Jump to content

APKWS II to be ported to F/A-18C Lot20, UH-1H etc etc.


Fri13

Recommended Posts

The APKWS II was tested and accepted in service in legacy Hornets as well, and the APKWS II rockets are fully backward compatible, without software or hardware modifications to the platform launching them. Why basically any platform that can launch standard FFAR 2.75" rockets is capable to carry and launch them, regardless can they self-designate targets or not.

 

V5IQ6ZWMF5E7FM3T7I4QIHCLUI.jpg

 

It shouldn't be limited to just new modules, as it is not question about aircraft module but about "weapon upgrade" to all units. The APKWS II is little bit special in sense that as it has no communications to the launching platform, that it is not dependent from anything else than date when it was taken in production/service.

 

So the APKWS II should be among normal rocket loadouts for all units if not limited by time of mission etc.

 

Meaning we would be able see UH-1H carrying those rockets and get them guided by a Hornet or A-10C at sky by designating targets for helicopter pilots.

  • Like 4

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, personally seeing weapons that are beyond the timeframe of modules that we have would make me want other weapons for, say, the F-16C (JASSM, GBU-39) I wouldn't want one without the other.

For the Hornet, there's also things like the Harpoon Block II/AGM-84L and the AGM-88E (if applicable)

I don't know, personally I'd rather stick with the current timeframe for our current pool of aircraft. But it's not an opinion I hold particularly strongly.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting
  • Like 2

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The APKWS II was tested and accepted in service in legacy Hornets as well, and the APKWS II rockets are fully backward compatible, without software or hardware modifications to the platform launching them. Why basically any platform that can launch standard FFAR 2.75" rockets is capable to carry and launch them, regardless can they self-designate targets or not.

 

V5IQ6ZWMF5E7FM3T7I4QIHCLUI.jpg

 

It shouldn't be limited to just new modules, as it is not question about aircraft module but about "weapon upgrade" to all units. The APKWS II is little bit special in sense that as it has no communications to the launching platform, that it is not dependent from anything else than date when it was taken in production/service.

 

So the APKWS II should be among normal rocket loadouts for all units if not limited by time of mission etc.

 

Meaning we would be able see UH-1H carrying those rockets and get them guided by a Hornet or A-10C at sky by designating targets for helicopter pilots.

 

The LAU rocket launchers on the pic has not the "standard" LAU-68. That have the LAU-68 F/A extended leght launcher, capable to use with APKWS II.

https://www.arnolddefense.com/product/lau-68-f-a/

https://www.arnolddefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/LAU-68-FA-1.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some notes:

 

APKWS isnt just "Plug and Play" with aircraft that support the rockets by themselves. There is some modification needed, to both the software and launcher/pylon. (launcher is a longer unit as noted above^)

 

USN in the mid 2000's (which is the time frame target for DCS: F/A-18C did not have APKWS, nor did the USN Have them at all on the Legacy Hornets.

  • Like 1

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know APKWS was in service on the f18 during the mid 2000s which is the timeframe of the f18 we've got.

 

Doesn't matter. APKWS II is a standalone weapon upgrade for various aircrafts. It should be in DCS as available option when you either use unlimited year weapons and aircrafts, or if you create a mission that is modern time at the time when APKWS II was taken in service.

 

It has nothing to do with the module itself, but it is DCS core features and year limited.

  • Like 1

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some notes:

 

APKWS isnt just "Plug and Play" with aircraft that support the rockets by themselves. There is some modification needed, to both the software and launcher/pylon. (launcher is a longer unit as noted above^)

 

Manufacturer clearly informs that there is nothing to be done for launcher, that it is exactly Plug and Play. There is no digital connections, there is no hardware changes. Nothing for the platform itself.

 

USN/USMC - LAU-61/LAU-68

USAF - LAU-131

USA - M260/M261

 

All those are usable with the APKWS II.

 

All that is required is that ground crew performs the conversion by installing the APKWS II module to standard rockets at the preparations phase (as they would anyways do), and that pilot knows that they have laser guided rockets and what is their laser code set by the ground crew.

 

 

So hard evidence is that it is 100% plug and play, with 0% modifications or changes to hardware, software or anything in the platform using it. It is all about ground crew preparing them (not simulated in DCS) and pilot knowing the launch parameters.

 

USN in the mid 2000's (which is the time frame target for DCS: F/A-18C did not have APKWS, nor did the USN Have them at all on the Legacy Hornets.

