Com-Central.net

MarkHolloway · Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:11 pm Post subject: Shillelagh on Helicopters?

New one on me....

JG300-Ascout · Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:00 pm Post subject: Re: Shillelagh on Helicopters?

News to me, too. Wonder what they used for a launcher?

Rikard_Hufschmied · Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:47 pm Post subject: Re: Shillelagh on Helicopters?

An underslung Sheridan? Wink

Neil_Baumgardner · Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:53 pm Post subject: Re: Shillelagh on Helicopters?

Dumb question... But any chance the helicopter served as the "sight" for a tank-fired Shillelagh?

Neil

JG300-Ascout · Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:01 pm Post subject: Re: Shillelagh on Helicopters?

- Neil_Baumgardner

Dumb question... But any chance the helicopter served as the "sight" for a tank-fired Shillelagh?

Neil

Neil,
I wondered about that too, but being the beam rider that it was, it's not like just painting the target so the missile can ride down a wide funnel. If it worked at all that way, I'd think the helicopter and Sheridan would have to be so close to each other that it would be pointless. Some fancy re-engineering of the receiver-transmitter would be necessary. I don't offhand know the "cone" of communication for the missile since we never tried remote guidance from the launching vehicle.

JG300-Ascout · Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:39 am Post subject: Re: Shillelagh on Helicopters?

Hmmmm....

"On November 4, 1969, the Senate and House Armed Services Committees Conference Report directed the Army to re-evaluate the Shillelagh and TOW missiles with an eye toward substituting the Shillelagh for the TOW in order to meet the Army's requirement for an antitank weapon for both the helicopter and infantry. The re-evaluation for the infantry application, completed in March 1970, addressed the cost, schedules, and operational effectiveness of the two systems. The findings were that the substitution of Shillelagh for TOW would delay the fielding of an acceptable heavy antitank-assault weapon for at least four years, result in no dollar savings, be less satisfactory from an operational viewpoint, and introduce the inherent risk of any development program. (Shillelagh was designed to be fired from a closed breech in an armored vehicle; in infantry and helicopter roles, an open breech launcher and miniaturized guidance and control components would have to be developed and tested.) The Army therefore recommended to the Congress that the TOW program be continued and that no further consideration be given to Shillelagh as a basic heavy infantry weapon. As the fiscal year closed, the re-evaluation of the Shillelagh and TOW missiles as helicopter-borne armament remained under study."

www.globalsecurity.org...mgm-51.htm

And this...

www.redstone.army.mil/...s/TOW.html

And this, which everybody should download and save...

www.redstone.army.mil/...lelagh.pdf

TOW won, Shillelagh (rightfully) lost. Was considered for Cobra and Cheyenne gunships, though.

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big