GBU12 vs Mk82

[JuggernautOfWar 1]

Quick question regarding aircraft bombs. The GBU12 is laser guided and the Mk82 is free-fall right? Are there any bombs that can acquire a target in the same way a missile does, then hit close to the target if you fly a good AOA?

[Pouk 10]

Mk82 can be locked on target as the regular missile. After you launch it, it glides right on your target.

[JuggernautOfWar 1]

Hmm the F-16C addon unit has a multirole payload option with two Mk82s. They do not home in on their target, I can't select a target by pressing tab while the bombs are selected.

[ajsarge 10]

That's an addon. The default MK82s loaded onto the harrier can be locked onto a target. I'd be more interested in JDAM-guided bombs that are "targetted" by a WSO. He selects a point on the map, and the pilot gets a target reticule like any other lockable weapon.

[tcp 10]

Just pretend you're lazing your own target when you use Mk82 "smart" bombs.

[moondawg 12]

I guess the Mk82 simulates a proper CCIP sight on the hud.

[An Fiach 10]

Yea it is a poorly implemented system to simulate the hud indicating approximate release point.

[Simon C 0]

It's not as unrealistic as it sounds really, concerning the Mk82 locking system. It's a simple version of CCRP (Continuously Calculated Release Point) bombing, that modern fighter jets can use. It's like the counterpart to CCIP. :)

[galzohar 31]

Even if I do accept the MK82 system and bomb systems in general (which I don't, it's pretty damn terrible!), I simply cannot accept the fact GBU-12 has worse "guidance" than the MK82 if you don't have someone designating a target from the ground.

[ricnunes 0]

Simon C,

NO, the system we currently have in ArmA2 regarding the Mk82 is NOT even close as being realistic or remotedly similar to CCIP or CCRP like you mentioned. Even with the CCRP the bomb must be released at ONE point only (which lasts only a fraccion of a second) which means that if you release the bomb early relative to that point the bomb will miss by short. If you release the bomb late relative to that point the bomb will miss by far - This is how it works in real life! Also in real life the aircraft must be perfectly alligned to the target in terms of bearing, if not the bomb will never hit the target no matter what!

In ArmA2 you just need the lock the target and if the bomb has enough range to reach the target it will automatically self guide to the target like a Laser or GPS guided bomb. In ArmA2 you don't even need to perfectly allign your aircraft in terms of bearing to ensure a bomb hit! Again this isn't even remotly similar with CCRP. The Mk82 in ArmA2 resembles more a Laser Guided Bomb (BTW aircraft armed with GBU-12 in ArmA2 should be able to lock and auto guide those GBU-12 guided bombs).

[Simon C 0]

I never said it was exact, I said it was a simple approximation. It is similar in that there is a limited time period in which you can release the bomb to ensure a hit, I NEVER said it was realistic. CCRP is the closest mode of bomb-release to what we have with Mk82s in game, but NOWHERE in my post did I say it was realistic or similar in all aspects.

[ricnunes 0]

And I didn't say that it wasn't exact! I said that it wasn't even similar or that it wasn't even a "simple aproximation" like you said! Sorry but I completly disagree with you in this regard and I fail to see even the slightest RESEMBLANCE from the Mk82 in ArmA2 to the CCRP mode!

And NO, in ArmA2 you basically don't have a "a limited time period in which you can release the bomb to ensure a hit" similar to the CCRP mode. What you have in ArmA2 is a maximum range from the target where you must drop the bomb to ensure a hit - The Mk82 in ArmA2 only resemblance to real life is how the GUIDED bombs work, and thats it!

[galzohar 31]

There is no resemblence. The Mk82 in the game is not a simple approximation, it's an extremely rough approximation and even that seems like an understatement. And to top it all off, the advantages/disadvantages of GBU/Mk are mostly not simulated.

[Daniel 0]

The standard BIS Mk82 is awful, it makes bombing enemy armour piss easy. It's simply wrong. As stated, CCRP is a bombing aid, the pilot can still miss without the right conditions.

Rearm (script) your aircraft with GLT Missiles Mk82s and learn to dumb bomb! Takes a bit of figuring out at first, but then you can fly level bombing runs and hit any type of target.

Dumb bombs and rockets make much more interesting fire support than simply tab locking with AGMs or "smart Mk82s".

