F-16 Laser Guided Rockets?

[CrypticVillain]

Any chance our f-16 in dcs will get this weapon or some version of laser/electro optical guided rockets?

 

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

[Mustang25]

No, we are getting an early-2000s Viper and APKWS is not part of that.

[Swift.]

No, we are getting an early-2000s Viper and APKWS is not part of that.

 

TBF neither is LAU88

[Snake122]

"We will be taking great care though to develop a very accurate simulation of the F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007."

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2019-02-15_Beta/

 

TBF neither is LAU88

Yeah they aren't realistic in their use, but they are still pre-2007 technology. For the record, I wish the LAU88 wasn't included either.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Snake122

[Fri13]

No, we are getting an early-2000s Viper and APKWS is not part of that.

 

APKWS II is compatible with all aircrafts that are capable launch standard FFAR rockets.

 

It doesn't require any modification to hardware or software, but is completely standalone upgrade.

It requires ground crew trained for it and pilot to remember to designate target before launch if no second party (JTAC etc).

[Fri13]

 

 

Yeah they aren't realistic in their use, but they are still pre-2007 technology. For the record, I wish the LAU88 wasn't included either.

 

Sad to always hear how some players make so hard restrictions to their missions that they only fly in that year the module is presenting. So in this case mission from <2007 is out of questions and even >2007 are out of question.... So they basically fly alone without targets, no enemies, no friends etc....

[BarTzi]

Sad to always hear how some players make so hard restrictions to their missions that they only fly in that year the module is presenting. So in this case mission from <2007 is out of questions and even >2007 are out of question.... So they basically fly alone without targets, no enemies, no friends etc....

 

They have to limit the scope of the program, which is seemingly a concept you don't agree with (based on previous comments). Limiting the arsenal is one of those methods, wether you like it or not. They don't have to develop it forever.

[TLTeo]

We barely have any in the long list of final features as is. It makes absolutely no sense to demand that extra things be added to that list right now.

[Fri13]

They have to limit the scope of the program, which is seemingly a concept you don't agree with (based on previous comments). Limiting the arsenal is one of those methods, wether you like it or not. They don't have to develop it forever.

 

APKWS II is not about module development as you claim. Instead it is part of DCS core. Just like AIM-9 example. The module has only their own side of the system integration for it, like how you switch to it etc. But once the AIM-9 is launched, it all becomes from ED version. The developer doesn't need to make a own AIM-9.

 

APKWS II is same thing. It is ED responsibility like any Mk.82 or FFAR weapon. It is only question of the time period of the mission that does the weapon exist or not, not about did it exist in the year that module use for starting point of modeling.

 

 

The F-16C already has had EVERYTHING ready for APKWS II from the day one. Only thing missing is that ED has not included APKWS II in DCS World.

They are two separate projects, just like AIM-9, Mk.82, JDAM etc.

 

If ED would add APKWS II (public specifications has everything for 3D modeling by the dimensions, animation wise and even by the specifications of the seeker capabilities) it would mean that ANY module that can launch a standard 2.75" FFAR, is capable to launch APKWS II rockets. The only difference that is visually is the rocket is longer so it comes out of the pod.

Only thing that pilot needs to know, is that if wanted to guide rocket then target needs to be painted by laser with proper code.

 

The whole APKWS II point is that ground crew will only install the seeker module between warhead and rocket, just like they do normally when they prepare rockets for loading. There is only one extra step more:

 

1) Pick up seeker module

2) screw it to rocket

3) screw warhead to seeker module

4) set proper laser code

5) turn seeker On switch

 

Now you carry the rockets as any other rocket to aircraft and you insert them to pods like any other rocket, except launch pattern kept individual instead burst.

 

 

For pilot it is same thing as now with non-guided rockets.

 

1) fly toward target

2) fire rockets

 

Even today you can test it yourself.

 

1) equip FFAR pods to your Viper.

2) equip TPOD to your viper.

3) find target with your TPOD and lock on it.

4) switch to rockets.

5) fire laser

6) fire rocket or two toward target as normally

 

But now you keep firing laser until impact. You don't need to be so accurate with the aiming. You can launch even further distance the rockets etc.

 

You needed to know as pilot:

 

1) what laser code rockets has been set.

2) use laser designation

3) you do carry APKWS II and not unguided ones?

 

There is ZERO changes to the Viper code right now.

Only requirement is that ED adds those rockets to DCS core.

 

And suddenly all can use it, Viper, Hornet, Harrier, C-101, UH-1H, AH-64.... Any platform that can carry standard Hydra 70 pods.

[Snake122]

Sad to always hear how some players make so hard restrictions to their missions that they only fly in that year the module is presenting. So in this case mission from <2007 is out of questions and even >2007 are out of question.... So they basically fly alone without targets, no enemies, no friends etc....

