NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Air Weapons Article Index : Current 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

The Little Wonder No One Wants

January 11, 2009: After twelve years of development effort, by several different companies, someone finally developed a guided version of the 70mm air-to-ground rocket. But the U.S. military still won't buy it. Lockheed-Martin recently completed twelve out of twelve successful tests of their DAGR 70mm guided rocket. Over a year ago, DAGR was declared ready for service, but the U.S. Department of Defense didn't respond with any orders.

DAGR would appear to be an ideal weapon, as it also uses the Hellfire fire control system. Lockheed-Martin developed DAGR with their own money. Two years ago, the U.S. Army cancelled work on a similar effort, APKWS (Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System). Both are basically a 25 pound 70mm rocket, with a laser seeker, a six pound warhead and a range of about six kilometers. Laser designators on a helicopter, or with troops on the ground, are pointed at the target, and the laser seeker in the front of the DAGR homes on the reflected laser light. DAGR actually weighs about 30 pounds (the 70mm rocket plus the guidance package).

The 2.75 inch (70mm) rockets were developed during World War II as an air-to-air weapon for use against heavy bomber formations. The Germans had developed a similar, and very successful weapon (the R4M), but before long it was noted that neither the Japanese nor the Germans had any heavy bombers, so the U.S. 70mm rocket was switched to air-to-ground use. Actually, the 70mm rocket was retained for air-to-air use into the 1950s, but it was never successful in that role. The 70mm rocket became very popular in the 1960s, when it was discovered that the weapon worked very well when launched from multiple (7 or 19 tube) launchers mounted on helicopters. The 42-55 inch long rockets could be fired singly or in salvoes, and gave helicopter pilots some airborne artillery for supporting troops on the ground. There are many variations in terms of warheads and rocket motors. Some versions can go over 10 kilometers.

Developing a guided 70mm rocket took so long because the manufacturers underestimated the technical difficulties of getting the laser seeker and flight control mechanisms into that small a package, at a weight and price the army could afford. The price of the DAGR is about $20,000 each (about a third less than a smart bomb, and much less than a Hellfire missile). The AKWS developer, BAE, believed it was close to perfecting AKWS, but Congress ran out of patience and money for it.

The guided 70mm rocker is to be used against targets that don't require a larger (hundred pound), and more expensive (over $100,000) Hellfire missile, but still need some targeting precision. In tests, the APKWS hit within a few feet of the aiming point, and the DAGR is just as accurate. The DAGR makes an excellent weapon for UAVs, especially since you can carry four of them in place of one Hellfire. The launcher for DAGR is built to replace the one for Hellfire, but carry four missiles.

Apparently the orders for DAGR have not been forthcoming because the Hellfire is doing the job and there just isn't a big demand for a smaller missile.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article PROCUREMENT: Sitting Pretty With Your Parachute


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

WarNerd       1/11/2009 12:27:52 PM
The military purchasers are waiting to find out what the Obama administration plans are.
 
So is the general public.  Which may take a while since it looks like the plans are still in flux, at least at the staff level.
 
Quote    Reply

WinsettZ       1/11/2009 1:49:36 PM
DAGR reflects a trend towards smaller and more precise weapons: instead of a Hellfire to blast a building to the foundations, why not a DAGR through the window? For example, Israel uses heavier bombs when conducting assassination ops against Hamas-something smaller may do the trick if you need to nuke a room in the house instead of the whole place, or perhaps if you want to take apart a car. Also good if enemy targets are more widely dispersed, or if attempt to disperse. Or if you just plain miss and now have the capability to fire again.

 
 
Quote    Reply

aki009    Mission myopia...   1/11/2009 3:05:25 PM

The military purchasers are waiting to find out what the Obama administration plans are.

 

So is the general public.  Which may take a while since it looks like the plans are still in flux, at least at the staff level.


That's possible. It's also possible that the Pentagon is again engaging in Mission Myopia, ignoring very useful systems when they shouldn't. I wouldn't be surprised if the Pentagon still has difficulty letting go of the Bigger is Better mantra.
 
