Talk:AGM-114 Hellfire

UAV delivery

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)

Also used on the RQ-9 Reaper. But neither of these UAVs can 'stay in the air for days at a time'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafder (talk • contribs) 04:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Israel removing Warhead

There is a section about how Israel uses this weapon and removes the warhead for less collateral damage, but there is no source of this claim. In fact i haven't been able to find any real evidence other than blogs.

I'm gonna put a source needed by this statement, and hopefully someone will fix it.64.173.240.130 00:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The section should be rewritten. "Israel" did not remove the warhead, IDF air force technicians did. Michagal 13:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an issue across the entire US press and blogdom: one often sees "Israel" this, that, and the other thing when the policy maker or the actor is not Israel but one temporary political alignment, Likud.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That wouldn't reduce the collateral damage. The warhead (with the exception of the blast-frag warhead on the AGM-114M) is a shaped charge, which has very limited splash area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafder (talk • contribs) 05:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"Tank Strike" photo

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)

If you're referring to the photo of a tank being hit from the side with flame shooting out in a ball, that wasn't fake. It was one of the early proof of concept tests done at Eglin Air Force Base of the Alpha model Hellfire, before it went into production. It's a poor quality photo, but was actually a screen capture of the video taken of the target strike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafder (talk • contribs) 04:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"Each Hellfire weighs 106 pounds, including the 20 pound warhead, and has a range of 8,000 meters." It seems odd to have a sentence that uses both US customary units and metric units. 80.73.184.52 (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason for this is that the US Army expresses distances in kilometers. In fact the US Army uses meters and kilometers for distances and ranges, feet for altitudes and cloud ceilings, knots for airspeed and (statute) miles per hour for ground speeds and visibility distances. Righteous9000 (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the question is do we write an article to the specifications of the U.S. Army or to the specifications of the World? I think we should just standardize all measurements on Wikipedia to Metric just to broaden the level of understanding in our users.

Victory in Germany (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC).

Since the US developed the missile then the units used by the developer are what is shown as that's where people are sourcing their material. Regardless, the SI units are shown next to the Imperial measurements. Righteous9000 (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but when you're doing an high-intensity argument and need some fact-checking, quick, you don't have the time to realize that you've used Imperial units instead of SI units.

Victory in Germany (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll jump in here. I worked there. When I did HELLFIRE drawings, they had a NATO drawing requirement. Both SI and metric were shown, one as normal, and the other in parenthesis. I no longer remember which one came first. So showing both is correct for that project. Retired24 (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Combat history

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)

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)

combat history of this weapon system in this article is somewhat lacking - focusing on usage of drone strike targeted killings (a secondary use for this weapon) and one air to air incident. I would like to see some factual information of its intended use on armored vehicles. --199.116.169.11 (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Johnston

AGM-114L RF Hellfire does not have a home on jam (HOJ) ARM capability

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)

Actually the AGM-114L DOES use MMW radar, but you are correct that it does not have HOJ ARM capability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafder (talk • contribs) 04:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Wording

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)

The murder of civilians in an ambulance is not a targeted killing

In section Combat history, User Epeefleche seemed to consider the murder of civilians as a targeted killing. In this section, it is stated, and sourced that in 1996, "an Israeli Apache helicopter fired two Hellfire missiles at an ambulance".

In a Targeted killing, "The target is a person taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism, whether by bearing arms or otherwise, who has thereby lost the immunity from being targeted that they would otherwise have under the Geneva Conventions".

In the specific case of the ambulance, the ambulance was a "normal" ambulance (not carrying weapons, for example), so was protected by the Geneva Conventions. So the definition of "targeted killing", clearly, does not apply to this case. This specific case can be qualified as a murder (of civilians).

To remove the expression "murder of civilians", User Epeefleche first claimed it was an issue related to a non neutral point of view, while, in the comment to my editing, I clearly referenced to the definitions of targeted killing and murder. These two concepts, thought related, are different and I do not see any valid reason to make a confusion. And User Epeefleche did not give any. Then, User Epeefleche ignoring my comment, undid my contribution, claiming it was a "point of view not supported by a reference", while the cited reference clearly showed it was not a targeted killing but a (deliberate) murder of civilians. In a third attempt, User Epeefleche reworded the sentence, removing once more the term "murder".

