APKWS range and lethality

Hi,

Looking at WAGS video I couldn't understand how he knew when to shoot the rocket.

Simply assuming that getting inside a 5NM range sounds un-realistic. The range depend on altitude, speed, angle ,etc.

The CCIP algorithm should perform the actual estimation and give the shoot cue, no? In case the 'shoot' given by the plane is based on both the ability of the rocket to get to the target AND it's probability to actually hit - then the CCIP should give the SHOOT cue relatively close to the target. If it should consider only the 'get to the target' part- we should see a 'shoot' cue the moment the rocket is actually IN RANGE (ballistic calculation show the rocket will get to the point on the ground). How should we know when to fire?

Another thing - the penetration ability of the rocket depends on it's kinetic energy. Shooting from the MAX RANGE should reduce it's anti armor penetration capability. on the other hand, shooting a MBT from 70 dive angle and close range - will probably kill a M1/T90 tanks in real life. When a more complicated damage models will arrive - will it be taken into account?

yes it's strange that there's no range indicator like for the maverick missile. however the rockets have a HEAT warhead so impact velocity doesn't affect penetration

Hi,

 

Looking at WAGS video I couldn't understand how he knew when to shoot the rocket.

Simply assuming it's 5NM sound un-realistic.

He does know by looking at his TGT Pod and/ or the distance to the WP, which in this case is pretty much the same.

Using these Rockets you will most likely have some kind of designation, so distance measuring shouldn´t be the problem.

... the rockets have a HEAT warhead so impact velocity doesn't affect penetration

The APKWS M282 HEI MPP Warhead isn't a traditional HEAT round, rather it's a Multi-Purpose Penetrator.

System Description

 

The M282 High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) warhead is considered a 'bunker buster' and is used for engaging light armored vehicles, bunkers, and reinforced MOUT [Military Operation in Urban Terrain] targets. The fuse has a delay feature, and the warhead detonates with both blast fragment and incendiary effects.

 

The M282 contains plastic vent plugs, which improve the Insensitive Munitions (IM) response [i.e. they are less likely to explode in a crash or when damaged].

APKWS with M151 and M282 Warheads

Watched Wags video surprised there's no que in the HUD when employing APKWS to help pilot make sure the rocket can actually see the designated target when it comes out of the tube.

It is odd given that there is a range cue on the HUD for normal rockets.

Watched Wags video surprised there's no que in the HUD when employing APKWS to help pilot make sure the rocket can actually see the designated target when it comes out of the tube.

The rocket doesn’t ‘talk’ to the jet in any way so why would that be surprising? No different than a GBU-12 for example.

What’s funny is JF-17 laser guided rockets are exactly the same way. Hard coded 5nm in range cue, taken from the max range of the unguided rocket version probably. It appears to be a low limit, on the deck your guaranteed to get 5nm basically, but I found it interesting that APKWS is the same way. Going to be interesting to compare

Watched Wags video surprised there's no que in the HUD when employing APKWS to help pilot make sure the rocket can actually see the designated target when it comes out of the tube.

APKWS II is a LOAL only (Lock On After Launch).

No connection between launcher pod or platform launching it.

That was the primary requirement for project that it is 100% backward compatible with all platforms and pods launching 2.75" rockets.

If it can be mounted between warhead and rocket motor, then it can be used on that platform as replacement for old rockets.

The competition has another kinds with seeker in the rocket nose. Like Russian Ugroza from 90's, that is as well LOAL, but there are some from others that are LOBL (Lock On Before Launch) like TALON or GATR.

TALON and Ugroza doesn't require either any modifications to pods or launching platform.

Only thing pilot needs to know is that target is painted with laser using proper code, and rocket does autonomously all after launch.

It is literally like firing unguided rockets at ie. JTAC lazed target.

If ED would be nice, they would implement all these other rockets too and make them available for all modules there are.

Example a L-39 or Mi-24 could use Ugroza variants to operate with a KA-50 or JTAC to hit designated targets.

A UH-1H working with a OH-58 would be able engage targets easily as well.

