Call For the Banning Of UK CBUS

Thanks Aurcov.

Yeah the Longshot is a toss up. Depends what you want to do. Isn’t that stock kit limited to 1000lb weight? And yes it is easier to mod certain aircraft but there is ( in the case of the B-1, B-2, F-18E/F as other aircraft grow the ability some unworkability with that nice simplicity of Longshot, where you do radar assisted/enhanced bombing ( targets that allow it ) and offset bombing which in the case of those aircraft have a faster interface to pipe the enhanced cords directly from the bomb/nav system into the selected weapons on the rack on your final bomb run. Also the thing were we do a lot of NCW ( netcentric warfare ) now where a batch of cords are piped into your display over the network and you assign the weapons to them on your MFD menu without typing in LAT LONGs.
Correct me, but in the case of Longshot you have to type in the cord on the UFD? Good for a lot of situations and a lot of fighters you don’t want to install a new laser-ring gyro-secure anti-jam-anti-spoof GPS system into. I think both systems have their place.

Smart submunitions like the BLU-108b SFW carried in the Wind Corrected Munitions Container ( A CBU like canister with something similar to a JDAM tail kit on it ( GPS assisted ) In the form of CBU-105.

Just a small correction: WCMD is not GPS assisted (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/wcmd.htm;http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-97.htm). It is using inertial guidance.

There is a kit developed by LM (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=13776&rsbci=0&fti=126&ti=0&sc=400) named LongShot that can be attached to WCMD, as well as to dumb bombs, laser guided bombs and even torpedoes. This one is GPS assisted and it uses a very simple method to interact with the plane:

Since LongShot does not require MIL-STD-1760 interface, it is compatible with most fighter and bomber aircraft. No aircraft OFP modification is required to deploy a LongShot-equipped munition. Targeting information can be input via a laptop computer or through an in-aircraft knee pad device that plugs into the aircraft intercom. The knee pad device establishes two-way communication with LongShot via the aircraft’s UHF radio. This provides any combat aircraft without a 1760 smart weapons interface to have immediate, long standoff, and affordable precision strike capability.

That’s better than JDAM: it can be attached on many weapons, it provide long-range (over 50 Nmiles for a 1000 lbs. weapon) and precludes costly A/C modification.

Not a big believer in the dumb submunitions that cause all the negative image stuff. Again the dud rate on them is high and were best used in a Fulda Gap scenario or against SAM/AAA sites in the old days. We have better ways now most of the time. The one exception to that would be NK. Any trouble started with them, we should seed the NK side with dumb submunitions twice over.

Off-topic. I also don’t have a problem with Flamagel/Incinigel ( replaced Napalm ). In it’s M77 form it is useful to our Marines. USMC used it once in a river crossing in OIF. Everything got real quiet like after the strike. Not something you use all the time because there are a lot of times where it is a pain in the neck to use and isn’t needed. The accuracy sux and it takes skill to deliver the things. USMC uses the M77 with no fins so it tumbles. As it is a dumb bomb delivery with a pretty loose CEP, that also means that weather and night, cloud cover makes it near impossible or unsafe to deliver them. They are usually used in a planned attack and not as a quick reaction weapon. Sending a jet up these days without precision guided munitions is a waste of gas and effort. So for those few targets where the weather is nice, and the target is a fixed defensive position that has to be taken out …. including things like expected resistance to a river crossing. M77 isn’t such a bad thing. It has an instant object lesson all it’s own to the spectators ( i.e. “your next” ). It is a rarely used but highly useful tool. M77 saves lives; our troops.

