it dosent besides some sheet of paper somewhere in an archive
both yes and no first of all. it was proposed by Hughes in December 1991, but it never progressed past the design stage. Designation-systems.net is third-party, but Parsch cites official DoD directories, contractor docs, and Jane’s at the bottom of every page. If you dispute the Hughes 1991 Longhorn proposal, point out the error in the actual cited data instead of just dismissing the URL.
it never flew and was only on paper. My words were always “proposed” and “studied”
I never claimed it was fielded.
EXACTLY, and that proves my point. The AIM-7 family isn’t known as IR missiles, BUT the AIM-7R was a proposed IR variant that never entered service. Nobody says “Sparrow is IR” because of that proposal.
THE SAME applies here: the AGM-65 family isn’t known for MITL, but the Longhorn was a proposed variant with MITL on paper. I never claimed the whole Maverick family had MITL just that a specific proposed variant did.
the AGM-65L designation officially belongs to the laser variant. I’ll give you that.
But the Longhorn proposal still existed as a Hughes study from 1991 with a data link for MITL regardless of what you call it. Call it AGM-65F based, call it Longhorn, call it whatever. It was a real proposal on paper, and that’s the only thing I’ve been saying from the start.
SO a guy from Germany with no military ties isn’t a valid source but his website still documents a real Hughes proposal from December 1991. The source’s background doesn’t change the historical record.
By that logic, you’d also dismiss countless aviation historians, researchers, and authors who aren’t military either. That’s not how sourcing works.
This Argument is not going anywhere
No. You would need agm84 for that which is available to later tech tree hornets. And even then that tactic is just inefficient considering single s1/sm sv can just delete entire salvo let alone single missile.
Premium hornet has agm62 er dl. Its bomb which you cant just send from airfield because that would require going high and dying to aa. Instead you should fly low, pop up at 2-3 km away from aa and toss bomb somewhere in general enemy direction. Then you evade, switch to mitl and guide it at closest target. If I were you I would use 2 aim9l, 1 sparrow, thermal pod, 2 agm62, 2 agm88. Mavericks are hot garbage anyway.
and yet you say the AGM-65 has MITL because of a proposal
great that you are actively going agianst your own words
yes you did
you didnt read the the side where he wrote about himself?
that website is his hobby, he studdied math and his source is the internet
comparing him to military historians who study archives as their full time job and teaching history is like comparing apples to oranges
and even if you are using historians as a source you need 2 sources agreeing with each other becasue they arent a primary source either
-
he meant the AGM Longhorn, NOT the AGM in game.
-
Claymore is correct
-
he got the Maverick wrong, but he meant the LONGHORN.
1 Like
I misspoke when I said “AGM-65 Maverick all have MITL” in that one sentence. I CORRECTED my self multiple times after that, and I’ve been consistent about the Longhorn being the only variant with MITL on paper.
As for the source you’re right that he’s a hobbyist, but his site still documents a real Hughes proposal from December 1991. A hobbyist can still compile accurate information from public records. The source’s background doesn’t change the historical fact that the Longhorn was a real study.
If you have an official document proving Hughes never proposed it, show it. Otherwise, we’re just arguing semantics and source credibility instead of the actual facts.
Let’s agree to disagree and move on. Have a good one.
This argument is pointless.
are you really not able to understand my point?
my point isnt that the longhorn wasnt a real proposal
my point is that what you are trying to sell as a valid source isnt a valid source
wikipedia is also using publicly avaiable information and isnt considered a valid source
and ontop of all you are actively trying to put words in my mouth
show me where i said that it was never proposed
You couldve just owned it from the get go and apologise for being wrong, but you had to just double down and try to explain how by
you didnt mean that mavericks have, have as in present tense, MITL but that there existed, in a past tense, a theoretical proposed variant that never saw a light of the day that did have MITL.
It makes you look stupid.
1 Like
Screenshot of AI overview isnt a source as it can be easily manipulated. For example I can easily make AI say youre sexually attracted into feet.
1 Like
I already owned the mistake about saying “all Mavericks have MITL” I corrected myself in this very thread. I’m not denying that.
My actual point from the start was always about the Longhorn proposal specifically a documented Hughes study from 1991 with MITL on paper. That’s a separate claim, and it stands.
So no, I’m not doubling down on the mistake I’m clarifying the distinction between what I misspoke and what I actually meant. If that makes me look stupid to you, so be it. The facts are still on my side regarding the Longhorn.
Now if we’re done here, let’s move on, Now everything is clear?
1 Like
no it isnt
where did i say that the proposal never existed like you claim i did
Because there’s more of a benefit in actually carrying them than not
There’s no downside in carrying them
So the “benefit” is them missing when an aircraft flares once?
look ron, he has already got all of it done, so can we go back to the dream missile thing?
Benefit is more weapons to kill aircraft with
Downside is, nothing
What is he even talking about?