[galzohar 31]

Daniel;1525231']

Rearm (script) your aircraft with GLT Missiles Mk82s and learn to dumb bomb! Takes a bit of figuring out at first' date=' but then you can fly level bombing runs and hit any type of target.[/quote']

Unfortunately, with modern aircraft, doing this (bombing with dumb bombs with no aids whatsoever) is (almost) as unrealistic as the current system.

Daniel;1525231']

Dumb bombs and rockets make much more interesting fire support than simply tab locking with AGMs or "smart Mk82s".

Except IRL fire support is usually done with smarter weapons, at least when fired from modern aircraft.. Of course IRL it's still a tad more complicated than tab-spamming ;)

[Daniel 0]

Unfortunately, with modern aircraft, doing this (bombing with dumb bombs with no aids whatsoever) is (almost) as unrealistic as the current system.

Ok, it's a little WW2, but my point is that, as with real life

A: It still takes skill (not a lot once you've had a bit of practice).

B: It can still miss. The vanilla guided Mk82 simply doesn't miss unless the pilot is an imbecile. Since ArmA2 doesn't force the same considerations as real life, CCRP almost isn't necessary anyway.

Except IRL fire support is usually done with smarter weapons, at least when fired from modern aircraft.. Of course IRL it's still a tad more complicated than tab-spamming ;)

Direct planned attacks maybe. But if you just want to keep the enemy's heads down, rockets, cannon and dumb bombs are the quicker, cheaper and more effective solution.

You can't get a radar lock on a trench, or troops on a tree line. You can tell a pilot with a 540lb airburst where it is and watch it get flattened.

Edited December 26, 2009 by Daniel

[galzohar 31]

Yes, except the RL pilot will have a very easy time to bomb compared to the unaided in-game pilot who will most likely miss.

[JuggernautOfWar 1]

Does ACE2 get rid of the Mk82 tracking feature?

[ricnunes 0]

IMO what needs to be done is to model a CCIP system in ArmA2 (for the unguided bombs).

Ideally would be great to model the CCRP system as well but since ArmA2 is very simplified in terms of aircraft/vehicles I will only ask BIS for the CCIP system, because of the following reasons:

- The CCIP has a great advantage over the CCRP which is like [CAS] Daniel already said it doesn't need a radar lock over the target and of course the real radars can't lock infantry for example (the CCRP is rather limited in terms of close air support). because of this the CCIP is more versatile than the CCRP.

- IMO, I believe a realistic CCIP should be easier to implement than a REALISTIC CCRP in terms of coding.

It's true what galzohar said that fire support (and other attack missions) is usually done with smart (guided) weapons nowadays. BUT that's basically only true with technological advanced countries like most NATO countries and in some part with other also technological advanced countries like Russia as well. BUT (again) if we look to less advanced countries which are the VAST majority of countries in the world and in which Chernarus is definitly modeled in mind (with it's CDF and Chedaki forces) we will see that most of such countries still use exclusively unguided dumb bombs and rockets in their (also outdated) aircraft! I'm willing to bet that even Russia or China use mainly unguided bombs and rockets in their air-to-ground missions!

Besides having CCIP and accurate dumb bomb modeling allows the modders and players to accuratly play in scenarios that take place in the 70's, 80's and even early 90's (even when playing with NATO countries).

[nomdeplume 0]

IMO what needs to be done is to model a CCIP system in ArmA2 (for the unguided bombs).

Agreed. I don't think CCRP really matters since the combat in Arma is pretty much all within visual range anyway. From a gameplay perspective, CCIP means the pilot would have to put their aircraft at some kind of risk in order to make a bomb attack.

The big problem I have at the moment is that the only difference between LGBs and "dumb" bombs is that LGBs can ONLY be locked on to laser targets, and the aircraft dropping the bomb can't provide the laser target itself. This means that Mk82s are preferred as they give you greater flexibility/accuracy than the LGBs! Especially true in single-player, where the LGBs are virtually useless since the AI doesn't lase targets.

So either: dumb bombs need a marker on the ground where they'll hit, and have zero guidance otherwise. This would make LGBs actually useful and different to the Mk-82s.

