Have radar guided hellfires ever actually been fired in anger?

[bies]

On 10/13/2021 at 9:58 AM, FalcoGer said:

I wonder why they weren't used much. As opposed to the laser guided variants they're fire and forget, aren't they? Seems like you'd want that capability to fire over a ridge/building and then dive instead of waiting for impact.

Sure you can't get a radar lock on infantry, but a hellfire is a waste for that anyhow.

 

 

Radar guided Hellfires didn't see much use because of the nature of the enemy. Radar Hellfires + FCR + Longbow link give great advantage in symmetrical combat against capable enemy in high threat enviroment, but not in war on terror. Soviet Union collapsed, Desert Storm ended, Cold War ended - by 1991 era of conventional WARS was over.

Why using radar guided Hellfire missile if you need to kill a group of few helpless bad guys? Milimeter radar has definitely impressive resolution but probably not quite enough to reliably detect and hit a single guy - laser Hellfire does the job just well. Maybe you want to hit the specific window in a building? Still laser Hellfire can do the job very precisily, radar variant obviously not. Or maybe you want to hit specific car bad guys are driving, are you going to trust radar guided fire-and-forget missile with it's radar gates? And if you hit another car with family? Still laser variant is way better for the job as you have full aim control. And helpless non-symmetrical enemy is not going to detect your laser beam to fire laser-jamming smoke grenades or fire back with radar guided Shilkas or SAMs...

Delta Apache with Longbow system and FCR + radar Hellfires design started when USSR still existed and it was meant to go all out war against hordes of Soviet armor in very high threat enviroment, radar guided AAA, SAM, interceptors - not to kill some terror guy, but in the meantime Soviets collapsed, threat ceased to exist and Apache Longbow has been used in "war on terror" - that's the only reason it didn't use radar Hellfires (maybe except for the first days of 2003 Iraq invasion when they still had some tanks like Raptor9 mentioned).

Edited November 6, 2021 by bies

[Dunkdd]

Longbow missiles have been used in combat in anger via US flown AH64Es out of Mosul against armored vehicles being operated by ISIS numerous times. Cost be damned. I don't know how to prove authenticity without getting dramatic so hopefully this is sufficient- 

[Dunkdd]

Also, speaking of costs. Longbow missiles are often used as training missiles for pilots firing a live missile shot in training. During training at JRTC or NTC units will often get a few live missiles to use on a couple new PIs and they will typically do a TADs handover where the TADS is used to designate the target to the missile. It is too close to witchcraft for me to legitimately explain and nothing is worse than someone trying to espouse info in which they are not sufficiently knowledgeable. If there is enough interest I will look it up or call someone to explain it again, it has been a long time. 

[Alaskan]

On 10/12/2021 at 11:58 PM, FalcoGer said:

I wonder why they weren't used much. As opposed to the laser guided variants they're fire and forget, aren't they? Seems like you'd want that capability to fire over a ridge/building and then dive instead of waiting for impact.

Sure you can't get a radar lock on infantry, but a hellfire is a waste for that anyhow.

 

Do you think that weapon systems cost really matters in real life? There have been plenty of situations I'm which hellfires were "wasted" on infantry or maybe MG or mortar positions to give soldiers the air support they needed when they needed it. 

[Mad Dog 762]

On 10/26/2021 at 4:26 PM, Alaskan said:

 There have been plenty of situations I'm which hellfires were "wasted" on infantry 

The old "warhead on the forehead" solution!  

[Grievo]

On 10/27/2021 at 6:26 AM, Alaskan said:

Do you think that weapon systems cost really matters in real life? There have been plenty of situations I'm which hellfires were "wasted" on infantry or maybe MG or mortar positions to give soldiers the air support they needed when they needed it. 

Oh it absolutely matters… just not to the bloke on the ground or the aircrew flinging it downrange.  

[Rogue Trooper]

In real life, and with the wars we have fought, the use of radar guided hellfire's is a little extreme.

For sure they have been tested here and there, any military would be crazy not to test them in warfare regardless of whether they are overkill or not.

In DCS, and once we get the mast mounted Radar, I will be ripple firing them like they are going out of fashion.  

[Preendog]

The weapon is a waste of money simply by being designed, and stocks manufactured. The only question then is whether the weapons get fired or they expire on the shelf. 

There probably aren't many radar Hellfires compared to laser ones, and it would be important to reserve most of them for a real war, but the ones about to expire are hammers looking for nails.  

