F-18 vs. A-10 Cluster bombs

[ac5]

Are really the cluster bombs that can carry the a-10 so hugely much efficient than the ones

that can carry the F-18?

 

With any of the cluster bombs of the A-10, even with default settings, I manage to destroy most

of the trucks in the included missions.

 

With any of the cluster bombs of the F-18, even with different HT settings, altitude, etc.. I manage to destroy not mote than one or two trucks.....

TestCBU.zip

[Tippis]

Yes.

 

For the A-10C, you have the CBU-97 — a 900+ pound container for 40 self-targeting murder bots.

For the F/A-18C, you have the CBU-99 — a less-than-500 pound container of 247 shaped-charge unguided free-fall bomblets.

 

Just dividing the weight among the submunitions (setting aside the rather drastic difference in how much the differing delivery vehicles work and weigh), you get a very rough picture of how much explosives is in each bomblet. Unless it's a direct hit, they do nothing, and the ones in the CBU-97 are not just packing more punch, but are also far more likely to actually hit (since they have sensor packages attached to make them fire directly at vehicles).

 

And that's before we even get into the DCS damage model, where cluster bombs in general are horribly weak since only hitpoint damage counts — blast effects, shrapnel, and other nasty bonuses count for pretty much nothing and there are no psychological effects at all. So a single solid hit counts for a lot; tons of very small hits count for very little (and the way the bombs themselves work, you won't get tons of hits, even from lots of submunitions).

 

So yes, the difference between how much the murder-bot CBU-97 (to say nothing of the -105) can kill compared to the tiny bb-shotgun that is the CBU-99, is… significant.

 

e: A quick wiki:ing suggest that each bomblet in the CBU-99 contains 180g of explosives; for the CBU-97 skeets, it's 950g. In the case of the former, you're lucky if more than one hits any given unit; in the latter, it's reasonably likely that multiple skeets will target (and hit) the same unit.

Edited May 26, 2019 by Tippis

[pimp]

This is why I feel the A-10C is the best in DCS regarding moving mud. The A-G configuration is unmatchable IMO. It's just too damn slow for me.

[Harker]

The Hornet's CBU options are... unfortunate (IRL, not because of ED). I almost never use CBU's in the Hornet, but I very often carry a couple in the A-10C. Like the guy above me said, the CBU-97 (and its GPS guided variant, the CBU-105) are capable of massive amounts of precise, horror inducing, untold destruction.

Since fragmentation isn't modeled in DCS, CBU's like the -87, -99 and the Mk20 are kinda useless, in my opinion and circumstantial at best.

So it's not your fault. You can improve your CBU performance in the Hornet by flying a precise delivery profile (HT-1500, ~35 degrees dive, ~500knots), but ultimately, you're limited by the weapon.

[QuiGon]

The DCS F-16 will get the the CBU-97/-105.

[DeathAngel1]

The A-10 has CBU-97, which is way better than F-18s CBU-99 or Mk-20.

[StandingCow]

The DCS F-16 will get the the CBU-97/-105.

 

 

F-16C is getting the CBU-105 SFW per Wag's post in that section. That weapon is apparently specifically designed to take out sections of tanks. It's a 1k pound bomb filled with guided munitions.

[QuiGon]

F-16C is getting the CBU-105 SFW per Wag's post in that section. That weapon is apparently specifically designed to take out sections of tanks. It's a 1k pound bomb filled with guided munitions.

I know, it's the same as the CBU-97, just with INS/GPS-guidance. We have both bombs available with the A-10C in DCS for 10+ years and they eat tanks like nothing else does.

[Tippis]

…nothing else except the AGM-154B. There was a reason why its exclusion caused such a stir, after all. ;)

 

Granted, it carries fewer BLUs, but being able to chuck it from 20nm away takes some of the sting away from that loss.

Edited May 27, 2019 by Tippis

[EcceHomo]

After the abolition of AGM-154B, the Navy did not get better cluster bombs.

 

Before the ground damage model was upgraded, cluster bombs were very ineffective.

[silverdevil]

AGM-154B has a cost of $400,000+ and most surely would not be employed against tanks. and cancelled as pointed out by a previous poster. high threat / value targets would be why this weapon is used. however they do employ bomblets. SAMS SCUDS etc

Edited May 27, 2019 by silverdevil

[ac5]

Well, THANK YOU VERY MUCH INDEED TO YOU ALL

for the very thorough explanations! :smartass::thumbup:

 

It is pretty clear that the A-10 is an aircraft specifically designed for

air-to ground missions, but if The DCS F-16 will get the the CBU-97/-105,

why are those not usable with the F-18?