Writing the word "murder" is not a non neutral point of view, it is a clarification based on the definition of a murder. Maybe there is a "better" word, but, in this case, "targeted killing" does surely not apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.14.185 (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The sentence that you have reverted is accurate. Your edits are POV, not ref supported, and as the other editor who reverted you said -- "soapboxing". Please do not edit war.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention to start a edition war. Note that I have always justified my changes. This section in the discussion page is a further attempt. Please, support your claim of POV and not ref supported. 79.89.14.185 (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The statement that you have reverted was accurate. You are seeking to change it to say that Israel was using the missles in order to murder people, but have no ref support for that. It is simply POV, or--as the other editor who reverted you put it -- soapboxing. I have pointed this out to you as has the other editor, and you have now reverted four times in a short period. That is not, as I pointed out on your talk page, appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Simply claiming the statement that I reverted was accurate is not per se a justification.

Note that every of my revert was justified in the comment, and as detailed above, is based on two points:

- targeting an ambulance with unarmed civilians does not match the definition of a targeted killing,

- the murder of these civilians is substantiated by a reference (#6 - Robert Fisk: The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East, pp.773–788, ISBN 9781400075171)

So, your claim of "POV" and "not ref supported" in my changes seems unfounded.

Please, reply specifically on these two points.

79.89.14.185 (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• This concerns the purpose for which the missile was used. What it stated was accurate. What you stated is not accurate, is POV, is soapboxing, and is not supported by the ref. Furthermore, you have reverted four times in a short period of time.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

My change is not a POV: I made this change after reading the definition of a targeted killing and finding it did not match the content of the cited reference.

I am surprised you continue with the same claims, without justifying them. Please give a clear reply to my two points instead of writing again the same things. I read you and I replied to you with the purpose of explaining why I made those changes. I think this is the appropriate way of discussing in wikipedia.79.89.14.185 (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• I stand by what I said. I don't know what more to say -- I would just be repeating myself. You do not have a reference supporting your statement. You are adding an unsupported statement, and reverting -- four times already today -- another statement that is not in dispute. You can't add your own analysis -- please read up on wikipedia's original research and POV policies.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am very surprised that, each time, you cannot elaborate farther than a few lines to explain your position. There is a definition of targeted killing, and there is a reference that gives a lot of details about the destruction of the ambulance. As I pointed out previously, the description of the facts in the reference does not match the definition of a targeted killing. So, as any wikipedia contributor should do I guess, I tried to find a better word to describe it. Googling for "targeting killing wikipedia", I found first the page Assassination, which does not match since "An assassination is the murder of a prominent or public figure". Then, on this same line, I clicked on the link to murder and found it matches better the facts reported in the reference; and made my contribution to improve this article.

As you see, I do not add in any way my own analysis.

For sure, targeting killing does not apply to the case, and, of course, if you propose a better word, it will be helpful!

And for the reverts, as you noticed, I stopped before going in an always-counterproductive war edit 79.89.14.185 (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• It sounds as though you are engaging in what wikipedia calls prohibited synthesis and original research. Please see wp:synth and wp:or. You've not provided any ref that states what you state, and you've reverted four times a statement that is accurate and uncontroversial.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You continue to avoid answering my points. This is a strange attitude.

Maybe "It sounds as [...]" to you because you have not read the cited reference. Have you? Instead of claiming that I reverted "a statement that is accurate and uncontroversial", could you show, please, it was accurate? That will be helpful in clarifying our disagreement. What makes you think that the destruction of the ambulance was a targeted killing? The cited reference? (maybe I misread it)

Going back to the title of this section, how the murder of civilians (not carrying weapons, etc.) in an ambulance qualifies as a targeted killing?79.89.14.185 (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• What precise statement in the cited reference do you believe supports your four reverts? Please quote it, with page number, here, so all can see it. I don't see it, quite frankly.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, what makes you think it was a targeted killing? What qualifies the fact that "an Israeli Apache helicopter fired two Hellfire missiles at an ambulance, killing 6 civilians"? For Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin, it matches the definition of a targeted killing, not for the case of the ambulance. This is just about definition of words. This has nothing to do with my own synthesis or my own original research.

