Unusual Vietnam Hueys

While im in the unusual huey thread, ive been meaning to ask for a while, But havnt got round to downloading and sorting the picture, its another UH-1D with external armaments, any idea what they are??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-1_Iroquois

Andy

Andy,

  Here are two views of that bird:

[img]http://[img]http://

T he photo was taken on April 20th, 1965 at Redstone Arsenal in the great state of Alabama (same state as Ft. Rucker).  The ship is one of the YUH-1D prototypes.  You can see a seam where the tailboom extension was added.  Also, notice early style vertical air vents and gloss finish.  I think instead of trying to summerize the armament, I will just paste the explanation off of the Redstone site:

"January to March 63 During this quarter, the AMC Aircraft Weaponization Project Office provided MICOM with funds for an in-house research and development project on a rocket weapon system for Army helicopters. Although the 40-mm rocket system (the MICOM-40) concept was not selected by the Aircraft Weaponization PM for advanced development, in May 64 the Ground Support Equipment Laboratory was instructed to plan user demonstrations with the system, which had been renamed the Missile Command Automatic Weapon (MICAW)" 

Thus the weapon is a MICAW 40mm rocket. 

  Does that help?

   Ray

PS: Here's the link to the website: http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/chron4/1963.html
 PPS: MICOM is Missle Command

Check this pic out:

[img]http://

That's right, its a Huey firing a hellfire!  The Huey is a Charlie model.

   Ray
 

Thanks Ray.

Rockets!!! Wow, i thought it was some type of gun lol.

Andy

Interesting pic, Ray!  That's not a Hellfire though.  The Hellfire didn't exist until 1974 and the fin configuration is very different.  Of course, you've completely stumped me as to what it is!  I'm gonna have to figure that one out. 

I've been looking for pictures of the INFANT UH-1Ms, but so far no luck.  That's a weird configuration!

Jon

Jon,

   I agree about the fins, but I got the info from the Redstone site.  I assume they know what they are talking about.  Here is the caption for the pic:

  "3 October 72 The HELLFIRE Management Office (Provisional) was established to direct the program for the new HELLFIRE missile system and ancillary equipment."

  Here's the link:

  http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/chron4/1972.html

Here's another on the history of the Hellfire.  notice the timeline.  once again a Redstone site:

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/HELLFIRE.html

I really try to authenticate stuff before I post it here. My guess is that it is a very early prototype since it is being fired from a Huey.  However, Based on the jargon and military speak in the timeline, I am unclear as to whether a prototype was developed in '72 or whether the first prototype came later.  I edited my original post accordingly

  Ray
 

Ray

Thnaks for the picture's of the YUH-1D, lost them when my computer crashed.

Jon

Believe there are some photo's of the INFANT in Squadron's "UH-1 in Action" or one of thier other Huey books. Think the Museum would have some photo's somewhere

Grandad,

  Here is the original YUH-1D before the tailboom extension:

" border="0" />

I thought you might like it as well.

  Ray
 

Thanks, Ray

UH-1M INFANT

Gunner's seat of the INFANT, more more info, see "HUEY" by Lou Drendel. Squadron/Signal, 1983. It was used in Vietnam, photo's are US Army

UH-1B TOW

"FLIR" equipted UH-1

And we shouldn't forget the CIA funded "Air America" 204B

Ray,

Not tryin to start a flame war here, but the link you provided from the Redstone Arsenal Hellfire project office says that the funding for the program wasn't even authorized until December 29 1972.  According to the timeline provided there, the bid for prototypes didn't go out until June of 1974.  It didn't become the Apache's primary point target weapons system until 1976 and the FIRST Hellfire wasn't fired until 25 September 1978.  

I'm not sure what that missile in the shot above is.  Definitely bears looking into, and as I said, you've stumped me!  

Jon

Jon,

  You got me there.  I don't know much about Hellfires. I just saw the pic and the caption and the  fact that there are two versions of the same picture labeled Hellfire2.jpg and the Redstone site listed it as such.  The date could be off I guess.  Could the rocket be a prototype designed to test the engine or some other component?  Don't worry, man, I don't start wars with military historians who have PhD's in this stuff!!!  Your word is good enough for me.  That's why I changed the post to exclude the date.  Tell me what the rocket is and I will change that too.

   Thanks,

           Ray
 PS: The timeline said the first Programmed Hellfire was fired Sept. 25, 1978.  Does that mean that there were no test firings of Hellfire prototypes or components before that date.  

No worries, Ray!

Comparing the size of that missile to the helicopter and to the size of a Hellfire, its considerably larger.  For some reason, I cannot remember the type of missile, but I believe it is some sort of anti-ship missile (not a Penguin, but something like it).  I'll see what I can dig up.  

As far as the prototype Hellfires, there were mockups made before the 1978 launching, but the first actual launch was the 1978 one.  

Jon
 

OK, I admit I don't know much about missiles, but I can learn.  To that end I have been looking around for the Mystery Missile in this pic:

[img]http://

Currently, my favorite candidate is this little guy, the ATM 84A (an air launched version of the Harpoon):

[img]http://

Jon and Grandad both thought it ws an anti-ship missile, the ATM-84 is that.  It was first fired  in October of 1972.  Also, this variant only has two sets of fins unlike the ship launched version seen here:

[img]http://

What I don't understand, though, is why you would ever launch a Harpoon missile from a Huey.  If that really is what the Myster Missile is then it is even more unusual than a hellfire.  Anyway, I could still be wrong, but at least I think I'm getting closer.