The Fulda Gap was American stuff, the British were there to defend the Lüneburger Heide. 😉
But I agree with your point: If you have the luxury of chosing the weapons and not being in deep trouble, you should chose the one with minimum side-effects. In the Fulda-Gap scenario you don’t be so happy. Your fall-abck option is the tactical nuclear bomb. The problem is: when considering the weapons military leaders possibly don’t take political boundary conditions into account. For a tactical decision the % of duds doesn’t matter too much, if you can drop twice the number. An F-15E can drop 12-18 CBU24 (670 bomblets), that corrects for any duds or unprecise aiming. But the area is contaminated with 670*18*15% = 1800 unexploded devices. Definitely no good farmland.

Depends. Dumb submunitions have a high dud rate both air to ground munitions and artillery ( like MLRS ). They are pretty and yellow ( the color for live munitions ) kids pick them up and get maimed or killed. There was a post OIF situation in Baghdad were a little girl picked one up from a previous MLRS fire mission, and walked it over to a couple of US Army guys, it went off, injuring them and killing her.

Smart Submunitions like BLU-108b Sensor Fused Weapon ( SFW ) used in the same conflict, don’t leave around any duds. They have multiple failsafes in them. A peacenik group going around post OIF doing a report on bomblets, couldn’t find any SFWs in an area where they were used. They pretty much work as advertised. ( they should as they are dramatically more expensive).

Smart submunitions like the BLU-108b SFW carried in the Wind Corrected Munitions Container ( A CBU like canister with something similar to a JDAM tail kit on it ( GPS assisted ) In the form of CBU-105. Should be used when needed. They save lives. Ours. As was proven in OIF when some Marines called for air support to take out a column of Iraq tanks that was going to ruin their day. 2 CBU-105s dropped from a B-52, wiped out about a third of the enemy unit and the rest got out and surrendered. All they saw was the tanks in front of them blowing up and dieing and they didn’t know how it was happening. CBU-105 is about the best killer of AVFs and soft vehicles out in the open of anything out there as it is an “I can touch you but you can’t touch me, weapon.” In an air war where we destroy enemy airpower and large SAMs, CBU-105 can be released from 40,000ft several miles away outside of the range of Small SAMs, MANPADs, AAA, trashfire and hit it’s mark.

Not a big believer in the dumb submunitions that cause all the negative image stuff. Again the dud rate on them is high and were best used in a Fulda Gap scenario or against SAM/AAA sites in the old days. We have better ways now most of the time. The one exception to that would be NK. Any trouble started with them, we should seed the NK side with dumb submunitions twice over.

Off-topic. I also don’t have a problem with Flamagel/Incinigel ( replaced Napalm ). In it’s M77 form it is useful to our Marines. USMC used it once in a river crossing in OIF. Everything got real quiet like after the strike. Not something you use all the time because there are a lot of times where it is a pain in the neck to use and isn’t needed. The accuracy sux and it takes skill to deliver the things. USMC uses the M77 with no fins so it tumbles. As it is a dumb bomb delivery with a pretty loose CEP, that also means that weather and night, cloud cover makes it near impossible or unsafe to deliver them. They are usually used in a planned attack and not as a quick reaction weapon. Sending a jet up these days without precision guided munitions is a waste of gas and effort. So for those few targets where the weather is nice, and the target is a fixed defensive position that has to be taken out …. including things like expected resistance to a river crossing. M77 isn’t such a bad thing. It has an instant object lesson all it’s own to the spectators ( i.e. “your next” ). It is a rarely used but highly useful tool. M77 saves lives; our troops.

Well, the article says its Labour MP Hilary Benn calling for the ban, he is the son of the famous/infamous Labour MP Tony Benn. More of a chip off the old block than previously thought?

hey sealord heres a link to the article

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/0,,637069,00.html

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,1925727,00.html

The above is the only article I could find and it states that the UK is opposed to a ban on cluster munitions and regards them as a valuableweapon of war.
The politician which opposes them is a liberal democrat, basically a terrorist hugger.

For goodness sake!

I thought the whole purpose of airdropped munitions was to cause injury, harm and/or destruction.

How is it different that a person is killed by a 1000lb bomb dropped years ago that has remained unexploded until they came along and tried to move it?