Or: allow the aircraft to provide its own laser target. This could be done with adding a "Laser" weapon just before the LGBs in the weapons cycle list, which can be locked on to pretty much anything. Once activated, the locked target will be lased - if there's no target locked, the ground under the boresight reticule would be lased. This laser target would remain for 15-30 seconds, even after switching weapons, so it could be locked onto by LGBs. Ideally, it should disappear if the aircraft turns more than a certain amount away from it, i.e. you need to keep it in your forward arc to maintain the lock.

Ideally it'd be cool if both were implemented, but I'd be happy with #1 - "CCIP" style bomb cues and no auto-guidance.

[celery 8]

How does one use the GBU unguided in 1.05? The movement vector diamond has been taken away from planes so my only reliable way of estimating the bomb's trajectory is gone.

[Daniel 0]

It used to be slightly below the centre reticule - seems it's been raised since 1.05 so you've got to raise your sight further. Not good.

Not sure what that circle with the line attached is supposed to do, certainly doesn't tell you where to bomb.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Daniel

[paelleon 0]

IMO what needs to be done is to model a CCIP system in ArmA2 (for the unguided bombs).

Ideally would be great to model the CCRP system as well but since ArmA2 is very simplified in terms of aircraft/vehicles I will only ask BIS for the CCIP system, because of the following reasons:

- The CCIP has a great advantage over the CCRP which is like [CAS] Daniel already said it doesn't need a radar lock over the target and of course the real radars can't lock infantry for example (the CCRP is rather limited in terms of close air support). because of this the CCIP is more versatile than the CCRP.

- IMO, I believe a realistic CCIP should be easier to implement than a REALISTIC CCRP in terms of coding.

I agree. ArmA and AmrA2 (and , why not, OFP) needs a CCIP addon. I read that the last version of Mando Missile has it, but only on certain types of aircrafts.

CCIP system is quite widespread today, being used since the Vietnam war. Even russian made aircrafts uses it. It's a simple and cheap way to greatly improve bombing accuracy, much more cheaper than retrofitting ALL YOUR BOMBS :eek: with ridicolous, expensive, jammable GPS receivers.:rolleyes:

It's true what galzohar said that fire support (and other attack missions) is usually done with smart (guided) weapons nowadays. BUT that's basically only true with technological advanced countries like most NATO countries and in some part with other also technological advanced countries like Russia as well. BUT (again) if we look to less advanced countries which are the VAST majority of countries in the world and in which Chernarus is definitly modeled in mind (with it's CDF and Chedaki forces) we will see that most of such countries still use exclusively unguided dumb bombs and rockets in their (also outdated) aircraft! I'm willing to bet that even Russia or China use mainly unguided bombs and rockets in their air-to-ground missions!

Besides having CCIP and accurate dumb bomb modeling allows the modders and players to accuratly play in scenarios that take place in the 70's, 80's and even early 90's (even when playing with NATO countries).

I don't agree. With the single exception of the USA, no other country in the world had converted its entire arsenal of bombs into guided munitions, it is simply too expensive (and useless ;)! In the world there still tons and tons of cheap, effective, reliable, unguided munitions: cluter dispensers, FAE and iron bombs, napalm and white phosporous clusters, rockets, even deep charges for ASW warfare in shallow waters. All of them rely on the CCIP computer and pilot skill to hit the target!

In modern low instensity guerrilla warfare you can afford to use few (few! they costs too much!) guided munitions to destroy small pockets of badly armed resistance, but when things gets really hot and we are speaking of a real, high intensity war, you need tons of ammo and you'll have very little time to release them. Locking a missile to the right target needs more time than just fly by and drop 2 unguided-heavier-yet-less-expensive iron bombs.

Damn, I like bombing runs!:D

[ray243 11]

Mk82 should just be dumb bombs. Now we are having 2 smart bombs. This defeats the purpose of using mk82s as dumb bombs

[arthur666 10]

I agree that the planes carrying the GBU12 should be able to lase their own target, and CCIP would be a good feature, provided the AI could use it. Pinpointing tanks with a Mk82, is just silly.

I have been adding Mk82's to the F-35B and suspending my disbelief by pretending that they are LGBs. Also, I have used the unlased GBU12 with decent effect using the old-school divebombing technique. Works well enough on soft targets like troops and trucks.