    Ray

Hmmm... good call Ray!

The ATM-84 is the training version of the Harpoon.  The live version is the AGM-84.  The forward fins on that orange missile look a little different, but not so different that it couldn't be an early test article.  The development period seems right, since the Harpoon hit the fleet in 1977.  

My only question is the size of the missile itself.  It may be too small to be a Harpoon, but I think we're on the right track!

Jon 

That's not a Harpoon. Shape is different. Harpoon is too big (12' 7" long) and too heavy (1,145 pounds). Would through the balance off when fired. Air launched AGM-84s are only cleared for F/A-18, P-3C, S-3B, B-52 and RAAF F-111s.

Trigger,

  Good call.  A Harpoon would stretch from the back of the cabin door to the front of the nose on a Charlie model Huey!  Oh well, back to the drawing board.

    Ray

It sure looks like a TOW missile to me. Just being fired without guidance on a test range. Remember the TOW entered combat service being fired from the NUH-1B. The firing aircraft is a UH-1C evidenced by the rotor head and pitot location. Some kind of post Vietnam test of missiles destined for AH-1 use?

Chief Snake 

Chief Snake,

  Front fin looks totally different from a TOW.  Course it also looks differentf rom just about every other missile I can find.  Here's a pic of the TOW family of missiles so others can make their own judgement:

And the pic in question, just so everone doesn't have to go back up:

[img]http://" border="0" />

I think Chris has got it.  The fins have not finished extending yet.  Judging from the size of the missile, the date it was taken and the platform its launching from, it makes sense.  On the TOW, the forward fins flick out forward and the rear fins flick out to the rear.  Plus, they are offset slightly, which accounts for the apparent difference in size. 

If you look at the position that the fins would be in when fully extended, it makes total sense.  They were probably testing the lightweight TOW launchers that eventually ended up on the Cobra.  That'd account for the lack of Huey TOW launcher visible in the pic.

I'd call this one case closed!

Jon

Jon,

  What about the size problem.  The TOW is 46 in. long.  You mentioned earlier that you thought this rocket was larger than a hellfire which is 64 inches long.  I don't see how the mystery missile could really be as small as a TOW.

     Ray

Edit:  Here's a B model firing a known TOW:

[img]http://

Here's the mystery missile:

[img]http://

They don't even look close to me.  Check out this link for a PDF of the History of theTOW.  I haven't had time to read it all yet, it's 231 pages long!

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA434477&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf 

I did a little Photoshoping of the two pics.  I rotated the TOW launch to more closely resemble the  mystery missile  firing.  Then I scaled the UH-1B to the same size as the  Charlie model .  Then I  cut out the two missiles and scaled them together for a better comparison.  I know the angles are different, but they don't look the same to me and the mystery missile looks about a foot longer and greater diameter.  By the way, I think there may be 3 sets of fins on the mystery missile if you look closely at the blown up versions that doesn't look like a black line anymore.  What is everyone else's opinion?

   Ray

PS: Jon, I think the UH-1B is using the light weight TOW launcher you mentioned above, is it not? 

" border="0" />

Ray,

If you rotate the either TOW 45 degrees, the fins will match up perfectly.  Compare the missiles in each picture to the window in the troop compartment door.  They match up perfectly too.  

If you look at the fins, in each pic, one set appears to be an x and one set appears to be a +, which coincides with the offsetting of the fins on the TOW.  Hellfire has never had that.  Hellfire fins have always been in line.  For size comparison, the Hellfire is a foot longer than the TOW and about the same in diameter.  It could very well be an AGM-71A-1 Extended Range TOW undergoing tests. 

Then again... there's no TOW sight on the Huey's chin bubble....

Jon  

Jon,

  I ain't sayin' it's a hellfire, but it don't look like a TOW to me.  You make good points, though.  We'll have to wait and see what Redstone says.  I have a brother-in-law there and I may have to get him to track down the history for me.  One way or another, I will find out what this is if there is still a record of the test fire.  What about the possibility of three sets of fins?  What about the fact that the warhead on the mystery missile isn't tapered like the 71A?  Also, if they are testing the launcher, would they use the experimental orange on the missile or would they just use a training missile?  Diameter difference: 152 mm (TOW) vs 178 (Hellfire), not really that much I guess.  One thing is for sure, the missile is within the size parameters of both the TOW and Hellfire.  However, I think we can safely assume it isn't an anti-ship weapon at least!  Boy was I wrong on that one!  

    Ray

In the end, I think we'll probably see that it's some version of a TOW missile. The red color is a bit of a stumper, usually inert ordnance is blue. The red color is probably for visual recognition for a camera following at increasing distance. There's always many reasons why the minor fin variations exist, especially if they were testing for performance improvement or deficiency and the variations were just cycles of trial. It simply doesn't fit any other configuration of missile except for the more modern anti-armor weapons.

Chief Snake 

One of 6 YH-40's(model 533) configured for a high-speed test for a top speed of 316mph on April 15, 1969

I thought you guys might be interested in a color photo of one of the 553's:

[img]http://[/

Caption reads: "Bell YH40 Model 553 serial number 4" and is from the Army Aviation Museum Archives.  This bird doen't look like Grandad's, though.  Were each of the prototypes outfitted differently?

Ray