All is technically possible, just needs to be defined by mission designer that what year mission is and do they allow such a loadout.

This is why a weapons should be separated from modules as it is not up to module what weapons are made.

What’s funny is JF-17 laser guided rockets are exactly the same way. Hard coded 5nm in range cue, taken from the max range of the unguided rocket version probably. It appears to be a low limit, on the deck your guaranteed to get 5nm basically, but I found it interesting that APKWS is the same way. Going to be interesting to compare

Well, the rockets should be fired further ranges depending launch parameters, but by aiming upwards. But something that is limiting factor is the guidance modules batteries operation times.

Like these LOAL rockets has been taken in use when building a light MLRS vehicles, as now you can have a truck or a IFV with rocket pods on roof, and have rockets guided on target by simply firing them example at +/- 20 degrees direction of the target that someone else designates.

You can have those vehicles follow combat groups from couple kilometers and still be able to offer a accurate fire support as long a laser is visible on rocket after launch.

Faster and more effective compared to aircrafts providing support, if your terrain allows that.

Would be nice to get the working smoke screens and all as well, to scatter laser beams and obscure FLIR and all, allowing ground vehicles to survive from engagement.

It is odd given that there is a range cue on the HUD for normal rockets.

Not odd that’s correct behavior. The jet doesn’t care if they’re traditional rockets or laser guided.

Not odd that’s correct behavior. The jet doesn’t care if they’re traditional rockets or laser guided.

You said it, if there is In range indication for one there should be one for the other or viceversa. Right?

You said it, if there is In range indication for one there should be one for the other or viceversa. Right?

How does the jet know if the rocket is going to be guided or not? It doesn’t, and so the CCIP range ring is the same as always for any standard rocket.

There are already plenty of circumstances where the range rings don’t indicate “in range” when firing existing “dumb” rockets (LATR/HATR/Loft Rocket). There also never an “in range” cue when using CCRP for rockets either. APKWS isn’t unique here at all, in fact its exactly the same as any other rocket type on the A-10C.

The APKWS M282 HEI MPP Warhead isn't a traditional HEAT round, rather it's a Multi-Purpose Penetrator.

hmm interesting, looks like it does rely on kinetic energy for penetration. is dcs even capable of modeling this?

How does the jet know if the rocket is going to be guided or not?

laser would be activated

hmm interesting, looks like it does rely on kinetic energy for penetration. is dcs even capable of modeling this?

TL;DR:

Not AFAIK.

Detail:

Most DCS vehicle damage models use the amount of explosive and an angle of impact modifier (front, side, top, rear) to calculate the damage inflicted which reduces a single health "bar".

It's been said (S-8KOM vs S-8OFP) that in DCS, using a large HE warhead is preferable to using a shaped (HEAT) charge with less HE but I haven't tested the claim.

Speculation

• M151 carries 2.3 lbs (1.0 kg) of Comp B-4 HE (a 60/40 mix of RDX/TNT)

• M282 carries 0.98 lbs (0.44 kg) of PBXN-110

As the relative effectiveness of the 3 explosives is

• TNT = 1.00

• RDX = 1.46

• PBXN-110 = 1.44

even if the M151 was 100% TNT 1.00, the M282 still has less energy 0.44*1.44/1.00 = 0.63

So in theory the M151 might be the better round in DCS but in truth, we'll need to wait and see just how the M282 Warhead has been modelled.

laser would be activated

Small addition to that, as aircraft has zero understanding is rocket to be guided or not, as APKWS doesnt require self-designation. It can be a second party like JTAC or wingman designating target and pilot just fires rockets at the target general direction with accuracy of seeker FOV, that is in APKWS a +/- 20 degrees. That is so huge margin of error for aiming that one should really be shooting at totally different target at another direction.

That is the beauty of the idea, that any platform capable launch 2.75" rockets could be turned to deliver precision guided weapons as long target can be designated with proper laser code by someone.

Think cooperation between UH-1H and Hornet or Warthog and Harrier. Kiowa warrior has these out of the box, and it would make it great designator while others fly Hueys etc.

