The APKWS is now capable of shooting down drones

[publiusr]

The MAKE movement might allow even cheaper builds:

Rocket Roll Control, The Old Fashioned Way

The vast majority of model rockets go vaguely up and float vaguely downwards without a lot of control. However, [newaysfactory] built a few rockets that were altogether more precise in their flight…

hackaday.com

Applying Thermal Lining To Rocket Tubes Requires A Monstrous DIY Spin-caster

[BPS.space] takes model rocketry seriously, and their rockets tend to get bigger and bigger. If there’s one thing that comes with the territory in DIY rocketry, it’s the constant need t…

hackaday.com

Smartphone Sensors Unlocked: Turn Your Phone Into A Physics Lab

These days, most of us have a smartphone. They are so commonplace that we rarely stop to consider how amazing they truly are. The open-source project Phyphox has provided easy access to your phone’…

hackaday.com

Image Recognition On 0.35 Watts

Much of the expense of developing AI models, and much of the recent backlash to said models, stems from the massive amount of power they tend to consume. If you’re willing to sacrifice some ability…

hackaday.com

2025 Component Abuse Challenge: Using Inductors To Steal Power From Qi Wireless Charging Base Station

Over on Hackaday.IO our hacker [bornach] has his entry into the Component Abuse Challenge: Inductors are Wireless Power Sources. Some time back [bornach] was gifted a Qi wireless charging base stat…

hackaday.com

If there is a way to make a rocket cheaper than a drone—one of those kids will find it.

Knowing That It Is Possible

We like to think that we can do almost anything. Give me a broken piece of consumer electronics, and I’ll open it up and kick the capacitors. Give me an embedded Linux machine, and I’ll poke around…

hackaday.com

 

[joshjosh]

@joshjosh : thank you for that exquisite debrief!

Senciliary capilars as proximity fuse would be an interesting design. I don't see the required volume there for something rigid to extend.
Perhaps metal wires that are extracted by the rotating momentum of the rocket, extending out to cover a meters wide surface and detonate the rocket with a pressure detonator encased at the base upon sensing a contact.

Alternatively, there would be enough force upon contact to tear appart any significant chunk of many UAV.

I've been looking for examples of physical proximity sensors for warheads but can't find much of anything! I'm hoping the more experienced members have ideas that can give us clues to how this could work. Surely something like this has been manufactured since the missile age began.

To note about extension via rotation: the rocket does indeed rotate when exiting the launcher, but the control fins stop the rotation once they deploy. The centripetal force could deploy something but couldn't keep it deployed.

 

[TomcatViP]

Noted. (no rotation)
It would then have to be something else.

 

[NMaude]

I've been looking for examples of physical proximity sensors for warheads but can't find much of anything!

The only sort thing in regards to physical proximity-fuses I'd heard of before this is the leading-edge grazing fuses mounted on the leading-edges of the AIM-4's wings.

 

[joshjosh]

For Lot 13-17, how many counter small UAS optimized variants do each of the customers intend on buying? Specifically, how many include the upgraded fuze vs the M423? What is the cost difference between the standard and the upgraded fuze?

The baseline C-UAS version of APKWS-II is a USAF program called AGR-20F FALCO. It uses the VIPER fuze and improved software with an M151 blast frag warhead and the APKWS-II guidance kit. The VIPER fuze has a targeted marginal acquisition cost of $1,370 per, but the USAF is actually paying $4,038 per, including all labor and anciliaries. The USAF has a current inventory of 1,080 AGR-20F units and recently raised their inventory objective to 4,774 units. They also recently placed an order for 3,694 of what they are calling the "Warhead/Proximity Fuze Sensor Assemblies" from L3Harris, to be delivered by October 27, 2026. This assembly, when combined with the APKWS-II kit (WGU-59B) and 70mm rocket, creates the AGR-20F FALCO.

[EDIT: I made a mistake here. $1,370 is the cost of the M151 warhead with M423 fuze.]

I made a mistake here earlier. $1,370 is the listed cost of the M151 warhead with M423 fuze. These are evidently procured as a single unit. The last time this unit was procured for the Army was in FY15, where 47,520 were procured for $927 per (then-year dollars).


I'm not sure what cost the DOD currently assigns to the Hydra-70 rocket (E37412). There should be tons in inventory from previous years with low unit costs. Current total flyaway costs after all anciliaries would be about $1500 per if they were ordering closer to the economic ordering quantity, but because they're only ordering at the minimum sustainment rate of 100k per year, the DOD paid $2,290 per rocket in FY23 for 70,103 rockets.



