LS 6 And GB 6 are still stupid ?

[sylkhan]

8 hours ago, jubuttib said:

FWIW I don't think expecting perfect accuracy is a realistic target, but that's not to say anything about current accuracy.

I agree, but other Jsow/jdam seems more acurate than ours, it should be the same.
I am refering about videos, because i don't have f-18, then i am not sure about my statement.

Look at the image 8/8 targets, we can't do the same with our jdam/jsow

Edited February 27 by sylkhan

[okopanja]

8 hours ago, jubuttib said:

FWIW I don't think expecting perfect accuracy is a realistic target, but that's not to say anything about current accuracy.

We are having errors of 10s of meters here.

There are 2 possible causes for this:

- GPS precision (if true it would be worse than consumer devices)

- Guidance law implementation

Also note that the Angle feature does not work and that it appears that bomb mikes a rather short climb and dive, which in many case does not even seam necessary, otherwise for the non working angle ingress.

[jubuttib]

8 hours ago, okopanja said:

We are having errors of 10s of meters here.

There are 2 possible causes for this:

- GPS precision (if true it would be worse than consumer devices)

- Guidance law implementation

Also note that the Angle feature does not work and that it appears that bomb mikes a rather short climb and dive, which in many case does not even seam necessary, otherwise for the non working angle ingress.

Yeah, that's why I said "that's not to say anything about current accuracy", as in I didn't wanna comment on whether current behavior is correct, just that perfect accuracy isn't a realistic target. 

Agree with your assessment, though FWIW I've never seen the angle working on any weapon on any plane in the game, I just figured it was something no-one was doing yet. And the JF-17 has been the only one where even azimuth has worked in the past, though admittedly it's been a while since I've tried other planes.

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, jubuttib said:

Agree with your assessment, though FWIW I've never seen the angle working on any weapon on any plane in the game, I just figured it was something no-one was doing yet. And the JF-17 has been the only one where even azimuth has worked in the past, though admittedly it's been a while since I've tried other planes.

My understanding is that it should be possible to specify angle at which the bomb strikes the target.

This is relevant for multiple reasons:

1. ability to avoid obstacles (trees and other high objects)
2. ability to pick the angel that will cause maximal effect. Eg. you can hit the building directly in which case it will result in destruction of several floors, or pick the attack point in such way that bomb buries itself below the foundation of the building thus causing total destruction.
3. potentially enter the zone of radar no-coverage.

[Napillo]

1 hour ago, okopanja said:

it should be possible to specify angle at which the bomb strikes the target.

It is, though it doesn't work it seems, the best way you can influence that now is just don't release at max range, the later you wait to release, the steeper the angle. So if you did set it at 75 degrees, you would have to get within about 5nm or so, depending on your altitude.

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, Napillo said:

It is, though it doesn't work it seems, the best way you can influence that now is just don't release at max range, the later you wait to release, the steeper the angle. So if you did set it at 75 degrees, you would have to get within about 5nm or so, depending on your altitude.

I suspect that this non working feature along what we observe as incomplete maneuvering in the later stage might be related to precession.

@uboatssorry for pinging, but I feel we need some comment on completeness of implementation of glide bombs for JF-17. They seem imprecise, and maneuvering to obtain the proper angle does not seam right. We are aware according to the change logs there will be a switch, to ED core API, but could you please confirm the observations we have made in this topic?

[jubuttib]

3 hours ago, okopanja said:

My understanding is that it should be possible to specify angle at which the bomb strikes the target.

This is relevant for multiple reasons:

1. ability to avoid obstacles (trees and other high objects)
2. ability to pick the angel that will cause maximal effect. Eg. you can hit the building directly in which case it will result in destruction of several floors, or pick the attack point in such way that bomb buries itself below the foundation of the building thus causing total destruction.
3. potentially enter the zone of radar no-coverage.

Yup, in the past I've tried to use it to attack oil drilling platforms. They're high enough from the sea level that if you don't compensate somehow, they'll fly underneath the deck, where they MIGHT hit one of the legs, or might just miss the whole thing. With an 80-90° terminal dive you could count on them to hit the deck properly.

Current workaround is to raise the elevation of the target point to deck height.

EDIT: Longwinded way of saying "I know that it should work, and why you'd use it, but I haven't seen it working on any plane or weapon".

Edited February 27 by jubuttib

[uboats]

per our tester @JG54_NF2

1. if launch ls-6 outside the max-range indicator, it would be mad (same issue for agm-154c).

