Ultimate Cheat : CBU-105

[arteedecco]

I'm beginning to feel that the CBU-105 when set to an HOF (Height Of Fall) of 3,000 is pretty much a "cheat" in the game.

 

I suppose that statement is a bit inflammatory, but let me explain.

 

For those who aren't too familiar with the CBU line of weapons, there are two categories of Cluster Bomb Units (CBUs) available in the game:

 

1. Anti-infantry / soft target (e.g. Urals, UAZs, Troops, and the like)
   
   1. 
      
   2. CBU-87
      
   3. CBU-103
      

[*]Anti-armor / armored targets (e.g. tanks and APCs)

1. CBU-97
   
2. CBU-105
   

You can also split things up according to "dumb" vs. "GPS" as well:

 

1. Dumb (free fall once released)
   

   [*]GPS (guide to SPI that was designated prior to release)

   1. CBU-103
      
   2. CBU-105
      

   All cluster bombs operate using the same basic design, which is that when the canister reaches it's HOF (Height Of Fall) it bursts open and releases a horde of tiny bomblet submunitions.

    

   These bomblets vary depending upon the type of CBU you're using, but generally get more and more sophisticated as you move from CBU-87 to CBU-105.

    

   If you don't already know this, you can set the HOF for the canister for each CBU loaded on the aircraft. You do it via the DSMS, using the INV (Inventory) OSB selection, select the station you wish to edit, select the weapon type (e.g. "CBU-XXX"), adjust the HOF setting by repeatedly pressing the HOF OSB (max is 3000 then it cycles back to the default 500), then select the LOAD OSB.

    

   Now, when you bring up the DSMS status page on your MFCD that shows the various stations loadouts for the aircraft, select the station you updated, and note the weapon Profile page shows the updated HOF you selected.

    

   The GPS guided CBU's (103 and 105) are dropped just like a GBU-38 (500 lb.) and a GBU-31 (2000 lb.). Easiest way is to designate a target on your TGP, use the TMS forward long to make the TGP your acting SPI. Check the User Manual (in your Doc/ directory in your game install folder) for the full details.

    

   So, if you haven't already, try setting a CBU-105 to an HOF of 3000 and drop it over a group of buildings, armor, or any array of vehicles / troops. Carnage.

    

   I have been avoiding the CBU-105s for some reason up until this point, but last night I decided to fly on =Iron Angels= server, Op. First Strike (awesome mission).

    

   I saved a CBU-105 for the second EWR site in the mountains and one CBU-105 for the Chemical facility (both set to HOF 3000).

    

   Results:

    

   1. EWR: all trucks, all APCs, and all troops obliterated (Tunguska up the hill was not under bomblet dispersal pattern and lived)
      
   2. Chemical Facility: entire facility leveled (including buildings)
      

   The second result form above is where i started to speculate that perhaps the CBU-105 was modeled perhaps just a little bit more powerful than it actually is.

    

   I have heard that the individual submunitions (bomblets) of the CBUs are not modeled individually to save servers / clients from lagging / crashing. To mimic the sophisticated bomblets of the CBU-105, each of which have their own IR sensors and Radar altimeters to guide them to targets, the damage of the CBU-105 has been increased substantially.

    

   IMO, it seems a bit much, as it leveled a radio antenna, all tanks (chemical tanks, not "tank" tanks), and buildings at the chemical facility. It seems a bit of a doomsday device to me. Plus it usually has no trouble killing all troops in the blast area, which I suppose is fairly believable. I also thought the CBU-105 had significantly less bomblets than the CBU-87 and 97s, which would make explosions further apart within a blast area for a CBU-105, though each blast would be more accurate due to the capabilities of the bomblets.

    

   I would stipulate that the CBU-105 damage model should be tweaked a bit. Alternatively, perhaps it would make more sense to increase the hitpoints of buildings, especially hardened bunkers to avoid destruction by CBUs. In First Strike there are ammunition bunkers (hardened structures), which are located near the first EWR site (near the airport and SA6 site). These hardened structures are easily destroyed by GBU-38s (500 lb'ers). I was under the impression that it would take a 2000 lb. bomb to ruin one of these large hardened structures, but I could be off on that one? I know a MAV with it's 125lb shaped charge bounces off these structures, which seems accurate. I haven't tried the 300lb. Mav's (K's and G's) yet.