Quote    Reply

esmoore5       1/11/2009 3:20:00 PM
Maybe with weapons like DAGR, APKWS, Spike & Griffin to choose from: link . . link . . . It'll take them awhile to decide which one(s) are best for the job.
 
Quote    Reply

sinoflex       1/11/2009 3:33:16 PM
I wonder if there is a case to be made for a vehicle launched version of the DAGR.  At $30k per round it is far cheaper than a Javelin @ $80k or a TOW @ $180k although the cost of the fire control system might be an issue in procurement cost.
 

 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       1/12/2009 12:32:21 AM
I definitely think that cost should be a consideration as well as weight.  The SDB gained popularity even though it cost more than a JDAM; this should add whole new levels of pain-bringing to all combat helicopters, and perhaps improve net performance in some cases?  But how much fire control is necessary to use these, can it be cheaply and quickly added, maybe podded, to most store stations?  Can we make any Blackhawk derivative, or LOH/scout types, into a gunship with a little effort?  Perhaps it could be applied to Chinooks to provide a self-defense/ground attack mode.
 
Wonder how this performs on tanks/armor; that would affect my views on it as in a ground-fired system.  It would seem, in SAM mode, to have anti-UAV applications, being manually dirigible onto LO targets like drones or cruise missiles.
 
 
This seems to offer best-of-all-worlds performance and do (almost) everything.  We are firing Hellfires and even TOWs when feasible because, precisely, we got a zillion of 'em and they are aging.  This could be a good effects module for NetFires; pop one of these up with soft-launch and handoff to Some Laser Somewhere. 
 
Frankly the head is irrelevant; ISTM that the guided airframe (Herald says aeroshell) has been proofed or validated and that flight with the actuators controlled by one seeker head or another will be much alike (ultimately a tri-seeker or n-seeker, programmable guidance module, with Moore's Law), so they can be dropped en masse from space (or from a cargo bay at 45,000 feet) into a battlespace

Seems also this would be an ideal munition for a gunship or patrol type craft, e.g. AC-130 or P-8/MMA or large UAV.  Can DAGR, APKWS be controlled through Predator, Hunter, Raven, Firebee sensor suites?  How far down?  Maybe one of those little half pound insectile toy things?
 
 
...
 
I guess in a time where at least some military bucks will not be lavish (unlike what they will be choose or be forced to spend on green tech), an argument for reduced fuel costs using this weapon could justify some expenditure.  
 
Again, they are cheap enough.  Why not buy a thousand of each of these (apparently several) types and field test them in AF? 
 
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       1/12/2009 12:40:17 AM
airframe=structure.
aeroshell=that part of the aircraft which is skin or which makes direct contact with the air.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       1/12/2009 1:55:36 AM
aeroshell/airframe:  Very well, and thank you, but they are rather like love and marriage, ain't they?  En tout cas, both are validated by successful DAGR/APKWS trials.  I don't know what limitations either its L/D, say, or its servos' power present to multirole performance, but ISTM you could always swap in say the Stinger IR package at least, never mind MW, MAD, GPS as developed for the new form factor.
 
More oof than Stinger, extend flyout to better threaten UAV envelopes? Larger warhead, worthwhile for VT/prox fuzing?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       1/12/2009 2:52:40 AM
it does provide development vectors for the next generation sonobuoy sized weapons sets though.....
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       1/12/2009 6:01:00 AM

I definitely think that cost should be a consideration as well as weight.  The SDB gained popularity even though it cost more than a JDAM; this should add whole new levels of pain-bringing to all combat helicopters, and perhaps improve net performance in some cases?  But how much fire control is necessary to use these, can it be cheaply and quickly added, maybe podded, to most store stations?  Can we make any Blackhawk derivative, or LOH/scout types, into a gunship with a little effort?  Perhaps it could be applied to Chinooks to provide a self-defense/ground attack mode.

Not sure about the others, but DAGR and APKWS were designed to be compatible with the Hellfire system.  Presumably if you are set up for Hellfire missiles all you would need to install a minor software patch and lock a 4 round pod on to the rack in place of one of the Hellfire missiles.
 

