I have a feeling the issue is the lack of explosive mass in the warhead for the -C since it’s a SAP charge not a GPHE design the Fill ratio isn’t great due to requiring significant penetration and only being subsonic.
But it’s got a a similar submunition to the TOW-2B, and we’ve seen how they’re modeled so it won’t actually do anything.
If you meant the other kind of performance they could simply to the same thing as they do for IIR seekers to pick a random module and do damage from above. and the chance of rolling a hit; can be based of the apparent area of the tank, over the total dispersal area it doesn’t need to be physically modeled.
Somewhat disappointing, but it provides the obvious corollary of only needing to find an LAU-128SE in the wild to assert the capability.
I wonder if Marvin Engineering (or it’s relevant subsidiaries) has had booths at any recent or upcoming tradeshows, especially with how pressing an issue the C-UAS mission set has become in recent times I’d have to imagine any rapidly deployable solution be in demand. and 90% commonality means the kits should be pretty simple to produce. And only need brief flight testing to be certified.
There are a handful of airbase takeoff/landing livestreams popping up since the Iran war started. What are the chances of an f-16 actually having a PIDS+ system equipped? Is it standard issue? I might go back over some footage if there’s a decent chance of finding something.
I’d be less likely to see a direct PIDS > MRL mount. It’d be more likely to see a TER-9 / MML + MRL / APKWS pod.
As it seems like an obvious slot left questionably open on F-16’s for example where an AMRAAM / Sidewinder would fit perfectly well as part of a High / Low mix. Since a BRU-57 is lighter, and offers less drag.
I mean the performance of the game actually handling the explosions. IIRC the reasoning was that the game engine couldn’t handle the explosions off all the submunitions from the cluster bombs let alone if multiple players drop them at the same time.
It’s an LAU-128SE. Not -CE and it has 90% commonality with other MRLs so would be fairly hard to identify from a distance unless obviously unusually mounted .
If I had to guess that the Client it was produced for is Israel so good luck finding photos, since it’s likely the censors would be on top of things.
Even air sim this is a questionable thing to use as it surely doesn’t have particularly good maws coverage and won’t see anything coming in from above the horizon
That is fair. My air sim knowledge is probably outdated, but from what I remembered the glide GNSS bombs were a bit more useful in sim than in air RB.
So for the people who want to run those it might be worth bringing the PIDS pylons anyway (mostly because why not), however after today you might as well ditch the PIDS and go for 4x AGM-154A-1 instead.
Marvin hasn’t mentioned it at any conferences since 2022, so looks like no country has shown interest in it yet. Or could still be in development. I guess we just play the waiting game
Türkiye was interested in a triple launcher for their F-16, but after the sale that included one was approved they cancelled it in favour of domestic weapons. Had it gone ahead it would’ve certainly resulted in a LAU-128SE or similar rail being developed to production. Similar thing happened with the F-21 and its triple rack.
Yeah but I thought Turkey was only interested in the tripe rack, would still be an improvement over the UML. USA seems to not be interested as they shifted away from F16 to F18 instead. I’m just looking out for countries that rely on F16 still to show interest.
More like F-15EX and F-22/F-35 ._. USA is practically crawling with upgrades for its F-16 meanwhile export nations (basically just UAE) have a better F-16.
If I recall, the last “upgrade” for the Super Hornet was the AIM-174B. Other than that, all of USA’s focus is on networking, stealth and missile bus capability
