Talk:Harpoon (missile)

Infobox
Tried adding an infobox, copied the format from the Exocet page. The box is less useful than it should be due to the varying ranges and weights of the air-, sea- and sub-launched versions... --HowardSelsam 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Name change
I must have missed the discussion of a name change here. Is there a naming convention in the mil history weaponry task force that specifies this? I would think Harpoon (missile) would be preferable similar to Penguin (missile) or Sprint (missile). Do we plan to change Exocet to Aérospatiale Exocet or Penguin (missile) to Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace Penguin? --Dual Freq 23:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Harpoons and land targets
I apologize for the confusion, but would people approve of this section being included in the article, after the characteristics? (I put it in earlier, but it was removed.)

"The Harpoon is not designed to attack land targets. However, this has not prevented it being used to strike land targets in popular culture, such as the Harpoon computer game, or on television in the JAG episode "Tiger, Tiger" and the Doctor Who episode "World War Three"."

And, yes, in early versions of the Harpoon computer game, you could attack land targets with Harpoons. Orville Eastland 14:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please re-read the section about Harpoon SLAM (AGM-84E). --Dual Freq 00:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Doctor who
The doctor uses this missile to defeat the slitheen --86.22.138.255 11:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

General characteristics can't be right
Using the given weights and thrust, the missile would accelerate at 5.6m/s^2. That can't be right, it means that it can't lift itself against gravity. Anyone know what's up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.156.40.252 (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Golly! The Harpoon cruise-missile is fired more-or-less horizontally, and it has wings!
 * That's what cruise-missile means. It doesn't have to take off with its tail down like a Space Shuttle or a Standard missile does. It doesn't have to have a thrust-to-weight ratio of one or greater - just like a Boeing-767 does not need to. The Harpoon is a missile that is like a pilotless airplane, and it flies in the air.

Clearly Wrong
Wing span: 910 metres (3,000 ft) with booster fins and wings

Opnl use in Gulf War
Saudi warship sinks an Iraqi minelayer with HARPOON - 24 January 1991 (Thursday): DAY 8.

Royzee (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mention in 'Spooks'
Those dummies who write the script for the BBC drama 'Spooks' had some yankee chap boasting about the Israeli use of Harpoons against Iran. Durh what he meant was Popeye I presume as the IAF et al., do not use the Harpoon which is for the most part an anti-ship missile anyway.

Royzee (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Early development
I've read that Harpoon was originally developed as an anti-submarine weapon (hence the name!) and that it was only converted for SSM work (as opposed to a secondary anti-ship capability when [i]air-[/i]launched) post-Eilat - which is when the article's discussion of its history picks up. Anybody have definitive sources they can use to add this? - The Bushranger (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there was at one point a plant for an anti-submarine Harpoon (perhaps the reason it was designed to fit in existing ASROC launchers), but I've never heard of that being intended as the main role. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Why AGM-84?
Why has this article been renamed to AGM-84? The AGM version is only one of the missiles covered by this article - surely the name should be Boeing Harpoon as before, or Harpoon (missile) as suggested above?Jellyfish dave (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Australian F-111C use
Just a note and comment. The F-111C has been retired from RAAF service (late 2010) and replaced with the F/A-18F. I have updated to reflect the changes. I have left a reference to the retired F-111C. I hope that future edits retains this reference, as I think it was an interesting and unique platform for the Harpoon to be integrated with, almost as if a small part of the cancelled US Navy F-111B lived on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113727b (talk • contribs) 21:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Boeing AGM-84 Harpoon → Harpoon (missile) — As noted above, there are other _GM-84 versions than just AGM-84; also, WP:ROCKETRY has established guidelines for the naming of aircraft and missile articles, and the manufacturer's name appears in none of the reccomendations. The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 03:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Harpoon is the common name and is also accurate; The current name also refers to just one version of the missile and so violates WP:precision. I know of no naming convention that would support the current name; Interested in any that do, but suspect that if they do apply to this case they should be changed. Harpoon missile would also be acceptable IMO, but the proposed name Harpoon (missile) is fine. Andrewa (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Huh?
In the introduction to this article, the following statement is made: "The missile is comparable to the French-made Exocet missile, the Swedish RBS-15 missile, the Russian SS-N-25 Switchblade, the British Sea Eagle missile, and the Chinese Yingji missile series." Interestingly, almost all of the articles for the other missiles listed make no a similar statement, indeed most don't even mention any of their counterparts anywhere in the articles (one has a list of similar weapons at the bottom of the article and the Russian article talks about how it is sometimes referred to as "Harpoonski" or some such). Since the Harpoon is arguably the better known weapon, it would seem to be bassackwards to have this statement appear here but not comparable statements in the other articles - indeeed it makes far more sense to have the other articles refer to this one than vice versa. Of course, this is all part of the general anti-American trend one sees in Wiki-land - kind of like having the ISS article written in UK English for no good reason other than some time back someone rewrote it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Took me less than 10 minutes to add the same cross references to the mentioned articles (which least I find really useful when reading up on weapons of a certain era), and I believe you could have done the same. /BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry
I have been warned several times about my "inappropriate" commenting at various places at the Wiki entity... even when my additions on the various "talk pages" were based on real-life experience and/or extensive knowledge about the subject. Thanks to these little "Napoleons" who apparently attain some sense of self-importance by strutting boldly through this little nook of the Web I will depart and keep to myself my personal experiences with the Harpoon system while aboard one of the test vessels that tested the weapon against actual targets at sea; old, worn-out warships designed to be used as targets. I will remain mum, thanks to those "moderators" and their "power trips."Obbop (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of wiki is that it contains verifiable, backed up facts. As unfortunate as this may seem, this means that little weight is given to facts whose only support is someones word that it happened. Perhaps if you were able to provide a publicly-available link to evidence that you were where you said you were, your additions would carry more weight. Some people view folk who "claim" certain experiences as "little napoleons" too - especially when they go to so much trouble to announce how they are "departing" with their valuable data.

