The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of)
-
@Kavelenko again CBU-87CEM, not 97/105. This is 4.37 or the “good old days”? Armor, motorized infantry, or supply truck column?
It’s missions like that that gets the medals in the logbook, which these days I think not be able to get them with most loadouts is probably a good thing.
-
@Snake122 I get even better results with CBU 97s but testing 87s at the moment. Something wrong with CBU 105s but no facts to back that up, just not very successful with them at the moment. Will see what I can do with CBU 105 because I’ve only done a couple missions with them. I have not messed with any data files this is straight out of the box, so I would hold fire with criticizing 97s, and 87s for now, just my opinion.
Latest test with CBU 87s below, will try CBU 105s later I’m pooped.
-
@Kavelenko would love to see more details on how you deploy 87s and 97, the target type, aircraft altitude,speed, mode of delivery etc.
My findings didnt change much when i switch to 97s from 105s in my TE test scenerio against a tank battalion
-
@SyntaxErol Its highly classified, I could show you but then I’d need to kill you rofl.
-
@Kavelenko oh i would be suprised if you dont lol
-
@Kavelenko
Your debriefing screenshots don’t really help here.
Why don’t go you go ahead and record an ACMI so we can see what’s actually happening?cheers
Magic -
-
Sounds like maybe some DCS -type gamesmanship going on….
The -87 is for “softer” targets and lightly armored. The -97/105 is the one that should be getting a fair number of “mobility” kills on even heavily armored vehicles like tanks….
This is a topic being discussed among the devs…….
-
Regarding the JSOW, I just tried the training AIM mission. I set the JSOW to be launched SxS, 1500 ft distancing between them. Seems to be fine to me:
Unfortunately, as far as I know tacview does not have a ruler built in. Does it? If so we can check this precisely.
-
@Seifer no it doesn’t but I right clicked two trucks I dropped on in an ACMI and got their coordinates and found that according to Google earth they are 141.98 m apart in the 3 close together before larger interval spacing.
Also that larger interval of the D-30 next to these trucks is 125.71 m apart from the next closest and destroyed truck, with then what seems to be then back to the 42m spacing between those three D-30s, 126m meters to the next 3 so on throughout the column and probably same spacing the 3-3-3-3… stationary line column in BMS seems to have. I haven’t checked the 2-2-2-2… line column yet.
Since I was targeted on the center truck of the three (I have an ACMI if you need it), that means that both the other trucks are within a 50m radius, well with the published CBU-105 area of 460 m × 150 m (but any weapon specs are always have a grain of salt with them). But debatably the D-30 next to the trucks were possibly too far away at 168m from the center truck depending on drop axis if this data is accurate.
-
@Seifer said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
Unfortunately, as far as I know tacview does not have a ruler built in. Does it? If so we can check this precisely.
If you set each JSOW as a focus object, it will render a yardstick between the two … right?
I havn’t tested sxs alignment much … had mostly been doing lead/trail trying to target columns more effectively.
-
@airtex2019 I think he’s trying both have a way post flight to measure and possibly cross check distance from TGP display to 3d world distances
-
@Seifer I don’t know the details of how TacView shows ground targets like those trucks, but from the picture they are more or less right next to each other. So, say, no more than 20m=60 ft apart. Let’s say 100 ft=33m=3 truck lengths for good measure.
Using those distances to gauge your JSOW tracks , the tracks do not look to be 1500ft=500 m apart. Again, this could be TacView representation. Better choice for measurement would be a TGP picture with yardstick shown.
Also, I may be misremembering, but I think one issue that was raised regarding JSOWs was how the chosen Azimuth was not used. Did you by any chance set your Azimuth to the 300 or so degrees that the picture shows? If so, then that is definitely working
-
Speaking of spacing, the 2D recon screen shows a slant range of the picture which is the distance from edge to edge. Just zoom in to the column looking perpendicular That’s how it used to be. I haven’t looked at it in awhile. Sorry if this is off topic.
-
I’m not any my computer right now, but last night I discovered that if you select an object in Tacview, then press ctrl-shift it turns the mouse into some funky laser pointer with BE and other measurements - can’t recall if distance is one of them.
-
For the record, with shift control + mouse tacview shows lat lng. I took two parallel points and plotted here:
https://www.omnicalculator.com/other/latitude-longitude-distance
The result was:
which is roughly the same as the 1500ft distance I used.
-
@airtex2019 said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
Looking at ACMI… they come in on correct azimuth and with roughly desired separation, in the air / in time… but they burst/impact at almost the exact same spot.
This pair was launched az=270, ba=1200 ft, separation=3000 ft … for scale I believe this column is about 6000 ft long.
BTW, the reason I tested this was related to this post.
-
@Seifer said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
@airtex2019 said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
Looking at ACMI… they come in on correct azimuth and with roughly desired separation, in the air / in time… but they burst/impact at almost the exact same spot.
This pair was launched az=270, ba=1200 ft, separation=3000 ft … for scale I believe this column is about 6000 ft long.
BTW, the reason I tested this was related to this post.
https://forum.falcon-bms.com/post/363340
Sorry if I was unclear, that was a lead/trail deployment. They were separated in air (one behind the other) but followed the exact same path, and dealt damaged to the exact same spot on the column – which, notably was ~1500 ft west of the aim point. (expected: the 2nd jsow to hit about 1500 ft east of the aim point)
-
-
@mirv its good to know devs are avare and working on it. Thanks for your efforts.