cannot reproduce and missing track file AGM154 and CBU105 performance issues?

[BigMac.no]

Just curious on what experience other F16 drivers in DCS have on:

AGM154: Hardly makes any damage to fairly soft targets like SAM launchers, trucks, APC. No damage on soldiers...

CBU105: I've never been able to get release in VIS mode on first target run. I always have to go around and make a second run, then I am able to release the CBU105s perfectly. Makes no sense to me... 

Edited December 9, 2022 by BigMac.no

[Default774]

CBU-105s work fine in VIS mode for me.

I've done some testing with the AGM-154A on groups of targets, results here. All in all its not very effective at all, even when used on light skinned vehicles.

When used for its intended purpose, destroying SAM sites, it doesn't get much better. Included templates for the SAM sites were used. (Track and image aren't perfectly synced, image was made using another attempt and I'm not remaking the whole image!)

jsowdamage_rev2.trk jsowdamage_sams_rev2.trk

 

Edited December 9, 2022 by Default774

[Default774]

Nato SAMs here for completeness

jsowdamage_natosams_rev2.trk

Edited December 9, 2022 by Default774

[Hobel]

  

Against very light targets like an SA-2 TR, the AOE looks like this.
as well as the pattern

 

most of it actually ends up in a fairly small zone everything outside of that then only takes some to little damage
if the spread of the submonition were more consistent, a larger area would also be covered

 

against a SA6 TR the whole thing looks somewhat different

SA11 and similar vehicles, on the other hand, are already very "hard" targets and hardly take any AOE damage.

 

That's why Bradley or Stryker need direct hits from the submunition

 the question is should it do more damage to vehicles like bradlys or tanks with direct hits, because it is a HEAT charge at the end that hits the TOP of the vehicle.
if so is there good evidence for this?

 

 

[Default774]

More on the pattern that the bomblets get dispensed in. The pattern has a very odd (random) shape which gives a relatively high chance that even if you aim your JSOW perfectly on target, no bomblets will hit and you will still be out of luck. Targets are humvees aligned door-to-door bumper-to-bumper

jsowdamage_pattern_1.trk jsowdamage_pattern_2.trk jsowdamage_pattern_3.trk jsowdamage_pattern_4.trk

Edited December 9, 2022 by Default774

[CybrSlydr]

I've anecdotally noticed that the 105 doesn't track or kill nearly as many vehicles as it used to.

[CybrSlydr]

Here's an example.

21 T72B's set up.  Dropped one CBU105 (vis mode) in the middle of them and got 3 kills.  That's it.

Watching in the F6 view, the CBU detonates at the right spot, but the bomblets and skeets continue moving forward.  More than half the bomblets don't even do their rocket thing over top of the formation.

3 kills in that tightly grouped formation of T72s from one CBU 105.

Here's the track file.

cbu105 f16.trk

Edited December 10, 2022 by CybrSlydr

[BigMac.no]

Thanks for informative testresults. I will do some similar runs on other targets and report back.

 

In the meantime about CBU105: Ive done this at least 100 times and I cant seem to figure out what I am doing wrong:

1. Load up with 3xCBU105s

2. Master arm on

3. VIS Mode.

4. HUD SOI

5. 20K' 5-7nm from target, nose down about 30 degrees (until I get target area in HUD)

6. Lock on to target (TMS up) with HUD.

7. Pickle (got about 1G), but no release...

-------------------------------------

8.Going around

9.Same procedure as above, and then bombs releases....

 

Am I doing something wrong. Been playing MP with others and discussed this, randomly someone else gets the problem, but I get it every time. Problem also occurs with CBU97s sometimes.

 

Any thoughts?

[Moonshine]

and the bombs are properly aligned as you do your first pass? (upon powering them on they need some time to align). 

Also please drop a track of your runs so people can try to figure out what else might have gone wrong

Edited December 10, 2022 by Moonshine

[CybrSlydr]

2 hours ago, BigMac.no said:

Thanks for informative testresults. I will do some similar runs on other targets and report back.

 

In the meantime about CBU105: Ive done this at least 100 times and I cant seem to figure out what I am doing wrong:

1. Load up with 3xCBU105s

2. Master arm on

3. VIS Mode.

4. HUD SOI

5. 20K' 5-7nm from target, nose down about 30 degrees (until I get target area in HUD)

6. Lock on to target (TMS up) with HUD.

7. Pickle (got about 1G), but no release...

-------------------------------------

8.Going around

9.Same procedure as above, and then bombs releases....

 

Am I doing something wrong. Been playing MP with others and discussed this, randomly someone else gets the problem, but I get it every time. Problem also occurs with CBU97s sometimes.

 

Any thoughts?

Like Moonshine said, are you sure the CBUs are aligned before you try and drop them?

I've never had a problem dropping CBUs when they're aligned in VIS mode.

[Default774]

Here's some tests on the effectiveness of the BLU-97/B bomblets that are dispensed by the AGM154A. The 154A dispenses a total 145 bomblets, 28 of which are visible. I have modified the LUA of the JSOW to only dispense one bomblet.

A large contributing factor to the poor performance of the JSOW-A is that the bomblets that it dispenses are complete rubbish, requiring multiple direct hits to basically anything that's not infantry to kill it.

Edited December 10, 2022 by Default774

[Moonshine]

might have to separate the AGM154 / BLU97B subject from the CBU105 vis drop subject in this thread otherwise chances are low that anyone will look at this..

bottom line as it is now, JSOWs, more specific the AGM154A, are not worth carrying

[Hobel]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Default774:

Here's some tests on the effectiveness of the BLU-97/B bomblets that are dispensed by the AGM154A. The 154A dispenses a total 145 bomblets, 28 of which are visible. I have modified the LUA of the JSOW to only dispense one bomblet.

