Talk:Standard Missile

RIM-66 Standard withdrawn from service in 2003?
"In September 2003, the USN ceased to support the RIM-66 Standard and withdrew it from service"

So, what replaced them? 202.72.148.102 05:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess, Standard II (SM-2) Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 22:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

SM-2MR IS a RIM-66(C to M). On its face I highly doubt that is a true statement. It must mean non-VLS or Non-Aegis versions of the RIM-66, or possibly the RIM-66A/B SM-1MR. In any case I'd like to see a source. I can't imagine that all the SM-2MR Blk III's are gone, what is the replacement? Block IV? ESSM?? I have a feeling there are still RIM-66M / Blk III out there. --Dual Freq 22:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See also: 060315-N-4884C-025 Seal Beach, Calif. (March 15, 2006) - Standard missile shop technician Joshua Jackson, assigned to Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach performs maintenance on a Standard SM-2 surface-to-air missile. Station missile shop personnel were honored with the 2005 Integrated Warfare Systems Excellence Award for exceeding production goals, while maintaining exceptionally high standards for their work. The shop is the Navy's only intermediate-level maintenance facility for the Standard RIM-66 family of ship-launched missiles. U.S. Navy photo by Eleno Cortez (RELEASE)
 * Why have a maint facility for RIM-66 in 2006 if they were retired in 2003? I'm removing the statement, read if someone has a source. The original contributor must have meant SM-2MR Block II or SM-1MR not all RIM-66. --23:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard missile one medium range block 6 (RIM-66E or SM-1MR Block VI) was withdrawn from US Navy service at the end of the fourth quarter of 2003. This missile was used only by the frigates of the Oliver Hazard Perry class (FFG-7 class). These missiles are still avalible for export customers. The USN still has the standard missile two block three variants in service (RIM-66M-1 block III, RIM-66M-2 block IIIA, RIM-66M-3 block IIIB). The SM-2ER Block IV (RIM-156) is also in active inventory. This is explained in The US Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World 2005-2006 Ed. Eric Wertheim (C) 2005 US Naval Institute Press, Anapolis, Maryland. --Two way time 02:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Should read:"In the fourth quarter of 2003 the USN withdrew the RIM-66E (SM-1MR Block 6) from service."--Two way time (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Split Article?
This article could probably be split and expanded into RIM-66 Standard MR (RIM-24 Tartar replacement) / RIM-67 Standard ER (RIM-2 Terrier replacement). Also the RGM-66 Standard ARM could be added too. I'm not sure if that would help clarify things. Any opinions? --Dual Freq 23:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there are too many standard missile types. Where's the specs for the original SM-1 fired from Mk. 13? It's still in use by several navies around the world. -- Adeptitus 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Standard missile was originally designed to be compatible with any exsisting or planned missile launcher that could fire the earlier RIM-24 'Tartar' missile. The medium range version of the standard missile (RIM-66) can be fired from the Mk11, Mk13, Mk22, Mk26, and Mk41 guided missile launch systems. The Mk11 launcher has been retired from service for some time. The extended range version (RIM-67) has been operational from the Mk10 guided missile launch system. --70.240.99.242 (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Standard Missile Table
I was looking through many sites (Global Security, US Naval Institute, Designation systems, Navy.mil) and I have built a list of all of the standard missile types, every last one.

Table compiled from GlobalSecurity.org, fas.org, Designation-systems.net, USNI Guide to Combat Fleets: Their Ships and Weapons. 2005-2006 (c)2005 USNI Press, and www.Navy.mil.

