Talk:AGM-114 Hellfire

message: think some version of the missile has been adapted to fire from the Predator UAV for use against mobile targets in Afghanistan.  Could someone knowledgeable about this update the article?  Missile-carrying UAV's that stay in the air for days at a time are a significant development.
:I have never edited an article before but I think the best way to do so would be to include a line, "See RQ-1 Predator".  The Predator UAV article goes in depth already about the fire control system that actually designates targets for the hellfire.  It is well explained that the missile is a laser beam riding type and will home regardless of a moving or stationary target; as long as the beam is trained the seeker will impact the point of reflection.  It's really pretty dope.
::Seems this is covered in the article now. I added UAV mention to the feature table too. --Wernher 03:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: UAV delivery

message: I've removed the "tank strike" picture from the photo section because it's obviously fake.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.94.18 (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tank Strike" photo 

message: Allied force, Kosovo. Oh, do tell. That there is total BS, back then no drones used hellfire, only platform deployed anywhere near were AH-64's but when 2 of those got shot down / collied in mid-air, they were withdrawn and never deployed for operations, so its safe to say that the claim in the article how hellfire was demostrated there to be a supperior weapon, or used at all infact, is a lie and needs to be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.138.236 (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The ONE Apache (two crewmembers) lost in Kosovo was due to a wirestrike, not enemy fire or a mid-air collision.  AH-64s were NOT withdrawn from Kosovo, and in fact AH-64 units were serving in Kosovo as late as 2004.Jafder (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combat history 

message: The AGM-114L does not have a HOJ ARM capability. There are no AAA assets that use MMW radar so such a capability would be useless. The only platform on the battlefield with MMW is an AH-64D with an FCR fitted. Righteous9000 (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  AGM-114L RF Hellfire does not have a home on jam (HOJ) ARM capability 

message: Can someone please revert this to a previous version as it currently reads like an Advert. 76.6.109.196 (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: Following the above discussion, some changes were made between November 12 and November 14. More recently, new changes lead to the removal of the subsection "Political issues" and some of the facts included in this subsection. After discussing with VsevolodKrolikov on his/her talk page (because he/she was the author of one of the recent changes), I have reintegrated the facts (and added two references). However I did not reinserted the subsection "Political issues".
79.89.14.185 (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: While the bias is obvious, it also depends on you to add more data about combat history. This encyclopedia is a work-in-progress. Why don't you contribute to it? Are you the kind of person who find more convenient to complain?79.88.183.142 (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

text: You removed facts from this section. You did not make it fact-based. The facts you removed were about the use of this weapon in combat. It looks like censorship. 79.88.183.80 (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combat history: keeping facts and removing political issues 

message: Your page on the AGM-114 "Hellfire" lists Thales as the Company that produces the Hellfire missile. Martin Marietta, now Lockheed Martin designed and produces the Hellfire and the Hellfire II. Even your own references take you to the Lockheed Missile and Fire Control company, the part of LM that is responsible for production of the Hellfire. Please correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.35 (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hellfire missile was originally designed and produced by Rockwell International.  Martin Marietta, later Lockheed Martin, won several partial build contracts, and later formed an LLC with Rockwell International for the sole purpose of producing Hellfire missiles.  On Boeing's purchase of Rockwell International's Missile Systems Division, Boeing elected to allow Lockheed to assume sole ownership of Hellfire.Jafder (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thales does not produce, nor designed the Hellfire Missile. 

message: The lead paragraph of the article states "The HELLFIRE name comes from its original intention as a helicopter-launched fire-and-forget weapon (HELicopter Launched FIRE-and-forget).", and cites the JAMS (Joint Attack Munition Systems)article as the source.  No where on the JAMS website does it state this.  The origination of the name was the kill vector of the weapon, which was to inject plasma into an armored vehicle and burn it from the inside out, also causing the overpressure which results in the turret being blown off.  The fire-and-forget capability for HELLFIRE missile wasn't introduced until the Lima model of the missile, some 15 years into it's production life.  Trying to assign an acronym to the name HELLFIRE is just someone's assumption that everything the Army does boils down to an acronym.  It also doesn't explain the naming of the British variant of the HELLFIRE missile, the BRIMSTONE, although I'm sure someone is hard at work trying to come up with an acronym that would fit.Jafder (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds plausible, do you have a source? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE  15:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence in question now refers to a Boeing website (of all things) which, naturally as Boeing has nothing to do with this missile, says nothing about the Hellfire missile, let alone the origin of the apparently spurious acronym this article purports to be the source of the Hellfire name. Unless someone can show a legitimate reference (and not some British aviation fan mag either), suggest that this misinformation be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.162 (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found a reference from Flight International in 1974 for "Heliborne, laser, fire-and-forget missile". Yeah, it's a British aviation magazine, but hardly a "fan mag". I also recall reading something similar in AvWeek issues from the mid-1970s (read in the 1980s), but unfortunately I don't have access to AvWeek's online archives. - BilCat (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name derived from fire and forget capability 

