JSOW question

[Viciam1]

Hi guys, what targets are JSOW on the f16 best used against? I've tried hitting armoured stuff but doesn't seem to cause any damage at all. I've literally only managed to kill like 2 infantry soldiers with it only. Am I doing something wrong here?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Florence201]

Soft skinned. Think CBU87 from longer ranges.  

[DD_fruitbat]

59 minutes ago, Florence201 said:

Soft skinned. Think CBU87 from longer ranges.  

 

This ^

 

Useful against some of the older long range SAM's though,

 

 

[Eaglewings]

Hi guys, what targets are JSOW on the f16 best used against? I've tried hitting armoured stuff but doesn't seem to cause any damage at all. I've literally only managed to kill like 2 infantry soldiers with it only. Am I doing something wrong here?
 
Thanks in advance.

You are not doing anything thing wrong. The JSOW in dcs f-16 is used for light trunks, bmps and infantry.
My Wag made a dedicated video to explain the misconception about the weapons damage capability

Here is the video link

[Northstar98]

The thing is though, the BLU-97/B CEB has around 120mm of RHAe penetration.

 

The BLU-97/B is roughly similar to the Mk118 bomblet as used in the Rockeye II, which has an RHAe penetration of 190mm (though according to this and this, the BLU-97/B actually has a larger warhead by approximately 64%).

 

To put that into perspective, the roof of most tanks is usually in the 10s of mm (and not many 10s either - typically less than 50mm), unless it features additionl protection (commonly ERA in Soviet, Russian and Chinese tanks, though they don't protect everywhere (typically only the front and middle of the turret) and are 1 use only. Engine decks also have only a few 10s of mm of RHAe protection, and hitting there should be pretty much a garuanteed mobility-kill.

[SCPanda]

Yesterday I launched 4 JSOW against a enemy truck, only managed to damage 50% of its health...

 

[Sinclair_76]

9 minutes ago, SCPanda said:

Yesterday I launched 4 JSOW against a enemy truck, only managed to damage 50% of its health...

 

Do you have a mission and track file you would be able to share? 

[Exnom]

The Problem is not only the damage itself. It is also the randomness of the impact of the bomblets.

I needed like 6 JSOWs for 2 SA-11 TELAR and my waypoints were always directly on the vehicles. Some did Zero damage, and some did about 50% damage. 

[Sinclair_76]

56 minutes ago, Exnom said:

The Problem is not only the damage itself. It is also the randomness of the impact of the bomblets.

I needed like 6 JSOWs for 2 SA-11 TELAR and my waypoints were always directly on the vehicles. Some did Zero damage, and some did about 50% damage. 

The most common error with PB JSOW employment is not taking into account the altitude of the target. When you put a steerpoint over the target you have to double check that that altitude corresponds with the altitude of the target. A difference between the two will result in the BLU-97 being released in the wrong spot and drifting off course. Worsening in windy conditions. 

 

Doing the above gets me mission kills pretty much all the time.

[SCPanda]

4 hours ago, Sinclair_76 said:

Do you have a mission and track file you would be able to share? 

I will have to check my C drive. It was the F-16 free flight mission on Caucasus map. There were some practice ground targets to shoot at.  

 

2 hours ago, Sinclair_76 said:

The most common error with PB JSOW employment is not taking into account the altitude of the target. When you put a steerpoint over the target you have to double check that that altitude corresponds with the altitude of the target. A difference between the two will result in the BLU-97 being released in the wrong spot and drifting off course. Worsening in windy conditions. 

I have checked those parameters. In my scenario, I literally watched my JSOW flying towards the target, explodes above the target, and the BLU-97s hitting the target (more like the target's surrounding area cuz I cannot confirm whether any of the cluster munitions hit the target or not, but I can confirm the truck was in the blasting area of the munitions, I mean, it was covered with explosions.) 

[Sinclair_76]

1 hour ago, SCPanda said:

I will have to check my C drive. It was the F-16 free flight mission on Caucasus map. There were some practice ground targets to shoot at.  

 

I have checked those parameters. In my scenario, I literally watched my JSOW flying towards the target, explodes above the target, and the BLU-97s hitting the target (more like the target's surrounding area cuz I cannot confirm whether any of the cluster munitions hit the target or not, but I can confirm the truck was in the blasting area of the munitions, I mean, it was covered with explosions.) 

You're doing everything right if your target gets covered by BLU-97's.  

[Exnom]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb SCPanda:

I  have checked those parameters. In my scenario, I literally watched my JSOW flying towards the target, explodes above the target, and the BLU-97s hitting the target (more like the target's surrounding area cuz I cannot confirm whether any of the cluster munitions hit the target or not, but I can confirm the truck was in the blasting area of the munitions, I mean, it was covered with explosions.) 

I totally agree with you. My SA-11s are covered in dust from the explosions all around, but they just dont really care. And yes my steerppoints are also on the correct altitude. 

[Bunny Clark]

Yup, CBUs need some serious love in DCS. They are consistently disappointing. 

 

I've shared this before, but this was two CBU-87s dropped as a pair on 5 fuel trucks. One was destroyed, two were damaged. Fuel Trucks. 

[Xavven]

2 hours ago, Bunny Clark said:

Yup, CBUs need some serious love in DCS. They are consistently disappointing. 

 

I've shared this before, but this was two CBU-87s dropped as a pair on 5 fuel trucks. One was destroyed, two were damaged. Fuel Trucks. 

 

 

Huh... Must be using that new non-flammable fuel.