2. for gb-6, if the target altitude is high (a few thousands feet?), it would go mad at final stage (same issue for agm-154a/b)

3. regarding attack azimuth no longer work issue, we tested before recent update and it worked. i will ask our tester to check it again

4. for div angle, it doesn't work for a long time, and we tried a lot but failed to make it work. it's probably due to scheme has its own flight path control at the final stage even we set a turn point near target giving a high div angle.

if you have any new trk or observation, please ping JG54_NF2 and me together.

thank you patience for reporting

[RPY Variable]

ED degrades RED coalition GPS accuracy. So take that into account. If you drop a gbu-38 from a BLUE F-16 you may have a CEP(circular error probable) up to 6m, if you drop from a RED F-16 you will have a CEP up to 50. You will have a better accuracy with a dumb bomb CCRP release. I didn't test if it affects J-17, but I suppose it does.

[jubuttib]

Good call, though I've never actually sat in a redfor JF-17 in my life.

[J20Stronk]

Just tried LS-6-500s this morning in a training server, BLUEFOR coalition JF-17.

 

I used the AG Radar to find and designate an APC and a radio tower as targets. I used different impact AZ for both bombs. Launched them at max range and at Mach 0.85. Both of them scored direct hits on their targets and flew their specified AZ flightpath.

 

They work, but they need a bit of setup in order to do so properly.

You must use GC alignment.

You must enable HNS.

You must wait for the weapons to fully align (~3 minutes after powering them on).

You should fly pretty high and fast so the weapon has enough energy to reach its target (Mach 0.8 and 20,000ft minimum).

[jubuttib]

7 hours ago, J20Stronk said:

Just tried LS-6-500s this morning in a training server, BLUEFOR coalition JF-17.

 

I used the AG Radar to find and designate an APC and a radio tower as targets. I used different impact AZ for both bombs. Launched them at max range and at Mach 0.85. Both of them scored direct hits on their targets and flew their specified AZ flightpath.

 

They work, but they need a bit of setup in order to do so properly.

You must use GC alignment.

You must enable HNS.

You must wait for the weapons to fully align (~3 minutes after powering them on).

You should fly pretty high and fast so the weapon has enough energy to reach its target (Mach 0.8 and 20,000ft minimum).

These are good calls.

FWIW I did my own testing today, making sure to stick to those notes above, and apart from the GB-6 SFW going a bit long all others were hitting pretty much exactly spot on. LS-6 100s designated with the TGP landed a wee bit short, but that could also have been poor designation on my part.

[Napillo]

On 3/2/2024 at 8:03 PM, jubuttib said:

a wee bit short,

the tone they give for drop is just max range tone, not that it could hit it wind corrected, you have to do that yourself. I always wait until 1nm closer to drop. YMMV. I tried to have someone buddy lase it, but no dice.

[sylkhan]

@J20Stronk You should do some more testing because i think something is wrong with guidance, even LD-10 guidance is strange.
I have done some test against SA-11 (here is 4 ld-10 launched in SP mode at 15 mn)

IMO that should be investigate, but that's just my opinion

[uboats]

For jsow, if you place the target where surrounding surface is not flat (i.e mountain/hill peak), then terminal guidance has trouble. Same for agm-154 series

[jubuttib]

12 hours ago, Napillo said:

the tone they give for drop is just max range tone, not that it could hit it wind corrected, you have to do that yourself. I always wait until 1nm closer to drop. YMMV. I tried to have someone buddy lase it, but no dice.

FWIW I dropped on the second tone, not the first one.

1 hour ago, uboats said:

For jsow, if you place the target where surrounding surface is not flat (i.e mountain/hill peak), then terminal guidance has trouble. Same for agm-154 series

AGM-154 is JSOW afaik, did you mean "for GB-6/LS-6"?

[okopanja]

4 hours ago, uboats said:

For jsow, if you place the target where surrounding surface is not flat (i.e mountain/hill peak), then terminal guidance has trouble. Same for agm-154 series

Wasn't a vertical angle supposed to allow to account for that?

[okopanja]

@uboatsI just reran the mission from @sylkhan, this time I did it in following way:

1. set hot JF-17 with no weapons on nearby AB

2. request 4xLS6-250

3. setup 2 profiles with each pylon having it's own bomb

4. waited for full align.

5. took off climbed until 25000 and waited for marker and a bit further

6. launched first 2 bombs using profile 1 for stations 2 and 6 (PP 36/37 - finally realized how these thing actually work)

7. launched second 2 bombs using profile 2 for stations 2 and 6 (PP 38/39)

8. out of 4 bombs one did hit and destroy the targets. All other targets were not even scratched.

Precision is obviously not great.

 

 

 

[jubuttib]

Hmm, that's odd, I tried basically the same thing and all hit. =/

I'll have to try again...

EDIT: One thing that popped to mind btw, was that setting down the markers on the F10 map without zooming ALL THE WAY IN can lead to the marker being fairly far off of the target.