 

I was just giving EDs answer to why they will say no, like they already have to SBDs etc. LAU88s are an unicorn and while they have been around since the at 1980s they were never used operationally on F-16s for 6 Mavericks (yes there are pictures of them with flying in testing but none are from combat). Speculation is that a possible reason is that the inner most Mavericks blast/end cap could damage the aircraft and there may have been 4 loaded in Desert Storm in 1991 but not 6. Basically the LAU88 has no friends in real life. It could make friends in DCS because Wags has said they will include them with possibly flying around with 4 more targets than before with lots of enemies.

 

APKWS II is not about module development as you claim. Instead it is part of DCS core... [/Quote] APKWS II when used with especially the JTAC lase could make sense. I'm not sure if it as simple as turn on the TGP and laser and go. Things like laser codes and software updates to allow the plane/pilot use them. Which is why ED picks a year because there is a certain point where you can't get the information you need to simulate a system properly.

[Kultteri]

What is the problem with including it if it can carry the lau-88? I mean if you like to be realistic just load a single mav in yours. Some of us want to shoot six mavs and it’ll make the module much more interesting.

[Snake122]

What is the problem with including it if it can carry the lau-88? I mean if you like to be realistic just load a single mav in yours. Some of us want to shoot six mavs and it’ll make the module much more interesting.

 

Well to derail the thread further, I personally draw this line at was it really used. It's like the GPU-5/A pod (GAU-8 on an A-10 shortened to put in a pod) for the A-16 project. Cool idea to give to a F-16 but the pod sucked. Generally, but not always, when the USAF puts money into a capability development and then doesn't use it, it is a failure. Like the LAU88 on the F-16. Will it be fun to have 6 Mavericks, sure! But Ace Combat 7 is also a lot of fun for people. I personally find the F-16 with GBU-12s more interesting than Mavericks. But what I'm really waiting personally waiting for is the SEAD role with AGM-88s and eventually the HTS because it's the niche role that the aircraft worked itself into.

 

But yeah, those laser rockets are cool and will be continued to used more and more in the future with the focus on low intensity/low collateral damage weapons in the future (like the GBU-39s). The question comes down to, should EDs philosophy be to simulate as much capabilities as possible without the details, only simulate what they can with full realism details, or in what they do in actual practice is find a balance (although leaning towards realism)? Since they have to balance it, it pisses both camps off. Keep the LAU88, make the F-16 a mini A-10, it'll be fun! ...as long as I eventually get to do some SAM dodging SEAD in it (DEAD is fun too, but you end up that way more).

Edited July 20, 2020 by Snake122
Derail, not detail autocorrect!

[deadpool]

APKWS II when used with especially the JTAC lase could make sense. I'm not sure if it as simple as turn on the TGP and laser and go. Things like laser codes and software updates to allow the plane/pilot use them. Which is why ED picks a year because there is a certain point where you can't get the information you need to simulate a system properly.

 

What you need to make the APKWS II work:

A missile launch system for Hydra rockets -> Gotcha

Something that can paint a lasercode on a target -> Gotcha

 

Done.

To the SMS it looks like a normal hydra.

And the TPOD doesn't care for what weapon it paints, as NATO laser pulse codes are standardised.

[CrypticVillain]

Well to derail the thread further, I personally draw this line at was it really used. It's like the GPU-5/A pod (GAU-8 on an A-10 shortened to put in a pod) for the A-16 project. Cool idea to give to a F-16 but the pod sucked. Generally, but not always, when the USAF puts money into a capability development and then doesn't use it, it is a failure. Like the LAU88 on the F-16. Will it be fun to have 6 Mavericks, sure! But Ace Combat 7 is also a lot of fun for people. I personally find the F-16 with GBU-12s more interesting than Mavericks. But what I'm really waiting personally waiting for is the SEAD role with AGM-88s and eventually the HTS because it's the niche role that the aircraft worked itself into.

 

But yeah, those laser rockets are cool and will be continued to used more and more in the future with the focus on low intensity/low collateral damage weapons in the future (like the GBU-39s). The question comes down to, should EDs philosophy be to simulate as much capabilities as possible without the details, only simulate what they can with full realism details, or in what they do in actual practice is find a balance (although leaning towards realism)? Since they have to balance it, it pisses both camps off. Keep the LAU88, make the F-16 a mini A-10, it'll be fun! ...as long as I eventually get to do some SAM dodging SEAD in it (DEAD is fun too, but you end up that way more).

 

not the direction i wanted this thread to head in but I also generally draw the line at 'was it used". The triple rack mavs has never been used in combat by the f-16 but those rockets have been. Thats why i was wondering if we could get them. I have been flying the jf-17 a lot and basically decided to learn the aircraft solely for the laser guided rockets. I love those rockets and would really love to see a nato version on the f-16 or a-10.