 

Photograph shows difference, evidence from the report that USN tested and validated APKWS II to F/A-18C Lot 20 hornets in already performed operational use.

 

k6xjqqszsri01.jpg

 

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/usmc-ready-to-deploy-apkws-on-f-a-18-hornet/

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/693892/vmfa-314-retires-f-18-c

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2012/armaments/Tuesday14006paras.pdf

 

 

Simply put, ED should just add those rocket pods to inventory of the all western aircrafts that has a compatible launchers (to launch standard 2.75" rockets).

It is task for the mission designer to choose what pilots can use.


Edited by Fri13
  • Like 1

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, personally I'd rather stick with the current timeframe for our current pool of aircraft. But it's not an opinion I hold particularly strongly.

 

With that logic, one can not fly module in any other missions than what are specifically on that year that module is imitating. So if we have a Hornet from 2005, then you can't play any other mission than from 2005.

So one can't never fly with the F-16C Block 50 that is imitating 2007 version.

Or never fly with F-15C that is from far back in time. Or against any MiG, Su etc etc.

Even our AV-8B N/A harrier is from different time from late 80's, so not possible fly with it either.

 

OR simply accept that it is all about mission designer own decision that what is the date of the mission, and do they use proper availability for the date, or not.

 

Introduced Historical mode filter in the ME.

 

The historical mode is designed to facilitate the creation of historical mission scenarios. If the author of the mission wants to use equipment only for a given year, he can click on the small clock piktogramm in the bottom line of the Mission Editor, after which all lists of equipment and aircraft are filtered out for a given year. The lists will show only those aircraft or equipment that were in service with the selected country in a given year. This mode can be turned on and off in the process of creating a mission if you need to select objects outside a given year.

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/

 

Edit: At least RAZBAM stated that they are ready to implement APKWS II to their Harrier if ED adds it to the DCS. And as ED is adding it to the DCS with A-10C II, it is highly likely that Harrier receives now then the new weapon. It would then be up to mission designer to either cheat and allow it to be used any time, or follow the history and allow it only on missions in 2012 or later.

 

Edit2: And here is sample of the Polychop upcoming Kiowa Warrior carrying seven APKWS II rockets: https://youtu.be/mgmx7EtlfPs?t=4519

It is the normal standard launcher pod, no requirement to use the extended one for protecting more of the guidance section.


Edited by Fri13
  • Like 2

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fri13 said:
With that logic, one can not fly module in any other missions than what are specifically on that year that module is imitating. So if we have a Hornet from 2005, then you can't play any other mission than from 2005. So one can't never fly with the F-16C Block 50 that is imitating 2007 version.

Or never fly with F-15C that is from far back in time. Or against any MiG, Su etc etc.

Even our AV-8B N/A harrier is from different time from late 80's, so not possible fly with it either.

Not quite, earlier weapons from the 80s are available to our current pool of aircraft. Their RADARs are much the same as earlier versions, if not identical. Simply don't carry one of our current TGPs or an AMRAAM or an AIM-9X or use Link 16 and bingo, you've got yourself what is basically an earlier aircraft from the 80s with not much in the way of differences, while still being accurate for the 2007 version. So we've got basically as near as dammit when it comes to earlier aircraft, without making them inaccurate for a later one.

So your F-15C that has access to late 90s can easily be turned into an earlier aircraft, by mounting weapons it has access to, from that timeframe, that it historically had access to at the time (correct me if I'm wrong). Everything else is the same.

So no, by my logic, you're not forced into exclusively going for that year, because without giving access to munitions that weren't fielded at the time, you can approximate an earlier aircraft.

Meanwhile, going forward, the APKWS is something a 2005 Hornet was never fitted with, because APKWS wasn't around. Whereas the AIM-7 and earlier AIM-9L and AIM-9M were, allowing us to very closely approximate an earlier aircraft but less so for a future one.

And if we're getting 2012 era weapons on a 2007 F-16C, then why not the JASSM? Why not the GBU-39? Why not an upgraded HARM or Harpoon?

Fri13 said:
OR simply accept that it is all about mission designer own decision that what is the date of the mission, and do they use proper availability for the date, or not.

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/

Fine, go for it, you kind-of have to if you want to have historic missions, as historic versions aren't available.

