The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of)
-
@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.
-
-
Finally got around to testing the CBU-105 in U2. I didn’t expect it to be fixed looking at the change logs, but it is definitely still an issue.
-
@Snake122 what I saw when I read this post on my laptop:
woohoo!
what I saw when I looked again, on larger screen
definitely still an issue
doh!
-
@airtex2019 sorry for burying the lede!
-
-
-
@Snake122 said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
Finally got around to testing the CBU-105 in U2. I didn’t expect it to be fixed looking at the change logs, but it is definitely still an issue.
Agree…
but we need more explaination from Dev if the BA has influence or not on covered area…
I read that the BA (Burst Altitude) is calculated from sea level according Badboy…
while I see in the BMS doc " Burst altitudes are in feet Above Ground Level (AGL)"
linkFrom my feedback, no real impact on number of destroyed/damaged targets…
It seems to affect all cluster bombs in my knowledge…more, the effiency of CBUs remain very poor as if damages could not be caused without direct impact…making all these ammunitions de facto usable for its intended using.
from my point of view, I’d like the documentation to be much more explicit and to focus on what’s functional in the game…from this point of view, I find that the documentation is a notch below what was done by Reddog in the past: it was much clear …overall, that’s my feeling.
-
@suhkoi69 said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
but we need more explaination from Dev if the BA has influence or not on covered area…
it does
I read that the BA (Burst Altitude) is calculated from sea level according Badboy…
while I see in the BMS doc " Burst altitudes are in feet Above Ground Level (AGL)"AGL is correct
It seems to affect all cluster bombs in my knowledge…more, the effiency of CBUs remain very poor
public references are welcome
-
-
@suhkoi69 That’s a great find, very interesting !
-
@suhkoi69 said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
@Tumbler31 https://ffi-publikasjoner.archive.knowledgearc.net/bitstream/handle/20.500.12242/2069/07-02345.pdf
Thanks, according to page 65 a cbu97/105 covers 80000m2, being a circle with 160 radius filled with 40 skeets. Around 2 to 4 hits are needed for a kill (page 53).
So 10 to 20 kills in that circle but the distribution is not uniform over the circle. So that requires some reduction as well.
I didn’t check the spacing of the vehicles in BMS, but I hope there aren’t 20 in combat formation in such a small space.
td;lr, with combat formation of vehicles, I would assume limited kills by a CBU 97/105
-
@Tumbler31 I measured it out in this post, the problem is that it is not a radius , it’s an oval(yes though with some holes in it). My previous research should 460mx150m area and I believe we should be seeing more kills on the line columns especially that were within area, especially if attacked parallel on the axis of foward travel that causes the elongation, but even then regardless when the smaller side of the effective radius should result in more kills with neighboring vehicles, not to the level of old JSOW or DCS CBU-97/105, but slightly more effective. IMO, the 3-3-3 line columns should result in all three damaged almost all of the time and occasionally one of the next vehicle in the next group, or both of the 2 in 2-2-2 lines with occasional hits on the neighboring 2.
Right now the GBU-12 is just as effective as a single 500lb warhead, which honestly seems like a little too effective if two modern tanks are in 2-2-2 column, that seems a little too effective, I don’t think the splash damage of one direct hit T-80 especially is going to take out a neighboring one, but I’m not sure. Right now, if I can lase the target, a GBU-12 will kill just as many tanks as a CBU-97/105.
@Snake122 said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
@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.
-
@Tumbler31 in this document, we can notice 3main effects produced by cluster bomblets: direct impact & fragmentation & blast.
concerning direct impact, the goal of weapon is to destroy mainly armored vehicule but strongly dependant to the direct hit probabilty
for the others effects, the soft & semi soft target and people are aimed with high kill probability in the covered area …