How far would you like to sub divide the article? I think its better to keep it in one article. --Two way time (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Updated --Two way time (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking there should be around 5 articles, RIM-66 Standard MR (RIM-24 Tartar replacement) / RIM-67 Standard ER (RIM-2 Terrier replacement) and AGM-78 Standard ARM can probably cover the RGM version (Maybe RIM-156 too.. As an example, there are several Sparrow articles AIM-7, Sea Sparrow and ESSM. There is certainly enough material for the 5 articles as you can see from the Designation systems website. I think this article, Standard Missile should probably become a disambiguation page that points to the series of Standard Missile articles. I think the table could be incorporated somewhere in the articles as well. It doesn't look like anyone is going to step up to the plate and make these separate articles, I may try it here if I have the time / interest. Keeping them in the same article makes it easy to mix them up and by the time specification boxes are made, this would be a massive article. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a tall order. I would think that a master disambiguation page for all Navy missiles would be a logical extension. --Two way time (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a half hearted attempt at two articles in my user space, one for RIM-66 and the other for RIM-67. I'm not sure what to do with RIM-156 SM2 BLK IV stuff since it isn't a 66 or 67. It seems to fit best with 67 ER's, but it was used on Aegis platforms, which never had any -67's. Both are stubs right now and I don't think I'll move them to mains space unless there is more support for it. RIM-161 Standard SM-3 and SM-6 ERAM might need separate articles, but the ERAM is not designated. Maybe it will be RIM-156C or something since its a cross between a -156B and an AMRAAM. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Aegis ER (RIM-156A, SM-2ER Block IV) started out development as the RIM-67E. Since it is a two stage missile and was not procured in large quantities, putting it in the RIM-67 article would seem appropriate. --Two way time (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Standard Missile Front Page
Thats my take on it. --Two way time (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. The main articles should work. However, AGM-78 Standard ARM is already its own page, so that should probably be left alone. As for titles, I don't know what MILHIST's guidelines on this are, but I'd try to use the main US designation/name for each type. - BillCJ (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Simply redirect the user to the preexsisting AGM-78 Standard ARM page. There could be disambiguation page on top of a large number of links and detailed pages. --Two way time (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Standard Missile Front Page Ver 2.0
--Two way time (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Standard against Surface Ships?
See Operation Praying Mantis. Would that mean the crew was desparate enough to use a SAM against a surface target? 75.27.191.73 05:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Desperate? I wouldn't want a 1300 lb, 15 ft missile with a 130 lb warhead going Mach 3+ hitting any ship I was on. Plus they were shooting at a patrol boat, one hit would probably be a mission kill forcing a retreat because of the damage. --Dual Freq 13:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Belated thanks. 75.16.63.238 22:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC) (same guy as above).

For a comparison of the effectiveness of an SAM vs a ship, TCG Muavenet (DM-357) was struck by two Sea Sparrow missiles accidentally fired from USS Saratoga. Sea Sparrow is a much smaller missile, less fuel, warhead and speed. The impact damaged the bridge and CIC and killed 5. Muavenet was subsequently scrapped. And that was a 2,200 ton ship compared to the above mentioned patrol boat, about 300 tons. --Dual Freq 04:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Standard missile was designed from its conception to have a surface to surface capability. It's high velocity and faster reaction time gives it an advantage over Harpoon. --Two way time (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

SMCo No longer exists
Note: SMCo was disolved after Raytheon bought Hughes Missile Systems in 1997. Raytheon is now the only owner of the STANDARD Missile.

Lasre 13:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Other variants of STANDARD exist
Notable variants of STANDARD missile that were not put into production include the SM-2 Block IVa, SM-4 (Land Attack STANDARD Missile (LASM)) and SM-6. SM-6 is still in development and SM-4 and SM-2 Block IVa were cancelled, however, it would be nice to list a complete history.

Lasre 13:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lasre, check out my table above. I believe that I have them all in a single table. let me know if you find omissions. --Two way time (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Two way time, I added two future variant of SM-3 to your table. Unfortunatly, I don't know the designators. SM-3 Block IB is an upgrade to the SM-3 Block IA and SM-3 Block IIA is an entirely new missile. Lasre 12:57, 22 January 2008

I would like to move the table to the main article. I would like first to get a nod from other contributors. I would like to put it at the end as an Appendix. I'll need to decide how to reference it as it is a compelation from multiple sources. --Two way time (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Standard Air-to-Ground missiles?
Please see:
 * http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/israel.lebanon.FINAL2.pdf

Go to appendix I titled: "U.S.-Supplied Weaponry in Israel’s Military Inventory".