Again, not a position I hold strongly, we don't really have a choice and sometimes we have to play fast and loose because of the mismatched assets with no particular decade fleshed out. But with DCS, most of the assets are earlier, not newer so it makes more sense to have weapons of the current aircraft, than weapons that were in the future for the aircraft we have.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting
  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite, earlier weapons from the 80s are available to our current pool of aircraft. Their RADARs are much the same as earlier versions, if not identical. Simply don't carry one of our current TGPs or an AMRAAM or an AIM-9X or use Link 16 and bingo, you've got yourself what is basically an earlier aircraft from the 80s with not much in the way of differences, while still being accurate for the 2007 version. So we've got basically as near as dammit when it comes to earlier aircraft, without making them inaccurate for a later one.

 

There are lots of tech that is in that ain't from those older times. Sure it can be said about weapons, but not from the aircraft.

 

But that same goes otherway around with APKWS II. No modifications or changes required for the aircraft at all. It is available only in 2012 or later missions if following history, or it could be available from much earlier if going for alternative imagined history. Up to mission designer.

 

Just like we can pretend that lots of tech from future is just "not there" for earlier versions.

 

So your F-15C that has access to late 90s can easily be turned into an earlier aircraft, by mounting weapons it has access to, from that timeframe, that it historically had access to at the time (correct me if I'm wrong). Everything else is the same.

 

F-15C is now little special aircraft as it is so old anyways by itself, only receiving the large upgrades just while ago.

 

So no, by my logic, you're not forced into exclusively going for that year, because without giving access to munitions that weren't fielded at the time, you can approximate an earlier aircraft.]

 

In reality we can use APKWS II in 2012 with our exact Hornet version. No modifications, no changes, nothing to be done our Hornet to be capable use those rockets. Only thing missing is that ED didn't implement them, but it is now. They are coming does people like it or not, to A-10C II, OH-58 Kiowa Warrior and very likely to AV-8B N/A Harrier. And if there is coming AH-64 Apache, AH-1 etc, all will be with access to APKWS II. The APKWS II has been even taken in use with various other rocket pods that are physically compatible with the FFAR. Because that guidance module does not care much that where it is as it is not communicating by any means with the launching platform. There is no signal, no digital or electronic communication to the system.

 

Meanwhile, going forward, the APKWS is something a 2005 Hornet was never fitted with, because APKWS wasn't around. Whereas the AIM-7 and earlier AIM-9L and AIM-9M were, allowing us to very closely approximate an earlier aircraft but less so for a future one.

 

Our 2005 Hornet is exactly fitted with it, in 2012!

Exactly our F/A-18C Hornet.

 

We live today in 2020. Our Hornet is from 2004-2005, the APKWS II was taken in operational use in 2012 with our exact US Navy Hornet. Exactly the variant that is modeled in DCS.

 

So either we limit the missions to be in exactly that year that the module is presented, or we allow even to model a fantasy 2025 war today with the weapons that are in DCS, or we can go back in the history and remove such as AIM-9X (actually impossible as Hornets were required to go the "Wingtip" upgrade program to get AIM-9X compatibility among others, so no, you can't have "80's Hornet" as is).

 

And if we're getting 2012 era weapons on a 2007 F-16C, then why not the JASSM? Why not the GBU-39? Why not an upgraded HARM or Harpoon?

 

Each weapon is required to go individually through is it possible.

 

APKWS II doesn't require ANY MODIFICATIONS, no software, no hardware, no wiring, nothing[/u[. It is a very special new weapon.

 

This is not about what weapons there are in 2025, or what ever. This is about one specific weapon that has fairly rare feature to be backward and forward compatible.

 

So if you want those others, you are free to open the wishlist for it, but be ready to provide evidence that they could be integrated to our Hornet (or Viper etc) without modifications like I have for APKWS II by official manufacturer and operator material.

 

Fine, go for it, you kind-of have to if you want to have historic missions, as historic versions aren't available.

 

Again, not a position I hold strongly, we have to sometimes play fast and loose because of the mismatched assets with no particular decade flushed out.

 

That is why in my opinion ED should consider through an idea that we could get a "DLC's for modules" where each require a base module (like example Mi-24P) and then each variant that is considered to be easily developed (like Mi-24V and Mi-24VP) considering the work and required changes, to support a different variants from different years, and this way open up a income source (base + DLC + DLC + DLC etc) for accessing such a versions.

