GMS Air

[quoted original message omitted]

In a message dated 9/30/99 10:22:28 AM Central Daylight Time,
> emisle@earthlink.net writes:

<< >My point is that if we can have a system like this NOW, is it not
> reasonable to think that a GMS system 150 years from now will be able

Too late for you to claim a patent. The Hellfire missile system was designed
to engage both typoes of targets and does so pretty effectively

> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:

Can you let me know how a wireguided missile can hit a jet going several
hundred kilometers per hour while a Hellfire goes at a substantially slower
pace? The latest MMW Hellfire doesn't go much faster IIRC.

While Hellfires have destroyed stationary, on the ground, aircraft, they are
of little use against a jet in flight, save as a distraction. Apache
helicopters were designed to carry Stinger or Sidewinders for self defence
against jets. So too are the Comanche, I believe.

> Andrew Martin wrote:

> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:

Well first off an RB70 is a wire guided optically sighted SAM. Keep in mind
that most shoulder fired SAMs don't have that much more range than one of the
newer ITOWs HELLFIRES etc.

But actually much more to your point, the HELLFIRE is not wireguided, it is a
fire and forget (laser designated or FCR designated missile. To quote right
from the Jane's operating specs: "Hellfire was originally developed by the
army to destroy MBTs. One of the requirements though was to hit maneuvering
targets at up to 20deg to the right and left of launch azimuth at distances up
to 1000m of the firing platform (that's a fast reacting missile and in fact
the HELLFIRE cruises at Mach 1.4 which is a hell of a lot faster than any
enemy AC doing CAS in the area is going to be going though original
designation of the target would be difficulty remarks) This means that the
HELLFIRE was designed with maneuverability
features normally designed for anti-aircraft weapons rather than AT
missiles. AT the same time the warhead is designed with a adequate margins to
defeat all forms of evolving armor. The result is a multipurpose weapon that
can destroy all tactical point targets from MBTS to maneuvering helicopters to
fixed installations.

> While Hellfires have destroyed stationary, on the ground,

Absolutely correct. That's why you have specialist weapons though popeye's
point still stands. Teh HELLFIRE has a multirole capability.

Cheers...

> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Los wrote:

> (that's a fast reacting missile and in fact the HELLFIRE cruises at

But hellfire is not powered in its downward phase towards its target. It

is also a laser guided missile. If the target you are shooting at is aware
that it is being painted, expect smoke and other countermeasures including
some really harsh maneuvers. A helicopter is likely to try to find some firm
cover. Good luck keeping your GLD pointed on the target.

I'd think that the reason for the maneuverability was to allow hand off shots
from aircraft further back.

> Absolutely correct. That's why you have specialist weapons though

The selfdefence weapons for the helecopters has not been helfire, it has

typically been a variant of a fire and forget weapon like Stinger.

Los is right that Hellfire isn't wire guided. That's a mistake on my part, I
was thinking of TOW.

By the way, there's two varieties of Hellfire missile. The older
version is laser designated. The newer version is Milli-Meter Wave
active homing or MMW Hellfire. You could use either on stopped or slow moving
aircraft, but you're better off using the Stinger or Sidewinder AA missile,
that Apaches were intended to carry.

> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Los wrote:

> Andrew Martin wrote:
After lurking for quit a while on this list I make my first posting.

> Daniel Staberg wrote:

> Sorry Los but the RB70 is a laser beam rider not a wireguided missile,

Thanks for the correction though noone claimed it could knock out a tank
(someone else did?) I said it could probably knock out a slight skinned
vehicle. Even a STinger and the redeye which has a very small smaller warhead
has done that BY ACCIDENT <grin> on several occasions on army ranges (blew up
a duece and
 ahalf
when I was ay Bragg once and I know it also happened once at Fort Hood) which
is why whenever SAM live firing occurs they prohibit all vehicular traffic
anywhere within the range fan of the firing! The interesting thing about the
RB70 is that it is one of the few SAMs that I know of, which is optically
guided as opposed to self guided. I always wondered why the designers went
that route. How effective was it?

