Talk:RIM-66 Standard

Military history: Maritime / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

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 articles

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

RGM-156

The land attack Standard missile should not be part of this article. Some years ago the Standard missile article was found to be to broad in scope and several contributors decided to cut it into individual articles for each sub type of Standard missile. The SM-4 should be a separate article. Two way time (talk)

Title

Please note that a discussion is ongoing at Talk:RIM-161 Standard missile 3, as to whether the "M" in missile should be capitalised. Seeing as this could affect this article, I feel that it should be mentioned here. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B class

Is anyone interested in turning this article to a B-class document? We would need two people to proof read it and insert invisible comments where there are problems. Proof reader #1 to do grammar and spelling. Proof reader #2 to check references. I'll proof the content for factual errors. And somebody else to check continuity. Two way time (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SM 2 Block IIIB canceled

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110215/AGENCY01/102150302/ Gates also wants to cut $13 billion in so-called "niche" weapons systems he said are facing significant development problems or spiraling costs or are already outdated. The Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, Navy's SM-2 Block IIIB surface-to-air missile, and the Army's Surface Launched Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile air defense system would all be canceled.

How can the IIIB development be canceled if this article says it's already in service? Hcobb (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough details in that article. Have to wait and see what they mean about canceled. It might just mean that further purchases may not happen. The RIM-174A SM-6 has entered production but there are not enough for the USN to withdraw the RIM-66M-5. Two way time (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cut may be only of additional kits to convert SM-2MR Block IIIA in USN inventory to Block IIIB. Nothing is set in stone until the Confrence comittee between the House and Senate agree on a final budget for 2012. Two way time (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't obtained any solid information yet but what is most likely is that the Block IIIB missiles which differ from the Block IIIA missiles by the inclusion of the infrared co-sensor have become redundant because of the introduction of the RIM-174A SM-6 missile. The SM-6, which has active homing for the terminal phase of intercept, can attack targets in the "outer zone" and in high jamming enviornments where the semi-active homing of earlier missiles is vulnerable. The co-sensor of the IIIB is intended to help in the mentioned conditions. Two way time (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This question is still unresolved. I am unaware of the D of D budget on this topic. The RIM-174A Standard ERAM has entered production and the USN may only be purchasing block IIIA rather than block IIIB RIM-66 at this time. I have time off from work coming up and I'll dig around for any information I can find. Two way time (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This item doesn't have any active comment. Without any objections, I will set this to closed on December 3, 2014. Two way time (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most Recent Information

Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a $142,565,902 not-to-exceed cost-only contract for fiscal 2011 Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) production of all-up-rounds, section level components and spares, shipping containers, and associated data. This contract will provide for the procurement of 60 SM-2 Block IIIB all-up-rounds, and SM-2 Block IIIB components and spares. This contract includes options, which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $146,227,686. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy (17.8 percent); and, under the Foreign Military Sales Program, the governments of Korea (32.4 percent), Japan (26.5 percent), Australia (21.9 percent), Germany (0.7 percent), Taiwan (0.5 percent), and Canada (0.2 percent). Work will be performed in Andover, Mass. (37 percent); Camden, Ark. (36 percent); The Netherlands (7 percent); Anniston, Ala. (5 percent); Joplin, Mo. (4 percent); San Diego, Calif. (3 percent); Middleton, Conn. (3 percent); El Segundo, Calif. (3 percent); and Reisterstown, Md. (2 percent). Work is expected to be completed by June 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-11-C-5300). ^[1]

References

^ U.S. Department of Defense. "Contract". U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved 6 December 2011. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)

Naval Ship's Standard missile defenses

"The ship was struck on May 17, 1987, by two Exocet antiship missiles fired from an Iraqi Mirage aircraft during the Iran–Iraq War." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_%28FFG-31%29

The above quote is in regard to USS Stark being hit by two Exocet missiles at a time when both the two incoming missiles and the attacking aircraft were in the ship's "blindspot of the defensive STIR (Separate Target Illumination Radar) fire control system, preventing use of the ship's Standard missile defenses" and "[T]he Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode, Mark 36 SRBOC countermeasures were not armed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_%28FFG-31%29