[Revelation]

Well, THANK YOU VERY MUCH INDEED TO YOU ALL

for the very thorough explanations! :smartass::thumbup:

 

It is pretty clear that the A-10 is an aircraft specifically designed for

air-to ground missions, but if The DCS F-16 will get the the CBU-97/-105,

why are those not usable with the F-18?

 

Because the Navy doesn't use the 97/105 in real life.

[ac5]

Because the Navy doesn't use the 97/105 in real life.

 

I see... so is the F-18 modelled in DCS used only by the Navy?

[Revelation]

I see... so is the F-18 modelled in DCS used only by the Navy?

 

That is correct; it was based off of the US Navy variant.

[Tippis]

I see... so is the F-18 modelled in DCS used only by the Navy?

Barely even they. Only ten of the one modelled in DCS were ever produced. DCS has a long tradition of doing that: modelling planes that hardly even existed to begin with (which makes it even the funnier when the whole appeal to what is and is not used in the real world comes up). :D

[ac5]

Barely even they. Only ten of the one modelled in DCS were ever produced. DCS has a long tradition of doing that: modelling planes that hardly even existed to begin with (which makes it even the funnier when the whole appeal to what is and is not used in the real world comes up). :D

 

Well, I guess they model the planes for wich they can get the data,,,

I guess this is not an easy job.

And they are making an excellent job.....

Well, I am at least happy that it seems that I was not doing anything wrong with those

F-18 CBU's...

[umkhunto]

An important thing to remember with the MK-20 and CBU-99 is their HoF is fixed at 1500ft. The HT setting in stores management only purpose is to set the DUD cue. It has nothing to do with the HoF. So when you set up your Rockeyes, you need to always set your DUD queue to 1500.

 

Next important factor is your delivery profile. Dive at your target with at about 25-35 degrees of nose down pitch, then release between 2500-3500ft. Once you start doing that consistently you will get much better results with the Rockeyes.

[FalconPlot16]

cbu 99 is almost like a dumb bomb by its effect, cbu 97 is a cheating bomb in dcs

[ac5]

An important thing to remember with the MK-20 and CBU-99 is their HoF is fixed at 1500ft. The HT setting in stores management only purpose is to set the DUD cue. It has nothing to do with the HoF. So when you set up your Rockeyes, you need to always set your DUD queue to 1500.

 

Next important factor is your delivery profile. Dive at your target with at about 25-35 degrees of nose down pitch, then release between 2500-3500ft. Once you start doing that consistently you will get much better results with the Rockeyes.

 

Yes, but even respecting all this parameters, the CBU‘s usable with the A-10 abd eventually with (seems) the F-16 are in any case much more efficient, as explained by many others in this thread.

[BuzzU]

Barely even they. Only ten of the one modelled in DCS were ever produced. DCS has a long tradition of doing that: modelling planes that hardly even existed to begin with (which makes it even the funnier when the whole appeal to what is and is not used in the real world comes up). :D

 

 

I didn't know that. Why so few of what we have?

[umkhunto]

Yes, but even respecting all this parameters, the CBU‘s usable with the A-10 abd eventually with (seems) the F-16 are in any case much more efficient, as explained by many others in this thread.

Oh of course. The Rockeyes come from the 60's and are basically just like a shotgun, whereas the CBU-97/105 is practically Skynet. But still have good results with the Rockeyes on the Hornet and Tomcat and it still brings a smile to my face when I get it right with them. :)

[ac5]

Oh of course. The Rockeyes come from the 60's and are basically just like a shotgun, whereas the CBU-97/105 is practically Skynet. But still have good results with the Rockeyes on the Hornet and Tomcat and it still brings a smile to my face when I get it right with them. :)

 

So it seems, yes. Though still don't understand it why the F-18 can't mount them....

Such a plane would be perfectly capable to use them, as are the a-10 AND the F-16,

or I am missing something here?

[gekoiq]

So it seems, yes. Though still don't understand it why the F-18 can't mount them....

Such a plane would be perfectly capable to use them, as are the a-10 AND the F-16,

or I am missing something here?

 

Because the Navy never procured them and while it could probably be hung from the pylons, the Hornet's software wouldn't have any idea what it was or what to do with it or how to drop it.

 

There's more to whether a fighter is able to employ a weapon, even an unguided one, than simply "does it fit?". Systems, software and sensors need to know what to do with a bomb once it's hanging from the wings.

[ac5]

Because the Navy never procured them and while it could probably be hung from the pylons, the Hornet's software wouldn't have any idea what it was or what to do with it or how to drop it.

 

There's more to whether a fighter is able to employ a weapon, even an unguided one, than simply "does it fit?". Systems, software and sensors need to know what to do with a bomb once it's hanging from the wings.

 

I understand, thanks.