Talk:MIM-23 Hawk

message: Hi, I don't know much at all about this topic. But I wanted to draw attention to this sentence "It saw combat in a variety of wars, although it was never fired in anger by US forces which have rarely been attacked from the air since WWII." which doesn't make much sense to me. Should that be never fired in a defensive capacity or something? Or a link to source of the psychology of US troops firing particular weaponry?
Jjhunt 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anger?

message: Okay - guys. Calm down. I'm heading back home in a couple of days, and I'll have time over the next week to finish the WIP version of the article. I think both of you have a lot to contribute to this article. If you both still feel strongly about the issue in a weeks time, then we can continue the debate.
If you guys are looking for something to do - I can heartily recommend checking out Category:Weapon Stubs.
More power to the wiki guys. Megapixie 17:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeout! 

message: For quite a while there were rumour that people had noticed a higher incidence of cancer with ex-hawk service personel. In Belgium a study was done on 30000 people that had worked with the hawk, together with a control-group of 150000 that had not worked with hawk and from the first results no higher cancer risks can be demonstrated.
Personally I've heard of accidents with radars, but mostly because people were too cold and decided to 'warm up' by standing in the main beam of a larger dome. The microwave radiation will cook you.
===References===
* 'Geen hoger risico op kanker door de Hawk-radar', 9 September 2005, 'VRT nieuws'  (in dutch)
* 'Former US troops may sue over radar-linked cancer claims', 28 January 2002, 'Oncolink' 
unsigned comment by User:Pvaneynd
:: Interesting, but I don't think it belongs in the HAWK article - the claimed cause of the cancer is associated with radar in general rather than specifically the HAWK missile system. Megapixie 04:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer risks 

message: * 'Geen hoger risico op kanker door de Hawk-radar', 9 September 2005, 'VRT nieuws'  (in dutch)
* 'Former US troops may sue over radar-linked cancer claims', 28 January 2002, 'Oncolink' 
unsigned comment by User:Pvaneynd
:: Interesting, but I don't think it belongs in the HAWK article - the claimed cause of the cancer is associated with radar in general rather than specifically the HAWK missile system. Megapixie 04:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I made a small change and do to the tension readily apparent in the discussion article I think that we should record all the changes made here, no matter how small.  In the chronlogy section, specifically the portion on the War of Attrition, I changed the number killed.  The author of that part says that Jane's recorded 8 kills but when they identify the types of aircraft, it adds up to 12.  I would say that one of those was incorrect.  Just thought you should know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SAWGunner89 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number Agreement 

message: It says the launch capasity is 42 but all I see is three huge ass bombs. Peacekeeper II 22:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: Someone could say when HEOS began operational, and what was the range of this and  the similar TAS? Also, they were used to track targets but also to discover them? How many TAS were in strenght for every battery? Finally, how the LASHE can allow to engage up to 12 targets at once, when the CW radar are still two?--Stefanomencarelli 13:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LASHE engagement functioned through target visibility created with the integration of the high power illumination radar (HIPIR) and the Automatic Tactical Data Link or ATDL thru the AN/TSQ73 Command and Control system which combined radar data from more than one source and transmitted the tracks to each battery. Using a network of  units along with an AWACS link meant that more than one Continuous Wave Acquisition Radar(CWAR), Phased Array Radar or Airborne radar was providing target data to the FDC. Each battery had a TAS which could manually control the HIPIR radar to visually lock onto a target in the line of sight. I was a US Army HAWK Tactical Director in the late ‘90s. 94.137.72.250 (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Some issues

message: Turkey never before had systems of Hawk category for air defence. ordered 8 second hand systems for the air defence of turkish airspace only. can not afford to pass some of these ordered systems to other country as military assistance.
About Albania because has not any fighter planes into service any more and can not have the capability to buy any , there was a NATO plan for the cover of countrys air defence. the plan was to get Albania 4 second hand Hawk systems from German stocks. it was a better and cheeper in fact solution for the air defence instead to buy fighter planes and to operate them. i dont know if german systems are finally delivered. as it is known until this moment in world defence press the systems dont exist in Albanian armed forces. Also it is sure that dont exist in Albania any SA-5 systems. America and NATO would not give the green light for such russian systems. also dont exist 500 SA-18 systems , made in Albania. Albanian only known system for air defence are few chinese HN-5 ( copy of SA-7) . The article you shown as is in Albanian and many dont unsterstead what really say. really says that Albania use today the Hawk ?? or that intend to get it for air defence ?? can you say as what the article says ??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.11.2 (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Albania

