So, im going to come at this from another angle.
What is the fundemental requirements for “CCRP” in an in-game context.
Can the aircraft pre-designate a target? Yes:
Spoiler
There is even imagery of the HUD showing the target reticle.
Can the aircraft automatically release bombs at the correct time to hit said target? yes
Spoiler
Can the system be used in level flight? Yes
Spoiler
and quite frankly, why a bombing computer can handle the complexity of a loft attack and the parabolic arc that entails but cannot handle a level flight is rather beyond me.
I could understand an early fighter-bomber not being able to loft using its CCRP, but I dont understand why a bombing computer that can handle loft cant handle level drops.
There is even secondary accounts of the system able to handle the necessary lead to hit a moving ship
Spoiler
21 April 1992 On the afternoon of Easter Monday, 801 NAS Sea Harrier FRS.1, embarked in HMS Ark Royal, were practicing bombing procedures off the coast of Northern Ireland. The pilot was practising ‘toss-profiles’, as part of the Air Group work-up, on a splash target towed behind the ship.
The aircraft’s aiming system allowed the pilot to acquire his target (in this case the ship) on radar or visually and, the computer would apply an offset so, the bomb would drop close to the splash target. The bomb went through the flight deck at 1633 into the 820 NAS mess deck where off-duty aircrewmen were taking stand-easy and five ratings were injured, some seriously.
My thanks to Cdr Tim Eastaugh who previously explained on this page, an unknown ‘glitch’ in the software meant the required offset had to be applied 30 secs or more before Time to Target… after which it would default to the actual target. Tim said, “the pilot set everything up correctly, including the splash offset distance and correctly followed the HUD flight director pull up bars… The SOP was to ‘accept’ the attack between 60 and 30 seconds time to target (TTG), but there was no warning briefed of the consequences a ‘slightly late’ input would have on the aiming solution. This anomaly, which should have been noted and rectified during contractor and acceptance flight trials, was only rectified after this tragic accident.”
The alarm was raised by a Leading Stores Accountant and helped one of the injured to sick bay. The flight deck party spotted the impact and directed fire hoses down through the hole the bomb had made quenching the fire below. Shrapnel caused some damage to helicopters which were parked on the flight deck.
Rear Admiral Mike Boyce (FOST) was later quoted in Navy News as saying, “Regrettable though the incident was, it happened after three-weeks FOST operational training (amd as a result) the response teams acted with impressive speed and efficiency preventing further tragedy…” The injured were treated onboard, then taken ashore to RNH Haslar, and onto Odstock hospital in Salisbury. - Source
Heck, there is even accounts of them practicing laydown bombing trials, whilst it does not go into detail, that might have included using the bombing computer:
Spoiler
and accounts of the bombing trial using the loft profile enroute to the falklands
Spoiler
So I just dont understand the decision to remove an IRL capability for sake of technicalities. So the Sea Harrier doesnt mention CCRP in the pilots handbook because it just wasnt something ever envisioned for it to do, as that would be the job of the Harrier GR3 and Later GR5/GR7/GR9. Nor have I yet to see any evidence that the Sea Harrier was incapable of dropping bombs at anything lower release angles. I dont understand why the computer could handle a 40° loft attack but not a level drop, surely the math is easier with a level drop.
Just… feels unnecessary to nerf an already nerfed aircraft.
TLDR: CCRP =/= loft but Loft must = CCRP.
