JSOW/JDAM attack 8 targets - update.

This makes perfect sense..... :thumbup:

Perhaps it makes sense but it is wrong. I am not trying to offend, just provide accurate info. I am honest about the limits of my knowledge on these forums (as above), do not make things up, use other sims as sources, or begin sentences with “I think,” “it should,” or similar (as below).

I won’t get into how bomb racks work or specific interfaces as it’s beyond the scope needed for this discussion. JDAMs can store multiple target data sets per weapon. They can be loaded pre-mission via MUs, or sent to the weapon from the Hornet’s MCU. In TOO specifically, each weapon can store two targets - TOO1 and TOO2. If, for example, you have a station selected (ignore duals for now), depressing wptdsg sends that target info to the weapon. If another station is selected manually or via step, or undesignate is pressed, the MCU will step to next weapon or undesignate the waypoint as directed, but the TOO target info is stored in the weapon until it is overwritten or powered down. When that weapon is again selected, the stored TOO target is still there, and will become the active target.

This workaround being discussed in this thread exploits this by storing TOO1 and TOO2 on both weapons loaded on the rack, then releasing one at a time, first w/ TOO1 as tgt, then again with TOO2 as tgt.

Most PGMs are the same way, as well as missiles. Tgt size and RCS are set per station, or, in the f-16 for example, bore/slave settings can be set differently on different stations, allowing pilot to quickly step to a missile configured as desired.

This workaround being discussed in this thread exploits this by storing TOO1 and TOO2 on both weapons loaded on the rack, then releasing oneMost PGMs are the same way, as well as missiles. Tgt size and RCS are set per station, or, in the f-16 for example, bore/slave settings can be set differently on different stations, allowing pilot to quickly step to a missile configured as desired.

Exactly, each weapon that requires a data cable is treated independently in the system. Allowing for data entry, and specific configuration options. Why on earth would they design a special rack specifically for IAMs and not provide the option to configure each weapon on the rack as desired. The missiles are configured per weapon not per station. I can change the settings for separate missiles on the same rack.

The workaround itself proves that the system knows there’s two weapons there, so why are we not able to access individual settings for them?

But If that’s a real life limitation, I’m ok with it, but I think they need to state that, because if it’s true, it’s a big caveat and needs to be acknowledged. I’ve never heard of a limitation like that. It doesn’t make much sense. In the harrier for example I can ripple as many JDAMs as I want with a single pickle and have each one go after a separate target, and it’s Avionics are heavily based on the hornets. If it’s not the case for the hornet they should come out and say it, either that or if they don’t have documentation on it, go with a more reasonable implementation that makes more sense given the context.

Can't reiterate that enough! Last thing you want is to meticulously set 8 points and forget to undesignate the last --> ripple firing through all of the others with the last designate!!! :megalol:

Nope. Never done that myself. Nope. No...............

That might have been me last night lol. Finally getting back in the Hornet regularly after a long run in the Tomcat and trying JDAM and JSOW (especially the Cat don't have em and no F-14D anytime soon).

Is this method still working?Because i have followed the guide in the 1st post of this thread, did exactly what the OP said but the last bomb only goes to the 1st aquired target.

At each tdc designate i press nws undesignate as stated on the 1st page.

When pressing undesignate atually nothing happns, how do I know if I have effectively pressed the NWS undesignate? does something change on the MSN page?

Thank you.

Exactly, each weapon that requires a data cable is treated independently in the system. Allowing for data entry, and specific configuration options. Why on earth would they design a special rack specifically for IAMs and not provide the option to configure each weapon on the rack as desired. The missiles are configured per weapon not per station. I can change the settings for separate missiles on the same rack.

 

The workaround itself proves that the system knows there’s two weapons there, so why are we not able to access individual settings for them?

 

But If that’s a real life limitation, I’m ok with it, but I think they need to state that, because if it’s true, it’s a big caveat and needs to be acknowledged. I’ve never heard of a limitation like that. It doesn’t make much sense. In the harrier for example I can ripple as many JDAMs as I want with a single pickle and have each one go after a separate target, and it’s Avionics are heavily based on the hornets. If it’s not the case for the hornet they should come out and say it, either that or if they don’t have documentation on it, go with a more reasonable implementation that makes more sense given the context.

Hey Wizard, apologies for delayed reply. I tend to pop in here sporadically.