message: It is stated that the NOAH system became operational in 1988. This at best only half-true. I served in the RNoAF that year, working with HIPIR radars. Though we did fire one missile to prove something, I forget what, it could not have been used operationally at that time, due to lack of experienced operators and numerous technical problems.
When it did become truly operational I have no idea.
91.186.73.7 (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Norway

message: I haven't seved in the marine corp but I've noticed that on the globalsecurity.org website that according to them it appears that the the HAWK is still in the inventory, and it seems to me that the marine corp relying on just the stinger would leave it open to attack by a high flying fast moving threat, the stinger being a short ranbe missile. So my question is do the Marines use the patriot or does this article need some cleaning up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.36.194 (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stinger 

message: Since I just joined Wikipeadia, I do not want to start editing the article. I do want to correct some information.
I joined the US Army in 1959 and ended up in the Ordnance Corps as a Field Maintenance Pulse Radar and Battery Control Center Repairman so I know a lot about the early HAWK system.
The HAWK Missle System was first deployed in early 1961.  My unit, the 173rd Ordnance Detachment, arrived in Ansbach Germay in January, 1961 and I was discharged in April 1962.  The artillery units did not arrive unit around early March and it took some time to check out their equipment and repair shipping damage.
The MTBF numbers given for vacuum tubes are much too low and were probably inveted to justify new designs using solid state devices.  The failure rate for the solid state devices in the original Block IV system was very high (100% per year in some cases).  The most common devices failing were resistors (of all things).  For example, the CRTs in the BCC had a regulated high voltage power supply and the failure rate for the voltage divider resistors in the power supply was 100% with a very short life.  This resulted in the output voltage rising to maximum and the image on the CRT shrinking.  The operators would then compensate by adjusting the CRT image defection to sompensate, which would then cause the defelction driver cathode resistors in the cathode follower circuit to burn out.  We were having a hard time with keeping up with replacing the HV power supplies and the cathode follower resistors.  This problem was still not solved when I left the Army.
We had all kinds of problems with getting replacement parts.  For example some twit managed to ruin the IFF coax antenna rod in a PAR and we ended up with a large pile of them before we got one that was not bent in shipping.  They were shipped Blue Streak (air freight) in small cross section card board boxes and that did not work for a long narrow item.  I had a dielectric failure in a PAR stable local oscillator and kept ordering variations of parts and getting a little ripple reducer circuit.  I only finally suceeded by ordering the entire oscillator with its outer can.  A lot of the problems we had were due to use a several different numbering systems for parts such as Federal Stock Numbers, Ordnance Part Numbers, and Army/Navy (AN) part numbers.  The latter numbers went back before WWII in some cases.
The BCC had a connection to the air defense system central conrol center via a unit supplied by hughes.  That unit was as large as the BCC and I heard that it was all solid state.
The ROR was not delivered until after I left the Army in 1962.
The diesel-generator sets were properly rated as 45 kW, 0.8 Power Factor , 400 Hz.  I am an Elctrical Engineer and rating gereators in kVA makes me want to throw up.  The standard rating for roating electrical machines including generators is 1.0 service factor at 1,000 meters altitude in a 40 degree C ambient.  I have no idea what the diesel drivers were rated at and have some iterest in the subject if anyone knows.
Klmcclen (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts 

message: "The missile was also produced outside the US in Western Europe, Japan and Iran.[4]"
 [4] http://www.payvand.com/news/09/jun/1059.html
is an article about IRAN producing a SIMILAR surface to air missile, but not specifically a Raytheon H.A.W.K.
Thanks
GilbertR (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography reference 4 does not support statement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on MIM-23 Hawk. 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://web.archive.org/web/20110711020232/http://www.forecastinternational.com/Archive/mm/mm0490.htm to http://www.forecastinternational.com/Archive/mm/mm0490.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060318003531/http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_050670.pdf to http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_050670.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606134955/http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=123003§ionid=351020101 to http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=123003§ionid=351020101
*Added  tag to http://s188567700.online.de/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=67&Itemid=47
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007115928/http://www.roaf.ro/en/dotare/hawk_en.php to http://www.roaf.ro/en/dotare/hawk_en.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413004708/http://milparade.udm.ru/security/28/060x.htm to http://milparade.udm.ru/security/28/060x.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091124195527/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/HAWK.html to http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/Hawk.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051125121834/http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/surface_missiles/hawk/Hawk.htm to http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/surface_missiles/hawk/Hawk.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051216021746/http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/PVO/hawk.htm to http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/PVO/hawk.htm
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) 22:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: https://t.me/BellumActaNews/18877
This is a video someone took of a passing battery. Could be anywhere.
Here are some photos of earlier deployments in 2018 and 2017.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/turkish_army_in_syria_with_hawk_mim-23_air_defense_systems.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff1948a (talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish deployment of MIM-23 to Idlib (Syria) 2020 

