APKWS - Heads up

But since it's MUCH harder accelerating and to much faster velocities, I don't think it's certain that the APKWS seeker would handle that extra speed, the G's, the response rates without causing it to tumble and lose controlled flight.

I believe it would, but it can't be sure if no information is about is it tested or not. But it is competitor product anyways so...

The seeker is in the covered state while the acceleration happens and speed I would think is not a problem. And the response times are all related to the real time seeker guidance logic, considering already the speeds and all that those are designed to withstand, much can be done be withstanding without really testing it for.

But if the module fits in, then it hypothetically should work. Who knows if not tested. But one major difference is that many wants LOBL capability instead LOAL, as safety measurement that you would fire a life rocket at something that is suppose to be a precision attack, and suddenly the rocket doesn't guide at all as it doesn't see the laser or something? With LOBL one can be at least sure that seeker found laser, but can't be sure about guidance part as wings can be jammed etc.

Likely if the guidance module wouldn't be fast enough to react in angle rates, it would just make the rocket inaccurate as instead time to make turns, it would overcorrect itself etc.

But, who knows. I have somewhere the specifications for the APKWS guidance module wings reaction rates and accuracy, and one could make the math for it. But if I remember correctly it is already way above the requirements as the minimal launch range with the laser angle for the moment the seeker activates was such that you really would be needed to make major misaiming and basically you had laser out of the seeker field of view to begin with.

Fair enough, I'm no expert on tanks. But I'd ask you: is a single bomblet on the top/rear of a modern MBT a guarantee of success? Or does it turn into, as I'd suspect, a matter of exactly where precisely it hits, as some areas would only give minor or no actual damage, while other areas might light the whole tank up?

Well, in DCS it is just health bar between 0-100% so if you inflict the X damage (was it 65% or so) it will blow up regardless where you hit them ;)

But change is coming....

IIRC the RHA penetration value for a best HEAT warheads is around 350-450 mm. So you are dangerous even for a MBT.

Eh... perhaps. I was under the understanding that a HEAT's effectiveness, (assuming composition was equal in power), was largely determined by it's diameter: the larger diameter means more PSI jet created, because more composition is focused to create the jet. With that in mind, this suggests that a 70mm rocket would have less power to penetrate than say shoulder fired rockets like the Carl Gustav 84mm and the RPG-7 standard round (88mm I think?). Now... that's probably not any kind of guarantee, and I'd expect a Hydra warhead from 5 years ago would have a better composition than say any RPG round, or older Carl Gustav rounds, but even in the 1990's we grunts were told not to engage a full modern MBT using the 84mm, as the chance of success was low. But your mileage may vary, and it's very different thing shooting a tank from a wall 150m away, single shot, uncertain of getting a good solid hit on the vulnerable points, compared to doing a precision 5km shot from a tank buster with many followup shots!

These do not replace Hellfire or Maverick, but are far better than many others, especially unguided rockets unless you want area effect. While these are cheap, far cheaper than a one hellfire or maverick, the price is more than one unguided rocket. So in good combat simulator there would be infantry companies scattered around a one MBT company, with dozens of IFV, trucks and all kind vehicles, and you do perform better with unguided rockets as you can engage large areas quickly.

Sure, no doubt.

This gets me thinking though about the future of unguided rockets: do they even HAVE a future anymore? Sure, HINDs in Syria are still using them, seemingly with some effectiveness... but... it seems to me that many conflicts are getting so dangerous for helicopters that actually overflying even a small group of infantry is no guarantee of RTB. There seems to be so many MANPADS now, so many 23mm technicals, so many AAA that are radar guided, more SAM's like Tunguska and TOR that seem quite effective, I wonder how long before militaries stop buying unguided rockets in quantity? Give it 5 years, and the Russians or Chinese will sell guided rockets for use in Syria...and maybe then those HINDs will take potshots from 5km instead of flying right over top with a volley of rockets. Maybe.

Not limited to Hydra rockets. Any any rocket that you can thread the module in, is compatible.

 

"Testing with the Australian Army’s 16 Aviation Brigade’s Tigers included using APKWS to convert a Forges de Zeebrugge (FZ) unguided rocket into a laser precision-guided weapon, and marked the first time airborne testing for both the Tiger and the FZ was conducted with APKWS"

 

"We’re very excited about the results – to go 10-for-10 is magnificent,” Dave Harrold, precision guidance solutions product line director at BAE says. “We showed up, never having utilised that warhead and motor before, and we went 10-for-10.”

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/apkws-hits-10-for-10-in-rocket-tests-from-australian-tiger/116510.article

 

https://fz.be/news.php?n=43

 

Hypothetically it could even work with CVR7, if you could screw it in....

 

But it is competitive product for many others. But it is not limited to Hydra family of rockets.

The Tiger uses Hydra rockets in its arsenal, therefore the conversion is simple. The conversion is only able to be done with mk60 motor rockets. It cannot be used with any other rocket.

From wikipedia:

"Planned fixed wing - FA-18"

So can we get this weapons in future in FA-18C too? It will be realistic.

From wikipedia:

"Planned fixed wing - FA-18"

 

So can we get this weapons in future in FA-18C too? It will be realistic.

It was tested first combat conditions in out F/A-18C Lot 20.... And approved for use.

Fair enough, I'm no expert on tanks. But I'd ask you: is a single bomblet on the top/rear of a modern MBT a guarantee of success? Or does it turn into, as I'd suspect, a matter of exactly where precisely it hits, as some areas would only give minor or no actual damage, while other areas might light the whole tank up?

Most likely a single bomblet hit will cause at least a mission kill. Tanks usually have some or all their fuel stored on top half of the hull. The engine occupies almost half of all the hull space. In the other half you find at least 50% of all the ammunition. In the turret, there are 2 to 3 guys cramped in a small space and up to 50% of the ammunition, either in a protected compartment, or not.

With a TGP you can put 13 pods on so 91 precision guided rockets. :D

What a bomb truck, 91 rockets, and up to 4 CBU-105/97s along for the ride as well if you forgo the sidewinders on the tips. Simply Ridiculous. Oh, let's not forget the 1350 GAU-8 rounds while we're at it. Add 3 wingman to the mix for fun... sure sure.

What a bomb truck, 91 rockets, and up to 4 CBU-105/97s along for the ride as well if you forgo the sidewinders on the tips. Simply Ridiculous. Oh, let's not forget the 1350 GAU-8 rounds while we're at it. Add 3 wingman to the mix for fun... sure sure.

That's why the A-10 is still on service for cas :thumbup:, no one can replace him :smartass:

Where did you get the 200 extra rounds?

I'm wondering though if we can CCRP the APKWS. I mean, since it's been used in ballistic firing from the ground, that should be perfectly possible to extend the range a bit from within the air as well. The calculations would be there since they're also being done for CCIP. Would certainly be better than doing the guesswork, but I'd go with that if I had to