The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of)
-
As a huge weapons/systems nerd always like to test stuff on simulators. However, when it comes to CBU SFW systems, the performance seems lackluster.
First I looked up the values in the editor, they seemed reasonable(even higher) from what I saw on the wiki and other sites citing coverage of SFW series.
However, I found that out in-game performance in terms of coverage is much less than the values stated above (both editor and web sources).
The attack parameters are as follows AC is at 15k Feet. BA of bombs is set at 3000f at all tests. TGP was on point track on the destroyed tank. flying co-axis and directly above the enemy column of 4 tanks, CCRP release of a single 105 with 0 wind set on TE. Only the vehicle that was directly hit by the cbu body got destroyed. You can see that other tanks are well within the effective Killzone of 105 stated in the above resources using the tgp meterstick set in meters.
After this I tried to alter lots of parameters from the falcon bms editor. Pulling random levers around to achieve a noticeable difference. In the end, I managed to get 2 kills in the same 4 tank groups consistently but with severe alterations of the values:
Things that proved effective were changing the ammunition type to HE from AP and setting a higher blast radius which is copied over from CBU 5x series of bombs. Messing with damage and hit chance seems to do nothing (maybe hit chance is for 2D logic and damage was already high enough)
The frag circle is set at 430 meters (the closest value of reported SFW longitudinal cover area of 460) And while I can get 2 kills consistently when aimpoint is in middle of the group or leading element. The actual Killzone is still a lot smaller than reported coverage area.
(smoking vehicles were shot separately previously this image is to illustrate the frag circle of 430 meters on target)As an end user who doesn’t have access to the code itself, I’m guessing that I’m out of tools/ideas to improve the performance of this munition. I would like to hear about other players and devs/modders opinions/ideas.
-
Try BMS 4.35.3, Cluster bombs including JSOWs have been neutered since that version unfortunately.
-
Changing data won’t do miracles…
There is code to be re-assessed probably…Maybe one kind coder will look into it in the near future
-
@Kavelenko nope. Jsows were working like a nuke. Dont trust those numbers in db. Most if them are ignored in the damage model used by those bombs.
Cbu was unchanged though. What 4.35 did was to make the jsow behave as a cbu 87, which is stronger btw, since it has more bomblets.
Ive had successful 4-7 kills with both jsow and cbus. The problem is that ppl got used to 30-40 kills with a mini nuke jsow.
-
More info about jsow https://forum.falcon-bms.com/topic/22622/jsow-agm-154a-problem
As for cbu, i cant really say.
-
That old post brought up some interesting points. Is burst altitude stated in Sea Level or AGL ? Seems to be some mixed information in that thread and that is pretty crucial for the dispersion
-
@Seifer When you go from killing an entire column of tanks to only 4-7 it seems like the JSOWs have been “neutered” to me. We never run out of JSOWs because they hardly get used now. So perhaps the Mission 15: Training mission should be altered to reflect the current changes? There’s no way you are going to neutralize one column let alone two.
-
@Kavelenko yes, you could also use it to neutralize an entire base, battalions, divisions and if you still had one on your back, use it as fox2 to kill su35s.
Jokes aside (airbase was no joke), its still a very lethal weapon. 4 jsow can easily wipe a battallion. One of my squad mates is a jsow specialist and he often gets a lot of kills (10-20).
Its just not a nuke anymore. And now you have to use proper weapons to destroy an airbase.
-
@Seifer Didn’t test as much but 87s still cover the more or less same area as 97/105
-
@Seifer Would love to hear about your friends employement of jsows. nailing the attack azimuth seems impossible to me, always reverting back to aligning jet with the column somehow
-
@Seifer said in The CBU 97/105 Effectiveness (lack there of):
Jokes aside (airbase was no joke), its still a very lethal weapon. 4 jsow can easily wipe a battallion. One of my squad mates is a jsow specialist and he often gets a lot of kills (10-20).
lol I dont leave the bar for less than 60 kills, I think my best WAS 127 in one mission but that was before 4.36
-
@SyntaxErol what he does is to set targets in recon window, splitting the weapons over the column. Now, as for the azimuth, it could be a bug and we need to check.
Although this thread got a bit derailed.
-
@SyntaxErol I don’t think it matters too much – unless there are buildings to avoid, or topography to consider. Maybe strong winds at ground level? I think AGM-154A (real life and sim) deploys all submunitions in a single burst.
-
@airtex2019 azimuth matters when attacking columns in line mode. Need to test this, if its broken , must be fixed
-
@Seifer I don’t even get any meaningful separation from a pair of JSOWs, targetting a column along its azimuth. Let alone a single JSOW.
(Repro case is just TR#15… I may have some ACMI handy.)
It seems better than 4.36 (I haven’t seen any turn 180 degrees and head wrong direction!) and they do at least seem to try to turn in on specified azimuth… so I think maybe there were some improvements in the code.
-
Looking at ACMI… they come in on correct azimuth and with roughly desired separation, in the air / in time… but they burst/impact at almost the exact same spot.
This pair was launched az=270, ba=1200 ft, separation=3000 ft … for scale I believe this column is about 6000 ft long.
-
@airtex2019 thanks we probably need to take a look at this.
-
@Seifer is it possible that cbu covarage can be modded/edited ? Or is it up to you guys to fix ?
-
@SyntaxErol it is, though I am not the best person to say how. Still, editing the CBU value without proper guidance or agreement is like cheating imho.
But you are free to fly however you want. You may have problems in MP though, as I think server checks the db.
-
@Seifer I meant to add – the aim-point here was directly on the “T” intersection of the two columns.
The first pig hit with desired offset from that point, but the second pig hit nearly exactly the same units – scored zero additional kills, maybe a little added splash damage to some trucks.