Apache problem ?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mick, I have done some diggin' about and I have found the artilce from the Defense Daily dated 17 Oct 2001 written by Mark Strass.
"US Army restricts Hellfire missiles with ATK motors to wartime use only"
The Army has restricted the use of AGM114 Hellfire anti-tank missiles with Alliant Techsystems (ATK) motors to wartime operations only after debris ejected from the missile during launch damaged several AH64 attack helicopters during exercises in Europe last year, the service said.
19 out of 43 AH64 involved in Op Victory Strike 1 experienced horizontal and vertical stabilator and aft fuselage damage as a result of firing Hellfire missiles. Investigation determined the debris ejected from the missile with ATK motors installed had caused the damage.
The missiles affected by the restriction include the AGM114L, 114C, 114F and 114K.
Though the damage to the rear of the aircraft was repairable, the US Army FEARED that debris ejected from the missile COULD damage the main or tail rotor, which COULD in a worse case scenario, cause the the aircraft to go out of control and crash.
Furthermore, if the missile are to be fired from an Apache they would be limited to firing from the right outer pylons only, limiting the number of missiles to 4 instead of the normal load of eight.
A similar restriction was placed upon the OH-58D for the same reasons.
It seems to me the solution will revolve around changing the missile motor, or modifations to the units already in stock. That can't be too hard, though I not a rocket scientist!
"US Army restricts Hellfire missiles with ATK motors to wartime use only"
The Army has restricted the use of AGM114 Hellfire anti-tank missiles with Alliant Techsystems (ATK) motors to wartime operations only after debris ejected from the missile during launch damaged several AH64 attack helicopters during exercises in Europe last year, the service said.
19 out of 43 AH64 involved in Op Victory Strike 1 experienced horizontal and vertical stabilator and aft fuselage damage as a result of firing Hellfire missiles. Investigation determined the debris ejected from the missile with ATK motors installed had caused the damage.
The missiles affected by the restriction include the AGM114L, 114C, 114F and 114K.
Though the damage to the rear of the aircraft was repairable, the US Army FEARED that debris ejected from the missile COULD damage the main or tail rotor, which COULD in a worse case scenario, cause the the aircraft to go out of control and crash.
Furthermore, if the missile are to be fired from an Apache they would be limited to firing from the right outer pylons only, limiting the number of missiles to 4 instead of the normal load of eight.
A similar restriction was placed upon the OH-58D for the same reasons.
It seems to me the solution will revolve around changing the missile motor, or modifations to the units already in stock. That can't be too hard, though I not a rocket scientist!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give the problem of a new rocket motor to them chaps on Scrapheap Challenge. With a bit of sugar and a copper cone from an old lampshade I bet they could make something that didn't spit debris at the rotables.
One thing I am a bit suspicious about though, is the sexy company video that says many parts have been balistically tested. What the hell fires backwards from a hellfire that is more powerful than a frozen chicken - isn't that the norm?
One thing I am a bit suspicious about though, is the sexy company video that says many parts have been balistically tested. What the hell fires backwards from a hellfire that is more powerful than a frozen chicken - isn't that the norm?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry ARSSE. I spoke to my man in the MoD who said the use of the word rocket in this context just showed what a numbskull the man who compiled the brief was. I don't know who that was so cant say but it was definitely Hellfire he was supposed to be talking about as shown by Owe Ver Chute's more extensive quote from the US article I cited earlier. I'm glad he highlighted the words FEAR and COULD cos anyone looking at the article at the start of the thread will note that those were precisely the words I used but I guess I will now get accused of plagiarism!
I am even less of a rocket scientist than Owe Ver Chute so I wouldn't even begin to propose a solution but I am told that the fact that Hellfire is rail-launched is an issue here, hence the alleged use of TOW on the left hand side of the US Apaches in Anaconda?
I am even less of a rocket scientist than Owe Ver Chute so I wouldn't even begin to propose a solution but I am told that the fact that Hellfire is rail-launched is an issue here, hence the alleged use of TOW on the left hand side of the US Apaches in Anaconda?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: TheDarkSide
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mick Smith,
Sorry, if I have added to the misery of undervalued journo's. It would appear everyone has had a go at the press on this thread.
The old Teledrums generally does a bloody good job..and rightly it is down to some CivSec undergrad to put out the release..rockets or missile? most Sun readers will not get the difference anyway.
Must however, still take issue on "anti tank"..the AAC stopped using that term when Scout AH1 SS11 was finally OSD. I think you will find that this anology is purely political. Army Aviation has a remit to aquire a class of helo through the Air Staff and MOD Comptroller Aircraft to conduct anti tank ops. If they tried to purchase an aircraft outside of anti tank or the light recce, liaison, lift role.. the junior service will cry foul..hence the initial argument on whether the Lynx should or should not have gone to the RAF. They body swerved the play by fitting TOW and replaced the Scout, hence the Lynx Mk1 TOW hailed the still current role and widely known term (military speaking)..Armed Action!
But has you say..some p***ker in the MOD Corp Media section still thinks the Skeeter is the latest battlefield helo anyway!
Good post though...cheers!
Luke,
Nothing startling about civilians, being used to help bring in a service aircraft. P&W and McDD had loads of contracted staff at the 36 TFW Bitburg in Germany to bring in the F15A back about 1975 -78. The engines in particular were deemed to technologically advanced for USAF mechs to run riot on!
Bear in mind, that the average comprehension age of ability for US service personnel is about 10 - 12 year old. Equipment / training manuals are therefore janet & john level accordingly. Hence the high cost of breaking down documents into bite size chunks. No reflection upon the good old US Forces intended..we too are having a similar problem. I hear that about 70 - 80% of Infantry soldiers are barely literate on joining up.
Interesting post on Apache history though
Sorry, if I have added to the misery of undervalued journo's. It would appear everyone has had a go at the press on this thread.
The old Teledrums generally does a bloody good job..and rightly it is down to some CivSec undergrad to put out the release..rockets or missile? most Sun readers will not get the difference anyway.
Must however, still take issue on "anti tank"..the AAC stopped using that term when Scout AH1 SS11 was finally OSD. I think you will find that this anology is purely political. Army Aviation has a remit to aquire a class of helo through the Air Staff and MOD Comptroller Aircraft to conduct anti tank ops. If they tried to purchase an aircraft outside of anti tank or the light recce, liaison, lift role.. the junior service will cry foul..hence the initial argument on whether the Lynx should or should not have gone to the RAF. They body swerved the play by fitting TOW and replaced the Scout, hence the Lynx Mk1 TOW hailed the still current role and widely known term (military speaking)..Armed Action!
But has you say..some p***ker in the MOD Corp Media section still thinks the Skeeter is the latest battlefield helo anyway!
Good post though...cheers!
Luke,
Nothing startling about civilians, being used to help bring in a service aircraft. P&W and McDD had loads of contracted staff at the 36 TFW Bitburg in Germany to bring in the F15A back about 1975 -78. The engines in particular were deemed to technologically advanced for USAF mechs to run riot on!
Bear in mind, that the average comprehension age of ability for US service personnel is about 10 - 12 year old. Equipment / training manuals are therefore janet & john level accordingly. Hence the high cost of breaking down documents into bite size chunks. No reflection upon the good old US Forces intended..we too are having a similar problem. I hear that about 70 - 80% of Infantry soldiers are barely literate on joining up.
Interesting post on Apache history though
