not planned APKWS

[Northstar98]

Why are you assuming his source is the manufacturer? Could have been a person in uniform that just gave an opinion, of a non-classified test, that occured which he either heard of or participated in?

 

Why are you assuming that a company sales rep didn't have a conversation with him? Or that it wasn't from open source publication, which happens ALL THE TIME.

 

Because so far the only source I've seen is a YouTube marketing video from BAE Systems...

[BarTzi]

Habit. :doh:

 

Always used to refer to guidance/control sections as the head, i.e- brain. :surrender:

 

Correct terminology, the mid section. :laugh:

 

What if it's heavier, and the Hornet (for example) will limit G by the weight carried on the plane. Does that not need a software upgrade? I find that odd that people even claim that.

[G.J.S]

What if it's heavier, and the Hornet (for example) will limit G by the weight carried on the plane. Does that not need a software upgrade? I find that odd that people even claim that.

 

The Hornet doesn’t have to be the only launch platform. :smilewink:

 

APKWS can and will, have many applications to more than one munition.

 

MLRS rockets combined with off board lasing is another combination being investigated.

Ship launched rocketry is another avenue, for instance targeting small ship/boats used for nefarious activities.

Also point defence against airborne targets, both fired from ground vehicles and helicopters.

[Raisuli]

Take everything he says with a grain of salt. He also claimed to be in possession of a Tor operator manual.

 

 

 

There is NO WAY a BAE or any other arms manufacturer would have given him ANY of that information to a private citizen without facing serious charges under ITAR.

 

 

Um...I'm not sure you understand the International Trade in Arms Regulations. There may be all kinds of security restrictions on the transmission of information to anyone without a security clearance and a need to know, but ITAR only applies to export, and even that's still possible with a license.

 

 

I have all kinds of ITAR controlled items in and around my house, including, and I know everyone will be scandalized, a...telescopic sight! I can show these to any private citizen I want because none of them are classified, but I better not pack them in my bag if I cross the border!

 

 

 

It's also worth noting that the SMEs have to be somewhat careful on these boards because everything they say is exported. It might not be classified, but some IP may fall under ITAR. This is part of the dance ED has to do, and why they tend to be very, very careful.

 

 

:thumbup: :pilotfly: :joystick:

[Rick50]

What if it's heavier, and the Hornet (for example) will limit G by the weight carried on the plane. Does that not need a software upgrade? I find that odd that people even claim that.

 

 

I wouldn't think so... I mean its not heavier than carrying Mk.84's...

 

The weight difference between taking off full fuel, vs RTB after Bingo would be FAR FAR greater than the difference between Hydras and laser guidance.

 

Also, we've seen platforms that because they are way lighter than a Hornet, the difference in weight between APKWS and Hydra would be PROPORTIONATELY much greater, may well not have such a software upgrade. AH-6 and it's variants, for instance. The Kiowa Warrior... I don't know, but it may or may not have a software upgrade for the increased weight, but I'm doubtful that it needs such. Similar for the A-29 Tucano and Apache gunships. I think those units described that have software upgrades are more for helping the sensor operators to better ensure good hits and reduce missed shots due to being outside the somewhat narrow envelope of employment.

 

I'm curious if APKWS has been tested for "bring back" durability, for multiple USN carrier landings...

[Swift.]

He wasnt talking about limiting weight, but rather calculating weight. The hornets FCC needs to know the aircraft CG to schedule properly, also I think the tanks might balance automatically as well. All of which requires the MC to be able to recognise the weapon and its weight.

[SkateZilla]

A 13 lb Rocket, x 7 x 2 Per Wing = 182 lbs + LAU Weight x 2.

 

is not the same as a 32 lb rocket x 7 x 2 Per Wing = 448 + LAU Weight x 2

 

For G-Limit, Trim and FCS Purposes, the Computer needs to know the weight of the stores.

 

So Again, for OLDER Aircraft w/o SMS, FCS, Etc. it's all manual regardless.

 

But for Aircraft that use SMS, FCS to keep the plane in the air... the Computers need to know the weight to trim and limit the pilots inputs.

[Flagrum]

A 13 lb Rocket, x 7 x 2 Per Wing = 182 lbs + LAU Weight x 2.

 

is not the same as a 32 lb rocket x 7 x 2 Per Wing = 448 + LAU Weight x 2

 

For G-Limit, Trim and FCS Purposes, the Computer needs to know the weight of the stores.

 

So Again, for OLDER Aircraft w/o SMS, FCS, Etc. it's all manual regardless.

 

But for Aircraft that use SMS, FCS to keep the plane in the air... the Computers need to know the weight to trim and limit the pilots inputs.

13lb is only the weight of the motor, according to wikipedia. So the weight difference is probably not that much, but yeah, still exists.

 

 

But how difficult is it to configure the software of a modern aircraft to take a different weight into account? Is it more difficult than for the technican to enter two values (SMS id and weight) into the device that uploads the stores config to the aircraft? Or has the jet have to get a ROM and RAM upgrade, a new processor and flashing a new "SMS operating system" which will leave the aircraft grounded for 2 months?

 

 

No, genuine question, what techniques are used to update the SMS information?

[SkateZilla]

Total weight of the unguided rocket depends on head used, can be 20-25 lbs etc.

 

No one said anything about Processor Upgrades... Just updates to SMS.

[Rick50]

I dunno. I just think that's VERY minor, and probably could be done on the flightline, as it's not changing code, just changing just one value slightly. And... probably isn't nessisary, even for CG calculations. I would think that just fuel sloshing around inside the fuel tanks would be a much bigger problem than a few guidance kits. Not that I'm qualified to fly a Piper Cub or anything, just opining that when pros say a device doesn't need an additional upgrade to be flown or used, I try to take them at their word until I hear otherwise. And yea, I could be wrong.

[Fri13]

I would think that just fuel sloshing around inside the fuel tanks would be a much bigger problem than a few guidance kits.

 

The fuel doesn't slosh inside a fuel tank, those are filled with a polyurethane foam that basically doesn't take any capacity but will deny fuel to flow freely around the tanks, but it is possible to suck the fuel out from the tank.

[Rescue]

I just would like to add that I like the idea to have APKWS on the Hornet.

 

​​​​

[mongo52]

AT's usually handle software updates. Upload new software is not hard itself. Its the test an eval portion the rockets would have to go through before getting fleet wide approval.