C/Ds were able to employ 8 JDAM on BRU-55 racks independently targeted eventually, or more practically 4 JDAM on 2 BRU-55. It's a matter of timing. There was high demand for the weapon beginning in OEF, with rapid development of multiple concurrent upgrades to fuzing, anti-jam and anti-spoofing that affected the JDAM interface on the wingform display, while simultaneously there was rapid development of what was termed net centric operations. Our hornet is late 2005, I believe supposed to be SCS 19C, which is further complicated by spiral fielding of VMF and DCS that took place at that time. I don't know if ED has ever clarified what level of DCS we will receive (just digital 9-line or the 2005 upgrades), what atflir functions we will have. VMF would seem pretty easy, as they are already pretty loose with the cross link communication (f-18's showing on A-10 SADL and vice versa). Regardless, its difficult to know exactly what ED plans to include, as sometimes things are changed due to lack of documentation or other reasons.

I said I wouldn't start sentences with I think, but if I had to guess I suspect its one of two things. Either its the old WIP issue, as there are a ton of JDAM functions not yet implemented, from release points, fuze configurations, TOT/TOF displays and functions, auto and loft release types, HSI and HUD cues for these, etc.. given the length of this list, certainly this could be an interim solution. Alternatively, there could be a disconnect between SCS versions and capability. It's possible ED has documentation for stores/jdam page from an earlier SCS where dual racks weren't included. I do not know personally know the specifics of how the SMS/JDAM pages looked in late 2005 with bru-55, so its also possible that this is correct in appearance.

What I can say is that the behavior is currently wrong. No Hornet can drop ripple release JDAMs without using Quantity Release. The basic methodology is after weapons are programmed with mission data, fuzing and release type, routes are created factoring any launch point or terminal conditions, and depending on which stations are selected, the HSI displays cues to overlapping LARs. On release consent they do not come off the rail simultaneously, but rather the SMS will run the sequence so long as release is held, but each weapon is separated by a miminimum of 300ms. They do not just come off the rail like dumb bombs.

Hey Wizard, apologies for delayed reply. I tend to pop in here sporadically.

 

C/Ds were able to employ 8 JDAM on BRU-55 racks independently targeted eventually, or more practically 4 JDAM on 2 BRU-55. It's a matter of timing. There was high demand for the weapon beginning in OEF, with rapid development of multiple concurrent upgrades to fuzing, anti-jam and anti-spoofing that affected the JDAM interface on the wingform display, while simultaneously there was rapid development of what was termed net centric operations. Our hornet is late 2005, I believe supposed to be SCS 19C, which is further complicated by spiral fielding of VMF and DCS that took place at that time. I don't know if ED has ever clarified what level of DCS we will receive (just digital 9-line or the 2005 upgrades), what atflir functions we will have. VMF would seem pretty easy, as they are already pretty loose with the cross link communication (f-18's showing on A-10 SADL and vice versa). Regardless, its difficult to know exactly what ED plans to include, as sometimes things are changed due to lack of documentation or other reasons.

 

I said I wouldn't start sentences with I think, but if I had to guess I suspect its one of two things. Either its the old WIP issue, as there are a ton of JDAM functions not yet implemented, from release points, fuze configurations, TOT/TOF displays and functions, auto and loft release types, HSI and HUD cues for these, etc.. given the length of this list, certainly this could be an interim solution. Alternatively, there could be a disconnect between SCS versions and capability. It's possible ED has documentation for stores/jdam page from an earlier SCS where dual racks weren't included. I do not know personally know the specifics of how the SMS/JDAM pages looked in late 2005 with bru-55, so its also possible that this is correct in appearance.

 

What I can say is that the behavior is currently wrong. No Hornet can drop ripple release JDAMs without using Quantity Release. The basic methodology is after weapons are programmed with mission data, fuzing and release type, routes are created factoring any launch point or terminal conditions, and depending on which stations are selected, the HSI displays cues to overlapping LARs. On release consent they do not come off the rail simultaneously, but rather the SMS will run the sequence so long as release is held, but each weapon is separated by a miminimum of 300ms. They do not just come off the rail like dumb bombs.

No worries, and I don't want them to change something just to make it easier on our part. I want us to have as close to the real implementation as possible. If I gave that impression I apologize. I realize that it's probably a WIP thing.