Wonder how this performs on tanks/armor; that would affect my views on it as in a ground-fired system.  It would seem, in SAM mode, to have anti-UAV applications, being manually dirigible onto LO targets like drones or cruise missiles. 

DAGR guidance system appears compatible with the HE fragmentation warhead only.  APKWS would be compatible with all warhead types, but probably adds little value to smoke, flechette , and submunitions rounds.  There was a shape charge warhead, but it has been withdrawn from service, performance would be similar to the 66mm LAWS rocket warhead.
 
The utility of these systems against flying targets is questionable because the guidance system requires continuous target illumination and the use of the flechette warhead (which ejects forward).
 
Quote    Reply

Vulture       1/12/2009 11:19:59 AM
6 lb warhead.  A little heave for killing a unarmored car.   A little light for a kill on a tank.
 About right for destroying a 1000 sq ft house though.
 
 I could see Chopper Jocks using these in urban assault.  And since it swaps out for a Hellfire , the load out change between would justify it for misison profiles adaptability.  I would rather have Spikes on a UAV though.
 
As for Israeli usage, they have used a non explosive warhead for a Hellfire in taking out stationary vehicles and a roof top shot.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       1/13/2009 8:34:59 AM

6 lb warhead.  A little heave for killing a unarmored car.   A little light for a kill on a tank.

 About right for destroying a 1000 sq ft house though.


 

 I could see Chopper Jocks using these in urban assault.  And since it swaps out for a Hellfire , the load out change between would justify it for misison profiles adaptability.  I would rather have Spikes on a UAV though.


 


As for Israeli usage, they have used a non explosive warhead for a Hellfire in taking out stationary vehicles and a roof top shot.




I remember numerous TOW ranges from the 1990s, where the "practice" rounds used a concrete slug in place of the warheads (don't know exactly how much the concrete weighed, up to 13-odd pounds like the warhead, or less, probably depending on airframe model).
Not that they made any cool explosion on impact, but still the thought of 10 pounds or better of solid concrete smacking you at over 600mph at a couple thousand meters away certainly creates a nice solid THUD when it strikes, and certainly could smash its way thru any number of civilian vehicles and brick walls.
Not a bad idea, really, for many urban and collateral-risk scenarios.
 
As to new toys for chopper jocks, certainly.
The LockMart DAGR does fit a special 4-shot launch rail assembly in place of a single Hellfire position, and, at least in the Apache, uses the same Hellfire interfaces and equipment to make it work just as well.
Coming in at a much lower price than a Hellfire, it certainly adds a lot more engagements in number: an Apache's max load-out of 16 Hellfires could instead carry 64 DAGRs (compare that to the alternative armament of four 19-round pods for unguided FFAR types, totalling 76 rounds).
The only thing I'm not liking about most of these 70mm/2.75inch PGM programs/kits we're hearing more about is, I don't like the fact that they're too specifically tailored to a set model of FFAR-type rocket.
It/they should, ideally, be adapatable to entire families of rockets of this class.
One example of probably one of the most capable of that caliber is the AVIBRAS Skyfire 70
,which comes in both air-launched and surface-launched apps, featuring various warheads up to 11kg, and ranges up to 12km also (have seen elsewhere high-performance motors that will push lesser warheads to 15km...).
Now I realize it makes little sense to put a cluster warhead PGM into a 2-5m CEP, but any number of other warheads (precision smoke certainly has potential for pinned-down troops, as would putting a flechette warhead right into/onto an SUV or technical), but these kits shouldn't be so specific that they only work with a specific motor and warhead combination.
(That's the beauty of FFAR type rockets, they can be tailored to a large number of target groups and range requirements.)
 
