Possible to get 'in range' with air-to-ground gun without going below 'pull up cue'?

Thanks much Wags, 2 very usefull videos.

In a permissive environment (i.e. no or very limited air and ground threats), CCIPing dumb ammo can still be effective. With a tight system you could get reasonable accuracy during visual deliveries. The taxpayers like to see good use of their money and when a good ole Mk82 can do the job, you save them a lot compared to using a GBU-12 or -38.

Last time I saw an actual dumb bomb dropped in combat was 2003, and that was because they were dropping so much we were literally running out of LGBs. Not saying it isn’t done, but GBUs are the norm even in the air superiority evironments we are currently doing business in. The thoughts of the tax payer aren’t really in the decision tree on that.

In a permissive environment (i.e. no or very limited air and ground threats), CCIPing dumb ammo can still be effective. With a tight system you could get reasonable accuracy during visual deliveries. The taxpayers like to see good use of their money and when a good ole Mk82 can do the job, you save them a lot compared to using a GBU-12 or -38.

Ah yes, thanks for your response.

Last time I saw an actual dumb bomb dropped in combat was 2003, and that was because they were dropping so much we were literally running out of LGBs. Not saying it isn’t done, but GBUs are the norm even in the air superiority evironments we are currently doing business in.

...emphasis on "currently". There simply has been no campaign of a scale that the same issue as in 2003 would resurface. It was the case in 1991 as well, even though, admittedly, LGBs were just integrated into some fleets at that time.

The thoughts of the tax payer aren’t really in the decision tree on that.

I'd argue that they are since otherwise why do the armed forces still purchase and maintain and train Mk80 series bombs when money is not an issue?

...emphasis on "currently". There simply has been no campaign of a scale that the same issue as in 2003 would resurface. It was the case in 1991 as well, even though, admittedly, LGBs were just integrated into some fleets at that time.

 

 

 

I'd argue that they are since otherwise why do the armed forces still purchase and maintain and train Mk80 series bombs when money is not an issue?

To reference response #1, the units are dropping more currently than we did during OIF ops, so your thoughts don’t really match the reality of what’s happening in the AOR. And we aren’t facing armor and a surface/air threat either. There’s way more ability to do that sort of stuff now than there ever was.

To reference #2, aircrew still have currencies to drop ordnace. There are times they a flown and not dropped, just for the added weight. Same for flying with external tanks vs not. Much of that is like a checkride, they have to check boxes to stay qualified. Those BDUs can be dropped as dumb iron, or adding nose/tail kits and they are fairly often. What is done during peacetime is a lot different from execution in theatre. Not simulated in anything but the A-10 to my knowledge in flight sims, many have training PACS also where we can load practically any simulated weapon you want on the aircraft. That still doesnt meet the requirement for actual drops, which is where the dumb bombs fall in. It’s a perishable item, and their requirments to drop a “good” bomb are way more stringent that gets simulated by 99% of folks in the sim world. Tons of other reasons like range capabilities, etc. Doesnt mean any of that is taken into account when things are real in the AOR.

Appreciate the discussion, Rainmaker. When I talked about dumb bombs being still in the inventory I did refer to Mk82 (in all its variants), Mk83 and Mk84. I was not talking about the inert training BDUs and I think I know when and why these are used in training instead of the multitude of live bombs they are supposed to simulate.

I have no doubt that in all campaigns of this century mostly PGMs were dropped by allied forces and probably only a very limited number of unguided bombs.The reasons I think can be found in areas of availability, collateral damage control and possibly simply the prevailing types of missions (CAS) and the general order of battle in the big picture. The conflict I had in mind was a sovereign nation vs a sovereign nation, somewhat like the 1991 Gulf War. In the 2000s, we‘ve basically seeing counter-insurgency warfare exclusively.