And I have just noticed you are the one who added "targeted killing" to this section (on Nov 7). Could you justify it? Isn't it your own original research or your own synthesis? What references justifies your modification?

Before I go back to the reference, could you answer my questions, please?79.89.14.185 (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No -- you keep on saying it is in the ref. I don't see it. Please don't change the subject. Where is it in the ref? Please provide the page number, and an exact quote. I don't see it.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• This entire section, retitled Political issues, must be removed per WP:COATRACK. You cannot bring in unrelated subject matter by association. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the article will be better off without the section Political issues and that Combat history should list chronologically the uses of this missile, as it did before.

About this discussion: I found it at least strange that user Epeefleche allows himself to accuse another contributor of wp:synth and wp:or, and asks this contributor to justify changes while user Epeefleche does not justify his owns...

79.89.14.185 (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

IP -- your justification now is that the ref states what you stated. I don't see that statement in the ref. Please, as requested, quote the reference and tell us what page that quote appears on.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The section is being improved instead of removed. The bottomline is those who wrote can remove it, or I can do it. This political stuff doesn't belong here. Move it to an appropriate article. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 23:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• The IP has now been blocked. Improvement is generally considered a good thing. As far as removing content, it is appropriate to reflect that the missiles are used in targeted killing. No reason to remove that aspect (though the non-reffed "murder" aspect should be removed, which as The Founders Intent has noted in the article just now is off-topic; the same way it would be to take an article on cars, and a sentence on their purpose being to transport people -- and revise it to say "and murder people", because people die in car accidents). This is by no means a coatrack. That, as the guideline makes clear, is when an unrelated issue obscures the main issue. Here we are merely indicating what the missiles are used for. That is not just not a coatrack, it is highly pertinent.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Usually I would agree, but not in this case. This is obviously an article on a piece of weapons technology, it is inappropriate and off-topic to have biased, political, and controversial content coatracked to the original topic. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 00:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche put a notice up at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Hellfire about this. (He should have notified this page, to be honest). I agree that there is a problem having a section called "political issues". I'm going to be bold remove the reference to "targeted killings" as it is clearly POV - i.e. one side of the argument, just as much as murder of civilians is one side of an argument. I strongly suggest removing the "political issues" subheading altogether. Weapons systems are not about political issues, except possibly where the weapons themselves are essentially illegal.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I already pointed out an article suitable for this content. This is like blaming a gunmaker or certain gun because someone was killed. It could have been a hydra rocket...it's irrelevant what weapon was used, and you don't impune a weapon like this for how it was used. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 00:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with TFI on this: it has no business being in this article - the controversy is about the user, not the weapon itself. - BilCat (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you arguing that weapons articles should not contain examples of conflicts where the weapon has been used? I wouldn't agree with that. It's informative, and not inevitably a coatrack. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

All that needs to be said here is that Isreal is a user of the missile. The controversies should be covered elsewhere. - BilCat (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If that means cutting the reference to Hamas and the ambulance, (mentioning only use in the conflict over Palestine) that would be fine by me.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• What type of missile is used is relevant, as it relates to issues of proportionality and collateral damage and capability. I'm also fine with a sentence saying it has been used by countries x and y in locations a and b for targeted killing -- don't have an issue including or excluding specific instances. But it is clearly used relevant to the practice (and has impacted the practice, though that's not a discussion point for this article). For example (and I'm not sure if Wired is an RS), this article and this Washington Post article capture the flavor of the issue. See also this in the NY Post as well as this one in the Air and Space Power Journal. The use of these missiles for this particular type of killing is a nexus that is important for just the reasons explained in the article. In fact -- I would suggest w/consensus agreement here that I or someone add the W Post article part that is relevant to this article.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

