Talk:RIM-161 Standard Missile 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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 assessment scale.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
High traffic

On 19 May 2010, RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

Requested move[edit]

RIM-161 Standard missile 3RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 — Clearcut WP:NC capitalisation issue for proper noun, but one editor is unhappy with this. —GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose the missile's name is Standard, not Standard Missile. Like Tarter missile or Terrier missile. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Well whenever I see the whole thing spelled out, the word Missile is capitalised. Missile does appear to be part of the name, after all, the abbreviation is "SM-3" not "S-3". --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • And it's manufacturer capitalises the M as well - http://www.raytheon.com/products/standard_missile/ --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Designation Systems articles, which we use for references:[1] [2] [3] [4] routinely us the word Standard alone, without the word missile. Navy factfile italicizes the word Standard as the missile's name, they capitalize Missile not because it is the name, but to indicate that SM means Standard missile, to illustrate the acronym. Astronautix doesn't. Not capitalizing missile is inline with the USN's previous missiles Talos, Tartar, Terrier, Sea Sparrow and finally Standard. We do not have an article called Talos Missile, Tartar Missile, Terrier Missile or Sea Sparrow Missile. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Encyclopedia Of World Sea Power by Tony Cullen p.249 ISBN 0517653427 has an article on the missiles, called "Standard". It begins saying "The semi-active radar homing conventional warhead Standard family of naval SAMs started development in the early 1960s as a replacement for the Terrier and Tartar systems." Not one time in the article is missile capitalized on pages 249 or 250. Most of the time it is used Standard SM-2MR or Standard SM-2ER in the text as an example. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Five questions:
  1. If "Missile" is not part of the name, why is it part of the acronym?
  2. While "Standard" alone may be an alternative name, can you provide any information that "Standard Missile" is not the official name?
  3. Why do you trust third-party sources (DS, EA, etc) over first-party sources (Raytheon, US Navy[5], etc)? Surely Raytheon and USN know the name of their own missile?
  4. If "Missile" is not part of the name, why is it called "Standard Missile 3", and not "Standard 3 missile"?
  5. Seeing as disambiguation was not required, why did you put the word "missile" in the title at all, when you created the page? Other missiles don't do that - RIM-8 Talos, not RIM-8 Talos missile, to use your own example.
That should be enough to be getting on with, please try to answer all points. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The Encyclopedia of Modern U.S. Military Weapons Timothy M. Laur, Steven L. Llanso, Walter J. Boyne ISBN 0425164373 has pages 251 - 255 on various Standard missiles, referring to them as Standard SM-1 MR or Standard SM-2 MR. It starts out saying, "The Standard missile family was the result of an improvement program..." It also notes on page 254, "... during operation Desert Storm, but no Standards were launched." It refers to the missile as Standard, not Standard Missile since the missile's name is Standard. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The Missile Defense Agency (who probably know a lot more about US missile defence than Timothy M. Laur, Steven L. Llanso and Walter J. Boyne) use "Missile" - "a Standard Missile -3 (SM-3) Block IA was launched." - [6]. No matter how many third party sources you throw at it, the fact is that the US military use the capitalised designation. You also haven't answered any of my points.--GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 23:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      • What did the MDA call the Standard when it came out in the 1960s? Never mind, MDA didn't exist. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
        • So what? They are involved in its current operation. Do you seriously believe that reporters and researchers know more about US weapons systems than the US military? Anyway, neither of your books existed then either. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 23:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Per the manufacturer and nominator. It appears to be part of the name of the system. Narson (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per US Navy where its name is "Standard Missile Three (SM-3)".
  • Close discussion without prejudice - Why are we discussing a move of a single page, with only two move options, when so many other articles are involved, and was already being discussed at a central location (Talk:Standard Missile)? If that page comes up with a different solution than the one chsoen ehre, we'll have to do this all over again. Please close this discussion,a nd take up the broader issue of all the pages at the central talk page. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • OPPOSE CLOSURE - Discussion is mentioned on all pages, it has to go somewhere, no rule agains discussing it here. No grounds to close. Discussion is still open --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 23:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      • OPPOSE BOTH CHOICES - (Allcaps to match GWS's use in previous post so he doenst get accused of shouting). No other options given, no statement in opening clarifiying this standard is for all Standard m/Missile pages, no accounting for variation in names and designations which may not fit either choice presented here. - BillCJ (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
        • This discussion was started before it was clear that the other articles were involved. Dual Freq (talk · contribs) split Standard Missile without discussion, or even so much as a proposal that I can find, so it was not clear at the time that there were other articles being moved. I was not shouting, I was merely making it clear that discussion had not closed, as this would deter further discussion. The lack of other options is normal for WP:RM, and if you have a better idea, please post it. GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 09:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Better ideas were/are being discussed at Talk:Standard Missile#RIM-156, which is why I recommended closing this discussion, since only 4 people have been involved in the discussion here, and two of them are already are discussing it at the other location, though without a formal pool (which is not required per WP:RM). Btw, Split Article? contains lengthy discussions on the subject of splitting the articles which date back several months. While there was no formal split proposal/poll, there was also no stated objections, and so DF proceeded with the splits on that basis. - BillCJ (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Discussion started here, and there are more contributers here (3 people's votes would not be counted if it were closed). --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

SupportAs a note, I have some experience with the Aegis and the SM family of weapons. In common usage the SM-2 and SM-3 are usually referred to by those designations, if not the are referred to as "Standard Missile 3" or "Standard Missile 2." I have never seen a lower case m used in their names. Therefore, I voted to keep the capital M.

