Mk-82 Hi Drag

[Eddie]

Well the reason you accurately hit the target delivering a chuted bomb via CCIP is because the physics aren't modelled properly.

 

What? How are the physics not modelled correctly? I'd love to hear the explanation and evidence for that one.

 

The IFFCC (and fire control systems on other aircraft) is quite capable of handling high drag munitions, it simply uses different figures for a Mk-82 in high drag configuration than it does for to calculate solutions for a low drag configured Mk-82 AIR or MK-82 LDGP or any other weapon for that matter.

 

Similarly a chuted bomb would have flopped about and missed and definitely not landed exactly where the pipper dot was.

 

Sorry, but that is absolute rubbish.

 

Show me the flopping or inaccuracy.

 

Except JP-233s in Desert Storm which were not delivered CCIP.:)

 

And?

 

Honestly I simply can't understand how you're coming to the conclusions you are, but the arguments you present seem to be based on nothing more than your opinion/belief, which is simply incorrect.

[marcos]

What? How are the physics not modelled correctly? I'd love to hear the explanation and evidence for that one.

 

The IFFCC (and fire control systems on other aircraft) is quite capable of handling high drag munitions, it simply uses different figures for a Mk-82 in high drag configuration than it does for to calculate solutions for a low drag configured Mk-82 AIR or MK-82 LDGP or any other weapon for that matter.

 

 

 

Sorry, but that is absolute rubbish.

 

Show me the flopping or inaccuracy.

Yes, all drops are exactly like that one. And the cat even runs from one to the other to carry out recon. Clearly blowing a gale too.

 

And?

If you can't pop up to 600ft for an Iraqi defence system, then what the hell would you do up against a proper enemy?

 

Honestly I simply can't understand how you're coming to the conclusions you are, but the arguments you present seem to be based on nothing more than your opinion/belief, which is simply incorrect.

How's this for a conclusion. The HDGP has never been used in combat since Vietnam because it's crap and training with them is therefore a waste of tax money.

 

The various airforces of NATO use them about as often in combat as I do on DCS A-10C... never! (or only during training.):D

Edited September 3, 2012 by marcos

[Eddie]

Yes, all drops are exactly like that one. And the cat even runs from one to the other to carry out recon. Clearly blowing a gale too.

 

Hmm, so basically you have no evidence that there is anything wrong.

 

If you can't pop up to 600ft for an Iraqi defence system, then what the hell would you do up against a proper enemy?

 

Define "proper enemy" and "Iraqi air defence system", given that the Iraqi forces in 1991 employed a variety of air defence systems a variety of tactics were also employed by aircraft dealing with said defences.

 

How's this for a conclusion. The HDGP has never been used in combat since Vietnam because it's crap and training with them is therefore a waste of tax money.

 

That's your opinion, based on your belief. Not an educated conclusion based on facts and test data. And just to be clear, you are not aware of them being used in combat since the conflict in Vietnam. That does not make it true.

 

The various airforces of NATO use them about as often in combat as I do on DCS A-10C... never! (or only during training.):D

 

Well then clearly you don't fly in the situations for which HDGP weapons are designed, and/or you don't employ deliery methods and tactics which require them.

 

Cluser Munitions are rarely used and are only effective in specific situations, does that mean they are "crap"? And many other weapons have either never been fired in anger, or haven't been used for years, does it mean they are "crap" as well.

 

The use, or lack of use, of a particular weapon type is not a gauge of said weapon's effectiveness or tactical value. If a weapon does not have a tactical value then it would not be in the inventory.

 

It's clear that you have a view based on an ill conceived concept of weapon behaviour and effectiveness. And that you also appear to hold the view that you know more than the people who determine weapon effectiveness and those who use them in reality. Which makes me think you don't actually have a clue what you're talking about and leaves me again asking on what data you are basing your opinion.

[marcos]

Hmm, so basically you have no evidence that there is anything wrong.

I can post one video of someone getting a hole in one in golf. Evidence of something wrong. Okay, how about the fact he's using a low drag bomb to hit a vehicle. Like that's ever going to be done in combat. I appreciate that you have a great deal of experience but try to think a little too.

 

Do you not find it odd that in all the skirmishes of the last 35 (not even sure it was used in Vietnam, damn the Mk-82AIR may never have been used in combat ever, Snake eyes were used in Vietnam), HDGPs have never been used once? And the only time HD munitions have ever been used was? That's right, in Iraq via CCRP against an airfield. Do you need CCIP accuracy to hit an airfield from low altitude?

 

Why is there even an option of CCRP delivery for unguided bombs? It's not like it'll hit anything from 10,000ft. It's for low altitude delivery against large area targets where inaccuracy is reduced and more tolerable and as you've already pointed out, you can't drop LDGPs from low altitude, so CCRP must be for HDGPs.

 

Define "proper enemy" and "Iraqi air defence system", given that the Iraqi forces in 1991 employed a variety of air defence systems a variety of tactics were also employed by aircraft dealing with said defences.

Proper enemy -

Definitions

1. A group of people organised into an effective force that'll shoot you down if you rise to 600ft.

2. A group of people organised into an effective force who you wouldn't contemplate using HDGPs against.

 

That's your opinion, based on your belief. Not an educated conclusion based on facts and test data. And just to be clear, you are not aware of them being used in combat since the conflict in Vietnam. That does not make it true.

 

Well then clearly you don't fly in the situations for which HDGP weapons are designed, and/or you don't employ deliery methods and tactics which require them.

 

Cluser Munitions are rarely used and are only effective in specific situations, does that mean they are "crap"? And many other weapons have either never been fired in anger, or haven't been used for years, does it mean they are "crap" as well.

 

The use, or lack of use, of a particular weapon type is not a gauge of said weapon's effectiveness or tactical value. If a weapon does not have a tactical value then it would not be in the inventory.