My question is, what value are these very expensive systems when attacking aircraft and missles cannot be detected, and Phalanx close-in weapons system can be "left in the off-mode" when so many human lives depend on the reliability and usability of these systems? The expense of this failure: "Thirty seven sailors were killed and 21 were injured" and "[t]he ship was eventually repaired at Ingalls Shipbuilding in Mississippi for $142 million." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_%28FFG-31%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.77.220 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't explain it because I can't remember the time line of events, but it was facilitated by an inattentive watch officer, and a comedy of errors. There is an unclassified report about it, if you google the incident you can probably find it. Two way time (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iran owns RIM-66

I added Iran as an owner of RIM-66. For reference you may refer to this photos of P228 (Gorz) Kaman class missile boat. 1 and 2 Sarmadys (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware that Iran had some Standard missiles, but they are most likely RIM-66B that were delivered in between 1970 and 1976. Since delivery Iran has fought a war with Iraq, and the undeclared war with Gulf States and the USA in the 1980s. Were the missiles expended in either war, and are they still viable today nearly thirty years after they were delivered to Iran? If the missiles were rebuilt using locally produced materials, or materials purchased from Russia or the PRC they would probably warrant a separate article or something along that line. Are there any public statements by the Iranian Navy on the subject? Two way time (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add some reliable information about Iranian copy of RIM-66 but user:BilCat did not act nice and by wikipedia's rules and he deleted the information and sources with no good reason. We should at least mention it in the main text that there is other version of this missile and it manufactures in 2 countries. If we don't like something or it's not meeting our political goals it does not mean that does't exist or try to censor it. Here is the information and you can judge yourself.Aghorbany (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what's the reason and motivation for some one to delete true information from Wikipedia. It's not like that this is the first time that a county copies a weapon from others or it's not like that if we delete this kind of information , they (Iranian) stops copying and developing American weapons!! Or maybe it's bad for business so no body should read this and we must censor it as long as possible!! Please, let the information stay and we can discus about all the details and references and videos that you can find all over the internet. It not like that , that is something secret and i'm the only one who knows about it!! Please remember that this weapon system is not some cheap toys and believe it or not the designers and manufacturer will do what every it takes to protect their profit. But we are not working here for money we are here for free and true information. Also please remember that Wikipedia is not about winning, i believe it's about truth and truth has only one version. We can help each other to find the real version of truth. Thank you all.Aghorbany (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to not be following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:Summary style and others. The Iranian details mainly belong at Sayyad-2 with some summary text in this article per WP:Summary style. --Finlayson (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aghorbany: Copying text from another article whole is frowned on by Wikipedia, even on talk pages, as it violates WP:Attribution. Please Stop. We're all aware of what it says. - BilCat (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

France as a Operator

18:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC). Article currently lists France as a former operator, and lists the Cassard Class DDG (quantity) The DDG are still in service in French Navy. I don't see reference to those ships no longer operating RIM-66 SMs. Listing of Current operators. For the USA Perry Class FFGs- USA has not operated the SM missiles on these ships since guess about 2005. AS they have been decommissioned in US service, many have been transferred to Foreign navies. It is possible via that fact there are some current operators of the SM=1 that are not listed (Bahrain, Oman ) others. Wfoj3 (talk)

As I understand it the USN retired the RIM-66E from service in 2003. The missile is still in service in other navies. The RIM-66E is by contract to be kept viable until 2020. The RIM-66E is part of the dealt for sales of ex-USN Perry class frigates to other countries. I am not aware of every country that has Standard missiles in inventory. IF you know of some not listed here go ahead and update the article. Two way time (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on RIM-66 Standard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071209205353/http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca:80/mspa_fleet_popups/autopop_exterior_e.htm to http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_fleet_popups/autopop_exterior_e.htm#221irq_ac_pop

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Grim RIMs

Would it improve this article by including a translation of the RIM jargon into plain vocabulary by way of reference to the 1962 United States Tri-Service missile and drone designation system? Or maybe just provide the translation directly in the article, such as, "RIM - (R) Ship-launched (I) Intercept-aerial (M) Guided missile". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on RIM-66 Standard. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[No._817-11-1] U.S. Department of Defense. "Contract". U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved 6 December 2011. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)

[1]