There is a row there with this info in 3 columns:

Tactical Air-to-Ground missiles (AGM)

Hellfire, Walleye, Maverick, Standard (numbers unknown)

Lockheed Martin/Boeing (Hellfire); Raytheon (Standard, Maverick); Martin Marietta – now Lockheed Martin (Walleye);

I want to link to the relevant wikipedia page with info on Standard Air-to-Ground missiles. The link is needed for the list here:
 * Israel-United States military relations

in the missiles section. Does Raytheon make a Standard Air-to-Ground missile? --Timeshifter 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The answer to your question is: no.  Currently, standard missile is strictly a navy Surface-to-air missile, and Raytheon makes no Air-to-ground variant.  However, there may be a disconinued variation that performs the mission you discribed.  Lasre 13:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. --Timeshifter 19:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You might be looking for AGM-78 Standard ARM. It's an A-G anti-radiation weapon, there's even a picture of an Israeli variant there. --Dual Freq 22:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I incorporated the info into Israel-United States military relations. --Timeshifter 14:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Added the SM-6 section
It needed it, this is becoming old news and needs a place. I dont know how to cite so if someone wants to do it for me that would be great, here is the link

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sm-6.htm

I will put up the SM-4 section when I get the chance.

Combat
I see that someone took an issue with titiling the shootdown of Iranian airliner as "Combat". But the thing is that the incident occured during combat and the crew, at least officially, thought that the aircraft was an enemy F-14, thus this does appear to constitute combat use (i.e. use during and/or as part of combat). So yeah, I'll change it back if noone minds. Maxim K 01:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

USS America
I didn't realize Terrier / Standard ER was tested / installed on an Aircraft carrier. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The Kitty Hawk, America, and Constellation all had Terrier when built. The Terrier was removed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. --Two way time (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

More Details
The USS Enterprise (CVN-65, ex-CVAN-65) was designed to have Terrier also but it was deleted durring construction to hold down the cost of the vessel. --Two way time (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

disambig links
There are links to the ATK disambig page.

These links should properly be disambiguated. --70.104.252.208 (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Launching template
There is no need for a launching template. Thousands of firings have occurred since the 1960s, and dozens for ABM testing. This is not the space shuttle, it's an anti-aircraft missile. Granted there is public interest, but that's what the current event template is for. Additionally it may be more proper to address this in the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System article as the weapon system is the true brains of this operation. Perhaps now with the increased attention to this article we can properly split the article out into its variants. I suggest splitting the article as noted above. SM-3 in its own article, and SM-2 RIM-66 MR / RIM-67 ER each with their own articles as noted above. This page would then become a dab page pointing to the other standard missile articles. As it is now, its just a spec page of missiles with a bunch of people trying to turn it into a wikinews article about an event that hasn't even happened yet. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking there should be around 5 articles, RIM-66 Standard missile medium range (RIM-24 Tartar replacement) / RIM-67 Standard missile extended range (RIM-2 Terrier replacement) and AGM-78 Standard ARM can probably cover the RGM version (Maybe RIM-156 too.. As an example, there are several Sparrow articles AIM-7, Sea Sparrow and ESSM. There is certainly enough material for the 5 articles as you can see from the Designation systems website. I made a half hearted attempt at two articles in my user space, one for RIM-66 and the other for RIM-67. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