 

It's clear that you have a view based on an ill conceived concept of weapon behaviour and effectiveness. And that you also appear to hold the view that you know more than the people who determine weapon effectiveness and those who use them in reality. Which makes me think you don't actually have a clue what you're talking about and leaves me again asking on what data you are basing your opinion.

My opinion is developed with my own mind rather than regurgitating bollocks added to Ab-Initio training in the '60s that nobody ever thought to re-assess/remove, or did re-assess but decided to keep it in just in case there was something that nobody could think of.

 

Low level tactics were introduced in the '60s when airforces realised they couldn't fly over enemy air defences at any speed considered practical. The whole idea was to go in low then rise up high, because the sort of bombs to be dropped wouldn't leave you well off with or without chutes if you dropped them at low altitude. It was the end of the world, so nobody cared about surviving.

 

Then we had this little off-shoot into conventional tactics where the perceived air defence threat was similar. This time the aircraft would remain low. The fact the aircraft is remaining low indicates that the enemy air defences are still operational (600ft not an option) and as anyone will tell you, SEAD comes first. SEAD - SEAD - Stand-Off-Missiles - SEAD - Cruise Missiles - SEAD and repeat until eventually you can go in at any altitude.

 

So what do you suppose they'll be aiming for with HDGPs. SAMs and AAA? Nope, got ARMs and AGMs for that and going toe-to-toe with a SAMs and AAA is risky, especially proper AAA like a 35mm Oerlikon that aircraft armour won't stop. So what other SEAD targets are there? Bingo, airfields. Do you need CCIP accuracy for an airfield at low level? Nope, unnecessary risk.

 

Are HDGPs likely to be employed on a runway anyway? JP-233 was used CCRP in Desert Storm '90s and the risks were significant, Durandal also available. These days an MBDA Apache would be my choice. But hey learning to drop HDGPs CCIP is fun (even though CCRP is the most likely, yet still highly unlikley, delivery method), far be it for me to question the point, or even why the weapon still exists. People who make these decisions are smart and have never been known to waste time or money.:doh:

Edited September 3, 2012 by marcos

[BlueRidgeDx]

I will only point out the glaringly obvious faults in your hypothesis:

 

You have no idea what munitions have been employed over the last 35 years, so you cannot possibly make the claim that are not used.

 

You contradict yourself. You say AIRs have "never been used once", except for that "one time"...lol.

 

AIRs most certainly are used to destroy armor, soft skinned vehicles, and anything else that you want to go 'boom'. What do you think they're used on?

 

CCRP is no less accurate than CCIP. You're confusing the fact that deliveries from a steep dive are more accurate because the ballistics are greatly simplified. CCRP can be used in a steep dive (more accurate), and CCIP can be used from a level delivery (less accurate).

 

You have simply made up your mind based upon incomplete information and erroneous assumptions.

Edited September 3, 2012 by BlueRidgeDx
Damn autocorrect

[SmokeyTheLung]

:blow:

want to point out: Just because recent conflicts have been fought in a way that dictates different tactics doesn't mean older tactics designed for a more high intensity conflict can't/won't be dusted off and used. Actually the won't need to be dusted off at all, most air forces still train with these tactics.

 

Dropping retarded bombs at an otherwise unsafe altitude sounds fairly important to me :huh:

[OutOnTheOP]

Marcos, you're acting all kinds of retarded at the moment. He asked for proof to the contrary. One video might not be INCONTRIVERTABLE proof, but you haven't provided any proof contrary whatsoever. Absense of proof is NOT proof of absence. He's shown great accuracy is obtainable, onus is now on you to prove that's the exception instead of the rule. Dig up a couple videos of someone slicing it into the bunker, since you insist his video is the rare "hole in one".

 

That aside, I would like to know precisely what physics would indicate that HDGPs are inherently inaccurate? I compete in rifle marksmanship, and NOTHING I have ever seen indicates that "draggier" bullets are less accurate. I was also trained in field artillery fire direction, and nothing I learned *there* indicated anything of the sort, either.

 

In fact, in many cases, the heavier, slower, draggier bullets are MORE accurate (though not for any reason that an HDGP bomb would be more accurate than LDGP bomb). As long as the parameters are fairly consistent (ballute diameter is known, and therefore so is drag index), and the bomb spins to minimize any asymmetries, delivery accuracy should be fine. The only inherently undesirable thing having higher drag does ballistically is increase wind drift, so HDGPs should be somewhat more wind-sensitive. In return, the HDGPs should have less tendency for precession/ wobble than LDGPs, since they have that nice big ballute keeping them centered nose-forward in the air.

 

What PHYSICAL FORCES are applied to a HDGP bomb that would make them inaccurate? to be inaccurate laterally, they'd need lateral forces applied: either they would have to induce tumbling to the bomb (doubtful; as I mentioned, the ballute should tend to keep it better centered nose-fore than the small fins of the LDGP), or would have to apply a LOT of asymmetric drag (which wouldn't really matter anyhow; spin minimizes any error induced that way- and what Eddie's video DOES prove is that the Mk82 AIR spins). Range error is more believable; if the ballute does not fully inflate, you'd get range error. Assuming a fairly consistent delivery airspeed, air density, and known ballute fabric shape, you should get a pretty consistent drag index.

 

Not to mention that the HDGP is delivered from 500-3,000 feet AGL. At those ranges, any error is minimal. Even assuming the HDGP drifts 1 foot for every 100 (a HUGE amount of error), you're going to put the bomb within 5-30 feet of the target- well within the standards of a "hit" for a 500 lb bomb. To put it in perspective, a good rifle will induce error of approximately 10 inches at 3,000 feet. But like with rifles, the main limitation on accuracy is RARELY the ballistic capabilities of the weapon- it's the delivery accuracy (crappy shooters or FCS quality) that are the primary limitation.

 

No, if ANYTHING is broken in about the HDGPs in DCS, it's that they aren't accurate ENOUGH.

