Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

APKWS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by garyscott View Post
    And yet whilst researching for the APKWS requirement of the application for manual writer for ED (Congrats Stretch! ), i came across quite a bit of (freely available) information for the APKWS system, you just need but to be 'quite deep' in your searching . . . .



    Not true.

    If you can fire a rocket, you can fire an APKWS rocket, you can even mix and match.

    APKWS requires NO software changes, nor pylon re-wiring.
    And it is NOT solely restricted to the Mk66 motor.
    The APKWS system is solely the head, which is (literally!) screwed on to a rocket body. BAe are scaling it up (the head) to use larger caliber rocket systems too.

    See attachments below.

    In the control section attachment, *A is where the fusing attaches, *B is the motor attachment.
    *3 are the moveable wings, and *2 are the sensor heads that pick up reflected laser energy.
    *1 are the servo's for the moveable wings, and *4 are the processing and control section.
    This WHOLE ASSEMBLY can be scaled up or down (slightly) to match any caliber.


    .

    The Head and Motor remain the same.

    APWKS is a Mid-Body Guidance Insert.

    The Head screws on the front, the motor on the back.
    Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill,
    X470 Taichi Ultimate, 2x R7970 Lightnings Crossfired @ 1.1/6.0GHz,
    3x ASUS VS248HP + Hanns·G HZ201HPB + Oculus HMD,
    Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs, CH Fighterstick+Pro Throttle+Pro Pedals

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by SkateZilla View Post
      The Head and Motor remain the same.

      APWKS is a Mid-Body Guidance Insert.

      The Head screws on the front, the motor on the back.
      As I said, which is the control section attachment that I . . well . . . attached.
      And the motor is not only going to be restricted to the Mk66 motor. The system IS scaleable.
      Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

      Comment


        #23
        Umm, You literally just said the APKWS was soley the head.
        Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill,
        X470 Taichi Ultimate, 2x R7970 Lightnings Crossfired @ 1.1/6.0GHz,
        3x ASUS VS248HP + Hanns·G HZ201HPB + Oculus HMD,
        Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs, CH Fighterstick+Pro Throttle+Pro Pedals

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by Dagger71 View Post
          Take everything he says with a grain of salt. He also claimed to be in possession of a Tor operator manual.



          There is NO WAY a BAE or any other arms manufacturer would have given him ANY of that information to a private citizen without facing serious charges under ITAR.

          Why are you assuming his source is the manufacturer? Could have been a person in uniform that just gave an opinion, of a non-classified test, that occured which he either heard of or participated in?

          Why are you assuming that a company sales rep didn't have a conversation with him? Or that it wasn't from open source publication, which happens ALL THE TIME.


          Just because it's unlikely, doesn't mean it's impossible. The world and it's history are FILLED with improbable events.

          As for a TOR operator manual... why not? It's a book. Sure, maybe ITAR wouldn't want those transfered anywhere. But to the average Russian, "Is just book!" And frankly 99.9957 % of the world's population couldn't give one gram of concern over a SAM manual of any kind. I mean, it's not like he's buying an actual TOR.

          I'm more concerned at leveling an accusation at a fellow forum member, TBH.

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by SkateZilla View Post
            Umm, You literally just said the APKWS was soley the head.
            Habit.

            Always used to refer to guidance/control sections as the head, i.e- brain.

            Correct terminology, the mid section.
            Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by Rick50 View Post
              Why are you assuming his source is the manufacturer? Could have been a person in uniform that just gave an opinion, of a non-classified test, that occured which he either heard of or participated in?

              Why are you assuming that a company sales rep didn't have a conversation with him? Or that it wasn't from open source publication, which happens ALL THE TIME.
              Because so far the only source I've seen is a YouTube marketing video from BAE Systems...
              Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk
              Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

              System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

              VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

              Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/cHQdNq

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by garyscott View Post
                Habit.

                Always used to refer to guidance/control sections as the head, i.e- brain.

                Correct terminology, the mid section.
                What if it's heavier, and the Hornet (for example) will limit G by the weight carried on the plane. Does that not need a software upgrade? I find that odd that people even claim that.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by BarTzi View Post
                  What if it's heavier, and the Hornet (for example) will limit G by the weight carried on the plane. Does that not need a software upgrade? I find that odd that people even claim that.
                  The Hornet doesn’t have to be the only launch platform.

                  APKWS can and will, have many applications to more than one munition.

                  MLRS rockets combined with off board lasing is another combination being investigated.
                  Ship launched rocketry is another avenue, for instance targeting small ship/boats used for nefarious activities.
                  Also point defence against airborne targets, both fired from ground vehicles and helicopters.
                  Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by Dagger71 View Post
                    Take everything he says with a grain of salt. He also claimed to be in possession of a Tor operator manual.



                    There is NO WAY a BAE or any other arms manufacturer would have given him ANY of that information to a private citizen without facing serious charges under ITAR.

                    Um...I'm not sure you understand the International Trade in Arms Regulations. There may be all kinds of security restrictions on the transmission of information to anyone without a security clearance and a need to know, but ITAR only applies to export, and even that's still possible with a license.


                    I have all kinds of ITAR controlled items in and around my house, including, and I know everyone will be scandalized, a...telescopic sight! I can show these to any private citizen I want because none of them are classified, but I better not pack them in my bag if I cross the border!