RIM-156
I need input as to where to put the RIM-156 blk IV info. Seems easiest to add it to the RIM-67 article since it is an extended range missile. http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-156.html says it may have been known as a RIM-67E as a temporary desig. I also need input as to which page to keep as the dab page, Standard Missile or Standard missile. I prefer Standard missile as Standard is the name of the family of missiles, similar to Tartar and Terrier missiles, the predecessors. I'd like to get this nailed down so I don't have to redirect 100 articles two or three times. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * While the official Aerospace Vehicle designation is "RIM-xxx Standard xR", the Navy does use the title "Standard Missle x", and the abbreviation "SM-x", in many publications. For simplicity and standardization, I think we should use the caplitalized "Missile" in all the article titles and lead sentences, mainly because it looks odd if one word is not capitalized. An alternate title for the missile pages (not the DAB page) might be "RIM-xxx Standard (SM-x)". This avoids using missle altogether, and gets both versions of the name in. I'd prefer to see the DAB page at Standard Missile, because that is a formal name used by the Navy. (And becuase I like to avoid snetnece case whenever I can:) .) We can take this to MILHIST if you want to get a broader range of input. - BillCJ (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, RIM-66 is both SM-1MR and SM-2MR and RIM-67 is both SM-1ER and SM-2ER, so I couldn't use "RIM-xxx Standard (SM-x)". --Dual Freq (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Originally I was going to name them RIM-66 Standard MR and RIM-67 Standard ER. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Arggh! Foiled again! Why can't the Navy just use the designation system it was given?! Well, We could just go with "RIM-xxx Standard" for all the variants (excepting "perhaps" the "Standard ARM", since that is the actualy official name, and leave the remaining alphabet soup for the text. The Lead line can be used to elaborate some of the designations (SM-1MR/SM-2MR, SM-1ER/SM2ER) if needed. Of course, people are voting on only two choices elsewhere, so why I am bothering here, esp since the section below directs people away from here! - BillCJ (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been considering splitting this article since, |June 2006 and no one seemed to care until today when I actually split it. There has been a lot of SM-3 info in the news, so it seemed like the best time to send the MR / ER and the SM-3 ABM their separate ways. From a historical perspective, I wouldn't want SM-3 to take over this article since I think its technically it's still in development. It should not overshadow the 40+ years of prior service of Standard. If someone wants to move it all back and dump it here, then lets discuss that. I think they warrant their own articles and having all of them shoved into one was making the article a big list of specs. As for naming, I don't really want to bicker about capitalization, but a name has to be selected other than just plain standard missile in order to divide into several articles. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you've been working on this awhile, and I'm one of two editors whove participated in the discussion. Odd that my proposal to discuss the issue here, where all the previous discussions have taken place, was struck down by the nominator who posted on the other page without any apparant consideration of, or respect for, what had gone before here. As to my latest option, I'm just suggesting using the usual naming convention of Designation/name for each designation number until DABbing becomes necessary, then adapt. (Btw, that's what WPAIR does - such as with Northrop YF-17, F/A-18 Hornet, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, EA-18G Growler, and CF-18 Hornet - that's what I'm used to anyway. - BillCJ (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so what would that translate to here? RIM-66 Standard, RIM-67 Standard, AGM-78 Standard and RIM-161 Standard? I guess that matches RIM-2 Terrier, RIM-24 Tartar, RIM-7 Sea Sparrow and BGM-109 Tomahawk, but its kind of confusing all being named Standard. I was hoping the split would help make it less confusing grouping into MR and ER and SM-3. I can straighten out the names and fix the redirects with AWB, but I don't want to have to do it twice. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is what I had in mind, and why. I understand your objections, though, but in most cases they are named "Standard" - I don't think the MR and ER are actually part of the DOD name. Some of your other objections can be addressed by using this page to list all the missiles by SM-xXR, with the correct link name, and a brief description. - BillCJ (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Should we use the Talk:Standard Missile or is that too much? Basically what we have is SM-1MR/SM-2MR is RIM-66 and SM-1ER/SM-2ER (Except RIM-156 SM-2ER Block IV) are RIM-67. And RIM-161 is SM-3, its an ER, but I don't think I've seen it listed as SM-3ER, just SM-3. I was trying to make it look like a standardized disambig page, I don't know if I've seen one with tables though. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the wiki-MOS-gods would approve of a table! Right now, I think the page works as you have it. Later, if we need to, we could expand it to be more of an overview page if we want, a la the Harrier Jump Jet page, but probably shorter. Overview pages aren't used much, but not being proper DAB pages, they can use pics and lengthy text descriptions (nad bolding, etc!) - BillCJ (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PS - As a heads-up, the MOS-gods have been removing links beyond the main one in each entry. - BillCJ (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the extra links are removed. ERAM doesn't have its own page and I've tentatively pointed the Block IV to the RIM-57 article since it is an ER weapon. And we'll need a broader consensus on the RIM-XX Standard names, right now they point to my long winded names. I also added the family template, but that's probably against DAB page MOS as well. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Titles
