JSOW-B

Hello everybody !

Question to the Hornet development team.

Is it possible to add the JSOW-B bomb to the Hornet? It would help a lot in the realities of the game, thanks.

Hello everybody !

Question to the Hornet development team.

 

Is it possible to add the JSOW-B bomb to the Hornet? It would help a lot in the realities of the game, thanks.

The US Navy never bought the AGM-154B (JSOW-B) after the USAF pulled out of the program, so it wouldn't make any sense to have it in DCS.

Hello everybody !

Question to the Hornet development team.

 

Is it possible to add the JSOW-B bomb to the Hornet? It would help a lot in the realities of the game, thanks.

Just get the Jeff, it has them :music_whistling:

Yes, I heard about these features of the distribution of weapons, but the aircraft can still use it from the technical side ... it uses all other similar bombs. In the game world, can you make a conk for the benefit of players? Like for example the yellow window in f16, nothing prevented it from doing there ...

Yes, I heard about these features of the distribution of weapons, but the aircraft can still use it from the technical side ... it uses all other similar bombs. In the game world, can you make a conk for the benefit of players? Like for example the yellow window in f16, nothing prevented it from doing there ...

No it can't, just because a weapon will bolt up does not mean the plane knows what to do with it, how to launch it, and how to compute a solution for it, or even know what to call it in the systems.

Each weapon, even different variants of the same weapons, require a software update to allow the plane to know the parameters of the individual weapons.

Yes, I heard about these features of the distribution of weapons, but the aircraft can still use it from the technical side ...

Except the JSOW-B doesn't even really exist.

USAF canceled the version in 2002 due to "technical problems and cost overruns" and the USN and USMC never bought it in the first place. The USAF took the money it had planned to spend on JSOW-B and put it into the WCMD-ER program.

So, no, the Hornet can't technically carry JSOW-B because there aren't any for it to carry. The A and C variant are all that was ever made for operational use.

Except the JSOW-B doesn't even really exist.

 

USAF canceled the version in 2002 due to "technical problems and cost overruns" and the USN and USMC never bought it in the first place. The USAF took the money it had planned to spend on JSOW-B and put it into the WCMD-ER program.

 

So, no, the Hornet can't technically carry JSOW-B because there aren't any for it to carry. The A and C variant are all that was ever made for operational use.

Didn't that get canned as well?

Its a shame about the JSOW-B not being an operational thing though as the CBU-97's sub-munitions are tons of fun on the F-16 once you figure out the quirks.

Well the JSOW-B is on the list of weapons for the DCS-F16.... I mean who doesn't like SFW's.

Well the JSOW-B is on the list of weapons for the DCS-F16.... I mean who doesn't like SFW's.

That's only because the mob came after ED with torches and pitchforks. ED had initially had it on the weapons list, but removed it just before pre-orders when live. ED also removed triple rack Mavs since they were not used on the version of the F-16 that we have.

Rather that continue to face the storm, ED added both back in.

That's only because the mob came after ED with torches and pitchforks. ED had initially had it on the weapons list, but removed it just before pre-orders when live. ED also removed triple rack Mavs since they were not used on the version of the F-16 that we have.

 

 

Rather that continue to face the storm, ED added both back in.

I guess I followed the triple rack mav drama, but not the Jsow-B drama.

Didn't that get canned as well?

Yup, WCMD-ER got canceled in 2006, shortly after failing a separation test. The USAF seems to think that the standard WCMD is sufficient for the missions it expects to fly, and it would appear that SFW submunitions are challenging to deliver by glide bomb.

That's only because the mob came after ED with torches and pitchforks. ED had initially had it on the weapons list, but removed it just before pre-orders when live. ED also removed triple rack Mavs since they were not used on the version of the F-16 that we have.

Ahhh, DCS drama. It just seems silly to me, since Mavs on tripple racks were a thing that was done and can easily be done again, while JSOW-B never went beyond low-rate production. But whatever, it's a game and we're all here to have fun right?

That's only because the mob came after ED with torches and pitchforks. ED had initially had it on the weapons list, but removed it just before pre-orders when live. ED also removed triple rack Mavs since they were not used on the version of the F-16 that we have.

 

 

Rather that continue to face the storm, ED added both back in.

Wow, didn't realise they'd backed down on the triple rack Mavs. Hopefully they code into the damage model a suitably high probability of the third round's motor burning your flaperons off?

Wow, didn't realise they'd backed down on the triple rack Mavs. Hopefully they code into the damage model a suitably high probability of the third round's motor burning your flaperons off?

That would be a nice way to give in to the pressure BUT make it pretty much unusable in a realistic way haha

Ahhh, DCS drama. It just seems silly to me, since Mavs on tripple racks were a thing that was done and can easily be done again, while JSOW-B never went beyond low-rate production. But whatever, it's a game and we're all here to have fun right?

The Air Force doesn't carry three Mavs on the triple rack though, because the rocket motor plug in the mav can hit and cause critical damage to the stabilator.

The Air Force doesn't carry three Mavs on the triple rack though, because the rocket motor plug in the mav can hit and cause critical damage to the stabilator.

Isn't that something that was done at one point and then changed? Or am I getting confused between the F-16 and A-10?

Isn't that something that was done at one point and then changed? Or am I getting confused between the F-16 and A-10?

In the A10 AFAIK the triple-MAV rack isn't used because the inner MAV would potentially cause damage to the landing gear. I also read that the TGP should be set to standby mode while launching the outer MAV on the same wing to avoid damaging the optics

The Air Force doesn't carry three Mavs on the triple rack though, because the rocket motor plug in the mav can hit and cause critical damage to the stabilator.

That's for the F-16. The A-10 can still carry 2 Mavs on a triple rack. The inner third Mav's exhaust would potentially singe the landing gear and that why it's not used, or so I've read.

Isn't that something that was done at one point and then changed? Or am I getting confused between the F-16 and A-10?

You're correct. 80's-era F-16s did fly with triple Mavs, but the LAU-88 (triple ejector rack) was discontinued for operational F-16 flights for reasons stated in this thread.

The drama llamas who complained said that the LAU-88 could have been used in wartime if the USAF needed it. Which I suppose is true, but that theory is true for a lot of things that could have been done but never were. The llamas don't want to acknowledge that our F-16 module isn't supposed to model the entire historical weapons loadout over a 30+ year lifespan. Unlike ED's Hornet, the Viper is supposed to be a snapshot of a mid-2000's F-16CJ.