Navy Helicopters are Getting More Deadly with Infrared guided Rockets
32 replies, posted
[release]
[IMG]http://fastcache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2011/12/1fb755f326d13492876193bf2f05bc86.jpg[/IMG]
The Low-Cost Imaging Terminal Seeker, a weapon prototype developed by the Office of Naval Research, a suite of low-cost technologies that modify existing helicopter-borne rockets into precision-guided weapons. By adding an infrared imaging guidance section to 2.75-inch Hydra-70 rockets, the researchers are providing naval aviators with a new lethal capability. Credit: US Navy photo
[B]A weapon prototype developed by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) successfully hit two high-speed boat targets during recent testing in Point Mugu, Calif.[/B][URL="http://www.physorg.com/print241804901.html"][IMG]http://cdn.physorg.com/tmpl/v3/img/img-dot.gif[/IMG][/URL]
[EMAIL="?subject=Guided%20rockets%20hit%20fast-moving%20boat%20targets%20in%20test&body=http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-rockets-fast-moving-boat.html"][IMG]http://cdn.physorg.com/tmpl/v3/img/img-dot.gif[/IMG][/EMAIL]
[URL="http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-rockets-fast-moving-boat.html#comments"]9[/URL]
[URL="http://www.physorg.com/pdf241804901.pdf"][IMG]http://cdn.physorg.com/tmpl/v3/img/img-dot.gif[/IMG][/URL]
[URL="http://www.physorg.com/profile/?code=fav&nid=241804901"][IMG]http://cdn.physorg.com/tmpl/v3/img/img-dot.gif[/IMG][/URL]
[URL="http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-rockets-fast-moving-boat.html"][IMG]http://cdn.physorg.com/tmpl/v3/img/img-dot.gif[/IMG][/URL]
[URL="http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-rockets-fast-moving-boat.html"][IMG]http://cdn.physorg.com/tmpl/v3/img/img-dot.gif[/IMG][/URL][URL="http://www.facebook.com/physorg"][/URL]
[URL="http://www.facebook.com/physorg"][/URL][URL="http://www.facebook.com/physorg"][/URL][URL="http://twitter.com/share"][IMG]http://cdn.physorg.com/tmpl/v3/img/img-dot.gif[/IMG][/URL][URL="http://twitter.com/#!/physorg_com"][/URL]
[URL="http://twitter.com/#!/physorg_com"][/URL][URL="http://twitter.com/#!/physorg_com"][/URL][URL="http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-rockets-fast-moving-boat.html"][IMG]http://cdn.physorg.com/tmpl/v3/img/img-dot.gif[/IMG][/URL]
[INDENT]"It's a fire-and-forget weapon," said Ken Heeke, the ONR program officer for the Low-Cost Imaging Terminal Seeker (LCITS). "No longer do you have to continue to monitor the target after you've fired the weapon. You can move on to the next threat with the assurance that the [URL="http://www.physorg.com/tags/rocket/"]rocket[/URL] will hit the target."
ONR researchers produced LCITS, a suite of low-cost technologies that modify existing helicopter-borne rockets into precision-guided weapons. By adding an infrared imaging guidance section to 2.75-inch Hydra-70 rockets, the researchers are providing naval aviators with a new lethal capability.
Unlike laser-guided weapons that require operators to select and monitor a target from launch to detonation, LCITS gives unguided rockets the ability to compute and home in on targets automatically after launch.
In the Nov. 3 test, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division engineers used a shore-based launcher to fire two LCITS rockets, one inert and the other with an explosive warhead. Using inertial guidance, they flew to a point where the infrared terminal guidance system took over. Onboard imaging infrared seekers identified their intended targets among five maneuvering small boats. The rockets adjusted trajectories to intercept and eliminate two of the boats.
The test was part of the Medusa Joint Capability [URL="http://www.physorg.com/tags/technology+demonstration/"]Technology Demonstration[/URL], an effort funded by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Secretary of Defense and Republic of Korea.[/release]
[URL="http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-rockets-fast-moving-boat.html"]
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-rockets-fast-moving-boat.html[/URL]
I thought the APKWS already was designed to do this?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Precision_Kill_Weapon_System[/url]
Pretty sure we've had IR-guided munitions for atleast a decade now.
