First, to clarify the "state of play" regarding the APKWS missiles that were originally built for use in Ukraine. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_P...pon_System
To be absolutely clear, these missiles require the "target" to be illuminated ("designated") by a laser "continuously" during the flight of the missile. It operates in a semi-active laser homing mode. It is not necessary that the laser be "on target" immediately at launch, but it must be accomplished "soon". The missile theoretically has a 40 degree field of view (https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/apkws) and can lock on when it "sees" the laser reflection from the target. The missile time of flight maximum is about 18 seconds, so the laser doesn't need to be held "on target" all that long. The missiles intended for use against drones in Ukraine would require laser illuminators. That is not supplied with the missiles, but such "kits" are readily available. These missiles can be launched from the ground or from aircraft.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-fight...lls-2025-6 I missed this article previously (paywall). This is a "good" use of these missiles. They are cheap and effective in this configuration. The F-16 has its own laser designator already built-in. I assume the F-16s used in Ukraine still have them. However, the "main use" of these missiles in Ukraine was undoubtedly ground launched. Ukraine has too few F-16s to be effective if it were to be the only platform using them. At a minimum, software changes to the F-16 would probably be required. Obviously the missiles "work well" when used in the "air to air" mode. Good thing drones fly slow.
However, the "urgent need" for 20,000 such missiles in the Middle East is still unclear. They are being used against Houthi missiles/drones, not some drones notionally launched against US troop concentrations. I can agree that using these missiles ground launched against drones targeting US troops in a self-defense mode is "rational". A couple of thousand such missiles deployed for that usage could "make sense". I can also see holding back 10,000 such missiles in a European location as "contingency", either for the Middle East or Ukraine as rational. However, I see no "urgent need" that would require holding back all 20,000 from Ukraine. Send 5K to Ukraine and see how effective they are (or are not). Go from there.
Quote:In April 2025, a new dual-mode APKWS II variant with a full-scale mockup was revealed, featuring a passive infrared sensor as well as the original's laser-guidance, allowing the weapon to be fired with "anoint-and-shoot" capability (where the target is initially lased to orient the missile, but the lase is not maintained and the infrared sensor takes over for terminal guidance) to increase rate of fire, particularly against large numbers of cruise missile or unmanned aerial vehicle targets.[17] The addition of the nose-mounted infrared seeker necessitated moving the warhead to the mid-body of the rocket, which provides an improved blast- fragmentation pattern with no loss of lethality; however modifications increase the cost compared to the original.[17] Development is expected to be completed by the end of 2026.[17]This development scenario means that the APKWS bought for Ukraine were NOT the dual-mode APKWS II variant. These missiles were initially intended for use against ground targets. It is probable that the missiles intended for Ukraine were equipped with the "proximity fuse" demonstrated in 2021 for use against drones.
To be absolutely clear, these missiles require the "target" to be illuminated ("designated") by a laser "continuously" during the flight of the missile. It operates in a semi-active laser homing mode. It is not necessary that the laser be "on target" immediately at launch, but it must be accomplished "soon". The missile theoretically has a 40 degree field of view (https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/apkws) and can lock on when it "sees" the laser reflection from the target. The missile time of flight maximum is about 18 seconds, so the laser doesn't need to be held "on target" all that long. The missiles intended for use against drones in Ukraine would require laser illuminators. That is not supplied with the missiles, but such "kits" are readily available. These missiles can be launched from the ground or from aircraft.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-fight...lls-2025-6 I missed this article previously (paywall). This is a "good" use of these missiles. They are cheap and effective in this configuration. The F-16 has its own laser designator already built-in. I assume the F-16s used in Ukraine still have them. However, the "main use" of these missiles in Ukraine was undoubtedly ground launched. Ukraine has too few F-16s to be effective if it were to be the only platform using them. At a minimum, software changes to the F-16 would probably be required. Obviously the missiles "work well" when used in the "air to air" mode. Good thing drones fly slow.
However, the "urgent need" for 20,000 such missiles in the Middle East is still unclear. They are being used against Houthi missiles/drones, not some drones notionally launched against US troop concentrations. I can agree that using these missiles ground launched against drones targeting US troops in a self-defense mode is "rational". A couple of thousand such missiles deployed for that usage could "make sense". I can also see holding back 10,000 such missiles in a European location as "contingency", either for the Middle East or Ukraine as rational. However, I see no "urgent need" that would require holding back all 20,000 from Ukraine. Send 5K to Ukraine and see how effective they are (or are not). Go from there.