Are the Russians developing a clone of APKWS laser rockets?

So, let's complicate (and make more expensive) the cheap rocket further to remove the benefit of adding the laser guidance in the first place? Again, that makes no practical sense.

It makes as much sense as the LJDAM. You put in a gyroscope to stabilize the rocket after launch, and a laser seeker to point it at the target. Notice that unlike the LJDAM, Ugroza doesn't "talk" to the launch aircraft, and it has to somehow be told where to hit.

Notice that from helicopters in particular, dumb rockets are very inaccurate. Any kind of stabilization would be a huge improvement.

But same thing as with APKWS, laser designation is not required, you launch then those with just ballistic curve (and waste the more expensive seeker module doing so) and you don't need to designate through whole flight, as just enough to get the rocket stabilize it's trajectory at the target and laser can be stopped.

This depends on how smart the seeker is. One difficulty with making a laser-guided rocket is that unlike a bomb, it generally doesn't have the energy to fly straight at the laser, and will fall short if it does that. So, it needs to be smart enough to fly a slightly more complex, more efficient trajectory. The question is, how does APKWS implement this? If it uses some kind of law based on the position of the laser point with relation to the sensor, then it'll go stupid if it loses the laser, and likely hit long like a Paveway III in a similar situation. If it tries to correlate the laser spot with a point in space and guide to that, then it should still hit the general area if the spot vanishes. Ugroza, it seems, uses the second method.

An Russian equivalent APKWS would be an massive upgrade to our Russian rotary air wing.

If the hind can laze it then the MI-8 can kill it... they would be an awesome pair.

Interesting! Thanks for the replies!

 

I guess it might be like a lot of projects: development starts, then you don't hear anything for years, and suddenly a decade later you find out it's now being used in the field... or got cancelled 5 years ago!

 

I remember the idea of the APKWS was being considered as a "what if?" concept back in the mid-90's, and then years went by with no word of any of it. I remembered thinking "Hmm, an Apache could carry a lot of those rockets... that would have big implications on the battlefield".

The APKWS project for cancelled in the mid 2000. But it was then restarted as APKWS II project little later.

In the end of 90's there were few other laser guided rockets programs that you likely remember.

From all of them, the APKWS II is most promising and easiest to take in use. Same old warhead, same old rocket but just new guidance module between.

Others were with new warhead that has guidance module with it too, that requires whole warhead penetrator to go through the guidance section first.

There are many challenges on each of the guidance method types, laser spot tracking is not the best of them all, but one of the simplest while not most reliable either.

It makes as much sense as the LJDAM. You put in a gyroscope to stabilize the rocket after launch, and a laser seeker to point it at the target. Notice that unlike the LJDAM, Ugroza doesn't "talk" to the launch aircraft, and it has to somehow be told where to hit.

 

Notice that from helicopters in particular, dumb rockets are very inaccurate. Any kind of stabilization would be a huge improvement.

The Hydra rocket doesn't need stabilization as its trajectory is already achieved with fins and rotation. The only part you need to stabilize for the APKWS is the seeker head.

This depends on how smart the seeker is. One difficulty with making a laser-guided rocket is that unlike a bomb, it generally doesn't have the energy to fly straight at the laser, and will fall short if it does that. So, it needs to be smart enough to fly a slightly more complex, more efficient trajectory. The question is, how does APKWS implement this? If it uses some kind of law based on the position of the laser point with relation to the sensor, then it'll go stupid if it loses the laser, and likely hit long like a Paveway III in a similar situation. If it tries to correlate the laser spot with a point in space and guide to that, then it should still hit the general area if the spot vanishes. Ugroza, it seems, uses the second method.

It's the same principle as the bomb, actually, it's just that having a partly powered weapon allows you a bigger engagement envelope (e.g. from low altitudes).

Regarding the trajectory, the APKWS missile locks on after launch so the Hydra rocket flies its normal powered ballistic trajectory and then engages the seeker in the final descending stage. The bigger issue is how to actually translate the seeker signals to correct the path of a rolling rocket towards the target.

If it tries to correlate the laser spot with a point in space and guide to that, then it should still hit the general area if the spot vanishes. Ugroza, it seems, uses the second method.

Again, this makes no sense. There are no gyros and INS autopilots in these rockets, it defeats the original purpose of reusing cheap rockets.

Besides, how do you imagine a cheap sensor would identify a spot to hit from 2 km away if the laser illumination is stopped? It would translate to a huge CEP which is why these weapons don't work this way.

Regarding the trajectory, the APKWS missile locks on after launch so the Hydra rocket flies its normal powered ballistic trajectory and then engages the seeker in the final descending stage. The bigger issue is how to actually translate the seeker signals to correct the path of a rolling rocket towards the target.