Nevertheless, obviously some folks in charge believe that Mk80 series bombs might still be used today or tomorrow. And so do I. Otherwise, and I ask that question again since I haven‘t read an answer to it, why on earth would you maintain a stockpile of these guys? Why would you waste ammo storage for them (which has to be owned, maintained, secured, checked), even on aircraft carriers where space is a luxury? Why would you train airmen and pilots how to build, maintain, arm and employ these weapons if there clearly is no use case for them anymore?

Again, I appreciate the discussion.

Appreciate the discussion, Rainmaker. When I talked about dumb bombs being still in the inventory I did refer to Mk82 (in all its variants), Mk83 and Mk84. I was not talking about the inert training BDUs and I think I know when and why these are used in training instead of the multitude of live bombs they are supposed to simulate.

 

I have no doubt that in all campaigns of this century mostly PGMs were dropped by allied forces and probably only a very limited number of unguided bombs.The reasons I think can be found in areas of availability, collateral damage control and possibly simply the prevailing types of missions (CAS) and the general order of battle in the big picture. The conflict I had in mind was a sovereign nation vs a sovereign nation, somewhat like the 1991 Gulf War. In the 2000s, we‘ve basically seeing counter-insurgency warfare exclusively.

 

Nevertheless, obviously some folks in charge believe that Mk80 series bombs might still be used today or tomorrow. And so do I. Otherwise, and I ask that question again since I haven‘t read an answer to it, why on earth would you maintain a stockpile of these guys? Why would you waste ammo storage for them (which has to be owned, maintained, secured, checked), even on aircraft carriers where space is a luxury? Why would you train airmen and pilots how to build, maintain, arm and employ these weapons if there clearly is no use case for them anymore?

 

Again, I appreciate the discussion.

I’m a little fuzzy on your question? Are you asking why we would continue to keep MK series bombs in the stockpile? If so, that’s a pretty easy question, all your common gbu series bombs are made from the common MK series bomb bodies. The difference is adding the nose/tail kits as applicable to being GPS/laser guided. The exeptuon are the SDBs, JSOWs, etc.

Well, I think it was clear why I posed those questions to you after you sort of disputed my response to Dawgie79‘s question whether there still is a case for dumb bombs when PGM is available. If not, pls read again iand put it onto the context of the discussion.

And no, I don‘t mean usage of the „body“ of an Mk83 to turn it into a GBU-16 but I mean a Mk83 dropped as a Mk83...„dumb but deadly“ as I‘d say when employed correctly and under suitable conditions.

From my experience from naval aviation ordnance, I can say a few things... and unfortunately some things I still can't.

Starting from Desert Storm/Southern Watch, the aspect of weapons delivery from a stand-off perspective had been favored. While the GBU/LGB armaments were inherently more expensive, it mitigated the risk of pilots' lives and expensive aircraft directly in harm's way.

Keep in mind that the majority of the pieces of the LGB/GBU include the tail fin and bomb body itself of the general purpose bomb. The largest difference was the assembly at the nose of the weapon. During this time frame there was the SLAM missile an upgraded and longer range variant of the Harpoon missile, the Walleye ER with stand off range, the HARM missile, not to mention the JDAM, JSOW and quite a few extended range gliding munitions and their variations.

While working in the Weapons department for a Naval Air Station for some F/A-18s, there was a large shift in focus to stand-off range for ground weapons and was continuing to develop these programs for the future. It's reasonable to assume that (in reality) some of these areas were before this shift in thinking, but as more modern scenarios arise, ED will have to address this change in the way of adding the armaments and weapons that were represented during this paradigm shift. By the looks of it to me, they are starting to address this with adding JDAM (hopefully the Harpoon/SLAM ER as well) - and to be honest, I'm excited to see how this pans out.

Thanks Gunner for your input. I understand and agree to it all. Again, I am not arguing dumb bombs are better or more effective in general than guided and/or standoff munition. That‘s a no-brainer, the advantages of precision-guided and standoff weapons are clear (even to a virtual pilot like me who has been shot down at least a hundred times in A-10C CCIP‘ing...).

