Yes, many went Winchester and had to fly back to base to reload. Flying bombs are also often launched from afar (and that will stay the case to offset the vulnerability of their launchers and launching operations (way fewer launchers than launches)), hence have to fly considerable distances to their target at what Mach they are able to reach, which is, for long, relatively low.
That means fighter jets will often have plenty of opportunities to shoot many down in a single flight.
"Speaking to Janes at the Paris Air Show 2025 held at Le Bourget from 16 to 22 June, chief engineer Sebastian (surname withheld for security reasons) of the French defence procurement agency (Direction Générale de l'Armement: DGA) spelled out the thinking behind this development, as well as details about its planned implementation.
“We absolutely have to start using rockets for the counter-UAS mission, because we cannot keep using our high-value missiles in this role,” he said on 17 June. “We are now evaluating both unguided and guided rockets, and it is something that we are looking to implement very soon,” Sebastian added."
The French Air and Space Force is evaluating the use of rockets as a cost-effective counter-unmanned aircraft system (C-UAS) solution for its Dassault Rafale combat...
Give it a flechette warhead and it'll work pretty well.
The real question is if any of the French companies have made an APKWS equivalent kit that will fit their 68mm SNEB rockets. Or if APKWS fits into a 68mm tube.
Give it a flechette warhead and it'll work pretty well.
The real question is if any of the French companies have made an APKWS equivalent kit that will fit their 68mm SNEB rockets. Or if APKWS fits into a 68mm tube.
Or maybe use a larger unguided rocket with a proximity fuze:
"The Zuni has the potential to be even more accurate. So accurate that it even could work in an air-to-air role. A Zuni rocket is compatible with a variety of screw-in fuzes. With a radar-proximity fuze such as the M414, a Zuni explodes when it passes within 40 feet of a target."
Imagine a Ukrainian MiG closing within five miles of an enemy aircraft and firing a volley of five or 10 Zunis which, triggered by radar, fill the air around the target with countless lethal fragments.
A zunny is a big thing to fall back to earth after a malfunction or a miss. I am not sure that Ukraine civilians would appreciate that novelty with things that try to kill them.
Let`s be realistic. More than two pods with 19 missiles each is overkill. No fighter aircraft will be able to use them all during a tipical drone interception mission. Not enough targets. It will just add drag and shorten patrol time.
Or maybe use a larger unguided rocket with a proximity fuze:
"The Zuni has the potential to be even more accurate. So accurate that it even could work in an air-to-air role. A Zuni rocket is compatible with a variety of screw-in fuzes. With a radar-proximity fuze such as the M414, a Zuni explodes when it passes within 40 feet of a target."
Imagine a Ukrainian MiG closing within five miles of an enemy aircraft and firing a volley of five or 10 Zunis which, triggered by radar, fill the air around the target with countless lethal fragments.
The biggest advantage of APKWS is that it exists and is facilitized to be produced in large quantities. If you want something significantly better and are willing to pay 2-3 times more per round (for more sophisticated threats etc) you can develop a fast jet launched Stinger replacement (NGSRI). Anything above that will be dealt with by the low cost high speed air to air weapon the AF seems to be leaning towards.
The biggest advantage of APKWS is that it exists and is facilitized to be produced in large quantities. If you want something significantly better and are willing to pay 2-3 times more per round (for more sophisticated threats etc) you can develop a fast jet launched Stinger replacement (NGSRI). Anything above that will be dealt with by the low cost high speed air to air weapon the AF seems to be leaning towards.
APKWS has certain tradeoffs due to the fact that it is a cobbled-together weapon. For example, the pop-out fins on the forebody are required because the guidance system is mated to a pre-existing rocket motor. The laser receivers are housed in the pop-out fins because the tip of the rocket is required to carry the warhead. In theory, a purpose-built weapon could be produced at a similar cost with fewer compromises and better performance (better range, better agility, higher lethality, cheaper components in some places, and modularity to allow for different variants across the cost curve with different levels of performance). The issues, among other, are 1) can scope creep be kept in check, and 2) does the weapon come with enough benefits to justify the development cost.
Give it a flechette warhead and it'll work pretty well.
The real question is if any of the French companies have made an APKWS equivalent kit that will fit their 68mm SNEB rockets. Or if APKWS fits into a 68mm tube.
