Precision Guided 70mm Rockets–APKWS and LOGIR, Poniard Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket

Couach 2200FPB Fast Patrol Boat. 12 being built for Royal Saudi Navy, armed with multiple rocket launchers by LIG Nex1 fitted at the stern.

Lately I have been seeing a lot of news about various developments related to guided 70mm (2.75 inch) rockets, particularly since an APKWS took down a cruise missile less than two weeks ago.

I probably don’t need to say this again, but I think these are extremely appropriate weapons for the Coast Guard because of their light weight, minimum training and maintenance requirements, low cost, and their range, accuracy, and effectiveness against the range of threats the Coast Guard is most likely to encounter from small drones to merchant ships.

The CUSV seen in the video and below is only 12 meters, 39′ in length.

Textron USV fitted with LIG Next1’s Poniard guided rocket. Textron photo.

South Korean Guided Rocket Test-Fired from USV at RIMPAC 2024

LIG Nex1’s K-LOGIR / Poniard guided rocket successfully finished a Foreign Comparative Testing (FCT) during RIMPAC 2024.

“A launch system for the 2.75-inch guided rocket was developed to be mounted on ships. Currently, it is installed on the Royal Saudi Navy’s 2200 Fast Patrol Boat (FPB) and HSI-32 interceptors, The UAE Navy new Gowind corvettes and is planned to be installed on the UAE Navy’s Falaj 3-class OPV.

Installing LIG Nex1’s Poniard launcher on Textron’s CUSV for the live fire test during RIMPAC. (ROK Navy Photo)

Infrared Seeker For APKWS Guided Rockets Is In The Works

“Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II, better known simply as APKWS, is slated to be demonstrated with a passive infrared seeker. The news came in the 2025 Marine Aviation Plan, which states that “Additional demonstrations are also in [the] work[s] with the Army and Air Force to determine [the] feasibility of adding additional guidance methods to the APKWS family, including passive infrared seekers.”

“While little is known about this initiative, such a capability could potentially offer a far cheaper solution with independent targeting capabilities compared to existing missiles, while also increasing magazine depth on certain platforms dramatically.”

OKSI Awarded USSOCOM and AFRL Contracts for Precision Guidance Seeker for Munitions

“July 23, 2024 /PRNewswire/ — OKSI has been awarded multiple contracts totaling nearly $6 million from USSOCOM and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) for their ARMGDN seeker. ARMGDN is a capability enhancement to BAE Systems’ APKWS® laser-guidance kit, providing passive target acquisition and tracking for precision engagements. APKWS is a guidance kit for the 2.75 inch Hydra-70 rocket. Together, the APKWS with OKSI’s ARMDGN seeker will facilitate rapid engagements of multiple air or ground targets via ripple fire of multiple precision- guided rockets in rapid succession.”

U.S. F-16 Fighters Shot Down Drones with Laser-Guided Rockets in Combat

“The U.S. Navy also announced in late 2023 that it was about to deliver a new proximity-fused warhead for APKWS II rockets, optimized for use against drones, albeit developed ostensibly for the surface-to-air role. However, further developing an air-to-air capability out of these older rockets is another impressive feat for the U.S. Air Force, that has now the possibility to engage targets at a very small fraction of the cost of other existing missiles.”

Marines to give air-to-ground missile new counter-drone capabilities

“APKWS II continues to provide a reliable, high-capacity precision guided munition for both the rotary wing and fixed wing communities. 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. To improve performance against UAS, certification of a suitable proximity fuse is in work for fielding to the fleet with current guidance and warhead combinations. Additional demonstrations are also in work with the Army and Air Force to determine feasibility of adding additional guidance methods to the APKWS family, including passive infrared seekers,” officials wrote.

What About Drones?

You may have heard about an incident where a 47 foot MLB was tracked by 12 to 30 objects that were thought to be Unmanned Air Systems.

The War Zone has a post that talks about this and other recent incidents, reports, and conspiracy theories that involve drone, “Coast Guard Ship Stalked by Unidentified Aircraft, Iran Drone Mothership Claim Shot Down by DoD.” More here and here.

Drones are hot sellers. There are a lot of them, and there will be many more after Christmas. With the reports of use of drones in the war between Ukraine and Russia, activities involving drones are starting to receive a lot of public attention, and it is not surprising that many see them as potentially dangerous or at least a threat to privacy. Drones flown at night have probably also resulted in a number of UFO sighting reports. Plus, a lot of drone operators are not aware or ignore FAA regulations that apply to them.

Opinions about the size and speed of drones seen at night are extremely unreliable, but there are ways to identify drones that are operating legally. I will try to provide some basic information and point toward the current regulations.

Why are they hard to track? Large drones are not hard to track if they are operated at altitude. On the other hand, small drones operated at low altitudes are very hard to pick up on radar. They are down in the clutter. Virtually all of these sightings are probably small drones of less than 55 pounds, the vast majority less than five pounds.