    

   I know that this post is in severe danger of being TLDR :) But thanks to those who found value in the discussion... hoping ED team may have a response.

    

   Thanks gang! LOVE THIS SIM!!!!

    

   [snipe == Arteedecco == Artee == Turd_Fergusen]

CBU-87
CBU-97

[PhiXX]

This is a known issue. The CBU-105 functionality isn't simulated in a realistic manner (skeets etc) but is just a much more powerful CBU-103

[sobek]

I also thought the CBU-105 had significantly less bomblets than the CBU-87 and 97s, which would make explosions further apart within a blast area for a CBU-105, though each blast would be more accurate due to the capabilities of the bomblets.

 

CBU-105 is just a normal 97 with WCMD kit, the bomb in itself is the same, it is just being more accurately delivered.

[arteedecco]

CBU-105 is just a normal 97 with WCMD kit, the bomb in itself is the same, it is just being more accurately delivered.

Ah, good to know. Still think they're effect on buildings is too much.

[genbrien]

CBU-105 is just a normal 97 with WCMD kit, the bomb in itself is the same, it is just being more accurately delivered.

 

so lets say that the cbu-97 is OP then :thumbup:

[Pyroflash]

I don't think so, there have been many a time when I have dropped a CBU-97 on a tank such as a T-80, and the bomblets have failed to kill the tank even on direct hits from the bomb(very rare though, usually I get multiple kills as expected).

 

It makes sense that a weapon designed to take out heavy armor would eat APC's and IFV's for breakfast.

[159th_Viper]

I don't think so, there have been many a time when I have dropped a CBU-97 on a tank such as a T-80, and the bomblets have failed to kill the tank even on direct hits from the bomb(very rare though, usually I get multiple kills as expected).

 

It makes sense that a weapon designed to take out heavy armor would eat APC's and IFV's for breakfast.

 

Precisely.

 

CBU-97/105's are specifically modelled (read damage/explosive values) to eliminate tanks. Said damage values can be tweaked (read lessened) - you will then have reports that damn them for being useless and ineffective.

[GGTharos]

Until there's a better way to model them, you'll just have to try and use them properly all by yourself.

[imac12]

Precisely.

 

CBU-97/105's are specifically modelled (read damage/explosive values) to eliminate tanks. Said damage values can be tweaked (read lessened) - you will then have reports that damn them for being useless and ineffective.

 

Set one for a HOF of 3000 and drop it over the center of a city and tell me you don't think its over powered.

Edited May 27, 2011 by imac12

[159th_Viper]

Set one for a HOF of 3000 and drop it over the center of a city and tell me you don't think its over powered and modeled incorrectly.

 

What exactly are you trying to target?

 

Buildings?

 

Are you aware of the damage/hit points of buildings?

 

Might it not be that said building damage/hit points are too low?

 

In any event, irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. Target MBT's and then report with findings of whether they are over-modelled or not.

[imac12]

What exactly are you trying to target?

 

Buildings?

 

Are you aware of the damage/hit points of buildings?

 

Might it not be that said building damage/hit points are too low?

 

In any event, irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. Target MBT's and then report with findings of whether they are over-modelled or not.

 

Modeled incorrectly was not the proper statement, knowing the limitations that currently exist.

 

And perhaps you're correct, other hit point values should be re-thought, especially those of buildings.

 

What about the simulated splash/blast damage? There should be very little for an EFP weapon such as the 97. Personnel effects should be minimal at any sort of range (30 feet? 50 feet? Not knowing the composition/amount of the blast charge that fires the penetrator, it's hard to tell, but one could fancy a guess because of its size) and damage to buildings/structures, whether a direct hit or not, should be almost minimal... unless you were to hit a tin shack filled with Chinese fireworks.

 

Is all damage in the sim modeled as a result of explosive power and not kinetic energy? I'm guessing not because of the GAU-8 projectiles, but maybe I'm completely off base here.

Edited May 27, 2011 by imac12

[Speed]

Until there's a better way to model them, you'll just have to try and use them properly all by yourself.

 

Exactly. CBU-97/105 is too powerful (for example, I saw ONE kill FIVE cargo ships!), but if used in the RIGHT manner, against tanks with proper HOF, they are fairly realistic in the effects they cause. For now, it's up to YOU to use them correctly and realistically.

