Hellfire missiles

how much -tank- armor do they exactly penetrade? isn't it 1600mm?

and why did they swtich from laser to radar with the second version (Hellfire 2)??

[edit on 30-6-2005 by John bull 1]

Here ya go.....

" In 1991, the production of a new variant, AGM-114F, (sometimes referred to as Interim Hellfire) was authorised. The major improvement incorporated was a precursor warhead to give the missile the ability to defeat reactive armour. As a result of an identified shortcoming of the Hellfire system during the 1991 Gulf War and in order to introduce other improvements, a further development programme was started in 1991. In the early days, the programme was known as the Hellfire Optimised Missile Systems (HOMS), but has since been designated AGM-114K and renamed Hellfire 2. AGM-114K incorporates improvements over the AGM-114F including solving the laser obscurant/backscatter problem. Other improvements incorporated are; improved target re-acquisition capability, a digital autopilot to increase launch speeds from 300 knots to M1.1 and produce a steeper terminal dive onto armoured targets, a more powerful precursor warhead, reprogrammability to adapt to changing threats and mission requirements, improved electro-optical countermeasures and regaining the original Hellfire missile length and weight. After successful firing tests, the initial production contract for AGM-114K was awarded in 1993 and deliveries started in December 1994. A second Hellfire 2 (AGM-114K) was developed from 1994, with a blast fragmentation warhead for use against ship targets.
Click on the link for much more information.


www.janes.com...

Couldn't find anything on how much armor it penetrates, but on an rather interesting aside....

"An unconfirmed report in April 1999 stated that Hellfire missiles had been fired from AC-130U Hercules `Spectre' gunships against targets in Serbia and Kosovo."

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 30-6-2005 by Thomas Crowne]

i dont think that that those missles are sepost to get the tank armour

Uh, the Hellfire was designed SPECIFICALLY to be launched from helicopters to give them an anti-tank weapon. That's precisely why they have a shaped charge warhead, so that all the explosive force goes to a smaller point, in one direction and concentrates itself there, which penetrates the armor.

... lol i know nothing about missles... i just thought that the fire thing is to get troops
who are just sitting there in big groups...

Anti-tank missiles used a shaped charge. What that does is to concentrate the explosion in one direction, instead of spreading out all around like a "normal" missile would. When you concentrate it in one direction, it has more potential to go through things.

Here, read this. It might help to explain better than I can....

www.geocities.com...

It talks about a German weapon in WWII, but it's the same principle that they use today. Not only that it's pretty cool reading. If you have any trouble with anything let me know and I'll try to help out. I'm not trying to say you're stupid, or anything, but I read some of it and it's pretty technical in some places, and not everyone will know what it means.

... i am dumb... lol thanks for the link

As far as I have heard and read, there is not a tank currently built and in active service, nor in the near future, that cannot be destroyed by the Hellfire and subsequent versions.



seekerof

so does the missle keep burning the tank till u have some burning metal??? or... till it cracks... (if it does...)

Basically it creates a plasma jet that burns a hole in the armor of the tank, then travels inside, where it causes either an explosion, or shrapnel to go bouncing around inside, killing the crew. Usually, though from what I've seen it burns through, and sets off the amunition inside the tank, setting off what's called a catostrophic kill. Basically, the plasma burns so hot that the armor of the tank melts away from it, but this happens so fast you can't see it unless you use a super highspeed camera to film it second by second. It generally kills a tank very quickly. You see the missile come in, explode, and then within a second or so the tank explodes.

i think a chellenger 2 can withstand a hell fire 2 hit.

againest HEAT

Turret: 1450-1700

RussianKid. heres a good site with armour levels

members.tripod.com...

thanks for the site .... i knew that being in a tank or a ship or a airplane will probly get u killed... (if theres a war...) imagine being stuck in a tank while burning

That's a deceptive chart, as the standards change as you go down it, and the armor types changed. You can have better protection with less reactive armor, so it would look like a Challenger 2 would have more protection than an M1A2 because it has more armor. You can't judge if a Hellfire would penetrate the Challenger because the actual penetration of the missile is classified. However you don't have to actually penetrate to cause a kill. You can hit it and cause shrapnel to bounce around inside the crew compartment, and get a soft kill, and the tank is just as destroyed as if you had a catastrophic kill. A tank after a soft kill would have to be taken out of service for repairs, and out of the battle for awhile.

Now THIS is interesting. There's a new Hellfire out there.

For instance, the thermobaric Hellfire missile used in Iraq, looked “like a Hellfire, felt like the Hellfire, but when it hit the target it looks like a 2,000 pound bomb,” he said. “So, that is what you want. You want something that is familiar to the user, and then have the planning tools.” The thermobaric Hellfire is used for enhanced blast effects in buildings. For example it could take out the first floor of a building without damaging the floors above.

The air-to-ground missile can be fired from remote-controlled Predator drones or attack helicopters. The thermobaric warhead is designed to unleash an incinerating shock wave and fuel explosion in tunnels or other confined spaces, according to reports.

.... nice 2,000 punds

[edit on 30-6-2005 by russiankid]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
That's a deceptive chart, as the standards change as you go down it, and the armor types changed. You can have better protection with less reactive armor, so it would look like a Challenger 2 would have more protection than an M1A2 because it has more armor. You can't judge if a Hellfire would penetrate the Challenger because the actual penetration of the missile is classified. However you don't have to actually penetrate to cause a kill. You can hit it and cause shrapnel to bounce around inside the crew compartment, and get a soft kill, and the tank is just as destroyed as if you had a catastrophic kill. A tank after a soft kill would have to be taken out of service for repairs, and out of the battle for awhile.

someone asked if it could penerate. not if it would disable the tank.

chinawhite, I do not believe you are taking into acount warhead types nor angle of attack.

The Hellfire II is capable of destroying any known tank or MBT in the world.




seekerof

And I will bet you that it WILL penetrate a Challenger. You're talking burning plasma, all concentrated on one small area. You would have to put so much armor to keep it from going through the tank could barely move. Not to mention that all that armor is not concentrated on one spot. There are thicker and thinner points all around the turret, and frontal armor. The only place with less armor than that top of a tank is the bottom. You put a Hellfire around the turret ring, and it's going through. You simply can't armor a tank enough to withstand it.

any tank in the world??? would hitting it bellow the turet help???

The hit/angle of attack could be turret top or between turret and hull or side track or side turret.

I am in the midst of finding pentration factors for the versions of Hellfire and Hellfire II.




seekerof

The thickest parts of the armor are the front, sides, and turrets, as that is where most tank rounds, which are fired on the same level as the tank, will hit. A tank shell travels on basically a straight line, so it will travel along the line of the barrel. By putting more armor on those locations, they had to put LESS armor on other locations, otherwise the tank becomes too heavy to move fast. And as in any type of combat, speed is life. The back, top, and bottom has less armor, therefore are more vulnerable to things like missiles, and the GAU-8 on the A-10. Although to be fair, I don't think much will stand up to a GAU-8, armored or not.

[edit on 30-6-2005 by Zaphod58]