Talk:Bofors/Nexter Bonus

Winglets versus parachutes

The article states "BONUS is very similar to the German SMArt 155 system; SMArt 155 descends on a parachute rather than a system of winglets." However, right now this article uses the same illustration as the SMArt 155 article, in particular the picture shows parachutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilhelm.s (talk • contribs) 15:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This video contains some images of what the winged submuntions look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEySsjywR9M Vilhelm.s (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vilhelm.s: I've created a version of phase 5 showing (very schematically) the winglets on the submunitions. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't also do phase 6. I'll get to that in a day or two. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 18:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Excellent work, thank you for this! Vilhelm.s (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarification requested

The article describes two submunitions emerging from a single shell. The article seems to imply (without explicitly stating) that each submunition is fully independent once released from the parent shell, thus perhaps allowing two targets to be struck. Gerald H -oldeststudent2004- (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

SMArt 155

Operational history needs to be removed. It was a SMArt 155 projectile, not a Bonus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:B0C0:71FE:9FC1:5276 (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Operation Appears Incorrect

The article states that the submunitions are pulled out the front of the projectile while in flight, but doesn't cite a source for this. Artillery projectiles that eject payloads in flight almost universally eject the payload to the rear, so I am suspicious of this claim. I also found a video (Youtube: titled "Bofors 155 BONUS - Artillery delivered 155mm sensor-fuzed munition" from 0:40 to 0:50) that shows a rearward ejection. I would make the edit now, but I'm having trouble finding English language technical documents that go over the ordnance functioning to cite. It would also be a shame to get rid of the rather good pictures the article has describing functioning. 73.120.247.242 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

cluster, misleading

first sentence refers to this as a cluster munition. while submunitions = cluster in some sense, it does seems misleading to refer to this as a cluster munition, especially to lay people. I think some sources defining `cluster' rounds have a minimum number of submunitions. The convention on cluster munitions has a definition of things that are not cluster and <= 10 submunitions -> not cluster (plus some other requirements, like self detonation which i believe smart satisfies).

The smart 155 article has a reference to this " Due to the submunitions, it has been considered by some to be a cluster munition. As of 2008, representatives of the German defense ministry have referred to it as not being classified as submunition weapons, which were prohibited by the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions." Smart 155 is a similar system to bonus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMArt_155 2603:7000:3300:94AA:105F:7DA2:5454:8BC4 (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)