you'll give us the  general purpose submunitions for the Belouga, which would make it roughly equivalent to a Mk-20/CBU-87, so that we'll have BL-755 for hard targets and the BLG-66 for soft ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is a pity that some weapons cannot be implemented like they was intended, it’s a real fact that for security reason AMI choose to not fire rockets in this dispenser: during further testing, armament specialists noticed that the temperature inside the tube, during a dive and at high speed, reached too hot values to be considered safe and avoid/prevent a premature rocket initiation.

This occurred for aerodynamic reason of the air attrition in the small 50mm tube with the airflow blocked by warhead. In the LR-25 aerodynamic fairing helped in prevent this behavior.

About cluster bombs, neither the BL-755 nor the Belouga BLG-66AC(Anti-Char=Anti-tank) were realized by us, and particularly the first is an ancient model/code imported from old lockon, so I would not consider this near fidelity of working. We are not aware when ED, that now wants to have control over all 3rd party weapons too, finds time and sources to develop further these cluster bombs.

MainMenulogo.png.6e3b585a30c5c1ba684bc2d91f3e37f0.png

 

ACER Predator Orion 9000: W10H | Intel i9-7900X OC@4.5Ghz | 8x16GB Crucial Ballistix Sport | Sapphire GTX1080TI | Intel 900P 480GB | Intel 600P 256GB | HP EX950 1TB | Seagate Firecuda 2TB

ACER Predator XB281HK: 28" TN G-SYNC 4K@60hz

ThrustMaster Warthog Hotas, TPR, MFD Cougar Pack, HP Reverb Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Il 13/5/2022 at 18:22, Automan ha scritto:

Sorry, yes Belouga are present, added to the list.

about Pylon limitation: yes, the first two pylons can load 1000lbs while the outer have a 750lbs limit.

Also there are some weapons that could interfere with flaps in landing position. 

the important thing is that the loads are not lost from the wings as in the very first 339 😅

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Automan said:

While it is a pity that some weapons cannot be implemented like they was intended, it’s a real fact that for security reason AMI choose to not fire rockets in this dispenser: during further testing, armament specialists noticed that the temperature inside the tube, during a dive and at high speed, reached too hot values to be considered safe and avoid/prevent a premature rocket initiation.

This occurred for aerodynamic reason of the air attrition in the small 50mm tube with the airflow blocked by warhead. In the LR-25 aerodynamic fairing helped in prevent this behavior.

I had no idea about that, thanks for the RL info! For once, DCS limitations ended up mirroring real life, even if for different reasons.

9 hours ago, Automan said:

About cluster bombs, neither the BL-755 nor the Belouga BLG-66AC(Anti-Char=Anti-tank) were realized by us, and particularly the first is an ancient model/code imported from old lockon, so I would not consider this near fidelity of working. We are not aware when ED, that now wants to have control over all 3rd party weapons too, finds time and sources to develop further these cluster bombs.

That's a pity, let's hope ED will update the 755, it's nice to have some variety. And thanks for the info about the Belouga.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bigskill said:

Waiting with money on hand.... Just a shame not been able to survive on MP server with it.... No Chaff/flares and AA missiles... 😞

 

It's going to be hard, not impossible. Planning and sneakiness are your friends! At least in PvE servers you should have a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
On 5/17/2022 at 3:53 PM, Automan said:

1)Yes, you must remove some fuel to carry heaviest configurations and be within mtow limit. Keep in mind that weight of the 6 pylons and the tips matter. 
And just to remark a note about the tip tanks: in the 339A they really are not a loudout like a fuel tank would be, instead they have always been considered an integral part of the wing until Aermacchi adopted a quick disconnection system introduced later with 500L version (cylindrical shape). This was so true that in old dash 1 the total internal fuel was referred to the sum of fuselage and tip tanks while the clean configuration was indicated as the a/c with tt...
Just to say, I would not consider realistic for a combat mission going without tips: except for some rare demonstration in the past, the 339A needs them since the fuselage tank is not sufficiently safe to provide range and a reserve for a typical CAS mission (180nmi in low level, and 4 x Mk82).
Unless to conduct a suicide mission, without AAR, the fuel balance is always crucial: more fuel means more time you can help your troops before rtb or remain on target for 2nd pass, etc
So, choose the right balance of ordnance/fuel for your mission, tip tanks mounted and LO-LO-LO profile 😜

2)Well, the weapons delivery manual doesn't provide further details on bombs different from slick Mk-82 (arming position N/T or T only) but says that the same procedures are used for weapons of equivalent class except for the dispenser BRD-4-250 for which the SAFE position should be used to fire rockets(not implemented for DCS limitation on double-use weapons) while N/T is for release of mk-76 or mk-106 bombs.
By the way, it's true that on Snakeeyes the fins are kept closed with a release band locked by a cotter pin connected to the Tail arming wire: if the relative fuze solenoid is active during launch the pin will be pulled and the band will free the fins, otherwise they will be like free-fall Mk-82.
We must still request assistance with ED for an hypotethical implementation, since for realistic working the arming wire should be connected inverted by the armament specialist: infact, the 339 doesn't provide nose only fuze switch in the armament cp and the tail only solenoid (by default connected to tail arming wire) should be connected to nose arming wire for working like F-5 or F-14.
 

Hi, In this regard, I have been struggling to find a balance weapon config to use on MP server for AG. Tankless has a very limited Endurance, and the cluster bombs add sooooo much drag that is impossible to keep 300 kts with 3 pylons. Is there a RL Reference that we can quickly check about potential CAS configuration somewhere? Thank you.

P.S. What can we use the 12.7 MG pod for? They are kinda useless against everything...... any suggestion?


Edited by Bigskill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bigskill said:

P.S. What can we use the 12.7 MG pod for? They are kinda useless against everything...... any suggestion?

As this is a trainer aircraft, I think this is more a training weapon to learn the basics of ground strafing without devastating the target range completely or using more costly larger caliber munitions in the DEFA cannon. Of course this does not bother us in the sim as it does in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...