[marcos]

:blow:

want to point out: Just because recent conflicts have been fought in a way that dictates different tactics doesn't mean older tactics designed for a more high intensity conflict can't/won't be dusted off and used.

They may also need to start opening the canopy and dropping bricks on enemy trenches too.

 

 

I will only point out the glaringly obvious faults in your hypothesis:

 

You have no idea what munitions have been employed over the last 35 years, so you cannot possibly make the claim that are not used.

 

 

You contradict yourself. You say AIRs have "never been used once", except for that "one time"...lol.

Fascinating. I knew that retarded (pardon the pun) bombs were used in Vietnam, but on inspection they were not Mk-82AIRs but Snake Eyes. Can you point out a time they have been used? Happy to be proven wrong.

 

AIRs most certainly are used to destroy armor, soft skinned vehicles, and anything else that you want to go 'boom'. What do you think they're used on?

Where? During training? How many tanks were destroyed with Mk-82AIRs during the Gulf War. That's right. None. Funnily enough, out of all the weapons available nobody thought to attack a tank with parachute bombs. Can't think why.:lol:

 

CCRP is no less accurate than CCIP. You're confusing the fact that deliveries from a steep dive are more accurate because the ballistics are greatly simplified. CCRP can be used in a steep dive (more accurate), and CCIP can be used from a level delivery (less accurate).

Really? The accuracy is better with CCIP because the aiming is more simplified. I have one source of inaccuracy - aerodynamic diversions during fall. With CCRP I have 2 sources. The fall and the depiction of the HUD graphics leading to the release point. I have to judge whether a small dot is passing through a small dot and a mm could mean tens of metres even before the fall is factored in. With CCIP I just look and press.

 

You have simply made up your mind based upon incomplete information and erroneous assumptions.

A rash accusation that boomerangs.

Edited September 3, 2012 by marcos

[marcos]

Marcos, you're acting all kinds of retarded at the moment. He asked for proof to the contrary. One video might not be INCONTRIVERTABLE proof, but you haven't provided any proof contrary whatsoever.

Okay I'll show you one video of a hole in one in golf and claim it happens all the time. really, what's your angle? That all Mk-82AIRs hit dead on?

 

 

Absense of proof is NOT proof of absence. He's shown great accuracy is obtainable, onus is now on you to prove that's the exception instead of the rule. Dig up a couple videos of someone slicing it into the bunker, since you insist his video is the rare "hole in one".

No he's shown that anything can happen once. Is a couple winning the lottery proof of psychic abilities?

 

That aside, I would like to know precisely what physics would indicate that HDGPs are inherently inaccurate? I compete in rifle marksmanship, and NOTHING I have ever seen indicates that "draggier" bullets are less accurate. I was also trained in field artillery fire direction, and nothing I learned *there* indicated anything of the sort, either.

Try firing bullets with parachutes on. Or try shooting hoops with a balloon.

 

In fact, in many cases, the heavier, slower, draggier bullets are MORE accurate (though not for any reason that an HDGP bomb would be more accurate than LDGP bomb). As long as the parameters are fairly consistent (ballute diameter is known, and therefore so is drag index), and the bomb spins to minimize any asymmetries, delivery accuracy should be fine. The only inherently undesirable thing having higher drag does ballistically is increase wind drift, so HDGPs should be somewhat more wind-sensitive. In return, the HDGPs should have less tendency for precession/ wobble than LDGPs, since they have that nice big ballute keeping them centered nose-forward in the air.

Well there you go. You've produced the counter argument for me. LDGPs are always the same shape to within manufacturing tolerances. A chute will not always deploy in the same shape. Spin will not always be exactly the same, nor will it counteract differing shapes even if it was. Deployment time and deployment profile will not always be the same. Wrt the bullet analogy, if we were looking at various designs of un-chuted free-fall bombs, with different drag, I wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

What PHYSICAL FORCES are applied to a HDGP bomb that would make them inaccurate? to be inaccurate laterally, they'd need lateral forces applied: either they would have to induce tumbling to the bomb (doubtful; as I mentioned, the ballute should tend to keep it better centered nose-fore than the small fins of the LDGP), or would have to apply a LOT of asymmetric drag (which wouldn't really matter anyhow; spin minimizes any error induced that way- and what Eddie's video DOES prove is that the Mk82 AIR spins). Range error is more believable; if the ballute does not fully inflate, you'd get range error. Assuming a fairly consistent delivery airspeed, air density, and known ballute fabric shape, you should get a pretty consistent drag index.

Reading between the lines of your argument makes my case perfectly.

 

Not to mention that the HDGP is delivered from 500-3,000 feet AGL. At those ranges, any error is minimal. Even assuming the HDGP drifts 1 foot for every 100 (a HUGE amount of error), you're going to put the bomb within 5-30 feet of the target- well within the standards of a "hit" for a 500 lb bomb. To put it in perspective, a good rifle will induce error of approximately 10 inches at 3,000 feet. But like with rifles, the main limitation on accuracy is RARELY the ballistic capabilities of the weapon- it's the delivery accuracy (crappy shooters or FCS quality) that are the primary limitation.

So in reality the only way in which inaccuracy is neutralised is by dropping from low altitude.

 

No, if ANYTHING is broken in about the HDGPs in DCS, it's that they aren't accurate ENOUGH.

Wouldn't know, I only used them in training (just like real airforces:D).

 

Here's an example conversation that may occur if a pilot was asked to attack anything other than a runway with HDGPs in combat.

 

Wing Commander Aver Noideea: 2nd Lt Johnson, I'd like you to go attack some enemy tanks with Mk-82AIRs.

 

Possible replies:

 

2nd Lt Johnson: Wing Commander Aver Noideea, I'd like you to attend your drugs test.

 

OR

 

2nd Lt Johnson: Can I not just use the Brimstones you clueless old twat?