And the fact there are still users of 80mm class rockets out there (Russian types, European SURA, etc) it would be smart if the 70mm seekers were compatible to bolt onto the 80mm bodies (more cost effective than designing a completely different 80mm kit that would be produced in far lower numbers because of the limited number of users).
As to any complexities in the system needing the programming to accomodate so many various rocket combinations, each having unique balance and flight charcteristics, that's an easy one to solve: a programming device could be configured at the point of assembly that loads a RAM (computer memory) module with the data it needs to control whatever combination of motor and warhead we piece together. There are various electronics gizmos and gadgets for artillery crews that allow them to prgram ranges, atmospherics, and shell weight types to best utilize propellant modules and gun deflections, so why should it be any harder to market a PGM rocket programmer that can take into account any given user's inventory of various motors and warheads?
This data could then, via rocket interface, tell the launch platform's fire control computer which variation of rocket is on the launcher (the TOW system does this, allowing the latest launchers to handle any generation and model of the missile), and the fire control could adjust the launch specifics accordingly (again, the TOW does this already, as certainly do a number of other PGM launchers).
 
...Perhaps that General Dynamics system on that other thread, intended for use (in trials) with 81mm mortar rounds,
perhaps it could be tailorable to the longer acceleration curve of any number of shorter ranged rockets?
Between that and these smallform rocket PGM systems, there's little reason, other than nuisance effect and terrorism, to even use unguided rockets much longer.
Why go with wide-area effect CEPs (see nuisance and terrorism) when we now have the precision coming to our disposal to pinpoint the targets of choice?
Perhaps even those PGK kits for artillery shells could be programmed to handle rockets also (just not as small as 70mm) ?
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    corection, my bad...   1/13/2009 8:44:18 AM




6 lb warhead.  A little heave for killing a unarmored car.   A little light for a kill on a tank.





One example of probably one of the most capable of that caliber is the AVIBRAS Skyfire 70

,which comes in both air-launched and surface-launched apps, featuring various warheads up to 11kg, and ranges up to 12km also (have seen elsewhere high-performance motors that will push lesser warheads to 15km...).

In my haste, I didn't take into effect the whole rocket weight is around 11kg, not just the warhead like I (too eagerly) misquoted. Still, there are warheads upwards of 6 pounds that these rockets can fire, even to ranges beyond many of the more common ATGMs and even most MANPADS.
 
Quote    Reply

dba       1/13/2009 4:50:30 PM
I just read that S. Korea is helping with the development in the form of US Army paying for part of the development.  S. Korea would love to have inexpensive replacements for Hellfires.  There are potentially lots of targets in that area.  speed boats, old armored vehicles etc.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       1/13/2009 5:58:40 PM

I remember numerous TOW ranges from the 1990s, where the "practice" rounds used a concrete slug in place of the warheads (don't know exactly how much the concrete weighed, up to 13-odd pounds like the warhead, or less, probably depending on airframe model).
Not that they made any cool explosion on impact, but still the thought of 10 pounds or better of solid concrete smacking you at over 600mph at a couple thousand meters away certainly creates a nice solid THUD when it strikes, and certainly could smash its way thru any number of civilian vehicles and brick walls.

The concrete slug had the same weight and center of gravity and moments of inertia as the warhead being replaced.  If it does not the missile will behave differently and be worthless for training purposes.  (Actually, less than worthless because the user ends up trained WRONG.)

The only thing I'm not liking about most of these 70mm/2.75inch PGM programs/kits we're hearing more about is, I don't like the fact that they're too specifically tailored to a set model of FFAR-type rocket.  It/they should, ideally, be adaptable to entire families of rockets of this class.

One example of probably one of the most capable of that caliber is the AVIBRAS Skyfire 70, which comes in both air-launched and surface-launched apps, featuring various warheads up to 11kg, and ranges up to 12km also (have seen elsewhere high-performance motors that will push lesser warheads to 15km...).

Now I realize it makes little sense to put a cluster warhead PGM into a 2-5m CEP, but any number of other warheads (precision smoke certainly has potential for pinned-down troops, as would putting a flechette warhead right into/onto an SUV or technical), but these kits shouldn't be so specific that they only work with a specific motor and warhead combination.

(That's the beauty of FFAR type rockets, they can be tailored to a large number of target groups and range requirements.)