[SCPanda]

6 hours ago, Bunny Clark said:

Yup, CBUs need some serious love in DCS. They are consistently disappointing. 

Yep, CBU-97 however, is much more effective, but is it as effective as in real life? IDK...

[Raptor9]

3 hours ago, SCPanda said:

Yep, CBU-97 however, is much more effective, but is it as effective as in real life? IDK...

 

The real-life CBU-97/105 puts out a lot more EFPs (explosively formed projectiles) than what DCS simulates. The bomb dispenses 10 submunitions as does the DCS version, but each of those 10 submunitions deploys 4 individual EFP "skeets" which individually seek out and attack targets.

 

So even though the DCS CBU97/105 only deploys 25% the number of EFPs compared to the real-life counterpart, each of those simulated submunitions only attacks actual DCS units that are still alive. Whereas the real-life skeets would probably double- or triple-tap a lot of vehicles in the effects zone, along with other false targets. So I think within the limits of DCS, it's a fairly good emulation of the CBU-97/105 SFW weapon effects, in lieu of a true simulation.

[TobiasA]

I honestly don't know what you do with those JSOW's. I dropped a pair of them on a single SA-15 until someone showed mercy and JDAM'ed it, rendering the other pair useless. I know what I did wrong with JDAM's, those work fine now. I also hit everything with JSOW's it's just... Won't kill a thing.
There is no real reason to use anything else than CBU-97 when it comes to submunitions in DCS. GBU's are nice. A kill is a kill, especially on PvE maps that require you to have the unit killed.
 

[Ignition]

I find the agm-154A the most unreliable weapon. After the last patch they seem to drop more on target than before but they are really weak/unreliable. They do kill very VERY lightly armored stuff but you need to drop them in pairs to have an average result. I still need to test them against SAMs, specially the "low" RCS.

 

I'm waiting for the CBU-105, I think this and the HARM will be the best weapons of the F-16C.

[skywalker22]

On 7/28/2021 at 11:22 PM, Ignition said:

I find the agm-154A the most unreliable weapon. After the last patch they seem to drop more on target than before but they are really weak/unreliable. They do kill very VERY lightly armored stuff but you need to drop them in pairs to have an average result. I still need to test them against SAMs, specially the "low" RCS.

 

I'm waiting for the CBU-105, I think this and the HARM will be the best weapons of the F-16C.

Its a cluster bomb. As far as I tried, it hits the target, but there is little damage - as expected.

[C3PO]

Yeah, the 154 is fun to use but not as good as CBU-97s … intentionally I’d imagine … I load up with HARMs and 6 CBU-97s on SEAD and do pretty well with CCRP at 16K.

 

Edit: and yes setting correct target elevation crucial to good kills with whatever weapon.

Edited July 31, 2021 by C3PO

[C3PO]

On 7/28/2021 at 10:50 AM, Raptor9 said:

 

The real-life CBU-97/105 puts out a lot more EFPs (explosively formed projectiles) than what DCS simulates. The bomb dispenses 10 submunitions as does the DCS version, but each of those 10 submunitions deploys 4 individual EFP "skeets" which individually seek out and attack targets.

 

So even though the DCS CBU97/105 only deploys 25% the number of EFPs compared to the real-life counterpart, each of those simulated submunitions only attacks actual DCS units that are still alive. Whereas the real-life skeets would probably double- or triple-tap a lot of vehicles in the effects zone, along with other false targets. So I think within the limits of DCS, it's a fairly good emulation of the CBU-97/105 SFW weapon effects, in lieu of a true simulation.

 

That 10 figure makes them comply with the Dayton Convention I guess.

[WHOGX5]

In real life the CBU-87 is more than capable of eliminating armored targets. Just look at Desert Storm where F-16's dropped a whole bunch of them on armoured targets with good effect. The main issue regarding cluster bombs in DCS is that ground units don't have a real damage model. It's basically just an HP bar. While a single CBU-87 submunition could cut it's way through the top of a tank, in DCS you need multiple submunitions to hit the same target multiple times to reduce the HP enough for it to be set on fire. It's the same issue faced by the A-10's in DCS where you need to put hundreds of rounds on a tank with your cannon to actually set your target ablaze. If I understand it correctly, you should also be able to kill a tank with an AK-47 if you just shoot at it long enough, though I haven't taken the time to actually try this out. And in real life you don't even need to destroy a target for it to be put out of action. Just put a bend in a tanks cannon, kill the crew, de-track, demoralize, etc. and you've done your job.

[- Sonic -]

I've fired a couple of JSOW on SA-2 site...the result was only very light damage...also SA-75 Ramp have around 5-10% of damage.

I supposte that a thing like a ramp with a explosive missile on it will be really a very very light object, instead it resist like a T-80.....

[Bunny Clark]

On 7/31/2021 at 3:03 AM, WHOGX5 said:

If I understand it correctly, you should also be able to kill a tank with an AK-47 if you just shoot at it long enough

Units in DCS have armor values and weapons have armor penetration values, so something like a small arm will not be able to do any damage to a tank. If a weapon impact is able to successfully penetrate the targets armor, then it does damage. 

[psychojediboy]

On 7/27/2021 at 1:36 PM, Exnom said:

I totally agree with you. My SA-11s are covered in dust from the explosions all around, but they just dont really care. And yes my steerppoints are also on the correct altitude. 

 

I can back this up too. Have a mission with four SA-11 launchers space around an airfield. Waypoints right on the launchers, at target altitude. All four JSOWS dispensed at the right spots and bomblets exploded all around the targets. One target destroyed, one damaged, two without a scratch.