Just noted the first live warhead test of the DAGR yesterday...
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_r...Successful.html

Was wondering if precision rockets will enter RSAF inventory. When RSAF purchased the Apache, Singapore acquisition authorisation also provided for 9,120 hydra rockets.

There are currently 2 major precision rocket programmes, DAGR and APKWS II with LOGIR terminated as a result of BAE's selection. BAE's APKWS II has been selected by the USMC and will begin production this year.

The DAGR uses the M151 warhead which has 2.3lbs of composite B with an extended 12 km range and offbore sight moving target capability (up to 100km/h). APKWS II merely fixes guidance to existing rockets (~10km range) which have a velocity of 800+m/s (2,425 fps). Such a velocity added to the composite B would indicate a rough armour penetration in excess of 100mm RHA. This is more than sufficient to pierce the armour of most IFVs. Perhaps the only target that can withstand a direct hit is a MBT (and depending on area hit).

Each AH-64 can carry a max of 76 hydras in 4 x M261 launchers or 64 DAGR (in self contained launchers of 4 rockets per hellfire position). That means potentially, instead of the current 16 hellfires = 288 guided targets per 18 fleet apache sqn. Load outs of 8 HF/38 APKWS, 4/57 or 76 APKWS could mean 828-1152 guided targets per squadron. This means precision guided weapons can be force multipliers by a factor of 3-4 times.

Rockets can be fired from altitude of 20000 ft which reduces risk of ground fire but have corresponding loss of accuracy. Precision rockets reduces this inaccuracy.

Cost-wise the APKWS costs ~$10k per unit, cheaper than a Mk-84 ($18k). Getting 1,000 units would mean US$10m (or less than 10 ATACMs or 30 hellfires) or 9,000 units = US$90m (or ~250 hellfires). In contrast, a hellfire missile cost US$3XX to 475k.

UAE contract $428m for 300 warheads and 900 missiles.
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2007/UAE_08-04.pdf

APKWS
http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/eis_s2_apkws.html

DAGR
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/DAGR/index.html

I recall seeing this .. :D

---------

JANE'S NAVY INTERNATIONAL - JANUARY 01, 2006


Ukraine develops 'smart' rockets for Singapore

Michal Zdobinsky

The Luch state design bureau in Ukraine is developing a 2.75-inch 'smart' rocket for Singapore, writes Michal Zdobinsky. It will negotiate the transfer of technology and manufacturing rights for the homing and steering module to Singapore, allowing local companies to manufacture the module and convert existing 2.75-inch unguided rockets that can be used to arm Singapore's helicopters.

The upgrade uses technology derived from a Ukrainian programme to develop a guidance and control module to convert the 80 mm AP-8 unguided air-to-surface rocket into a 'smart' AP-8L guided round. The AP-8 is an improved Ukrainian derivative of the Russian S-8 unguided rocket.

The Ukrainian programme to develop the AP-8L was initiated by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence, and work started at Luch at the end of 2004. The modified missile has a new front section, containing a laser seeker and a steering unit with two flip-out aerodynamic control surfaces. It retains the rocket motor of the standard AP-8 rocket. The laser seeker of the AP-8L is adapted from an existing weapon, JMR was told, but this weapon was not identified.

Installation of the new front section increases the length of the rocket from the original 1,586 mm to a total of 1,725 mm. To partially compensate for the new hardware, the warhead was trimmed in weight from 4.7 kg to 4.3 kg. Despite this measure, the AP-8L weighs 14.7 kg, 2 kg more than the unguided rocket.

Like the AP-8, the AP-8L can carry either a high-explosive (HE) or a shaped-charge (HEAT) warhead. Although the latter is lighter than the original pattern carried by the unguided rocket, the performance of the shaped charge was enhanced to preserve its armour-piercing capability, matching the older warhead's ability to penetrate 400 mm of homogenous steel armour.

AP-8L rounds can be launched from the standard 20-tube B-8M-1 rocket pods, or from the similar B-8V-20A pods intended for helicopter use. They can be carried by aircraft such as the Su-17, Su-22, Su-25 or the MiG-27K, which carry the Klyon-PS laser rangefinder/designator. Other types of aircraft or helicopters would have to be fitted with suitable laser target designators.

According to the Luch design bureau, all the main components of the AP-8L are tested and proven, but at the IDEF 2005 defence show held in Ankara, Turkey, in September 2005, the bureau indicated that live firing tests of the complete missile had yet to begin.

