Maverick Missile

[RubiconNZ]

Hi,
Just a newbie question, what is the speed of the Maverick, the USN has it as "classified" but for a 30 yo missile some one would no by now I think, would I be wrong to presume it supersonic? I had a look but can't find anything else and in comparison against a Penguin what is better at end of day I have looked but cant decide?

 

[cosmos]

It would seem that on certain threads

It would seem that certain subjects are silent ,maybe for good reasons or that no one wants to comment on certains questions.It is like making a statement about the Missile that Iran came up with one how to effect the magnetic sphere around the Earth.An example would be like this,would you tell everyone where your favorite fishing hole is?No you would not,because there would not be anymore fish there.But with your family you would,because they would respect you,and not horde all the fish. My Father would always say things like I would say,because it would be the truth.Sometimes you must find a way of painting with words to describe what you are trying to get something across to someone or many people.It's if I say I have an Ideal how to pull the plug on Iran's missile,someone would say ,prove it,or yeah ladeda,but when you did prove it,they are right there trying to pat you on the back "way to go."Anyway,I don't have all the answers,but it would help,it goes alot faster than aanything,We have come up with yet.Does not help? Cosmos

 

[gf0012-aust]

It would seem that certain subjects are silent ,maybe for good reasons or that no one wants to comment on certains questions.

Got it in one.

It's still an operational and fielded system - so there will be no meaningful data made available apart from the usual generic sites like FAS and GlobalSec.

 

[Rich]

The maverick is in the high subsonic range, about 1150 km per hour. Its easy to make a warhead that can change course. All you have to do is put another rocket motor on the re-entry vehicle itself. You can then program course changes into the guidance package.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Thanks

Thanks for the replies,
I just found it interesting that there was still some openly classified detail, espscially with it being rather widely distrubuted among different countries NZ one example sure they I guess they got them when they first got the Scooters, back when the US liked NZ , but that is another post.

 

[Sea Toby]

Basically the Maverick is an American missile and the Penguin is a Swedish missile. They are both good missiles, which one is better is questionable. I rather like to think which one is better supported rather than better. The U.S. Navy uses both, but have many more Mavericks in their inventory.

From Combat Fleets of the World:
Penguin Mk2 Mod. 7 (AGM-119B)
Length 3.00 m
Diameter 0.28 m
Wingspan 1.40 m (0.56 m folded)
Weight 385 kg
Warhead Bullpup Mk 19 (120 kg SAP with 50 kg explosive)
Range 21 + n.m.
Initially tested for the U.S. navy in 1982-83 as a surface ship-launched weapon, Penguin was procured for launch by SH-60B Seahawk LAMPS-III helicopters. Has solid-fueled rocket propulsion, programmable inertial mid-course guidance, and infrared terminal homing. Only 193 operational weapons were planned for procurement; total procurement was later reduced to only 106, vastly increasing the unit cost, and only 28 helicopters were modified to carry the missile. First became operational 5-94. In 8-95 Congress expressed a desire for the Navy to request additional missiles for FY 97; an order for six more for delivery by 4-99 was placed with Kongsberg in 7-97 at avery uneconomical total cost of US $6.05 million.

Maverick (AGM-65E and AGM-65F)
Length 2.49 m
Diameter 0.305 m
Wingspan 0.72 m
Weight E: 293 kg F: 307 kg
Range 50 n.m.
Developed from the Air Force AGM-65D, the AGM-65E is a laser-designated, air launched missile for the Marine Corps, while the AGM-65F version for the Navy on F/A-18 aircraft uses infrared homing. Both have the same 136-kg penetrator, with 56.8-kg blast-fragment warhead. Rapid escalation of price initially forced scaling back of procurement, although thousands have been purchased and remain in service.

 

[RA1911]

Basically the Maverick is an American missile and the Penguin is a Swedish missile.

