Will concrete bombs be modeled?

John Kettler · January 8, 2006

AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY reported last year(?) that U.S. forces in Iraq were using concrete filled (no explosive at all) PGMs for taking out urban targets in Iraq in cases where near zero collateral damage was desired. I believe these were laser guided bombs used to remove snipers and MG positions, and they reportedly worked very well. Will they be available in CM:SF?

Regards,

John Kettler

ozi_digger · January 9, 2006

I'd recommend that BFC not bother with modelling concrete bombs for two reasons.

a) They're not entirely effective as a less-than-lethal alternative; and

They're not in widespread operational use.

Thus, I'd be interested to see which sources the magazine article got its information from.

Let me explain each point.

a) They're not entirely effective as a less-than-lethal alternative. The measure of effectiveness for a concrete bomb is effective miss distance (EMD). This means it's impact point has to be within a certain radius in order to be effective. For this reason their optimum use is against medium sized point targets that just need a penetrative effect. Our typical concrete laser guided bomb (LGB) will probably be a Mk82, 500lb case filled with concrete and a Paveway II guidance kit (lets call it a concrete GBU-12, or CGBU-12). The circular error probable of a CGBU-12 is probably between 10 and 20 feet - say 15 feet. This means that 50% of strikes will fall within 15ft of the aimpoint and 90% will fall within 30ft. The CGBU does not represent a precision attack to take out a small point target such as a sniper. It is much more likely to temporarily neutralise the operations of the sniper -stun him and force him to move rather than killing him. This is not a permanent solution by any means - if my troops were being harassed by a sniper I'd rather see him killed so he didn't come back to fight another day.

The other problem with the CGBU is ricochet. They have a nasty tendency to hit a target and then fly off into the distance - up to 1000's of metres in some cases. This, in reality does not represent a safe weapon to mitigate civilian casualties. CGBU weapon effects can be unpredictable at best - imagine it - the weapon strikes then ricochets and flies through half the neighbourhood before coming to rest.

Conversely, the nearest low yield weapon is the GBU-12 itself - 500lb of frag and HE. On the positive side, its weapon effects are easier to predict - it hits and explodes in a predictable pattern. However, it still represents overkill in a situation requiring less-than-lethal effects. This is the reason the US is developing the small diameter bomb (SDB). It promises to be a low yield weapon that will not ricochet (and will self-destruct) and will mitigate collateral damage concerns.

The weaponeering school of thought is divided on the use of concrete bombs. Some advocate their use and some urge caution because they may not be as effective, nor as safe, as you might think.

The CGBU is not 'experimental' nor is it standard load-out either. HE and frag is a much more popular effect with those who call for CAS support. An aircarft on CAS standby is much more likely to have a couple of GBUs or JDAMs instead of concrete munitions. This is because the utility of concrete bombs is rather limited.

For these reasons I'd recommend BFC concentrate on their core ideas - stuff that blows up. Concrete bombs are not standard loadout and they are not in widespread use. BFC seems much more interested in combat operations involving infantry and mechanised forces. Likewise, whatever CAS they model will probably have a lethal contribution to events on the ground ( I hope!).