 

OR

 

2nd Lt Johnson: Not this dream again!

 

Feel free to add your own.

Edited September 3, 2012 by marcos

[OutOnTheOP]

1) You clearly do not understand logic. One video of a hole in one proves that there is a probability of attaining a hole in one. NO videos of misses proves that you are incapable, or too lazy, to prove that they are not common. You are relying on nothing but your assertions, and expect us to just accept your flawed logic based on nothing but your badgering. Man up and present some PROOF.

 

2) Have you ever, in the real-world, delivered, or witnessed the delivery of HDGPs? I *have*. As a Fire Support Officer, I had a secondary duty as a JTAC; we trained with some F-16s at Ft Sill, and F/A-18s at... y'know, I don't remember where. Nevada? They drove us out for the day from out NTC rotation at Ft Irwin. Either way, I've been there for live deliveries. I remember a couple dozen shacks, and I don't remember any significant misses. I also don't remember them being significantly more accurate than LDGPs.

 

3) Have you ever cut the nose of a .22 lr bullet at a 45 degree angle to see how badly adverse balance issues affect a rotating projectile? No? I have. It's less than you think.

 

4) Who said Mk82AIRs hit "dead on"? I said when dropped from under 3000 feet AGL, they should hit within errors of approximately 30 feet. When talking 500 pound GP bombs, this is a hit.

 

5) Bullets with balloons on? Clearly you have NO idea of the actual drag index vs kinetic energy comparison on a Mk82AIR. These things don't just waft gently down, batted hither and to by the whim of the breeze. They still come screaming in fast, and they still have a VERY high sectional density, so wind doesn't hurt them that much. It's more akin to firing a flat-base bullet instead of a boat-tail one. Higher drag, but hardly a parachute. Speaking of which, you DO know these do not have parachutes, right?

 

6) No one has said that HDGP are inherently MORE accurate than HDGP. We've said they're accurate enough to be worth using. OBVIOSLY low delivery altitudes are assumed when talking about HDGP employment. If you could make leisurely deliveries from 5,000-plus feet AGL, there'd be no REASON to take HDGPs; you can do the same job better with the LDGPs, and the LDGPs cost less.

 

The HDGP kit is there to enable you to drop from 500 feet instead of 3,000-plus. What do you think's going to be more accurate: shooting you with a musket from 3 inches, or a sniper rifle from 30 meters?

 

7) Ooh, hypothetical stories that have no bearing on reality? Me too, me too!

 

LTC Sue Trawman: "2LT Johnson, I want you to attack that fuel depot with LDGPs!"

 

2LT Johnson: "Ma'am? ... instead of employing HDGPs in a 1,000 foot pop-up, you want me to zoom-climb to angels 5, roll in, and make a steady LDGP delivery?

 

LTC Trawman: "That's right"

 

2LT Johnson: "...while a Gecko, battery of Tunguskas, and every SA18 in the area code has a perfect line of sight on me?"

 

LTC Trawman: "Also correct"

 

2LT Johnson: *unprintable*

 

***or how about this alternative***

 

MAJ Falla Sie: "I want you to attack that truck park with Mavericks"

 

2LT Johnson: "Why don't we just use HDGPs? It's an area target filled with frag-sensitive targets, our supply of Mavericks are limited, and the terrain in complex, requiring needlessly long exposure to SAMs to employ multiple Mavericks against multiple point targets instead of one string of HDGP"

 

MAJ Sie: "Yeah, but Mavericks are *ACCURATE*!"

 

2LT Johnson: *facepalm*

Edited September 4, 2012 by OutOnTheOP

[Ironhand]

The various airforces of NATO use them about as often in combat as I do on DCS A-10C... never! (or only during training.):D

This discussion has been very interesting (not to mention entertaining) to follow. Just wanted to toss this out. According to US GAO, 7,950 MK-82HDs were used in Desert Storm vs 69,701 of the LDs ( Operation Desert Storm: Evaluation of the Air Campaign. I'm referring to the table on pg 181.

 

And my 2 cents. At the end of the day, you train with every weapon in your inventory because you never know with certainty what weapon will be available when you are told to join the party. Even if the AIR might not be the best bomb for the task, if the task is critical, and it's the best you have available, it's what you fly with.

 

As far as accuracy is concerned, I ran across another table somewhere last night comparing the accuracy of Mk-82LDs and HDs delivered by various aircraft including the A-10. In all cases, the HDs were significantly more accurate. If I can locate that info again, I'll post it--but I'm at work now and don't have the time for an extended search.

 

 

Rich

[marcos]

This discussion has been very interesting (not to mention entertaining) to follow. Just wanted to toss this out. According to US GAO, 7,950 MK-82HDs were used in Desert Storm vs 69,701 of the LDs ( Operation Desert Storm: Evaluation of the Air Campaign. I'm referring to the table on pg 181.

Well I wasn't aware of that. My guess is that since LDGPs outnumber HDGPs 5:1 they ran out of LDGPs but had a huge stockpile of HDs because they're never used.:lol:

 

And my 2 cents. At the end of the day, you train with every weapon in your inventory because you never know with certainty what weapon will be available when you are told to join the party. Even if the AIR might not be the best bomb for the task, if the task is critical, and it's the best you have available, it's what you fly with.

I think it's more a case of a tradesman with some old stock that are passing their shelf-lives and need to be disposed of. They train with them in case they get a chance to palm them off on someone.

 

I honestly can't think of any target scenario in real combat where, out of all NATOs arsenal of weapons I would choose to use HDGPs over all other weapons, and I challenge anyone to put themselves in that position and come up with such a scenario where they would willingly choose to use HDGPs forsaking all other weapons. Any scenario I can conjure up, I can think of a better weapon for the job.

 

As far as accuracy is concerned, I ran across another table somewhere last night comparing the accuracy of Mk-82LDs and HDs delivered by various aircraft including the A-10. In all cases, the HDs were significantly more accurate.

