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

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?"

What is the technical challenge if the rockets are using the same hydra rocket pod? It would be cool if ww2 warbirds could use these rocket pods too but unfortunately they do not so no APKWS for ww2 warbirds.

The only technical challenge I could think of was related to the SMS and laser change code settings on the f/a-18.

But I'm pretty curious, do you know of other technical challenges? Isn't the weapon simply modified rockets put into standard hydra rocket pods or is there more to it? Please tell me, I'm far from an expect in the matter.

What is the technical challenge if the rockets are using the same hydra rocket pod? It would be cool if ww2 warbirds could use these rocket pods too but unfortunately they do not so no APKWS for ww2 warbirds.

The only technical challenge I could think of was related to the SMS and laser change code settings on the f/a-18.

 

But I'm pretty curious, do you know of other technical challenges? Isn't the weapon simply modified rockets put into standard hydra rocket pods or is there more to it? Please tell me, I'm far from an expect in the matter.

I already described why it shouldnt get them. , and Skatezilla in more detail in particular technical manner already debunked the 100% polug and play a few pages ago

I already described why it shouldnt get them. , and Skatezilla in more detail in particular technical manner already debunked the 100% polug and play a few pages ago

Haha, I get the historical and the wrong time frame argument so I won't even argue if it should be added or not anymore. But while the f/a-18 indeed must have some sms adjustments (like I said previously), in all fairness the uh-1y presented as officialy being capable of launching this rocket doesn't have any fancy SMS nor does the AT-6 texan and nor some other helos. So for those instances it would be simple plug and play right ? If so then it's the same case for the uh-1h we have.

Haha, I get the historical and the wrong time frame argument so I won't even argue if it should be added or not anymore. But while the f/a-18 indeed must have some sms adjustments (like I said previously), in all fairness the uh-1y presented as officialy being capable of launching this rocket doesn't have any fancy SMS nor does the AT-6 texan and nor some other helos. So for those instances it would be simple plug and play right ? If so then it's the same case for the uh-1h we have.

No it wouldn't

The UH1Y may as well be a completely different beast to the UH1H. Its an a newer design, newer production helicopter with totally different avionics. Dont let the UH1 nomenclature, or even a semblance of visual similarity of its exterior airframe design fool you.

No it wouldn't

 

 

The UH1Y may as well be a completely different beast to the UH1H. Its an a newer design, newer production helicopter with totally different avionics. Dont let the UH1 nomenclature, or even a semblance of visual similarity of its exterior airframe design fool you.

But my point was that the aircraft showcased being able to use the APKWS aren't all very "sophisticated" the at6 Texan can even carry those rockets.

In the thread it was pointed out that the problem with plug and play on the fa18 was that the SMS wasn't configured correctly, if we take an aircraft that doesn't have an sms and can carry standard rocket pods, it seems to me as if you could just replace the hydra rockets by APKWS?

This is a technical question, the sms being out of the question what other limitations are there when fitting those rockets?

Some could say the weight but I don't believe it's that much heavier is it?

Other than that I see nothing else, thus why there were many helos that were showcased carrying this weapon.

But my point was that the aircraft showcased being able to use the APKWS aren't all very "sophisticated" the at6 Texan can even carry those rockets.

In the thread it was pointed out that the problem with plug and play on the fa18 was that the SMS wasn't configured correctly, if we take an aircraft that doesn't have an sms and can carry standard rocket pods, it seems to me as if you could just replace the hydra rockets by APKWS?

This is a technical question, the sms being out of the question what other limitations are there when fitting those rockets?

Some could say the weight but I don't believe it's that much heavier is it?

Other than that I see nothing else, thus why there were many helos that were showcased carrying this weapon.

the modern era AT6 texan isn't the same old texan from the 40s that your ww2 pilots trained on.

The current At6's have had totally new integrated digital avionics suite. Even more so since the At6 is now being further revamped and marketed as a COIN light attack aircraft for the export market it gets a full suite of weapons as well.

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?"

Wikipedia informs us that indeed unotrite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding-Fin_Aerial_Rocket

The FFAR was developed in the late 1940s by the US Navy Naval Ordnance Test Center and North American Aviation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_70

The Hydra 70 is derived from the 2.75-inch (70 mm) diameter Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket developed by the United States Navy for use as a free-flight aerial rocket in the late 1940s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apkws

The AGR-20A Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) is a design conversion of Hydra 70 unguided rockets [...]

Wikipedia informs us that indeed unotrite.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding-Fin_Aerial_Rocket

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_70

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apkws

what?

Ww2 warbirds never carried hydra rocket pods. Just because it was being developed in the 40s post ww2 doesn't and that hydras are derived from them mean it went into service with them

Hydras didn't really become issued until the 50s for ground attack and even then ww2 warbirds or even Korean era f86f didn't get these.