131.122.59.136 (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

To comply with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force#Naming conventions request that RIM-66 Standard missile medium range be moved to RIM-66 Standard, RIM-67 Standard missile extended range be moved to RIM-67 Standard. This is inline with other missile articles RIM-2 Terrier, RIM-7 Sea Sparrow, RIM-8 Talos and RIM-24 Tartar. I suppose technically the AN/RIM-66 since RIM-66 is an Joint Army-Navy Nomenclature System (AN System), but most of the US missile articles exclude the AN portion. As for this article, it has been proposed above to move to RIM-161 Standard Missile 3, it would seem to be proper to discuss moving it to RIM-161 Standard instead. All three need to be discussed, and admin assistance is required to move the RIM-66 article at the least. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the number is always displayed. (eg. SM-3, not SM) --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Gunner’s Mate 1 & C - NAVEDTRA 14110 (Large PDF file) is an official Gunner's Mate rate training manual published by the USN to train personnel working with missiles and other ordnance. It refers to the missile as Standard, and uses a lower case "m" in missile. Naval Orientation - NAVEDTRA 12966, another Naval Education and Training book refers to the "Standard family of missiles". --Dual Freq (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ceiling[edit]

Interesting that the missile's claimed service ceiling is 100 nm and the satellite is targeted to be hit at 130 nm. --underst8 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That little symbol > is a greater than symbol. And we're working off unclassified material here, if the source says 100, that what's in the box. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

New "References" tag[edit]

I've moved the "References for characteristics" entry in the infobox into a new {{{References}}} tag that I've added to the {{Infobox Missile}} template. Applying those tags to the {{{name}}} parameter doesn't work very well because the black reference tags don't show up well against the green header background. Wdfarmer (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

New "Stage4" tag[edit]

I've added a new {{{Stage4}}} tag to the {{Infobox Missile}} template to accomodate its use in this article's infobox. (A "Stage4=" tag was in the article's infobox, but wasn't being displayed because {{Infobox Missile}} didn't yet support it.) Wdfarmer (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Names[edit]

CNN on Feb 14 lists Lake Erie, but the DoD briefing cited in this article refused to name a ship. This says three missiles were modified and "USS Lake Erie (CG 70) and USS Decatur (DDG 73) are currently at sea preparing for the mission." A third ship mentioned by CNN and DoD was not given. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong word?[edit]

"The KW's sensors identify the target and attempt to identify the most lethal part of the target". 'Lethal' or 'vulnerable'? Just asking. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Lethal" is correct; the KW is designed to impact the warhead portion of the target. Kurulham 25 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.131.204 (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


New territory[edit]

seems like the Feb 21 action breaks new ground, in as far as demonstrating such ability to work under the targeting constraints. Is this not the first time such a capability has been so effectively shown or ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.126.189.162 (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Impact Velocity[edit]

The RIM-616 is stated as impacting the USA 193 satellite with a velocity of approximately 36 667 km/h. That's around 30X the speed of sound or fast enough to circumnavigate the earth in almost an hour. I've not been able to verify the speed of this missle, though it is unlikely that it would travel this fast. I believe the impact velocity should be referred to as *relative impact velocity*. I see in another entry that this velocity was stated in a Pentagon statement, but it would be prudent to note the accuracy of this statement.

This is indeed the approximate impact velocity of the missile; the relative velocity is much higher and is dependent upon the velocity of the target. Kurulham 25 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.131.204 (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jargon cleanup[edit]

"radar acquires the ballistic missile target", "calculates a fire control solution on the target", "the missile is commanded to launch". I expect this sounds sensible to military people but it's not to a civie like me. Nurg (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

GPS Usage[edit]

This txt "The missile continues to receive mid-course guidance information from the launching ship and is aided by GPS data." is almost certainly incorrect. I have never seen anything to suggest GPS usage infact using GPS in this way would almost certainly be useless. The missile is under active track by the ships radar which is much more accurate that GPS. GPS is used against static targets where you know where the target it would be worse than useless against a moving target. Suggest txt replaced by "The missile continues to receive mid-course guidance information from the launching ship which is tracking the missile at all times."

--Rbaal (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You should call Raytehon and let them know to stop using it. http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055769.pdf is where that came from. It says the third stage uses "GPS-aided midcourse guidance" All the missile needs to know is where it started and where its going, GPS and INS tell the SM-3 where it is at and the ships computers figured out where the SM-3 should go. The ship and missile also communicate, but in cases of ballistic missiles and the recent satellite, the targets path is very predictable so there is little need for the ship to give the missile updated intercept coordinates. During mid-course the missile would simply fly to a position in space, which could be defined by lat long and altitude. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

New Missile Defense Test[edit]

This was recently published: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/11/02/america/Missile-Defense-Test.php (Psychoneko (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC))

Altitude of SM-3 Block IIA[edit]

What the current article fails to mention is the increased range of the IIA. If the current system is just capable of reaching the lowest possible satellite orbit, how high will the IIA reach? Hcobb (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to address all this comprehensively with the new source and notes I've just added in the spec table [Link].. It can all be very misleading, because if you digest the link, the range and ceiling depend on the actual intercept target and the phase of flight that you're trying to make the intercept in. It's considerably shorter and lower for a boost-phase intercept against a fast ICBM, like an SS-19 Stiletto, than it would be in a mid-course intercept against say an MRBM or IRBM like the DF-21 or DF-4. The figures I've now quoted are absolute limits based on the link provided for the Block IA/B and Block IIA respectively but I've explained in the note that actual realistic intercept profiles will be shorter, with examples from the link. Hope it all makes sense.Z07x10 (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)