If we use the latest pricing available for everything included in the current FALCO:

• $1370 for the warhead
• $4038 for the proximity fuze and labor/anciliaries to attach it to the warhead and package it
• $2290 for the rocket (a lower cost will be assigned in reality)
• $21,477+ for the APKWS
• =$29,175 for the hardware
• Then some additional amount from the USAF for FALCO software upgrades and other anciliaries
• And finally USAF says FALCO costs $39,400

An initial cost for the new IIR C-UAS round should look something like this:

• $2290 rocket
• $31,691 APKWS with integrated IIR seeker, proximity fuze, small warhead
• =$33,981 hardware + associated anciliaries
• + additional costs for FALCO software and production facilitization. This is probably a significant cost right now, likely raising the total flyaway cost of the IIR C-UAS APKWS AUR to above $40k per unit (or even $50k), but this should come down if the C-UAS APKWS is ordered again.

 

[bring_it_on]

An initial cost for the new IIR C-UAS round should look something like this:

• $2290 rocket
• $31,691 APKWS with integrated IIR seeker, proximity fuze, small warhead
• =$33,981 hardware + associated anciliaries
• + additional costs for FALCO software and production facilitization. This is probably a significant cost right now, likely raising the total flyaway cost of the IIR C-UAS APKWS AUR to above $40k per unit (or even $50k), but this should come down if the C-UAS APKWS is ordered again.

Can you share the contract award for the IIR seeker, and also what level of testing has been completed ahead of a full-rate production milestone.

I am specifically trying to establish whether there is any evidence to firmly establish that even a single IIR seeker has been ordered as part of the full rate lot contract awarded in August, or the increased cost is just accounting for a more capable CUAS APKWS variant which is pretty much what you would be buying if that was the focus.

 

[publiusr]

Pye Wacket type sub-munitions might allow interception of cruise missiles flying past.

Typically you want to evade something making a bee-line straight for you--but with lenticular designs capable of terrific lateral acceleration---you are capable of "crossing the T" mid-air.

 

[joshjosh]

Can you share the contract award for the IIR seeker, and also what level of testing has been completed ahead of a full-rate production milestone.

I am specifically trying to establish whether there is any evidence to firmly establish that even a single IIR seeker has been ordered as part of the full rate lot contract awarded in August, or the increased cost is just accounting for a more capable CUAS APKWS variant which is pretty much what you would be buying if that was the focus.

To answer your question, no: there are no awards from the USG to OKSI for IIR seeker procurement beyond the SBIR awards. Awards for the most recent APKWS-II order also do not mention an IIR seeker. The level of testing that has been completed is that the OKSI ARMGDN seeker has been integrated with APKWS and has successfuly guided an APKWS round to hit a UAS.

The following were awarded to OKSI in 2024-2025 as Phase I/II awards, and the solicitations are attached. These are 5 unique SBIR opportunities, including the 1 that I originally mentioned when discussing OKSI. All of these awards are related to APKWS, IIR seekers, counter-UAS, algorithms for target discrimination, etc. Listed in order of award chronologically:

Award | SBIR

www.sbir.gov

$1,759,951
OKSI will develop and demonstrate the ARMGDN-I seeker that will integrate with APKWS guidance kit and appropriate warheads for cUAS applications. The ARMGDN-I seeker will leverage an EO/IR sensor combined with state-of-the-art computer vision algorithms to automatically detect, track, and provide terminal guidance against various UAS threats. Under this program, we will demonstrate these capabilities at range sites where we will integrate with existing launch platforms, the APKWS system, and selected warhead(s) to prove out this capability to TRL 6.
The note on the payment to OKSI for this says the following:
AUTOMATIC TARGET RECOGNITION (ATR) SEEKER FOR MULTI-TARGET GROUPING, DISCRIMINATION & NEUTRALIZATION (ARMGDN) INTERCEPTOR I

Award | SBIR

www.sbir.gov

$1,795,786
The Air Force and US DoD are seeking collaborative automatic target engagement (ATA) capabilities that leverage AI/ML techniques to provide high confidence in correct target classifications for target prosecution. Given that different sensors provide different views / perspectives on target, the objective is to provide a fusion-based approach that leverages the best look(s) from different sensors to provide robust ATA. To this end, OKSI is providing a best-look solution that leverages existing APKWS hardware to provide advanced cUAS capabilities, however, the same solution could be adapted and applied to both ground-to-ground and/or air-to-ground applications in the future.