My whole point is there might still be, as limited and small as they might be - scenarios in the future where you could just bomb a target in CCIP with a Mk83. At least as long as there is a reasonable difference in the total mission cost of employing a dumb Mk83 compared to a GBU-16 or -32.

Well, I think it was clear why I posed those questions to you after you sort of disputed my response to Dawgie79‘s question whether there still is a case for dumb bombs when PGM is available. If not, pls read again iand put it onto the context of the discussion.

 

And no, I don‘t mean usage of the „body“ of an Mk83 to turn it into a GBU-16 but I mean a Mk83 dropped as a Mk83...„dumb but deadly“ as I‘d say when employed correctly and under suitable conditions.

That’s why I pointed out that it’s not common practice in theatre for unguided munitions to be used. Just not something that is done anymore. If we aren’t doing it now, there’s not really a reason for us to do it later either unless we are forced to. By force, I mean availabilty of munitions, not concern for taxpayer dollars.

As for why we still drop slick munitions, see my earlier discussions. There’s still currencies to be met, and some courses like the B-courses commonly drop with like events as part of their course ciriculum. Slicks/inert weapons often meet that criteria, so not a lot of reason to load guidance kits on them...although it is still done.

Outside of that, not sure exactly what you are looking for. AOR is different from peace time training. If you think they should be saving money by dropping slicks, that’s something you’ll have to take up with the badge wearing mission planners. I can tell you, from a fair amount of experienece, that it’s just not how those decisions are made.

Again, I appreciate your efforts to respond, Rainmaker. I apologize for not being able to explain what I meant in a way that would allow you to understand what I meant.

Anyway, let‘s keep it at that.

I think the main takeaway is that dumb bombs would for sure be used in full war. As rainmaker said before, that's why aircrew maintain proficiency in using those weapons. For all ops, there's a risk level given in the SPINS for operating within a MEZ, operating below X altitude, etc. Of course for something like Syria, default ALR is low, so you can't operate below X altitude without approval from Y but under certain circumstances you don't need approval from Y to elevate risk level. Right now we're trying to minimize collateral damage at low risk, which absolutely requires PGMs because you need to hit a small spot from 20k+. You can get near PGM accuracy in a dive-bomb with a Mk82 because the aircraft computers are really damn good at predicting an impact point, but not when you're at medium altitude without precise wind measurements every 1,000ft. From an old F-111 WSO I've talked to, during Desert Storm F-16s would storm an airfield day after day without any good effects, but a single 4-ship of F-111s would make the whole area unusable. Nobody was allowed to go below 20,000ft, so a dumb bomb is missing by 100m at least in a level delivery. F-111s really were the tip of the spear until F-15Es got their TPODs and LGBs.

Just look at these dudes having a grand old time lol

the answer is money.

Fixed in today's update - as promised! Thanks a lot, guys.

Hog_No32 & Rainmaker, thank you both for your interesting discussion, reason I asked was because I guess I didn't (still don't actually) see a real reason for dumb bombs over smart ones. At least, nowadays.

Nevertheless, just tried a few bombing runs, definitely noticed a difference in the pull-up cue and break X logic, for the better. Went almost as easy as Wags showed in his vids. ;)

In practice, a "good pilot" can drop a dumb bomb almost as accurately as an LGB. Delivery methods are almost, if not, identical. Practically, laser guidance is more an insurance policy than a necessity.

Atleast this applies for marine earth movers circa turn of the century. Given other services delivery pholosophyies and their proficiency, results may vary. ;)

In practice, a "good pilot" can drop a dumb bomb almost as accurately as an LGB. Delivery methods are almost, if not, identical. Practically, laser guidance is more an insurance policy than a necessity.

 

Atleast this applies for marine earth movers circa turn of the century. Given other services delivery pholosophyies and their proficiency, results may vary. ;)

Not from 25,000ft, they can't. Even from 10,000ft, if the computer perfectly computes the trajectory and the pilot releases with the pipper exactly in the middle of the target, wind differences across altitudes and bomb imperfections will buy a much larger miss than an LGB.