So nope. Unless you have a valid primary source documentation like a manual that says they could, then you are just playing in the realm of speculative fi/ alt historical fantasy realm., to try to say that apkws could and should be slapped on to them.

Because we certainly don't have Mark 80s, cbus or gb12s slapped onto warbirds or Sabres, and give lack of any precision capability or needed with a digital sms system,means even those would be simpler to integrate

I already described why it shouldnt get them. , and Skatezilla in more detail in particular technical manner already debunked the 100% polug and play a few pages ago

Actually he didn't. No specifications that what was changed, why it was changed and all that.

Like can you or skatezilla provide evidence that the guidance section communicate someway to a rocket pod? Does communicate with a warhead? How about rocket motor?

The manufacturer clearly states directly that no modifications of any kind required to hardware or software. There is even other rockets converted to use it without modifications because those rockets were compatible with the Hydra rockets threads.

So how about we contact Bae about their specifications truthfulness and challenge them in that?

This is turning into the same sort of discussion as the features wishlist for the Ka-50 upgrade.

'Navy' F/A-18C were never cleared to use them.

DCS models the Navy version.

Therefore the version that is available in DCS isn't cleared to use them.

Simple as that.

We're already getting fantasy systems and weapons on the Ka-50, now we have calls for the same thing on the F/A-18C

The thin end of the wedge has been inserted, and now people are pushing to get it further in.

So nope. Unless you have a valid primary source documentation like a manual that says they could, then you are just playing in the realm of speculative fi/ alt historical fantasy realm., to try to say that apkws could and should be skapped on to them.

Errr... wat?

I might not have paid close attention as to who proposed APKWS for warbirds. My impression was that you tried to make fun of others by saying someone would probably suggest adding APKWS for warbirds.

My point is, the time frame for warbirds and APKWS doesn't overlap at all. There's absolutely no good reason to suggest adding APKWS to warbirds.

I guess that means you fell for your own joke. :D

As far as the Hornet is concerned, it never happened IRL to our exact version, but the time frame overlap with APKWS in operational use on other Hornets is there. In this regard, this weapon would be not realistic, yet absolutely plausible in our DCS Hornet IMHO, just like there are TGP mount options that weren't use by the US Navy if memory serves (Navy used the cheek station and Marine Corps used centerline, right? We get both options).

Errr... wat?

 

No one suggested it warbirds yet. But the OP did have UH1H in the title, and in other threads he did argue anything could use them because of how easy integration is.

And as to the Hornet getting cheek station Litening. Yeah it shouldn't since its not a EF18 Hornet , nor was it initially planned. As an Interim to the ATFLIR, the litening 2 was only supposed to have been added for centerline position like the USMC do use it, but you know it seems to becoming a bad habbit that if a given community whines hard enough, ED may cave in to the mob over unrealistic features, like we saw with the this aforementioned cheek station TGP issue , or with the F16's getting LAU88 put back on the planned list.

This is turning into the same sort of discussion as the features wishlist for the Ka-50 upgrade.

 

'Navy' F/A-18C were never cleared to use them.

DCS models the Navy version.

Therefore the version that is available in DCS isn't cleared to use them.

 

 

Simple as that.

 

We're already getting fantasy systems and weapons on the Ka-50, now we have calls for the same thing on the F/A-18C

 

The thin end of the wedge has been inserted, and now people are pushing to get it further in.

Yup it was a slippery slope. But its not all ED. Apparently if enough people whine for unathentic features, ED sometimes caves in as we saw with LAu88 being re added for the to do list, or how eventually ED added the addon Cheek station TGP mount for the litening 2 in spite of actual USMC Hornet pilot going that had gone into that given thread and informed people it was never adopted.

Why are we discussing about when and who and where mounted the APKWS pods? Last time I checked, DCS was a simulator GAME. I don't think adding a weapon such as the APKWS to a hornet would be unrealistic, even if it historically didn't happen. Have they had the need, I'm sure the USN would have figured it out without too much trouble. 

It's not like we're asking ED to include x-wings, laser guns and proton rockets... 

As far as I know, a wide open military conflict in Iran, other than a couple of ship strikes in the strait, hasn't ever happened between the US and Iran. Should we not allow those campaigns because they are not historically accurate? 

23 hours ago, Assamita said:

Why are we discussing about when and who and where mounted the APKWS pods?

Because our Hornet is supposed to be representative of a USN/USMC Hornet circa 2005.

23 hours ago, Assamita said:

Last time I checked, DCS was a simulator GAME.

Yes, and?

It's a game whose goal is to "offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

I really don't see what the problem is if we get closer to achieving exactly that, especially when we're having a hard enough time getting the Hornet completed to its current, narrow scope without needing to expand it.