Award | SBIR

www.sbir.gov

$179,565
As of late, massive investments and open-source development of AI and computer-vision technologies has served as catapult for major advancements in detection, recognition, classification, and tracking algorithms.Ā Still, many statistically based detection and tracking algorithms are computationally expensive and require large compute resources to operate real-time, leading to compromises in execution methodologies and performance. In addition, required processing resources limit the ability to deploy such methods on platforms with stringent cost, size, weight and power (C-SWaP) constraints, such as Group 2+ and below UAS. Further computational heavy pipelines may significantly reduce platform power endurance and associated mission effectiveness. As such, alternative algorithms must be developed with similar, if not improved, performance but requiring significantly less computational resources. Lastly, any new or deployed model must not be reliant on massive libraries of training data that may not be relevant or can easily be tricked by simple camouflage or other shape changes to target platforms. OKSI will implement an autonomous target tracking and autonomous terminal engagement capability for sUAS platforms that have limited compute capabilities that can readily be integrated onto a range of sUAS systems that are presently employed throughout the battlefield as a software upgrade.

Award | SBIR

www.sbir.gov

$1,248,614
The U.S. Department of the Air Force (DAF) requires advanced counter unmanned aerial system (cUAS) technologies to combat the exponentially growing threat of UAS in the battlefield. Existing systems are notoriously expensive and unreliable, which was recently seen with the employment of the Raytheon Coyote system for force protection in Syria where just two (2) elements of an incoming drone swarm were shot down.[1] To address this critical gap for force protection for the DAF, we are proposing the development of the Advanced Lethality System (ALS) which is a lowest cost in-class (just $50k/shot) dual-mode SAL/LWIR seeker solution for the existing and fielded APKWS program of record. The ALS solution will use existing program of record launchers and APKWS units that are in circulation, which will lead to streamlined deployment of this solution across the DAF and DoD. This effort in particular is aimed at developing advanced simulation tooling for ALS, developing a tip-to-tail system integration plan, enhancing tracking algorithms for cUAS seekers for reduced target engagement times, and demonstrating in test shots.
The note on the payment to OKSI for this says the following:
NEXT-GENERATION LONGWAVE INFRARED SEEKER COST REDUCTION AND PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT FOR COUNTER UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM APPLICATIONS

Award | SBIR

www.sbir.gov

$1,798,867
The modern battlefield has seen a significant rise in the utilization of unmanned aerial systems (UAS), particularly in conflict zones such as Ukraine. Adversaries are leveraging low-cost UAS platforms to conduct a variety of missions, from reconnaissance to offensive operations. Current counter-UAS (cUAS) solutions, while effective, are often prohibitively expensive and face significant manufacturing capacity constraints. This presents a critical need for scalable, cost-effective solutions capable of neutralizing UAS threats at a similar cost magnitude. OKSI have built a hardware seeker capable of addressing these needs, but there are algorithmic enhancements that will improve performance. Those are proposed under this effort.
The note on the payment to OKSI for this says the following:
MULTIPLE-TARGET TRACKING FOR COUNTER-SWARM EMPLOYMENT

I can't find any Phase III payments to OKSI for this stuff, but that isn't necessarily significant. Phase III awards are very opaque compared to Phases I and II - SBIR doesn't publish these. And if they've subcontracted directly with BAE, then they could have skipped Phase III entirely. Given how quickly they demonstrated their system with APKWS, it's entirely possible that BAE told the USG "we don't need any further testing, OKSI works."

Remember, if BAE is integrating an IIR seeker directly into their APKWS system and selling it as a package to the USG, there would be no contracts between OKSI and the USG, there would be no program of record for an OKSI seeker. This situation seems more likely, given that BAE displayed and discussed the new APKWS with the IIR seeker included.

If OKSI were selling their seeker to the USG as a separate program, we wouldn't expect to see BAE showing off an IIR-equipped APKWS and talking about it the way they did. "The next generation APKWS is dual mode. An infrared seeker and laser guidance kit with a mid-body warhead."

Additionally, I have not been able to find any company other than OKSI with SBIR awards related to this IIR upgrade. If a company other than OKSI is helping with the IIR seeker, then they didn't avail themselves of the SBIR opportunity.

 

[bring_it_on]

And if they've subcontracted directly with BAE, then they could have skipped Phase III entirely. Given how quickly they demonstrated their system with APKWS, it's entirely possible that BAE told the USG "we don't need any further testing, OKSI works."

And just like that we would have a completely new seeker go straight into full rate production APKWS without any sort of extensive testing, verification or operational assessment? Based on some SBIR awards? And they won’t even mention that this was done in the contract and just quietly do it for a full rate lot. Honestly, this sounds like some half based take one would read on TWZ or Naval news not here. I think you need to do some more work to actually establish that because that’s a very weak claim if indeed thats all what you've been able to find. I’ll look around as well but honestly if that’s the connection you have then the chances are quite high that this production lot does not include any IIR seeker and all that connecting of the dots is mere fantasy.

