CBU-87/105

[Sceptre]

I can't believe I never really used these bombs before. I was missing out. They are insanely powerful. Taking out multiple tanks with one bomb never gets old

[Yurgon]

That's true, these can be immensely powerful.

 

Probably just a typo, but the 105 is the wind corrected version of the 97.

 

The 87 and 103 are connected in the same way.

 

My experience says, CBU-87 and CBU-103 are hit and miss under most circumstances, while CBU-97 and CBU-105 can easily kill an entire convoy or a large group of targets. Which is not surprising, seeing as the 97's skeets have sensors and will fire on actual targets rather than just fall to the ground and explode, whether they hit something or not.

[Emmy]

The 97 only forms a shaped weapon if it senses armor. Otherwise, it explodes like a cluster munition or, IRL, it falls to the ground doing nothing and becomes inert so it can't be made into IEDs.

[Yurgon]

The 97 only forms a shaped weapon if it senses armor. Otherwise, it explodes like a cluster munition or, IRL, it falls to the ground doing nothing and becomes inert so it can't be made into IEDs.

 

I thought the main reason for the self-destruct (and self-disarm fallback timer) was to minimize civilian casualties, and not so much the IED-prevention. Though it sounds plausible that these two goals would go hand in hand.

[kylekatarn720]

meh, i always thought the "less civillian casulties" part is mostly there for the marketing purposes.

Edited January 10, 2018 by kylekatarn720

[Frederf]

BLU-97 cost about $70 per while SFW cost $8,000. One expects the UXO rate at 100x the cost to be much better (costs approximate). One full CBU is $15,000 vs. $400,000 cost difference.

 

SFW is supposed to explode 100% of the time, either over detected target or at 50' ground proximity if no target detected. Landing on the ground intact represents a failure of the mechanisms. Supposedly by design it should be relatively inert after failure (probably electrical drain down).