But I don't want them to guess either, I myself certainly don't know how it's implemented in late software states for the C/D I just get the feeling that what we have now is something of a Frankenstein situation. I can tell you for sure based on the OFP we have BRU-55s either we're not available or at least we're not allowed on the USN squadrons. However if they do want to include them in the sim, I want them to have the correct implementation based on how the we're used in the fleet later on whenever they did become prolific. Regardless of our software level. Otherwise we may as well not use them at all.

In other words I agree with your suspicion that we're looking an earlier SCS prior to BRU-55s and they're guessing as to how it worked on later software iterations. That said I think many of these "problems" Will get resolved with the advent of JDAM programing via the AMU whenever that becomes a thing in the sim. At that time we should be able to assign as many weapons to a mission as we want. Without having to cycle missions. Then how it works editing in cockpit will be somewhat moot, at least for me. The way you describe it, is exactly how I imagine and have seen in other aircraft. With a Quantity selected, Multiple overlapping LARs appear with the HSI providing centroid steering for all targets selected for that mission. with release consent given in AUTO mode, weapons come off in sequence or as the aircraft moves in LAR for each set of target coordinates. The selected mission program in the SMS dictating which bombs come off the jet based on their inclusion in the mission and boxed quantity.

 

What I can say is that the behavior is currently wrong. No Hornet can drop ripple release JDAMs without using Quantity Release.

What makes you think this is currently the case ingame? Because so far with everything that's been tested and said, it's not possible.

Is this method still working?Because i have followed the guide in the 1st post of this thread, did exactly what the OP said but the last bomb only goes to the 1st aquired target.

 

 

At each tdc designate i press nws undesignate as stated on the 1st page.

 

 

When pressing undesignate atually nothing happns, how do I know if I have effectively pressed the NWS undesignate? does something change on the MSN page?

Thank you.

I've updated the original post with some additional tips.

What makes you think this is currently the case ingame? Because so far with everything that's been tested and said, it's not possible.

You’re right, I was mistakenly arguing against the concept in this thread, not behavior I have personally observed in game. I should have been more clear about that. That said, iirc, I was able to pickle 4 jdams simultaneously with independent targeting before, which does not jive with reality. Truth be told I have not flown the hornet in a while, or anything for that matter. I am grounded IRL and DCS, the former for safety, the latter as I’m unable to sit in my rig (or desk) for very long. On a much more psositive note, I have surgery scheduled near end of this month to repair the stenosis/myelopathy in my c5-c-7 (common injury from G induced compression of spine with neck in rotation and flexion), and there will be a month or two where I can sim but not fly, so I’m very much looking forward to having lots of time, a nice buzz, and several months of dev progress.

Wizard - I pretty much agree. Only thing of significance is that I don’t have a problem with them making educated guesses when necessary. Realism is ideal but some pragmatism on this topic pis required given the subject matter. There are many examples but a particularly good one is HTS on the viper. It’s very unlikely they have the documentation necessary to model it, R7 is still very much classified secret/banned for export/not in public domain, much less the dual pod config and details like the datalink functions between pods of the same flight. Personally, I would rather they exercise some creative license than not have the wild weasel capability. I don’t mean that as a criticism of DCS, far from it actually. But as someone with RL time in 3 DCS modules, 4 if a yak-54 counts for 52, there just a lot of little things about how individual systems or aircraft as a whole feel (and my quals are not in the more modern modules). I am new to desktop/recreation type a ims though, and thus don’t really have anything to compare. But I am constantly amazed at how well they do model such a wide variety of aircraft, or how much I can get lost in the moment, particularly in VR with friends in MP, despite the quality of the world/sky/terrain not being at the same level as the planes.

Wizard - I pretty much agree. Only thing of significance is that I don’t have a problem with them making educated guesses when necessary. Realism is ideal but some pragmatism on this topic pis required given the subject matter. There are many examples but a particularly good one is HTS on the viper. It’s very unlikely they have the documentation necessary to model it, R7 is still very much classified secret/banned for export/not in public domain, much less the dual pod config and details like the datalink functions between pods of the same flight. Personally, I would rather they exercise some creative license than not have the wild weasel capability. I don’t mean that as a criticism of DCS, far from it actually. But as someone with RL time in 3 DCS modules, 4 if a yak-54 counts for 52, there just a lot of little things about how individual systems or aircraft as a whole feel (and my quals are not in the more modern modules). I am new to desktop/recreation type a ims though, and thus don’t really have anything to compare. But I am constantly amazed at how well they do model such a wide variety of aircraft, or how much I can get lost in the moment, particularly in VR with friends in MP, despite the quality of the world/sky/terrain not being at the same level as the planes.