 

[joshjosh]

And just like that we would have a completely new seeker go straight into full rate production APKWS without any sort of extensive testing, verification or operational assessment? Based on some SBIR awards? And they won’t even mention that this was done in the contract and just quietly do it for a full rate lot. I think you need to do some more work to actually establish that because that’s a very weak claim. I’ll look around as well but honestly if that’s the connection you have then the chances are quite high that this production lot does not include any IIR seeker and all that connecting of the dots is mere fantasy.

Yes, I might be living in fantasy land. I have provided all the receipts and source documents, so I'll leave it to the reader to use these documents to make their own determination about what is likely and what is not.

If the latest APKWS order is not for an IIR version, that raises the question: why did the price go up by $10k, and why did the production rate drop by almost half? Possible answers could include:

• The DOD is just ordering fewer, leading to higher prices
• The Single Block Variant Upgrade and the FALCO upgrade are now being paid for
• Future production of IIR versions, or other production changes, are now being facilitized and funded

Additionally, even if the latest order of APKWS is not for an IIR version, the details about OKSI and the possible mechanical proximity fuze are still relevant and interesting, because BAE has said "The next generation APKWS is dual mode. An infrared seeker and laser guidance kit with a mid-body warhead." At the very least, I find this interesting.

 

[bring_it_on]

why did the price go up by $10k, and why did the production rate drop by almost half? Possible answers could include:

You do not know what the cost is per variant unless you know the specifics of each variant relative to the same ratio in the previous lot. So we do not, in fact, know by how much the cost went up for comparable variants from the last time a contract was issued. Just that the overall lot unit cost seems higher which could just simply be explained by a larger percentage of the more expensive CsUAS optimized variants being in the mix which is a more logical leap since that is actually a fielded and known to be in production capability.

We can likewise not establish what the production rate was from these contracts. Contracts can only provide context on buy rates, unless there is specifically language stating that the buy rate is same as max production rate (which is very rare to be in a contract announcement or solidification justification). The rest of the production capacity could be reserved for future sales or direct commercial sales etc. Or the program could simply choose to maintain capacity in excess of need. As was noted, prior plans were to buy about half as many as they ultimately acquired which obviously would also not suggest that they 'doubled the production rate' from planning assumptions just a year or two ago.

 

[Scott Kenny]

BAE has said "The next generation APKWS is dual mode. An infrared seeker and laser guidance kit with a mid-body warhead." At the very least, I find this interesting.

Yes, that's a very major change to the Hydra rocket. Hydras normally keep the warhead at the front of the stack, and the old APKWS had to put the SAL seeker behind the warhead to be able to use existing warheads.

Huh. That actually implies that the "APKWS 3" is either a combined seeker+warhead or a redesigned warhead so that a seeker can be bolted onto the front. I'm leaning more towards combined seeker+warhead, since IIUC redesigned warheads separate of the seeker would require separate contracts.

 

[joshjosh]

You do not know what the cost is per variant unless you know the specifics of each variant relative to the same ratio in the previous lot. So we do not, in fact, know by how much the cost went up for comparable variants from the last time a contract was issued. Just that the overall lot unit cost seems higher which could just simply be explained by a larger percentage of the more expensive CsUAS optimized variants being in the mix which is a more logical leap since that is actually a fielded and known to be in production capability.

You make good points. I agree that we don't know exactly what was being paid for in the most recent contract, which means we can't learn exactly how much the hardware itself cost.

However, my understanding is that every APKWS-II rolling off the production line is identical from a hardware perspective, and thus there wouldn't be a more expensive C-UAS version to raise the overall cost.

From the Marine Aviation Plan 2025: "The program has now completely transitioned to the Single Variant Block Upgrade (SVBU) that will enable the same guidance unit to be used for any platform, as well as increasing the overall employment envelope."

It's not clear to me exactly when that transition happened. SVBU testing was happening as early as 2020.

All C-UAS versions for the USAF are FALCO. There may be C-UAS versions for other customers that are not FALCO.

FALCO takes a regular-old SVBU from the APKWS production line and installs a software update. The software is called True Pulse Logic.

From the FY26 USAF j-books refer to "Fixed-Wing Air-Launched Counter Unmanned Aerial Systems (cUAS) Ordnance (FALCO) software" together with a "WGU-59BB guidance and control section" (this is APKWS-II). They state that the FALCO software costs $1k per unit, although this is just a J-book and could be wrong.

But we actually just got a brand new contract in the past 24 hours, lucky timing! It says the following:

This is an individual FOE to convert 3,694 government furnished WGU-59/B guidance sections to True Pulse Logic Algorithm (WGU-59B/B) for an anticipated total value of $1.6M.