Until these have been conducted, neither the declared effective range of the new weapon, given as 1,200-5,000 m, nor the claimed 70-80 per cent hit probability against a tank or armoured personnel carrier target can be fully proven.

In parallel with the AP-8L programme, Luch is working on the upgrade scheme for the 2.75-inch rocket, a project being financed by Singapore. According to the deputy director general of the Luch design bureau, Georgiy S Petrov, Singapore would be able to use virtually any laser designator, with only a minor modification to the radiating frequency being required to match the new weapon. Petrov believes that the development and testing of the guided 2.75-inch rocket will be completed by the end of 2006.


Link

That's interesting. I know Russia developed a series of laser guidance for their S-series records. I think they called it S-8Cor or something like that. The manufacturer claimed accuracy improved something like 3-4 times but that's still something like double digit metre accuracy. That's not really helpful with 10m blast radius hydras.

APKWS has a 1.5m accuracy which is pretty amazing.
http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/p...f_eis_apkws.pdf

Imagine having guided rockets on the Apaches. It will be like having 8 guided Hellfire II missiles, plus 38 guided rockets (or mini missiles).
Totally awesome!

Mate, did you quote the wrong link? We are talking of guided 2.75" FFR right? The link is about a FMS of Hellfire missiles and warheads to the UAE ... or am I missing something?

Anyhow, I wonder what happened to the Ukrainian project ... has it been one of those quietly assimilated techs and procurements that go under the radar. I mean if the co-op was for us to gain the ability to manufacture the guidance modules and convert existing FFRs, then it will never show up in any procurement reports.

Another one for the "we have it" but we have no proof category ;)

12km for a rocket? Zhun bo? Longer range than the hellfire 2 liao...

Was contrasting hellfire cost with APKWS cost. $3XX-4XXk vs $10k. Rockets are far cheaper ($900-2500 per rocket + $10k for guidance).

The link demonstrates the hellfire cost. Since Hellfire only needed for MBT, RSAF doesn't need that many (216 AGM-114K-3 authorised).

DSO does a lot of research that may or may not enter inventory. Below is a link which had DSO-developed TV guided "bomb" which looks like a missile (see slide on pg 24 of the below link) on a skyhawk. Yet RSAF also bought paveway and jdams.

http://www.system-safety.org/~issc_2006/Lu...20wednesday.pdf

That's what the DAGR link says. The Mk66 engine already gives the Hydra a 10.4km max range.

--------------------------

On a separate note, was reading about how a single AH-64D longbow can detect 1,024 targets, classify 128 targets and prioritise 16 for hellfires. Don't see any issue with it targeting 40-70 targets in a sortie. Amazing helo.

Pic of the AH-64 with an external tank
http://www.gentedearmas.com.ar/gda_militar...64_Apache-1.htm

IMHO, that TV-guided bomb was probably the result of early R&D and learning how such guided munitions work.

Some people in DSTA already noted the cost advantage of APKWS in 2006.

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/publicati...s_for_IKC2.html

Isn't DSTA responsible for acquisition and some R&D?

More info on APKWS.
http://www.patriotfiles.com/index.php?name...tid=5693&page=1

There was also an article in Oct 07 about the Fire scout UAV firing APKWS. The lighter weight certainly makes a UCAV in RSAF service a possibility.

--------------------------------------------------------

Just a sidetracked which I can't resist. Some RSAF people getting a wits prize for enhanced FARP operations (which according to some people in this forum claim doesn't exist for RSAF).

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/pride/2005/prideannual05.pdf

No, I will not say it is useless, becos any improvement of CEP actually make it more efficient.

For example lets say the unguided Hydra need 10 rockets to destroy a bunker at certain range, the improved CEP rockets probably need 5 or less rockets to destroy the same target.

So with improvement of CEP, the same platform will then able to destroy more targets in one single sortie.

Ok. But it will boil down to cost and effectiveness. If the self-developed guidance can cost substantially less than US$10k unit cost, then perhaps there might be cost savings. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense.

Let's say unit cost = $8k but I need 2 rockets to hit. Then my pk expenditure is still $16k compared to a $10k APKWS. So if one needs 2 rockets, then unit cost must be lower than $5k. Even at $5k, it means one needs to fire 2 rockets compared to 1. Its still 50% less lethality per sortie.