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_SimulationsUser Page 22:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Standard missile
Shouldn't Standard missile redirect here, or vice versa? - BillCJ (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's my fault again. I was planning on having Standard missile be the dab page, but then the capitalization issue came up on the SM-3 page. I just want to get some firm names nailed down for these split articles. How long do I have to wait for others to comment? Right now it looks like the best course of action is toe move RIM-66 Standard missile medium range to RIM-66 Standard, RIM-67 Standard missile extended range to RIM-67 Standard and leave AGM-78 Standard ARM alone. That leaves the RIM-161 article and that appears to be favoring RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 as of now. I'd like to get this resolved so all the redirects can be fixed. I'm perfectly willing to correct my mistake here, I just need to know that it is OK to proceed. As for the split, it can be easily reverted and all three can be put back here if that is what the community wants. I disagree with that option since the SM-3 ABM appears to be vastly different in design and function and it alone deserves its own article. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with all the splits and renamings you've done or proposed, and will continue to support you if you go through with this. - BillCJ (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * RIM-66 Standard missile medium range to RIM-66 Standard will require admin assistance since there are 3 changes to that redirect. I just noticed that this article Standard Missile was named Standard missile until November 2007. I guess I missed that move to the capitalized M. I'll put up a move notice on the RIM-66 article and see what happens. However, there may be some parties that want RIM-66 Standard Missile. Quite a few ship articles will be affected by the RIM-66 move, but there doesn't seem to be much interest in it, maybe its just slow since its a weekend. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've moved. Please check if that's what you want. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's what I was looking for. I'll move the RIM-67 article and wait to see what happens with the RIM-161 article. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The RIM-156 Standard page redirects to Standard Missile. Did you have some info that was supposed to go there? Also, I think any "SM-6 Standard ERAM" info could go to SM-6 Standard ERAM or SM-6 ERAM. - BillCJ (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The RIM-156 is one of the problems. Its a follow on to the RIM-67, I was thinking of covering it there. There was a specs section in this article but I have not put it in any article yet. I'm not sure what the production quantity for the rim-156 is but I get the impression its much less than the RIM-66 blk III and that the bulk of the SM-2s in use are block III, IIIA or IIIB. I'm open to options on where to cover the -156 / block IV. As for ERAM, its pretty speculative right now, I was going to leave it without an article until there was more info, its so new it has no RIM- desig yet. SM-4 LASM was mentioned here too, but it was canceled, I can add a sentence to the dab page. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What does "Standard" mean in this instance?
In what way are the missiles "standard?" Weights? Dimensions? Interplay with shipboard radar systems? Ports on the body? Lug attachment points? Perhaps not standard in any way. Whatever the case -- this is precisely where such details should be spelled out. DulcetTone (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The missile was intended to replace 3 USN surface to air missiles (SAM), the Terrier, Talos, and Tartar. Whether it was chosen intentionally because it was going to be the "standard" naval SAM or not, I don't know, and wouldn't put it in the article without a specific reliable source for it. However, a "standard" is a type of military flag, as at Military colours, standards and guidons. So as a name, that's probably what it refers to, but again, without a source, it's just speculation. BilCat (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok - It replaced both the Terrier & and Tartar- fit into those existing launchers. The Terrier & and Tartar shared the same designer and diameter. The Talos was withdrawn by 1980.- all but 1 of the ships installed retired - were conversions of WW2 cruisers. TALOS was BIG, and longer range. By that time chemistry and booster the Terrier was approaching the range capability of the TALOS. The TALOS design might have begun first the the Terrier was fielded first. Wfoj3 (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)