Might at well shoot them at shacks or motorcyclists at any opportunity or excuse. The soldiers will love it, the spectators will cheer and the MIC will be happy to replace them. 

 

[FalcoGer]

On 10/27/2021 at 12:26 AM, Alaskan said:

Do you think that weapon systems cost really matters in real life? There have been plenty of situations I'm which hellfires were "wasted" on infantry or maybe MG or mortar positions to give soldiers the air support they needed when they needed it. 

I think it does. If you have a choice to safely engage an enemy position with the gun or a missile and can expect the end result to be the same, then the obvious choice would be the gun. A bullet costs a few bucks. A missile costs a few hundred thousand bucks and your base likely only has a limited amount. The second reason why it matters is that you have a limited number of missiles. You blow up 8 people with 8 hellfires and then you need to blow up a tank, you're out of luck. Of course in real life other things matter, too. For example a missile is a lot more terrifying than a spray of bullet. If the enemy is coming to the scene and they get to either pick up bloody swiss cheese or can scrape of the goo from the walls and pick up mangled limbs, it's gonna be a hit on morale either way. There is also the consideration of collateral damage. You spray that gun into a building trying to hit some infantry on the road it's gonna need a fix. You fire a missile into the guy on the road, the building might collapse or have the wall blown out completely. Another consideration might be a failure of the system. A bullet really can't fail after it has left the barrel. A missile might not explode and then you have a mess on your hands, or at least the local EOD team does. I don't know how reliable hellfires are but I don't doubt that every once in a while they don't go off (expect at least 1 in 500 not to explode, but I pulled that number out of my ass). The more complicated something gets, the more likely it is to fail.

Edited November 5, 2021 by FalcoGer

[Raptor9]

8 minutes ago, FalcoGer said:

You blow up 8 people with 8 hellfires and then you need to blow up a tank, you're out of luck.

In real-life aircrews have objectives, destruction criteria, and a list of other factors that influence when they fire their weapons and which ones they select.  If an aircrew is going out there in an environment with tanks, then yes, they most likely won't waste a missile on some infantry. But everything has exceptions.  If those infantry have MANPADS, that missile is not wasted anymore than a missile that took out a SHORAD vehicle.

10 minutes ago, FalcoGer said:

For example a missile is a lot more terrifying than a spray of bullet.

That is an extremely subjective and short-sighted observation.  Anything that is causing weapons effects around you is fear-inducing, and typically bullets are much more effective at suppression since missiles are typically used for accuracy, and often aren't seen unless you happen to be looking at the launching platform when fired.

13 minutes ago, FalcoGer said:

If the enemy is coming to the scene and they get to either pick up bloody swiss cheese or can scrape of the goo from the walls and pick up mangled limbs, it's gonna be a hit on morale either way.

I can assure you this does not come into consideration in any shape or fashion when choosing what weapons to employ.  Not sure if that was where you were going with that, but military pilots are not sociopaths.

15 minutes ago, FalcoGer said:

There is also the consideration of collateral damage. You spray that gun into a building trying to hit some infantry on the road it's gonna need a fix. You fire a missile into the guy on the road, the building might collapse or have the wall blown out completely.

You mean the weapon that is most assuredly going to hit the correct target wouldn't be used in lieu of a gun system that could spray the entire street and possibly hit the structures around it? I think the past 20+ years of military operations would contradict that statement.

[FalcoGer]

5 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

If those infantry have MANPADS, that missile is not wasted

I just have an amazing idea. You equip all the insurgents in the world with cardboard replicas of manpads. Then the opposing airforce will waste billions of dollars in missiles on all those "manpads" without realizing that they're wasting resources.

I'm a genius.

Actually I think this actually has precedence.

Edited November 5, 2021 by FalcoGer

[heloguy]

4 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I just have an amazing idea. You equip all the insurgents in the world with cardboard replicas of manpads. Then the opposing airforce will waste billions of dollars in missiles on all those "manpads" without realizing that they're wasting resources.

I'm a genius.

Actually I think this actually has precedence.

 

Or, what?  You don't shoot guys that appear to have manpads with a missile because it's 'too expensive?'  This is ridiculous...

 

You shoot the weapon that provides effects that meet the commander's intent.  Usually, part of that intent, is that crews and equipment make it back to do more missions.  The cost of munitions is pretty much never a factor in combat.

 

At any rate, if an attacking force is going against a sea of manpads, they'll use a different way to attack the enemy until that threat is neutralized.