As a norwegian I've got to point out that it's a norwegian missile. It's not in use by the norwegian armed forces anymore as far as I know, but the new NSM (Naval Strike Missile) will be in use on Norways new "Fridtjof Nansen"-class frigattes and "Skjold"-class patrol boats when they enter service.

http://www.kongsberg.com/eng/kda/products/missiles_space/missiles/naval/

 

[cosmos]

Wow that was a mouth full,will take time to chew on that one

Sea Toby,you know your missiles.Knowledge is an awesome tool to use it for good or use it for evil.It is our choice.I guess it comes right down to what we do with the knowledge we get.My inventions will never be used for destruction to any human being.That is my choice,and all of you have your choices too.But what we should or not should do is up to the ones who are in charge.One kind of war can be cold hearted,the other is a Holy war.I see we can only sit back watch,because if we can't change it,we have to accept it the way it is.I am part of a team of people who say yes and no to what kind of movies should not or should be filmed from Hollywood to the general public.Anyway thanks for allowing me here to share what little I know about life.Life is a stage,and we are all actors,so take action and do something nice for someone ,and don't let them know that you did it.You will be blessed indeed.cosmos:rel

 

[fretburner]

I just read about the JAGM in flightglobal, and it is supposed to replace the hellfire AND maverick missile. However, the JAGM is supposed to have a range of 16kms - that is double the hellfire, but waaaayyy shorter than the maverick's.

Does this mean that the Maverick will be replaced with a different missile at a later time? Or will the JAGM be it? Because if it is it, then US military will be giving up a lot of range to their air-to-ground missiles.

 

[Bonza]

I just read about the JAGM in flightglobal, and it is supposed to replace the hellfire AND maverick missile. However, the JAGM is supposed to have a range of 16kms - that is double the hellfire, but waaaayyy shorter than the maverick's.

Does this mean that the Maverick will be replaced with a different missile at a later time? Or will the JAGM be it? Because if it is it, then US military will be giving up a lot of range to their air-to-ground missiles.

It may just mean that longer ranges will be handled by a different weapons system. It would be interesting to see some statistics on how the Maverick is most often utilized, and at what ranges - the importance for a subsonic missile with that range may have been lessened in the face of modern glide weapons such as JDAM and JSOW.

I think I remember reading that JSOW is being deployed as an anti-ship weapon, and with its range and warhead, it would perhaps make sense for it to be taking on maritime strike roles previously filled by the Maverick. I know it doesn't provide the same performance as a missile, but perhaps with increased sensor footprint and battlefield awareness, combined with the exceptional ranges on modern glide weapons, the dependence on a missile's speed to deliver timely firepower has diminished?

This is all speculation of course, I don't know for sure. Just throwing ideas out there.

 

[fretburner]

I was thinking of that too. Maybe the US feel like they no longer need a missile like the Maverick and are just trying to "consume" it's existing inventory. I also read somewhere that Raytheon is developing a "powered" JSOW?

 

[Bonza]

I was thinking of that too. Maybe the US feel like they no longer need a missile like the Maverick and are just trying to "consume" it's existing inventory. I also read somewhere that Raytheon is developing a "powered" JSOW?

That'd be JSOW-ER. The engine is intended to increase the range out to 300 nautical miles (according to public data). I don't know how the weapon's speed would be affected as the engine is obviously primarily intended to boost range, but as you say perhaps the need is no longer there. It would be great to see some figures on the missile usage of the USAF and USN from Desert Storm onwards, to get a vague idea of the ranges most often involved, though I appreciate publicly released range data isn't necessarily accurate. Might have a look around, see what I can find!

Link here to a Raytheon press release regarding JSOW-ER:

Raytheon Company: RMS JSOW-ER

edit: Here's a page displaying air-delivered ordnance expended in Desert Storm (would love comments as to the list's credibility if anyone knows), and there are plenty of Mavericks fired as opposed to the smaller missiles. However in this case that seems to me that it could perhaps be due to the manner fixed wing air was used in the campaign, as opposed to the helicopters firing Hellfire and TOW. Could be wrong though!

http://128.121.102.226/munit.html

 

[umair]

Isn't the Maverick's range close to 15 nms? 50 is way too much.

 

[kato]

75 km / 46 statute miles (not nautic miles!) was the range of the proposed "Longhorn", a AGM-65F with a new turbofan engine that would have been likely designated AGM-65L.

AGM-65A/B/D have a range of about 40 km, AGM-65C/E/F/G have a range of about 25 km (depending on source 24-28 km). In C/E/F/G they increased the warhed from 125 lbs to 300 lbs without changing the missile otherwise, hence the lower range.

