wtb a10 Hellfire missiles

[TeeJay82]

Is there any a10c thats modified for usage of the apache missiles?

 

since the ka50 and su 25t shares loadout i have yet to find a a10 with HF equipped

 

kinda strange since the a10 would have 16 missiles instead of just 6

[Tracer2k]

Helicopter Launched Fire-and-forget missile is where the Hellfire name comes from.. also, the size of the warhead in Hellfire is alot smaller, 9 kilograms in HEAT missile when compared to mavericks which has 56 to 135 kilogram warheads, that makes the Maverick alot more effective, that's why i believe Hellfires are not used in an a-10

Edited January 8, 2011 by Tracer2k

[asparagin]

What you need is this:

 

[joey45]

^^ that might be the test platform for the 114

Helicopter Launched Fire-and-forget missile is where the Hellfire name comes from...

 

NOW that is information +1 in REP.

 

Maybe they should try BRIMSTONES

Edited January 8, 2011 by joey45

[gtxc2001]

The Hellfire Missile was designed to be employed from low-speed aircraft, and while the A-10 might not be the fastest, I suspect it's airspeed would put it out of the launch envelope of the AGM-114. For what it's worth, the increased warhead weight of the AGM-65 Maverick doesn't translate into a greater probability of kill against most armored vehicles; the Hellfire warhead is more than sufficient.

 

Additionally, at the airspeeds the A-10 flies at, the maximum range of the Hellfire would likely require that the A-10 fly well closer to the target than anybody would want to in an environment with an air defense assets.

Edited January 8, 2011 by gtxc2001

[sobek]

Helicopter Launched Fire-and-forget missile is where the Hellfire name comes from.. also, the size of the warhead in Hellfire is alot smaller, 9 kilograms in HEAT missile when compared to mavericks which has 56 to 135 kilogram warheads, that makes the Maverick alot more effective, that's why i believe Hellfires are not used in an a-10

 

The Hellfire can be used from fixed wing platforms, just look at the Reaper. I think the maverick is actually a wee bit overkill for one tank, regarding it's warhead size. Look at the JAGM that is scheduled to partially replace it, which will have a warhead in the same size range as the Hellfire, IIRC.

 

As to why the Hellfire is not used from the A-10, i have no idea.

 

Edit: Sniped :)

 

Yes, range might indeed be a factor.

[asparagin]

^^ that might be the test platform for the 114

 

No it's a Cessna 208, they can carry the Hellfire. Iraq has (had maybe :D) them.

[ToWcH]

Hell....thats why God made superglue, stick your own pylon and tell them to go to hell.

[EtherealN]

Well, except that higher speed on the launching platform also equals higher speed of the missile and thus longer range on the missile. That does however assume that the missiles in question are capable to use that advantage rather than getting locked at too low speeds due to drag. Not sure what the case is with that for the Hellfire. Similarly, altitude also gives you increased range as long as the missile seeker is still capable of seeing the target at that increased range.

 

Also, TeeJay, the question of added amounts of missiles is largely moot. It is only with rarity that I'd expect to see A10's even carrying 6 Mavs, and not only due to weight constraints. You need to have enough targets to merit carrying them.

[sobek]

Also, TeeJay, the question of added amounts of missiles is largely moot. It is only with rarity that I'd expect to see A10's even carrying 6 Mavs, and not only due to weight constraints. You need to have enough targets to merit carrying them.

 

That's assuming it is used in 'unconventional' warfare. Fulda Gap is where it's at :)

[EtherealN]

Bah, Fulda Schmap. :P

 

As far as A2G goes, the only thing I can imagine that beats smiting lowly groundhuggers from angels 25 would be smiting them from angels 50 from 40 miles away with a supersonic glidebomb delivery. :D

 

But yeah, sure, for Fulda Gap there might be a point, but I would still suspect that they would (if anything) use that opportunity to carry the same amount of missiles at a lower payload weight rather than increasing the amount of missiles carried. But that's just a barely educated guess. :P

[gtxc2001]

Well, except that higher speed on the launching platform also equals higher speed of the missile and thus longer range on the missile. That does however assume that the missiles in question are capable to use that advantage rather than getting locked at too low speeds due to drag. Not sure what the case is with that for the Hellfire. Similarly, altitude also gives you increased range as long as the missile seeker is still capable of seeing the target at that increased range.

 

True. I'm thinking about it from the angle of seeker ability to acquire the laser spot, missile time of flight, and aircraft velocity. For example, a rotary-wing platform will travel about 500 meters at 90 knots during missile time of flight during a typical lock-on-before-launch (LOBL) profile. If for instance, you want to attrite a ZSU-23-4, you have to take that 500 meters into account to ensure you don't fly into the WEZ of the ZSU prior to missile impact. Obviously, as your speed increases, so does the range at which you must launch. Granted, this is a simplified scenario that doesn't take into account the ability to turn away from target during missile guidance (TPOD/LPOD/Sensor dependant). Thus, if you want to launch LOBL, seeker ability to acquire the laser spot may limit you to a max launch range that puts you closer the target than desired, given the time it takes the missile to fly down range and the speed of your aircraft. What I really think it boils down to though, is that the HF is a comparatively slow missile, and that creates issues with faster aircraft from a purely aerodynamic standpoint in the case of the missile and (I suspect) separation between ordnance and aircraft post launch. I'm not a fixed-wing guy though, so that's conjecture on my part.

