• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Alternatives to JP233

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
740
Reaction score
82
Were there any other ideas for the specification that led to the JP233 system?
 

Weasel Pilot

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Don't know if they bid on it, but French BAP-100 and the Durandal were both aimed (pardon the pun) at the same mission, if not the same exact requirement. Of course neither of these had the anti-personnel mines to stop repair crews.

Perhaps someone can shed some light... back in 89 or 90 heard that first time an operational crew dropped Durandal off an F-111 one or more malfunctioned with the chute opening then the rocket motor firing before the round had swung back vertical such that it was launched in the direction of the departing Vark. This was the last of Durandal on the Vark. Was told this was why Durandal was not used in the opening phases of Desert Storm

Probably crew myth, seems like after putting out big bucks, Uncle Sam would want something for it.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,288
Reaction score
1,238
JP223 was originally a Joint USAF/RAF program (JP=Joint Project). I believe that the USAF evaluated both Durandal and BAP-100 before dropping out of JP223 and adopting Durandal.

Durandals were dropped in the Gulf War -- 20th FW F-111Es out of Turkey reportedly used them in early low-level anti-runway attacks.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-107.htm
 

Weasel Pilot

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
According to the USAF's Gulf War Air Power Survey, Vol 5, no Durandal were dropped during Desert Storm. I have found some errors in GWAPS, but have talked to several DS Vark crews and I believe this (no Durandal in DS) to be correct
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
161
TomS said:
JP223 was originally a Joint USAF/RAF program (JP=Joint Project).

The name does not mean 'Joint Project'. After using the rainbow codes (Blue Envoy, Red Beard, etc) the British MoD changed to naming projects with the random allocation of two letters and three numbers. Leading to codes like BL.755, PT.428, JP.233, SG.357 (the anti-runway device launched by the JP.233) and HB.876 (the mine launched by JP.233). The US provided funding support and wanted to acquire the system but pulled out because of cost.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,288
Reaction score
1,238
I think JP was rendered as "Joint Project" in US documentation. Perhaps this was an incorrect retronym, however.

I stand tentatively corrected on the use of Durandal, though I note that GWAP does omit some weapons known to have been used based on operational histories (napalm, for example).
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,880
Reaction score
1,171
I have found a curious brief reference to a similar runway cratering weapon in a 1975 Defence Operational Analysis Establishment report on cost effectiveness of basing concepts for AST.396. In the report several studies are carried out in regard to likely effectiveness of attacks on main base runways and aircraft shelters comparing Western and notional Warsaw Pact equivalent weapons. The notional Warsaw Pact runway cratering weapon was based on a "recently discontinued" project called PAVERCOCK.

Assuming Pavercock was an early JP.233 type weapon, the question is was this development covered by AST.1217 or was it one of the joint Anglo-American projects alluded to earlier in this thread?
 

Similar threads

Top