Also, at some point in the present or future, the True Pulse Logic software will be added to every SVBU from the factory, meaning that every APKWS will have the FALCO software included, and will only need the correct fuze and warhead from L3Harris to be C-UAS.

So there you have it.

• Currently, every APKWS kit is the same, there isnt a more expensive C-UAS version
• FALCO for the USAF simply involves a software update
• The software update converts a WGU-59B APKWS-II to a True Pulse Logic Algorithm WGU-59B/B, making it suitable for FALCO
• The True Pulse Logic update costs $433 per unit as of yesterday

Of course, at some point either in the present or the future, there will be a more-expensive C-UAS version with IIR seeker coming off the production line. It's possible that this latest order pays for some C-UAS IIR versions and some regular SVBU units. It's also possible that funding for the True Pulse Logic incorporation into the SVBU is included in the recent higher cost.

 

[NMaude]

The software is called True Pulse Logic.

Is it just a software update or does it involve a hardware update too as a few days ago when I did a Google search on "True Pulse Logic" the results I got back suggest more of a specific digital hardware configuration. If there are any websites giving details on how this software algorithm works do you have any links?

 

[joshjosh]

Is it just a software update or does it involve a hardware update too as a few days ago when I did a Google search on "True Pulse Logic" the results I got back suggest more of a specific digital hardware configuration. If there are any websites giving details on how this software algorithm works do you have any links?

Everything I have seen suggests it is a software algorithm for APKWS to enable it to track targets in the air. Part of what the software does is prevent the seeker from locking onto a cloud. I believe I posted some of this stuff earlier. You'd have to show me what you've found regarding "hardware configuration" because I haven't seen that.

 

[NMaude]

You'd have to show me what you've found regarding "hardware configuration" because I haven't seen that.

this is what I'd found:

Semi-active laser last pulse logic seeker utilizing a focal plane array

 

[bring_it_on]

However, my understanding is that every APKWS-II rolling off the production line is identical from a hardware perspective, and thus there wouldn't be a more expensive C-UAS version to raise the overall cost.

You claimed and showed that the unit cost for the previous lot was $21K which jumped to nearly $32K with the most recent award. If Falco costs $39K as you state, and the CsUAS optimized version indeeds is mostly identifical to it then a high number of CsUAS optimized versions in the production lot would explain 1) why the unit cost has jumped. and 2) why the order size / buy rate is lower than max production because they generally tend to buy and negotiate the maximum they can within a spending top line. The presence of a 'higher cost than baseline' CUAS version alone can explain that jump in unit cost.

There would be a high FMS demand for the CuAS LAPKWS variant and the JCO has already tested it against relevant threats so they would be options for the organic CsUAS systems either vehicle mounted or containerized that we have deployed in CENTCOM. We've had the prox fuzed LAPKWS round in CENTCOM as far back as 2023 and with Ukraine as well. That it is included in a late FY25 lot order and included in quantity seems about right.That is a very logical thing given its proven now and known to be in production vs seeing a SBIR award and jumping to the conclusion that whatever was awarded phase 3 has now magically leaped to full rate production.

 

[joshjosh]

You claimed and showed that the unit cost for the previous lot was $21K which jumped to nearly $32K with the most recent award. If Falco costs $39K as you state,

Just to clarify, the USAF uses Falco interchangeably to refer to both the software upgrade for APKWS and the AUR. The AUR cost is $39k, which includes warhead, fuze, rocket, APKWS, True Pulse Logic software, packaging, and any ancilliaries.

I cannot find any indication that the FALCO APKWS is much more expensive than the normal APKWS. What I've found is that the FALCO software is only $400-$1,000, on top of the regular cost of the standard APKWS.

and the CsUAS optimized version indeeds is mostly identifical to it then a high number of CsUAS optimized versions in the production lot would explain 1) why the unit cost has jumped. and 2) why the order size / buy rate is lower than max production because they generally tend to buy and negotiate the maximum they can within a spending top line. The presence of a 'higher cost than baseline' CUAS version alone can explain that jump in unit cost.

This higher-cost FALCO APKWS could only explain $400-$1,000 of the cost increase.

There would be a high FMS demand for the CuAS LAPKWS variant and the JCO has already tested it against relevant threats so they would be options for the organic CsUAS systems either vehicle mounted or containerized that we have deployed in CENTCOM. We've had the prox fuzed LAPKWS round in CENTCOM as far back as 2023 and with Ukraine as well. That it is included in a late FY25 lot order and included in quantity seems about right.That is a very logical thing given its proven now and known to be in production vs seeing a SBIR award and jumping to the conclusion that whatever was awarded phase 3 has now magically leaped to full rate production.

