[Poll] CCRP, CCIP, or CCIP-CR? and a question

[WildBillKelsoe]

It wouldn't really make sense. Standard CCIP gives you a continuously computed impact point. There's no reason for that impact point to be anything other than a point on the ground. Granted, the system won't calculate the precise point down to the millimeter, but neither is it calculating a range of possible impact points - it's just doing the best it can to say "this is where the bomb will land if you release it now". Making that location "5 mil" doesn't make any sense, in that there's no gain from asking the aircraft to indicate a position on the ground that's 5 mil in size.

 

The 5 mil or 3/9 cues only come into effect when you're no longer instantly dropping a bomb, but instead asking the avionics to guide you to a point where if you release the bomb, it'll land at a particular pre-designated location. That's where the "fudge factor" comes from, since getting the airplane into the precise position where your bomb will strike a particular pinpoint on the ground would be nigh impossible. So, 5 mil requests the aircraft only release the bomb if you're pretty close to the right spot, and 3/9 requests to release the bomb if you're even vaguely in the right neighbourhood.

 

Forgive me. TOEFL exam is driving me nuts that I can't remember the most important details such as that CCIP has CR 5 and 3/9 mils, and CCRP is the one without the reticle, and requires an autopilot, and lining azimuth steering with PBRL, holding the release while the Sol reaches the pipper in case of 5 mils, or crosses the periphery of the reticle in case of 3/9 mils. I have to admit, even though I have a bad memory, yet I have flashbacks about how things work.

[Laud]

It's because CCIP-CR inserts an extra step in the launch process for bombs which is causing confusion when it tries to do this extra step for Mavericks. It is a current problem with DCS. The phantom -CR step inhibits Maverick use under certain conditions.

 

So the real aircrafts systems recognizes this and automatically changes the settings as required to fire the AGM-65?

[rockyalexander]

What I believe Slacker is saying is that no, IRL there is no change of settings required. Dropping bombs with "Consent to Release" enabled should have no effect on how the Mavericks function. It's a bug in the sim.

Edited August 2, 2011 by rockyalexander

[miguelaco]

I voted CCIP. Reason: While training CCIP approaches according to the Z-Diagrams from the Hawgsmoke.pdf it turned out to be pretty demanding in respect to precise flying. Once you come to the point where you manage to do propper 45° Dive Bomb attacks from 9.500' AGL (90° Roll-In, meeting all requested parameters (base alt, checkpoint alt, release alt, safe escape alt, speed) , hours of training pay off with a really pleasing feeling.

 

Another thing is the good precision, once propper executed.

 

And it's of course way more fun to work the aircraft and systems, instead of dropping bombs from level flight... ;)

 

Hi Laud,

 

I'm trying some CCIP deliveries using the same document base (hawgsmoke mils pdf), but I am not very familiar with data from z-diagrams. I want to be sure I fully understand those before actually trying in the sim. For example:

 

 

I'm planning a computed CCIP delivery using DRC as track reference. I recognize this values from the above diagram.

 

• Base Range: 1.6 nm
  
• Dive Angle: 45º
  
• Base Alt: 9500 ft
  
• Check Alt: 7500 ft
  
• Release Alt: 6000 ft
  
• Minimum Recovery Alt: 4700 ft
  
• Desired Time Of Fall (DTOF): 11.1 s
  
• SEM: CLM
  

It seems AOD, IHP and IAA are not needed when using DRC, so nothing to say about them. So I only need release speed. Is that number on the right that reads 375?

 

Hope you can help with some insight and advice.

 

Regards.

[Laud]

You're right.

 

We fly these approaches as 90° Roll-In maneuvers. To do so we generate an IP at about 4-5nm away from target. Now let's say the heading from IP to target is 090°. We now use the offset-function to generate the roll-in-point. In this example it would be target-mark/wp as initial point and 3551.8 (355 is the direction off the target and 1.8 is base distance + 0.2nm turn-radius). Now generate a new flightplan: 1. IP 2. RIP 3. Target (you can as well generate the AOD with the offset function and feature it in the flightplan) 4. IP. TAD will now show a nice approach triangle.

 

And yes: 375 is the planned release speed, but I don't pay too much attention too it, because it's enough workload to begin with flying the approach with the target well aligned at checkpoint alt!

 

However it's really fun, once you manage to take out MBTs with single Mk-82s. :)

[miguelaco]

Thx! Sounds very good. Flight plan to assist on the approach is a good idea. Will try to replicate. I'm afraid I'll be back with more questions when I get into it.

 

P.D: Rep inbound

[KaspeR32]

You said which do you prefer. Well it all depends, CCRP is more accurate but CCIP is a whole lot more fun.

 

I selected CCRP for the accuracy but when I fly I use CCIP as much as possible because it's fun as hell. Dive pickle bank flare flare flare - Weeeeee :joystick:

 

I always thought that CCIP is more accurate. CCRP is best used to stay out of harms way, and allows you to "toss" the bomb in some cases. Obviously with guided bombs it's your only choice but for unguided bombs it comes at a price.

 

Some people use CCRP for cluster bombs (CBU-87) because there is room for error since it has a wider area of effect.

 

I do have a question though, when I am using CCIP, and coming down on a target, I seem to be getting an X through the center of my aiming reticle before I pickle. Is this because of not setting the bombs up properly in the DSMS?

[nomdeplume]

I do have a question though, when I am using CCIP, and coming down on a target, I seem to be getting an X through the center of my aiming reticle before I pickle. Is this because of not setting the bombs up properly in the DSMS?

The system is warning you that you're lucky to fly into the blast/debris from the bombs you're about to drop. This is because you haven't set an escape maneuver in the profile (using the "SEM" OSB), so the system assumes you're just going to keep on flying straight into it. See page 535 of the flight manual for very little in the way of description.

[KaspeR32]

The system is warning you that you're lucky to fly into the blast/debris from the bombs you're about to drop. This is because you haven't set an escape maneuver in the profile (using the "SEM" OSB), so the system assumes you're just going to keep on flying straight into it. See page 535 of the flight manual for very little in the way of description.

 

 

I'm pretty sure my escape maneuver is set to Climb. But maybe that's the problem, I'm just too low for that particular maneuver to get me out of harms way?

 

And the minimum altitude setting does what exactly? If I set it to 1500 ft and go below that, will I lose the CCIP aiming all together? (I guess I can just test this when I get home but I'm at work atm).

[Laud]

The system is warning you that you're lucky to fly into the blast/debris from the bombs you're about to drop. This is because you haven't set an escape maneuver in the profile (using the "SEM" OSB), so the system assumes you're just going to keep on flying straight into it. See page 535 of the flight manual for very little in the way of description.

 

IIRC the cross indicates,that you will not meet the required parameters (DTOF/MIN ALT+ escape maneuver) according to your planned delivery (what you put into the DSMS-profile).

 

Usually you plan your approach to avoid enemy fire, fragmentation or terrain.

[sungsam]

This poll is totally wrong. There is no matter of preference ! It's a matter of using the right method on the right situation with the right weapon. :smartass:

 

We better analyze the methods and their usage !

[Laud]

Why not asking who prefers which method? It's just about what makes the most fun, not what is the most effective. At least, that's how I understood this poll.

 

But yes, get started with your suggested analysis! Could be interesting.