[FalcoGer]

In DCS i don't. Because I can outrange the manpads with guns. The KA50 has a sniper rifle for a cannon. Even if in 50 shots I hit one at 4km range (seems about what I get on average), that's still more effective than wasting a missile. I understand the M320 AWS is much less of a sniper and more of an hit everything in the football field kind of gun, especially at longer ranges. So maybe I'll have to come up with a new strategy. Even then their flare rejection is so bad that you can dupe them with flares 99% of the time. On the other hand I don't want to waste 30 minutes flying back to base just because I spent all my missiles on infantry and then don't have enough for an actual threat (read SA15, SA19, ATGM capable ruskies, etc) that needs long range or high firepower (tank and... well mostly tank). Of course if I have missiles to spare I use them against manpads, even before I use them against APCs. It depends on the situation.

Edited November 6, 2021 by FalcoGer

[barundus]

On 11/1/2021 at 1:27 PM, Preendog said:

The weapon is a waste of money simply by being designed, and stocks manufactured. The only question then is whether the weapons get fired or they expire on the shelf. 

Interesting standpoint, considering it's literally the entire reason the Apache Longbow was conceived and fielded.

[Jumbik]

On 11/6/2021 at 5:44 AM, FalcoGer said:

In DCS i don't. Because I can outrange the manpads with guns. The KA50 has a sniper rifle for a cannon. Even if in 50 shots I hit one at 4km range (seems about what I get on average), that's still more effective than wasting a missile. I understand the M320 AWS is much less of a sniper and more of an hit everything in the football field kind of gun, especially at longer ranges. So maybe I'll have to come up with a new strategy. Even then their flare rejection is so bad that you can dupe them with flares 99% of the time. On the other hand I don't want to waste 30 minutes flying back to base just because I spent all my missiles on infantry and then don't have enough for an actual threat (read SA15, SA19, ATGM capable ruskies, etc) that needs long range or high firepower (tank and... well mostly tank). Of course if I have missiles to spare I use them against manpads, even before I use them against APCs. It depends on the situation.

 

You are locked in game logic rather than realistic one. I would suggest reading few books from real combat scenarios first before judging what weapon platform should be used on what target just because it saves money or time.

[TobiasA]

Am 7.11.2021 um 22:43 schrieb Jumbik:

You are locked in game logic rather than realistic one. I would suggest reading few books from real combat scenarios first before judging what weapon platform should be used on what target just because it saves money or time.

Well, this is a game after all so tactics may differ from real life. I had one guy blasting in on a two Gepards at 1000k in the F-16. I know the Gepard, he wouldn't have survived IRL but it is perfectly fine in DCS if the units are not that skilled. It is as realisitic as you make it.

[Harlikwin]

On 10/13/2021 at 1:58 AM, FalcoGer said:

I wonder why they weren't used much. As opposed to the laser guided variants they're fire and forget, aren't they? Seems like you'd want that capability to fire over a ridge/building and then dive instead of waiting for impact.

Sure you can't get a radar lock on infantry, but a hellfire is a waste for that anyhow.

 

Well, I think alot depends on how good your IFF is, and how good the seeker IFF is... So you just shot mr radar blob... Well whoops, it was friendly (oh noes), or well whoops it was a a truck full of civies (oh noes). 

[shagrat]

Am 14.10.2021 um 22:02 schrieb CrazyGman:

I do understand that, but there are l enthusiastic members within the community and I was hoping someone would have come across an interview, or a book or article or video that describes or shows them being used, but I have been unable to hear a direct account of it.

No I did understand, and I hope you don't take offense but mounting them and firing them are not the same thing. So I am looking for an account by a pilot/co-pilot gunner that mentions them being used, and I realize that due to the operations the Apache found itself in that even mounting them was rare, and even when they had them on which In your picture was 1 of the 3 (so probably 2 with the other stub wing) did the ROE situation come up where they would have been able to use it?

It may sound weird, but there is this thing with the military, where they tell people what they can or can not(!) share with the public... My guess is, he simply isn't able to tell you more, not because he doesn't know, but because he might get in trouble.

[shagrat]

Am 6.11.2021 um 16:58 schrieb barundus:

Interesting standpoint, considering it's literally the entire reason the Apache Longbow was conceived and fielded.

And interestingly is still fielded with basically the same weapon systems and in-between it wasn't actually shelved and waiting, more to the contrary.