The proximity fuzes from L3Harris have nothing to do with the recent cost increase in APKWS. Those prox fuzes are purchased separately, from L3Harris. APKWS is purchased from BAE. The price for APKWS went up, irrespective of anything going on with the L3Harris fuze.

So again, why did the cost increase? It could be for any number of reasons, true (except the reasons it can't be, that I've laid out). It could be to facilitize changes in production, or for long lead items, or something like that. What I've suggested is that it could also be to procure some quantity of the actually-new-and-different IIR APKWS, which we know exists, and we know will be more expensive.

 

[bring_it_on]

ust to clarify, the USAF uses Falco interchangeably to refer to both the software upgrade for APKWS and the AUR. The AUR cost is $39k, which includes warhead, fuze, rocket, APKWS, True Pulse Logic software, packaging, and any ancilliaries.

I cannot find any indication that the FALCO APKWS is much more expensive than the normal APKWS. What I've found is that the FALCO software is only $400-$1,000, on top of the regular cost of the standard APKWS.

We have very senior DOD officials stating that the Counter sUAS optimized APKWS costs about $40k a pop. I assumed since you referenced that the FALCO package, which includes the new prox fuze and other changes is very close to this. Since the cost for FALCO stated by you, and the cost for the CsUAS LAPKWS stated by DOD officials is quite similar, I'm using these interchangeably. It is logical that the most recent multi lot award included a significantly higher number of CsUAS optimized APKWS rounds (as a percentage of overall lot) compared to the last order which would explain the higher lot unit cost.

The proximity fuzes from L3Harris have nothing to do with the recent cost increase in APKWS. Those prox fuzes are purchased separately, from L3Harris. APKWS is purchased from BAE. The price for APKWS went up, irrespective of anything going on with the L3Harris fuze.

That might have been the case. But is it always going to be the case? I can understand why you would buy these separately to install them on existing stocks or to add to already ordered baseline versions, but would that be the case if you were ordering thousand of new rounds? If so, then this basically also means that we can throw away the argument that they've included a IIR seeker because that would then become even more absurd since they apparently can't even order the prox fuzed equipped round as part of the AUR deal with the prime.

What I've suggested is that it could also be to procure some quantity of the actually-new-and-different IIR APKWS, which we know exists, and we know will be more expensive.

As a matter of fact, we do not know this exists as a fully tested, in production, capability that is ready to support a full-rate production program. The only thing you've cited to claim that it 'exists' are SBIR contracts and reference to one or few tests. That does not, in any way, explain a wholesale transition to production to support a large production lot even if its for a fraction of that large lot. We simply do not have evidence to suggest any of this at this time unfortunately. I'd be glad to be proven wrong, but if a small business had successfully transitioned a new seeker capability to full rate production on the APKWS we would have known and the award would have called it out specifically.

 

[joshjosh]

We have very senior DOD officials stating that the Counter sUAS optimized APKWS costs about $40k a pop. I assumed since you referenced that the FALCO package, which includes the new prox fuze and other changes is very close to this. Since the cost for FALCO stated by you, and the cost for the CsUAS LAPKWS stated by DOD officials is quite similar, I'm using these interchangeably. It is logical that the most recent multi lot award included a significantly higher number of CsUAS optimized APKWS rounds (as a percentage of overall lot) compared to the last order which would explain the higher lot unit cost.

I'd have to see which senior DOD statements you mean. If they're talking about the AUR, then $40k a pop is about what the USAF says FALCO AUR costs, so that tracks.

But again, I think you're conflating the APKWS guidance section with a C-UAS AUR. As I've demonstrated, there has been no such thing as a C-UAS optimized APKWS guidance kit. The higher cost for a FALCO AUR comes from the software (added later and purchased separately) and the proximity fuze. The thing that went up in price is the apparent cost of an APKWS guidance kit. There is no such thing as a separate, more expensive C-UAS APKWS kit. There is only a software upgrade which historically has cost about $400 per. If this software upgrade (which, granted, is going to be included in all APKWS kits from the factory as standard at some point) is responsible for the entire cost increase, then why did it cause the apparent cost to increase by $10K? I don't think that production facilitization can account for that (this is software, there is no supply chain).

That might have been the case. But is it always going to be the case? I can understand why you would buy these separately to install them on existing stocks or to add to already ordered baseline versions, but would that be the case if you were ordering thousand of new rounds?

I agree, it's possible that the latest order of APKWS included (for at least some units) an attached warhead and proximity fuze. But for a whole bunch of reasons, that doesn't feel like the best possible explanation to me.

