Hellfire's for the A-10?

[sullione]

I'm not sure about the whole Global Hawk thing but you're correct about the Predator. It's pretty effective with those Hellfires which are laser guided btw.

[GGTharos]

They're both semi-autonomous, actually. ;) They could fly waypoints on autopilot on their own, but not much beyond that.

[sullione]

I was under the impression that the Global Hawk could operate in a fully autonomous mode. While I was at Edwards AFB, we were told one took off, flew to, and landed in Australia on its own. Of course I don't know how true that is since I don't work them.

[GGTharos]

They can both do it ... like I said, they'll fly on autopilot without supervision. That's about all they'll do autonomously though.

[Mobius1]

I'm pretty sure Global Hawk has a pre-programmed mission that and it takes off, flies the mission and returns on it's own, but with the Predator, there is someone sitting in a trailer with a stick and throttle and they fly with an on-board camera (but I'm sure it can fly to different waypoints on its own, like autopilot though). I think the Global Hawk is more of a reconnaisance aircraft, while the Predator is a battlefield-observation aircraft, so it would be important that someone is able to fly the Predator and chose where it goes depending on the changes in the battle on the ground, along with the buddy-lasing thing that they can do also. Again, I'm not completely sure, just pretty sure.:D

 

 

Too tired now, bedtime....:icon_eek:

[SUBS17]

I concluded that from someone else stating a Mav warhead alone is heavier than a whole Hellfire missile.

I live by the rule "bigger gun, bigger boom, bigger hole".:D

New fashions like SDMs make me yawn...;)

...and now don´t anyone dare to go further OT by commenting on SDMs!:rolleyes:

I love this forum!:icon_jook

 

Hellfire is actually a very efficient tank killer, 1 shot 1 kill guaranteed on any tank. Its got a good range too and rarely misses. There are several versions of them with different types of seekers. Longbows can carry 16 hellfires as opposed to 4 mavericks if they fitted them.(not sure if they carry them although I think I saw a photo of one back in the 80s on a 64A)

[Yellonet]

The Hellfire weighs 45-49 kg depending on version.

The warhead on a Maverick K weighs 137 kg.

[sunwolf]

A-10 Armament

 

One 30 mm GAU-8/A seven-barrel Gatling gun;

up to 16,000 pounds (7,200 kilograms) of mixed ordnance on eight under-wing and three under-fuselage pylon stations, including infrared countermeasure flares; electronic countermeasure chaff; jammer pods; 2.75-inch (6.99 centimeters) rockets; illumination flares and:

MK-82 (500 pound bomb)

MK-84 (2000 pound bomb)

MK77 incendiary

10 MK20 Rockeye II (4 - 6 standard load)

10 CBU-52 (4 - 6 standard load)

10 CBU-58 (4 - 6 standard load)

10 CBU-71 (4 - 6 standard load)

10 CBU-87 (4 - 6 standard load)

10 CBU-89 (4 - 6 standard load)

CBU-97

10 BL755 (4 - 6 standard load)

AGM-65 Maverick missiles

GBU-10 laser-guided bomb

GBU-12 laser-guided bomb

AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles

[Force_Feedback]

The Eurofighter will carry the Brimstone, so saying that the Hellfire missile is not suitable for aircraft use is not true. The hellfire is a better and, I guess, more cost-effective weapon than the Mav for use on aircraft.

 

The name Brimstone reminds me of various metal lyrics :p Like that of Avantasia's "The final sacrifice": "Get ready for the Brimstone, gettin blisters on the eyes, the power of the spirit was a final sacrifice..." BTW, this is power metal, the best metal genre ever concieved, without and goth stuff (like Nightwish and that squealing lady :() :p

 

In either case, no hellfires for the A-10, as it's already designed to carry lots of agm-65s, but 36 Brimstones on the ef-2000 sound sweet too.

[504MrWolf]

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/brimstone/

[Cobra360]

The Brimstone was ment to be fitted to the Harrier GR9 before the the AGM-65, but for OIF the AGM-65 was quickly intergrated at the last minute to the deployed Harrier GR9s. The RAF pilots liked it so much that the Maverick was given priority over the Brimstone to be intergrated first on to the entire RAF Harrier fleet before the Brimstone.

 

The Tornado GR4s are almost cleared for Brimstone use and will be able to carriy up to 12 of them.

[S77th-konkussion]

The Eurofighter will carry the Brimstone, so saying that the Hellfire missile is not suitable for aircraft use is not true.

 

I don't think he said that- I think he said the Maverick was not suited (or, less so anyway) to the smaller platforms. The hellfire is a great weapon suited to platforms where weight & space efficiency is particulary important- i.e. UAV's, the Apache and *sniff sniff*the late Comanche.. RIP..