As I stated, we're not going to WP:COATRACK the article. Let's keep it relevant. The Hellfire missile was originally designed to kill tanks, just as RPGs were. Now are we going to go into the RPG article and mention all the innocent people killed by Arabs and Persians using RPGs? I don't think so. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this altogether as it is completely irrelevant to the topic. ALL weapon systems can be used to kill civilians, the Hellfire is not unique or especially noteworthy in this regard.Nickpullar (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your claim of "completely irrelevant" seems unsubstantiated. This weapon kills also civilians and this should be mentioned too. The fact that other weapon systems also kill civilians is not a reason good enough to remove facts where civilians were killed. The section is entitled "Combat History", and the facts you removed were about history and combat. You are selecting the facts. This is not acceptable in an encyclopedia. This is called censorship and bias. 79.88.183.80 (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi 79.88.183.80. I don't think my claim needs to be "substantiated". I have provided a reason why I think it's irrelevant - because every weapon is capable of being used in a way that kills innocent bystanders/civilians. My edit in fact mentioned that innocent people have been killed in strikes against the mentioned targets. Of course I am selecting facts (as you are, as every contributor to Wikipedia does). I am selecting those facts which are most relevant and do not advance a political agenda (it's no surprise to anyone who the innocent bystanders are and who the wicked murderers are who were previously selected).Nickpullar (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nickpullar,

Of course, I do not dispute that "every weapon is capable of being used to kill innocents". I simply say that there is no reason to discriminate among the dead people. If your logic was correct, I could add to the section that "this weapon was used against legitimate targets" and so remove the remaining references (i.e. the ones you consider relevant). Would you find it right?

The difference between your contribution and mine is that yours hides facts while mine keep all of them included. My main criteria is based on reference availability. Moreover, you removed one fact (the one with the reference by Fisk) where the "bystanders" were not "bystanders" but the direct target. So your criteria is not exactly the one you describe.

The section is about "combat history", and bystanders/civilians are (unfortunately) part of this history. So, bystanders/civilians have to be mentioned, independently of (supposed) political agendas, personal beliefs, etc.

79.88.183.80 (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello 79.88.183.80

Thanks for not reverting the changes back. We should rest this topic if you do not have any substantive edits to propose. Just for the record, I think it is tragic when innocents of whatever stripe are killed or harmed as a result of military action. Nickpullar (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello.

I trust you when you write that you believe killing of innocents is a tragedy. And for the record too: I never intended to start a war edit.

About resting this topic: The facts you removed were there for a long time, even if there were previous attempts to censor them (see this discussion page...). Considering previous discussions on this page, I think it would have been more appropriate if you had started to edit this discussion page before making edits to the article. So, why don't you revert your edits, and then continue the discussion?

147.99.222.244 (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Combat history: keeping facts and removing political issues

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)

Amazing how, after the thousands of times this missile has been used, that an author of this entry feels the need to include three times, out of only a handful of mentioned uses, that the missile was used by Israel. Not surprisingly, the "author" makes sure that we know civilians were killed. The way Israel is singled out by the "authors" of this supposed "encyclopedia" is beyond pathetic. The bias is so obvious, it almost rises to the level of parody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.117 (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

I have edited this section to make it more fact-based. I have mentioned the two killings of Ahmed Yassin and Anwar al-Awlaki because they seem to be prominent uses of the weapon in the manner in which it is intended to be used. I have removed the ambulance story and the two Afghan boys (which is a very sad story) because it seems irrelevant to me that this weapon is capable of killing innocent bystanders. ALL weapons have this capability and the Hellfire is not especially noteworthy in this regard. Indeed there is another item earlier which says its small warhead makes civilian casualties LESS likely.Nickpullar (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

Removed "As with all weapon systems, attacks of this type have also resulted in civilian deaths.". Not relevant to combat history of this weapon, not sourced, politically motivated opinion. Statements of this nature, backed with citations, should be made in articles whose focus is "civilian casualites of war", "collateral damage", etc. The statement suggests that since "all weapon systems" cause civilian deaths we should include such text in every weapon article on Wikipedia. The author of this statement clearly has a political agenda here. Again, that belongs in other articles, not weapon articles. Hardwarefreak (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi HardwareFreak. I completely agree with you. I only left this in as a sop to those who wanted a much more extensive (and Isreali and US caused) civilian death statement. Nickpullar (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hardwarefreak: I also agree with you this sentence provided no relevant information, but Nickpullar insisted to keep it... Now it appears this sentence was simply an excuse to keep these (referenced) facts away from WP readers' view. The underlying (and hidden) reason, now stated by Nickpullar, was that these facts were Israeli and US caused. According to which WP rule is this reason relevant? If such a rule does not exist (!), the logical consequence is that the removed facts should be reintegrated.79.88.183.116 (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thales does not produce, nor designed the Hellfire Missile.