APKWS has certain tradeoffs due to the fact that it is a cobbled-together weapon. For example, the pop-out fins on the forebody are required because the guidance system is mated to a pre-existing rocket motor. The laser receivers are housed in the pop-out fins because the tip of the rocket is required to carry the warhead. In theory, a purpose-built weapon could be produced at a similar cost with fewer compromises and better performance (better range, better agility, higher lethality, cheaper components in some places, and modularity to allow for different variants across the cost curve with different levels of performance). The issues, among other, are 1) can scope creep be kept in check, and 2) does the weapon come with enough benefits to justify the development cost.
Hydras already exist in the hundreds of thousands to millions. You will never beat the price point of free out of existing inventory plus the guidance module.
Hydras already exist in the hundreds of thousands to millions. You will never beat the price point of free out of existing inventory plus the guidance module.
The Hydra-70 rockets are still being produced, for about $1200 a pop. The APKWS II kit costs about $22,500. The cost of the rocket motor is so insignificant compared to the electronics and guidance that standing up a new rocket motor line for a new weapon would not contribute much to the overall cost.
The Hydra-70 rockets are still being produced, for about $1200 a pop. The APKWS II kit costs about $22,500. The cost of the rocket motor is so insignificant compared to the electronics and guidance that standing up a new rocket motor line for a new weapon would not contribute much to the overall cost.
How many hydra rockets are produced for how many customers compared to a new bespoke line? How many hydra rockets can be updated from existing inventory?
I doubt you get to $1200 unless you make millions of the things, because that’s how many hydras are just lying around.
Or maybe use a larger unguided rocket with a proximity fuze:
"The Zuni has the potential to be even more accurate. So accurate that it even could work in an air-to-air role. A Zuni rocket is compatible with a variety of screw-in fuzes. With a radar-proximity fuze such as the M414, a Zuni explodes when it passes within 40 feet of a target."
Imagine a Ukrainian MiG closing within five miles of an enemy aircraft and firing a volley of five or 10 Zunis which, triggered by radar, fill the air around the target with countless lethal fragments.
Test video released, the only thing about PUSU is that Cirit missile is developed from scratch, whereas APKWS utilises existing hydra components, making PUSU costlier option in theory
the only thing about PUSU is that Cirit missile is developed from scratch, whereas APKWS utilises existing hydra components, making PUSU costlier option in theory
Maybe somebody should bring back the F-89 Scorpion, this time armed with APKWS in giant wingtip pods... things are coming full circle, except this time the rockets are guided.
Maybe somebody should bring back the F-89 Scorpion, this time armed with APKWS in giant wingtip pods... things are coming full circle, except this time the rockets are guided.
More like something along the lines of early crusader FFAR pod.
Maybe instead of gun.
Low-slow shouldn't come at expense of fast. Or dark factory jet shaheds may turn true before you even send out your RFP.
(And it will be nice of them if they still won't fight back)
Maybe somebody should bring back the F-89 Scorpion, this time armed with APKWS in giant wingtip pods... things are coming full circle, except this time the rockets are guided.
Interesting idea but aside from examples preserved in museums (And maybe private collections) are there any left in the Boneyard as they were retired by the ANG in 1967?
A-10s could carry a lot of them. Something like super Tuscano would be a cheaper option from a maintenance and training perspective, though that would involve new builds where as A-10s are lying around. The U.S. has used F-16s with a pair of these in combat, and an F-15E has been seen with six in testing.
Interesting idea but aside from examples preserved in museums (And maybe private collections) are there any left in the Boneyard as they were retired by the ANG in 1967?
First AGR-20F kill as told by those that did the shot:
Nine pilots from the 510th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron at Aviano Air Base earned Single-Event Air Medals, and two were simultaneously awarded the Distinguished Flying cross, after returning from a deployment to the Central Command area of responsibility. During the deployment, they flew various defensive counter air sorties to protect U.S. Naval assets traveling through the Bab el Mandeb Strait, but they didn't do it alone.