message: The video showing a Russian Mig-29 pilot and a orange parachute. Was debunked by the same person hat posted the video on Youtube.Two Russian MiG-29s Have Crashed In Libya According To Top American Intel Official Literally from the Drive "The video was notably posted to YouTube on September 7, without explanation, by a user with the handle Fighterbomber. The same poster subsequently took to Instagram to claim that it actually showed a CSAR exercise, pointing to the lack of wreckage or smoke, and other supposed discrepancies, including the pilot’s lack of flying suit, and contending that the R-855 emergency radio beacon would not normally be carried on a combat mission". However two Mig-29 were reported crashed according to the source. No mention of Mim-23 shotdown was made by the Drive. Seems that avia.pro used a past version of the Drive article. This is for the record.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 7 shoot-down of Mig- 29. 

message: On 13 March I made a minor change to the introduction of this article, changing the opening sentence from "MIM-23 Hawk" to "MIM-23 HAWK ("Homing All the Way Killer, commonly referred to as "Hawk")". This change was quickly rolled back by user:BilCat as lacking a reference. I restated the change, and cited an appropriate reference, the US Dept. of Defense Missile Defense Agency (https://www.mda.mil/news/gallery_hawk.html).  The user responded by adding the 'disputed-inline' template, saying it is a "backronym".
So, my question is if an authoritative source such as the MDA states that this IS correct, how can it be disputed? Besides, this is NOT the only place where similar information as to what I stated is found - I specifically chose this as it SHOULD be considered an appropriate source.  Also, if you read any number of US Army technical manuals (e.g. TM-9-1450-500-34) for the Hawk, you will see it usually described as MIM-72 HAWK or HAWK even though surrounding text is not capitalised (and capitalisation of equipment names is NOT a US Army standard). 
Sorry, but until someone can point to an undisputed, reliable source - especially one from the US Govt which has authority over the equipment (as in this case, the MDA has) - which say the information I stated is incorrect, then I cannot see how this information is disputed (and therefore the dispute tag should be removed).
Blammy1 (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Per my edit summary: "Added Disputed tag - generally acknowledged as a backronym, not an original acronym". See Backronym if you still don't understand what I'm questioning. BilCat (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I pulled up a copy of a TM in which I found "To be distributed in accordance with DA Form 12-32, Direct Support and General Support Maintenance Manual,
Loader Transporter, Guided Missile: XM5O1E3 (Hawk Guided Missile System)." and also "When the MASTER Switch and IGNITION
Switch are turned on, the fuel pump is activated" which rather suggests that capitalisation in military documentation is to its own rules. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

text: It's being disputed because the way you wrote it implies that it's an original acronym, when it most likely is not. I'm not adding a claim to the article that it's a backronym yet because I don't have reliable sources for that. That's what we're trying to determine. BilCat (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not understand your statement. What is your citation for "most likely"? What is "original" in this context, and why does that matter? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Reliable source says HAWK is an acronym for Homing all the way killer, with no other sources saying anything else. After over a year without the situation changing, there is no reason to continue this. Should new sources surface the matter can be reopened of course. BP OMowe (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  HAWK vs Hawk and disputed tag 

message: In the “Hawk mobility and TMD upgrade section” it says “  A north finding system speeds orientation and launcher alignment.”  This is a bit cryptic, and sounds like something from a fortune cookie. A brief explanation of the nature and benefit of the north finding system would improve the article. Is there a magnetic compass, a gyrocompass, a telescope to detect the North Star on a clear night, or a GPS? The sentence implies that before this update, the crew, the launcher and the missile guidance had little idea of which way was north. Is the compass important to distinguish enemy from friendly aircraft, to coordinate coverage with other batteries, or what? Edison (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear sentence