If so, then this basically also means that we can throw away the argument that they've included a IIR seeker because that would then become even more absurd since they apparently can't even order the prox fuzed equipped round as part of the AUR deal with the prime.

Well, no, it doesn't mean we can throw away the argument. The upcoming APKWS with IIR seeker is very different from the existing version. It uses a midbody warhead between an IIR seeker on the nose and the APKWS behind. While the current standard APKWS *could* be assembled with the fuze and warhead by BAE, the upcoming IIR APKWS *will almost certainly have to be* delivered from BAE with included fuze and warhead, because the integration of the components is more complicated and does not use off-the-shelf components from Army stock.

As a matter of fact, we do not know this exists as a fully tested, in production, capability that is ready to support a full-rate production program. The only thing you've cited to claim that it 'exists' are SBIR contracts and reference to one or few tests. That does not, in any way, explain a wholesale transition to production to support a large production lot even if its for a fraction of that large lot. We simply do not have evidence to suggest any of this at this time unfortunately.

I agree that we don't know for certain. But come on, it's a stretch to say that we have no evidence at all. I've posted evidence, and more than just the SBIR contracts. Here are the possible explanations for the cost increase of the new APKWS:

- some are the new IIR version with integrated midbody warhead and prox fuze for C-UAS
- the True Pulse Logic software upgrade is being integrated into all APKWS from the factory at a significantly higher price than was previously being paid
- production facilitization for process changes
- long lead items
- contractual penalties for order quantities dropping below the minimum sustsinment rate

I claim that there are no other reasonable possibilities. I also claim that some of these possibilities are more likely than others, given the available data. If there are other possibilities that are reasonable, I'd love to hear them, I'm not a lawyer here to make a case, I'm just a nerd trying to learn stuff.

I do have more contracts and documents that are relevant but I think Ive posted all the most topical ones, until there are further developments.

 

[bring_it_on]

If your claim involves taking a SBIR award and extrapolating from it that the component central to that award is now supporting production insertion in a full-rate production program then the evidence cited does not in any way corroborate that. It does not come close.
I have tracked several statements re $40K a pop CsUAS APKWS over the last few years. One that comes to mind is from General Gainey at AUSA back in 2022 or 2023 IIRC. I have a video I've posted on it some time back as well. There are also others including from current JCO officials but I don't think I have handy grabs of that.

 

[joshjosh]

I have tracked several statements re $40K a pop CsUAS APKWS

They are either referring to the AUR cost of a FALCO missile (which the USAF Jbooks say are $39k) or the IIR APKWS unit with integrated midbody warhead and prox fuze (which is not an AUR as it lacks the guidance section).

I have seen no evidence in the primary documents to indicate the existence of a $40k C-UAS APKWS that is *only* the guidance section and *is also not* the specialized IIR version.

The marine corps flight plan 2025 directly contradicts this. USAF J-books directly contradict this with regard to the FALCO version.

I would be interested to hear the statement from the official that explicitly says "there is a $40k APKWS for CUAS and I'm not talking about a FALCO AUR and I'm not talking about the specialized upcoming IIR version, I'm talking about only the midbody APKWS guidance section that we buy from BAE, I'm excluding the other costs."

 

[joshjosh]

this is what I'd found:

Semi-active laser last pulse logic seeker utilizing a focal plane array

This is very interesting, seems to be for a hellfire missile to combine a SAL seeker with an infrared seeker. I don't think its related to the True Pulse Logic software, because that's used for the APKWS which is SAL only. This patent is also expired. I had looked for a trademark for true pulse logic, but nothing came up.

 

[bring_it_on]

I would be interested to hear the statement from the official that explicitly says "there is a $40k APKWS for CUAS and I'm not talking about a FALCO AUR and I'm not talking about the specialized upcoming IIR version, I'm talking about only the midbody APKWS guidance section that we buy from BAE, I'm excluding the other costs."

An official is going to go on record to settle a forum discussion? Would you like for them to dedicate this response to SPF as well?

All I have seen is a claim from the JCO boss saying that they've begun deploying ground launched CsUAS optimized LAPKWS to CENTCOM each costing about $40K a pop. This was two to three years ago. Those are most definitely not the IIR seeker equipped rounds.

 

[joshjosh]

An official is going to go on record to settle a forum discussion? Would you like for them to dedicate this response to SPF as well?

All I have seen is a claim from the JCO boss saying that they've begun deploying ground launched CsUAS optimized LAPKWS to CENTCOM each costing about $40K a pop. This was two to three years ago. Those are most definitely not the IIR seeker equipped rounds.

I've explained that according to source documents, there is no such thing as an APKWS hardware that is specifically for C-UAS.