In April 2025, a new dual-mode APKWS II variant with a full-scale mockup was revealed, featuring a passive infrared sensor as well as the original's laser-guidance, allowing the weapon to be fired with "anoint-and-shoot" capability (where the target is initially lased to orient the missile, but the lase is not maintained and the infrared sensor takes over for terminal guidance) to increase rate of fire, particularly against large numbers of cruise missile or unmanned aerial vehicle targets.[17] The addition of the nose-mounted infrared seeker necessitated moving the warhead to the mid-body of the rocket, which provides an improved blast- fragmentation pattern with no loss of lethality; however modifications increase the cost compared to the original.[17] Development is expected to be completed by the end of 2026.[17]
BAE awarded a $1.7 billion contract for ~ 55,000 conversion kits for APKWS II lots 13-17 to Dec. '31, ~$31,000 ea., appears to include the laser seeker and not the new variant under development which includes the addition of an infra-red seeker to make it a pseudo fire and forget missile. At first glance a limited number buy for five plus years at current usage, understand Ukraine supply has been curtailed.
BAE awarded a $1.7 billion contract for ~ 55,000 conversion kits for APKWS II lots 13-17 to Dec. '31, ~$31,000 ea., appears to include the laser seeker and not the new variant under development which includes the addition of an infra-red seeker to make it a pseudo fire and forget missile. At first glance a limited number buy for five plus years at current usage, understand Ukraine supply has been curtailed.
I believe this order includes an IIR seeker from OKSI, with OKSI subcontracting to BAE. Here's why:
Price: The APKWS-II kit from BAE (which includes only the add-on guidance section and excludes the rocket motor and warhead) has historically cost significantly less.
lot 7: $22,025 per unit for 10,185 units in June 2018
lots 8-12: $21, 477 per unit? $2,684,650,000 awarded in September 2019. From the original presolicitation in 2017, the planned quantity was 125,000 units for lots 8-12. That's $21,477 per unit if actually ordered.
Lots 13-17: $31,691 per unit. $1,743,038,000 awarded for 55,000 units in August2025.
Also, lots 13-17 were originally only going to include 25,000 units. The 55,000 actual units is more than double that.
This is a significant jump in price, from $21k to $31k, that cannot be explained by inflation. Indeed, BAE has increased production rates which should bring economies of scale:
In December 2017 NAVAIR intended to fund BAE to increase production to 25,000 units per year
In March 2018 NAVAIR actually funded BAE to increase production to only 20,000 units per year
And yet, despite the fact that BAE had already increased production rates to at least 20,000 units per year, this latest order only procures 11,000 per year (55,000 total over 5 years). And each unit is significantly more expensive than the previous lots. This increase in cost and decrease in production rate can be explained by an addition of an IIR seeker, potentially a warhead included in the new APKWS kit, and the additional cost and complexity that entails.
In addition to the increased cost and decreased production rate, there are a number of other clues pointing to lots 13-17 including an IIR seeker.
In Q2 2024, the USAF posted a Small Business Innovation Research opportunity. They were looking for low-cost (less than $10k) IIR seekers that could be used on a 70mm rocket, and especially one that could be integrated with APKWS. They wanted something that was essentially off-the-shelf with a high technology readiness level. The awardee would need to quickly perform a test with a 70mm rocket to demonstrate their system.
OBJECTIVE: Develop and demonstrate a low-cost passive imaging infrared seeker for a 70mm rocket, demonstrating effective performance against C-UAS targets in a rapid-launched or simultaneous-launched swarming scenario.
One specific area of Air Force interest in an APKWS modification, which would require interaction and teaming with BAE, the prime contractor for APKWS. Other approaches will be considered, but may be competitive against APKWS. The following approximate specs should be considered as rough order-of-magnitude needs, but strict adherence is not required. 1) Weapon cost <$50K 2) Seeker cost <$10K 3) Detection range > 2 KM 4) Identification range > 1 KM 5) Field of view > 10 degrees 6) Launch rate > 1 per second 7) Overkill of target < 20% 8) Probability of hit > 70% 9) Probability of false lock on friendly interceptor < 5%
PHASE II: Phase II efforts should include all-up-round guided free flight testing of the rocket versus CUAS targets at a TRL 6. Prior to this point, significant integration work is expected to result in a manufacturable and fieldable design. The hardware should be plug-and-play with the fieldable interceptor solution. Weapon metrics mentioned previously, including the seeker subsystem, will be evaluated competitively against other solutions to assess useability for a Phase III.
PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Phase III will include both smaller quantities <100 of prototypes for experimentation, and quantities of >1000 if selected for inclusion within a program of record. PEO Customers include AFLCMC/EB, Army PEO M&S TAGM, Navy PMA-242, and SOCOM. Due to broad tri-service interest, it is expected that rapid fielding/production will begin in large quantities of multiple thousands if specification goals and met and proven in flight testing.
This opportunity appeared once again in SBIR 24.4, but has not appeared since. This could indicate that AFRL found a contractor or otherwise decided not to continue with this opportunity.
This brings us to OKSI. OKSI is a little-known but legitimate company that specializes in using EO/IR sensors and machine learning to build autonomous systems.
In July 2024, just a few months after this SBIR opportunity was published, they demonstrated an APKWS-II launch with their own ARMGDN seeker integrated.
About a week later, they published that they had been awarded a contract from AFRL and SOCOM for their ARMGDN seeker.
OKSI also has a precision guidance kit that can be bolted onto an 81mm mortar that you can see here.
Now, it's possible that another company participated in that AFRL SBIR opportunity, and subsequently went on to subcontract with BAE to provide the IIR seeker for APKWS-II... but OKSI is the only confirmed participant for this AFRL opportunity.
We can also look at the mockup of the IIR APKWS-II that BAE displayed at Sea Air Space 2025, but first let's look at OKSI's IIR guidance kit for the 81mm mortar, as that was developed prior to the APKWS version and might give us some clues.
This guidance kit is completely self-contained. OKSI provides software (and maybe a tablet) to input the coordinates prior to launch. We can see the control fins and the seeker apertures at the front. It almost looks like there are two different seekers there, perhaps one IIR and one EO? Most of the juice from the battery would likely be used by the control fins rather than the passive sensors. If this kit did not have to include and power the fins, it could likely be much smaller.
And this is what BAE displayed as their IIR APKWS. The mark-ups show what I believe we're seeing:
In a typical APKWS rocket, the entire front of the round, above the APKWS kit, is a warhead. The laser seekers on the pop-out fins guide the rocket to the target:
The IIR version would likely have the IIR seeker on the very front of the rocket, unless they managed to fit them onto the fins, which would require further miniaturization and increased costs. The IIR seeker would need a way to communicate with the control fins to provide guidance updates, which could be done wirelessly. Alternatively, the warhead might come from the factory built into this APKWS-II kit, allowing for wires to run from the IIR seeker to the control fin assembly. This would make field assembly of an APKWS-II rocket simpler and safer, but would increase costs and complexity for BAE. Still, given that this version costs an additional $10k, and the seeker costs "less than $10k," that shouldn't be impossible. The tiny warhead would likely have tungsten penetrators or similar, and the small size is acceptable in the C-UAS role.
In summary, the AFRL in 2024 looks for low-cost IIR guidance solutions that can be quickly integrated into APKWS-II. OKSI demonstrates exactly that within a couple of months. Then in 2025, BAE shows up to a trade show with a mockup of their IIR-equiped APKWS-II rocket. The tip of the rocket looks a lot like OKSI's IIR seeker that they recently developed for an 81mm mortar. And now we have the APKWS-II kit increasing in cost from $21k to $31k. and the production rate decreasing from 20k per year to 11k per year.
I think these 55k APKWS-II kits are the promised IIR version.
I do not think that its rocket motor is conducive to that; I think it burns clear through in 1-2 seconds but not before it’s already left the launch tube. Most MANPADS (and a lot of ATGM for that matter) use a kick motor with a delayed main motor ignition so the operator is not cooked.
I do not think that its rocket motor is conducive to that; I think it burns clear through in 1-2 seconds but not before it’s already left the launch tube. Most MANPADS (and a lot of ATGM for that matter) use a kick motor with a delayed main motor ignition so the operator is not cooked.
More and more, computers are emulating neutral networks.
Remember how the pecking of birds was to guide certain munitions?
I would bring that back---with the birds in a CAT/PET scanner with an all ceramic projector showing movies from drone go-pro type gun cameras or whatever.
You see what lights up in the bird-brain, and wire accordingly either with electronics, or actual brain organoids.
Elsewhere there is a fun video that shows "musculature" of fighter plane chicks.
Amusing, yes --but that might not be as far away as you think--at least avionics/wing-warping wise.... maybe even locusts with human faces for religious psyops?
The cheapest guidance system for small missiles might come in a petri dish--not just a breadboard.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