 

It is typically far easier to remove something than add it. As commonly newer versions adds or improve features, than removes them. And as it has been stated by the ED that the flight modeling is always the most difficult and challenging part in any module, if you can make a additional versions without redoing flight modeling (you can always adjust the parameters etc anyways) like with the Mi-24 analogue, it is mainly the cockpit and visuals (3D, animations etc) differences. Like how much different is the pilot cockpit between Mi-24V and Mi-24P? The gunner cockpit has some major differences, but how much changes really would change the flight characteristics so much that it would warranty a rewriting and hence completely new module? Or would it be similar to L-39C and L-39ZA or C-101EB and C-101CC?

 

Now think about the possibilities that ED could do with F/A-18C different lots, F-16C blocks etc....

There likely would be people willing to buy a older ones, for a fair price and ED to do them for good price considering the required effort.

 

Eventually DCS World will run its course for available modules, it will start to have a long list of non-popular aircrafts from where to choose to be implemented. And many will not be a commercially successful projects. So it leaves every studio to consider how much to refresh and maintain the existing modules.

 

But if ED can keep business running for next 10-15 years, there likely opens up a batch of new products that so many would be interested to see, including as well new weapons.

And show stopper just becomes that so many will start to be unusable as is from modules we have. And APKWS II is not one of those as it is fully compatible with many, as it was its design requirements.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

text wall

 

Weve been over this before in another thread. You know this already. Stop spreading inaccuracies. Hell even the sources you posted yourself few paes earlier if youve bothered to read say otherwise. In 2012 APKWS was not in use on Hornets. The USMC at that point in time in 2012 were only evaluating it on helicopters like the Ah1W/Z and the Uh1Y and not yet on fixed wing platforms.

 

 

It is not until 2018 that the first USMC squadron adopts it for thier Hornets.

 

 

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/04/18/marines-boost-lethality-of-hornets-with-high-precision-kill-munitions/

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4274658&postcount=24

 

 

And not any AH64 Apache or any Ah1 Cobra will get APKWS. ONly The AH64E guardians and late life AH64D longbows would use APKWS and the only cobras that had used APKWS was circa 2012 Ah1W Super Cobra, or Ah1Z vipers.

 

An AH1F or an AH64A would not be getting AKPWS. These are long retired from US army use.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USN in the mid 2000's (which is the time frame target for DCS: F/A-18C did not have APKWS, nor did the USN Have them at all on the Legacy Hornets.

 

Photograph shows difference, evidence from the report that USN tested and validated APKWS II to F/A-18C Lot 20 hornets in already performed operational use.

 

k6xjqqszsri01.jpg

 

I completely agree that the plug & play kind of integration of the APKWS is a very good point to add it to all DCS modules that can fire unguided 2.75" rockets.

 

But in all fairness, SkateZilla's statement is not invalidated by that picture, as it shows a Marine Corps Hornet, not a Navy one. Or did these services work on the integration in a combined way?

 

Anyway, it would be a great addition to DCS being able to launch these rockets off the types mentioned in the thread title. It would add more options to mission designers, and I'd be all for it. After all, that's the whole point about APKWS: the ability to fit it to aircraft that don't yet support PGMs, and to improve those aircraft types that already do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree that the plug & play kind of integration of the APKWS is a very good point to add it to all DCS modules that can fire unguided 2.75" rockets.

 

But in all fairness, SkateZilla's statement is not invalidated by that picture, as it shows a Marine Corps Hornet, not a Navy one. Or did these services work on the integration in a combined way?

 

Anyway, it would be a great addition to DCS being able to launch these rockets off the types mentioned in the thread title. It would add more options to mission designers, and I'd be all for it. After all, that's the whole point about APKWS: the ability to fit it to aircraft that don't yet support PGMs, and to improve those aircraft types that already do.

 

 

USMC Legacy Hornets also Received Pylon and wiring updates the USN did not opt in for their fleet.

 

USMC Began Testing APKWS On Hornets in 2017, and deployed w/ them in 2018

 

USN Did no such tests w/ their Legacy Hornets.

 

Let me Rephrase, since the USMC is Technically part of the USN,

 

USMC Land Based Hornet Sqns Tested APKWS in 2017 and Deployed with it in Feb 2018.

 

The Sqns that Deployed with APKWS were not Carrier Air Wing Sqns.