Isn’t that how CBU ‘landmines’ work? Admittedly smaller calibre but they can remain unexploded for as long as larger bombs.

Maybe this is why the government is cutting back on the armed forces, they might hurt somebody.

War hurts, sometimes not always the intended recipiant but that is war.

INDISCRIMINATE

The usage of cluster ammunition should be considered very carefully, when
– the objective is limited warfare
– the area is populated
– there is limited chance of occupying the area and hence it cannot be cleaned by experts
– I care for “collateral damage”

Then, and especially when the threat to friendly forces is limited, a ban on CBUs seems worth thinking. Actually, under above conditions, the ban of air strikes in general seems worth thinking (or even better: the use of military force for police-like tasks seems questionable).
CBUs, DPU ammunition, LGBs and all the other fun weapons are designed to fight an enemy army with armor, infantry, air defence, etc pp. They are not designed to fight “insurgents” and terrorists and definitely not designed to bring political messages or to win “hearts & minds”.

If the WP tanks rush through the Lüneburger Heide, then I would say: Yes, use cluster bombs, and use a lot!

hey sealord heres a link to the article

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/0,,637069,00.html

IIRC, in a Textron video about the Sensor Fuzed Weapon (CBU 97), they claim it would leave a “clean battlefield”.

Cluster bombs have gotten a largely undeserved bad reputation. Yes, there are unexploded munitions, but the same is true of every other weapons system. The bomblets in question also tend to be fairly visible, unlike land mines.

Air scattered landmines are just as visible as most cluster munitions. Children tend to “play” with cluster munitions which can go of without any warning whatsoever. Like landmines UXO does not discriminate between combatant and noncombatant and will continue to kill and maim long ceasefires or peace treaties are signed…

If you continue to use them you have a responsibility to clean up afterwards.

Hi its been many moons since ive posted on here so here goes,

Today a leading UK politicain has called for the banning of CBUs, due to the failure rate of the bomblets contained within and that these are “practically landmines”. This would be in contravention of the 1998 ottawa treaty if it was judged to be the case. Over to you guys and gals, am curious to see the diffrent points of view on the use of CBUs in all there forms on todays modern battlefields be that iraq, afghanistan or any other possible conflict.

Regards

Butch

Do you have a source for this? I would be intrigued to know which ‘leading politician it was’?

Today a leading UK politicain has called for the banning of CBUs, due to the failure rate of the bomblets contained within and that these are “practically landmines”. This would be in contravention of the 1998 ottawa treaty if it was judged to be the case. Over to you guys and gals, am curious to see the diffrent points of view on the use of CBUs in all there forms on todays modern battlefields be that iraq, afghanistan or any other possible conflict.

Cluster bombs have gotten a largely undeserved bad reputation. Yes, there are unexploded munitions, but the same is true of every other weapons system. The bomblets in question also tend to be fairly visible, unlike land mines.

If unexploded cluster bomblets indeed were effective substitutes anti-personel mines, such a secondary capability might indeed be worthwhile in the area denial role.

Of course, the current hysteria regarding land mines is also entirely overblown. The is nothing wrong with maintaining well planned minefields in the Korean DMZ. The problem with land mines is that guerilla and militant groups tend to plant them indiscriminately in wartorn 3rd world countries.

The reality is that with the advent of the American WCMD, or Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser, there is a growing role for air dropped cluster munitions. If you can wipe out a large number of terrorists in an open area with a single pass from 20,000 feet, you have a worthwhile capability.

Even older cluster munitions have a place. In a future sustained conflict, after the RAF had depleted its minimal stockpile of Brimstone missiles it would be vital to fall back on BL.755 cluster bombs – at least as long as the Tornado GR.4 and Harrier GR.9 are still in service.

It is worth noting that the RAF apparently wants to do pretty much that – the Brimstone missile is the designated replacement for the BL-755, AFAIK.