When dropped from 1/50th of the altitude maybe.

[BlueRidgeDx]

lol...

[Ironhand]

Well I wasn't aware of that. My guess is that since LDGPs outnumber HDGPs 5:1 they ran out of LDGPs but had a huge stockpile of HDs because they're never used.:lol:

Perhaps. But, then again, by their very nature, the HDs have a more specific (or, if you prefer, limited) applicability and cost over twice as much per unit (extrapolating the numbers on the chart).

 

 

...I honestly can't think of any target scenario in real combat where, out of all NATOs arsenal of weapons I would choose to use HDGPs over all other weapons, and I challenge anyone to put themselves in that position and come up with such a scenario where they would willingly choose to use HDGPs forsaking all other weapons. Any scenario I can conjure up, I can think of a better weapon for the job.

From what I've read, one very practical consideration that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread is broaching. The sim doesn't model it as it doesn't model many things having to do with munitions. Dropping an LD from low altitude at high speed with little or no dive angle can cause them to broach or bounce back into the air. Nothing more disconcerting than looking back and seeing the a bomb you just delivered flying formation off your left wing. The ballute does two things. It slows the bomb down sufficiently to put it well behind you and, secondly, steepens the angle at which it impacts the ground. Even if for some reason, broaching wouldn't be a danger to your aircraft, the bomb is certainly going to end up far from where you intended.

 

When dropped from 1/50th of the altitude maybe.

Of course! We're talking about unguided munitions. That'll always be true. We'd expect a higher degree of accuracy from an LD released at 4000 ft vs 10,000 feet, too. The delivery method, distance the bomb falls, etc, all have to be taken into consideration when talking about accuracy. That's always the case. But I recall reading an article awhile back quoting an pilot flying a CAS mission. The bombs used were HD specifically because it could be delivered with greater accuracy with friendlies close by.

 

 

Rich

[marcos]

1) You clearly do not understand logic.

You presented none to understand.

 

One video of a hole in one proves that there is a probability of attaining a hole in one. NO videos of misses proves that you are incapable, or too lazy, to prove that they are not common. You are relying on nothing but your assertions, and expect us to just accept your flawed logic based on nothing but your badgering. Man up and present some PROOF.

Bombing is not an internationally televised sport, except during a Bush administration, so you don't see all the misses. Even LGBs have missed, that's a fact, remember the market place that got bombed during Desert Storm.

 

Do you not stop to consider why anyone even bothered to post that video on Youtube and why it seems to be about the only one demonstrating such a delivery? Maybe there's something unusual about it.

 

The proof is simply physics, you either understand it or you don't. Things with irregular, or inconsistent profiles cannot produce consistent results. Speaking of badgering, the only arguments you presented contradicted what they were tried to prove, which isn't a good idea in a debate. In another thread with someone else you also suggested the RHA of a T-72 turret is less that its thickness. You should get a clue before you post.

 

The argument centred around whether HDGPs would even be used CCIP in combat and they won't. The chances of someone attacking a single vehicle with a HDGP as per the Youtube video is nil. The whole point of HDGP is to avoid altitude, if you're going for a CCIP delivery starting from over 600ft it defeats the object. A) Because it's easily high enough for radar and B) because you can use LDGPs from 2 football pitches height anyway.

 

2) Have you ever, in the real-world, delivered, or witnessed the delivery of HDGPs? I *have*. As a Fire Support Officer, I had a secondary duty as a JTAC; we trained with some F-16s at Ft Sill, and F/A-18s at... y'know, I don't remember where. Nevada? They drove us out for the day from out NTC rotation at Ft Irwin. Either way, I've been there for live deliveries. I remember a couple dozen shacks, and I don't remember any significant misses. I also don't remember them being significantly more accurate than LDGPs.

That's because they're not???

 

3) Have you ever cut the nose of a .22 lr bullet at a 45 degree angle to see how badly adverse balance issues affect a rotating projectile?

Oh, all the time, it's how I pass the time.

 

4) Who said Mk82AIRs hit "dead on"? I said when dropped from under 3000 feet AGL, they should hit within errors of approximately 30 feet. When talking 500 pound GP bombs, this is a hit.

Funny but the claimed CEP for JDAMs and LGBs is only 30-40ft.

 

5) Bullets with balloons on? Clearly you have NO idea of the actual drag index vs kinetic energy comparison on a Mk82AIR.

Clearly you have no idea of the chute I'd intended for your bullets.

 

These things don't just waft gently down, batted hither and to by the whim of the breeze. They still come screaming in fast, and they still have a VERY high sectional density, so wind doesn't hurt them that much. It's more akin to firing a flat-base bullet instead of a boat-tail one. Higher drag, but hardly a parachute.

Or perhaps a bullet with a rolled-up sock attached to the back of it.

 

6) No one has said that HDGP are inherently MORE accurate than HDGP.

I think someone did somewhere back there in the all the bollocks I've read but I'm not going to read it again to find it.

 

We've said they're accurate enough to be worth using. OBVIOSLY low delivery altitudes are assumed when talking about HDGP employment. If you could make leisurely deliveries from 5,000-plus feet AGL, there'd be no REASON to take HDGPs; you can do the same job better with the LDGPs, and the LDGPs cost less.

Well this is really the clincher for me. I always thought of low altitude as <200ft, but now I'm told that 600ft is low altitude (see first DCS video in thread). So somehow there's a threat above 600ft that there isn't below 600ft? I'm struggling to see the raison d'etre for these bombs that cost twice as much as regular LDGPs and I've asked for an example situation several times.

 

The HDGP kit is there to enable you to drop from 500 feet instead of 3,000-plus. What do you think's going to be more accurate: shooting you with a musket from 3 inches, or a sniper rifle from 30 meters?

