Whats wrong with new CCIP mode?

Why when i aiming with cross in CCIP mode on the target, DMT is showing me another spot?

And if i am slewing with DMT on the target the sight on the HUD is showing me empty space?

For God sake, why MK-81 is always going forward, behind the target?

Oh...

:pilotfly:

CCRP accuracy in the AV-8B using the ARBS really needs to be addressed soon. Any free fall weapon besides the MK-83 falls consistently either forward or aft of the designation even within very normal parameters.

Maybe RAZBAM made a little mistake again? Don't worry they will fix it soon, as promised 2 years ago ;-)

Not sure why the title is about CCIP, bc the issue is that DMT is putting the target box on the HUD in the wrong position, which has nothing to do with CCIP. You can do CCIP without using DMT at all; it's just easier.

Using DMT is pretty handy thou for CCIP as you just DESG the target WP and then on the way in you can have a bit of a nosy around the target area using the DMT for a better idea of what you will be looking at during your bombing run. Just a useful tool to use. Obviously if you are running in at 50' you won't see much - but you get the idea.

track file please lads :)

Using DMT is pretty handy thou for CCIP as you just DESG the target WP and then on the way in you can have a bit of a nosy around the target area using the DMT for a better idea of what you will be looking at during your bombing run. Just a useful tool to use. Obviously if you are running in at 50' you won't see much - but you get the idea.

The DMT is useful as it is the sensor to calculate you the accurate impact point by its rate so if you are not flying in a flat area, your bombs will fall off. And the benefit of the DMT on target is that you can do that low level bombing because you have the direction and distance of the target. So it doesn't come as surprise when the target appears suddenly, as you have the range to the target.

The DMT is critical for getting an accurate bombing solution. Otherwise you are relying on less accurate estimates of HOT and range to target.

Another thing that isn't modeled as far as I can tell is how long it takes the DMT to get an accurate solution, plus the inaccuracy in that solution. Its instant and perfect AFAIK, which isn't the case IRL. The TPOD which uses angle rate tracking displays a quality of fix indicator, not sure if the DMT displays that as I've never run across it in the tac-man but it makes sense that it takes a bit of time to get good slant range.

If you are going to use DMT on the target, there is no need to use CCIP. Use CCRP in a shallow dive. It is quite accurate.

If you are going to use CCIP you do not need DMT.

..

I figured it out. The answer is CLUSTER BOMBS and lots of em....

If you are going to use CCIP you do not need DMT.

I tend to disagree and so does 3-22.5-AV8B, Vol. I. To quote...

“In light of the accuracy of the ARBS system, the limitations of the radar altimeter, and the inaccuracies involved in ADC measurement, every weapons delivery should attempt use of DMT designation. In some scenarios lack of valid DMT designation should become one of your tactical abort criteria.”

Harlikwin summed it up nicely in post 8, and I believe it is what Fri13 was getting at also. In this aircraft with CCIP annunciated in the HUD the DMT is how the target elevation is computed, and it will provide generally better solutions than RCIP, GCIP, or BCIP.

Thanks Tom,

That's precisely why I've been hammering that whole bombing triangle thing with regards to the harrier/ARBS for these many months. I don't think I've seen evidence of the "other" (radar/baro/gps) ways to get a bombing solution even modeled in the harrier yet with regards to CCIP. So what you get is some near perfect solution anyway, which should very seldom be the case using those modes, unless you are over perfectly flat ground, and even then instrument inaccuracy should effect the solution by a decent amount. Per the "book" in order of decreasing sensor/solution accuracy, DMT slant range/HOT, GPSalt, Radar alt, baro alt.

Also from what I generally read IRL, the CCIP/AUTO conversion was used alot, you just used the CCIP mode to pickle the target, refine the target with the DMT as you dove in/re-attacked, and then dropped in auto mode. And at an educated guess the reason for doing it this may have been a training hold over from the older F4/A4/original ARBS pod way of doing it with their more limited hud displays on the A4M and the older F4s.

Also yes, long range hunting around with DMT/TPOD around an INS defined waypoint is what I do alot, especially with the TPOD due to its enhanced zoom/flir/gimbal capabilities.

Let me expand.

I use DMT exclusively for everything. CCIP uses it for target info. There is no point not to use it. It gives an accurate solution for CCRP CCIP. It is the correct way to use it.

