This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The whole tone of this part or the article is decidedly one sided and non NPOV. No allowance is taken in this section of the article that the new munitions will be GPS based and fired from over the horizon from a stealthed vehicle, rather hard to hit by even the most modern surface to surface missiles. I would normally suggest re-writing this section but as it stands and amended it is so one sided and flawed I believe it should just be removed. Galloglass 15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The cricism section is hard to fault because it is based on previous proven failures of naval gunfire since the second world war. If the promised improvements do arise then the article could be changed. But given the constant failures of promised military programs to deliver (e.g. Comanche, Sgt York), huge time delays (e.g. Merlin helicopter, Osprey) and gigantic cost over runs (e.g. Eurofighter) a critical attitude to this program is most likely to reflect reality and inform the reader.
There can be no doubt that such criticisms will be annoying, even offensive to the many people employed to develop, build and operate such weapons. That does not invalidate them. This criticism rests on a consistent history of previous military technology failures. It should not be deleted based on conjecture of future possible success.
The self-prmoting manufacturers claims which make up the bulk of the article should remain, but only if balanced by the criticisms. If the criticisms are deleted then, for the sake of balance, so should the whole article, which would be unfortunate. (added unsigned by 126.96.36.199)
The above writer does nothing to dispel the fact that the criticism section is one sided and flawed. Simply stating that navel gunfire is an 'anachronism' does not make it actually so. The Royal Navy experience in supporting the Assault on Goose Green/Darwin and the interdiction of Stanley runway in the Falklands War lead to exactly the opposite conclusion. Taking into account GPS guided ammunition, which is now already in use and proving its effectiveness leads to the conclusion that the new gun system will be both effective and used.
Simply taking cheap shots as the above un-named individual does at previous programs shows that the person is either rather uninformed or has no interest in providing 'balance' to the article. Surely they must be aware that the cost over-runs on the Typhoon, to give the Eurofighter its proper name were due to the re-write in the specification after the end of the cold war.
The problem with the criticism is it is: 1. Unbalanced and biased, 2. Ill informed. 3. Takes no account that both the 155 Gun and its ammunition are 'navalised' adaptations of weapons that are successfully in use in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed the whole tenor of the article with its attack on military procurement is misplaced and uninformed. Galloglass 07:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I am thinking that the entire section should be moved, as it is the section that is causing the most amount of problems, and really has no place on this page. It should belong on the main naval artillery page instead, with some modifications, to make this page similar to the other pages such as Otobreda 76 mm or 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun. ThePointblank 18:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Galloglass, the criticisms do not take into account new GPS guided munitions, and it is definitly non NPOV. It should be removed. Vechs 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the section under dispute. Upon further reflection, I realized that it did not criticise the Advanced Gun System at all, but rather naval artillery as a whole, and should therefore be in an article about naval artillery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_artillery). It also contained factual inaccuracies. Also, the only one who seems to want the section in is the anonymous author. Vechs 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The advanced gun system should be fitted to one of the arligh burke aegis destroyers to see if it is possible to fit the advanced gun system to the remaining arligh burke class aegis destroyers.the addition of the 155mm advanced gun system to the arligh burke class aegis guided missile destroyers and a advcanced version of the Aegis system could more than likely can make the arligh burke class the deadliest ships in the united states navy at least until the new class of adavced stealth aegis ships arrives in the u.s navy inventory. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)