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)

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)

I can confirm Rockwell International designed and manufactured the initial production of the Hellfire missile. I was one of the design engineers working there in Columbus, Ohio. Production moved to Georgia. I don't have data after they moved. This shouldn't be hard to look up, but I'm surprised by what I'm finding on the internet. Source: myself, I was there.(I don't have an account.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.154.67 (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Name derived from fire and forget capability

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)

Sounds plausible, do you have a source? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in writing, just 25 years of working the Hellfire program for Lockheed Martin (and Rockwell International, the originator of the missile). The fact that the 'fire-and-forget' version of Hellfire (Longbow variant) did not come into service until the original had been in service almost ten years (without 'fire-and-forget' capability) should be enough.Jafder (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I note that the page has reverted to referring to HELLFIRE as an acronym, despite the fact that nowhere on the PEO Missiles and Space JAMS Hellfire page is it listed as such. Also note that Hellfire is a trademark name, owned by Lockheed Martin, who also do not attribute the name to said acronym. I would think responsible journalism would require proof of the source, rather than proof of the negative. It should also be noted that the AGM-114 is an 'Air to Ground Missile', not 'Air to Surface Missile', hence the designation as AGM-114, not ASM-114.Jafder (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sorry, I worked there too, and don't remember HELLFIRE being an acronym for anything. Maybe it is, but it's odd that I would not have known it. We had acronyms for everything, and we knew them. The original HELLFIRE was laser designated. Either from a launch platform, aircraft or from any troops on the ground. Any laser that signal matched. You had to be careful where you pointed the laser, or the missile would go wild chasing a laser dot like a cat. Retired24 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Images of victims of Hellfire missiles

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)

Egypt claim -- possible new Combat Usage entry

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)

Platform and Missile Capability

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)

There were several tests on fast-mover platforms, but in the end, the Air Force elected to go with other weapons systems. Chatter in the industry had it that the Air Force did not want a main weapon whose original design was driven by Army requirements. They are, however, using it on both the MQ-1 and MQ-9 platforms, with flight path software adjustments. Jafder (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No fire and forget capability

"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)

The description is textbook definition of the LOAL launch modes of the Hellfire missile. In fact, in LOAL-HI mode the launch platform never even has to see the target, let alone fire and then 'break line of sight'.Jafder (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

List the M36 here?

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)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Call for discussion

An IP contributor made the controversial change of "targetted killing" to "assassination". I reverted them.

It is just a couple of words, but highly controversial, so it merits a discussion here. Geo Swan (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't the author of the changes, but I believe it was very POV to revert changes. assassination is the correct NPOV term, whereas targeted killing is a controversial expression, which was born out of an attempt at whitewashing a practice that already has a term for it in ordinary everyday language: assassination. This is not me. This is the Wikipedia definition of targeted killing. So why would you choose targeted killing over the least controversial assassination term? I made my point in another section of this talk page simply because the subject of this section "call for discussion" was unclear. MarcelloPapirio (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"Assassination" is preferable, since "targeted killing" is a debatable euphemism