[159th_Viper]

What about the simulated splash/blast damage? There should be very little for an EFP weapon such as the 97. Personnel effects should be minimal at any sort of range (30 feet? 50 feet? Not knowing the composition/amount of the blast charge that fires the penetrator, it's hard to tell, but one could fancy a guess because of its size) and damage to buildings/structures, whether a direct hit or not, should be almost minimal... unless you were to hit a tin shack filled with Chinese fireworks.

 

Keep in mind that due to inherent Weapons-Modelling limitations, the 97/105 is at present basically just a more powerful 87/103 and nothing more.

 

 

Is all damage in the sim modeled as a result of explosive power and not kinetic energy?

 

IIRC, yes. As regards to the specifics I will not be able to comment in detail. If you have specific queries by all means ask and I'll bump it up the food-chain and get it addressed.

[WarriorX]

Imac12 I would suggest a quick stop on YouTube and do a search for CBU 97 SFW (Sensor Fused Weapon). There are some vid's showing real footage of skeet impact.

 

You might revise your opinion of the CBU 105 after watching.

 

Here is a good one:

 

 

For further reference the company that makes the CBU 97 is Textron.

[OutOnTheOP]

The problem right now is the programming doesn't allow accurate modelling of the CBU97/ CBU105. There's a number of issues.

 

The REAL CBU97 should be extremely lethal against armored vehicles in a wide footprint. To do this, they're giving it a large damage (to kill tanks) and large blast radius (to provide the wide footprint). The problem is this results in a lot of AREA damage over a wide area, while the REAL CBU97 should do a lot of damage to multiple PINPOINT targets spread over a wide area.

 

There are several ways to fix this issue:

 

1) the ideal; realistically model the system. Make the bomb disperse 40 bomblets that each seek a target and do massive damage with almost no blast area. Of course, this will STILL result in unrealistic effects against buildings and ships as it stands now; as best I can tell, a hit ANYWHERE on a building or ship has the same affect regardless of where it hits. So direct hits would still sink ships. Truth told, though, an EFP hit on a ship WILL penetrate through-and-through into the water. It just wouldn't be a very big hole. Same with a building.

 

2) Implement both "damage" and "armor piercing" variables to weapons in the game, and correspondingly "hit points" and "armor" to targets. Maybe this is already implemented, I don't know. Either way, a CBU97 should have massive "armor piercing" but low "damage, while a Mk84 should have puny "armor piercing" but huge "damage". In turn, a tank should have massive "armor" but relatively low "hit points", while an average building should have almost no "armor" but incredibly high "hit points". To me, this seems like the easiest and most efficient solution to ensure that various weapons have realistic effects on various targets.

 

Speaking of which, it'd be nice if anti-radiation missiles didn't home on non-radiating targets (ZU23, SA9, SA13, MANPADS, etc) and if IFVs didn't employ ATGM against personnel. That's just silly.

[GGTharos]

And perhaps you're correct, other hit point values should be re-thought, especially those of buildings.

 

No, that won't get you anywhere. The weapon/damage delivery model needs to be reworked.

 

What about the simulated splash/blast damage? There should be very little for an EFP weapon such as the 97. Personnel effects should be minimal at any sort of range (30 feet? 50 feet? Not knowing the composition/amount of the blast charge that fires the penetrator, it's hard to tell, but one could fancy a guess because of its size) and damage to buildings/structures, whether a direct hit or not, should be almost minimal... unless you were to hit a tin shack filled with Chinese fireworks.

 

That's right, but the game only simulates an explosive weapon or a direct impact weapon.

 

Is all damage in the sim modeled as a result of explosive power and not kinetic energy? I'm guessing not because of the GAU-8 projectiles, but maybe I'm completely off base here.

 

You're off-base :) GAU-8 kinetic penetration is 'easy'. There's nothing you have to do except collision detection. The BLU-108 on the other hand has capabilities that you simply cannot directly model on a sim that runs on less than 120 FPS on average. Thus, in order to implement the skeets correctly, it is probably necessary to model probability based damage that is specific to a type of weapon.

[OutOnTheOP]

GG, now that I think about it more, there's actually a better way to model the CBU97 skeets. You don't really have to use probability equations or attempting to simulate the IR sensor sweep through the skeet's flight.

