I don’t think F-35 has side bays like the 22
Can still be cleared for external carry
They use totally different VTOL systems
Could you please explain what BOL is, how it works, and why people say it’s implemented incorrectly in the game?
This thread is pretty helpful, it contains details about what BOL is with regards to both the Chaff and IR decoys, and how they are under-preforming.
3 Likes
Flame has done a probably better explanation it’s been linked above by Ogaly_Bogaly, but I wanted to give my own crack at it.
BOL is a Electromechanical Countermeasures system (A motor dispenses countermeasures instead of a pyrotechnic charge) developed by SAAB.
It’s got a few advantages, mostly in the quantity of countermeasures available, ground crew safety, and ease of shipping.
Fig. 1, An RAAF Hornet fitted with two BOL dispensers, one of which is loaded with Chaff
A BOL rail functions by forcing a pack through two wheels using a conveyor belt, abstractly like some of the flywheel nerf blasters you can get. On the way out the payload is blasted by air to separate the payload from the casing and begin to break it up.
Fig. 2, a diagram showing the function of a BOL rail.
It has two loadings; BOL chaff and BOL IR.
BOL chaff isn’t great, modelled at 1/4 the effectiveness of the Russian 26mm chaff cartridge (PPR-26, which “standard” cm use as a basis for chaff). Despite the total weight of a single BOL chaff pack being 45g[1] to the 40g chaff weight in a PPR-26[2] (with a total weight, including aluminium casing, cap and firing charge of 76g. Take this with a grain of salt though Chemring, who make the BOL pack I’m referencing for weight, list their PPR-26 equivalent at a total weight of 55g[3]). Even without the plastic casing, BOL isn’t 1/4 of the weight of the load of a 26mm chaff cartridge, but is modelled like that in game, thus is fairly underperforming. You can find the bug report here: Link - BOL chaff effectiveness too low, Community bug-reporting system.
Fig. 3, BOL Chaff pack Mk2 Type 1 - CCM
BOL-IR on the other hand is massively underperforming, BOL IR should be the best IR countermeasure short of DIRCM in the game, as it functions very differently to conventional IR countermeasures. It uses a pyrophoric material (burns in contact with air)[4] dispersed over a large area to almost completely obscuring the launching aircraft [See Fig. 4], in game they act as a regular flare with a small IR emission (~60% of a regular IR CM). This especially harms aircraft like the Harrier which have high thrust, as the game simplifies the function of flares to the ratio of thrust to flare [5].
You can find the bug report here: Link - BOL Pod IR Decoy Effectiveness Too Low, Community bug-reporting system
Fig.4, Missile view of a BOL IR deployment
References:
[1] Chemring Countermeasures public facing data sheet for “Chaff Pack BOL Mk2 Type 1” Link
[2] Ordtech Industries public facing datasheet, " PPR-26 Chaff for Soviet / Warsaw Pact tactical aircraft" Link
[3] Chemring Countermeasures public facing data sheet for “Chaff CM 26mm Mk3 Type 1” Link
[4] Chemring/Alloy Surfaces public facing datasheet, “L5A2 BOL IR” Link
[5] Gunjob on the in the Shar thread, post 1642: “…the only thing that matters for decoying an IR missile is the thrust to flare signature ratio.” Link
8 Likes
Hit the DIRTIEST CLIP of all time on this MiG21. MRBlaze if you see this, im not sorry.
I lost the elevator 10 seconds before this as i was 3rd partied and forced out of position against this mig21, forcing me into the worse position i could be in.
why is this a premier???
6 Likes
I love when IRL tactics just… destroy in WT
4 Likes
You should’ve been behind him on the first scissor lol. If VIFF actually did anything that is.
1 Like
its just a worse airbrake when you pull your nose up. It doesnt actually emit any of the thrust you feel when you accelerate in a straight line. But hey, clip was still funny and didnt actually think i would win it, let alone have an Ace that match
2 Likes
Didnt the Harrier IIs loose the ability to angle the nozzle forward 10° or am I thinking of something else?
Could have sworn the Harrier 1s had 100° range of motion and the Harrier 2s only had 90° meaning the braking affect is much smaller than in a Harrier 1
Maybe the British ones. I’ve seen footage of AV8B+s and air shows doing the backwards VTOL party trick
in slow speeds when landing it auto does it too 90 degrees but in flight it does 100… i dont recal if thats inaccurate to IRL or not
Both are the same
98.5 I think I’ll pull up the manuals later
Maybe im mis-remembering something.
I think it was Paul Tremelling saying he missed having Nozzle Nudge from the FA2 in the Gr7/9
He missed the instability.
He mentioned that the Harrier 2 was extremely stable in the hover and he enjoyed the harrier 1 as it was more sensitive.
The Sea Harriers however were the only harriers with higher power RCS ducts.
So I think im confusing nozzle nudge with something else
Surprising. When you hear people moping on about how hard it was to fly and stuff but I can understand once you get to his level that you want more control and love it when it is sensitive and powerful
Well m, I’ve obviously never flown a harrier so take this with a pinch of salt. I have however flown a prop recreational plane before, the Ellipse aero iirc.
The Harrier as stated by many pilots was exceptionally stable in the hover, even more so than the helicopter. The issues in the Harrier 1 came from the flight regime between 30-90 knots. This is where you could experience intake momentum drag yaw. This was due to the differential drag of the intake caused by the slip angle being too large to one side yawing the plane rapidly therefore rolling it over rapidly and this caused many fatalities.
The solution, keep the aircraft pointing into the wind when in transitioning flight. Both the original and most notable test pilots for the kestrel and harrier survived to die peacefully of old age. I think that says enough.
That’s very interesting, the manuals suggest the same movement.
Maybe it’s to do with the SAS?