You claimed that there were statements from officials saying that there is:

I have tracked several statements re $40K a pop CsUAS APKWS over the last few years. One that comes to mind is from General Gainey at AUSA back in 2022 or 2023 IIRC. I have a video I've posted on it some time back as well.

Perhaps you could provide sources to back up your assertions, given that sources are something that both you and I have claimed are important, despite only one of us providing them.

 

[bring_it_on]

Perhaps you could provide sources to back up your assertions, given that sources are something that both you and I have claimed are important, despite only one of us providing them.

Sources for what? $40K a pop APKWS being used for CsUAS? It is provided in the original post. Gen. Gainey at AUSA back in 2023. This was right when they had begun to be shared with Ukraine, and the JCO was preparing to support CENTCOM with this capability as well. They have subsequently been utilized in theater by US forces.

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1966467773715845595

 

[Forest Green]

Drone-Killing APKWS Laser-Guided Rockets Eyed For Eurofighter Typhoon​

Drone-Killing APKWS Laser-Guided Rockets Eyed For Eurofighter Typhoon

The air-to-air optimized variant of the APKWS rocket is being assessed as an option for the Eurofighter Typhoon as concerns over the drone threat in Europe grow. The air-to-air optimized variant of the APKWS rocket is being assessed as an option for the Eurofighter Typhoon, as concerns over the...

www.twz.com

 

[Forest Green]

Laser-Guided Rockets Now Primary Anti-Drone Weapon For USAF Jets In Middle East​

Laser-Guided Rockets Now Primary Anti-Drone Weapon For USAF Jets In Middle East

APKWS II rockets have become the Air Force's go-to air-to-air munition against drones thanks to their low cost and small size.

www.twz.com

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I wonder if we'll see a return of rocket pods larger than the 7-round models for fixed-wing aircraft?

 

[NMaude]

I wonder if we'll see a return of rocket pods larger than the 7-round models for fixed-wing aircraft?

Definitely, there are for example the M261, LAU-130/A and LAU-69D/A which can all carry 19 2.75" rockets.

 

[Wotan]

I wonder if we'll see a return of rocket pods larger than the 7-round models for fixed-wing aircraft?

Even small fighters like the Mig-21 can cary pods with 32 S-5 rockets (57mm).

Medium sized soviet fighters can have 4 of these pods, so 128 rockets total

They are not very heavy or draggy. So an usual western fighter can do the same. Big unguided rocket pods are not used on NATO fighters because the stand-off guided weapons are preffered.

 

[Ainen]

I wonder if we'll see a return of rocket pods larger than the 7-round models for fixed-wing aircraft?

It's up to debate aircraft can make so many passes for it to be worth it. Even current 40+ possible engagements is absolute bonkers for both aircraft and pilot endurance.
And frankly, numerically overwhelming even a squadron of such fighters in the air is just not worth it anymore - long before that point attacker would prefer to go for a higher spec/stealth. It's just cheaper.

 

[Josh_TN]

It seems to me that 7 round pods can easily be carried on tandem or triple ejectors such that nothing larger is needed. A lot of the F-16s pictured are not even carrying a second pod on the port wing.

 

[Forest Green]

I wonder if we'll see a return of rocket pods larger than the 7-round models for fixed-wing aircraft?

 

[TomcatViP]

What I would like to see is some frangible nose cones for these rocket pods. It´s great time to make them more aerodynamic again.
Flying those more expensive Falco APKWS would also suggest making sure they are appropriately protected from the elements.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What I would like to see is some frangible nose cones for these rocket pods. It´s great time to make them more aerodynamic again.

I know that they existed in the Vietnam timeframe for the 19-shot pods, not sure if they ever did for the 7-shots.

Flying those more expensive Falco APKWS would also suggest making sure they are appropriately protected from the elements.

Those are designed to be flown by helos in whatever nasty weather. Or should be.

 

[NMaude]

I know that they existed in the Vietnam timeframe for the 19-shot pods, not sure if they ever did for the 7-shots.

IIRC those were frangible ogive fairings mounted fore and aft on the pods with them being blown off when the rockets were fired.

 

[Scott Kenny]

IIRC those were frangible ogive fairings mounted fore and aft on the pods with them being blown off when the rockets were fired.

I think the forward ones were completely frangible, the aft ones had a center blow-out.

Think it was in a book about the A-37 Dragonfly that said the drag once rockets fired was significantly higher.

 

[NMaude]

Think it was in a book about the A-37 Dragonfly that said the drag once rockets fired was significantly higher.

I imagine that in that case (At least in an actual combat mission) the pods would be jettisoned afterwards.