[tflash]

The Brimstone was ment to be fitted to the Harrier GR9 before the the AGM-65, but for OIF the AGM-65 was quickly intergrated at the last minute to the deployed Harrier GR9s. The RAF pilots liked it so much that the Maverick was given priority over the Brimstone to be intergrated first on to the entire RAF Harrier fleet before the Brimstone.

 

The Tornado GR4s are almost cleared for Brimstone use and will be able to carriy up to 12 of them.

 

That's right; in a latest development, the US is looking into newer versions of the hellfire, since its flight path (it hits the target from above) is not so suited against "soft vehicles" like technicals and cars, and neither is the HEAT warhead.

 

The Marines also preferred the TOW missile on their cobra's, since this more a point and shoot missile.

 

Claiming that hellfire "is better" than Maverick makes no sense at all, there are different versions with different payloads and different guidance.

 

Does anyone want to suggest a hellfire is "better" than an AGM-65G with a 300 lbs warhead against buildings or better than an AGM-65F against boats?

[Dice]

The A-10 has never carried Hellfires because when the Hog was being developed the HF didn't have the range of the AGM-65 and the HF was not as mature weapons system as it is today. Who knows you may see them on the A-10 some day now that the HF has matured.

 

The Pave Penny pod (as stated) is a laser reciver only and can't guide LGBs. Also the A-10 doesn't have 1760 wiring to "talk" to smart weapons so the only way it could drop during buddy laseing is if the weapon is "coded" pry to takeoff.

[Cobra360]

Well, now they carry the Litening II pods and with the A-10C coming along in a few years, who knows. An A-10 would be able to carry a lot of HF missiles.

[Dice]

Well, now they carry the Litening II pods and with the A-10C coming along in a few years, who knows. An A-10 would be able to carry a lot of HF missiles.

 

Yes it could but the addition of the litening pod is to move the A-10 up and out of the largest ground threats range (MANPADS ect.), why would you then move it back to low level by adding "short range" weapons like the HF?

[Cobra360]

I'm not saying it's a good upgrade move, but that in theory it could be or have been done. As it is now I believe there is an extanded range Maverick in development with a lest twice the range of current Mavs but is will also have a data link allowing the pilot to see the image from the missile right up until impact and be able to adjust the aiming point as needed or even switch targets to another that is in the seeker FOV, provided the missile has the energy to hit it.

[Dice]

Yes, that would be the "lock-on after launch" Mav which is in development. I'm not saying HFs on the A-10 would be a bad idea it would just be the enviroment would have to be right (low SAm/AAA) to use them.

[GGTharos]

I'm not saying it's a good upgrade move, but that in theory it could be or have been done. As it is now I believe there is an extanded range Maverick in development with a lest twice the range of current Mavs but is will also have a data link allowing the pilot to see the image from the missile right up until impact and be able to adjust the aiming point as needed or even switch targets to another that is in the seeker FOV, provided the missile has the energy to hit it.

 

The 'extended range' doesn't refer to the missile's aerodynamic range (which has sometimes been quoted as high at 27nm!)

 

The limitation was -always- the seeker. So yes, the LOAL feature, AREA LOCK feature, ability to capture its own target (As advertised by Raytheon anyway) and the Man-in-the-loop datalink are all intended to extend it's launch range. There are no changes tot he propulsion system at all, AFAIK.

[S77th-konkussion]

There are no changes tot he propulsion system at all, AFAIK.

 

If that's the case- one has to wonder how that news was received. Given it's role, I suppose they pilots might be fine with it, but you gotta figure that they would want a smidgen more power if they needed it. HogPilot- what say you? :)

[GGTharos]

If that's the case- one has to wonder how that news was received. Given it's role, I suppose they pilots might be fine with it, but you gotta figure that they would want a smidgen more power if they needed it. HogPilot- what say you? :)

 

If you want something even LONGER ranged than 20nm, there's the SLAM-ER+ ;)

There's no need to increase the Mav's propulsion power. ;)

[S77th-konkussion]

Oh whoops.. I was referring to the hog itself. sorry I read it again.. I'm on another planet..

[GGTharos]

Ahh. Well, the A-10C is getting more powerful engines! :)

[Dice]

Ahh. Well, the A-10C is getting more powerful engines! :)

 

New engines are not part of the C upgrade but are a seprate program. Also the engine upgrade is a non-funded program at this time so "new" engine are not for sure at this time.

[Cobra360]

And have you seen the new cockpit. It has two F-16 type MFDs, one each side of the cockpit, but are full colour like the latest F-16s. And the new stick grip looks very much like the F-16C/D one instead of the old one that is based on the F-15A/B grip. You can see the actually Lockheed Martin touches on it.