Comparing APKWS vs unguided Hydras, cost wise its ~12 times more exp. This means if it takes 6 unguided hydra can hit target, then cost effectiveness makes it 50% cheaper. However, the issue is that only max 76 rockets are carried. That means I can hit ~12-13 targets per sortie whereas with APKWS, one can possibly hit higher number of targets eg 40-70 per sortie depending on pk even though I pay double the cost. Some might say its worthwhile to pay the extra cost cos the hit rate is like a few times more.

So it is also a function of lethality. I doubt if unit cost will be significantly lower. GDATP's APKWS contract is probably for like tens of thousands of rockets which enjoys economies of scale as many countries will probably purchase it. If one looks at SG's requirement, its not that significant so per unit cost may be substantially higher. In SG's case, it might be more worthwhile just to produce the rocket rather than the guidance which is optional anyway.
---------------------------
According to this link, the TV-guided bombs were developed in the 80s.

http://www.dsta.gov.sg/index.php?option=co...3464&Itemid=401

Doh! Okay ... I missed that one

Here's what i postulate with regards to precision rockets:

The initial idea was perhaps to make hydra rockets guided(at a time when the APKWS was still rough,not as reliable and expensive) so we went to Ukraine to fiddle with it.

Now that the APKWS II is up and cheap(?!) and fully intergratable with the Apache, we will likely buy that instead but use our own rocket guidance as a bargaining chip for lower prices or something.

What's on the cards is perhaps light rocket artillery to be attached to manouveur forces. I mean a good truck with Rocket packs is more affordable than one HiMars. Hopefully we can (if we havent) get ability to self manufacture these 2.75in rockets.

Standard length rockets of this diameter(70mm) when fired from the ground is about 6-8km though there's some new Brazil rocket with booster that pushes it to about 12-14km!
I mean it's about time we can consider having precision light weight rockets in our forces - after all , they weigh less(can pack more/logistic train) and can provide a heavy initial FS role as compared to mortar(note not as mortar replacement but as an additional organic FS equipment).

120mm SRAM mortars can provide high levels of accurate and sustained fire up to 13km. I think the trade off with rockets is sustainable fire (tube arty better) vs single barrages (rocket arty better).

i don't see why the battalion will need to hit targets 6-8km in...i'm not even sure if the battalion's recce unit can scout out that far ahead!

i'm not saying its not important to know what's going on in that area; in fact if i'm not wrong knowing what's 6-8km inside enemy lines is the job of the brigade...and they have the 155mm tubes to give the enemy the necessary misery :ph43r:

btw CM06 sorry if i misunderstood you but i'm under the impression that given what you have said, it is possible to do away with the HYDRA systems on AH-64s and replace them with ground based guided rocket arty as it is cheaper and (personal inference!) will do the same job as the HYDRA 2.75"...is tt correct?

tt's kinda far for a 120mm round...AFAIK firing to somewhere around 6-8km is quite a stretch already...:blink:

do correct me if there are rounds that make this range possible for a 120mm tho :D

I think 13km require rocket-assisted bombs.

I must have mistaken it...these light weight rockets should come under yes brigade assets :)

These rockets are not suppose to replace the Apache rockets though, instead these are to provide burst FS support to the brigade especially when the arty is tied up elsewhere.

The reason why i suggest this is because, M113 mortars have a limited ammo and their main aim is to support battalion size manoevuers. For those, 13km RA-rounds are unneccessary. On the other hand, having a brigade asset of say 12 extra mortars with RA-rounds will be a duplicative effort. Instead, putting light weight rocket forces under a brigade's control will permit the force to conduct a better distribution of firepower without having to tap the tube-arty yet - which can focus on hitting enemy further back. Rockets in this case under brigade assets can be very useful especially if they have guidance systems to improve their accuracy. (imagine a rain of cluster and flechettes rockets :)

I dun think we need another kind of arty piece especailly one that rely on ICM where int'l opinion will not favour the use of such rds.

2ndly.eventhough we did not signed that treaty, I dun think SAF will want to expand on such weaponary.

3rdly, you do know that ST Engg has developed 155mm(63/49 grenades) & 120mm ICM(25 DPICM) rds, so our 120mm mortar & 155mm howitzer could use such rds when needed( probably only against large enemy formation and far away from civilian concentration).



Lastly, our arty formation has aready has a large array of arty pieces which itself posed more on training and logistics support.

AFAIK currently SAF uses:

1) Soltam 81mm mortar ( Not sure still in use atm, could be all in storage)

2) Soltam 120 mm towed mortar (Infantry)

3) Soltam 120 mm SP mortar on M113 (armoured, could be totally replaced by MTC)

4) STK 120mm SRAMS on Bronco aka MTC(armoured , probably replace item 3)

5) 155mm FH88/2000 towed howitzer (Div lvl)

6) Primus 155mm SPH( To support ABG?)

