mk82, 83 bombs explosion radius too large after update?

[SalakauHeadman]

recently have been flying some bombing missions and i noticed that the mk83s and 82s explosion radius seems a little... too big? i always replay the same missions for practise and this time when i drop bombs i notice that it kills vehicles way outside of the visual explosion radius and my plane gets "hit" by the blast because it will play the damage hit audio. for example the default f4e "hit hard hit fastest" caucasus mission usually i would fly it the exact same way and back then id hit maybe 2 out of 4 of the hangars and a few trucks but now it kills almost every vehicle in the base and sets it on fire. and if i drop bombs in continuous interval the first bomb will hit but then it destroys all the other bombs that havent landed mid air and make it explode early. i have not downloaded any splash damage mods at all let alone install anything on my pc the past few days. does anyone else have this same issue? the only thing i did was update the game

[buur]

Problem with the bombs in DCS is that they have only splash damage and no fragmentation damage. If they have now updated the damage radius to the real world ones, than this are good news. 

[71st_Mastiff]

I noticed it also, splash damaging vehicles 150ft to 250ft, away and its smoking. Ill make a track from the AV8B for comparison.

[71st_Mastiff]

yea might be a little OP to start a fire, should only get like maybe 25% damage not 70%?

The Mk 82 bomb is a 500-pound class general-purpose bomb.

Key Specs:

• Weight: ~500 lbs (actual weight varies slightly depending on configuration)

• Type: General-purpose, unguided (but often used with guidance kits like JDAM or Paveway to make it precision-guided)

• Length: About 87 inches (2.21 meters)

• Diameter: 10.75 inches (273 mm)

• Filler (explosive content): ~192 lbs of Tritonal (standard fill)

 

Edited June 27 by 71st_Mastiff

[SalakauHeadman]

4 hours ago, 71st_Mastiff said:

yea might be a little OP to start a fire, should only get like maybe 25% damage not 70%?

The Mk 82 bomb is a 500-pound class general-purpose bomb.

Key Specs:

• Weight: ~500 lbs (actual weight varies slightly depending on configuration)

• Type: General-purpose, unguided (but often used with guidance kits like JDAM or Paveway to make it precision-guided)

• Length: About 87 inches (2.21 meters)

• Diameter: 10.75 inches (273 mm)

• Filler (explosive content): ~192 lbs of Tritonal (standard fill)

 

hmmm.. on my end the effect is way larger... ill try to film a track and post results. very puzzling because i never installed any splash damage scripts..

[PawlaczGMD]

No solid data, but I also noticed this. I hit myself even with a safe drop. For a moment I was hoping they've added frag.

[SalakauHeadman]

ive made a video showing the behavior i mentioned. by the way i also would like to add that i tested every bomb for the f4e and it seems all of them have an extended radius of effect

[Moezilla]

If you check out Quaggles' datamine, the commit for 2.9.17.11733 shows significant increases in mass, expl_mass, and piercing_mass for the Mk81-84 bombs. How exactly these numbers are used by DCS to calculate explosions is not generally known, but it would be a reasonably logical assumption to make that bigger number = bigger boom.

Here's an example for the Mk83:

[2.9.16.10973]
_G["warheads"]["Mk_83"] = {
	caliber = 356,
	concrete_factors = { 1, 1, 1 },
	concrete_obj_factor = 0,
	cumulative_factor = 0,
	cumulative_thickness = 0,
	default_fuze_delay = 0,
	expl_mass = 160,
	mass = 160,
	obj_factors = { 1, 1 },
	other_factors = { 1, 1, 1 },
	piercing_mass = 32
}

[2.9.17.11733]
_G["warheads"]["Mk_83"] = {
	caliber = 356,
	concrete_factors = { 1.35, 1.35, 0.135 },
	concrete_obj_factor = 1.35,
	cumulative_factor = 0,
	cumulative_thickness = 0,
	expl_mass = 201.9,
	length = 1.956,
	mass = 446.8,
	obj_factors = { 1.35, 1.35 },
	other_factors = { 1.35, 1.35, 1.35 },
	piercing_mass = 89.36
}

The new numbers for 2.9.17.11733 match the stated specs on the wiki page for the Mk83 of 447Kg mass and 202Kg of filling.

Sources:
https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_83_bomb

[SalakauHeadman]

3 hours ago, Moezilla said:

If you check out Quaggles' datamine, the commit for 2.9.17.11733 shows significant increases in mass, expl_mass, and piercing_mass for the Mk81-84 bombs. How exactly these numbers are used by DCS to calculate explosions is not generally known, but it would be a reasonably logical assumption to make that bigger number = bigger boom.

Here's an example for the Mk83:

[2.9.16.10973]
_G["warheads"]["Mk_83"] = {
	caliber = 356,
	concrete_factors = { 1, 1, 1 },
	concrete_obj_factor = 0,
	cumulative_factor = 0,
	cumulative_thickness = 0,
	default_fuze_delay = 0,
	expl_mass = 160,
	mass = 160,
	obj_factors = { 1, 1 },
	other_factors = { 1, 1, 1 },
	piercing_mass = 32
}

[2.9.17.11733]
_G["warheads"]["Mk_83"] = {
	caliber = 356,
	concrete_factors = { 1.35, 1.35, 0.135 },
	concrete_obj_factor = 1.35,
	cumulative_factor = 0,
	cumulative_thickness = 0,
	expl_mass = 201.9,
	length = 1.956,
	mass = 446.8,
	obj_factors = { 1.35, 1.35 },
	other_factors = { 1.35, 1.35, 1.35 },
	piercing_mass = 89.36
}

The new numbers for 2.9.17.11733 match the stated specs on the wiki page for the Mk83 of 447Kg mass and 202Kg of filling.