"Assassination" is defined as "Assassination is the act of deliberately killing a prominent person" (source assassination). This article begins in the same way as "assassination," but it repharses the concept of assassination by saying "targeted killing of high profile individuals." I know very well that "targeted killing" is more of an umbrella term. I can do targeted killings of combatants, for instance. Surgical strikes, that is. Assassination is clearly a subset of the notion of targeted killing. I argue, in this specific case, "targeted killings of high profile individuals" is just used as a low-impact synonym of "assassination." I believe the spreading of phrases such as "targeted killing" is part of a broader and well-known marketing stunt on behalf of defence forces (and the US forces, in particular) to wipe their face clean in front of the masses. In fact, they tend to substitute everyday terms with technical terms that have a lower moral impact. In this fantasy language, it is not "enemy soldiers" who are "killed:" rather, they talk of "threats to be eliminated." This is a classic textbook example of strategic dehumanisation. By changing everyday language, hegemonic powers aim to suppress potential opposition to unpalatable practices. Please note that such remark of mine is apolitical, since what I am repeating is something trivial and shared across the political spectrum: be it cultural Marxism or authoritarian dictatorships, all regimes attempt to manipulate public opinion by tweaking words and shared representations. Unfortunately, I noticed that, when it comes to military jargon, Wikipedia tends to adopt POV views rather than NPOV views. Possibly, this is due to the bona fide usage on behalf of "experts" or "people in the know." I do not believe Wikipedians whitewash language just because. I believe it is bona fide: whoever created the missile, wrote a handbook and advertised it as a "targeted killing" device. However, in the specific page targeted killing, Wikipedia makes it clear the entire concept is highly controversial, debated, and even argued against. So why does this page use the controversial expression rather than the most established and accepted one (i.e. assassination)? Choosing the most controversial term over the least controversial one gives the article a POV air, which is not what Wikipedia seeks to transmit. MarcelloPapirio (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with using "assassination" in this article, as these aren't assassinations in the usual sense of the term. The whole context is important, which is provided by the article on targeted killings. Using "assassination" whitewashes the complexity of the issue, and that's POV. - BilCat (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Disagreeing does not mean you should happily revert the changes. Your arguments are not rational. The POV term is targeted killing since it is the end-result of a political agenda, whereas assassination is literally the universal term for what targeted killing is. Your appeal to context is empty. I provided linguistic reasons to use the most obvious term and not the term that was "coined" to mask the concept of assassination behind frivolous euphemisms.--MarcelloPapirio (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:BRD, the burden is on the person making the change to get a consensus, which is you. That hasn't happened yet. There are steps we can take to make sure we get more eyes on this talk page, as it appears it doesn't get much traffic. Otherwise it's just two people arguing two opposing points of view and getting nowhere. - BilCat (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: started the discussion, so pinging him in case he missed this. - BilCat (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:NPOV the best expression should be "elimination of a High-value target (HVT)". @Frostbite36: made this change on 16:43, 27 October 2015‎ with an argument similar to mine. Politically charged terms should be avoided. So if User:BilCat claims assassination is loaded and Wikipedia and I claim targeted killing is controversial, then we could opt for this very neutral term.--MarcelloPapirio (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that for the time being, with the provision that further discussion may change it. - BilCat (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Implemented, then, with direct quote from the "Routledge Handbook of Air Power".--MarcelloPapirio (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• MarcelloPapirio, my personal point of view would be to agree with you, and call these killings assassinations. But, as a wikipedia contributor, I think I have to disagree with you.

You and I are not reliable sources, so our personal opinions need to take a very distant second place to what RS call the killings. If RS choose the milder term "targetted killing" I think we need a stronger reason than our personal opinions it is more accurate, because WP:Verify says we aim for verifiability, not truth.

"elimination of a High-value target" gets practically no gooogle hits. Target killing gets over one thousand times as many hits.

BilCat thanks for the {{ping}}. Geo Swan (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I compared four google news searches.

• 000 hits = "elimination of an hvt" or "elimination of a high-value target" agm-114 or "agm 114" or "hellfire missile"
• 043 hits - "targetted killing" agm-114 or "agm 114" or "hellfire missile"
• 606 hits - killing agm-114 or "agm 114" or "hellfire missile"
• 064 hits - assassination agm-114 or "agm 114" or "hellfire missile"
• 606 hits - killing agm-114 or "agm 114" or "hellfire missile"

"Killing" is almost ten times as widely used as "assassination", which is, in turn, about fifty percent more widely used than "targetted" killing.