23 hours ago, Assamita said:

don't think adding a weapon such as the APKWS to a hornet would be unrealistic

I'm sorry, but this is just an objective fact - it isn't subject to any of our interpretations. The fact is, is that APKWS didn't exist until 2012 and didn't come to the Hornet (and even then the USMC AFAIK) until 2018 - well over a decade after our Hornet, which is supposed to be circa 2005.

It's not only inaccurate, but it makes the Hornet more inconsistent than it already is (as I bet we won't be getting any other relevant weapons for the timeframe, which might include things like AIM-120C-7 or D, AIM-9X Block II, AGM-88E, AGM-84L/N etc).

23 hours ago, Assamita said:

As far as I know, a wide open military conflict in Iran, other than a couple of ship strikes in the strait, hasn't ever happened between the US and Iran. Should we not allow those campaigns because they are not historically accurate?

Yes:

1. Realism isn't this binary, black and white, all-or-nothing thing, whereby if something is inaccurate, everything else must be too (especially when it goes against the goals of the product).
2. Pointing out that x is unrealistic does nothing to justify why y should be made more unrealistic, especially when they aren't related. You can point out "but it's inconsistent" but then I'm going to point out that you're attempting to fix inconsistency by introducing more of it.
3. The whole point of DCS is (and should be) that the building blocks are accurate but the scenarios you make out of them are sandbox. Not only does this, IMO, strike the best balance between realism and sandbox, you can't exactly do anything other than fictional scenarios because DCS isn't coherent or comprehensive enough to recreate historical events and how would you go about enforcing what scenarios people create without locking out the mission editor?

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Because our Hornet is supposed to be representative of a USN/USMC Hornet circa 2005.

I think you are not getting the point of this request. 

I believe Canada and Australia are some countries that have these planes (I know they do have F/A-18Cs, not sure if they are circa 2005 or something else). If I were the Defense Minister of one of those countries, would I be able to purchase APKWS systems and install them on my planes? If it's technically possible, why aren't we allowed to have a fictional scenario where that is the case? Why can't I create a fictional campaign where Canadian hornets decide to install APKWS in their currently (2023) in service hornets? 

As mentioned by the OP, if technically possible, it should be up to the campaign designer to make them available or not. 

Honest question, because I really don't know the answer, where circa 2005 hornets already able to carry Aim 9Xs? Feels like a very modern weapon (though maybe they were indeed) 

46 minutes ago, Assamita said:

I think you are not getting the point of this request. 

How so?

ED are intending to deliver "x", APKWS does not fit within "x" therefore APKWS doesn't feature - perfectly in line with the goals of the game and of the module.

47 minutes ago, Assamita said:

I believe Canada and Australia are some countries that have these planes (I know they do have F/A-18Cs, not sure if they are circa 2005 or something else).

Neither Canada nor Australia use the F/A-18C, they both use the F/A-18A and B which they've subsequently upgraded to F/A-18C standard (though there are other upgrades, for instance Canada replaced the legacy displays with full colour LCD MFDs and integrated the Sniper targeting pod, Australia integrated ASRAAM).

53 minutes ago, Assamita said:

If I were the Defense Minister of one of those countries, would I be able to purchase APKWS systems and install them on my planes? If it's technically possible, why aren't we allowed to have a fictional scenario where that is the case? Why can't I create a fictional campaign where Canadian hornets decide to install APKWS in their currently (2023) in service hornets?

Because APKWS is out of scope for the module. ED are going for a 2005 F/A-18C Lot 20 Hornet, as operated by the USN/USMC, circa 2005. If they plan to deliver "x" and then end up delivering "x", I don't see what the problem is - it's perfectly consistent with the goals of the module and the game.

Not only that, but following the exact same line of reasoning to the letter, potentially dramatically increases the scope of the module. Are your Canadian Hornets going to get Sniper and the full-colour MFDs? Are your Australian Hornets going to have ASRAAM? Are either going to have F404-GE-400 engines (with 10% less static thrust) as opposed to our -402s?

1 hour ago, Assamita said:

Honest question, because I really don't know the answer, where circa 2005 hornets already able to carry Aim 9Xs? Feels like a very modern weapon (though maybe they were indeed) 

I'm not sure when exactly it came to the Hornet, but it reached IOC in 2003 and allegedly was adopted by the USAF and USN shortly thereafter.

16 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Because APKWS is out of scope for the module.

Not only that, but following the exact same line of reasoning to the letter, potentially dramatically increases the scope of the module. Are your Canadian Hornets going to get Sniper and the full-colour MFDs? Are your Australian Hornets going to have ASRAAM? Are either going to have F404-GE-400 engines (with 10% less static thrust) as opposed to our -402s?

1st point: yes, of course it's out of scope, that's why this thread is in the wishlist forum. It wouldn't make sense to have a wishlist section if we were only allowed to request things that are already in scope. 

