AGM-65 this month?

[raelias]

Does anyone know if the F model can force corelate?

 

Like pony said it should work like a D so no, im pretty sure the ones that can are the H J and K

 

Reference this table (from wiki)

[Chewie_77]

How many Mavs can the Hornet load all at once? 2, 4, 8?

[fragal]

4 I believe, one per pylon unless someone knows different?

[Nospin44]

Like pony said it should work like a D so no, im pretty sure the ones that can are the H J and K

 

Reference this table (from wiki)

 

Yea just found that list as well.

[Lithion]

How many Mavs can the Hornet load all at once? 2, 4, 8?

 

Answered in this very thread already: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3654060&postcount=4

 

It definitly was never fielded with dual Mav's per pylon, neither do any of the NATOPS weapons diagrams show it with double mavericks:

 

 

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by Lithion
misread

[Donut]

Why only these two variants of the Maverick? Are the E and F variants of the Maverick the only ones that the Hornet was capable of carrying?

 

From what I have been able to read online, it looks like the E was used mainly by the USMC and the F was designed specifically for the US Navy. Does that mean Navy Hornets only used the F model and was the F model used on only ships or could it be used against land based targets as well?

[Ramsay]

Why only these two variants of the Maverick?

Probably for reasons of inventory and maintenance/training in a carrier environment (not only do you need to carry the extra weapons/spares but also the extra test and calibration equipment).

Are the E and F variants of the Maverick the only ones that the Hornet was capable of carrying?

Not sure if the other varients were tested ?

From what I have been able to read online, it looks like the E was used mainly by the USMC and the F was designed specifically for the US Navy. Does that mean Navy Hornets only used the F model and was the F model used on only ships or could it be used against land based targets as well?

The F is suitable for sea and land use.

IRMV employs a 300 pound blast fragmentation warhead with a selectable delay fuze (instantaneous, D1=14ms or D2=30ms), and is designed primarily for use against hardened targets requiring delayed fuzing such as ships, bunkers, fortified structures, and armoured vehicles.

By default it launches in ground mode with the impact point in the centre of IR source, 'sea' mode biases the impact point so as to hit near the water line.

[mattebubben]

Answered in this very thread already: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3654060&postcount=4

 

It definitly was never fielded with dual Mav's per pylon, neither do any of the NATOPS weapons diagrams show it with double mavericks:

 

 

 

It seems like this is one of those things that while it might be possible in theory it has never been done in reality.

 

Page 2.

http://www.midkiff.cz/obj/firma_produkt_priloha_140_soubor.pdf

[fragal]

Sure it's the E and the F because they're the only ones navy hornets carry in real life and we have a navy hornet, other countries or users may carry different ones but ours doesn't. So we get the E and F.

[Banzaiib]

It seems like this is one of those things that while it might be possible in theory it has never been done in reality.

 

Page 2.

http://www.midkiff.cz/obj/firma_produkt_priloha_140_soubor.pdf

 

I don't know if we're getting the BRU-55 displayed in that photo. We're definitely getting the BRU-33. That doesn't mean it's not still possible, but that article clearly shows the BRU-55 being used with 2 LAU-117's to double mount mavericks.

 

Being able to carry 8 mavs would be so sick! But, I have no idea if the LAU-117 can be mounted on the BRU-33. Fankly, I don't have time to go through hundreds of forum posts to find out if we're getting the BRU-55. At the time i was researching, i just wanted to know if we could double mount GBU-12's on BRU-33's, which is a yes, by the way.

 

If we're not getting the BRU-55, then I highly doubt we'll be able to mount double lau-117's and thus double stack mavericks. The BRU-33 does not have the data bus to support anything but the basic programming of munitions. This would also severely limit the JDAM capacity of the F-18, which requires the BRU-55.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Banzaiib

[Lithion]

We're not getting the BRU-55 displayed in that photo. We're only getting the BRU-33. That doesn't mean it's not still possible, but that article clearly shows the BRU-55 being used with 2 LAU-117's to double mount mavericks.

 

Being able to carry 8 mavs would be so sick! But, I have no idea if the LAU-117 can be mounted on the BRU-33.

 

You also have to consider that a specific pylon doesn't mean a plane can mount a certain weapon. 2 Mavs might be mounted to close together to safely fire.

[Banzaiib]

You also have to consider that a specific pylon doesn't mean a plane can mount a certain weapon. 2 Mavs might be mounted to close together to safely fire.

 

Perhaps i misunderstand, but that pdf clearly shows 2 mavs mounted on a single BRU-55 via 2 LAU-117's. I don't think they'd show that if you couldn't fire them.

[Lithion]

Perhaps i misunderstand, but that pdf clearly shows 2 mavs mounted on a single BRU-55 via 2 LAU-117's. I don't think they'd show that if you couldn't fire them.

 

From the pylon? sure. From the Hornet with another fuel tank or split rack mounted nearby? Maybe not. That's what i meant.

[VDV]

Maverick - Maybe next week?

[backspace340]

Maverick - Maybe next week?

 

If it's coming this month, then yes it would be. The next OB patch is due the 24th October, the one after that would be the 7th November.

[Silvern]

If it's coming this month, then yes it would be. The next OB patch is due the 24th October, the one after that would be the 7th November.

 

Fingers crossed... :)

[Jerec]

I would be satisfied, if Wags would post any news in a video the coming days.

[Eaglewings]

AGM65E/F and JMHCS would be great. I am sure ED also would patch up the Air to Air radar some more.

[VDV]

Personally I strongly preffer HARM, but I will be glad to see Maverick for DCS: F-18C also.

[Scuba98]

Is there a chance for an update with some content today?

Cause normally there are some on wednesday?

[backspace340]

Is there a chance for an update with some content today?

Cause normally there are some on wednesday?

 

It'll just be updating stable to the same version that was hotfixed for OB yesterday, no new content.

[Eaglewings]

Is there a chance for an update with some content today?

Cause normally there are some on wednesday?

Customarily today's update is for the stable version so it would be safe to assume there would be one.

[Silvern]

Personally I strongly preffer HARM, but I will be glad to see Maverick for DCS: F-18C also.

 

In my humble opinion, the Maverick is a better choice for Hornets first PGM. It will give us precision, stand-off capability against a wider array of targets than HARM would.

[backspace340]

I feel like a starving man picking from a menu - I'll take literally anything right now.

[Chewie_77]

At least we'll be able to run SA-2 and SA-6 batteries out of missiles and then kill their radars without getting close enough to get shot down by IR SAMs. Definitely more dangerous than launching a HARM from 40nm but still an increase in terms of SEAD capabilities.