Talk:Starstreak

message: I have removed this from the article. It's clearly nonsense. If a 5 kg tungsten rod APFSDS round can only penetrate 500 mm of RHA - despite travelling at the same speed. There is no way, that a 1.5 kg STEEL dart (with an explosive component as well as tracking electronics) can penetrate twice as much. Also the explosive content would only contribute trivially to any penetration, since the diameter of the dart limits any shaped charge to trivial effects
An optimisitic estimate would be in the region of 100 mm of RHA - but realistically more like 60 mm. 
If you want to reinstate this claim please at least WP:CITE sources. Megapixie 05:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On Discovery Channel TV (Weapons of the Future series) the british soldiers and test engineers openly bragged about the high penetration capabilities of Starstreak submunitions. They held up a badly holed plate of rolled steel armour 30 (thirty) millimeters thick. It may be good against helicopters, but even a T-34 tank will laugh it off. 81.0.68.145 19:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1000 mm penetration claim

message: would this of been like the american RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) ive been trying to find out information about this system even looking on Hansard were its mentioned but there seems to be very little information about the system.Where is it best to find information about seastreak or has it now been cancelled.Corustar 15:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seastreak

message: Glad you like my amateurish photo, but the other one wasn't that bad we can probably have both? I'm just so dang upset I didn't snap more pics of the various launcher configurations: a man portable one (two-missiles) as well as others mounted on vehicles... also a video simulator that looked good. --Deon Steyn 13:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other picture was pretty bad - ISO 3200 in a dark dark room. Plus the missile was a really rough mockup that had one of the submunitions cable tied onto the main body. Your image conveys exactly the same information - with your permission - I might rotate and crop your image. Let me know what you think. Megapixie 13:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, go ahead and tweak the picture, I'm not sure what the restriction and methods are for Wikipedia (new file name?). I should actually have take a close up of the nose area with the 3 smaller projectiles. --Deon Steyn 06:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did the rotation (new image at :Image:Starstreak missile- rotated.jpg but to be honest I prefer the diagonal version better. So I've left it as is. Megapixie 23:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The system's maximum range is 5.5K not 7, after that it self destructs.
Super elevation is not used to "push" the system further but used to raise the AU with out losing target. The reason being the missile comes out of the tube and dips. If you don't super L the missile will pile into the ground.
The darts seperate from the "bus" of the missile at 1.5k which is its minimum engagment range.
This system would never be able to engage a side profile fighter jet. As you swing the system to track the aircraft the aiming ring would never keep up. Straight on low flying aircraft and popup heli.
Its also attached in both the LML and the SP role with the ADAD system.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.82.16 (talk • contribs) 
:Hi, can you provide some sources for the above. The article is currently largely based on information in Jane's Land Based Air Defence. The minimum range is certainly interesting - it seems kind of long for dealing with a hovering helicopter target - you'd probably have trouble spotting a helicopter popping up > 1.5 km away. Also 5.5 km self destruct distance seems short given that it still has a substantial amount of kinetic energy left at that distance. Megapixie 12:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  distances and super L 

message: I just removed some of the commentry. The missiles proximity fuze is neither advantage nor disadvantage. A bad triggering of a proximity fuze that detonates a missile out of range of the target is just as bad as a near miss. Additionally there are times that a proximity fuze would detonate a missile further from the target than a contact fuze would turning it into an expensive firework (thus all the interest in doppler proximity fuzes). 
:Proximity fuses are actually a weakness in smallish missiles, like MANPADS or the AA-8/R-60. They usually do not have enough explosive load to fully kill a twin-engined jet like the F-15 or a reinforced one like the Su-25 using nearby detonation only. If you want to cause more than repairable damage, you need to have a direct hit and that's what Starstreak does. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disadvantages section

message: > The operator can be blinded by battlefield lasers or other countermeasures. <
The use of blinding lasers is a war crime, there is an international treaty banning use of permanent eye damage methods in warfare! The chinese commies may do this, but civilized nations cannot. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The blinding effect of lasers may occur by accident and would be impossible to prove. In at least one case a British army solder ( on an intel operation during the cold war )suffered a burn in his retina due to a red army laser being misused. For this reason some(?) vision systems have laser blocking layers on their scope. 91.128.24.40 (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blinding laser claim. 

message: 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/starstreak/index.html
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.army-technology.com/projects/starstreak/
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b 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 09:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Is this system operable at night? The article doesn't say. Christiaan (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operable at night? 

message: As a regular user all I want to learn is if and how well it can take down modern military jets, and I need this to be in the lead. All the rest is stuff for military toy fans. As it is now, the article is useless to me. Came here due to Ukraine news, as most other users nowadays would. Arminden (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless article. Main question not touched upon: what can it hit and how well? 

message: You should revert to the correction made on your page.  STARSTREAK is French technology from the Thales Group.  The UK division of Thales provides Britain with the French missile system after Britain purchased under contract from Thales the missile system for its armed forces.  The system is owned by Thales and Reuters makes a point of indicating the FRENCH DEFENSE SYSTEM IS BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO BRITISH FORCES UNDER CONTRACT.
Reuters London article
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-thales/thales-wins-200-million-starstreak-missile-deal-idUKTRE50M2SJ20090123  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5903:A7D5:2522:8D17:4559:CCF8 (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thie missile was developed by Shorts a Belfast based company. It was developed in the UK, paid for by HMG, is built in the UK for the UK. Your argument, such as it is, would mean the Bradley Fighting Vehicle is British as is the BAE Caiman, M113 armored personnel carrier , M1299 and the XM1203 Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon & that the V.22 is powered by British Engines.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/starstreak/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/short-joins-french-on-missile-1495162.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/576342.stm https://aviationweek.com/lockheed-martin-shorts-agree-build-sell-starstreak-us --Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starstreak is French from the Thales Group and NOT British 

message: The manufacturer themselves say its speed is above Mach 3, not Mach 4, as stated in the article with third party references:
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/markets/defence-and-security/air-forces/advance-air-defence/starstreak
At least in the current (fifth) generation of the missile.
There are other third party mentions of a Mach 3.5 cruise speed, but the relevant Starstreak generation is not mentioned either.
Chimel31 (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mach 4 speed or Mach 3