But I wanted to see the result of turning off the DMT on exactly the same targets to see what difference there was and if it was useable.

Using mk 83 with CCRP, CCIP(DMT) and GCIP(no DMT), all in shallow dives. It was difficult to tell any difference in accuracy.

While there is no point in not useing DMT, you don't need it. It can be used without.

..

Let me expand.

 

 

I use DMT exclusively for everything. CCIP uses it for target info. There is no point not to use it. It gives an accurate solution for CCRP CCIP. It is the correct way to use it.

 

Yes...

But I wanted to see the result of turning off the DMT on exactly the same targets to see what difference there was and if it was useable.

 

 

Using mk 83 with CCRP, CCIP(DMT) and GCIP(no DMT), all in shallow dives. It was difficult to tell any difference in accuracy.

 

 

While there is no point in not useing DMT, you don't need it. It can be used without.

I'm not sure if you are trying to make my point for me and we are in agreement or not.

In game yes, it does exactly what you say, you don't need the DMT/ARBS. This is wrong.

IRL you should be missing by a decent margin using only CCIP and no ARBS lock unless you are bombing over perfectly level ground. Because without the ARBS lock your MC (bombing computer) Assumes that the planes Height Over Target (HOT) is equal to your altitude over ground based on GPS/radar/Baro (which all have error). And is almost never the case. (yes in the desert it can be pretty good)

Since you seem to have more free time than me, why not test this. Setup an attack on a hilltop target, make sure the run in is over flat ground and the target is elevated by 1000 ft or more. Using CCIP without the ARBS lock you should miss by a decent margin, especially in a shallow dive.

Agreement I think.

Rather dissapointingly, the results were the same.

I had targets at 40' 5000' 7000' and on top of a 9000' mountain. If there is any difference, it's not much.

Never mind, the actual CCIP to CCRP with DMT thing seems to be OK.

I like the fact you can use it as a marker without dropping anything, slew onto the target and lock it then change to CCRP.

..

..

Agreement I think.

 

Never mind, the actual CCIP to CCRP with DMT thing seems to be OK.

I like the fact you can use it as a marker without dropping anything, slew onto the target and lock it then change to CCRP.

..

That's my understanding of how it was used IRL. 90% of drops were in CCRP.

The DMT is critical for getting an accurate bombing solution. Otherwise you are relying on less accurate estimates of HOT and range to target.

 

Another thing that isn't modeled as far as I can tell is how long it takes the DMT to get an accurate solution, plus the inaccuracy in that solution. Its instant and perfect AFAIK, which isn't the case IRL. The TPOD which uses angle rate tracking displays a quality of fix indicator, not sure if the DMT displays that as I've never run across it in the tac-man but it makes sense that it takes a bit of time to get good slant range.

We are still lacking many of these limitations on DCS, and lots of things might change once we get a new weather system implemented as moisture and winds etc gets calculate more deeply, Mekong we should start to see a lot of inaccurate bombing from longer ranges, higher altitudes even when using guide munitions.

I could think of that ARBS requires 2-4 seconds to track target (need to fly in angle instead toward it) and calculate a valid release point while pilot is required to keep aircraft steady.

And then we have the problem in DCS for requirement for accuracy. In reality a 155mm shell, that weight is about 40kg, can destroy a tank from operation by 30-50m distance of impact. Yet we need to drop 250kg bomb top of the MBT to get it destroyed, as we do not have anything between damaged and dead.

We should really get the damage modeling and fragments modeled via raytracing etc so you could do lots of damage with rockets, far distance misses etc.

One thing that is nice in KA-50 Shkval is that once you turn out of the gimbal limits and then back, your targeting gate might have moved so you need to target again.

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

Yeah, sensors of every sort have piss poor modeling in DCS.

A few seconds for an initial solution and then further refinement through the kallman filter for the ARBS seems reasonable at high angle rate changes. But its basically instant at the moment, and prefect, I'd expect the ARBS to have error rates 2-3x larger than an LRF at best depending on the actual range. The other ARBS/TPOD issue not modeled is ranging with very low angular track rate change (coming head on to a target, which is especially relevant in the CCIP discussion). IIRC it can't range with a rate less than 2mrad/sec.

And yeah I look forward to the day frag damage, and actual damage modeling make it to DCS.