Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System

Looks like the APKWS merry-go-round continues: the US Congress is now recommending cutting all FY-07 funding due to the type’s “limited utility” to the US Army and concerns over the selection process.

Isn’t the CRV-7 supposed to have better performance than the Hydra rocket?

Yes, higher velocity & range thanks to the type’s high-impulse motor.

Based on a production line of 2000 missiles the cost is stipulated to be $ 10.000 each.

If they can maintain that price, or even lower it they will have made a viable weapon… if it works. Have read that medium sized unguided rockets in the 70-90mm range cost about 3-4,000 dollars each. At 10,000 per rocket it is 6-7 times cheaper than most ATGMs, but can be used at a similar range with only slightly worse accuracy.

I still don’t see that it would be complicated … it’s just a powered gimbal. You don’t even need to modify the rocket pods. The backblast is only going to be a problem if you give it an extreme range of travel … but it reality it only needs to be a few degrees, the pilot can do the rest of the aiming.

How about wind? How about the target turning after launch?

Actually I seem have been wrong on that. While the project is listed among NOBLE’s abandoned projects, I missed a line in the mil.no document that says the project was handed over to the Navy and Army SOCOMs in 2004. If it is now a strictly SOCOM project it would also explain why mil.no doesn’t seem to have any info on recent developments.

These bits from the NATO project white paper (dating june 2003) seem to indicate that they had hoped on a NATO collab in order to make a multi-service solution for CAS helicopters and jets, attack boats and ground troops. (The CRV7 pod fits on existing Hellfire ground launchers from KDA Protec.) As we know from this thread, this collab obviously didn’t happen.

3.4 Potential for collaboration
As outlined above several nations are looking for similar capabilities, and some have already started talks in order to find ways to develop LCPK. The potential for cooperation should be very high, and the benefits from this could improve the solutions at lower cost, and also lead to interoperable tactics & concepts. A NATO led CDE project on LCPK could avoid duplication of effort and facilitate synergy between participating entities.

4.5 General outline of type and level of support for each contributor
NOBLE and Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace have both the financial and the technology needed to fulfill the project with the basic CRV-7 versions.

In the role as an air to ground missile fired from helicopters, the project needs support in creating a tactical concept, as well as carrying out experimentation. The Norwegian Armed Forces are not in possession of armed helicopters.

Support from other nations will also be needed for further exploration within the other potential development areas (seeker/platform/munitions).

4.6 Contingent fallback if support reduced
Due to the minimum support needed from the initial part of the project, the fallback would be negligible if any support is reduced. But the air-to-ground role from helicopters will depend on support. If such support is reduced, NOBLE will recommend changing the priority to the Army and Navy, using the missile in surface-to-surface role.

4.4 Timelines
Phase 3 from November 2003 and out 2004 may include industrialization of the first versions. Simultaneously it may include development and integration of other seekers and platforms. Development of LCPK capability in alternative types of munitions in cooperation with other nations could also have a significant potential for a continued LCPK project.

4.7 General outline of cost
Phase 2, development of laser and GPS seeker, including live firing tests of five laser and four GPS guided missiles costs approx US$ 2.000.000.
Phase 3, industrialization will cost approx US$ 2.140.000.

Based on a production line of 2000 missiles the cost is stipulated to be $ 10.000 each.

http://www.act.nato.int/transformation/cde/white%20papers/lcpk.doc

Apparently there are only 10 team members in the NOBLE lab so I would hazard a guess that their role in the chain is to be a think-tank and hand over larger projects to larger organs once the concept and initial testing is done. I’m not in the “know” so your guess is as good as mine.

Thanks AndersN, very interesting posts 🙂 I had not heard of this project before, why was it abandoned in 2005?

Isn’t the CRV-7 supposed to have better performance than the Hydra rocket?

Yes. The english documents I’ve found on this project date back to before they made the seeker heads so I’ll translate this more recent document; (from the official military site)
http://www.mil.no/start/aktuelt/nyheter/article.jhtml?articleID=73881

Initially there was a focus on developing a seeker head that homed in on GPS jammers. The idea was to develop a low-cost counter to the cheap GPS jammers that were later used by Iraqi forces during the war in 2003. The seeker head was finalized during december 2002 and the last time it was successfully test fired on a GPS jammer was during the “Joint Winter 2004” excercise.

The laser seeker head was also employed.
Here’s some info on the other planned seeker heads.

SOF units need a weapon system that gives the possibility of destroying targets from a stand off position, without compromising the unit, and with a low cost. A low cost precision guided missile can be fired from a fire team 15 km off a target. The spotter gives the GPS coordinates to the fire team, which feed the coordinate to the missile and fires it towards the target. Another option is to take out the target with a laser designator and the laser seeker on the missile homing at the target.