message: Quick question for long-time editors of this page. Have there ever been any discussions/edit wars regarding the inclusion of images of casualties of Hellfire missiles on this page? Thanks Publicus 16:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Images of victims of Hellfire missiles

message: Egypt is claiming the use of a "ballistic missile" in an attack on a government building but posting wreckage of an AGM-114F.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/05/us-made-hellfire-missile-believed-to-have-been-used-in-insurgent-attack-on/ 71.200.28.21 (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egypt claim -- possible new Combat Usage entry 

message: Hellfire's original design was for Helicopter launch. The list of platforms capable of using the missile does include several propeller driven aircraft. I suspect there is some speed related limitation that prohibits it use from faster aircraft (such as A-10, or F-16) Can anyone confirm this or add more specifics. Wfoj3 (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platform and Missile Capability  

message: "Laser guidance can be provided either from the launcher ... the latter two options allowing the launcher to break line of sight with the target and seek cover.[7]"
The source does not state that and it is technically impossible. There might however be some LOAL capability with inertial guidance into the target area. --Moritzgedig (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No fire and forget capability 

message: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/army-searching-for-missile-that-fell-from-apache-helicopter-in-upstate-ny/ Hcobb (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  List the M36 here? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on AGM-114 Hellfire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.mil.no/start/article.jhtml?articleID=78157
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130020435/http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/Lebanon/C4E6544B51A01293C2257593001BCF28?OpenDocument to http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/Lebanon/C4E6544B51A01293C2257593001BCF28?OpenDocument
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on AGM-114 Hellfire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090131222019/http://www.realmilitaryflix.com/public/748.cfm to http://www.realmilitaryflix.com/public/748.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101204215856/http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/HellfireII/ to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/HellfireII/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518040357/http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/LongbowFireControlRadarMissile/ to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/LongbowFireControlRadarMissile
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think the article could be expanded with the ground-launched anti-ship version used by Sweden and Norway. I'll save a few links here for future use, please comment if any of these links are unreliable or out of scope. https://boeing.mediaroom.com/1998-09-29-Norwegian-HELLFIRE-Shore-Defense-System-Completes-System-Verification-Flight-Test https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/sweden-is-sending-robot-17-coastal-defense-missiles-to-ukraine  https://www.dockstavarvet.se/references/norway/  http://www.armedforces.co.uk/Europeandefence/edequipment/edmis/edmis4a7.htm  https://laststandonzombieisland.com/tag/hellfire-shore-defense-system/  . Sjö (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hellfire Shore Defense System 

message: A user is insisting on a non-neutral and loaded description, which contravens 'Words to avoid'. The two versions are:
*'The AGM-114 has been the US's munition of choice for airborne targeted killings that have included individuals it considers high profile terrorists' This is an accurate description.
*'The AGM-114 has been the munition of choice for airborne targeted killings that have included high profile terrorists.' This is not neutral.
Comments are welcomed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8E90:AE01:39A1:FE5D:627D:C8B9 (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of the statements are actually covered by the current references in the article but the second statement is better but could really do with better sourcing or be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please advise why you consider the 2nd statement, with its POV and use of a 'word to avoid' , to be better.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8E90:AE01:C842:7294:7468:20A4 (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Not sure what your point is as both statements use Terrorist, main problem is that the neither statement is supported by the references. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be OK if the statement was removed. The edit, to add about the US considering the individuals terrorists, was to remove an absolute.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8E90:AE01:39A1:FE5D:627D:C8B9 (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of neutrality

message: There was a claim about the alleged use of the R9X variant (Flying ginzu) by Israel in the parking lot of the Al-Shifa Hospital. Currently the photographs of the incident seem to show that the damage was caused by the carrier shell of a 155mm artillery round (Likely an illumination round based on its yellow colour (see below)
Should new evidence come to light that confirms the use of an R9x instead then the claim can be readded. Until them it should be removed to prevent it being used as a source of disinformation IMO Zeocrash (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Claim about the R9X Variant in Gaza

message: Inside Story on How an MH-60 Sank Houthi Attack Boats (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJNDPSGOqe0)
Much longer range described in this video than we know of. 207.55.55.31 (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 Houthi boats sank at 10 miles.  

message: "The General Atomics MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) carry the Hellfire II, but the most common platform is the AH-1Z Viper helicopter gunship, which can carry up to 16 of them."
So the US Army has over 2000 AH-64s, and the USMC has than 200 AH-1Zs. The AGM-114 is a standard weapon on both of them. How is the AH-1Z "the most common platform"? Unless it means the Hellfire II specifically, and the Army is stuck with the old missile only, which seems very unlikely.. Idumea47b (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most common?