Talk:RGM-59 Taurus

WPMH Commentary
A couple points came to mind while reading the article: Boneyard90 (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say WHY the RGM-59 project was cancelled.
 * What sort of "tracking beacon" do the troops launch at a target, and how? (my money's on an infrared beam aimed at the target)
 * Was this "tracking beacon" a weakness or flaw of the system? I mean, in order for this missile system to best support a landing force, the troops really have to land first, identify a target within visual range, then somebody has to mark it (possibly while exposed to enemy fire?), then call in and wait for the missile strike. Maybe that's why the project was cancelled?
 * Well, the article doesn't say why the project was cancelled, because...well, I couldn't find anything explaining why, just that it was. Even Friedman's book cited just says "Taurus was never built". The other Friedman book, 'U.S. amphibious ships and craft: an illustrated design history', doesn't have the relevant page on Google Books... I'd assume as well that the problem of placing a beacon close enough to a target large enough to require TBM fire support might have been part of the cancellation issues though! I did however manage to dig up more on the beacon itself, which I'm adding to the article now. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. As it's currently written, the article implies that there wasn't funding available for continuation of the project, which as we know with the US military, doesn't mean that there wasn't funding, just that there wasn't funding allocated to the project, probably because it was diverted elsewhere.
 * Tracking Beacon: The article explains a little better how the tracking beacon worked, or was intended to work, but not what it was. If not an infrared signal or a laser tag, then I'm guessing... a radio transmitter? Some kind of encoded electronic signal?
 * We may have to solicit a third party for an opinion and/or assessment, but until certain vagaries are cleared up, gaps in information plugged, I don't see how it could pass a GA review. Or, if Google Books lacks a "relevant page", you might consider checking the catalogues of a local university library, and see if they have the book you need. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I pulled it from GAN for now until I can get my paws on the other Friedman book, which I've requested via interlibrary loan from the little country library I work at. Hopefully the "mystery page" that GB sees fit not to feature will clear things up on both the cancellation reason and the beacon. The first Friedman book (USNW), though, does explicitly state that laser designators weren't available... Given the need to offset and the obvious problems with 'pre-setting' an offset before launch, I'm guessing radio beacon as well, as that would allow for the missile to be 'told' to 'head X dots in Y direction'. Hopefully that can be confirmed! There is also a really cool image of a proposed fire-support ship with two LFSW launchers that I'm hoping I can confirm as PD. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)