I was wondering ....

[Dent21]

... Why is the Hellfire missile not in the weapon inventory of the A-10 C Warthog ?

 

I Mean, i guess that you can load more Hellfire missiles than Mavericks , and targeting wise , it shouldn't be a problem (?)

 

Just to compare the two missiles: ( info from Wiki )

 

AGM-65 Maverick AGM-114 Hellfire

 

211 - 300 kg Weight 45.4 - 49 kg Weight

 

57 - 136 kg Warhead 8 - 9 kg Warhead

 

28 KM Operational Range 500 M - 8 KM Operational range

 

Mach 0.93 Speed Mach 1.3 Speed

 

 

The Maverick has a bigger punch and longer range , but on the other hand, if you want to kill (more) tanks , and looking at the distances involved ( using the A-10 C simulation as a yardstick ) , I really wonder "what if you had Hellfires ?"

 

They seem to do the job quite well , and to me it looks almost as overkill to fire Mavericks at tanks , and to lock them up as far as possible, you still approach the 8 KM zone.....

 

Then you have also the Brimstone variant , range is then 12 KM , is maybe even better, considering newer technology's involved, to quote Wiki " It has been estimated that Brimstone will be 3 times more effective than the AGM-65G Maverick missile against modern tanks, and 7 times more effective than the BL755 cluster bomb "

 

According to the wiki site , the US expressed interest in buying it for their aircraft , so back to my original question ,,,, why not the A-10 then ?

 

any thoughts?

Edited July 1, 2011 by Dent21

[EtherealN]

Killing "more" tanks isn't that big of a deal actually. You'll not see A-10's use a full load of Mavericks very often.

 

Also, the short legs of the Hellfire are a major problem for an aircraft like the Hog. The Mavs are the only recourse when the Hog needs some sort of stand-off capability (unless you count dropping JDAM's and LGB's from angels 25).

 

Then of course, which version of the Hellfire? The Laser hellfires? Then you lost fire-and-forget? Radar hellfire? Hmm... Might work, but it would be interesting to see how they integrate it with a platform that has no radar of it's own.

 

However, please, don't source wikipedia. ;) At best it can be trusted to give you an idea of what a piece of military equipment looks like, for everything else (like performance and so on) there's such a web of classifications, national pride and so on making it completely worthless as a resource. At least follow the quotations and see if the source can stand on it's own.

Edited July 1, 2011 by EtherealN

[Dent21]

Of course, i take wiki with lots of salt anyway ;) , but indeed, sensor wise it's maybe not feasible anyway , that would mean that there must be a radar anyway, to designate the Millimeter wave missiles.

 

They ( the US ) had once a plan to use a 2 seater A-10 with this kind of setup ( Lantirn and radar pod ) , but then there is of course the F-15 E Strike Eagle, so it's a moot point i guess....

[mig29movt]

The Hellfire is a light missile designed to use on (low-flying) helicopters. Using them on an aricraft which is flying high: imagine it's range when assuming the 8km or whatever is the range on a straight line, when flying at let's say 5km (which isn't that high for an aircraft).

 

And mounting a down-looking radar onto the A-10 is nearly impossible because of its gun placement.

[sobek]

The Hellfire is a light missile designed to use on (low-flying) helicopters. Using them on an aricraft which is flying high: imagine it's range when assuming the 8km or whatever is the range on a straight line, when flying at let's say 5km (which isn't that high for an aircraft).

 

Shooting from high up increases missile range. The question is whether the seeker can keep up.

[EtherealN]

Shooting from high up increases missile range. The question is whether the seeker can keep up.

 

Exactly.

 

 

That's a 65. I don't have anything like that for the 114's.

 

The reason for this is pretty obvious: thinner air = less drag = easier to both gain and keep energy. Also, the altitude is potential energy which can be converted into speed - no difference between a missile and plane here. The drag issue is even more important for the Mav than many missiles though since it's extremely draggy - thick body, blunt nose etcetera.

 

But that graph will only be as good as your detection and locking capability. At 22 miles from angels 40 I'm not sure what you would be able to lock on to. A carrier maybe... :P You can experience the range issue with mavs easily in DCS as well - carry a selection of them and see how the sensors can restrict you. A good laser designation might help of course, but then you're sacrificing the Fire And Forget.

 

All of this applies to the hellfires as well. You can get more range through climbing up higher, but question remains whether the seeker would "follow you".

[GGTharos]

Yes, a ship - or - if you have a datalinked maverick, you can do LOAL.

 

Anyway, there's no point in mounting hellfires on the A-10. It can easily carry the heavier maverick, there are huge stockpiles of it available right now, it is quite capable and effective, and you wouldn't kill more things with a hellfire anyway. Hellfires aren't particularly versatile either in some respects - they are ok for anti-tank purposes and maybe some anti-personnel, but you can't use it effectively against a large building or a bunker, which you can do with a 65K/G.

