AGM-154C BROACH warhead

[PE_Tigar]

Can we please have AGM-154C BROACH warheads that actually do some damage as most other 500lb class warheads in the game? Right now hitting Neustrashimyy frigate with four of these weapons produces 10% damage - I guess this is quite unrealistic and easily corrected.

[Tholozor]

Part of your specific problem is the damage modeling of ships is very bare-bones at the moment with no modular or localized damage.

[PE_Tigar]

I know that all too well. Yet, a 500lb LGB with GP warhead does more damage?

Edited February 15, 2020 by PE_Tigar

[Tholozor]

Again, problem resides in the ship damage modeling. For whatever reason they take more damage from impact-based bombs versus penetration bombs. Or even take the Harpoon for example, an anti-ship missile that's specifically designed to be able to strike at the waterline, and barely does any damage (something like 6% on the first hit). The problem is the ship, not the weapon.

[FalconPlot16]

Use Walleye for ships instead and yes damage model is bad atm.

[Tholozor]

My go-to anti-Neustrashimy payload is 2x GBU-10 (or non-penetration 31s) and a single 65F.

[PE_Tigar]

That's beside the point - AGM-154C is realistically used by the Navy against ships (even moving ones, with terminal IR guidance); I highly doubt that GBU-10 would be a weapon of choice for that, as it provides almost zero standoff capability.

[Tholozor]

I'm only saying that's my go-to since the Neustrashimy can't target GBUs with the navalized Tor or CIWS, and I can stay above it's engagement range as it can't engage anything roughly above 20,000ft or so. It's not supposed to be a realistic payload, it's just what works for me until the naval damage model is improved. Also keep in mind I mentioned using GBU-31s, which can be classified as standoff with enough speed and angels.

 

There's nothing really left for me to contribute to this discussion, the ship damage model is out-of-date and is eventually going to be upgraded so that weapons like the JSOW or Harpoon will be more viable; changing the damage values of the weapon itself is not a proper solution.

Edited February 15, 2020 by Tholozor

[Northstar98]

What Tholozor said

 

Ship damage models are really too crude for proper weapon simulation to make much of a difference. Simply buffing the damage, is a solution but an interim one at best.

 

Obviously this is providing that higher fidelity warhead modelling is something feasible to do (though aircraft manage pretty well, even with the unimproved damage models).

 

Besides, for ships in particular they can be mission killed without outright sinking, even if set ablaze... A single GBU-10 on a frigate like a Neutrashimyy class should be enough to inflict major damage, potentially enough to cause the ship to lose it's ability to fight (obviously depending on precisely where the bomb lands and if it manages to penetrate before exploding, at the moment DCS doesn't do this - localised hitboxes are far too coarse and AFAIK only serve for graphical damage.

 

EDIT: It looks like most ships have hitboxes for individual weapons and in the cases of the Slava a 3 of it's antennae. Legacy assets like the old Kuznetsov, Neutrashimyy, Krivk II etc have a single hitbox for the whole ship, though I don't think subsystems damage is actually implemented.

 

A better system would include hitboxes of all antennae (including ECM, ESM) and all weapons (including VLS). Hull and superstructure is a different kettle of fish if we were to go high fidelity.

Edited February 17, 2020 by Northstar98