BTW while we're on the subject of missiles, last month while we were out at
Hunter Ligget two GMS firings (both the yucky M47 dragon) resulted in
malfunctions. (Not by me). In one case the Dragon flew about 60 meters (which
I believe is the minimum safe arming distance) and exploded showering everyone
with debris. In the second case the dragon flew out about 400 meters then
veered sharply left and flew up and off the range over a hill. A minute or two
later they heard a feint explosion. I've seen GMS' live fired maybe five times
and twice here were malfunctions. A Shilelghleah (sp?) missile (from a
Sheriden) flew out about 1500 meters then did a180 and much to everyone's
horror came right back at the tank exploding on a berm about ten meters behind
it, (Much to everyone's horror) Noone was hurt but you could imagine the
paperwork. A second time on the range one of the guys in my platoon (early
eighties) fired a dragon that went out about 300meters then went straight
ballistic and disappeared from sight again over a hill.

These are just personal observations I've heard numerous horror stories about
dragons. Makes you wonder how they would have performed in wartime...

> Daniel Staberg wrote:

> > Andrew Martin wrote:

> Sorry Los but the RB70 is a laser beam rider not a wireguided missile

Right. And a rather good MANPADS it is too. (MAN Portable Air Defence System).
It's only fault is that if you use it to defend ships at sea (which is was NOT
designed for) it suffers from corrosion. Quite a few of the lauchers that saw
service in the Gulf are now used only for training.

> Before leaving the army I used to command a SAM unit with RB70s and

> Alan wrote:

Actually that was Los, but I don't mind. ^_^

> Ryan M Gill wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Los wrote:
It
> is also a laser guided missile. If the target you are shooting at is

What part of the term "fire and forget" don't you understand? You don't have
to paint the target for it's entire flight you only have to paint it
momentarily for lock on either with laser or millimeter wave fire control
radar (AGM114IIR). Hence you have the ability to either to a LOBL "lock on
before launch" or LOAL "Lock on after launch" and then fire & forget. The
missiles can even be desiganted for lock on by other targets.) Oh and by the
way if you "carefully" read the blurb quoted from Janes you would see that the
specs called for a capability to "hit maneuvering targets at up to 20deg to
the right and left of launch azimuth at distances up to 1000m of the firing
platform" with an overall range of 8000 meters (BTW that's more thana shoudler
fired STINGER) anything being enageed within those paraneters would be dealing
with a HELLFIRE under powered flight. Those parameters also mean that the
missile was designed to include a hip pocket shot against dangerous targets of
opportunity. NOte that of course the both US attack helicopters carry purpose
built AAMs to enagage fast nmovers anyway. (Stinger for Apache, much more
capable(and expensive) AIM9M for Cobra)

> I'd think that the reason for the maneuverability was to allow hand

Yes that is what the sentence above (Cut off in your quote) acknowledged.

> Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:

> Carl Gustav - another fine piece of Swedish engineering that the

A great weapon. The US actually bought a number of those which were used in
the Ranger battalion to replace the venerable old 90mm bazooka. (There'a
bazooka man in each ranger platoon).

The US in general has been dicking around for a real longtime trying to find a
good GMS/p. For some reason we abandoned teh perfectly fine and
effective 90mm bazooka to go with the LAW which was IMO a peice of junk though
useful for bunkers. Then we went to the VIPER (or screwed around with it for a
while), and then now the AT4 (though there are still a lot of M66 LAWs in the
system to get rid of.) Most in the know have maintained that the way to go all
along would have been the Carl Gustav for all US forces but you know how DOD
is with foreign stuff...

> Ryan M Gill wrote:

> Los wrote:

Actually both Los and Ryan are right. Ryan's talking about the older laser
guided Hellfire, while Los is talking about MMW Hellfire, which is Fire and
Forget.

I would much rather shoot jets with Sidewinder, than with Hellfire or MMW
Hellfire, if I was a Apache pilot. Second choice: Stinger. Third choice MMW
Hellfire or cannon depending on range. Fourth choice older Hellfire, they're
for tanks!

> Los wrote:

NIH: Not Invented Here syndrome. A common failing with the US military
I've observed over the years. Examples: M60 tank replacement - US Army.
HARM missile systems - US Airforce. VTOLs - US Marines had to do a lot
of work to get Harriers. There's a fair few other systems, but I can't recall
them all.

