It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Death From Above, the CBU-97 Sensor Fused Weapon

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by IblisBy-to-by, are you telling me that fourty seperate weapons each processing the battlefield below and determining where and what a target is, is less sophisticated than several large weapons searching for heat or metal?



The US version only has IR guidance - all it can look for it heat. The Russian one uses MMW imaging at well, so it's not limited to aiming at a running engine. it also has a much bigger warhead; the US one tries to compenate by being made of tantalum, but it's a very expensive way of doing it.




posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 12:06 AM
link   
So basically the US version is superior and more high tech. I'm glad we can all agree on something. Of couse as well teh US version has beencombat proven whilst the Russian one's capability's is just a wet dream.

AGREED



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley

Fourty targets. And if they fail to find one, they self-destruct fifty feet above the ground. Anything else?



I didn't ask how many targets it looks for, I asked how many actual kills you can score. (Btw I think you mean forty)

One of the big drawbacks of the US version is that where the views overlap, the submunitions all tend to go for the same target. When they don't, a lot of them are looking at empty space with no target vehicles.

As I said, check the facts and let me know what number you come up with


Looks like Rogue1 hit it on the head!

To clarify:

First, people in different parts of the world spell things differently. I'm also likely to spell things as 'colour', or 'armour'. Please do not presume that one word out of an otherwise grammatically-correct paragraph was a mistake enough for you to make a point of it, good lord.

Next, if fourty targets are found by fourty submunitions, then that is the number of kills you can be expected to finish with. Will there be fourty targets? Will they overlap? No one can say.

Further, I'll respond by saying again, the munitions are designed to explode at fifty feet if they find no target. It's a non-issue. [Though I'm aware some end up as duds, of course.]

The U.S. 'compensates' for a big bomb with a group of tiny, independent processors using a more-advanced kill-system? Excellent.

And my point wasn't the kind of detection [Though I mis-worded it, I can see how it was obviously construed] but that there are fourty seperate devices doing the scanning. Not some big bomb.

Smaller processors = More advanced. Easy enough?



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
Next, if fourty targets are found by fourty submunitions, then that is the number of kills you can be expected to finish with. Will there be fourty targets? Will they overlap? No one can say.


Why can't you say? There are some stats available on this.

You certainly cannot get 40 kills!

"Test results indicate that CBU-97 submunitions have a propensity to cluster and that impact patterns are unevenly distributed. This is contrary to the uniform distribution assumption employed in the Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manual (JMEM). Because of the clustering effect, it appears that JMEM overestimates damage and more weapons may be required to destroy the target then predicted. "

www.fas.org...

" In a test conducted in late 1991, for example, an F-16 dropped four SFW canisters from low altitude, which then dispersed a total of 40 BLU-108/B submunitions over a column of 24 vehicles. 17 hits were scored on 11 of the vehicles. "

www.vectorsite.net...



Originally posted by Iblis
And my point wasn't the kind of detection [Though I mis-worded it, I can see how it was obviously construed] but that there are fourty seperate devices doing the scanning. Not some big bomb.


The Russian one also has multiple devices doing the scanning - only in their case they can have MMW as well as IR. = more sophisticated.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley

Originally posted by Iblis
Next, if fourty targets are found by fourty submunitions, then that is the number of kills you can be expected to finish with. Will there be fourty targets? Will they overlap? No one can say.


Why can't you say? There are some stats available on this.

You certainly cannot get 40 kills!

"Test results indicate that CBU-97 submunitions have a propensity to cluster and that impact patterns are unevenly distributed. This is contrary to the uniform distribution assumption employed in the Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manual (JMEM). Because of the clustering effect, it appears that JMEM overestimates damage and more weapons may be required to destroy the target then predicted. "

www.fas.org...

" In a test conducted in late 1991, for example, an F-16 dropped four SFW canisters from low altitude, which then dispersed a total of 40 BLU-108/B submunitions over a column of 24 vehicles. 17 hits were scored on 11 of the vehicles. "

www.vectorsite.net...



Originally posted by Iblis
And my point wasn't the kind of detection [Though I mis-worded it, I can see how it was obviously construed] but that there are fourty seperate devices doing the scanning. Not some big bomb.


The Russian one also has multiple devices doing the scanning - only in their case they can have MMW as well as IR. = more sophisticated.


Would it be fair to say that I'd expect a device to be improved in the past seventeen years? Any tests more recent than 1991? And you're mis-using my quote -- I was pointing out my inability to tell you what might happen given a very large variety of battlefield situations.

The Russian one has fewer, larger devices performing essentially the same scans, as the submunitions skeeters for the CBU also contain lasers to asses the height, contour, and direction of the vehicle.

My point, and that of several other posters remain - The U.S. is a more advanced weapon. And saying that the U.S. 'compensates' for Russia's "big boom" with multiple, independently-assessing, EFP's, than so be it. It's wrong. But so be it.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by IblisMy point, and that of several other posters remain - The U.S. is a more advanced weapon.


- But you haven't provided a single piece of evidence to actually support this claim. Care to give it a shot?

I'm still hoping that the "fourty" bit was a joke. But I think it's a sign of your tendency to try and cover mistakes by bluffing.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley

Originally posted by IblisMy point, and that of several other posters remain - The U.S. is a more advanced weapon.


- But you haven't provided a single piece of evidence to actually support this claim. Care to give it a shot?

I'm still hoping that the "fourty" bit was a joke. But I think it's a sign of your tendency to try and cover mistakes by bluffing.


I'll assume your inability to address most of my points means you concede them.

Why should I have to support it? It's basic logic -- If fourty individual devices are performing the same work, independently, of a much larger device, the electronics are more advanced. It's the basic premises behind electronics -- the smaller, the faster, the better. Basic logic. I don't need sources. If you want them, go E-Mail Intel, AMD, NVidia, IBM, etc.

If they, further, use a more complicated kill system. [Explosives aren't that fancy now-a-days.] It can also be considered more advanced. Basic logic.

Bluffing? Waiting for your evidence as to where I 'bluffed' anything. It's startlingly short, though not half-bad when compared to you forfeiting the majority of my points.

A Pre-Planned Product Improvement (P3I) Program will take the existing design and make modifications to the projectile sensor, incorporating a dual mode (active/passive IR) for better target detection; modify the warhead to enhance soft target lethality; and increase the system footprint for better target coverage. Projectiles would be dispensed at a greater altitude expanding the area covered to about 600 feet by 1,800 feet. In addition, an insensitive explosive fill will replace the Octol used in the current warhead to satisfy Navy requirements for the BLU-108/B submunition used in one variant of the Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW).

Comes from fas.org.

Seems that since your 1991 tests, the military has improved its munitions!
Fancy!

With improved radar.
better kill-system
better coverage
And insensitive explosives, but I could really care.

"Research" yourself next time. It's amazing what basic logic can do for ya'.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis It's basic logic -- If fourty individual devices are performing the same work, independently, of a much larger device, the electronics are more advanced.


You haven't given any evidence that the US submunition is doing the same job as the Russian one, never mind better. The test results suggests it's not that good. And a P3I program is an indication that the product initially fielded is not up to scratch. Certainly they had to improve the liner as the copper version simply wasn't capable, but it still doesn't match the Russian one.

Congrats with keeping up with the "fourty" thing, I wonder how long you'll carry on? (I'm guessing you don't know where Wembley is yet)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join