British Ordnance Collectors Network
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
AGM-65 Maverick
- Thread starter Bjorn
- Start date
Eggburt1969
Well-Known Member
No problem Delta Sierra,
The Hellfire Romeo is just another name for the AGM-114R that I'd already mentioned. I guess people just prefer to use names instead of designations for it? See below.
If you need to know about the Hellfire, let me know as I wrote one of the most extensive (about 23,000 words) open-source (non-classified) reference entries on it for the Janes book 'Janes Weapons: Air-Launched' (former known for decades as 'Jane's Air-Launched Weapons') some time ago.
The earliest reference of the K-Charge I have is generally from the 18th International Symposium on Ballistics, that was help in Texas in 1999. The patent was filed the next year by people from General Dynamics, and a originally from Swiss companies. They could have still been employed by these Swiss companies, as it would seem to have been a co-development with General Dynamics.
I'm not surprised about the Swiss missiles using it too, as they seem to have co-developed it and my first exposure to it being at the 2005 RUAG weapons technology demonstration. They do list a lot of other weapons they developed warhead for, these in documents I still have.
I'm guessing it's called the K-Charge due to its sectioned profile. They never mentioned this name at the RUAG weapons technology demonstration.
eGGBURT1969 iF YOU PLEASE, i WOULD LIKE A COPY OF YOUR ARTICLE, PLEASE SEND TO WEBEREOD@YAHOO.COM THANK YOU
By the way, what's the unfuzed HEDP projectile with the spin-compensated (fluted) spit-back (point-initiate based detonate) modified liner? It's marked in the annotated version version of your image below.
View attachment 163505[/QUOTE]
John is correct, it is the US 30mm. As far as I know the US used the "fluted" shaped charge design in only two munitions, the 30mm and the 152mm. I don't have the 152mm cone yet, and keep having to convince myself not to chop one of my rounds open just for the cone......
View attachment 163505[/QUOTE]
John is correct, it is the US 30mm. As far as I know the US used the "fluted" shaped charge design in only two munitions, the 30mm and the 152mm. I don't have the 152mm cone yet, and keep having to convince myself not to chop one of my rounds open just for the cone......
Eggburt1969
Well-Known Member
I can't send it to you, it's copyright of Janes, so I don't own it. You'd have to buy an older copy of 'Jane's Weapons: Air-Launched'. I rewrote the entry in July-August 2014, and updated it a few times until I left in 2019. The version I wrote should be in the 2015-2016 or 2016-2017 editions, maybe 2017-2018. After this they rehashed all the structure of entries, ditching a lot of the history and other stuff they (i.e. the head honcho and others of his viewpoint) felt was superfluous to requirements.
It's the M430 and later M430A1 as far as I'm aware. There's a nice CAD diagram of the proposed IM-improved version below.
Well, 30 mm (M789), 40 mm (M430/M430A1) and 152 mm. The 152 mm being the HEAT-T-MP projectile of the M409 series round as far as I'm aware.
A
aaaaa
Guest
interesting discussion, is there any data on Maverick or Hellfire rela penetration ? or at least lab test penetration for warhead itself ?
FM 3-06.1 2001 states 42 inches (1,066mm) for Hellfire
This paper from DTIC mentions a test of the Maverick's shaped-charge warhead against concrete.
The AV-8B Tactical Manual Part 2 actually list penetration of the Laser Maverick's (E) penetrating HE warhead against various materials
Last edited:
Stargazer5
Member
I always find the manual graphics of these warheads poor substitutes for pictures. What even those do not bring out is just how large the maverick shaped charge warhead is compared to the more recent anti-tank missiles. I did a little digging on what benefit of such large shaped charge could do and came across the vaporific effect as shown in the last pic. Only trials I found demonstrating this was the destruction of WWII airframes.
Looking for capability against other targets I found hints of US marine Corp trials against ships in which the results were pretty dismal. Its not clear if those trials resulted in the requirement for the penetrator warhead which is also referred to as the Maverick Alternative Warhead or MAW. Iran tried using the SC maverick against merchant ships in the 81-88 tanker war with equally dismal results as the US marine trials.
Looking for capability against other targets I found hints of US marine Corp trials against ships in which the results were pretty dismal. Its not clear if those trials resulted in the requirement for the penetrator warhead which is also referred to as the Maverick Alternative Warhead or MAW. Iran tried using the SC maverick against merchant ships in the 81-88 tanker war with equally dismal results as the US marine trials.