In a message dated 9/30/99 10:07:23 PM Central Daylight Time,
los@cris.com writes:

> These are just personal observations I've heard numerous horror

Funny, I can recall many a war(game) in which I used Dragons to GREAT effect!
 ;-))

Just goes to show that most of us are really and truly the cliche'
arm-chair-generals!  Present company excepted of course!  :-)

Actually since we're on teh subject of a Gov't buying foreign product; the
Carl Gustav was a problem during Vietnam era; Sweden refused to supply
components to Australia during the time of our involvement in the conflict!

That is why we purchased production rights to more recent acquisitions, ie
Steyr and Minimi.

And Oz still uses the venerable LAW across the board; look at footage of
Australian soldiers in East Timor....

Owen G

> -----Original Message-----

> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Los wrote:

> What part of the term "fire and forget" don't you understand? You
Hence you have

I've never understood that hellfire was fire and forget. It was my impression
that it could be lauched from way back (8 klicks) by another helo and lobbed
towards a target area in a set of ripples. Individual designators that were
coded could then designate targets. I was not of the impression that it was
cued to a target and then the designator could switch off. Then it would be
more of the genra of a optically or IIR missile.

I guess I'm going to have to trudge across CNN center to the library for

a look at the JANES volumes...

> Yes that is what the sentence above (Cut off in your quote)
acknowledged.

Sorry, I've been over whelmed a bit with mail of late....

> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Los wrote:

> then now the AT4 (though there are still a lot of M66 LAWs in the

Its my perception that the AT4 fills the range gap between the M66 and the
TOW. Dragon is used there to some extent, but not as much as of late.

The brits use the M66( I think) the AT4 and Euromissile Milan in the same
three corresponding range bands.

> On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Andrew Martin wrote:

> Actually both Los and Ryan are right. Ryan's talking about the older

Ahh, I knew I was forgetting sommat. Is MMW hellfire SARH or ARH?

> I would much rather shoot jets with Sidewinder,

Sidewinder has the annular fragmentation warhead qued by the (IR, HF
radio or Laser depends on your AIM-9 Flavor) proximity that is going to
deal with a fast mover much better (Hellfire has a HEAT warhead and no
proximity fuse). I doubt Hellfire has the energy at range to deal with a

figher in a fast/tight turn.

> On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Andrew Martin wrote:

> HARM missile systems - US Airforce. VTOLs - US Marines had to do a lot

LAV's they are a Canuk product...Beretta M9. The Naval Sealift Command has a
bunch of Maersk line (Dutch) ships contracted to act as fast transports.

> Los wrote:

> Ryan wrote:

The older laser guided Hellfire can do this.

> I was not of the impression that it was cued to a target and then the

The newer MMW Hellfire can do this, I believe.

> Ryan wrote:

Based on the Swiss MOWAG Piranha.

> Beretta M9.

Colt, IIRC, made a really big fuss about this.

> Ryan wrote:

ARH. It's not as dumb as Sparrow.

> On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:

> Right. And a rather good MANPADS it is too. (MAN Portable Air Defence
MAN Portable? I know quite a few conscripts that would love to questions that
idea! A lot of terrain in Sweden is broken and covered with large areas of
forrest which means that most of the time we had to leave our vehicles behind
and carry the rest for a couple of kilometers, which is quite back breaking
even with a well trained unit.

It's only fault is that if you use it to defend ships at sea
> (which is was NOT designed for) it suffers from corrosion. Quite a few
There is a naval version of the RBS-70 but if they mounted a army
version on a ship it should take quite a beating from the salt in the water
and in the air.
> > Before leaving the army I used to command a SAM unit with RB70s and
Actually I have worked with both the original RBS-70 and with the new
RBS-90 (Does Bofors market this under a RBS-70 name?) Both have their
advantages.

> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Los wrote:

> Daniel Staberg wrote:
Sorry, due to the wonders of the internet I get the postings to this list in a
somtimes bevildering order. Answers to questions before the questions
etc. Indeed the newer models of the RBS-70 do come with a small HEAT
warhead, it caused a slight bit of panic when the army realised that the
original pre-fragmented warehead wouldn't knock out a Mi-24 Hind or the
Su-25 Frogfoot due to their heavy armour. So Bofors quickly got togheter
a new missile with a HEAT warhead.

> The interesting thing about the RB70 is that it

When the RBS-70 was designed in the 1970s the heatseeking gms were just
BAD Redeye (which we purchased in limited numbers) SA-7 and such. They
were all limited to rear-aspect firings which won't help you tp knock
down the aircraft before it drops the bombs.

