"Dana Miller" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Scott Ferrin wrote:

The Maverick's warhead is between five and 12 times the size of JCM's
and it's range is higher. That and Raytheon is talking about
extending it to nearly 40 miles with LOAL. Seems like they'd want to
keep it around.

Con: In the most recent war, the warhead on the mav was just too much
boom while firing at targets in cities.

Yeah, but you might need the bigger boom in the future. Maybe a light
warhead version could be developed, like the Israelis have done with some
missiles of theirs, for similar reasons.

con: You can carry more JCMs
due to their light weight. (JCM is basically the same shape as hellfire
but is launched from fast movers).

Maybe, but an A-10 or F-16 can carry plenty of Mavericks.

Pro:Having an inventory of about 18k
Mavericks does give a ton of warshots. Con: The IR seeker on the mav is
old, real old. Con: all the parts of the mavs are old.

A newer version could be updated and be usable along with the older ones.

I'm involved with man-in-the-loop weapons and would like to see LOAL Mav
developed. LOAL JCM would be good too. For the things that really need
a serious thumping, there's the GBU-15/AGM-130. I've seen IFVs hit by
mavericks. smoking hole and shards of burnt steel. LOAL JDAM would be
good too.

My thoughts are going down in capability, range and warhead size might be
bad, because who is to say that every war is going to be agaist foes less
capable in air defense? Makes sense to prepare for the best possible
opposition....

--
Dana Miller