User talk:Jackehammond/sandboxes-DURANDAL

MATRA Durandal article - lot of false information
Folks, the Matra Durandal article is a lot of hearsay and some just flat out false information. One, it was disinformation by the Israeli AF that it used so called "dribbler" bombs in 1967 and two, the French AF never adopted the DURANDAL. What is the next step Oh Wise Ones. --Jackehammond (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, looking at the article history, there has only been one substantial contribution since September, so the article is not undergoing intensive editing at the moment. There are a couple of ways to approach this.  One is to "open fire" with changes and see who cries foul -- sometimes no one does, but if someone does, it can make it harder to later come to agreement among editors.  The other way is to post a modified version of the article on the article's talk page and request comments and discussion.  If no discussion comes after a week or so, then post the changes to the article itself.  In any case, for any factual assertions you make, you'll want to cite a source to keep the jackals off your back.  If you believe certain text to be false, then it would be very useful to have a source that states, for example, the Durandal was never taken into French service.  The bit about the Israelis has existed since the first version of the article and should probably be toned down to reflect that they had a Durandal-like weapon and may have used it in the 1967 war (if so much is true ...).  As it is, the Israeli weapon is apparently -not- the Durandal, so why should so much be written about it in an article about the Durandel?  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilson, The Israelis never had a "dibbler" or "dribbler" anti-runway bomb. The whole "fact" about this started with a Ballantine's Illustrated History of the Violent History #27 SIX DAY WAR, pages 60-61 which was printed in 1974. Btw, check out the missile homing in on the parked Mig-17 and check the guidance systems available for the AS-30. And I can guarantee you that back in 1967 IR seekers were hardly good enough for using air to air IR weapons near the ground much less air to surface IR weapon. And to the right you will notice the legendary "dibbler" bomb. Not also it is coming straight down, which won't work for run way busting. And with the dibbler bomb, there is just a rocket motor to accelerate it. No,two parachutes, to slow it down first, then aim it at the correct angle at the runway and the rocket fires driving it through the runway. A dibbler makes no sense. If you can get at the angle to use it effectively, then you got the angle for shallow or dive bomb???? I saw a drawing in one publication that purported to show the dribbler, but never photos of the beast??? The problem that caused all these weapon's rumors was that the Israelis were so successful (and the Egyptian military so terrible) that no one could accept the first raids against the Egyptian AF was done with 30mm cannons and iron bombs. The secret was reducing the war load and come in from NW over the sea. Most of the Egyptian aircraft were taken out with 30mm cannon fire and the runways holed by simple dive bombing with semi-armor piercing bombs. In fact most of the Egyptian AF were back up and running within a day or two. They just didn't have the aircraft anymore. It is all pointed out in a recent AIR ENTHUSIASTS article I guess you will say, "Jack, No we don't take your word for it!" so start hunting.

Wilson, I know you are good at finding the exact article. FLIGHT had an article on runway busting in the last half of the 1980s that is encyclopedic, and I have it, just can't remember which magazine issue. And if you have the data base for "International Defense Review" I have between 1983 and 2000 issues, can you see which issues have the DURANDAL and the BAP 100 and "antirunway". Also, the list weapons at each year end, and it told about the DURANDAL being considered to heavy to be practical for their aircraft. If they carry enough to be effective on the run across the runway, they don't have the range, and if they carry fewer and the range, then they can't effectively crater the runway. Also, on the subject, you will see Mirages carrying the DURANDAL. That is so export customers can see it. The French AF may have had the DURANDAL for a short time, but not for long (ie that is if they ever had it). In 1989 one source stated that France and the USAF were known public users of the DURANDAL and 10 export customers. I wish I could remember the IDR issue, but it stated the French AF basically bought some to test to help Matra with exports, but it decided the BAP 100 was what they needed. Also, Thomas-Brandt developed a antirunway version of its BM 400 stand off weapon, which is a bomb that can be delivered with lob bombing. The antirunway BM 400 had eight BAP 100s inside it. But back to the DURANDAL-like weapon and the 1967 War: In 1967 the Israel AF had the Mirage III which was primarily an interceptor with a secondary strike role. But the Mirage III had five pylon stations (ie the reason the Isaeli AF before the 1967 War were privately funding the Mirage 5 strike/ground attack versions which had four more pylons under the fuselage). four on the wings (ie and two of them only good for air to air missiles), and a center line pylon. For a mission the Israelis would need the two heavy pylons on the wings for drop tanks leaving the center pylon. The size of the DURANDAL means that it would be restricted to just two DURANDALs. Not enough for a successful attack, unless the pilot is willing to make the cross against the runway at landing speed. Also, if the French AF had the DURANDAL why use the BAP 100 in Chad????

Finally, the USAF had to adopt the DURANDAL because of the failure or as the USAF put, behind schedule of a cluster weapon called the Direct Airfield Attack Combined Munition. Problem was the USAF could not make up their mind as to whether they wanted a low level anti-runway weapon, one delivered in a lob-bomb or by the new F-117A stealth aircraft from high altitude. So they did what they always do: They wanted everything and got nothing. Btw, the penetrators were originally a design for the Pershing II to attack Russian air fields and with that treaty, they were destroyed so a parachute and rocket was put on the end for the USAF. And after the 1991 War, the USAF decided that low level AA weapons, made low level high speed attacks against runways, a little on the dangerous side. So they dropped developing the DAACM and any other weapons that required a very low high speed pass. --Jackehammond (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, check this out. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

WilsonI found the article. I was looking way to far in the 1980s. The article was in 1981, titled "Can The Runway Survive" 1st page and 2nd page. It is the best primer on the subject that the NATO forces faced about denying runways to the enemy. Also, I came across one flight article that stated that the USAF bought "4,000" (SERIOUS!) DURANDALs. At that time Reagan was allowing the military to buy what ever they wanted. I may be wrong, but I would say the US was the biggest buyer of the DURANDAL. Also, I will have to look up the info, but the USAF rejected the BAP 100 and the UK JP233 and the MBB weapon, because they wanted a anti-runway weapon which could crater the super heavy runways that the Russians had built in the Arctic region. And even the DURANDAL after tests they had to beef it up and add a new fuzing system.--Jackehammond (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)