[Swift.]

APKWS II when used with especially the JTAC lase could make sense. I'm not sure if it as simple as turn on the TGP and laser and go. Things like laser codes and software updates to allow the plane/pilot use them. Which is why ED picks a year because there is a certain point where you can't get the information you need to simulate a system properly.

 

You've fallen foul of assuming that he way DCS does laser codes (an option on the SMS) is the correct way. IRL (at least for paveway2 and apkws) is just a series of dials set with a screwdriver on the side of the weapon.

 

The whole point of APKWS is that it can be integrated into any platform that can carry hydra, without needing any hardware or software updates. Once ED add a proper mission planner so we can set laser codes properly aswell, then you could just as easily mod apkws onto any aircraft in the game.

[BarTzi]

APKWS II is not about module development as you claim. Instead it is part of DCS core. Just like AIM-9 example. The module has only their own side of the system integration for it, like how you switch to it etc. But once the AIM-9 is launched, it all becomes from ED version. The developer doesn't need to make a own AIM-9.

 

APKWS II is same thing. It is ED responsibility like any Mk.82 or FFAR weapon. It is only question of the time period of the mission that does the weapon exist or not, not about did it exist in the year that module use for starting point of modeling.

 

 

The F-16C already has had EVERYTHING ready for APKWS II from the day one. Only thing missing is that ED has not included APKWS II in DCS World.

They are two separate projects, just like AIM-9, Mk.82, JDAM etc.

 

If ED would add APKWS II (public specifications has everything for 3D modeling by the dimensions, animation wise and even by the specifications of the seeker capabilities) it would mean that ANY module that can launch a standard 2.75" FFAR, is capable to launch APKWS II rockets. The only difference that is visually is the rocket is longer so it comes out of the pod.

Only thing that pilot needs to know, is that if wanted to guide rocket then target needs to be painted by laser with proper code.

 

The whole APKWS II point is that ground crew will only install the seeker module between warhead and rocket, just like they do normally when they prepare rockets for loading. There is only one extra step more:

 

1) Pick up seeker module

2) screw it to rocket

3) screw warhead to seeker module

4) set proper laser code

5) turn seeker On switch

 

Now you carry the rockets as any other rocket to aircraft and you insert them to pods like any other rocket, except launch pattern kept individual instead burst.

 

 

For pilot it is same thing as now with non-guided rockets.

 

1) fly toward target

2) fire rockets

 

Even today you can test it yourself.

 

1) equip FFAR pods to your Viper.

2) equip TPOD to your viper.

3) find target with your TPOD and lock on it.

4) switch to rockets.

5) fire laser

6) fire rocket or two toward target as normally

 

But now you keep firing laser until impact. You don't need to be so accurate with the aiming. You can launch even further distance the rockets etc.

 

You needed to know as pilot:

 

1) what laser code rockets has been set.

2) use laser designation

3) you do carry APKWS II and not unguided ones?

 

There is ZERO changes to the Viper code right now.

Only requirement is that ED adds those rockets to DCS core.

 

And suddenly all can use it, Viper, Hornet, Harrier, C-101, UH-1H, AH-64.... Any platform that can carry standard Hydra 70 pods.

 

New weapons are not brought into the game for no reason, but only as a part of a module. 9X was introduced with the Hornet. It could have been introduced before, but it was added as part of the development effort of the Hornet.

 

And this is why I'm saying- if it's not a part of the scope of the module, it won't make it in. They have to manage their resources and this is one of the ways.

[Snake122]

Guys, besides for a poorly worded either at the end of the post which was not intended as a knock on it, I haven't been against APKWS II. This post was directed at LAU88s as unrealistic. I was just saying why ED will say no:

"We will be taking great care though to develop a very accurate simulation of the F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007."

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2019-02-15_Beta/

 

 

Yeah they aren't realistic in their use, but they are still pre-2007 technology. For the record, I wish the LAU88 wasn't included either.

APKWS II when used with especially the JTAC lase could make sense. I'm not sure if it as simple as turn on the TGP and laser and go. Things like laser codes and software updates to allow the plane/pilot use them. Which is why ED picks a year because there is a certain point where you can't get the information you need to simulate a system properly.

 

But yeah, those laser rockets are cool and will be continued to used more and more in the future with the focus on low intensity/low collateral damage weapons in the future (like the GBU-39s). The question comes down to, should EDs philosophy be to simulate as much capabilities as possible without the details, only simulate what they can with full realism details, or in what they do in actual practice is find a balance (although leaning towards realism)? Since they have to balance it, it pisses both camps off. Keep the LAU88, make the F-16 a mini A-10, it'll be fun! ...as long as I eventually get to do some SAM dodging SEAD in it (DEAD is fun too, but you end up that way more).

