Talk:RBS 70

Rbs-90?
At one time it was developed the RBS-90 with a twin launcher and some improvements- someone knows what happened? It was basically a RBS-70.

Anotehr point: how man missiles were made of this model?--Stefanomencarelli 15:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Rbs-90 is still in service, main difference from the Rbs-70 is that it is vehicle carried and uses a modern firecontrol radar unit for the battery of six firing stations. Numbers produced has not been disclosed to my knowledge. BP OMowe (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Closest I found is the quote from Saab "More than 1,600 RBS 70-systems and 18,000 robots have been delivered to 19 countries. BP OMowe (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.army-technology.com/projects/rbs70/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Price per piece based on the latest Slovak air defence acquisition program
@TylerBurden The source of the price is in the linked source article. It's the price offered to Slovakia in the current acquisition program that was completed recently.

Exact quote: "Ponuka na RBS 70 bola 39,5 milióna eur, no za túto sumu by sme dostali len 12 kusov." Translation: 12 pieces offered for 39.5 million EUR.

39.5 / 12 = 3.29, rounded to 3.3

Please read the source when it's attached instead of jumping right away to reverting updates and please read the wikipedia guideline for using the revert functionality. The linked source is a major newspaper in Slovakia, but there are countless other sources, too, if you like more. Martin4x4 (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Martin4x4 So you have taken the source and done your own math to come up with the number, that is called WP:SYNTH. Readers shouldn't have to do math to verify content, it should be stated explicitly. TylerBurden (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please start discussing in good faith. Checking sources requires more than using CTRL+F and searching for the exact number, and laziness is not an argument against a source, especially if the source is in a foreign language and especially when a number can also be written using words instead of numbers and it's not a literal quote to begin with.
 * To address the second argument, using math in this case is not synthesis, when the sentence literally states X amount for Y price. Read What SYNTH is not, the part about numerical summarization, and again reread the guide about the reverting.
 * Since we have established that the source is valid, unless you want to dispute multiple major newspapers in multiple countries, and the numbers are valid. What are therefor your suggestions on improving this article? Should we change the info panel into something like this:
 * Unit cost: 39.5 million EUR for 12 pieces offered to Slovakia in 2023
 * That obviously doesn't sound right, in which case I would suggest adding a separate paragraph to the article. Martin4x4 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Martin4x4 Are you actually implying I'm lazy while telling me to assume good faith? I have been civil and given the reason for reverting you, which you evidently aren't taking very well. Evidently the number is not there and you reached the conclusion by doing your own math, that is WP:SYNTH, a policy violation. What you've linked to is an essay, I can also write an essay to support whatever I want do add, that doesn't mean it is policy. If the cost of a single unit is such an important thing that it needs to be included here, then you should have no trouble finding a source for it that actually gives the direct number. Math shouldn't be required to WP:VERIFY content. TylerBurden (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I offended you, that wasn't my intention, but that was the impression I got from your previous comments. Seems the argument arose from misunderstanding, as we obviously have different opinions on what is synthesis and what isn't, as using simple math is specifically mentioned as not synthesis.
 * Nevertheless, there is no point further arguing about this topic, as I found an article which has unit price as you asked, and replaced the source. The source has a scanned government document attached. Martin4x4 (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Martin4x4 It was not my intention to offend you either, so no worries. Good job on finding the source, like you said now that we have the solid number for a single unit this issue has reached a good solution. TylerBurden (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)