A large contributing factor to the poor performance of the JSOW-A is that the bomblets that it dispenses are complete rubbish, requiring multiple direct hits to basically anything that's not infantry to kill it.

 

to be fair, there is no direct hit in the picture, only aoe damage.
against a BMP2 a direct hit of the Blu97 causes 57% damage

against a HMMWV therefore only a direct hit is required

and against a T80, it is only 8%.

[Moonshine]

How is there no direct hit?

check the top left picture again. There is  basically no gap between the humvees at all it would be a miracle to not hit them directly. 

[Hobel]

Am 11.12.2022 um 02:10 schrieb Moonshine:

How is there no direct hit?

check the top left picture again. There is  basically no gap between the humvees at all it would be a miracle to not hit them directly. 

Bad luck? 

If a Blu97 hits directly, then a HMMWV is destroyed and that is not visible in his picture, so I strongly assume that it was not a direct hit.  He is welcome to do another test and then report + track.

Anyway, I did it a few times and the hmmwv was 100% destroyed every time.

[Moonshine]

As said, its the fact that in the same scenario you get so many different results from one end of the spectrum to the other. This is what makes the agm154a as modelled in dcs so unreliable and therefore not worth carrying.

 

it might well be that there is nothing wrong with the weapon itself but rather with the lets say „basic“ damage modelling of ground units, the absence of fragmentation damage, spash/shock damage from the blast itself. 
 

nevertheless the outcome is the same, inconsistent results which makes the weapon ineffective and unreliable 

Edited December 12, 2022 by Moonshine

[Hobel]

vor 21 Stunden schrieb Moonshine:

As said, its the fact that in the same scenario you get so many different results from one end of the spectrum to the other. This is what makes the agm154a as modelled in dcs so unreliable and therefore not worth carrying.

 

it might well be that there is nothing wrong with the weapon itself but rather with the lets say „basic“ damage modelling of ground units, the absence of fragmentation damage, spash/shock damage from the blast itself. 
 

nevertheless the outcome is the same, inconsistent results which makes the weapon ineffective and unreliable 

 

 to some extent yes

but it depends on your expectations.

You can already use it in DCS, after all it is one of the few long range weapons for the F16.
If you want to take out a SA2 or SA6 position by destroying the tracking radar, this weapon is very reliable.

 

49 SA6, only one was usable afterwards, if we get the ability to adjust the trigger height in the future, the weapon will be even better in such a scenario.
 

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Hobel

[_SteelFalcon_]

does the terrain make a difference? if you look at the background of the test with Humvees, the background looks like it's out in the no mans land on grass and your test @Hobel is on an airfield. i remember there was once a post about the cbu 103 or whatever where there was a significant difference if the target was on an airfield vs out in no mans land

Edited December 14, 2022 by _SteelFalcon_

[Hobel]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb _SteelFalcon_:

does the terrain make a difference?

That was the case at the time, but it has been fixed.

But this was about direct hits,
And these always kill HMMWV.

 

But to really rule out all eventualities.

 

@Default774

Could you repeat this test again, And share the results with a track?

[hawk4me]

There are basically no features of the 154A implemented yet that is the problem. We should be able to change the angle at which the JSOW comes in on the target not just from the direction we fired it from. Also no HOF changes so you can't really make it pop low to the ground to focus a large amount of damage on a smaller section. Also the detonation point is not always at the pre-defined 2500ft especially when a hill is involved. One thing I have found to help is to laze the area after doing a TMS up for a point track. With a good triangulation things seem to hit a bit more on target but that could be my imagination to.

[Default774]

On 12/12/2022 at 3:05 PM, Hobel said:

Bad luck? 

If a Blu97 hits directly, then a HMMWV is destroyed and that is not visible in his picture, so I strongly assume that it was not a direct hit.  He is welcome to do another test and then report + track.

Anyway, I did it a few times and the hmmwv was 100% destroyed every time.

After reviewing, bad luck indeed. Only did two test runs both of which yielded the same result, after retesting, direct hits do one shot the humvees, but even missing by 10cm means this is no longer the case. Both of my earlier runs (one of which was used for the image) landed in the ~10cm gap between the vehicles.

https://streamable.com/879rnn

jsw_luamod.trk

[Hobel]

vor 1 Minute schrieb Default774:

After reviewing, bad luck indeed. Only did two test runs both of which yielded the same result, after retesting, direct hits do one shot the humvees, but even missing by 10cm means this is no longer the case. Both of my earlier runs (one of which was used for the image) landed in the ~10cm gap between the vehicles.

https://streamable.com/879rnn

jsw_luamod.trk 155.44 kB · 0 Downloads

Exactly that, thanks for checking!

 

 

[antiload]

In SP, I've just tried to kill a SA2 track radar with an AGM 154A from a AI F18 flight. The weapon did no damage to the radar nor the site.

The F18 will not fire all guided bombs. It also seems to strike the same place, no matter how much I move the attack triangles. 

Please fix.

 

AGM154A test 1.trk AGM154A test 2.trk

Edited December 20, 2022 by antiload

[Hobel]

vor 13 Stunden schrieb antiload:

In SP, I've just tried to kill a SA2 track radar with an AGM 154A from a AI F18 flight. The weapon did no damage to the radar nor the site.

The F18 will not fire all guided bombs. It also seems to strike the same place, no matter how much I move the attack triangles. 

Please fix.

 

AGM154A test 1.trk 480.31 kB · 0 Downloads AGM154A test 2.trk 282.38 kB · 0 Downloads

 

I'll look at it later

 

Can you upload the mission too please? 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Hobel

[antiload]

9 hours ago, Hobel said:

I'll look at it later

 

Can you upload the mission too please? 

 

 

TEST AGM154A.miz