Tunguskas shooting down Mavericks?

[Yellonet]

I wasn't comparing the two, though I see how I may have come across as doing so.

 

I was just showing that I have some understanding of magnification.

 

By the way: The optics in my scope likely equal or better the ones in the mav. You need a LOT more precision in a telescope looking at the stars than you do in any sort of opticsto resolve something 5-6nm away. On the other hand, mav optics are likely just plain more intresting from a technical point of view, made to be sturdier and not require realigning, likely layered with filter coatings and who-knows-what-else ;) Oranges and apples there.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, in an [amature] telescope you don't need that much detail clarity as you are watching something extremely large at a huge distance, a missile seeker head however needs to be able to tell relatively small objects apart from the surroundings on a pretty fair distance.

[Yellonet]

In the mid-to-late 1990s' date=' Raytheon proposed a [i']Maverick[/i] development called "Longhorn". This was to feature many significant improvements, including a data link (for optional lock-on after launch), additional turbojet sustainer propulsion (for increased range of up to 75 km (46 miles)), GPS/INS in-flight navigation, and mm-wave radar or IIR terminal seeker. However, the "Longhorn" was not developed. The designation AGM-65L is unofficially associated with a proposed Maverick development with a new tandem (boost/sustain) motor, stealth characteristics, a two-way datalink, IIR guidance and automatic target acquisition technology.

One of the suggestions for this new Mav included stealth characteristics...

I'm going to take this as proof that radars can track the Mav (if that ever was in question).

[Bouddha]

EvilBivol :

 

Sorry, but as far as I know the AGM65-D which is the IR version has a longer range capability as you can zoom more and thus lock earlier !?

 

I am wrong ?!

 

I am a little confused.

 

regards

[GGTharos]

I wouldn't be so sure about that, in an [amature] telescope you don't need that much detail clarity as you are watching something extremely large at a huge distance, a missile seeker head however needs to be able to tell relatively small objects apart from the surroundings on a pretty fair distance.

 

Ohhh ... I think you might be surprised ;)

 

Anyway, the mirror I have is high-quality, the original eyepieces were crap, and I bought some expensive quality replacements for all but the highest mag piece (I rarely go that high, FoV is too narrow)

 

 

EvilBivol: I have a clean install witht he official patch, not B8.

[EvilBivol-1]

Ugh! I'm sorry guys, I had confused the AGM-65 designations last night. Guess 2 a.m. testing is just not a good idea...

 

Anyway, I was using the D version Mav (IR) for all the tests except the single attempt with the K.

 

The message has been edited.

 

GG, thanks, guess it can't be that either. Do you have any file modifications?

[GGTharos]

I only have some skins and sounds, and I have edited my view angle limits. That's it.

Basically I haven't touched the units at all.

[EvilBivol-1]

rgr. I dun't know. Is your TS still at the same address?

[GGTharos]

It is - I don't know if I'll be around much tonight, but we'll see.

[Yellonet]

Ohhh ... I think you might be surprised ;)

About the detail clarity of an amature telescope...?

[GGTharos]

About the detail clarity of an amature telescope...?

 

have you ever -had- optics to compare?

[Yellonet]

have you ever -had- optics to compare?

I guess my $40 telescope doesn't count :D

[GGTharos]

No, it doesn't ;) Mine is in the 600 dollar ball-park, and even then I had to change the stand (it was rickety) and the eyepieces, so it cost me evern more ;)

 

What you have is a trash scope - an 'amateur scope' to me means a scope BUILT by an amateur.

 

The scopes that are manufactured today are of fairly good quality so long as you buy something that costs over $400. Even then you may need to replace some parts. The optics are typically pretty good, at least the main lens/mirror will be ... where they cut the costs is the stand and eyepieces usually.

[Yellonet]

What you have is a trash scope

Ya think?!? :frowntobi

[Yellonet]

No, it doesn't ;) Mine is in the 600 dollar ball-park, and even then I had to change the stand (it was rickety) and the eyepieces, so it cost me evern more ;)

 

What you have is a trash scope - an 'amateur scope' to me means a scope BUILT by an amateur.

 

The scopes that are manufactured today are of fairly good quality so long as you buy something that costs over $400. Even then you may need to replace some parts. The optics are typically pretty good, at least the main lens/mirror will be ... where they cut the costs is the stand and eyepieces usually.

So what were we talking about... oh yeah, the seeker head of the Maverick, no, it might not have as high performing optics as your telescope, but I really think that it costs more anyway... military stuff is always mucho expensive.

[GGTharos]

Oh I'm sure it costs more. It probably has expensive filters and other things that th telescope doesn't - the lens and glass cap for the IR version alone will be quite expensive just because they must be made of special glass that doesn't block IR.

[Yellonet]

Oh I'm sure it costs more. It probably has expensive filters and other things that th telescope doesn't - the lens and glass cap for the IR version alone will be quite expensive just because they must be made of special glass that doesn't block IR.

Yeah... and look at this, they're eve more expensive than I thought :o

 

Unit Cost: USD $48,000 (A model), $64,100 (B), $110,000 ©, $111,000 (D), $101,000 (E) and $269,000 (G)

 

INSANE!!!!!!

[GGTharos]

Keep in mind that each version probably also has some R&D costs and manufacturing and other costs re-negotiated into the contract, PLUS inflation ... and manpower has become more expensive lately.

[Yellonet]

Keep in mind that each version probably also has some R&D costs and manufacturing and other costs re-negotiated into the contract, PLUS inflation ... and manpower has become more expensive lately.

It's still insane... I could live very well for a long time for the price of a G.

[Yellonet]

Good info... and prices :o

 

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article4.html

[Cobra360]

You didn't mention the AGM-65F anti-ship version. Used mainly by Hornets, it has a large warhead like the G and it is designed that it aims for the waterline of it's targets.

[GGTharos]

The F is the laser maverick IIRC. Otherwise there's nothing special about it ... it isn't particularely tailored for AS duty from what I've read.

[Yellonet]

The F is the laser maverick IIRC. Otherwise there's nothing special about it ... it isn't particularely tailored for AS duty from what I've read.

I think it was the first with such a large warhead, because it should be able to take on ships... then the AF were impressed with the size of the Navy's.... warhead, and they wanted a big one too, hence the G.

 

Edit: and it has a IR seeker.

[D-Scythe]

The F is the laser maverick IIRC. Otherwise there's nothing special about it ... it isn't particularely tailored for AS duty from what I've read.

 

F is IIR - it is a dedicated anti-ship variant that combines the warhead of the AGM-65E (laser version) with the seeker of the AGM-65D.

 

I think it was the first with such a large warhead, because it should be able to take on ships... then the AF were impressed with the size of the Navy's.... warhead, and they wanted a big one too, hence the G.

 

Wrong. The AGM-65E was the first Maverick with the large warhead, IIRC.

[Yellonet]

In the meantime, work was done on laser-guided versions of the Maverick. A laser-guided "AGM-65C" was developed in the late 1970s, with the old small shaped-charge warhead, but this version did not go into production. However, a Maverick with a laser seeker and the bigger penetrating warhead, the "AGM-65E", did go into production, with the US Marine Corps as the primary user. A laser seeker fit Marine needs better than an imager, since ground troops could pinpoint targets on the battleground with laser designators to allow precision strikes with less chance of "fratricide".

[GGTharos]

Ok. I forgot the E was between the D and the F. Kinda like I forget where my 'other right' is sometimes ;)

 

I'll go sit in the corner now. ;)