2nd point: sniper pod and ASRAAM are not yet modeled in DCS, APKWS is. If the first two were to be modeled, then yes, I would not see a reason not to have them available to the hornet. 

You missed my question. If I owned an F/A-18C circa 2005 right now in my garage, would I be able to install an APKWS system on it? There are USMC liveries available, what if I wanted to create a fictional campaign centered on a USMC Hornet squadron in 2020? Is it really that bad having this available, considering it is technically accurate? Isn't it better to have something and let the community if they need/use it than not having it at all? Again, it's not like we're asking to be able to mount a GAU-8 under each wing of a spitfire. It's a request that is not historically accurate, but technically it is. 

20 hours ago, Assamita said:

1st point: yes, of course it's out of scope, that's why this thread is in the wishlist forum. It wouldn't make sense to have a wishlist section if we were only allowed to request things that are already in scope. 

Nowhere have I said that only items already in scope should be allowed to exist in the wishlist section. All I'm doing is providing a counter argument against the inclusion of APKWS. That argument is that it's out of scope for the module, makes it less consistent, makes it less realistic and the same arguments in favour of it have the potential to vastly increase the scope of the module, when we're having enough trouble getting it completed as is.

And even if it was the case, there'd still be a point to it, because not everything in scope for a module gets planned - ironically the Hornet is probably the worst offender for this.

20 hours ago, Assamita said:

2nd point: sniper pod and ASRAAM are not yet modeled in DCS, APKWS is. If the first two were to be modeled, then yes, I would not see a reason not to have them available to the hornet. 

Fine (though they'd still need to know how to integrate Sniper and ASRAAM and whatever else onto a Hornet - aircraft integrate systems differently, even for the same system), but you're missing what our Hornet is supposed to be a representation of, if it was supposed to be a one-size fits all Hornet I would agree with you, if it was a 2018+ USMC Hornet I would agree with you - but it isn't, so I don't.

If ED planned for their Hornet to be "x" I don't see why it should be anything other than "x", given the scope problems. It's fine if "x" wasn't what you were after - that goes for me as well. But I don't agree with trying to fudge our Hornet into something that it's not, in contradiction to the goals of the module and the game as a whole, especially when we're having enough problems getting the Hornet finished as is.

20 hours ago, Assamita said:

You missed my question. If I owned an F/A-18C circa 2005 right now in my garage, would I be able to install an APKWS system on it? There are USMC liveries available, what if I wanted to create a fictional campaign centered on a USMC Hornet squadron in 2020?

You could, though you'd probably need to update the software such that the FCS can account for its weight and for the fire-control system to give you appropriate cues.

And the thing about the circa 2005 thing, it means the aircraft is being depicted with the systems and weapons it would've had in 2005. It wouldn't have had APKWS in 2005, because APKWS didn't exist yet and was half a decade until it did and was over a decade until it was integrated with the Hornet.

A USMC Hornet circa 2020 isn't just a USN Lot 20 with APKWS, so you still won't have your 2020 USMC Hornet, just as you wouldn't have your 2023 Canadian CF-188.

20 hours ago, Assamita said:

Isn't it better to have something and let the community if they need/use it than not having it at all?

If ED had infinite resources and could deliver aircraft in a much more prompt fashion than they can now, then yeah, it would. Ideally they'd give us a comprehensive suite of aircraft variants so that absolutely everybody is happy and no compromises need to be made, while keeping with the goals of the product.

Unfortunately though, they don't, so no, it I don't think it's necessarily better if you want aircraft that actually get finished. Again, for however many times I've said this - we are already having enough problems completing the Hornet as is without needing to add anything else. APKWS would be small potatoes but the same line of reasoning can absolutely open the door to further scope creep that potentially would have a greater impact.

APKWS was Added in the last OFP for the Legacy Hornet (SCS-25X) in 2016, and Only really used by the USMC Legacy hornets, as the USN Legacy Hornets had already began their sunsetting to be mothballed or transferred to the USMC to be upgraded to C++ Standard.

They are not part of the stores system for SCS-21A, A1, X, or 23X OFP.
 

While they are simply plug and play, for most aircraft.
Modern DFCS Aircraft (A-10C, F/A-18C, F-16C, F-15x, etc) need to have it in the stores management as the weights are different, and the FCS Limiter is governed by the computer, which takes into account stores weight.

Having 2 wings full of rockets that the computer assumes weights 13 lbs each when they actually weigh ~33 lbs each and the CoG is Shifted on them, times 7 per LAU-68, x however many are loaded on each wing, Causes Incorrect Trimming, Incorrect G-Limit, Structural and Handling issues.

The Computer knowing those rockets are equipped with the 20lb guidance insert adjusts the flight envelope and g-limit per the extra weight.