7) Pegasus 155mm SLWH( To support 21 Div?)

8) HIMARS

Item 1~3 could very well be all in storage in a decade and as we are in the 3G army transition period.

So due to SAF is a conscript based army, it is advisable that we have a small array of arty weaponary with not too much duplication of role to reduce on training and logistics support.

Therefore I dun see the need to have mid range MLRS for bde lvl in SAF.

from the mid-80s the original swedish 120mm mortar mounted in M113 were being supplemented/replaced by CIS ones.

Even the Infantry will probably be moving towards the Bronco 120mm in the future, which mechanisation and all.

my bad, the replacement by CIS was the 81mm. armour later converted to 120mm but I am not sure if CIS actually made any to replace the orginals.

hmm, isnt this somewhat unfeasible as the guidance system for a surface to surface weapon like GMLRS needs a flight correction / constant trajectory changes (made independently once airborne)

whereas a 2.75 mm "guided" round would likely be illuminated by the apache's longbow fire control systems ? might not be cost-effective to have independent sensors and targeting systems on small 2.75mm guided "missiles"

furthermore, the 2.75mm guided rocket may need a larger booster / more fuel for a surface to surface trajectory (vis a vis air launched via aerial weapons platform like apache) which means its likely to become larger in size.

end situation a neither here nor there compromise ?

smaller than GMLRS but in all likelihood , not necessarily cheaper (given likelihood of small production numbers) or as accurate as GMLRS ? a mini semi-guided MLRS ?

i m speculating that maybe the guidance technology was bought over with the long term goal of integrating them into our UAVs/potential UCAVs ? personally think the likelihood of using guided 2.75mm for brigade firesupport seems a little far fetched.

[edit] some afterthoughts

Regarding the issue of rockets, I was thinking of not only for UAVs but also for our PDF division and naval bombardment.

Like the neberwurfer system used by the Germans in WWII. Those rockets are cheaper, faster to produce and can be easily deployed anywhere desired. They can be fired from simple wooden crates and the setup can be mounted on virtually any tracked or half tracked. But the down side is that the rockets are very thin skinned, so not much frags being produced.

But our partnership with Ukraine may not be just merely looking into 2.75inch guided rockets. This technology can be easily be adapted to make some larger calibre but shorter range rockets. These rockets can be inducted into the PDF so as to provide them with some form of artillery support. For naval bombardment, these rockets are a good supplement to our 76mm naval gun. Yes, some may say why not get the airforce to do the job, but we cant always expect the airforce to be to support as they have other mission to participate in. So these rockets may come in handy to protect the beach head, by saturate firing on any approaching motorized inf

Most current medium lift helos can be fitted with rockets.

Consider if super puma replacement are also fitted with rockets (and the necessary guidance to fire it). Force multiplier? Doesn't look like there'll be that many targets though.

I am given to understand stabilisation is an issue for transport helos (affecting accuracy). Wouldn't APKWS reduce its impact?

Free Flight Rockets have very bad dispersion (CEP). You don't really want to use them at the Battalion level where close fire support is usually the order of the day. Especially if you consider the dispersion for "jury rigged" launchers can in the order of 1,000m @ 10km.

From the nebelwerfer of WW2 till the MLRS of today, you'll find that Rocket Artillery is pretty much Divisional Level or above for the simple reason that the dispersion of rockets make it very hard to apply them within the tight confines of maneuver fire support for a battalion. The spacing and safety distance required really only makes them suitable for prepping an objective in depth or taking out troop concentrations ... something best handled at Div level.

Guidance can make the dispersion of the FFR much more manageable, to within the CEPs of tube artillery. But at that cost, you're better off using PG 120mm mortar for better effect at the battalion level.

Guided 2.75" are better off left to aerial platforms for precision CAS rather than adapted to a form of mini-MLRS for battalions arty.

Just noted that the APKWS can also do buddy lasing....

http://frontierindia.net/us-army-kiowa-war...et-in-test-fire

This means even rocket-armed hueys/UAVs can fire APKWS without significant additional lasing equipment.

if i'm not wrong, during war apaches will become brigade assets...this should make up for the ground-launched guided 2.75" rocket system...

sorry if i sound aloof, but really, if the apache's get shot out of the air doing CAS, then really too bad...i mean, they are armoured, maneuverable, and have their anti-missile defenses of sorts...

i quite buy into the idea that the guidance system is more for...something else...or at least not meant for AH-64s :ph43r:

[edit]

hmm, i always thought the HYDRAs were good enough in terms of accuracy...sorry, i'll go look up to find out more :D

To not elaborate so much, the reason why i suggest -wet dream style kind of hope- for mobile light weight rockets to be available to the a brigade level force is simply because personally, i find there are more targets than guns to point at.

