You’re right that it was based on the AGM-65F sources confirm the Longhorn project started in December 1991 using the AGM-65F as the baseline with an extended fuselage.
BUT: the designation “AGM-65L” is unofficially associated with that same proposed Maverick development the one with the two way datalink, LOAL capability, and extended range.
So yes it never flew, but it was a real Hughes proposal from 1991 with MITL/LOAL on paper.
That’s all I ever claimed.
no you claimed that the AGM-65 has MITL
something being on paper and something actually having MITL are 2 different things
you also heavily implied that the Longhorn is an actually existing variant
I did not specify which version, The production AGM-65s have no MITL, and the 1980s date was off fair corrections.
The Longhorn was a real Hughes proposal from 1991 with a data link for LOAL/MITL.
That’s a factual study, not something I made up, even if it never flew.
My entire point was always about that proposal, not the in game variant or the later laser AGM‑65L.
so your entire point was derailing the topic talking about a non existing variant
guys the Aim-7 is a IR missile
look there it the Aim-7R that never entered service
A real 1991 Hughes proposal is NOT “non‑existing” it’s a documented study, NOT a fantasy.
The topic was missiles with MITL, so mentioning a Maverick variant that was PROPOSED with one is perfectly relevant.
I NEVER claimed it was fielded just that it existed on paper, which is a fact.
If you think that’s derailing, that’s on you I clarified my point repeatedly.
And for the record mentioning a PROPOSED variant that fits the exact topic (MITL) isn’t derailing, it’s adding context.
You don’t have to care about it, but that doesn’t make it irrelevant or made up.
its not
becasue it never existed in any practical way
A “practical way” doesn’t change the fact that it was REAL, DOCUMENTED project. In December 1991** , Hughes Aircraft began DEVELOPING the Longhorn, an extended range Maverick based on the AGM-65F. By early 1992, they had publicly introduced this new system. The plan was to add a small jet engine, INS/GPS guidance, and a data link, pushing the range to ~74 km (three times the original).
Whether it flew or not is irrelevant to my point, it was a real proposal that fits the MITL topic.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/maverick-longhorn.19387/
none of those are sources
EXACTLY that’s what I’ve been saying all along. The Longhorn was a real conceptual proposal by Hughes from December 1991, but it never progressed to production or full development.
A concept with a data link for LOAL/MITL is still a real study it doesn’t have to be fielded to be documented. And the production AGM-65L is a completely separate laser-guided variant from 2011/2012, not the same as the Longhorn.
So my point stands: the Longhorn existed as a proposal with MITL on paper. It never flew, but it was real. We were just talking about two different things.
Designation-systems.net is one of the most well known reference sites for U.S. missile designations it’s a legitimate source. And it literally confirms the Longhorn was a real proposal with a data link for LOAL.
If you won’t accept that, then there’s no point debating further. The facts are right there.
and how is the AI overview telling anything?
IT DOSENT
it isnt
it is a 3rd party site and not an accepted source
oh
Third party or not, it documents a REAL Hughes PROPOSAL from December 1991 that’s public record, NOT made up. If you won’t accept that as a source, then we’re done here. The facts are clear.
they arent just because you say so
a picture of a 3rd party website
i could make a website saying that there is the AGM-69420 and it has 900km of range
but that wouldnt make it a real source
So now designation-systems.net, one of the most respected reference sites for U.S. missile designations, isn’t a “real source”? And you haven’t provided a single source to counter anything I’ve said.
You’re just dismissing everything without proof. I’ve shown you the receipts if you still won’t accept them, that’s on you.