Let's keep things in the same proportion here. A musket at 5m or a sniper rifle at 30m? I'm going for the sniper rifle but you seem to have developed a good analogy for the accuracy of HDGPs.:lol: In the 3 inch scenario analogous to a delivery at <200ft on a runway, do you actually need to aim down the sight (CCIP)?

 

7) Ooh, hypothetical stories that have no bearing on reality? Me too, me too!

 

LTC Sue Trawman: "2LT Johnson, I want you to attack that fuel depot with LDGPs!"

 

2LT Johnson: "Ma'am? ... instead of employing HDGPs in a 1,000 foot pop-up, you want me to zoom-climb to angels 5, roll in, and make a steady LDGP delivery?

 

LTC Trawman: "That's right"

 

2LT Johnson: "...while a Gecko, battery of Tunguskas, and every SA18 in the area code has a perfect line of sight on me?"

 

LTC Trawman: "Also correct"

 

2LT Johnson: *unprintable*

 

***or how about this alternative***

 

MAJ Falla Sie: "I want you to attack that truck park with Mavericks"

 

2LT Johnson: "Why don't we just use HDGPs? It's an area target filled with frag-sensitive targets, our supply of Mavericks are limited, and the terrain in complex, requiring needlessly long exposure to SAMs to employ multiple Mavericks against multiple point targets instead of one string of HDGP"

 

MAJ Sie: "Yeah, but Mavericks are *ACCURATE*!"

 

2LT Johnson: *facepalm*

Worst examples ever. At 1000ft or 5000ft a Tunguska or Gecko will toast you and you've lost an aircraft costing ~$50m. Neutralising enemy air defences is always where you begin. If the Tunguska and Gecko are the only threats then a high altitude strike (40,000+ft with a few JDAMs or LDGPs (if the target is sufficiently large) would be an option. If the site has longer range air defences out to <60nm. A fast high altitude delivery with JSOWs would be an options. A low level pass with HDGPs puts the aircraft and pilot at an unacceptable level of risk from SR SAM and AAA.

 

In the event that the enemy has LR SAM complexes, the first job should have been removing them but in the event this hasn't been done, a fuel depot is high value target, that easily warrants the use of a stand-off weapon like Storm Shadow, JASSM, or even a Tomahawk. They are expensive weapons, up to $1m but a fuel depot costs more and so does an aircraft and so does pilot training. But an A-10 doesn't have these weapons? Interdiction is not a job for an A-10.

 

2nd scenario - The trucks now have no fuel and are therefore not a priority target until the air defences have been neutralised but in the event that you want to attack them anyway, a pop-up attack with one cheap CBU-52 (should have anticipated that) will do more damage that 8 HDGPs. Judge the deployment altitude against the size of the park and the perceived air threat. Strafing them would also work well if soft. A JSOW with a BLU-97/B warhead would also provide a safe standoff range as would an AASM Hammer with same warhead even from low altitude.

Edited September 4, 2012 by marcos

[Eddie]

At this point I suggest everyone walks away from this thread and leaves marcos to it.

 

Maybe someone should put him in contact with Carlo Kopp, I'm sure they'd get along well and have much to talk about.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Eddie

[BlueRidgeDx]

It's almost like arguing with a 9/11 truther. No amount of evidence or common sense can overcome the ego investment made by a true believer.

[Jona33]

It's almost impressive, almost being the key word in this sentence.

[marcos]

Perhaps. But, then again, by their very nature, the HDs have a more specific (or, if you prefer, limited) applicability and cost over twice as much per unit (extrapolating the numbers on the chart).

We're yet to find this applicability though.

 

From what I've read, one very practical consideration that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread is broaching. The sim doesn't model it as it doesn't model many things having to do with munitions. Dropping an LD from low altitude at high speed with little or no dive angle can cause them to broach or bounce back into the air. Nothing more disconcerting than looking back and seeing the a bomb you just delivered flying formation off your left wing. The ballute does two things. It slows the bomb down sufficiently to put it well behind you and, secondly, steepens the angle at which it impacts the ground. Even if for some reason, broaching wouldn't be a danger to your aircraft, the bomb is certainly going to end up far from where you intended.

Not so much of a problem with modern fuzing. However, going back to the original point, I said that HDGPs might be used for attacking a runway (but probably wouldn't these day) and that you don't need anything other than CCRP for that (or a truck park for that matter:doh:). The whole idea of delivering them CCIP means increasing altitude to a point where your aircraft is at risk and LDGPs could be used anyway. So when I see someone attacking small targets CCIP with HDGPs I questioned the point and validity. They're just not for that.

 

 

Of course! We're talking about unguided munitions. That'll always be true. We'd expect a higher degree of accuracy from an LD released at 4000 ft vs 10,000 feet, too. The delivery method, distance the bomb falls, etc, all have to be taken into consideration when talking about accuracy. That's always the case. But I recall reading an article awhile back quoting an pilot flying a CAS mission. The bombs used were HD specifically because it could be delivered with greater accuracy with friendlies close by.

 

 

Rich

Well this is interesting but I'd love to see the context where low level HDGP delivery with 500lb bombs provides the added accuracy that LDGPs from >1000ft wouldn't, such that friendlies close by remain safe. What kind of range are we talking about for the friendlies? I really would love to see some actual examples. Even during the Falklands airfield raids the Vulcans never used HDGPs, even though that was probably the last point in time where their use would have been valid.

Edited September 4, 2012 by marcos

[marcos]

At this point I suggest everyone walks away from this thread and leaves marcos to it.

 

Maybe someone should put him in contact with Carlo Kopp, I'm sure they'd get along well and have much to talk about.

So you can't come up with a real life example of their use and finish with that. Bravo.