Yes and I completely agree, its impossible to get 100 percent fidelity. That's true, but they do a pretty solid job of getting us a good representation, and in cases like this I agree it's better to have some liberties then nothing.

So to come full circle and based on some research I've done. I think I can simplify the problem, first off, the main issue is the way STEP is implemented, in the sense that it STEPs stations and not individual weapons. The reason AFAIK; its implemented that way, according to nineline's sticky post, is so that you can step between stations that carry DIFFERENT JDAM types, and that's the problem. I don't believe the aircraft SMS, at least from 2005ish can handle multiple types of JDAMs. Ex. you cannot carry two GBU-38s on a BRU-55 on station 2, AND a single GBU-31 on Station 8. The system is not capable of handling that. I've never seen an aircraft loaded that way, it doesn't really make sense and I don't see there being a need for it IRL, and If it can then their needs to be separate weapon selection, that is mutually exclusive to using the JDAM page. i.e. you would not be able to select both types at the same time or program them too the same mission using the JDAM page, in other words the JDAM page and its functions only apply to weapon selected, If it can carry multiple types of JDAMs, which based on what I've seen and heard it can't or it doesn't for possibly for this exact reason.

So the Second, issue is simply a byproduct of the first one, being ATM I can't put JDAMs from the same BRU-55 on the same mission, Because I'm unable to STEP between them. Because STEP is being used to change stations that carry any JDAM type which is where I think the inaccuracy is. Quantity boxed and Release capabilities aside.

Yes and I completely agree, its impossible to get 100 percent fidelity. That's true, but they do a pretty solid job of getting us a good representation, and in cases like this I agree it's better to have some liberties then nothing.

 

So to come full circle and based on some research I've done. I think I can simplify the problem, first off, the main issue is the way STEP is implemented, in the sense that it STEPs stations and not individual weapons. The reason AFAIK; its implemented that way, according to nineline's sticky post, is so that you can step between stations that carry DIFFERENT JDAM types, and that's the problem. I don't believe the aircraft SMS, at least from 2005ish can handle multiple types of JDAMs. Ex. you cannot carry two GBU-38s on a BRU-55 on station 2, AND a single GBU-31 on Station 8. The system is not capable of handling that. I've never seen an aircraft loaded that way, it doesn't really make sense and I don't see there being a need for it IRL, and If it can then their needs to be separate weapon selection, that is mutually exclusive to using the JDAM page. i.e. you would not be able to select both types at the same time or program them too the same mission using the JDAM page, in other words the JDAM page and its functions only apply to weapon selected, If it can carry multiple types of JDAMs, which based on what I've seen and heard it can't or it doesn't for possibly for this exact reason.

 

So the Second, issue is simply a byproduct of the first one, being ATM I can't put JDAMs from the same BRU-55 on the same mission, Because I'm unable to STEP between them. Because STEP is being used to change stations that carry any JDAM type which is where I think the inaccuracy is. Quantity boxed and Release capabilities aside.

STEP is not used to step between different JDAM types, it's used to step between different stations carrying the selected type - to be precise, between all stations carrying the selected type if QTY is unboxed, and between the selected stations if QTY is boxed and >1.

It's perfectly possible to carry several types of JDAMs simultaneously ingame but as you say it's not possible to select them simultaneously. They can, however, be all powered on and aligned at the same time (which is usually the case).

STEP is not used to step between different JDAM types, it's used to step between different stations carrying the selected type - to be precise, between all stations carrying the selected type if QTY is unboxed, and between the selected stations if QTY is boxed and >1.

 

It's perfectly possible to carry several types of JDAMs simultaneously ingame but as you say it's not possible to select them simultaneously. They can, however, be all powered on and aligned at the same time (which is usually the case).

Last time I tried it it was possible to assign 4 different targets to the 4 stations and select those 4 afterwards in the QTY page to drop them with one button hold. But that's pretty senseless though.

Last time I tried it it was possible to assign 4 different targets to the 4 stations and select those 4 afterwards in the QTY page to drop them with one button hold. But that's pretty senseless though.

Yes, but with the same JDAM variant.

Yes, but with the same JDAM variant.

agreed. I missed that it was about different types, which was quite obvious as I read it again, sorry.