Read it again.
IR-guided Hydra 70's are a new addition.
Ill ward them off using my tv remote.
Yay, now they have something else to fight off those god damn civilians with.
then again this seems to just be a development of the APKWS after it was transfered to the navy
2002: APKWS development test series begins.[4]
April 2005: General Dynamics APKWS program cancelled due to poor test results.[5]
October 2005: Competition re-opened as APKWS II.[5]
September 2005: Successful flight test of BAE APKWS II.[6]
April 2006: BAE Systems selected as prime contractor for the APKWS II program.[7]
February 2007: Funding for program withdrawn in proposed FY2008 budget.[8][9]
May 2007: Successful flight test of BAE APKWS II in production-ready configuration.[10]
November 2008: [b]Transfer of contract from US Army to US Navy.[/b]
Then again there are like 3 other [b]separate[/b] programs doing this
Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket – Laser by Elbit and Allaint Techsystems
Direct Attack Guided Rocket by Lockheed Martin
Roketsan Cirit by Rocketsan
all of the following are designed for the Hydra 70 platform... I discussed this program with a couple ONR peeps at a conference, they said that it was not really in competition with the others, since CIRIT it Turkish, and GATR is a commercial project.
[editline]9th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=cathal6606;33640971]Yay, now they have something else to fight off those god damn civilians with.[/QUOTE]
you still mad about that harrier incident bro
Ah, good old "Fire-And-Forget" munitions.
It's interesting because something like this would be suited for traditional Cold-War engagements, because most of our attack helicopters are designed for anti-tank warfare.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;33641313]Ah, good old "Fire-And-Forget" munitions.
It's interesting because something like this would be suited for traditional Cold-War engagements, because most of our attack helicopters are designed for anti-tank warfare.[/QUOTE]
From the sound of it, this is being done with drug runners in mind.
This would be very useful in arma
[QUOTE=ewitwins;33641313]Ah, good old "Fire-And-Forget" munitions.
It's interesting because something like this would be suited for traditional Cold-War engagements, because most of our attack helicopters are designed for anti-tank warfare.[/QUOTE]
nurp, hydras are designed to be in between hellfires (which are for tanks) and the Bushmaster 30mm the continuum of force... they're designed to be used against fortifications and lightly armored targets. A weapon like thisn would be less useful in traditional cold war engagements where the apaches would probably be carrying a full hellfire load to defend against the T-72s pouring through fulga gap
So this is what BF3's "Semi-guided rockets" are based off of. Neat. I love finding game-to-life connections. :D
How is this even news really.. I've heard about this awhile ago.
[editline]9th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;33641217]then again this seems to just be a development of the APKWS after it was transfered to the navy
2002: APKWS development test series begins.[4]
April 2005: General Dynamics APKWS program cancelled due to poor test results.[5]
October 2005: Competition re-opened as APKWS II.[5]
September 2005: Successful flight test of BAE APKWS II.[6]
April 2006: BAE Systems selected as prime contractor for the APKWS II program.[7]
February 2007: Funding for program withdrawn in proposed FY2008 budget.[8][9]
May 2007: Successful flight test of BAE APKWS II in production-ready configuration.[10]
November 2008: [b]Transfer of contract from US Army to US Navy.[/b]
Then again there are like 3 other [b]separate[/b] programs doing this
Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket – Laser by Elbit and Allaint Techsystems
Direct Attack Guided Rocket by Lockheed Martin
Roketsan Cirit by Rocketsan
all of the following are designed for the Hydra 70 platform... I discussed this program with a couple ONR peeps at a conference, they said that it was not really in competition with the others, since CIRIT it Turkish, and GATR is a commercial project.
[editline]9th December 2011[/editline]
[B]you still mad about that harrier incident bro[/B][/QUOTE]
Meme responses arent helping your argument.
[editline]9th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;33641396]nurp, hydras are designed to be in between hellfires (which are for tanks) and the Bushmaster 30mm the continuum of force... they're designed to be used against fortifications and lightly armored targets. A weapon like thisn would be less useful in traditional cold war engagements where the apaches would probably be carrying a full hellfire load to defend against the T-72s pouring through fulga gap[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure Hellfires can be used against fortifications and other generic infantry targets aswell.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;33641627]How is this even news really.. I've heard about this awhile ago.