[Jona33]

Worst examples ever. At 1000ft or 5000ft a Tunguska or Gecko will toast you and you've lost an aircraft costing ~$50m. Neutralising enemy air defences is always where you begin. If the Tunguska and Gecko are the only threats then a high altitude strike (40,000+ft with a few JDAMs or LDGPs (if the target is sufficiently large) would be an option. If the site has longer range air defences out to <60nm. A fast high altitude delivery with JSOWs would be an options. A low level pass with HDGPs puts the aircraft and pilot at an unacceptable level of risk from SR SAM and AAA.

 

In the event that the enemy has LR SAM complexes, the first job should have been removing them but in the event this hasn't been done, a fuel depot is high value target, that easily warrants the use of a stand-off weapon like Storm Shadow, JASSM, or even a Tomahawk. They are expensive weapons, up to $1m but a fuel depot costs more and so does an aircraft and so does pilot training. But an A-10 doesn't have these weapons? Interdiction is not a job for an A-10.

 

2nd scenario - The trucks now have no fuel and are therefore not a priority target until the air defences have been neutralised but in the event that you want to attack them anyway, a pop-up attack with one cheap CBU-52 (should have anticipated that) will do more damage that 8 HDGPs. Judge the deployment altitude against the size of the park and the perceived air threat. Strafing them would also work well if soft. A JSOW with a BLU-97/B warhead would also provide a safe standoff range as would an AASM Hammer with same warhead even from low altitude.

 

 

Forget the A-10 for a moment, use a strike eagle carrying 12 mk-82AIRs. Due to the fact that an enemy may have LR defence systems everywhere and EWR systems it makes sense to do a run it at low level. A pop up with conventional weapons or CBU's puts you slap bang it what I call the range of everyone ranging from Iglas, 37mm or upwards flak, Zu-23 or similar, and even medium range sams unless your target is next to the sam site. Now remember there's this little thing called reality meaning you don't always have a stockpile of expensive toys, at 300 feet and 5-600 knots there's bugger all that's got much chance of hitting you without barrage fire. (Remarkably it isn't easy to shoot a jet that's crossed your line of sight in a few seconds.) Now you run into the target and release your twelve bombs in whatever way you like. (Pairs, singles, Impact, airburst). The bombs are well behind you when they go off meaning frag isn't a worry. At no time in this aside from the 5-10 seconds needed to track the target do you have to provide a stable aircraft. In a pop up you must climb and dive, especially during climb you're vulnerable, more so if you have the burners going. (At night everyone can see you and IR sams are more of a threat at all times.) If you don't use burners you're going to be slow at the apex of your climb.

 

EDIT: You don't need to be diving much at all to use CCIP, to use your example of a runway how bloody hard is it to hit if you're dropping lots of bombs.

 

Also, you were given a link to a document stating that over a 1,000 were used in real life. Attempt to read people's responses before asking the same question over and over again, it merely makes you look like a fool.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Jona33

[marcos]

Forget the A-10 for a moment, use a strike eagle carrying 12 mk-82AIRs. Due to the fact that an enemy may have LR defence systems everywhere and EWR systems it makes sense to do a run it at low level. A pop up with conventional weapons or CBU's puts you slap bang it what I call the range of everyone ranging from Iglas, 37mm or upwards flak, Zu-23 or similar, and even medium range sams unless your target is next to the sam site.

And a pop-up CCIP delivery is exactly what Eddie did with his Mk-82AIRs, instead of a true low-level CCRP delivery. That's where this thing started. Low-level tactics do, or did, have their place, depending on where the enemy's air defence system lies on a timescale, but you have to look at the big picture. You're asking an aircraft to run the gauntlet before enemy air defences have been neutralised. Even if they avoid SAMs there could be AAA point defences, like Kashtan, Pantsir S1, Phalanx, Goalkeeper, Oerlikon. Why? Must be a really important target with very high value, so instead of risking an aircraft costing tens of millions of dollars, and a trained pilot, or a hostage/PoW situation, why not use a cruise missile or some kind of standoff/stealth attack. That's why I'm debating if HDGPs have any relevance anymore. It's about target scenario and context.

 

You could invent a situation for HDGPs theoretically but if a target isn't important enough to warrant guided standoff munitions, then it probably isn't important enough to be risking a suicidal low-level run in a high-value fighter bomber with 2 high value crew before enemy air defences have been adequately suppressed. There is some logic in what I'm saying if you stop to analyse it rather than jumping down my throat like everyone else is doing. I mean, FFS, NATO uses Hellfire missiles on guys riding camels with AKs, you'd think they could spare something standoff for a high-value target they're contemplating sending a fighter bomber through the valley of darkness for.

 

Now remember there's this little thing called reality meaning you don't always have a stockpile of expensive toys

See Hellfire camel example above. If it's worth risking a low-level raid, it must be important and therefore warrants expensive weapons.

 

at 300 feet and 5-600 knots there's bugger all that's got much chance of hitting you without barrage fire. (Remarkably it isn't easy to shoot a jet that's crossed your line of sight in a few seconds.)

People have shot down cruise missiles with assault rifles. 6 were shot down during Desert Storm. That's a relatively small thin object doing 550-600knots. I sure don't fancy flying by a Kashtan at 600knots below 300ft.

 

Now you run into the target and release your twelve bombs in whatever way you like. (Pairs, singles, Impact, airburst). The bombs are well behind you when they go off meaning frag isn't a worry. At no time in this aside from the 5-10 seconds needed to track the target do you have to provide a stable aircraft. In a pop up you must climb and dive, especially during climb you're vulnerable, more so if you have the burners going. (At night everyone can see you and IR sams are more of a threat at all times.) If you don't use burners you're going to be slow at the apex of your climb.

I'm not sure this is realistic even bypassing the above argument regarding target value. A person tracking a target on TGP at 300ft at 600knots through AAA. I'll let it slide since there's a 2 man crew, but I reckon it would be all visual at 300ft unless it's pitch black, which would make low-level flying really interesting.

 

EDIT: You don't need to be diving much at all to use CCIP, to use your example of a runway how bloody hard is it to hit if you're dropping lots of bombs.