 

USN Sqns Never Tested APKWS with their legacy hornets for these Reasons:

 

1. The Legacy Hornets halted any and all updates to OFP and Weapons systems before 2017

2. USN Sqns already had a tineline for either transition to super hornets, F-35s, or disestablishment.

3. USN Sqns that still had Legacy Hornets were sending them all to be mothballed or to Cecil Field to be upgraded to C++ Before being transferred to the USMC Sqns

4. USN Legacy Hornet Retirement was Accelerated due to USMC's Fleet Readiness status of their aircraft. USN Accelerated Legacy Retirement to send all remaining aircraft to Cecil field to be upgraded, or to be mothballed for parts.

 

 

As for the "100% Plug and Play", that's a "Suggested" Term. I know Aviation Mechanics, there is minor software updates that need to be installed, and if it were 100% Plug in Play w/ no modifications or upgrades required, there would be ZERO reason to test it.

 

The OFP and SMS need to be updated to know that APKWS is loaded on that station, as selecting that store would not generate the same HUD indicators as the H70 Rocket. The SMS needs to also know that the Store on that system is using LAU-68F 7 tube launcher and not LAU-68D. (or LAU131/A vs LAU-131A/A for USAF).

 

Sqns also had to test to make sure the increased length/weight pods were able to stay mounted safely to the aircraft through the specified flight envelopes/maneuvers.

 

 

So again, it's not a matter of simply slapping APKWS in place of Hydras on ANY aircraft and calling it a day.


Edited by SkateZilla

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USMC Legacy Hornets also Received Pylon and wiring updates the USN did not opt in for their fleet. [...]

 

Good info, thanks a lot!

 

So I guess that means that mounting APKWS to our F/A-18C would be unrealistic because it's a USN Lot 20 that never saw APKWS integration.

 

However, I would argue it would not be terribly unrealistic, because the Marine Corps did it on jets that are mostly comparable.

 

If we do get it in DCS, I'd be all for it - not the least because, unlike in real life, there's no prospect of a Super Hornet or F-35 in the near term for us, so it would make sense to improvise a bit going beyond 2017. ;)

 

And it would still be up to mission designers to allow or disallow particular weapons for a particular mission and/or timeframe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USMC Legacy Hornets also Received Pylon and wiring updates the USN did not opt in for their fleet.

 

What did the upgrade exactly have?

Do you have exact official documents, specifications and blueprints that counter the manufacturer official public material?

 

As for the "100% Plug and Play", that's a "Suggested" Term. I know Aviation Mechanics, there is minor software updates that need to be installed, and if it were 100% Plug in Play w/ no modifications or upgrades required, there would be ZERO reason to test it.

 

Militarizes do not take anything officially in the service without testing it through protocols. Even if it is 100% plug and play, it is not allowed because if there happens even single mishap for lack of training, documentation or anything, someone's head is on the plate.....

 

The OFP and SMS need to be updated to know that APKWS is loaded on that station, as selecting that store would not generate the same HUD indicators as the H70 Rocket.

 

Why it is required? What information there is required to know that there is the APKWS module added to the known standard warhead? Why wouldn't the system generate the same HUD indicators as the non-guided version of that exact model that has same flight characteristics than the guided one, just being without guidance?

 

The SMS needs to also know that the Store on that system is using LAU-68F 7 tube launcher and not LAU-68D. (or LAU131/A vs LAU-131A/A for USAF).

 

What is difference in the communications between previous "non-extended" pod example?

Do you have official electronic diagrams that shows the difference?

 

Sqns also had to test to make sure the increased length/weight pods were able to stay mounted safely to the aircraft through the specified flight envelopes/maneuvers.

 

Again, a protocol of the testing is done before taken in service, that doesn't mean there is modifications required, as it is protocol even there would be nothing changed.

 

So again, it's not a matter of simply slapping APKWS in place of Hydras on ANY aircraft and calling it a day.

 

Again, manufacturer specifically says there is NO MODIFICATIONS (software or hardware) required to take it in use.

It is Plug and Play at the end of the day.

 

How does the aircraft know about the APKWS II itself in the rocket?

Is there a connection between guidance module and the warhead or fuse?

Is there a connection between guidance module and the rocket motor?

Is there connection between guidance module and the launch pod?

Is there a digital, electronic or mechanical connection from the guidance module to the aircraft software systems?

Why and how doesn't it matter are you firing a unguided or guided variant for the system?

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess that means that mounting APKWS to our F/A-18C would be unrealistic because it's a USN Lot 20 that never saw APKWS integration.

 

That is false information until official documentation is publically available and counters the manufacturer official public material that there is no hardware or software modifications required.