I mean that's not the case for sylkhan's mission, where the PPs are set in the mission editor, but good to keep in mind.

EDIT2: Tested sylkhan's syria mission, and indeed I missed all except the left-most one (PP1/DST36).

Edited March 6 by jubuttib

[uboats]

16 hours ago, okopanja said:

Wasn't a vertical angle supposed to allow to account for that?

that's different story, like the scheme's terrain following guidance has some issue

[uboats]

On 2/27/2024 at 3:31 AM, sylkhan said:

It's sometimes more than 3m, and they were more acurate before, something is actually wrong IMO.

If you look at the f-18 JDAM/Jsow they are perfectly acurate, look at 3.40 mn, our ls6 & GB-6 are not.

It's normal because you use the same bomb on 4 pylons, then only 1 profile.
If you have bombs on dual rack or different bomb type (250 & 500) you will need 2 profiles

Yes with laser they are ok

Your track is too long (18 mn), try to make them shorter

 

EDIT : in the last changelog i can see
"Prepare to switch to ED’s LS-6/GB-6 "

Perhaps @uboats is waiting for the switch and can tell us some words about this.

 

 

"If you have bombs on dual rack or different bomb type (250 & 500) you will need 2 profiles"

for dual rack, it's still same weapon type, so 1 profile should work

"If you look at the f-18 JDAM/Jsow they are perfectly acurate, look at 3.40 mn, our ls6 & GB-6 are not."

I dont have enough space to install other maps, IIUC, this is the issue you want to report for ls-6 and gb-6 he?

can you please recreate a map on caucasus and provide trk/acmi together?

if the 3m bias is the issue, do you still remember when it can accurately hit the target? ED changed the JSOW-C scheme a bit between Nov and Dec, we followed to update which include some accuracy related i believe.

 

 

Edited March 6 by uboats

[jubuttib]

27 minutes ago, uboats said:

for dual rack, it's still same weapon type, so 1 profile should work

I'm guessing it's because they want 4 different targets, and the "step" button (or weapon station change, S5, only steps between the pylons, not individual bombs.

So if you're dual racking, you can use use S5 to program the two pylons to aim for 36/37 in one profile, and 38/39 in the other profile.

[jubuttib]

2 hours ago, okopanja said:

@uboatsI just reran the mission from @sylkhan, this time I did it in following way:

1. set hot JF-17 with no weapons on nearby AB

2. request 4xLS6-250

3. setup 2 profiles with each pylon having it's own bomb

4. waited for full align.

5. took off climbed until 25000 and waited for marker and a bit further

6. launched first 2 bombs using profile 1 for stations 2 and 6 (PP 36/37 - finally realized how these thing actually work)

7. launched second 2 bombs using profile 2 for stations 2 and 6 (PP 38/39)

8. out of 4 bombs one did hit and destroy the targets. All other targets were not even scratched.

Precision is obviously not great.

OK, I did some testing on my end, and may have figured it out. Tested the syria mission, both straight up, spawn hot on ground, make my own PPs via F10 map, use TOO instead of PP modes, etc.

All of those lead to the same result, not very accurate, usually 1-2 kills.

Then I swapped the JF-17 to be BLUEFOR, the IFVs and Outpost to be REDFOR, and tried again:

Tiny spread, 4 out of 4 kills. 3 were direct hits, one landed like 1 meter off the side of the target.

So yeah, I'd hazard a guess that it's just the ED enforced REDFOR satellite guided weapon inaccuracy at play.

Edited March 6 by jubuttib

[jubuttib]

Did a separate test with a BLUFOR and REDFOR Jeff starting from the same point, managed to get the PPs set in ME to be pixel perfect in the same location too (the co-ordinates will read the same for multiple different positions, but in-game the groupings will hit a different spot unless pixel perfect).

Loadout was 4xLS-6 250 and 2xLS-6 500, total 6 bombs per plane. Hopped into blufor and dropped the bombs, waited until they landed, set up an F11 camera there, then changed sides to a redfor and dropped, and hopped to the previously set up F11 view.

All blufor bombs hit inside the blue ring. Redfor bombs hit in the red rings. Redfor is at a massive disadvantage accuracy wise, a blue Jeff lobbing LS-6 bombs should only rarely miss (assuming GC alignment, HNS on INS+GPS and proper weapon alignment).

Edited March 6 by jubuttib

[uboats]

thanks a lot for the test and the results look interesting. since I have a hardcore CEP based on align quality beyond jsow scheme, if there's 3m bias, it's reasonable, because it's not that perfect accurate. but now I realize that the warheads effect is limited, to destroy a unit in game, direct hit is the onlg option. hmmmm, will check the code later and see what i can do