Talk:Surface-to-air missile

WikiProject Military history

(Rated 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. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Military science and technology task force Weaponry task force

I have removed this passage- "SAMs were the number one Soviet Union Force in the October War, mainly the smaller Soviet SA-6." It is poorly written and in fact I have very little of an idea of what they are trying to say. I have replaced the sentence with one of my own design.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 10:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

SAM Missile - Redirect

I have created a redirect page; SAM Missile

--Carlinlord 00:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

New Picture of Missile Firing

A picture of the Missile Firing has been added. --Chanakyathegreat 07:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Manpads

Manpads has been removed from the list as a seperate article exists. Also a link is provided to the Manpads article. All nations entered in the Alpahbetical order.

--Chanakyathegreat 07:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

SAM is correct

Someone changed 'SAM' to 'STAM.' In most abbreviations, you do not include articles like 'to' or 'the.' Many do include them for various reasons, but in lower case (in this case it would be 'StAM') however anywhere you look, it will be 'SAM.' Iamrecognized 01:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Improvement Suggestions

First successes

Is it typical on weapons systems articles to mention the first successes of a weapons system specifically? This article does mention broadly the influences that changed the designs but it doesn't mention any specific examples such as the Shoot downs of Canberra's over China or U-2's over Russia & Cuba.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Further Development

The article ends on the subject of Manpads. I think this makes it incomplete since the next major development really is the refinement of larger SAM's as well as the conversion of modern fire and forget AAM's to SAM work such as with the SLAMRAAM. It is probably worth doing a section on the Patriot / S-300 missiles as well as dedicated anti ballistic missiles in development (as well as a link to the relevant articles). The reason the Patriot & S-300 are so relevant is that they expand the potential targets to other incoming missiles and are 'perfected' in that they incompass a wide array of seeker types.

Anti Aircraft Artillery

There is also a flawed statement that seems US military centric; "By the 1980's, the only remaining widespread use was point-defense of airfields and ships, especially against cruise missiles." Sure, in the US military there has not been an effective, mobile, armoured triple A for a long time, but the Germans, French, British, Chinese, Indians & Russians all operate them still and continue to develop them. The next statement though; "By the 1990s, even these roles were being encroached on by new MANPAD and similar weapons." IS relevant since in many of those roles some of the vehicles originally designed as dedicated AAA have had SAM's added in upgrades or have been discarded in favour of combined systems.--Senor Freebie (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)