 

 

 

 

What you need to make the APKWS II work:

A missile launch system for Hydra rockets -> Gotcha

Something that can paint a lasercode on a target -> Gotcha

 

Done.

To the SMS it looks like a normal hydra.

And the TPOD doesn't care for what weapon it paints, as NATO laser pulse codes are standardised.

To the pilot, ok, I could see it since CCRP works the same with laser GBUs. SMS sees normal hyrdra, ok. Problem it seems AG weapons especially do not carry over through modules in DCS. It's the same reason why the Viper doesn't have HARMs nor Mavericks even though other modules do. Apparently ED will have to code them over and I think that HARMs and even Mavericks are more important than laser rockets on the roadmap, but would love to see SBDs too. If ED decides to add them, great! But I don't think they will for years because they tend to not be on the latest generation of weapons due to their design philosophy.

 

not the direction i wanted this thread to head in but I also generally draw the line at 'was it used". The triple rack mavs has never been used in combat by the f-16 but those rockets have been. Thats why i was wondering if we could get them. I have been flying the jf-17 a lot and basically decided to learn the aircraft solely for the laser guided rockets. I love those rockets and would really love to see a nato version on the f-16 or a-10.

Agreed, I'm just being skeptical that ED will include it.just like GBU-39s. Also at that point do you want ED to take out weapons you can't use any more, like most CBUs? While these planes have the capability but no longer use them due political pressure, should ED remove them? I say no, but just saying of you want the most modern jet options, should they focus on coding over older weapons that were once on a new hypothetical module but aren't actually carried anymore and focus on the latest stuff? It can cut both ways.

 

I think the new timeline part of the mission editor will solve some of this and make both sides happy and make ED feel like they have a little more freedom to add the new stuff. But I don't think that is the main reason ED doesn't, I think it's background material to do it properly.

You've fallen foul of assuming that he way DCS does laser codes (an option on the SMS) is the correct way. IRL (at least for paveway2 and apkws) is just a series of dials set with a screwdriver on the side of the weapon.

 

The whole point of APKWS is that it can be integrated into any platform that can carry hydra, without needing any hardware or software updates. Once ED add a proper mission planner so we can set laser codes properly aswell, then you could just as easily mod apkws onto any aircraft in the game.

Ok, sure, great it is as simple as pod and laser on. Again, not how it seems to work in adding weapons into DCS, ED has had to port over every AG weapon at least it seems to each module. Would you rather have APKWS, GBU-39s, Israel's fun to use SPICE bomb first or the weapons that the F-16 has employed for years already and have been staples in the F-16s arsenal? Honestly, as I get older, I see the reasoning to do the old stuff first. It makes modules not as shiney with new car smell, but makes in general for more accurate modeling. Again, it comes do to personal philosophy of most simmers being in one of two camps and ED can't 100% please either. Edited July 20, 2020 by Snake122

[OldeDeus]

Tbh having played the jeff alot, APKWS does tickle an itch that i would love to have on a blufor aircraft.

[Xavven]

Tbh having played the jeff alot, APKWS does tickle an itch that i would love to have on a blufor aircraft.

 

 

I agree. I started playing DCS on the Su-25T, and when I finally decided to buy the A-10C, the first thing I missed was the beam-riding Vikhrs. I mean, the Mavericks are awesome too, but you can't carry as many.

[deadpool]

To the pilot, ok, I could see it since CCRP works the same with laser GBUs. SMS sees normal hyrdra, ok. Problem it seems AG weapons especially do not carry over through modules in DCS. It's the same reason why the Viper doesn't have HARMs nor Mavericks even though other modules do. Apparently ED will have to code them over and I think that HARMs and even Mavericks are more important than laser rockets on the roadmap, but would love to see SBDs too. If ED decides to add them, great! But I don't think they will for years because they tend to not be on the latest generation of weapons due to their design philosophy.

 

Maverick and HARM are both intelligent weapons that interface deeply with your airplanes systems, handing off target data, controlling the sensor, etc.

That is the same in reallife.

 

A hydra (or APKWS for that matter) however has no electrical or data connection to your airplane. Only the ignition signal is transfered to the missile to let it spread freedom.

As was already said, a hydra has a dialed in Lasercode it will follow (the one we set in the kneeboard).

 

And then it will go for any designated point with that code within seeker limitations painted by whatever source.

 

That is very different from HARM and Maverick.

 

A similar issue exists with laser guided bombs.

They require no fancy datalink. They just drop and aim for the point. Your plane should know about the fact that they are GBUs for ballistics / trim / autolase reasons, but it's not a must.

A F-5 in DCS can drop GBUs even though it can't paint the target or even spottrack the target.

 

The same logic doesn't go for GPS/INS bombs though, as they require a handoff of data from the plane.

(target coordinates, but also stuff like GPS keys, etc, yada yada.)