APKWS isn't spin-stabilized. The control surfaces on the front wings stop the rolling momentum after the wings deploy.

APKWS isn't spin-stabilized. The control surfaces on the front wings stop the rolling momentum after the wings deploy.

Yes, you are correct, my mistake, though technically that's BAE APKWS II. The original APKWS was using a de-roll bearing to stabilize the sensor.

On 10/16/2020 at 11:47 AM, Dudikoff said:

Yes, you are correct, my mistake, though technically that's BAE APKWS II. The original APKWS was using a de-roll bearing to stabilize the sensor.

Yes the original APKWS had a IMU that was used for stabilization. That same thing is still in use on some others laser guided rockets at the moment. 

The APKWS was one of projects that was participating for the army guided rocket program LCPK (Low Cost Precision Kill) in 1996,  and eventually that APKWS program got cancelled as it was not suitable for the project goals for the cost.

The objective of the LCPK program includes a cost of less than US $ 10 thousand per shot, accuracy of 1-2 meters and a range of 6 km. You must combine a decrease in the number of guided weapons carried by a factor of 4 to 20, and reduce the cost of each target destroyed by a factor of 2 or 4, with a reduction in the side effect. The probability of a hit must be 80% (Pk = 0.8). See table below for comparison with the Hydra-70 unguided rocket and Hellfire.

The selected competitors were Raytheon and BAe Systems. The 24-month development and demonstration phase was scheduled to start in January 2003. Raytheon's proposal included a 2.3 kg INS sensor measuring 38 cm in length. The sensor performs control in the 3 axes and proportional navigation. Raytheon studied alternative radial impellers in place of canards and fiber optics on the wings as a sensor as an option to the "Scatterider" beamrider guidance methods with side vision or with a nose sensor.

Then little later when project was restarted as APKWS II they removed the IMU and made the new seeker module. Originally the APKWS had a software modifications required as the rocket was to be used like a hellfire, the helicopters systems literally transferred the targeting information to each rocket like they would be hellfire missiles. Each rocket would have identifier their warhead, the rocket would receive the power from the helicopter, targeting computer was transmitting target coordinates and warhead fuze information in it etc. 

 But since the APKWS II all that was removed and the guidance module was made completely standalone unit that has no communication to the launching platform, making it cheaper and removing requirement for capability launch hellfire missiles.

Quote

The LCPK Advanced Technology Demonstration purpose and goal was to develop, flight demonstrate, and integrate onto the AH-64D Longbow Apache a low cost, accurate 2.75"/70mm guided rocket that provided a standoff range surgical strike capability against specified soft point targets, addressing the APKWS needs. The technologies demonstrated for the LCPK 2.75"/70mm guided rocket would include small low cost solid state semi-active laser (SAL) seekers to acquire reflected laser energy, canard or thruster controllers to provide aerodynamic control authority, small low cost off the shelf inertial devices to provide inertial information for rocket control, and an innovative de-roll coupling device to provide some roll isolation from the highly rolling free rocket. The guidance package would be a direct screw-on to the existing Hydra-70 rocket motor, warhead, and fuze. The operational characteristics to be demonstrated were as follows: The SAL guided 2.75"/70mm rocket would be launched like a free rocket, the target would be tracked and lased like a HELLFIRE mission, the guided rocket would lock on after launch (LOAL) similar to a miniature Copperhead, and a terminal homing phase utilizing proportional navigation would produce precision accuracy for a high single shot kill. A full-up 2.75"/70mm guided round for transition into Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) was to be developed and demonstrated.

 

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/apkws.htm

And that is causing problems where people believe that APKWS II requires link to the launching platform or software changes to communicate with it etc.

There are many other laser guided rockets as DAGR, on the market that do require such link where new upgrades are wireless data transmissions instead using physical pins in the guidance section. Example: 

That is as well similar design for the Russian Ugroza model that has the laser seeker in the tip of the rocket, front of the warhead. So the warhead penetrator is required to go through seeker section. This is not the case with the APKWS that standalone guidance module is behind the warhead.

The Ugroza rocket has no movable fins but the movement is done with small jet bursts from the nose section.

It seeker is said to have passive and semi-active capabilities:

The passive system allows the destruction of high-contrast targets such as armored and the semi-active system allows the destruction of any target. In the latter case, the illuminator may be on a helicopter, plane or on the ground. The trajectory correction is carried out close to the target with the help of a tail rocket.

So possible that larger rockets and artillery shells has that passive, and smaller has just laser seekers.

On 10/12/2020 at 9:40 PM, S.E.Bulba said:

 

Milliradian § Range estimation with mrad reticles

 

 

R2D2 always shoots back.

Maybe Russia could but some APKWS's?