[editline]9th December 2011[/editline]
Meme responses arent helping your argument.
[editline]9th December 2011[/editline]
I'm pretty sure Hellfires can be used against fortifications and other generic infantry targets aswell.[/QUOTE]
You're better off using them on tanks, as thats what they're designed to kill.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;33641754]You're better off using them on tanks, as thats what they're designed to kill.[/QUOTE]
They're still effective against generic infantry targets, which correct me if I'm wrong they're used on some armed strike UAV's.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;33641627]
Meme responses arent helping your argument.
[/QUOTE]
that wasn't a generic meme argument, I just didn't feel like looking up the name of the specific incident, so I added bro to indicate that it was informal
[editline]9th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;33641627]
I'm pretty sure Hellfires can be used against fortifications and other generic infantry targets aswell.[/QUOTE]
it's a cost effectiveness issue, and load bearing
hellfires are expensive, and you can carry fewer of them.
hydras are more cost effective, the entire point of this is to add a [b]low cost[/b] guidance pack to these rockets.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;33641378]This would be very useful in arma[/QUOTE]
In any combat helicopter sim for that matter.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;33641904]They're still effective against generic infantry targets, which correct me if I'm wrong they're used on some armed strike UAV's.[/QUOTE]
They are, it's a common munition for UAV's to carry I'm pretty sure.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;33642361]that wasn't a generic meme argument, I just didn't feel like looking up the name of the specific incident, so I added bro to indicate that it was informal
[editline]9th December 2011[/editline]
it's a cost effectiveness issue, and load bearing
hellfires are expensive, and you can carry fewer of them.
hydras are more cost effective, the entire point of this is to add a [b]low cost[/b] guidance pack to these rockets.[/QUOTE]
800Bn military budget, I don't see the need for low cost systems.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;33641396]nurp, hydras are designed to be in between hellfires (which are for tanks) and the Bushmaster 30mm the continuum of force... they're designed to be used against fortifications and lightly armored targets. A weapon like thisn would be less useful in traditional cold war engagements where the apaches would probably be carrying a full hellfire load to defend against the T-72s pouring through fulga gap[/QUOTE]
"T-72s pouring through fulga gap".
That is an incredibly intimidating image.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;33642538]800Bn military budget, I don't see the need for low cost systems.[/QUOTE]
You can get more of them for the same price.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;33642559]"T-72s pouring through fulga gap".
That is an incredibly intimidating image.[/QUOTE]
Doing research on the Fulga Gap, when I came across this:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Demolition_Munitions[/url]
[B]Jesus H. Atomic Christ[/B]
Absolutely devastating. I'm doubting the quantity of them though.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;33642594]Doing research on the Fulga Gap, when I came across this:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Demolition_Munitions[/url]
[B]Jesus H. Atomic Christ[/B][/QUOTE]
Now all we need are nuclear hand grenades...
Wow, what a waste of money.
Rockets are on the helicopters because they are cheaper than guided munitions, but deal more damage than the cannon.
Well this is essentially a way to get guided munitions for a similar cost as rockets. So not exactly a waste of money.
I'm still waiting for laser guided bullets.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;33646224]I'm still waiting for laser guided bullets.[/QUOTE]
I'm still waiting for laser bullets.
LASER GUIDED LASER BULLETS
[QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;33646386]LASER GUIDED LASER BULLETS[/QUOTE]
Infidels and their unfair aimbots.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33642780]Wow, what a waste of money.
Rockets are on the helicopters because they are cheaper than guided munitions, but deal more damage than the cannon.[/QUOTE]
However, it's not as acceptable to use fire and forget munitions in most of the situations the US military is engaged in, so using them (rather than having to maintain them for decades) with a small upgrade is more cost-effective in the long term.
[editline]10th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;33646386]LASER GUIDED LASER BULLETS[/QUOTE]
that is quite possible the most redundant thing I have ever heard
The navy will fund it!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.