bombs falling short

[silentbob11]

Hi

has anyone experienced bombs always falling short of target when using CCRP AUTO mode?

CCIP works fine for me but trying to bomb stuff with AUTO mode CCRP always results in bombs falling short and missing the targets.

 

SB11

[npole]

There's no guided or self-adjusted bombs, CCRP (Auto) is much less precise than CCIP.

Also be sure to not use the snake eye (retarded) bombs in CCRP without activating the RET ...in theory they can be used without it, but in practice they go all over the place.

[silentbob11]

There's no guided or self-adjusted bombs, CCRP (Auto) is much less precise than CCIP.

Also be sure to not use the snake eye (retarded) bombs in CCRP without activating the RET ...in theory they can be used without it, but in practice they go all over the place.

 

Hi npole

I know that dropping CCRP doesn't mean the bombs are self adjusted or guided, and I don't use RET bombs with CCRP... just plain ol' MK-83's or MK-84's - and they ALWAYS miss..:( I just wanted to know if I'm doing something wrong...or CCRP is just not a good method for accurate bombing :doh:

 

SB11

[VFA41_Lion]

CCRP is excellent when given actual good target coordinates as provided by an A/G radar or targeting pod. Designating waypoints or slewing around in the HUD is never going to be as good as those two

[silentbob11]

any ETA on the F-18 TGP? :bounce::bounce::bounce:

[npole]

Hi npole

I know that dropping CCRP doesn't mean the bombs are self adjusted or guided, and I don't use RET bombs with CCRP... just plain ol' MK-83's or MK-84's - and they ALWAYS miss..:( I just wanted to know if I'm doing something wrong...or CCRP is just not a good method for accurate bombing :doh:

 

SB11

 

You're not doing anything wrong and you're not alone. CCRP with unguided bombs are already a pain to use on an aircraft with the full set of sensors in order (A10C) and a working INS and wind correction, with the F18 that is far to be completed and without a TGP they are much less precise than using them with CCIP at a correct angle. In other words: it's "normal".

[Robin_Hood]

Interestingly, Jay Stout in his Hornets Over Kuwait seems to differ, saying visual HUD designation were the best (this is 1991):

 

Visual deliveries in the daytime are the most accurate. The pilot is able to see the target directly rather than through another sensor such as the FLIR or the radar. Generally, all squadron pilots will have a circular error of probability (CEP) of less than fifty feet when bombing visually.

(...)

FLIR bombing is the next most accurate.

Admittedly, this was with the other FLIR pod. And in case you're wondering if he's talking about CCIP, he talks several times about designating visually, and at lease sometimes makes it clear he's using the AUTO mode:

 

My plan was to roll in, break my radar designation (which I didn’t really need, and was less accurate than a visual designation), designate my target visually through the HUD, and make my attack.

I might add that in the book he often talks about bombing tanks and such one bomb at a time.

[VFA41_Lion]

in the real jet, designation via HUD might be way more precise than what we currently have, which would be nice

[sirrah]

CCRP is excellent when given actual good target coordinates as provided by an A/G radar or targeting pod. Designating waypoints or slewing around in the HUD is never going to be as good as those two

When I first started trying auto (ccrp) mode, I actually had several perfect hits with using the HUD slew method. Even some multiple ground target kills (setting bombs to multiple release and with the correct target spacing), which felt fantastic! :thumbup:

 

Unfortunately they seem to have been lucky hits, as during the weeks after that, I noticed that 90% of my "auto" bomb runs were absolute rubbish and I ended up with empty stores and all enemy targets still very much intact... :doh:

 

 

in the real jet, designation via HUD might be way more precise than what we currently have, which would be nice

If what NPOSuperhornet says, is true I really hope this inaccuracy will be fixed soon.

[Zyll]

Perhaps the upcoming JHMCS update will address this. Designating by looking at the target I mean.

[sirrah]

Perhaps the upcoming JHMCS update will address this. Designating by looking at the target I mean.

 

Will JHMCS also allow for ground target designation? Always thought is was only available for A/A targeting (excuse my ignorance)

[Zyll]

i'm not an authoritative source, but I read in an earlier non-ED post that the helmet system can be used for this purpose. Would love to hear more on this if its indeed true

[Dangerman]

It’s not just about marking the target correctly, it’s also about height channel. Best height sensor is forward firing to ascertain absolute slant range so targeting computer can resolve correct target parameters to release the weapon. Less accurate is a vertical channel for height and positional difference for lateral plane distance.

 

No idea what height the f18 system is using in various delivery modes. Doesn’t appear to be selectable or displayed. My previous types would tell you what is giving your height solution and it was selectable depending on delivery method.

 

A good but extreme example is watching the target diamond march across the ground because the HUD is drawing at the correct angle and correcting for the stored target altitude .....try it coming off a mountain range into low ground whilst at low level.

 

In summary, for any weapon delivery, you need a height parameter for weapon computer calculations. It’s about trigonometry

[Eldur]

The problem in a nutshell, as it's being shared across all modules in some way (pic by Frederf, p. 3, click image):