Naturally, i'm not suggesting unguided rockets but instead semi guided rockets with improved accuracy in the FS role by the brigade when it conducts battle.

Rockets as artillery has the advantage of the shock and awe putting unmatchable amount of projectiles within a short period of time on an objective - something that Tube OR Mortar will be disadvantage since they would be forced to relocated after conducting a MRSI to avoid CF from hidden EN arty forces. Rocket trucks on the other hand, can simply retreat to resupply and come back later.

Perhaps, i should be more specific - hopefully there's LW rockets organic to manoveur forces. Strong initial burst by rockets, speedy assualt on tracks/wheels bns supported by their organic mortar and assisted on the wider battlefield by tube.

I learn to not rely too much on AH or fighters

Another note, perhaps, the guidance system can be used on our mortars as well?

Heh ... it is a wet dream lah. Just think of the contradictions in the tech employment.

The problem with more targets than gun is not an issue with the number of guns ... it's more an issue with how much intel assets you have to uncover the targets and then how many trained Observers you have to call down indirect artillery fire on the targets.

With the laser-designated guided FFARs that we're talking about ... your FOs will also need a laser designator. The problem than becomes one of more targets than FOs to call in the fire.

As has been suggested, a battalion's organic battery of (future) 4x120mm SRAMs, should be able to throw out 72 DPICM 120mm bombs in a one minute burst (at a burst rate of 18 rounds / min per barrel). If you consider that the throw weight of each 120mm bomb is about double the weight of a Hydra warhead, that isn't too shabby at all and should be plenty for a Battalions needs. If you need more than that, the Battalion has most probably bitten off more than they can chew.

Using a computer gun control and laying system, those 4 SRAMS should be able to blanket a 120x120m area in a 1 minute burst. OTOH, the DAGR/APKWS are both quoting point target capable CEPs. Not too good if you want to use them as a MLRS substitute to saturate an area. Your whole salvo of rockets are going to hit within a 10 meter circle. Unless there is a way to build in a programmed wide area dispersion off a single targeting laser.

At the end of the day, the salvo of guided rockets are most probably going to cost a lot more than the 120mm mortar bombs for pretty much the same effect.

Counter battery fire is not cued from the point of impact, especially if the OPFOR has counter-battery radars. Which means both tube or rocket artillery are equally subject to counter-battery location and interdiction from the moment they fire.

Which means both forms of artillery will have to practice shoot-and-scoot. Except that tube should be able to be available in a shorter time cycle.

AH/Fighters provide CAS in a capacity beyond simply just the weapons they carry. I'd much rather retain them.

In any case, it's not a one or the other decision ... you can have both too right? ;)

since this is also relevant ...

But yet not the same. We bought the HIMARS for specific reasons, as evidenced by our buy of M31 guided unitary warheads. We don't intend to use them in an area saturation role ... for the moment

Given the narrow frontage we are likely to fight in and the high force density, I doubt that we're going to be very keen on grid-square saturation artillery.

Found this,

The range was not specified, but usually CEP are quoted with range about 2/3 of max range.

So at 6km, the CEP is about 0.5% of range.

Just wanted to highlight that there are cluster hydra rockets as well which reduces impact of CEP. Documentation of SG's purchase of hydras did not specify type of hydras procured.

M261 MPSM warheads and M255A1 flechettes are 2 of the more current cluster rockets in air cavalry inventory which may be in RSAF inventory as well.

The following link show lethality dispersal for MPSM firings as well as various rocket warheads (see chapter 5).
rocket dispersal

More information on helo engagement techniques incl effective ranges
engagement technique

The following link shows range and ammo used (for helo qualification) for differing targets.
qualification

APKWS will fill the niche for engagement of moving light armoured vehicles which currently only hellfire is currently capable of targeting. Normally 6 x M274 is used for stationary target. M274 is training round for M151. Hence APKWS will improve M151 by a factor of 6/3 if 1/2 APKWS rockets are used. Improvement factor will be significantly higher if taking into account rockets can be deployed at higher ranges without reduction in accuracy.

