Miniature guided weapons

[wrightwing]

APKWS only has a range of 6.8 miles and IIRC less than a 15lb warhead.

APKWS fixed wing data:
https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/downlo ... 478508.pdf

APKWS
Maximum range 6.8 mi (11 km)
Probability of hit per 80% within 2.1 yd (2 m)
Launch altitude-200 to 25,000 ft - MSL
Launch height above target 0 to 15,000 ft
Platform speed at launch 180 to 550 KTAS
* The APKWS rocket exceeds all threshold specifications

If at 450 kt @ 40 k ft, which is already ~12 km high it would take a slant descent, so range from there will be much further out than is claimed for (an up to) 15,000 ft launch altitude. Guidance, navigation and control tweaking and >20 km seems a fairly likely range, with a fast descent. No need to risk the jet at lower level to get fast hits and very little maneuver time needed for loitering jets at a fuel-efficient altitude.

APKWS has a much longer range than 6.8nm when fired from a fixed wing aircraft. It's over 10nm.

[eloise]

Any recent news about LOGIR?

LOGIR 2.PNG (509.94 KiB) Viewed 17839 times

Launcher.PNG (264.12 KiB) Viewed 17839 times

[element1loop]

APKWS has a much longer range than 6.8nm when fired from a fixed wing aircraft. It's over 10nm.

If the objective was 16,000 m in 2010, 15,000 ft (AGL) by F-16 I'd say they'll routinely get >20,000 m from F-35 in 2025+. Looking at the last few years of urban-fight against light insurgents, a small plentiful precise weapon like this will make a big difference, if launched from high-altitude on loitering F-35s. Mix that with light free-fall PGMs, some 500 lb laser-JDAM-ER, SDBII. Hard-core urban-warfare response with footprint that covers a medium city from an altitude where the combatants won't necessarily know you're there. A flight could mutually circle an area with 50 km radial separation. All approaches and attack angles are covered fast. The effect would be like a couple of virtual gunships.

[eloise]

. The effect would be like a couple of virtual gunships.

Talking about gunship

[sferrin]

Back in the day they tested the original Strike Eagle with 3 GPU-5/A 30mm gun pods.

[eloise]

Back in the day they tested the original Strike Eagle with 3 GPU-5/A 30mm gun pods.

I thought those are only put on A-16?
Btw i vaguely recall seeing a photo of F-16 with 19-shot LAU-3 or LAU-61 pod on TER somewhere but i can't find it, does anyone have it.

[count_to_10]

Don't forget LZuni, twice the punch of a Hellfire at a fraction of the cost.

Yeah, I'm surprised EVERYBODY isn't jumping on that.

I’m guessing it has to do with a lack of anti-armor capability.

[SpudmanWP]

How much armor have we gone up against in the past 20 years? As of now, no fast jet is using Hellfires anyways.

I was specifically talking about the waste of using Hellfire & Maverick for CAS and low-intensity ops.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Like the time when two hellfires were used to kill two people?

[SpudmanWP]

Yup

I am really surprised that Reapers are not carrying around two 7-packs of APKWS right now.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Probably a matter of off-bore-sight capability. Reapers are not agile so they need weapons that can do the turning for them.

[sferrin]

Back in the day they tested the original Strike Eagle with 3 GPU-5/A 30mm gun pods.

I thought those are only put on A-16?
Btw i vaguely recall seeing a photo of F-16 with 19-shot LAU-3 or LAU-61 pod on TER somewhere but i can't find it, does anyone have it.

They also tested the gun pod on an A-7.

[ricnunes]

Probably a matter of off-bore-sight capability. Reapers are not agile so they need weapons that can do the turning for them.

That makes sense.
From what I read these APKWS (guided rockets) aren't very agile. Yes they are guided but the launching aircraft must be pointing directly towards the target in order to ensure that the rocket has enough agility to successfully hit the target.
If this is true than it doesn't look like a good weapon for a fixed-wing UAV like the Reaper.
However this could be a good weapon for a helicopter UAV like this:

[weasel1962]

Just to add the cost element. APKWS is still $25k unit cost whilst JDAM is $21k=22k with a small added cost to add the laser seeker. Hydra rockets cost less than $1k each including the flechette rounds which are just as or more effective in handle anti-personnel. Its useful to keep a few APKWS rounds in the arsenal as a hellfire alternative vis no armour opposition but I'm reading its still cost effective to keep the bulk of the 19 round chamber as flechette/cargo/HE rounds even for helos.

I don't think multiple designation tactics are there yet to take advantage of a 19 round APKWS chamber so the limitation is probably sufficient multiple designators. 4x19 =76 targets will probably take sometime to designate. If it takes time designate targets, then the firer needs to loiter. In that case, a helo (or an A-10) is more appropriate. Don't think the intent is to keep the F-35 on loiter (maybe excepting USMC CAS). A helo can still hide behind a treeline but an F-35 is probably more obvious in the air. That's why SDB-2 which is higher cost but significantly lower risk for the F-35.

[popcorn]

That makes sense.
From what I read these APKWS (guided rockets) aren't very agile. Yes they are guided but the launching aircraft must be pointing directly towards the target in order to ensure that the rocket has enough agility to successfully hit the target...

Isn't that what the gimbal is for?