Personally I don't doubt your credentials - it seems like an unlikely and unwieldy lie - but a wiki that publishes everything that anyone said would be entirely useless, and "...b-but I REALLY was there!" is hardly any argument at all.94.175.244.252 (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This is almost certainly incorrect
The history section of this article starts of thus:

"In 1965 the U.S. Navy began studies for a missile in the 45 km (25 nm) range class for use against surfaced submarines. The name Harpoon was assigned to the project (i.e. a harpoon to kill "whales", a naval slang term for submarines"

I can't find anything like this in any of the historical records. They all say the missile program started after Elat, in FY1969. They also say that it was originally named ALSAM indicating Air-Launch Ship Attack Missile, that the US Navy added surface-launch via a booster. You can see this for instance (although note the typo). I have never heard the term "whale" applied to a submarine, and do not see any trace of the term "Harpoon" prior to 1970.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sub-Harpoons
http://news.usni.org/2016/02/18/west-u-s-navy-anti-ship-tomahawk-set-for-surface-ships-subs-starting-in-2021

Supposedly retired in 1997
 * The production line was retired and it is unclear whether they were retired all together in the US fleet. Other fleets may still have existing stockpiles. Llammakey (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? The above was specifically for the USN.Phd8511 (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Harpoon (missile). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101225171833/http://www.defpro.com:80/news/details/20860/ to http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20860
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090908063258/http://www.dawn.com:80/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/09-pakistan-allows-us-to-inspect-harpoons--szh-11 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/09-pakistan-allows-us-to-inspect-harpoons--szh-11
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713025643/http://www.indiatvnews.com/main/newsdetails.php?id=3479&pg=index to http://www.indiatvnews.com/main/newsdetails.php?id=3479&pg=index
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091005201507/http://thenews.jang.com.pk:80/updates.asp?id=87764 to http://thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=87764

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

$1 200 000 ??
$1 200 000 for one missle that sizez is insane. Especially compared to the other ones in the category. ALmost 10 times more? Honestly such rip offs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.86.106 (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Cost is not right....
So it says he unit cost for Harpoon Block II is $1 200 000 per unit in 2011. Yet, in the article it says "The US Navy awarded a $120 million contract to Boeing in July 2011 for the production of about 60 Block II Harpoon missiles" This would equal $ 2 000 000 per unit not $ 1 200 000 per unit. Either way its a huge rip off and not worth the price for these especially since the bigger version are much cheaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.86.106 (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harpoon (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:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/689OXjVe2?url=http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q1/080131a_nr.html to http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q1/080131a_nr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Would the aircraft-launched version fit inside an F-35?
Would the aircraft-launched version of Harpoon fit inside an F-35? Specifically an F-35B? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.59 (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

No GPS guidance?
The infobox doesn't mention GPS guidance. Surely any anti-ship missile requires GPS guidance?