At night OH-58 could mark target with IR marker so Huey pilots know at what direction to fire, and so on...

So in order to fire at the ranges shown by Wags, you’ll need to rely on the TGP (if self lasing) or know that your target is near a steerpoint that you can range off, right?

(Unless you want to press to normal non-laser rocket range and take your cue from the pipper)

So in order to fire at the ranges shown by Wags, you’ll need to rely on the TGP (if self lasing) or know that your target is near a steerpoint that you can range off, right?

 

(Unless you want to press to normal non-laser rocket range and take your cue from the pipper)

Don't worry, Stuka and I have already discussed some things for our 3-3 on this topic ;)

APKWS II is a LOAL only (Lock On After Launch).

 

No connection between launcher pod or platform launching it.

 

That was the primary requirement for project that it is 100% backward compatible with all platforms and pods launching 2.75" rockets.

 

If it can be mounted between warhead and rocket motor, then it can be used on that platform as replacement for old rockets.

 

The competition has another kinds with seeker in the rocket nose. Like Russian Ugroza from 90's, that is as well LOAL, but there are some from others that are LOBL (Lock On Before Launch) like TALON or GATR.

TALON and Ugroza doesn't require either any modifications to pods or launching platform.

 

Only thing pilot needs to know is that target is painted with laser using proper code, and rocket does autonomously all after launch.

It is literally like firing unguided rockets at ie. JTAC lazed target.

 

If ED would be nice, they would implement all these other rockets too and make them available for all modules there are.

Example a L-39 or Mi-24 could use Ugroza variants to operate with a KA-50 or JTAC to hit designated targets.

A UH-1H working with a OH-58 would be able engage targets easily as well.

 

All is technically possible, just needs to be defined by mission designer that what year mission is and do they allow such a loadout.

 

This is why a weapons should be separated from modules as it is not up to module what weapons are made.

I just figured there would be some kind of indication in HUD showing optimal launch parameters. A circle, something. I'm not suggesting this isn't how it "is" I have no idea.

Would not expect rocket to hit something at closer ranges with laser pointing too far off (pod) boresight though. How maneuverable is this thing?

as aircraft has zero understanding is rocket to be guided or not

as shown in wags' video, the apkws has a unique profile in the DSMS separate from regular hydras. all the necessary info is present for the optimal launch zone to be calculated, yet it isn't for some reason

as shown in wags' video, the apkws has a unique profile in the DSMS separate from regular hydras. all the necessary info is present for the optimal launch zone to be calculated, yet it isn't for some reason

DSMS profile yes but APKWS does not have an impact on the rocket reticle, it's the same as using regular, non laser, rockets in the real jet.

as shown in wags' video, the apkws has a unique profile in the DSMS separate from regular hydras. all the necessary info is present for the optimal launch zone to be calculated, yet it isn't for some reason

Because, as I said above, the jet doesn't know if any given rocket will be guided after launch or not. Therefore it uses the exact same symbology and ballistic calculations as for other rockets.

Remember, you can still use a rocket with an APKWS kit as a dumb rocket. Additionally, you don't need an optimal launch zone, you already know from either the CCIP or CCRP symbology if the rocket cam reach the target area, what more do you need?

DSMS profile yes but APKWS does not have an impact on the rocket reticle, it's the same as using regular, non laser, rockets in the real jet.

So how does the pilot know when can he release the weapon? I guess, flying at 20K will let you shoot further than 5NM?

So how does the pilot know when can he release the weapon? I guess, flying at 20K will let you shoot further than 5NM?

CCIP/CCRP...

CCIP/CCRP...

I guess the question being asked is whether the CCIP reticle is always correct beyond its 12000ft range limit? All the way to the rockets ballastic range?

How much energy/speed does the rocket need to still manoeuvre/guide at its max range?

How much off bore sight can the rocket seeker deal with and how does this effect max range?

Does a higher altitude release give the rocket better terminal performance, especially at max range or moving target.

What’s the rule of thumb for best case optimum altitude versus range etc?