So Bofors came up with the idea of a beam rider, it would not matter from
which direction you fired the missile, as long as the operator keeps the
aircraft or helo in his (or nowadays hers) sights the missile will hit the
target. No flares or chaff will work, the only defence is to spot the launch
and engage the operator with fire.

To my knowledege it has never been tested in combat but the results form range
firings are quite imperssive. The major problem is that 99% of the operators
will never fire a live missle due to the cost and the difference between the
simulated launch and a real one can throw of their aim quite a bit.
> BTW while we're on the subject of missiles, last month while we were

Sound realy horrifying!

> These are just personal observations I've heard numerous horror
Well my own limited experience of gms firings are not to imperssive, but most
of the errors were due to faulty soldiers rather than faulty missiles. Here in
Sweden we still have a conscript army, basicly everyone between Private and
2nd Lieutenant is a conscript with a diffrent amount of training. While doing
my orginal stretch as 2nd Lieutenat I sereved in a AA artillery unit (40mm
autocannons). There was a bitter rivalry between
the tripel-A company and the SAM company which was the first to recive
the improved version of the RBS-70, the RBS-90.
At the end of our service both companies deployed to a firing range for
some finishing exercises. As part of these the RBS-90 company would fire
5! missiles (most companies never get to fire 1 missile). However the first
missile launched, flew 50 meters and promptly hit the ground since a private
had forgoten to remove the protective covering on the laser. The second
missile missde the target drone, number 3 hit the drone but its warhead failed
to explode and numbers 4 and 5 worked just fine. However it should be noted
that the 3 first missiles had been in stroage for some 10 years and 2 of the
failures was due to human error.

At the time we of the tripel-A company thought that most of the failures
was due to the faulty way in wich the SAM company trained, they simply didn't
train as they would fight.

Perhaps you were thinking of the first gen Hellfire. That's probably it.

Los

> Ryan M Gill wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Los wrote:

> Ryan M Gill wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Los wrote:

Well sort of. The max effective range of the M66LAW was suposedly 200meters.
(though not really becasue it was more like 100 meters, FROM behind) while the
AT4 is good out to 300 meters. The dragon was supposed to be good out to 1000
meters, if it worked.

BTW the Current TOW (As used in a Bradley) is effective between 65 meters out
to 3750
but is best used between 1500-2500 meters.
Cheers...

Also our SAW (The M249) is of belgian origin.

Los

> Ryan M Gill wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Andrew Martin wrote:

> Daniel Staberg wrote:

> Indeed the newer models of the RBS-70 do come with a small HEAT

More like a HEDP warhead - a *small* shape-charge cone, and a fairly
large pre-fragmented casing. Fortunately aircraft are less likely than
AFVs to have reactive or other add-on armour :-/

Best wishes,

> Los wrote:

> > Carl Gustav - another fine piece of Swedish engineering that the
used in the Ranger battalion to replace the venerable old 90mm
> bazooka. (There'a bazooka man in each ranger platoon).

> The US in general has been dicking around for a real longtime trying

Well... neither the AT4 nor the CG is a GSM/p :-( The AT4 is an IAVR
(to use the DSII term); the CG is... well, a cross between a multi-use
IAVR and Light Artillery, or something. It can't fire ATGMs... at least
not yet :-/

> and then now the AT4 (though there are still a lot of M66 LAWs in

> Most in the know have maintained that the way

> From my viewpoint it'd be *very* nice if all US forces adopted the CG

While I'm at it, what do you think about the SMAW?

The U.S. Navy developed a selectable blast pattern warhead out at China Lake.
The three options are selectable at the time of detonation. First option is an
extended rod penetrator, designed to puncture most heavy armour, the second is
a jet blast baloot designed for a standoff penetration of tanks with PDS, the
last is a general fragmentation blast. The Air Force is using this warhead
design in their LOCAS (Low Cost Autonomous Attack System) a flying drone
guided by a ladar. It maps potential targets and selects wich type of warhead
to use. With this in mind we can safely assume that this warhead will be
improved upon in the near future. If we can get a missile to attack a
helicopter, then it is easily mobile enough to attack a tank. The issue
becomes one of fuel. DSII already stipulates that all VTOLs, etc in low mode
may be engaged by direct fire weapons. However, to engage one at high mode may
require more fuel than is practicable to carry around for infantry.