The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of)
-
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.
-
@Snake122 said…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.
Hee hee. Dude…!
Look at the big brain on The Snakeman…!
-
@airtex2019 said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
@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)
Because it’s so dark and overcast, in that IAM training TE, it’s hard to see what’s happening…
I’ve tried a few daytime missions with JSOW in lead/trail, and it seems to behave (mostly) as expected. Confusing… maybe something weird about that TR mission, idk.
-
Guys, had some time to take a look, it seems you have AGL vs ASL problem.
Simple TE test with cbu-87/97,agm-154,mk-20. vs trucks.When all of weapons used default BA , none hit , maybe 1 truck…
Since terrain was 1960ft or so, tried using 2500ft for BA … and … KABOOM. All targets destroyed.
Trucks were in groups of 3 in triangle , so less <500 ft between furthest. - per tacview,
Any CBU can’t miss that, yet in default setup BA 700ft … sometimes only 1 was hit, -> usually one that took direct hit., but others were unharmed.So… there’s that.
BTW, can someone post Tacview bug/feature for, … here’s the case.
When first time in “bubble” of targets (trucks,apc,tanks) … all is ok, can get object info in telemetry.,
But, first time you exit “bubble” , tacview sense and declare targets destroyed…(greyed out)… ok … but!, when you return for another pass, again enter bubble, targets become red again, but no telemetry data avail, even they are perfect legal targets …So, exiting bubble (greyed out) marks target destroyed even they are not. , they become red (alive again) when you come back in bubble, just no telemetry available anymore, since probably they “died” before. - well, not kinda a feature? if can repair that ok.
-
@airtex2019 I also tried the azimuth just to make sure. Set first pair to az 300:
Second pair, azimuth 240:
Seems to be working fine as well. Someone also asked about EGEA, and I confirm, it is related to the waypoint altitude (AGL), not sea level (it reads the altitude for the coordinate and adds to EGEA setting).
I guess we can go back to the CBU again.
-
@white_fang said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
Guys, had some time to take a look, it seems you have AGL vs ASL problem.
Simple TE test with cbu-87/97,agm-154,mk-20. vs trucks.When all of weapons used default BA , none hit , maybe 1 truck…
Since terrain was 1960ft or so, tried using 2500ft for BA … and … KABOOM. All targets destroyed.
Trucks were in groups of 3 in triangle , so less <500 ft between furthest. - per tacview,
Any CBU can’t miss that, yet in default setup BA 700ft … sometimes only 1 was hit, -> usually one that took direct hit., but others were unharmed.So… there’s that.
With specifically the CBU-105, the original topic of this thread? I believe what you are reporting with other CBUs but it’s either the 105 specifically or possibly all the WCMDs.
I’ve tried the CBU-105 from multiple elevations from almost sea level to 5000+ feet. Burst altitudes shouldn’t be elevation dependant, the manual confirms this and the radar altimeter fuzing IRL backs this up too. Even with default, 1800’ and 3000’ burst settings, I can still only kill 2 trucks aimed at the the center truck on the 3s intervals line column which all three are measured to be within the smaller dimension of the expected kill zone.
-
Hmm… yes and no,. CBU-105 / CBU-97 are totally different weapons, in reality not so much, but in BMS - a lot.
I admit haven’t test CBU-105, but will do when I get the chance.
(CBU-104 is totally different kind of beast - mimics cluster like JP233 - probably for testing purposes)CBU-97 behaves like any “dumb” cluster, I’ve just raised hit percentage for tracked/wheeled to 55 as per skeeter sensor emu.
But other then that, it showed real results only when BA alt set above ASL, so no radar alt fuze per se. pure dumb.
What @Seifer said above, system steerpoint alt for AGM-154A + EGEA… well, I cannot confirm same behavior… BUT! , my testing was different , I’ve used preplanned steerpoint above target - so steerpoint (also stp alt) was over a target, IF that play a role.
But then what about, if STP is miles from target , then slewed with TGP over to target area , RADAR ranging alt in FCR, no laser.
What alt will system use ?Again, even AGM-154A didn’t show use of “smart” (radar alt) fuzing (EGEA 700 + AGL didn’t kinda work as expected), - no kills, only 1 kill
.-only when set EGEA to 2500 ft = ~600ft AGL (btw. that is max for egea -154A)
. - only then all 3 simple trucks were killed, in cca 500ft radius ! - no any other tweaks to weapon.I have it all recorded and reviewed in ACMI. , I have no other explanation, … maybe someone will throw more light to this, but for now I’m convinced that BA uses ASL(MSL) -and, well, that’s no good
-btw mental note - for testing purposes, put target (trucks) on 3000+ft or above , and then try to cluster the bastards with all of the above … see how that goes.
-
@white_fang so please try the CBU-105 and report back. The thread in a good way got a little detailed into the AGM-154 and some others, like @Kavelenko’s reports too. They were good discussion and seems at least most the dumb CBUs and the JSOWs are working properly, but still no one has been able to get the 105 to perform as expected.
-
@Snake122
M8, you were absolutely right. Those CBU-105 worth piece of ass.
Dropped 4 of them on that same trucks… none destroyed… NONE.
Those trucks are in circle 125m , TGP frag. <500ft in Tacview, 1 got hit , but not destroyed … AFTER 4 bombs.Tried to “equalize” CBU97 stuff into 105… same. No bloody idea , other then , it may bee a bug in the code.
CBU-97 - same (similar) params,… got them burning , not quite the way I would like… but, yeah … some kills finally.
When would, like, estimate a footprint for typical CBU… well, my honest guess would be 300x150m ~ (1000x500 ft) - of course, those margins at outer radius, significantly lower pk…
.-But all those trucks should be dead.Now I don’t see any reason to pursue this, other then devs take a look into it…
U1…
-
Thanks for testing and confirming on your end too!
-
@white_fang said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
When would, like, estimate a footprint for typical CBU… well, my honest guess would be 300x150m ~ (1000x500 ft) - of course, those margins at outer radius, significantly lower pk…
.-But all those trucks should be dead.Yeah something’s off. The Threat Guide mentions a killzone of 500x1200 ft (that is per bomb!). I would assume that the closer you are to the epicenter, the more damage.
Besides that, I think it is very good that you test on trucks, then there is not so much to discuss related to damage calculations (with or without armor). Those things should take damage
-
@Snake122 My opinion for what its worth is that there is something wrong with JSOWs and the CBU-105, perhaps if the JSOWs are solved it will fix both weapons or vice versa. I’ve posted 3 briefing results from the same TE Mission that consists of 7 tank Battalions, in reasonably close proximity but not on top of each other.
The final result I posted was the most effective for one reason, and that was because I rippled 8 CBU-87s inline with the main column, in a single pass. Impact spacing: 900ft, BA: 2500ft. The previous tests were less because I was dropping single CBU’s on different sections, which took multiple passes, second result(66) was a little better by dropping them in pairs.My SMS settings, deployed from 19,000ft.
-
@Kavelenko are the JSOWs only getting 2 truck kills per bomb now? I knew they were nerfed, but not quite that nerfed/bugged as CBU-97/105 and performing a little better better especially with targeting softer vehicles and adjusting attack axis effecting coverage (although maybe that’s bugged some) as discussed in this thread but I can’t find the kill numbers now.
-
@Snake122 I haven’t tested JSOWs in 4.37. I stopped using them against armor in 4.36 when I discovered they were nerfed, I use them on A-A defense mainly but we never run low in our campaigns now.
I adapted to flying Campaigns without them which is a pity; they were a lot of fun.
-