AGM-114 Hellfire Vs. AGM-64 Maverick

[Goose489]

Which one do you guys like better?

Edited December 24, 2023 by Goose489

[G.J.S]

Giving or receiving? Lol. 
 

As with a lot of things - it depends.

Depends on the launch platform, the target to be prosecuted, the environment, and desired effect.

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

Mavs are heavy and have a whole lot of range, Hellfires are smaller and more precise, also less collateral damage. Generally, Mavs are the thing if you want to kill hardened structures, while Hellfires have variants that work well against infantry. Both work well on tanks, but against targets that can shoot back, I'd rather have Mavs because of range.

I'm particularly fond of the "Ninja missile", Hellfire R9X, the one with popout blades that can be targeted at a single person, without harming people standing next to him, or damaging the whole building too badly. Quite useful capability, and I wish Hellfire users cared enough to use them more, so to speak. There's zero reason to accept collateral damage when you literally have a missile precise enough to brain the target on the forehead.

[drspankle]

Hellfires are not more precise than Mavericks, nor do they offer less collateral damage - in fact the REDs, (Risk Estimate Distances) used to calculate CD are actually very similar.  The Hellfire is lighter as it was designed primarily for rotary carriage, the Maverick for fixed wing.  The accuracy of the Hellfire or the Maverick when lased is entirely dependent on the accuracy of the lasing, and is unlikely ever to be sufficiently so to strike anything smaller than a vehicle.

Dr Spankle