STEP is not used to step between different JDAM types, it's used to step between different stations carrying the selected type - to be precise, between all stations carrying the selected type if QTY is unboxed, and between the selected stations if QTY is boxed and >1.

 

It's perfectly possible to carry several types of JDAMs simultaneously ingame but as you say it's not possible to select them simultaneously. They can, however, be all powered on and aligned at the same time (which is usually the case).

Ok fair enough but how come I can’t STEP between 2 JDAMs on a BRU-55. If they’re the same type and I have quantity boxed. Why is that not possible?

Ok fair enough but how come I can’t STEP between 2 JDAMs on a BRU-55. If they’re the same type and I have quantity boxed. Why is that not possible?

Because the BRU-55 was added to the game without modification of the STORES and JDAM DISPLAY functionality.

Because the BRU-55 was added to the game without modification of the STORES and JDAM DISPLAY functionality.

That’s the assumption we came too as well. I posted in NineLines sticky to see if we’re gonna see that changed later in early access.

Because the BRU-55 was added to the game without modification of the STORES and JDAM DISPLAY functionality.

Nothing 9line said in his sticky was wrong, step should behave as he stated. The follow-on posts… well, they were qualified with an I’m not sure or equivalent. BRU-55 capability was spiraled in SCS 19C1. If someone has flown or crewed a 18C/D with 19C1 and knows how the SMS presents JDAM/JSOW stores on a CSSI/MSI interface, or has documentation to that effect, I’m sure they’d be happy take a look. In the past they’ve been receptive to that kind of assistance.

Just for clarification - the idea that the SMS cannot communicate with individual stores on a BRU-55 is categorically false though. The 18’s station encoder-decoder would fault and power off if it could not ID and IBIT, much less get through req’s for release consent. The BRU-55 spec requires communications between the aircraft and individual MIL-STD-1760 mission stores via the digital multiplex data (Mux) interface, though a single Aircraft Station Interface std-1760 cable (decoded/routed at the rack to each CSSI/MSI umbilical). So the SMS must provide the same level of control to each store on a BRU-55, we just don’t know how the SMS wingform and JDAM/JSOW menus function when it is equipped.

Tired excuse I know, but it is WIP. There is a ton of JDAM/JSOW functions not in yet - AUTO and release modes, quantity release, JPF, offsets, launch points, flight director, most of the HSI/HUD cues, TOT/TOF, etc. All of things require more button pushing, so I can live without until we get MUMI.

I did that and I still had several bombs go after same target. Can I just hit the pickle 4 times to go all the way through TOO1? That’s what I did.

Hi all,

Last OB update juste changed the Tpod behavior when unselecting target. It now goes back to it's caged position making the method even less practical.

Nice update again...

Has somebody found a way to do this?

Hi all,

 

Last OB update juste changed the Tpod behavior when unselecting target. It now goes back to it's caged position making the method even less practical.

 

Nice update again...

 

Has somebody found a way to do this?

For me slaving to WPT is not working with JSOW/JDAM weapons. Maybe a bug?

Bug? or pilot error? I set 4 different pre-planned target coordinates for 4 JSOW weapons on 2 dual pylons at stations 2 and 8 using PP1 and PP2. When I release the 4 weapons in rapid succession, I see the MSN display cycle between the 2 stations and PP1 and PP2 as the weapons release. However, Tacview shows that both weapons on each station fly to the same target, indicating that currently the BRU 55 does not send unique coordinates to each weapon as programmed in the MC. Recognized behavior?

You can't do rapid release with the double-rack BRU-55, you have to release the first 2 on PP1, then manually switch both stations to PP2.

Last OB update juste changed the Tpod behavior when unselecting target. It now goes back to it's caged position making the method even less practical.

Indeed. TGP is really unhandy for the engagement of multiple targets in a single pass after the last OB (2.5.6.45317)

Has somebody found a way to do this?

Don't think there's a workaround available for that obstacle :(

Default release sequence is STA 8 PP1; STA 2 PP2; STA 8 PP1; STA 2 PP2. What works to attack 4 targets is default release weapons 1 and 2, MC auto steps back to STA 8. Then manually select PP2, release weapon 3 (STA 8); manually select PP1, release weapon 4 (STA 2).

Now, is current behavior how actual jet functions or an artifact of F/A-18C EA? I guess this poor horse has now been beaten to death twice over.