 

In any case, hellfire is slated to be replaced with a far more potent missile in the future, and I suspect it will replace the maverick also. Given the capabilities of JDAMs and SDBs, those will probably replace the 65 in the bunker/building/ship busting role.

 

For anti-personnel, laser hydras or GAU-8.

[EtherealN]

For anti-personnel, laser hydras or GAU-8.

 

The laser hydras make me feel sort of sad. The end of airborne artillery. :(

 

Though... If you could have 30 planes lasing with different codes... :D

[Cali]

If the US Air Force wanted them on the A-10, then they would find a way to put them on it. They already have weapons that are more then good enough to use instead of it. I'm sure they could put a radar on the A-10 if they wanted to, but there is no need and the cost would be too great anyway.

[GGTharos]

... laser hydra headshot at each soldier? Dude. ;)

[EtherealN]

... laser hydra headshot at each soldier? Dude. ;)

 

Trifekta! :D

[nscode]

At 22 miles from angels 40 I'm not sure what you would be able to lock on to. A carrier maybe... :P

 

Antiship work -is- what 65As were designated for in Yugoslav Air Force, carried by J-22 Orao ;)

[tflash]

In my view it would perfectly make sense to introduce a more modern missile on the Hog, such as the planned JAGM.

 

The IIR and CCD versions of Maverick have some distinct disadvantages in current theatres:

 

- It is the seeker that locks onto something. In cluttered environments there is a risk that it actually locks the wrong target

- Fire and forget could get you a court martial before you know it. It is important to guide the missile till the end so that you know you hit the right target, and there is not suddenly a kid on a bike in the way

- the payload is still too heavy for what is mostly needed

- the missile is not manoevrable enough by current standards

- its flight path is not very sophisticated and could be intercepted by modern air defenses

- it has not very advanced countermeasures

 

Dual mode brimstone was developed because ROE in Afghanistan required man-in-the-loop guidance; it now combines an mmW seeker and a laser seeker. It allows for good standoff range.

 

Problem is the Hog has no radar, so it would be rather looking for a hellfire-sized missile with dual laser seeker / multispectral CCD

 

Anyway I think the DCS sim show Maverick can still be very effective; I just doubt there are many cases left where ROE would allow its use. To my knowledge most A-10 sorties today involve GBU-12, GBU-38 and strafing.

[Cali]

In my view it would perfectly make sense to introduce a more modern missile on the Hog, such as the planned JAGM.

 

The IIR and CCD versions of Maverick have some distinct disadvantages in current theatres:

 

- It is the seeker that locks onto something. In cluttered environments there is a risk that it actually locks the wrong target

- Fire and forget could get you a court martial before you know it. It is important to guide the missile till the end so that you know you hit the right target, and there is not suddenly a kid on a bike in the way

- the payload is still too heavy for what is mostly needed

- the missile is not manoevrable enough by current standards

- its flight path is not very sophisticated and could be intercepted by modern air defenses

- it has not very advanced countermeasures

 

Dual mode brimstone was developed because ROE in Afghanistan required man-in-the-loop guidance; it now combines an mmW seeker and a laser seeker. It allows for good standoff range.

 

Problem is the Hog has no radar, so it would be rather looking for a hellfire-sized missile with dual laser seeker / multispectral CCD

 

Anyway I think the DCS sim show Maverick can still be very effective; I just doubt there are many cases left where ROE would allow its use. To my knowledge most A-10 sorties today involve GBU-12, GBU-38 and strafing.

 

You have no idea how the US Air Force thinks and what it needs. They are fine with the way the Hog is now. They have other aircraft that can do other things. The Hog is there to clean up with little threat of being shot down.

[EtherealN]

Antiship work -is- what 65As were designated for in Yugoslav Air Force, carried by J-22 Orao ;)

 

Yeah, the ironic tone was more about how this applies to the A-10. :)

[GGTharos]

The 65's are still very useful against individual vehicles and some other circumstances. This was the case in 1999, when A-10's were not carrying the other weapons.

 

Currently the GBU-38/12 is simply a safer weapon to use for the aircraft, it has nothing to do with fire and forget or court martials.

 

Anyway I think the DCS sim show Maverick can still be very effective; I just doubt there are many cases left where ROE would allow its use. To my knowledge most A-10 sorties today involve GBU-12, GBU-38 and strafing.

[tflash]

Raytheon resumes Laser Maverick production (feb 2011):

 

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Raytheon-Restarts-Production-of-Laser-Maverick-Missiles-05397/

 

There is also a story included relevant to our discussion.

[Cali]

Flash I hope you didn't take what I said wrong. After looking back I sounded a little harsh, sorry about that.

[tflash]

Flash I hope you didn't take what I said wrong. After looking back I sounded a little harsh, sorry about that.

No, no problem at all Cali!