Talk:AGM-65 Maverick

airlistbox

[minor change] I took the {{airlistbox}} outta the page because with the table it was kind of poorly juxtaposed. i'd be tickled if somebody would fix that for me. Avriette 17:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Newspeak

What does "designed for close air support, prohibition, and forceful prevention" mean? -- Jeandré, 2006-07-15t18:58z

Beats me. I've removed it, in the hope that anyone replacing it will use actual English phrases to explain the meaning. -- Rogerborg 15:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Use by Luftwaffe

Unregistered IP had posted this:

Other nations: Luftwaffe F-4 Phantom II only, NOT TORNADO

at the bottom of the article. Someone knowledgable about this sort of thing should verify and, if confirmed, incorporate the correction properly. TeraBlight 22:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any point at all in listing what aircraft in other countries are carrying the AGM-65? T96 grh (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

it say Philippines uses this on f-16 when if fact we dont have f-16s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.187.236 (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Although it correctly identifies New Zealand Navy as a current operator, it has been left off (not coloured blue) on the map. 1.129.96.47 (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

AGM-65

[anyone else notice...] AGM65 sucessfully redirects here, but AGM-65 does not, despite containing the correct command? the page just stalls and nothing comes up!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.108.74 (talk • contribs).

Seems to work OK for me. I run IE7 on WinXPH. - BillCJ 20:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Works for me using Firefox on Ubuntu. -- Jeandré, 2007-01-06t00:03z

tested it on my other machine running firefox on fedora - works fine; but running IE6 on Win98SE, it doesn't redirect. must be some strange quirk. :¬/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.108.74 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-06t00:42:35z.

Photograph not right?

An AGM-65 test-fired against an M-48 tank (1978)

In the two pictures purportedly showing a Maverick striking an M48 tank, the lower photo is definitely not by the same camera nor is the tank the same. The upper picture is from the front right quarter while the lower picture is directly from the side and the camera in the lower picture is much lower down than in the upper one. The tank in the lower picture also looks more like an M60 A3 with its turret turned rearwards -- notice the long overhang at the back of the turret and the flying object in the air, which looks a lot like an M60's machine gun turret.--Death Bredon (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right, Death Bredon. I add the images at the right side, here, and I complete your comment: in addition of your observation, it must pointed out that in the Commons image database the first image is dated 1978 and the second is dated 1988. If so, they can not correspond to the same tank and missile... less than one of the two indicated dates is mistaken. Even both photos dates, as indicated in their Commons pages, could be mistaken. Also, both photos could be from 1978, both from 1988... or even both indicated years could be mistaken. In any case, it is obvious that there's a loud mistake somewhere. Kintaro (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/soko-j-22-orao-ground-attack-and-reconnaissance-aircraft/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/soko-g-4-super-galeb-military-trainer-and-ground-attack-aircraft/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AGM-65 Maverick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304055829/http://www.mod.go.jp/trdi/news/1206.html to http://www.mod.go.jp/trdi/news/1206.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Vietnam War

I don't have access to the Clancy book or Laur and Lanso, but I can't find any other RS that confirms that the Maverick was used in the Vietnam War. In particular nothing in the official USAF publications.Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Friedman's The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems 1997–1998 talks about combat use in South Vietnam.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you able to post an extract? Normally I'd expect the US to proudly announce the use of an effective new weapons system, but can't find any official mention of it being used in Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Quote -"... The missile has been very widely exported, combat use including South Vietnam, the Iran-Iraq War (by Iran)..." The Flight International ref archived here also refers to use in Vietnam.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes I read that, but it doesn't really add any detail to the existing claims. I would like to know which aircraft carried it, which squadrons used it etc. Mztourist (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I have gone through all the Military Assistance Command Vietnam reports for 1972-3, the USAF's Airpower and the 1972 Spring Invasion, the USAF's Air War over South Vietnam 1968–1975 and the USAF Project CHECO reports on Operation Linebacker and Linebacker II and I can't find any mention of the AGM-65, while more obscure systems like the SS-11 are mentioned. I think reports of its use in the Vietnam War are incorrect. Mztourist (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Friedman and Flight International are both high quality industry reliable sources, which do state it (although only in passing) - if we had a source that explicitly said that it wasn't used, then we could at least say that sources disagree. It may be worth trying to find detailed accounts on the missile as I have a vague memory that the modified versions such as AGM-65B etc were developed as a result of operational experience, which may have included Vietnam.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I've found something here about use of Mavericks by Rivet Haste-modified USAF F-4Es operating out of Udorn in Thailand during Linebacker II.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting but to be honest its pretty weak being based solely on a telephone interview. I'd really expect the USAF to give a detailed assessment of a new weapon's combat performance as they did with LGBs, Walleyes etc. Mztourist (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

F-111 Maverick payload

no mention of mavericks on F-111. That combination had the highest number of antitank kills in Desert Storm. 76.9.81.209 (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Harrier GR.7 no longer in use.

Harrier GR.7 hasn't been in RAF service for some time, consider moving from active users to former users. 87.115.100.67 (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Developmental problems

"destroying enemy forces and installations with varying degrees of success"

Nowhere in the article is explicit attention given to the operational and procurement problems surrounding the Maverick. I suggest adding a nuanced paragraph about that.

Some suggested sources:

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0383maverick/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1982/02/24/military-failed-to-put-missile-to-real-test/9b470d2e-6d3f-409e-b8ce-06e6c41738c1/

http://analysis.williamdoneil.com/Hist/A-10%20diss%20-%20Campbell.pdf

Thomas L. McNaugher - New Weapons, Old Politics: America's Military Procurement Muddle

James G. Burton - The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard

Tazelaar (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)