CB-105's are just plain ridiculous.

[Sinclair_76]

I wanted to see how much damage 4x CB-105 could do to a armoured company logistical site. To up the challenge I put up a SA-11 site about 4.5nm behind the main site. As well as 2x ZSU-23-4 and a SA-9 as point air defense. 

The main idea was to toss a CB-105's, one directed at each platoon, in a 30° climb with full burner and bug out before anything could lock me up. Pre-empitve chaff & flare the whole time I am above 100'. 

Plan worked. Aftermath is scary, the whole site was annihilated. And I was 20nm out when the first T-72 got hit. The SA-11 managed to get 1x missile off, but self destructed due to loss of lock. 

 

Tacview-20210823-101822-DCS-Training - CBU-105+.zip.acmi

[Lace]

Your enemy site seems rather densely packed.  No surprise the CBU made mincemeat of them.  Push the tanks further apart.

 

 

 

[Sinclair_76]

2 hours ago, Lace said:

Your enemy site seems rather densely packed.  No surprise the CBU made mincemeat of them.  Push the tanks further apart.

 

 

 

 

The 3d models in tacview are exxagerated. Distances between tanks and platoons are tight but well within specs.

 

[Lace]

Fair enough.  The Tacview images show them pretty much touching.

[Svend_Dellepude]

Yeah. Pretty ugly weapon.

https://www.military.com/video/logistics-and-supplies/air-force-equipment/us-air-force-sensor-fuzed-weapon/3812620039001

 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by Svend_Dellepude

[Sinclair_76]

2 hours ago, Svend_Dellepude said:

Yeah. Pretty ugly weapon.

https://www.military.com/video/logistics-and-supplies/air-force-equipment/us-air-force-sensor-fuzed-weapon/3812620039001

 

 

 

One thing that immediately stands out is that the Blu-108 seem to be ejected upwind to compensate for drift. 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by Sinclair_76
formatting

[Ignition]

I used them a lot with the A-10 years ago, but you had to fly over the target.

You can't use them when the ground units are moving, it takes about a minute since you drop them and start exploding.

Edited August 23, 2021 by Ignition

[Dawgboy]

2 hours ago, Svend_Dellepude said:

Yeah. Pretty ugly weapon.

https://www.military.com/video/logistics-and-supplies/air-force-equipment/us-air-force-sensor-fuzed-weapon/3812620039001

 

 

 

 

 

Did these SFW bomblets have no warheads for this test?

 

[Ignition]

1 minute ago, Dawgboy said:

 

Did these SFW bomblets have no warheads for this test?

 

 

They penetrate armour, there's no explosion.

[SFJackBauer]

3 hours ago, Dawgboy said:

 

Did these SFW bomblets have no warheads for this test?

 

 

3:00 you can see the direct hit on the tank turret in the foreground. But thats a very small shaped charge. Besides, these tanks are empty of anything flammable.

[Xavven]

4 hours ago, Dawgboy said:

 

Did these SFW bomblets have no warheads for this test?

 

 

Some of the comments under the YouTube video suggest these are dummy or reduced power warheads so that the testers could better observe the accuracy of the weapon.

 

The real weapon supposedly achieves on average mostly mobility kills, not catastrophic kills, so the massive explosions we get out of CBU-97 and CBU-105s in DCS are way over the top if that information is to be believed.

[Hazardpro]

The SFW is not a shaped charge, it's a kinetic armor piercing weapon. It does not need to cause any kind of explosion to kill a vehicle, but as been demonstrated over and over again in actual warfare lots of vehicles are liable to suffer fires or even explosions when they are penetrated in vital compartments.

[Sinclair_76]

1 hour ago, Hazardpro said:

The SFW is not a shaped charge, it's a kinetic armor piercing weapon. It does not need to cause any kind of explosion to kill a vehicle, but as been demonstrated over and over again in actual warfare lots of vehicles are liable to suffer fires or even explosions when they are penetrated in vital compartments.

How is it not a shaped charge? It has a shaped (albeit not as sloped) copper liner and a charge.

[Northstar98]

6 hours ago, Sinclair_76 said:

How is it not a shaped charge? It has a shaped (albeit not as sloped) copper liner and a charge.

 

It's an EFP, you can kind of think of it like HEAT, but instead of explosively forming a copper jet, it explosively forms a one solid penetrating slug of material. The skeets don't actually impact the vehicle they're targetting, they fire an EFP at it, unlike a HEAT bomblet that would need to impact the vehicle directly. 

Edited August 24, 2021 by Northstar98

[Sinclair_76]

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

It's an EFP, you can kind of think of it like HEAT, but instead of explosively forming a copper jet, it explosively forms a one solid penetrating slug of material. The skeets don't actually impact the vehicle they're targetting, they fire an EFP at it, unlike a HEAT bomblet that would need to impact the vehicle directly. 

I was/am being pedantic, as I thought that both the Munroe effect (HEAT)as well as the Misznay–Schardin effect (EFP) are both created through a shaped charge. 

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Sinclair_76 said:

I was/am being pedantic, as I thought that both the Munroe effect (HEAT)as well as the Misznay–Schardin effect (EFP) are both created through a shaped charge. 

 

You're technically correct, both devices employ shaped charges.

 

It's just typically when people hear "shaped charge" they probably think of HEAT ammunition, and I'm guessing this was the case with @Hazardpro's comment.

 

On my end when I google "shaped charge ammunition" I exclusively see HEAT ammunition.

Edited August 24, 2021 by Northstar98

[ZeroReady]

On 8/24/2021 at 2:39 AM, Hazardpro said:

The SFW is not a shaped charge, it's a kinetic armor piercing weapon. It does not need to cause any kind of explosion to kill a vehicle, but as been demonstrated over and over again in actual warfare lots of vehicles are liable to suffer fires or even explosions when they are penetrated in vital compartments.

Not to mention when the crew is penetrated in vital compartments.

[Hazardpro]

On 8/24/2021 at 10:55 AM, Northstar98 said:

 

You're technically correct, both devices employ shaped charges.

 

It's just typically when people hear "shaped charge" they probably think of HEAT ammunition, and I'm guessing this was the case with @Hazardpro's comment.

 

On my end when I google "shaped charge ammunition" I exclusively see HEAT ammunition.

 

 

Yes, that's what I meant. Technically there is a shaped charge which forms the EFP, but we were talking in the context of the effect on target.

[QuiGon]

On 8/23/2021 at 10:40 PM, Ignition said:

I used them a lot with the A-10 years ago, but you had to fly over the target.

You can't use them when the ground units are moving, it takes about a minute since you drop them and start exploding.

 

If they move in a predictable pattern (e.g. traveling along a road), you can just aim a bit in front of them.

[Ignition]

7 hours ago, QuiGon said:

 

If they move in a predictable pattern (e.g. traveling along a road), you can just aim a bit in front of them.

 

If you drop them at maximum range with the F16 it takes about a minute since you drop them to start exploding, In the A-10 you basicaly need to overfly the target area so you can aim in front yeah.

[Zad Fnark]

Some time back I did some toss-bombing with the older CBUs.  I think I was at about 7 miles out when I pickled them.

 

Not perfect, but I still killed a bunch.

 

 

[Roman_455vAEW]

I like using them in VIS mode.