Technical data:
Precision: ARM-GPS Guided: 2-4 m CEP
TV/IR Guided: 2-3 m CEP

Range: 15 km (ground launched CRV-7 ballistic)
20,5 km (canard fin assisted glide path)
40 km (fired from F-16)
2,5 km (direct firing role)

Warhead: RA79 (6kg HE)

Target Types: APCs, vehicles, field fortifications, soft targets, GPS-jammers, small vessels, radars etc.

Diameter: 70 mm (2,75’’)
Total Length: 1,6 m (64’’)
Weight: 16 kg

The seeker head was planned to combine a laser seeker and and a GPS-jammer seeker.

It homes in on GPS jammers?

http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00041/LCPK_Avfyring_41857a.mpg

Here’s a video of a CRV7 with a LCPK guidance kit being fired from a light terrain vehicle. The seeker head was planned to combine a laser seeker and and a GPS-jammer seeker. Both seeker methods were successfully test fired by 2004.

It was a norwegian project dating from 2002 to enhance old stocks of various NATO dumb rockets and they were also thinking of making kits for 122mm rockets in use with eastern european NATO members. Abandoned in 2005.

http://www.act.nato.int/transformation/cde/white%20papers/lcpk.doc
http://www.mil.no/start/aktuelt/nyheter/article.jhtml?articleID=73881

The cannon scored direct hits every time but the rockets always hit a little in front or behind the tank. I can see how this frustrating low direct hit probability inspired the APKWS.

Rockets have always only been area targets. The rockets fitted with anti tank warheads are supposed to be fired at groups of tanks or large targets like a concrete bunker. The usefulness of a cheap long range point target capable rocket is hard to underplay.

Interesting pic, does the LGB style guidance section mean a custom warhead is needed or is it a repackaged standard warhead?

I have read about two types of guided rockets being designed in Russia. One is called Ugroza and another that i have not seen before. From what I have read one seems to be an add on guidance and control package for existing rockets and is able to be fitted to all Russian unguided aerial rockets. (ie S-5 (57mm), S-8 (80mm), S-13 (122mm), S-24 (240mm), and S-25 (340mm)). The other comes in a range of different warhead types and replaces the old models. Of course there are many targets where standard inaccurate unguided rockets are actually the best weapon to use. Infantry caught in the open, or to get the enemies heads down, or even smoke screen or illumination or launching decoys would not require great accuracy.
I have seen an older picture claiming to show Ugroza in a 57mm HEAT version that seems to have a seperate warhead. This may also be Ugroza for the 80mm version with a warhead that seperates in flight.

Here is the first good photo I have seen of an 80mm guided rocket (with another 80mm unguided rocket next to it.)

Interesting pic, does the LGB style guidance section mean a custom warhead is needed or is it a repackaged standard warhead?

I was watching a TV program called ”Future Weapons” on the Discovery channel last night and it showed a Longbow Apache on a firing range attacking a tank at close range with cannon and rockets. The cannon scored direct hits every time but the rockets always hit a little in front or behind the tank. I can see how this frustrating low direct hit probability inspired the APKWS.

Here is the first good photo I have seen of an 80mm guided rocket (with another 80mm unguided rocket next to it.)

The UK Merlin does not carry rockets, nor is it likely to; neither does the current UK Lynx, although that could change when the Future Lynx comes along.

Hi. Gazelles carried two small pods (6 per pod?) of 68mm rockets in the Falklands. I’ve seen early commando Wessexes (mid-late 1960s) with podded rockets (I think they were 2″ ones the RN used from fixed wing aircraft ), SS-11 or 12 ATGM and what looked like fixed forward firing .303 Brownings! I think the British Army Apaches use CRV-7 – though I’ve only seen the 19 round pods.

The UK Merlin does not carry rockets, nor is it likely to; neither does the current UK Lynx, although that could change when the Future Lynx comes along.

Thanks very much for that great photo of the SAR Merlin. I know it is off topic but why the USMC won’t buy the Merlin to replace the worn out CH-46s Sea Knights is beyond me. Yes, maybe the MV-22 will work out eventually, but in the mean time Marines are dying in crashing CH-46 without even getting shot at! And the MV-22 will NEVER have the high altitude ability that the Merlin has and when you need high altitude or hot/high performance range and max speed is the last thing you are thinking about.

🙂 That pic is from the AgustaWestland gallery where you can find lots of great EH101 and US101 pics and images (Hi-res versions too) http://www.agustawestland.com/communication04.asp?id_product=25

Here is the US101 site as well http://www.teamus101.com/index.cfm

I really hope that something like the APKWS makes it’s way onto UK Merlin’s and Lynx’s.

Wind would be one reason. 😉

Dear SteveO,

Thanks very much for that great photo of the SAR Merlin. I know it is off topic but why the USMC won’t buy the Merlin to replace the worn out CH-46s Sea Knights is beyond me. Yes, maybe the MV-22 will work out eventually, but in the mean time Marines are dying in crashing CH-46 without even getting shot at! And the MV-22 will NEVER have the high altitude ability that the Merlin has and when you need high altitude or hot/high performance range and max speed is the last thing you are thinking about.