Compare that with this ...



This is based on the Mk66 Mod 4 showing 29mils dispersion, almost 3% of range or 174m @ 6km. As I understand it, the current Mk66 family still exhibits "unsatisfactory" dispersal when fired at range.

The Improved rocket designs for the Guided Hydra projects are supposed to improve the flight characteristics of the FFAR such that even unguided, the dispersion for should be about ~5 mils.

I wonder if the article you quoted is briefly mentioning the unguided CEP of the improved PG rocket?

Your linky is not working properly ... but I believe this is the image you're referring to ...



This shows the lethality coverage of each M261 MPSM warhead. Due to the method of deployment, the scattering of the submunition is influenced by the velocity of the rocket. As such, coverage of the submunitons at shorter ranges is bigger (but not neccesarily better) than at longer ranges.

This is also not too good at long ranges where dispersion of the rockets themselves means there will be large(ish) gaps between the coverage of each individual DPSM rocket.

The lethality coverage is by no means 100% within the area indicated either. Due to the vagaries of the descent of the submunition, lethality of each submunition can be in a 20m (if it lands well) or down to 5m if it lands as little as 30deg off vertical.

Yes, that is one of the images but the other links also details operational parameters.

Reposted link.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...1-140/CH5.HTM#7

At shorter range, the velocity of the cluster rocket is higher, hence the CM dispersal is longer. At higher range, the rocket loses its velocity and hence has a shorter dispersion.

Again, as CMs provide a wider kill zone, this will partially offset inaccuracy in rocket munition.

The field manual does suggest that best effective range (measured at 50% probability of hitting target) is ~3-5km for rockets. Rocket CEP is one thing, gunner's skill and ability to translate theoretical understanding of ballistics to practice also contribute also to accuracy (as the field manual suggests).

Probably is, we could only guess since no mention of range and type of rockets.

29mils~ 174m

5mils~ 29m

Anway, this so called "improved rocket motor control" rocket, has this completed development and the above CEP verified?

The mod 4s are the current offering for hydras.

http://www.gdatp.com/Products/PDFs/Hydra-70.pdf

If one looks at chap 7 para 7-5, it is stated:

"Crews can expect 7 to 12 mils of dispersion from rockets fired from helicopters."

sweet! I just bumped into those pics about the hydra accuracies as well...nice B)

sorry, following up on CM06's fantasies, it'll be really nice if your guided-rocket truck could incorporate a bit of Metal Storm technology in it...that would resolve the 'rate-of-fire' issue... :ph43r:

Raytheon's version of laser guided rocket. 80% of hit within 1.5m. 12 year shelf life.

http://www.raytheon.com/media/ausa07/docs/...aser_rocket.pdf

Apparently, they are collaborating with UAE and "other countries" on this.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_st...ATE=May+7,+2008

Thales also developing one for theirs. First successful firing in Nov 2008.

http://www.thalesgroup.com/landjoint/Press...nd+Rocket&dis=1

I can conjecture a few scenarios for this but I have no clue which is likely to be correct ...

i) The dispersion error in FM1-140 does not contain any parameters. It may be that the dispersion error of 7~12 mils is for a short ripple of 3-4 rockets per launcher from a short range. Hence a smaller error. The parameters of the firing test that produced the 29 mil error is clearly stated as 38 rounds fired at 2,000m from a Hover. That's likely to be a full ripple fire of 2 pods which may be cause to induce a larger error..

ii) The FM dispersion error may be the base error from the Mk66 itself ... independent of any influence by aiming precision errors induced by flight parameters or pilot skills. Which will represent the best case scenario for fire from a Helo under perfect conditions with perfect aim ... and it will get worse from there.

iii) The figures of ~30 mils dispersion error are, AFAIK, found only in presentations from PGM contractors. Perhaps they have a vested interest to present the unguided rockets in the worst possible light so as to make their achievements look as good as possible. Still begs the question of how they achieved those figures under documented testing conditions ... and how much better is the real world ™ figure?

However I do know that danger close distance for 70mm rockets and 120mm mortars are the about the same, approx 170m. Since a typical 120mm mortar bomb is about twice the size of the Hydra and has a quoted CEP of 230m (which I assume is ~30+ mils dispersion error) ... I can only infer that the Hydras CEP can't be all that flash. With half the bomb size and 7~12 mil dispersion error, surely the danger close distance should be less ... especially when considering that in a CAS direct fire role, TLE error is usually non-existent.

Will let you know if I'm able to reconcile the figures.