Sinclair_76

Have you tried using the MPO (manual pitch override) switch? This would give your elevators a larger deflection and greater chance of recovering from a deep stall. Deep stalls are an actual viper issue. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/f-16-deep-stall-recoveries-desdemona-tnos-unique-simon-davies&ved=2ahUKEwiO5P2ap_zxAhWKOOwKHZfzAqkQjjgwAHoECAMQAg&usg=AOvVaw3MXkXaF5pRZbdrPl8XUrIg

There is a lot more to it than above mentioned. First the Mk-82 fin, designed for stability, is not the same size as the GBU-12, which fins are designed for stability and maneuvering. The GBU-12 fins are a lot wider. Delaying the extension of the tail fins for the GBU-12 during release might seem smart. But since they have a draggy nose they might very well be unstable and wobble during release if the tail fin extension is delayed. Fact of the matter is release testing is not as simple as you make it sound. I included a quote from the Dutch National Aerospace Laboratorium (NLR), they aid the Royal Netherlands Airforce (RNLAF) in separation testing. The underside of a military fast jet is not as sleek and smooth as the top. It is generally covered with an assortment of antennae, bombs, fins, fuel tanks, missiles, pods and rockets, closely huddling together. Apart from those bits which are permanently fixed to the aircraft, the rest can be dropped or jettisoned. It has to be assured however, that the separation does not result in damage to the aircraft or other stores. In military parlance, this is known as safe separation. The addition of a new object to the underside of the plane can create unexpected changes to the airow. Speedy explains, “It is a bit of a ‘black art’. The flow pattern around any aircraft is very complex, with numerous little pockets of turbulence. It all depends on the interaction between those areas of turbulence and the introduction of a new shape can have unforeseen and dramatic consequences.” Before a new system can be flown operationally it has to go through a rigorous testing process to find out what effect it will have on the aircraft, not just in terms of safe separation, but also in terms of aircraft handling characteristics and the potential for structural damage. Ordinarily, every time an air force wants to use a piece of hardware on the F-16 that has not yet been certified by the USAF, it needs to request that the Seek Eagle Office at Eglin Air Force Base (and manufacturer Lockheed Martin) begin the certification process. https://www.nlr.nl/downloads/nlr_brochure_the_measure_of_success.pdf

I checked and I am still able to select BRU-57 and double rack them with GBU-38 on station 3 & 7. I've read somewhere that seperation clearance is not enough for multiple GBU-12 on 4 & 6. The fins could damage the hull.

If you're impact angle is steep enough the altitude doesn't have to be an issue regarding JDAM. Personally I will always feed the best possible information into the weapon(systems) to elimante as much variables as possible. Shit in, is shit out...

Check that stpt altitude and target altitude are the same.

I tested the setup at high alt no wind and with a 30kt crosswind. Both times weapon effect, dead center no wind and almost center with 30kt wind. Target was at 10075'. Final run I put in the stpt / target elevation at 11000', roughly 1000' too high. Hypothesis was that blu would be deployed 1000' higher and therefore subjected to more wind drift. Turned out to be true. So for better target effect be sure to verify target altitude and stpt altitude to be the same. NO WIND 30kt WIND 30kt WIND / INCORRECT ALT TEST JSOW HIALT 30ktW - wrong alt.trk TEST JSOW HIALT 30ktW.trk TEST JSOW HIALT NW.trk

I had a steerpoint over the tgt with the correct altitude set as well. Slaved the tgp to the stpt and let the JSOW do the rest. I didn't compensate for the wind, the AGM did it by itself as it should. Lot of people forget to enter the correct altitude for preplanned targets. That will introduce variables which are subject to wind drift.

Tested the AGM-154A with 30kt winds and the bomb is tracking and dispersing upwind but the BLU-97''s drop right on target. It works as advertised.

