Couple of questions about the CBU 97

Why does the CBU 97 always seem to start with CCIP and not CCRP? When I have looked at demos on how to use this bomb they always use CCRP, so why isn't this the default when you load it up using the load dms?

Also, what causes the invalid message you get on your TGP. I remember reading about it, but I've totally forgot why you get this message > invalid or invalid fuzzing<

I can atm only guess, but isn't CCIP generally the default mode for the weapons? Only if CCIP is not possible or not really feasible, like for example JDAMS or INS guided weapons, the mode defaults to CCRP.

Perhaps they had loaded CBU 105s instead of CBU 97s?

The "Invalid" message is displayed - iirc - if your fuse settings can not be applied due to your current flight parameters. I.e. if your altitude is below the set HOF.

They were defiantly CBU 97's that were loaded, but do you use this bomb with CCRP, CCIP or can you use both modes? It's just the demos I've seen so far they are using CCRP, and I have to change it each time from CCIP to CCRP when I load them.

Most people use CCRP because targeting is easier since you designate the target beforehand. I generally only use CCIP in the consent mode, and even then really only for popup attacks.

Invalid fusing means you're attempting to release the bomb at or below the height of function (HOF), the point where it'd release the sub munitions. You can change the HOF in the DSMS inventory page.

People use CCRP mostly because they're usually not very good at putting the pipper on the target by flying the aircraft, or because making a demo is hard work and it takes a lot of concentration to put the pipper on the target, which is what it takes to make CCIP mode work.

After having played with CCIP consent mode a lot I've come to stop thinking of consent to release like its really separate from regular CCIP. When you use consent mode the dashed line exists so long as you are able to use it, however once you get past the point of being able to make that consent to release solution it defaults to standard CCIP. It means if you botched your CCIP CR attack run you still have the option to revert, and vice versa if you botch the roll in or general attrack approach on CCIP intending to just do a clean release you can change your approach on the fly and go for that CR release.

CCIP is extremely flexible, particularly when dealing with a terminal attack phase that is full of variables you aren't quite certain of, such as exactly where the enemy is. CCRP however is pretty much a "I know where everything is ahead of time" tool, and if you only ever follow that methodology then you're probably going to spend at least twice as much time up there as you need to.

PS. vis a vis HOF, owing to DCS' miserable simulation of high HOF settings on CBUs you're pretty much obliged to use low HOF, which coincidentally makes CCIP releases easier owing to the much lower hard deck limit to the fuzing.

... DCS' miserable simulation of high HOF settings on CBUs you're pretty much obliged to use low HOF, ...

Huh? What is wrong with it?

If you use high HOF you either miss with the 97 owing to wind drift or the 87 bomblets disperse too much and don't kill anything because they don't do enough damage or something to that effect.

If you use high HOF you either miss with the 97 owing to wind drift or the 87 bomblets disperse too much and don't kill anything because they don't do enough damage or something to that effect.

Yeah, but that is not a problem of how well these weapons, or more specifically how well the effect of different HOF settings are simulated. The higher the canister opens, the bigger the spread of the 87 submunitions.

Ok, maybe one could argue, the IFFCC should factor in the wind drift for the 97 submunitions hanging on their parachutes ... but is it doing that in reality? Never heared of that - or read any complaints in this regard (and there are a few comunity members that know exactly how it should work).

edit:

there are complaints and also bug reports concerning the effectiviness of the CBUs. But those are more about the mechanics how the 97 skeets are dispersed and their lacking to actually hit more than a few targets. And that the damaging potential is a bit low in general (both for 97 and 87). But all this has not much to do with HOF, afaik.

Yeah, but that is not a problem of how well these weapons, or more specifically how well the effect of different HOF settings are simulated. The higher the canister opens, the bigger the spread of the 87 submunitions.

Yet the effect of those submunitions doesn't appear to be representative of the real weapon, ergo a higher density than ought to be needed is required. Might have changed, but I don't use 87s very often.

Ok, maybe one could argue, the IFFCC should factor in the wind drift for the 97 submunitions hanging on their parachutes ... but is it doing that in reality? Never heared of that - or read any complaints in this regard (and there are a few comunity members that know exactly how it should work).

I can't speak to what the real system does but I don't know why the system can't correct for windage of a few parachutes when it can do it for ballutes and iron bombs. It would be doubly interesting is a very expensive WCMD attachment could bring the weapon right to where it should be just to miss by a mile because they can't compute parachute drift when they can compute dispersion of devices that subsequently disperse even more devices that then search and destroy targets in a predictable area of effect.

Given any wind condition at all (how often is there no wind above a few thousand feet?) it basically makes high HOF kind of pointless. Its one thing for humans to have to visually correct for iron bombs missing 50m left or right, but wind can carry a parachute quite far when it deploys at 3000 feet.

Regarding wind correction: I think, calculating the wind drift for iron bombs is relatively easy - they move fast and have little wind resistance.

But I would be surprised if wind drift is factored in when dropping retarded Mk-82. The air flow (general and cross wind) on these is probably highly chaotic and impossible to predict. Watch the dispersion pattern if you drop them from higher altitude - even without wind. (yes, I am aware that some even complain about this ... but to me it looks quite reasonable)

And the cbu submunitions (lighter, more drag and much slower than a Mk82AIR) with their parachutes are probably behaving even somewhat more chaotic when wind comes into play.

In short, I would not be too surprised if it is close to impossible to predict the behaviour of these weapons for more than a few seconds.

BTT: I also use CCRP for the CBU-97 most of the time. But sometimes when I'm doing classic CAS with strafing runs and without using the TGP and I encounter a suitable target for the CBU -97 I'll just switch to CCIP. I just did it yesterday to kill an approaching convoy.

You sound a bit like it is a big problem to switch between the two modes so maybe you don't know about the Master Mode Control Button on the stick? You can instantly switch between the modes by pressing it. No need to go to the DSMS page for that.

Regarding wind correction: I think, calculating the wind drift for iron bombs is relatively easy - they move fast and have little wind resistance.

 

But I would be surprised if wind drift is factored in when dropping retarded Mk-82. The air flow (general and cross wind) on these is probably highly chaotic and impossible to predict. Watch the dispersion pattern if you drop them from higher altitude - even without wind. (yes, I am aware that some even complain about this ... but to me it looks quite reasonable)

 

And the cbu submunitions (lighter, more drag and much slower than a Mk82AIR) with their parachutes are probably behaving even somewhat more chaotic when wind comes into play.

 

In short, I would not be too surprised if it is close to impossible to predict the behaviour of these weapons for more than a few seconds.

If its that hard to predict then thats a lot of expensive munitions that are basically useless in any kind of wind condition.

As for the MK82Airs, I know from a reliable source that their in-DCS ballistic behavior isn't wholly realistic.

Whats more I think you'd be surprised what can be predicted by modern computers.