Elimination is not used anywhere. Geo Swan (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Geo Swan for contributing to our discussion. But, if I follow your line of reasoning, I do not know what "consensus" is. I went not for mere Google, but Google Scholar. And it turned out "high-value target" has 580,000 occurrences -- whereas "targeted killing" has some 790,000. Except the 790,000 occurrences of "targeted killing" include several debates on how controversial targeted killing is. But, above all (here lies my interest), there seems to be a debate on whether "targeted killing" is an appropriate phrase *at all*. So this was what struck me. To the contrary, "high-value target" is kind of neutral (almost bland). Thus, after BilCat invitation to look up consensus, I took it not to mean "majority of voters" but rather "scientific consensus". GooogleScholar showed me the way. In the end, though, do as you like. But I expect this page to come under attention again.--MarcelloPapirio (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just a minor note Geo Swan: you misspelled "targeted". This might have skewed your results. Also, I see your point. But it is not that "Google Searches" make right. I tried to go full academic and put int the article a straight quote from a Routledge Handbook. I am well aware academics can be kind of quirky, but in this case the Routledge Handbook is "state of the art" and it defines our Hellfire precisely the way I quoted. Does this need further discussion and Google searches?--MarcelloPapirio (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Targetted" is British English, while "targeted" is American English, generally speaking. You'd probably have to do searches for both spellings, depending on the search engine used. - BilCat (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• MarcelloPapirio I didn't reply because I needed you to ping me again.

The number of google hits on "high-value target" are irrelevant. What is relevant is the the phrase "elimination of a high-value target" is pure invention. Geo Swan (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• As for which of the phrases we discussed here is controversial - they are all controversial because the underlying act they describe is controversial.
• In conventional warfare, where two countries' soldiers are shooting and killing one another, we call this combat, not murder, and the Geneva Conventions state signatories agree not to charge enemy soldiers with murder.
• In conventional warfare, where innocent civilian bystanders are caught in crossfire, and die, that is not considered murder, either, provided the soldiers who killed them, thought they were shooting at enemy combatants.
• Is it murder when, in a high tech war, if special forces know a certain house contains both enemy soldiers, and civilians, and they have a weapon like an RPG or mortar, that will destroy that house on the first short, and they fire that weapon without warning, so the civilians don't have a chance to run away?

  I dunno. Maybe. In the 2002 firefight where 15-year-old Omar Khadr was captured, after being gravely wounded, there had been women and children. US Special Forces arranged for them to run away before they called in an aerial bombardment.

• Is it murder, or assassination, in a high-tech war, to use a weapon that can strike without warning and is likely to kill everyone in a vehicle or a building if the primary target is not a soldier, but is, rather, a civilian?

  PBS Frontline broadcast an episode about the George W. Bush Presidency's attempts to knock out Saddam Hussein, his sons, and the rest of the guys on the deck of playing cards with the faces of the top couple of dozen members of his leadership circle.

  Someone convinced Bush, or Cheney, or Rumsfeld, to give the military pre-authorization to launch missiles from UAVs, to kill Saddam, without getting specific permission first, under some pretty broad rules. They weren't authorized to launch missiles if the civilian collateral death toll was estimated to be more than thirty. If the target was Saddam, or his sons, they could launch a missile without regard to the estimated civilian death tool.

  The military launched fifty strikes, prior to the invasion. They only claimed one success. They claimed they killed "Chemical Ali", Saddam's cousin. But, it turned out they were mistaken.

• I think using a weapon that can kill, at a distance, without warning, probably does merit being called an assassination, if the intended target is clearly a civilian.
• I suggest that using a weapon that can kill, at a distance, without warning, against an individual who is clearly a combatant, in the middle of a war, should not be called an assassination. Geo Swan (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Geo Swan: Almost all of the last post is beyond the scope of what an article talk page is for, and it's very close to soapboxing. I understand this is an issue that's important to you, but this talk page isn't the place to get into all that. - BilCat (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hellfire Shore Defense System

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)

I don't see that this has been confirmed.

I think it has been speculated that the weapon was used to kill Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in 2022. The title of the news article states "Zawahiri Death: Did US Use Secret 'Flying Ginsu' Missile?" The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

To add to this article: the fact that a variation on this weapon was used to assassinate Ayman al-Zawahiri. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources continue to speculate, the "Flying Ginsu" as the weapon used to kill al-Zawahiri is unconfirmed. See here:

References

Removal of neutrality

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)

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)

Please advise why you consider the 2nd statement, with its POV and use of a 'word to avoid' [1], to be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8E90:AE01:C842:7294:7468:20A4 (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Removal of Claim about the R9X Variant in Gaza

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)

The shell in question and an Israeli 155mm Illumination shell for comparison

The shell found at the scene, on the right is an israeli 155mm illumination round for comparison

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)

3 Houthi boats sank at 10 miles.

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)

Most common?

"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)