Unable to destroy SA-11 Snowdrift with SAPHEI (I haven't tested other munition types or every target for that matter). With the track replay you see rounds bouncing of the target but no weapon effect. Target can be destroyed with MK82 in the same run so it's not indestructable. The SA-11 TELAR is also invulnerable to guns. gun.log gun.trk

I wasn't able to change the settings. The CNTL button did nothing. I too have been playing around with the JSOW and did note mostly f-kills and only some k-kills on SA-11 sites. The only way to find out is to observe the enemy afterwards for BDA. It would be nice to see it in the recap just to get awareness of the JSOW effectiveness. AFAIK the wind should be modeled in the terminal ballistic calculations of the blu-97. Since it's absolutely impossible to Kentucky windage at the distance you normally employ a AGM-154A.

Thanks for explaining the switch over logic. The inhibit in the AG mode would be a nice addition to DCS.

It does, and it should work in manual and with autopilot. When in DED 4 (stpt), dobber right to change MAN to AUTO. Not sure what the change over logic is but as far as I can tell you have to overfly the steerpoint before it will switch to the next. If I may give you extra insight. Disable AUTO when fencing in, especially when employing LGB's. Switch over will happen in the last 5 seconds of lasing and will make you miss your target.

I am pretty sure you haven't experienced the -A model loading process. Side loader is not too good but feeding 30mm directly into the gun is arguably worse.

To quote Wags, a SPI is a SPI is a SPI. So yes. I doubt the HTS resolution is good enough for a JDAM. The JSOW might work though.

Yeah but not really. That would require a 2 min warm up every time you want to stow the TGP. Primary way is on page 178 of the manual (I think latest version).

Cancelled... https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-154b.htm so no...

I've tested fuze setting with the JDAM (GBU-31A) on buildings. While AIR will set the buildings on fire a GND with no delay will destroy it outright. So there appears to be some difference in effect.

What's that switch in the center of the left batwing in the frontseat? And what is the mount above the KU used for? Never seen those before.

It would be awesome to have a simulator version of the JMEM to proper weaponeer the targets. And if ED could model that in to DCS that would be cherry on the icing on the cake.

Conjecture. For example in an urban environment with high rise buildings there might be a certain approach vector you want the bomb to fly to be able to hit the target. Other example is a bunker where you would want to JDAM to hit the door or any other weak point. Terminal ballistics modeling in DCS is simplified afaik so at this stage the door wouldn't be relevant. In both examples you could set the az to 0 and fly the correct angle to the tgt as well. So I assume that the only time you need it is that the aircraft has limitations to it's flight path as well, for whatever reason.

When creating steer points for JDAM in the mission editor be sure to add the correct elevation.

On the top of my head press 4 (STPT) and then dobber right. The MAN in the upper right should change to AUTO. If I may add a pointer switch back to MAN as a FENCE IN item. I've had the STPT switch 5 sec prior LGBU impact one too many time.

It's pretty reliable 9nm and under, well into the LAR , if you boresighted correctly that is. If a tgt is point tracked outside that range the handoff will probably fail and the seeker will go into a failed lock mode (the name I gave it since I don't have access to the proper documentation). The crosshair will have a large gap instead of the usual small gap but the MBC status remains in T instead of C or I. Normally TMS right will override this mode by forcing another handoff. This doesn't work correctly yet as I've been told. Another option is to TMS down to enter the AREA track of the TGP and then TMS up to enter POINT track and force another handoff. I don't like doing this because if I TMS down one too many times the TGP is CZ'ed and will have to reacquire the tgt again. My personal drill, if a handoff was unsuccessful, is to DMS down to SOI the WPN page and spam the TMS up button until the seeker locks.

So it has track replay by myself and Furiz. Any update?

The flechette is a fin stabilized projectile. Considering terminal ballistics, the stability of spin stabilized projectiles depends on the medium. Spin stabilized bullet is pretty stable moving through air but will be unstable, ie start to tumble, when moving through water. This tumbling will transfer energy from the projectile to its surroundings. A fin stabilized projectile is inherently stable in whatever medium its moving trough. Therefore it transfers a lot less energy to its surroundings compared to shrapnel (really unstable) and spin stabilized projectiles (partly unstable). Of course this is all theory. The ejection of the flechettes'out of the rocket will damage/bend a couple of them, changing the dynamics.