Above range numbers presume the launch aircraft cruising at Mach 0.9 at an altitude of 40,000 ft. Slower/lower release severely impacts range, for a release from 10k ft and Mach 0.5 for example it's pretty much halved to about 21-22 km for AGM-65A/B/D. Minimum range decreases and increases accordingly depending on launch altitude.

 

[umair]

Yes, those figures indicate its optimum launch profile, which is not the case in combat. The figure I was hinting at was stated to me by a Paf pilot who used to be a viper jockey. And this was for the D version courtesy of it's better IIR seekerhead allowing positive target id from a longer range. The usual release range for the B which has a scene magnification seeker is a bit shorter.
Hope there is no confusion now as I was insinuating about the ranges it is normally launched from in combat.

 

[Bonza]

Thanks for the additional info Kato and Umair, I didn't realise how much range degradation was caused by the heavier warhead on some variants. I'd be interested to learn at what ranges the Maverick is most commonly employed, because it wouldn't surprise me if it's quite a bit lower than the outer range limits you've described. I wouldn't have thought many of the older aircraft that commonly carried Mavericks would have had much luck acquiring certain types of target at the aforementioned ideal launch altitude of 40,000 feet (happy to stand corrected though)...

It still seems to me that any range deficit suffered by JAGM in relation to the Maverick could be covered in a pinch by glide weapons such as JSOW or SDB (probably cheaper, too). Presumably a shorter range is considered an acceptable tradeoff in keeping the missile's size down (same size as Hellfire if I remember correctly) and thus making the weapon more practical than something Maverick-sized for employment on helicopters and UAVs. But then I'm just speculating and don't know for sure.

 

[fretburner]

edit: Here's a page displaying air-delivered ordnance expended in Desert Storm (would love comments as to the list's credibility if anyone knows), and there are plenty of Mavericks fired as opposed to the smaller missiles. However in this case that seems to me that it could perhaps be due to the manner fixed wing air was used in the campaign, as opposed to the helicopters firing Hellfire and TOW. Could be wrong though!

Air-Delivered Munitions

That is a LOT of Mavericks!

I guess the US Armed Forces are really are going towards retiring these types. They seem to be trying to just deplete inventories (upgrading them to make them still effective, but not manufacturing a lot of it) and they don't seem to have a replacement with the same range.

 

[fretburner]

75 km / 46 statute miles (not nautic miles!) was the range of the proposed "Longhorn", a AGM-65F with a new turbofan engine that would have been likely designated AGM-65L.

AGM-65A/B/D have a range of about 40 km, AGM-65C/E/F/G have a range of about 25 km (depending on source 24-28 km). In C/E/F/G they increased the warhed from 125 lbs to 300 lbs without changing the missile otherwise, hence the lower range.

Above range numbers presume the launch aircraft cruising at Mach 0.9 at an altitude of 40,000 ft. Slower/lower release severely impacts range, for a release from 10k ft and Mach 0.5 for example it's pretty much halved to about 21-22 km for AGM-65A/B/D. Minimum range decreases and increases accordingly depending on launch altitude.

More info on the JAGM range: Raytheon/Boeing show JAGM direct hit

The JAGM also includes a long-range rocket motor that doubles the roughly 8km firing distance of the AGM-114. To replace the AGM-65 on fixed wing aircraft, the JAGM is required to hit targets up to 28km away.

I guess there's not going to be any "penalty" to the range of the Maverick (vs Hellfire) afterall

 

[kato]

Hm? With the doubled motor JAGM flies 16 km with a 9 kg warhead. That's not even remotely operationally compatible to a Maverick with 28 km range and a 135 kg warhead...

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

It was intended as a low cost, low-collateral PGM for moving targets. Hence the lighter warhead.

There's a number of bigger anti-tank options for fighters already eg JSOW/SFW/WMCD/GBU-54-LJDAMs/Paveways/SDB-IIs which have far more bang if required.

Brochures:
Raytheon's version
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilitie...cuments/content/rtn_rms_ps_jagm_datasheet.pdf

LM's version
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/mfc/PC/MFC_JAGM_ProductCard.pdf

xxxxxxxxxxx

Personally, I think its more for the rotaries...