So why use CCIP and rise at all. Just fly CCRP and stay low.

 

Also, you were given a link to a document stating that over a 1,000 were used in real life. Attempt to read people's responses before asking the same question over and over again, it merely makes you look like a fool.

The document offered no context and a lot of bombs were dropped in DS, so I suspect the HDs were employed in the same scenario as the LDs, to balance out stock depletion.

[OutOnTheOP]

You presented none (logic) to understand.

 

Blahblah rambling... You should get a clue before you post.

 

What, Strawman got lonely and decided to invite his friend Ad Hominem? Nice, but pointless: also, read THAT post again, and you'll find that I did NOT; if you read the LOS thickness chart, it is for an IS3, NOT a T72. Funny enough, no one has yet presented a LOS thickness chart for the side of a T72 turret to refute it. But you don't seem to need proof in this post, why would you in any other?

 

The argument centred around whether HDGPs would even be used CCIP in combat and they won't. The chances of someone attacking a single vehicle with a HDGP as per the Youtube video is nil. The whole point of HDGP is to avoid altitude, if you're going for a CCIP delivery starting from over 600ft it defeats the object. A) Because it's easily high enough for radar and B) because you can use LDGPs from 2 football pitches height anyway.

 

Wow... you have a real hard-on for the notion of some arbitrary altitude at which SAMs suddenly "become" lethal, as if breaching that altitude for a microsecond guarantees death. Have you ever thought that the safe altitude increases when in complex (masking) terrain, or that lower pop-ups minimize the time one spends at detectable altitudes? If you only pop above the radar horizon for 10 seconds, but it takes 15 seconds for the missile to get there, what do you think the SARH or command-guided missile will do for the last five seconds of it's time of flight? I'll give you a hint: it's not "shoot you down"

 

That's because they're not???

 

That was supposed to be "more or less accurate"; my mistake. It was late, I just had surgery, and I'm tired. Wah.

 

Oh, all the time, it's how I pass the time.

 

You DON'T pass the time by formulating testable experiments to prove or disprove your theories? But I thought science was on your side?

 

Funny but the claimed CEP for JDAMs and LGBs is only 30-40ft.

 

Yes, from 20,000 feet. Again, the musket and the sniper rifle.

 

Not even going to address your "critiques" of the postulated scenarios in which a HDGP bomb would be useful; your Reality Deflector Shield is much too effective It's like playing cops and robbers with a kid: "I shot you!" "no you didn't!" "yes I did!"

 

I think everyone ELSE understands the logic in those scenarios. Eddie's right; discourse with you is less productive than talking to a brick wall.

[marcos]

What, Strawman got lonely and decided to invite his friend Ad Hominem? Nice, but pointless: also, read THAT post again, and you'll find that I did NOT; if you read the LOS thickness chart, it is for an IS3, NOT a T72. Funny enough, no one has yet presented a LOS thickness chart for the side of a T72 turret to refute it. But you don't seem to need proof in this post, why would you in any other?

The point is that you regularly post crap that people disagree with.

 

Wow... you have a real hard-on for the notion of some arbitrary altitude at which SAMs suddenly "become" lethal, as if breaching that altitude for a microsecond guarantees death. Have you ever thought that the safe altitude increases when in complex (masking) terrain, or that lower pop-ups minimize the time one spends at detectable altitudes? If you only pop above the radar horizon for 10 seconds, but it takes 15 seconds for the missile to get there, what do you think the SARH or command-guided missile will do for the last five seconds of it's time of flight? I'll give you a hint: it's not "shoot you down"

Well the whole ****ing scenario is arbitrary. Like you'll avoid modern air defense networks by flying at 500, 400 or 300ft??? And AAA??? But if we are sticking with the arbitrary notion that you can, then why not stick rigidly to it?

 

 

That was supposed to be "more or less accurate"; my mistake. It was late, I just had surgery, and I'm tired. Wah.

Brain surgery?

 

You DON'T pass the time by formulating testable experiments to prove or disprove your theories? But I thought science was on your side?

I often pass the time by formulating experiments completely inapplicable to what I'm interested in finding out. I developed the hobby after reading a book by Dr. OutOnTop and Dr. Kopp entitled '1001 Completely Irrelevant Tests and then some'. I shaved the wool off a lamb and found it made no difference to the accuracy with which I could throw it, I then shot the thrown lamb with similar accuracy using a normal bullet and one I blunted the end of, therefore you must be right. You have patented the theory of Irrelativity, go collect your nobel prize and proceed to GO + £200.

 

Yes, from 20,000 feet. Again, the musket and the sniper rifle.

Guiding on a laser point or a GPS co-ordinate, the drop altitude is not directly linked to the accuracy, unless a cloud blocks the laser. In fact, having more time to correct can work out better in some cases.

 

Not even going to address your "critiques" of the postulated scenarios in which a HDGP bomb would be useful

Because you can't.

 

A HDGP bomb might be useful if someone wanted to drop it on you and give an amateur photographer more time to take a photo.

 

discourse with you is less productive than talking to a brick wall.

Was that another one of your experiments?

[OutOnTheOP]

The point is that you regularly post crap that people disagree with...

 

lots of rambling... failure to address the argument with logical statement or hard evidence...

 

...brain surgery?

 

I would suggest you research the definition of "ad hominem". Clue: that's it right there. You have ceased addressing the flaws of the argument (not that you really, at any point, have), and have instead resorted to name-calling. I would suggest this means that your argument cannot stand on it's own, and you now just feel all butthurt that no one agrees with you.

 

Also, the name is OutOnTheOP, as in OBSERVATION POST, as in I was a Fire Support Officer, and the OP was my office. Points lost for reading comprehension.

 

But, like I said: brick wall. I will not be wasting any more of my time on you. Enjoy your stay in your isolated little reality. Must get lonely in there.