Sources:
https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_83_bomb

hmm.. interesting... but is it really that damaging in real life? in the video i posted 1 pair of mk83s could destroy trucks that are almost 500ft away

[PawlaczGMD]

2 hours ago, SalakauHeadman said:

hmm.. interesting... but is it really that damaging in real life? in the video i posted 1 pair of mk83s could destroy trucks that are almost 500ft away

yeah, the nominal values of explosive mass might be correct, but the damage model with these values is probably not. 

[PawlaczGMD]

@BIGNEWY what did you guys cook here? Is it just an increase in the explosive parameters, or was the explosion modelling worked on?

[AndyJWest]

Seems to apply to GBU 54s too, on the Harrier at least. I've not tried the remaining GBUs.

[Bigity]

I've noticed this on many bombs, I was hoping it was intended because they need to be larger than they were.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Then we need some information or values to calculate safe bombing radius to not be damaged by the blast

[Czar66]

I noticed my 500lbs being a bit beefier too. GBU-38 (Mk-82 JDAM).

 

[rob10]

 

[Why485]

Full list of weapons affected. IMO this is a very positive change and I'm shocked ED didn't announce this in the patch notes or newsletter. This is something the community has been asking for, for many years, and would have been appreciated by a great many players.

AN_M30A1
AN_M57
AN_M64
AN_M65
AN_M66
M_117
Mk_81
Mk_82
MK_82AIR
MK_82SNAKEYE
Mk_83
Mk_84
GBU_8_B
GBU_10
GBU_12
HB_F4E_GBU15V1
GBU_15_V_1_B
GBU_16
GBU_31
GBU_31_V2
GBU-38
GBU-54_V_1B

Edited June 28 by Why485

[shagrat]

Am 27.6.2025 um 15:48 schrieb SalakauHeadman:

hmm.. interesting... but is it really that damaging in real life? in the video i posted 1 pair of mk83s could destroy trucks that are almost 500ft away

You mean finally manage to destroy an unarmored truck that's as close as 500ft (~150m) to a 1,000 lbs bomb?

That's actually good news. Thank you ED.

For some context, according to statistics compiled by the GICHD (Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining) the typical lethal area of an Mk82 (500 lbs) is 80m by 30m (260ft by 100ft) with RED (Risk Estimate Distance) of 250m(!) for 10% (one in ten) people incapacitated! ...and that's just the "small" 500 lbs Mk82.

Here is a link to the GICHD website for research: https://www.gichd.org/our-response/policy/explosive-weapons-in-populated-areas/

Direct PDF download link for the MK82 study (Annex-E): https://www.gichd.org/fileadmin/uploads/gichd/Publications/Explosive_weapon_effects_web.pdf

Am 28.6.2025 um 01:09 schrieb Esac_mirmidon:

Then we need some information or values to calculate safe bombing radius to not be damaged by the blast

Seems they are now quite close to real life, so proper parameters and planning matters.

 

[Esac_mirmidon]

The thing i want to know is if the HUD cues below the Pipper to show you the danger zone are updated to take in count the new blast radius

[shagrat]

vor 55 Minuten schrieb Esac_mirmidon:

The thing i want to know is if the HUD cues below the Pipper to show you the danger zone are updated to take in count the new blast radius

Hm, those reflect, what you program in your aircrafts mission computer, IIRC, at least for the A-10C.

You enter the abort altitude and that's what calculates the HUD abort cue, based on your current flight envelope.

...and, again IIRC, it doesn't know the height above ground, but you need to plan your mission, figure the height of the target above MSL and calculate the correct safe barometric abort altitude. This is what you enter into the profile.

 

Edited Monday at 09:01 PM by shagrat
typo

[shagrat]

Am 28.6.2025 um 01:09 schrieb Esac_mirmidon:

Then we need some information or values to calculate safe bombing radius to not be damaged by the blast

I just looked up an old reference for the F-5E that has the fragmentation envelope of a Mk82 and Mk83

The maximum height is 2520 ft, 9 sec after the explosion, for the MK82

and 2820 ft, 9 sec for the Mk83.

I guess the adjusted blast damage is similar to the damage on the ground so below 1000 ft?

Assuming the real life fragmentation heights, and planning for a safe escape maneuver above 3500 ft, should keep us out of harms way... though I still need to test/verify this assumption.

 

[Esac_mirmidon]

As far as i known the F-16 and the F-18 doesnt have a way to edit HUD safe cues for bombing.

The info you are mention is quite useful. Thanks.

[Py]

Something doesn't seem right though, I haven't managed to drop high drag MK-84 at any reasonably low altitude without damaging myself, even just below supersonic, and that's specifically what they are designed for.

[Esac_mirmidon]

You break left or right after release?

Release altitude at 300 feet or more?

Using Delayed fuze?

Edited Tuesday at 07:13 PM by Esac_mirmidon

[shagrat]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb Py:

Something doesn't seem right though, I haven't managed to drop high drag MK-84 at any reasonably low altitude without damaging myself, even just below supersonic, and that's specifically what they are designed for.

Looks like part of the problem is, the blast traveling faster than fragmentation would after the initial lethal zone.

 But in general this is still an improvement, though it needs a bit of fine tuning.

IRL the whole process of a bomb explosion is even more complex. Blast waves in urban areas do produce additional damage, through reflection of house fronts, funneling along streets and alleys and enhanced fragmentation from material propelled by the blast. Whereas in an open field, with little to no obstruction the blast disperses evenly and even a small mound of dirt can deflect a blast wave "over" a human lying prone... but I guess this will take CPU power from a distant future to do on a home PC.