 

And it would still be up to mission designers to allow or disallow particular weapons for a particular mission and/or timeframe.

 

That is exactly the thing here, it is up to mission designer to make the decision.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weve been over this before in another thread. You know this already. Stop spreading inaccuracies.

 

Stop insulting other people and start to provide evidence that counters the official manufacturer public information about it being 100% plug and play, no requirements for software or hardware for any platform that can launch standard unguided rockets.

 

Hell even the sources you posted yourself few paes earlier if youve bothered to read say otherwise. In 2012 APKWS was not in use on Hornets. The USMC at that point in time in 2012 were only evaluating it on helicopters like the Ah1W/Z and the Uh1Y and not yet on fixed wing platforms.

 

Read again what is written, you have been countered before.

 

It is not until 2018 that the first USMC squadron adopts it for thier Hornets.

 

Again, you are insulting.

 

And not any AH64 Apache or any Ah1 Cobra will get APKWS. ONly The AH64E guardians and late life AH64D longbows would use APKWS and the only cobras that had used APKWS was circa 2012 Ah1W Super Cobra, or Ah1Z vipers.

 

Do you claim that the military would pull out of the inventory old legacy vehicles just so they could use a new weapon on them?

 

An AH1F or an AH64A would not be getting AKPWS. These are long retired from US army use.

 

And is that a evidence in your opinion that those would be incapable to launch APKWS II rockets if those would be in service?

 

APKWS_II_qualitification.thumb.jpg.c78b4338aec0a4de7006c4be943f5f2c.jpg

 

APKWS_II_flexible2.jpg.e800ef3943ab2975ef1efb7d1f5157f5.jpg

 

We can play this game all day along, but you have no evidence of anykind that manufacturer official public information is false.

 

NO MODIFICATION (software or hardware) REQUIRED.

COMPATIBLE WITH ALL EXISTING AND FUTURE PODS.

 

The U.S. Marine Corps operators have flown with

an APKWS laser-guided rocket as part of their

everyday kit since 2012. More than 400 have

been successfully fired in training, testing, and in

combat, with a 93% hit rate, proving to be

the close air support weapon of choice.

 

The APKWS laser-guided rocket has been demonstrated over land

and over water on more than a dozen rotary-wing, fixed-wing,

and unmanned platforms with different warheads. It has been

qualified for use on several platforms, including the UH-1Y, the

AH-1W, the AH-64D/E, and the MH-60S.

Additionally, the APKWS guidance section has been successfully

demonstrated on the 70mm Forges de Zeebruges (FZ) rocket, with

the same proven effectiveness seen when integrated with the

Hydra rocket.

The APKWS rocket can be purchased as a guidance section or as

an all-up round.

 

Our mid-body modular design is compatible with existing and

new inventories of 2.75-inch rocket motors, warheads, and

launchers – designed to transform unguided rockets into guided

rockets. It has enabled integration on more than two dozen

rotary-wing and fixed-wing platforms, and is qualified on over a

dozen. It was first integrated on the AH-1W Cobra, and requires

no modifications to the standard rocket motor, firing platform

or fire control system.

 

The APKWS II is 100% plug and play, no modifications required what so ever to any platform.

You can use it on any platform (regardless is it in service or not) without modifications as long the platform can launch a standard 2.75" unguided rockets. The whole purpose of the APKWS II weapon program is to convert a unguided rocket to guided one without requirements for launch platform modifications.

In simply put, if you can launch a 2.75" rocket, you can launch APKWS II. And once it is launched, it will take care of everything else by itself.

You just need to aim and launch the rocket in the similar range parameters as unguided ones, but you have 40 degree launch angle option so you do not need to be at all so accurate in aiming as with unguided ones. The seeker capability to detect the laser spot far exceeds the rocket motor capability to fly there (in other words, unlimited range for the seeker head in distance).

 

What you have now made, is call the manufacturer as a liar, as you have made claim that each and every single one of the launching platforms has been required to go through a modifications to use APKWS II rockets. In other words, even the claim of:

The APKWS rocket is the most cost effective laser-guided munition in its class. Instead of buying costly new weapon systems, users simply implement our upgrade into existing unguided rocket inventories for long range precision fires at the industry's lowest total ownership cost.
to be complete lie. As it is not at all cost effective when you need to modify dozens of different platforms to launch a unguided rocket with a guided section.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is false information until official documentation is publically available and counters the manufacturer official public material that there is no hardware or software modifications required.

 

Hey man, I'm on your side in this discussion.