Air search radars frequently exploit doppler effect to pick moving targets out of the clutter, but most drones are slower than the speeds necessary to trigger a detection by doppler–they are close to the ground and move at speeds similar to that of millions of cars.

In addition to being small, most drones are made of non-radar reflective materials like foam and plastic. There is very little that would return a radar signal other than the motors and wires.

Why don’t the operators show up electronically? Most radios used to control drones now are frequency agile and relatively short range so they may be difficult to recognize. They have to be frequency agile because they use the same radio frequencies common in household electronics, so short bursts on a 2.4 GHZ frequency are indistinguishable from thousands of others. Also, drones may fly a preprogrammed route with no additional radio frequency required. Drones can also be programmed to follow a person or presumably any moving object.

Are they doing anything illegal? FAA Regulations Part 107 applies to both recreational and commercial use of small, civil, unmanned aircraft systems–small meaning 55 pounds (25 kg) or less. As the operator of remote-control model airplanes that are, like multi-rotors, considered drones, I am somewhat familiar with the issues.

Some things are specifically illegal without a specific waiver or exemption. Waivers may be relatively easy to obtain. I regularly get one where I fly.

  • Flying a UAS beyond the line of sight of the person or team controlling the drone
  • Flying more than 400 feet above ground level.
  • A single pilot operating more than one aircraft simultaneously
  • Flying at night or during twilight without required lighting.
  • Operating in restricted air space. (Restricted areas may be temporary like over sporting events or effectively permanent like around airports and over Washington DC.)

Flying or hovering over your house at less than 400 feet is probably not illegal, but flying over people exposed on the ground may be. Harrasing people on the ground with a drone is definitely illegal.

How can they be detected and identified? Perhaps most relevant is the requirement to have a remote ID module if flown outside of a “Federally Recognized Identification Area (FRIA)” (typically a defined area around a remote-controlled model airfield registered and approved by the FAA).

So that solves the problem, right? No! The ID modules are short range, I have heard 2 miles or less. Operated low or where terrain blocks the signal, it is going to be less, so to even detect the signal you have to be relatively close. There are applications for smart phones that allow anyone to access the ID module signal, but generally law enforcement has received no training and in fact has no knowledge that these are available.

So, what should we do? We are in a transition period. Going from a time when drone sightings were rare, to a time when they will be routine. Amazon is planning on using drones to drop packages. Drones are useful. They are not going away. Seeing lights in the night sky that move irregularly and that you cannot identify is probably not a reason for concern. We really don’t want people shooting at lights in the sky.

Irresponsible drone operation may require enforcement. FAA’s stated enforcement strategy is first to try to educate before moving on to fines. There no specific acts identified as felonies under part 107 but negligent operation causing significant damage or violation of restricted airspace would certainly be covered by other laws including laws applied to operation of larger aircraft.

Perhaps Coast Guard units need to be trained in the use of drone ID applications.

Use of Force: As we know, drones can be used as weapons and as they become more common place, there is more likelihood the Coast Guard will need to take them down for force protection, defense readiness, and Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security. The cutters of Patrol Forces Southwest Asia (PATFORSWA) have been fitted with short range, high resolution, drone detection radars and what appear to be electronic countermeasures, so are getting some experience with drone detection, passive countermeasures, and possibly hard kill countermeasures as well.

The Coast Guard’s missions may require use of force. In some cases, electronic warfare may be sufficient. Directed energy weapons seem to hold promise, but 30mm guns with air burst ammunition and APKWS 70mm guided rockets have proven capability and provide additional capability against other threats.

  • USCGC Charles Moulthrope (WPC-1141) prior to departure for PATFORSWA. Small drone detection radars are visible low on the mast. 

Helicopter vs USV

The War Zone reports what may be a first, an Uncrewed Surface Vessel apparently engaged an armed helicopter that was attempting to destroy it.
This may have some relevance for the Coast Guard in that at some point a Coast Guard helicopter might be called upon to destroy a USV being used in a terrorist attack.
It appears in this one-on-one engagement the helicopter had the advantage, being able to remain behind the USV out of the missiles field of view.
The USV had two launch rails, but both were pointed forward. Had one been pointed forward and the other aft, the helicopter would have had a much harder time staying out of the missile field of view.
Had it been two USVs vs a single helicopter, while the helicopter chased one USV it could be targeted by the other. The USV might employ something like the “Thatch Weave” that US Navy pilots employed against the more maneuverable Japanese Zero.
It is possible the missiles on USVs were never intended to be used against aircraft. The intention might have been to employ them against a surface target as a way to reduce the effectiveness of the defense, as the USV approached the target.
The article suggests that because the engagement occurred during the day, that the USV was attempting to bait the helicopter, but it might be that a long transit required some daytime transit to reach a distant port before sunrise.