Jack E. Hammond

The makers of unguided rockets already try to make them as accurate as they can an certain helos like the Apache have the ability to elevate their rocket pods to improve accuracy… but the reality is that a free flight rocket is never going to be accurate enough to hit a point target like a truck or MG position from more than 2km… if then. Accuracy out to 2km for most direct fire unguided rockets is something like a CEP of 6-10m. In other words draw a circle with a radius of 6-10 meters and 50% of the rockets fired will land inside this area. Now against unarmoured targets a S-24 that misses a truck by 10 metres will still destroy it if it hits the ground and goes off. 100kgs of HE will do that. But a little 80mm or 70mm or 57mm rocket will just damage the truck.

If you could improve the accuracy of unguided rockets to reliably hit targets at 5-6km then they wouldn’t bother making ATGMs.

That way, the onboard FCS can do the aiming for you (like tank guns).

In most modern attack helos the FCS generates the impact point already for the pilot. The reality though is that most of the rockets will not impact where the cross it placed when the rockets are fired… close but not perfect.

The Apache already has a limited version of this since its weapons pylons are articulated and can change their elevation (not traverse, though).

And they are still not accurate enough to hit point targets at greater than 2km or so.

Maybe a 7 round pod in place of the Apache 30mm cannon could work

Personally wouldn’t replace the gun with unguided rockets… 7 rounds for 1,200…

still don’t see that it would be complicated … it’s just a powered gimbal. You don’t even need to modify the rocket pods. The backblast is only going to be a problem if you give it an extreme range of travel … but it reality it only needs to be a few degrees, the pilot can do the rest of the aiming.

These guided rockets are not intended to replace unguided rockets. They are to suppliment them. If the enemy presents you with an area target then nothing beats unguided rockets for spreading shrapnel over a wide area quickly.

There would also be extrememly complicated sighting considerations to be taken into accounts; instead of having a fairly simple fixed sight for the gunner to align on the target, the pod would have to be slaved to the gunner’s helmet mounted sight.

Not only complicated, the result would be cost, both in creating, buying and maintaining such a setup.

If a guided rocket can cost you only 5-6 times a normal rockets cost then it makes rather more sense to go for a small percentage of guided rockets in your inventory.

While the Russians don’t have a swivelling rocket pod system they do have a pod mounted gun system that can swivel. In fact they have a few. One is a twin barrel 23mm cannon that can be lowered about 30 degrees with the aircraft diving to fire initially at the target and then pulling up 30 degrees with the aircrafts computer keeping the guns on target. It can be fitted firing forward or backwards…
Another model has a 6 barrel 30mm cannon with 500 rounds of ammo in each pod that is able to elevate downwards about 30 degrees and swivel left and right 45 degrees past 0. (ie 90 degrees total horizontal angle). I’ve never seen either associated with any aircraft other than the Su-17, Su-24 and the Su-25, but its use in a helo would be interesting.

If they can reduce the cost to 5-6 times the cost of a standard unguided weapon guided weapons are much more effective than smart launchers.

BTW some of the material I have read about the Ugroza suggests that it uses electro optics in the nose, as it mentions that contrasting targets on their own can be engaged without laser designation.

The blast and debris when firing even from fixed rocket pods is quite a problem for aircraft, especially helicopters because they are firing at much lower speeds (around 100kts). There is also the question of large clouds of noxious gases entering the engine intakes to affect performance, and also entering the cockpit causing discomfort to the crew. Existing installations clear most of these problems away, mainly because they tend to be positioned aft of the cockpit and largely behind the intakes, but a swivelling mounting say under the nose would aggravate make them worse, leaving aside the question of the increased drag while the pods swivelled into alignment. Many years ago (20?), Hunting Engineering Ltd (now LM INSYS Ltd) of the UK were marketing such a system – a swivelling aircraft pylon designed to do exactly what is being discussed her. It never got anywhere, probably for reasons like those above.

There would also be extrememly complicated sighting considerations to be taken into accounts; instead of having a fairly simple fixed sight for the gunner to align on the target, the pod would have to be slaved to the gunner’s helmet mounted sight. All of these problems mean massive cost increases. In any case, what’s wrong with manoeuvring the aircraft to align with the target? No, it’s much easier (and cheaper) to guide the rockets!

I still don’t see that it would be complicated … it’s just a powered gimbal. You don’t even need to modify the rocket pods. The backblast is only going to be a problem if you give it an extreme range of travel … but it reality it only needs to be a few degrees, the pilot can do the rest of the aiming.

I guess it could be done, but I think the mechanisms needed would make it expensive and complicated to fit them on existing aircraft.

Maybe a 7 round pod in place of the Apache 30mm cannon could work :confused:

The back blast from the rocket would cause problems too, so a guided rocket is probably easier and cheaper, unless a new design has a purpose built guns and rockets turret.