 

But I've read marketing brochures and I've witnessed how they collide with reality. Sure, nowhere near APKWS or anything even remotely close to it. But when a company claims "100% compatibility", I wouldn't quite take their word on it until I've confirmed it myself.

 

What I've gathered from this thread is that the US Navy didn't certify APKWS on their Hornets, and the Marine Corps only did it after some relatively minor modifications to their aircraft, but with a lot of testing.

 

So if we got APKWS for the DCS F/A-18C Lot 20, it might not reflect real world integration, but it would not be entirely unrealistic, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mk82 and gbu12's are basically the same weapon. The difference between employing those two weapons are some small changes to the sms such as a laser code option and a no release cue when you set you nose fuze to smth. I would also guess that there would need to be a couple of changes to the weapon/pylon interface (or perhaps would use the features of the smart pylon ?) because we have the option of changing the laser code while flying (actually it's also a question of mine: how do you change the laser code of those bombs externally ?).

On different jets such as the f5, f14, f16 I don't think there is the option of changing the laser code in flight. The f/a-18 got this feature.

So now back on the APKWS, is there gonna be an option to change the laser code while flying on the fa18 (like the gbu's) or is it only done on ground ?

Because perhaps if they did want to give this option to the gbu's on the fa18 perhaps they would've also made some further modifications to change the laser code in flight with the APKWS and thus needing a little more work than simply strapping it on.

 

Yeah, I'm perhaps rambling but my point is that the gbu story on the fa18 seems a bit more complicated than simply strapping it on without doing anything. Is the APKWS the same story on this jet ?


Edited by notproplayer3

Full fidelity su27/mig29 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mk82 and gbu12's are basically the same weapon. [...]

 

Yes and no. An unguided Mk-82 will follow a purely ballistic flight profile.

 

A GBU-12, after picking up the laser spot, will leave the ballistic profile and guide to the target on a relatively straight line.

 

So the flight characteristics of these 2 bombs are actually a bit different, and if the aircraft dropping them doesn't know which profile the bomb is going to use, there's a distinct possibility for the bomb to run out of energy and fall short of the target.

 

For the DCS A-10C there's the option to select "BAL" and "OPT" profiles in the DSMS for LGBs (Optimum Release Profile = LGB, BAL = Ballistic Release Profile for dumb drops) to account for guided vs. non-guided LGB deliveries.

 

I assume other aircraft also have to take this into account.

 

However, I'm not certain how this translates to later generation LGBs and if these bombs might take flight profiles into account in order to ensure sufficient energy regardless of guided or unguided drops.

 

I would also guess that there would need to be a couple of changes to the weapon/pylon interface (or perhaps would use the features of the smart pylon ?) because we have the option of changing the laser code while flying (actually it's also a question of mine: how do you change the laser code of those bombs externally ?).

 

As far as I know, laser codes are set on the weapon using a flat head screwdriver by the ground crew. Our ability to set laser codes from the cockpit is either a gameplay concession, or maybe it's the way it works IRL so that pilots can inform the aircraft of the weapon's laser code (not setting the weapon code itself; merely telling the aircraft "that's the weapon's code") so that the aircraft can make sure that there's not going to be a laser code mismatch on self-lasing drops.

 

[...] perhaps they would've also made some further modifications to change the laser code in flight with the APKWS and thus needing a little more work than simply strapping it on.

 

I believe the simple APKWS integration means that it doesn't make much sense to be able to set the weapon's laser code from the cockpit. If it was possible to do it through existing wiring and cockpit systems - great! But the idea of a seamless integration means the aircraft wouldn't even need to know it's firing a laser guided weapon, and much less be able to change the laser code from the cockpit.

 

But just so we're on the same page: I don't know any of this with any certainty, it's just my understanding of how the systems work. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the infos Yurgon. I was mainly comparing the apkws integration to the one of the gbu's because those weapons seem to have the same "logic" so I guess it would be a pretty similar, but at the same time I totally see how you could simply strap the apkws rockets to the hornet without even it needing to know what's exactly the type of rockets it's carrying.

But also, as the orginal thread stated, the huey would get that "dumb" type of integration anyway, so it doesn't seem like that of a technical chalenge.

Full fidelity su27/mig29 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes APKWS for everyone, not just UH1H but also including the ww2 warbirds. Cuse why not, and " bruh 100% dumb

n easy plug n play integration, no technical challenge amirite?"

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...