[EtherealN]

Well, Laser Hellfire would definitely be a no-go - you'd give up the fire-and-forget capability that you have with the Mavs.

 

Longbow Hellfire gives you another problem: the A-10C doesn't have a radar.

 

As far as separation from the launch platform goes, I don't expect that to be an issue with the A-10C. The Hellfire is WAY faster than the hog.

[Kula66]

As far as separation from the launch platform goes, I don't expect that to be an issue with the A-10C. The Hellfire is WAY faster than the hog.

 

Isn't Brimstone based on the hellfire? And they put that on Tornado.

I guess with the TGP you could lase, probably a shorter flight time than an LGB.

[EtherealN]

Sure you could lase, but why would you want to when you have an option that allows you to deploy Fire-and-Forget missiles from 10nm? Launch from way outside SHORAD range and turn around.

 

Unsure about the Brimstone.

[gtxc2001]

The Hellfire is WAY faster than the hog.

 

This is true, and according to some info, faster than the Maverick, so I guess the velocity argument WRT to aircraft ordnance separation doesn't hold water. As far as losing the fire and forget capability and the desire for a laser guided weapon, the Laser Maverick is supposed to be more accurate than the TV/IR guided variants, so, as long as your sensor is good enough and the missile has the go juice to travel the distance, a laser guided system does have advantages.

[mvsgas]

Using the HF (any version) on the A-10 will be a matter of logistics in my opinion.

They would have to do rewiring (if the missiles pylons are not compatible) plus they would have to do separation test. Start a training program for the pilots, and start ordering the missiles, support equipment, weapons stores, etc.

 

How would the A-10 benefit from this? What new capabilities would it bring?

In the Tornado GR4 and Harrier GR7/9 you can see many benefits. Both of this aircraft have limited pylons/ stores capability. Same thing for MQ-1/9. What other aircraft can carry Hellfire/brimstone? The Gun on the A-10 can probably do the same as the HF a lot cheaper.

 

I just don't see USAF buying this for the A-10 with so many other things they are trying to acquire. ( F-35, SDB, etc.)

[Tracer2k]

^^ that might be the test platform for the 114

 

 

NOW that is information +1 in REP.

 

Maybe they should try BRIMSTONES

 

hehe, thanks buddy

[GGTharos]

You are correct, the USAF however does have a programme to replace hellfire and maverick with the JCM sporting about 20km range and about the same weight/class as hellfire. Although the JCM is cancelled due to budget cuts, replacement planning and development does continue.

 

http://defense-update.com/products/j/jcm.htm

 

Using the HF (any version) on the A-10 will be a matter of logistics in my opinion.

They would have to do rewiring (if the missiles pylons are not compatible) plus they would have to do separation test. Start a training program for the pilots, and start ordering the missiles, support equipment, weapons stores, etc.

 

How would the A-10 benefit from this? What new capabilities would it bring?

In the Tornado GR4 and Harrier GR7/9 you can see many benefits. Both of this aircraft have limited pylons/ stores capability. Same thing for MQ-1/9. What other aircraft can carry Hellfire/brimstone? The Gun on the A-10 can probably do the same as the HF a lot cheaper.

 

I just don't see USAF buying this for the A-10 with so many other things they are trying to acquire. ( F-35, SDB, etc.)

Edited January 9, 2011 by GGTharos

[MrYenko]

I just don't see USAF buying this for the A-10 with so many other things they are trying to acquire. ( F-35, SDB, etc.)

 

Bingo. New engines for the hawg would increase capability far more than the ability to fling mini-mavericks around.

[Kula66]

Sure you could lase, but why would you want to when you have an option that allows you to deploy Fire-and-Forget missiles from 10nm? Launch from way outside SHORAD range and turn around.

 

I don't know the figures, but I would guess cost. I would assume that Mavs are more expensive than Hellfires AND I bet you could carry lots more!

Agreed the extra range on Mav would be a plus in some situations.

[Heli]

3.5. A-10 Hellfire Separation Analysis

 

M&S (modeling and simulation) was required as part of the process to certify the AGM-114N Hellfire II for deployment from the A-10 Warthog (Figure 8 . Part of this process is to predict the jettison characteristics of the AGM-114N Hellfire II and LAU-145 launcher combination, which required a spectrum of free stream, flowfield, jettison, and grid analyses.

 

The AGM-114N Hellfire II computational model was developed from supplied CAD geometry, resulting in a 8 million cell model. Along with the newly-built viscous A-10 model, computational runs for this analyses reached sizes on the order of 50 million cells. Free stream analyses were completed on the Hellfire, the LAU-145 Launcher, and the LAU-145/Hellfire combination. Jettison trajectories and grid runs were done for the LAU-145/Hellfire combination as well as the LAU-145 by itself. In total, 293 computational points were produced to complete these requirements.

 

This analysis showed that at the given flight conditions, a safe jettison of the LAU-145 launcher and AGM-114N Hellfire II is possible. This result, made

possible by HPC resources, led to the issuance of the initial flight clearance for the A-10/Hellfire II.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p023731.pdf

 

2007 year