Talk:Anti-ship missile

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.

Please place a title for every section[edit]

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. (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.


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

AShM is used sometimes in the literature about such weapons.
ASM is NOT used because it is outstandingly ambiguous. ASM could mean air-to-surface missile, antisubmarine missile (such as the ASROC, which has long been a guided missile, since these have not had nuclear warheads for a long time), or antiship missile.
Also, antiship is always written like this, whether you intend to use it in an acronym or not. ASW means antisubmarine warfare, regardless, because intelligent minds recognize where the three letters come from. All Americans and Canadians write "northwest" with no confusion, so why not join us? See the Northwest Territories, named that by an act of the Canadian Parliament in 1912. (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


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)

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 (talkcontribs)

Hsuing Feng III[edit]

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

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Gabriel is missing[edit]

The Gabriel series is quite missing, especially in the table This list could help later editors: Lastdingo (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


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


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 (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-- (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC) was hit by a Fritz X

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

Icon Now Commons orange.svg 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)

Antiship missiles vs. cruise missiles[edit]

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-3C 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 Eurofighter Typhoon can carry Mavericks as antiship missiles.
There are Russian, French, Italian, 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-2MR. (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


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. (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Template produces poor PDF output[edit]

PDF output using Google Chrome's built-in distiller produces poor results with this page. (Use the Ctrl P command in Chrome to preview). Issue may be with the template used or (more likely) the the way content was entered (coded) into the template and saved by the contributor. For example, when printing this article with Google's PDF printer, the font size is scaled down too much. Note that the font size should not dynamically scale up or down to fit a page; font size of the main-body text content should be about 12 points on outputted PDF page(s); it is the images and table cells that should dynamically scale up or down to fit the info box and template in order to maintain the two-column Wikipedia layout. The offending element appears to be the table. Refer to this Wikipedia article for a proper printer-friendly layout using tables -- Printchecker (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-ship missile. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)