It’s not. It’s very clearly a 391st Bold Tigers patch on the CFT.
Yeah, I found already.
I know there is an F15E-1 manual from 2008 that may have been leaked, but I do not have it.
There is also evidence in other rejected manuals that the JDAM can be delivered at at least Mach 1.3 instead of the current Mach 1.
The current number provided in the game is wrong, and its error is large enough to be fatal.
It’s certainly above Mach 1.
1 Like
For F-22A and F-35 different restriction.
It’s proof that the JDAM has the structural integrity for supersonic ejections at that speed. It’s not like the F-22 / F-35 use some special subvariant of the kit(s), that is designed for high speed release (e.g. long / short chord Paveway / GBU-15).
And obviously doesn’t suffer from adverse lift, which is the underlying cause of the Supersonic release limits for unguided bombs, which could be explained by the presence of the Strakes that are added on the forebody of the warhead as part of the kit.
4 Likes
Is there anything regarding GBU-53 drop limits?
I think same as GBU-39.
I’m not too sure, it could be supersonic but it would probably use any excess energy it was imparted with at release to loft until it reaches optimal (subsonic) speeds before deploying the pop-out Glide surfaces (Nothing I’ve seen indicates that they are actuated, so are likely spring loaded).
Then do it’s best to maintain the optimal AoA during the glide / mid-course phase to extend range and conserve energy as best it can.
The SDB’s are basically too new to really have much concrete to go off.
I’d certainly be similar, but the use of a Ram Air Turbine, and different aspect ratio of the glide surfaces on the GBU-53 would almost certainly impose different limits.
My point is that only the F-22 can use the GBU-39 from supersonic. But I haven’t heard about the F-15 or F-16. Just like I haven’t heard this about GBU-53.
Reminder though that the F-22 uses the exact same GBU-39s and GBU-39 racks as every other aircraft, the only difference would be the airframe, and if it is somehow the internal carriage then the likes of the B-1B should also have the ability to use GBU-39s supersonic since it too has internal carriage but such has not been shown to be true.
1 Like
Well F-22 out of all of them is most likely to be going supersonic due to supercruise and all. But since it’s the same launchers, F-15 and 16 should be able to use SDB 1 supersonic.
Well I don’t think the US has entered a conflict where there was any reason for a B-1 to go supersonic since the SDB entered service so there’s that too
Largely irrelevant though, its still capable of such as far as I am aware. As already highlighted by you, myself and a lot of other folks so far, there is nothing really different between all the aircraft mounting the GBU-39 in these situations as well, bar the B-1B, F-35 and F-22 having an actual bomb bay, every other component is a standardized item that is identical across all airframes that can carry the GBU-39.
Edited as I was really repeating myself.
1 Like
I think these ammo drop restrictions are mainly for safety reasons, not ammo and pylon restrictions, and the aircraft does not prohibit you from releasing bombs when you are speeding. The manual gives the absolute safe value, and you may endanger your own safety when you exceed the limit. It is also possible that values outside the limits have not been tested enough.
1 Like
No. I won’t prove anything, you’ll have to take my word for it.
Yes. Internal carriage is very important in this way.
It’s not going to fix anything if it can’t avoid becoming unstable due to lift generated by bow shock that occurs when it gets exposed to the supersonic freestream air.
Then why was only the raptor able to supersonic drop the GBU-39?