                    It's also worth noting that the SMEs have to be somewhat careful on these boards because everything they say is exported. It might not be classified, but some IP may fall under ITAR. This is part of the dance ED has to do, and why they tend to be very, very careful.


                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by BarTzi View Post
                      What if it's heavier, and the Hornet (for example) will limit G by the weight carried on the plane. Does that not need a software upgrade? I find that odd that people even claim that.

                      I wouldn't think so... I mean its not heavier than carrying Mk.84's...

                      The weight difference between taking off full fuel, vs RTB after Bingo would be FAR FAR greater than the difference between Hydras and laser guidance.

                      Also, we've seen platforms that because they are way lighter than a Hornet, the difference in weight between APKWS and Hydra would be PROPORTIONATELY much greater, may well not have such a software upgrade. AH-6 and it's variants, for instance. The Kiowa Warrior... I don't know, but it may or may not have a software upgrade for the increased weight, but I'm doubtful that it needs such. Similar for the A-29 Tucano and Apache gunships. I think those units described that have software upgrades are more for helping the sensor operators to better ensure good hits and reduce missed shots due to being outside the somewhat narrow envelope of employment.

                      I'm curious if APKWS has been tested for "bring back" durability, for multiple USN carrier landings...

                      Comment


                        #31
                        He wasnt talking about limiting weight, but rather calculating weight. The hornets FCC needs to know the aircraft CG to schedule properly, also I think the tanks might balance automatically as well. All of which requires the MC to be able to recognise the weapon and its weight.
                        476th vFG Public Discord| 476th vFG Website

                        Comment


                          #32
                          A 13 lb Rocket, x 7 x 2 Per Wing = 182 lbs + LAU Weight x 2.

                          is not the same as a 32 lb rocket x 7 x 2 Per Wing = 448 + LAU Weight x 2

                          For G-Limit, Trim and FCS Purposes, the Computer needs to know the weight of the stores.

                          So Again, for OLDER Aircraft w/o SMS, FCS, Etc. it's all manual regardless.

                          But for Aircraft that use SMS, FCS to keep the plane in the air... the Computers need to know the weight to trim and limit the pilots inputs.
                          Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill,
                          X470 Taichi Ultimate, 2x R7970 Lightnings Crossfired @ 1.1/6.0GHz,
                          3x ASUS VS248HP + Hanns·G HZ201HPB + Oculus HMD,
                          Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs, CH Fighterstick+Pro Throttle+Pro Pedals

                          Comment


                            #33
                            Originally posted by SkateZilla View Post
                            A 13 lb Rocket, x 7 x 2 Per Wing = 182 lbs + LAU Weight x 2.

                            is not the same as a 32 lb rocket x 7 x 2 Per Wing = 448 + LAU Weight x 2

                            For G-Limit, Trim and FCS Purposes, the Computer needs to know the weight of the stores.

                            So Again, for OLDER Aircraft w/o SMS, FCS, Etc. it's all manual regardless.

                            But for Aircraft that use SMS, FCS to keep the plane in the air... the Computers need to know the weight to trim and limit the pilots inputs.
                            13lb is only the weight of the motor, according to wikipedia. So the weight difference is probably not that much, but yeah, still exists.


                            But how difficult is it to configure the software of a modern aircraft to take a different weight into account? Is it more difficult than for the technican to enter two values (SMS id and weight) into the device that uploads the stores config to the aircraft? Or has the jet have to get a ROM and RAM upgrade, a new processor and flashing a new "SMS operating system" which will leave the aircraft grounded for 2 months?


                            No, genuine question, what techniques are used to update the SMS information?
                            Did you know? True Harrier fans contribute to the AV-8B Community Bugtracker!

                            Comment


                              #34
                              Total weight of the unguided rocket depends on head used, can be 20-25 lbs etc.

                              No one said anything about Processor Upgrades... Just updates to SMS.
                              Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill,
                              X470 Taichi Ultimate, 2x R7970 Lightnings Crossfired @ 1.1/6.0GHz,
                              3x ASUS VS248HP + Hanns·G HZ201HPB + Oculus HMD,
                              Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs, CH Fighterstick+Pro Throttle+Pro Pedals

                              Comment


                                #35
                                I dunno. I just think that's VERY minor, and probably could be done on the flightline, as it's not changing code, just changing just one value slightly. And... probably isn't nessisary, even for CG calculations. I would think that just fuel sloshing around inside the fuel tanks would be a much bigger problem than a few guidance kits. Not that I'm qualified to fly a Piper Cub or anything, just opining that when pros say a device doesn't need an additional upgrade to be flown or used, I try to take them at their word until I hear otherwise. And yea, I could be wrong.

                                Comment


                                  #36
                                  Originally posted by Rick50 View Post
                                  I would think that just fuel sloshing around inside the fuel tanks would be a much bigger problem than a few guidance kits.
                                  The fuel doesn't slosh inside a fuel tank, those are filled with a polyurethane foam that basically doesn't take any capacity but will deny fuel to flow freely around the tanks, but it is possible to suck the fuel out from the tank.
                                  i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.
                                  i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

                                  Comment

                                  Working...
                                  X