 

Start with the CBU97 dispensing 40 submunitions (pretty much like it does now, except I think it tosses 20-some-odd). Have each run a check a couple times a second to see if it's within activation range of a valid target (IE, a vehicle. Buildings shouldn't even activate the things... though a generator or A/C unit on a building might?). If the bomblet is within, say... 25 meters of a valid target, the bomblet detonates (airburst) with a tiny blast radius and tiny damage, and spawn a KE projectile aimed at the closest vehicle. Alternately, do away with the projectile and just have the game deal damage directly to the vehicle as a script.

 

When you get right down to brass tacks, the CBU97/ 105 should be treated less like a bomb and more like 40 invisible airborne AI tanks with one round of ammunition each

Edited May 27, 2011 by OutOnTheOP

[GGTharos]

Not a bad idea, but it isn't a perfect solution either ... it's best to get a correct representation of damage. Then you don't need to worry about target types or anything like that. Stuff just works correctly.

Edited May 27, 2011 by GGTharos

[imac12]

No, that won't get you anywhere. The weapon/damage delivery model needs to be reworked.

 

I was under the impression that this game was long since past that point... hence the need to make a concession (which obviously already was) somewhere. Just trying to think out loud if there is a better way to model it within the confines that are presented today.

 

That's right, but the game only simulates an explosive weapon or a direct impact weapon.

So today it's modeled as an explosive weapon, when in reality, it's a direct impact, but you have no way to model 40 direct impact weapons searching out targets and prosecuting them.

 

You're off-base :) GAU-8 kinetic penetration is 'easy'. There's nothing you have to do except collision detection. The BLU-108 on the other hand has capabilities that you simply cannot directly model on a sim that runs on less than 120 FPS on average. Thus, in order to implement the skeets correctly, it is probably necessary to model probability based damage that is specific to a type of weapon.

EDIT: What OutOnTheOP said. Seems like a good idea to me. Is every round from the cannon modeled or is it a percentage of what is fired? If it's every round, it doesn't seem like too much of a leap to model 40 submunitions.

 

Not a bad idea, but it isn't a perfect solution either ... it's best to get a correct representation of damage. Then you don't need to worry about target types or anything like that. Stuff just works correctly.

But shoudlnt target type come into play? An EFP is going to do vastly different damage depending upon what it strikes, right? If we just model damage numbers (while simplifying the modeling, yes) doesn't that lead to skewed results, as we have now?

 

Feel free to dismiss me at any time, as I'm not attempting to argue/complain, but really just trying to find a way to make this even better than it already is.

Edited May 27, 2011 by imac12

[Pyroflash]

Okay, I just ran a test on using CBU-97/105's on a column of tanks using a HOF = 3000.

 

The result? two tanks(T-80U) died, and the left continued on unscathed. (In contrast, a HOF = 500 results in virtually the whole column being destroyed(5 + tanks) - maybe a few tanks here and there).

 

So I'd say that the weapon works pretty much as intended when used against the proper targets.

[imac12]

Okay, I just ran a test on using CBU-97/105's on a column of tanks using a HOF = 3000.

 

The result? two tanks(T-80U) died, and the left continued on unscathed.

 

So I'd say that the weapon works pretty much as intended when used against the proper targets.

 

I dont think the beef is with its performance of the weapon against MBTs or armor at all... it's about different targets. Ships, buildings, etc etc.

[WarriorX]

900 or 1200 HOF (Height Of Function) is where I usually set mine. Rarely are multiple armor targets so closely packed to use the 300 foot setting.

[WarriorX]

What is the $1000 doing in that picture?

 

By the way, your post, and your picture are interesting to say the least.

[Headspace]

It's like one of those planets of the solar system pictures.

[OutOnTheOP]

I strongly suspect the picture is a graphical depiction of the relative COSTS of the weapons, and is in no way related to their impact pattern or target effects. Hence the $1000 reference datum. It would also explain why the GBU series and Mk series are disproportionate.

 

Mk84: $3,100

GBU-12: $19,000

GBU-38: $35,000

GBU-38: $60,000

AGM-65: up to $160,000

CBU97: $360,000

 

*edit* which leads me to believe slackerD is either TOTALLY confused, or is "exaggerating" his role in creating the graphic

Edited May 28, 2011 by OutOnTheOP