Talk:Anti-ship missile

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Please place a title for every section

In the comparison chart I do not see the Soviet AS-4 (Mach 4 speed, 400 km range) or Kickback (hypersonic) missiles. Could someone add please. 99.231.50.118 (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.[reply]

Abbreviation

I have never seen ASM or AShM used, but "ASCM" for "Anti-Ship Cruise Missile" is very common —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.150.132 (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silkworm

There is quite a bit of duplication and confusion between the P-15 Termit and Silkworm missile articles, and now the C-802 is also getting called Silkworm in the media. I don't have the time to do the necessary research to sort it out unfortunately. Riddley 18:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to add it to there if nobody has already done so. Please give me some citations and sources and I'll add it. Anybody got sources on this? Jeremy Wang 02:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AirplanePro (talk • contribs)

Hsuing Feng III

Here is some information I gathered on the Hsuing Feng III anti-ship missile:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/missiles-05b.html
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=778769&C=asiapac
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/taiwan/hf-3.htm

I'm not sure about the missile's development stage, so I haven't put it into the existing systems section yet. --KBi

Hmm. Judging by this quote from the defencenews article,

"The defense ministry next year would set aside a budget for mass production of the Hsiung Feng III missile, which is expected to make its debut during the 2006 “Han Kuang 22” exercise, the Chinese-language China Times said."

it seems that the missile is nearing completion. Whether it has entered LRIP is, as you say above, difficult to ascertain from the available sources (it might even be classified info, for that matter). BTW, Thanks for your contribution so far! :-) Please see the next thread. --Wernher 01:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Articles on/listings of upcoming missiles

Re: the previous thread (Hsuing Feng III). One way of dealing with missiles-to-be would be to wait until confirmed LRIP, as per our current 'policy' (stated in the article source comments as of this writing) before listing them; another scheme would be to change said 'policy' into listing and establishing new articles on planned missiles as soon as a reasonable amount of information seeps out, but waiting until the missile is only a year or two from production---and very visibly marking such articles as containing preliminary information. This would keep WKP at the "forefront of fresh information dissemination", which we want, don't we?. Comments, anyone? --Wernher 01:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neglect of Chinese designs

The following missiles should be listed.

SY series of anti-ship missiles HY series of anti ship missiles YJ-62 long range anti ship cruise missile YJ-8 series anti-ship missile C-301 anti-ship missile

Article improvements

With all due respect we need to get quite a lot done to bring this article up to shape. The history section is a nice start but much should have been brought to it with the USSR's Styx development and successors as well as the west's response. Deployment and ramifications should be a section as well. The various seeker types need to be explored in a section. Launching platforms would be a thought as a section. Propulsion would again be an area I would at least think about as a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirronan (talk • contribs) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel is missing

The Gabriel series are quite missing, especially in the table This list could help later editors: http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/missiles/asm.html Lastdingo (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

We are going to have to stop adding content and start adding citation fellows... Tirronan (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error

The Fritz-X is not a Anti Ship Missile, it is a guided bomb since it lacks any thrust-generating components —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.19.252 (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Also the reference to the USS Pheonix being hit off Salerno is likely incorrect. The Pheonix spent most of the war in the Pacific theatre and noted for not suffering significant damage during the war. The USS Savannah, also Brooklyn Class, however--212.137.36.227 (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC) was hit by a Fritz X[reply]

File:Harpoon-block-II-launch.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Harpoon-block-II-launch.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antiship missiles vs. cruise missiles

Antiship missiles are not all cruise missiles, and not all cruise missiles are antiship missiles.
Where did the fable get started that ships just need to defend themselves against cruise missiles: e.g. the Tomahawk antiship missile (TASM), which is a cruise missile?
Ships need to defend themselves against ballistic missiles, or course, even short-range ones like the Scud.
Also, the Maverick missile can be used as an antiship missile, and it is not a cruise missile. It is a high-speed air-to-surface missile In fact, the P-3 Orion carries Mavericks specifically as antiship missiles, and the F/A-18 Hornet, F-15E Strike Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, Panavia Tornado, F-4 Phantom II, and Eurfighter Typhoon can carry Mavericks as antiship missiles.
There are Russian, French, Norwegian, and other antiship missiles that are not cruise missiles, and warships need to be able to defend themselves against these, too, with short-range missile (e.g. Sea Sparrow) and rapid-fire cannon (e.g Phalanx) systems. It doesn't always take something like the Standard Missile SM-3 or SM-2.
98.67.108.12 (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antiship

Whether the British and Irish like it or not, these are the correct spellings: antiship missile and antiship ballistic missile.
The prefix "anti" does not require a hyphen. See these phrases and words: antiradiation missile, antitank weapon, antisubmarine warfare, antipersonnel bomb (a fragmentation bomb), antiaircraft gun, antimissile missile, the antinuclear movement, anticommunist, antifascist, antiballistic missile, antisemitic, antivenom, antibacterial, antivirus, antimatter, antiproton, antineutron, antineutrino, antielectron, antiscientific.
The exceptions are anti-American, anti-British, anti-Irish, anti-French, anti-Castro, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, etc.98.67.174.134 (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]