- - - - -
 
As to any complexities in the system needing the programming to accommodate so many various rocket combinations, each having unique balance and flight characteristics, that's an easy one to solve: a programming device could be configured at the point of assembly that loads a RAM (computer memory) module with the data it needs to control whatever combination of motor and warhead we piece together. There are various electronics gizmos and gadgets for artillery crews that allow them to program ranges, atmospherics, and shell weight types to best utilize propellant modules and gun deflections, so why should it be any harder to market a PGM rocket programmer that can take into account any given user's inventory of various motors and warheads?

This data could then, via rocket interface, tell the launch platform's fire control computer which variation of rocket is on the launcher (the TOW system does this, allowing the latest launchers to handle any generation and model of the missile), and the fire control could adjust the launch specifics accordingly (again, the TOW does this already, as certainly do a number of other PGM launchers).


Most of the 70mm FFAR designs are compatible and would only require a testing and validation program to iron out minor differences.  However, it seems nearly every country has their own FFAR and guidance system designs, so this may be a major political battle.
 
However, most of the guidance systems are only compatible with the standard explosive and smoke warheads because of the need to place a laser sensor on the front of the missile.  The flechette and cluster munitions use a forward discharge system that is blocked by the sensor.  The APKWS design attempted to get around this limitation by used laser sensors on the tips of the guidance fins to look past the warhead, but apparently did not finish debugging the design before their funding was cut.
 

And the fact there are still users of 80mm class rockets out there (Russian types, European SURA, etc) it would be smart if the 70mm seekers were compatible to bolt onto the 80mm bodies (more cost effective than designing a completely different 80mm kit that would be produced in far lower numbers because of the limited number of users).
 
This will be a bit trickier than just machining some adapter collars. 
 
1st, the guidance system in these designs usually goes between the warhead and rocket engine and needs to be designed to withstand all the mechanical loads that would normally be expected handling and firing.  Since the main reason for moving from a 70mm to an 80mm would be to accommodate a larger warhead these loads could be significantly higher.  If the guidance module buckles the missile will become uncontrollable, and probably breakup in mid air.
 
2nd, you are introducing a set of diameter step changes in the missile body diameter.  These will disrupt the airflow, increasing drag and reducing aerodynamic lift, which will reduce the range by an unknown amount.  The flow disruption will be in the immediate area of the guidance fins, which will reduce the force they can exert.  Combined with the greater weight and moments of inertia of the 80mm rocket, the effectiveness of the guidance system could be reduced as much as 60%
 
But the real question should be:  Given an accurate 70mm system, is there any need for the 80mm system anymore?

...Perhaps that General Dynamics system on that other thread, intended for use (in trials) with 81mm mortar rounds, perhaps it could be tailorable to the longer acceleration curve of any number of shorter ranged rockets?
- - - - - -
Perhaps even those PGK kits for artillery shells could be programmed to handle rockets also (just not as small as 70mm) ?

 
Different mission parameters and design.  The artillery guidance systems that replace the standard fuse are for indirect fire only.  They are designed to be fired over/past the target, and then modulate projectile's drag to guide it so it drops almost vertically onto the target.  They are the wrong design for a direct fire application.
 
Between that and these rocket PGM systems, there's little reason, other than nuisance effect and terrorism, to even use unguided rockets much longer.

Why go with wide-area effect CEPs (see nuisance and terrorism) when we now have the precision coming to our disposal to pinpoint the targets of choice?


This is one aspect of what is referred to as the 'Perfect Intelligence Fallacy'.  The fallacy, of course is, that in warfare you are lucky to have any intelligence, so the assumption that you can perfect intelligence is a joke.  It's why we are still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan years after we 'won', why people think that Bush lied to start the War Against Terror,why Osama bin Ladin is still alive, and why the Future Combat System could never work as originally proposed.
 
The problem with precision guided weapons is that you need precision target intelligence to target them with, and that is hard to come by in warfare, and even harder to get for terrorists.  The problem is not to "pinpoint the targets of choice", it is FINDING the target in the first place.
 
Plus, sometimes you just need to make a lot of noise to suppress a potential enemy 'over there'.
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy