Talk:CRV7

message: Folks, the Mighty Mouse 2.75 inch rocket was the first of its glass.  But it was replaced in the 1960s with a far more powerful 2.75 inch rocket which was much longer and had a greater effective range and warhead.  The Mighty Mouse was limited to the 1950 interceptors like the F-94C, F-86C, the CF-100, the F-84, etc. which had rocket tubes which could not accommodate the newer and longer 2.75 inch rockets.  Also, I believe that the Canadian AF was using the 2.75 inch rockets developed by the  Belgium firm of Les Forges de Zeebrugge which has become the supplier for non-USA military aircraft in NATO. --Jackehammond (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The MM was upgraded to the Mk.40, but that was limited to air-to-ground. Except for remaining F-102s and CF-100's, I'm unaware of any MM's still in AA service at the time. The Mk.66 (Hydra) was not used in the AA role as far as I'm aware. The Belgian rockets were the FZ series, identical to the US versions they were based on. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So do you agree the statement "Compared to the U.S. Mk 40 Mighty Mouse  rockets the CRV7 replaced" should be edited?  It definitely implies the CRV7 replaced the MM (and probably refers to Canadian service but is kind of open-ended in the way it is phrased). Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohhhh, yes now I see what you mean. The CRV definitely did replace the MM directly in many forces. It didn't in US service because they were already in the process of moving to the Hyrda, during Vietnam IIRC. AFAIK the only NATO forces using the MM was the US, Canada, UK, Belgium, Germany and Italy. I don't have a single document that states this specifically, but I believe every one of those forces, with the exception of the US, moved to the CRV. Don't know about Australia. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CRV7 did not replace the Mighty Mouse 

message: How is this the most powerful rocket as the article states, and not the Warsaw pact S-24 rocket probably deserves this title?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.244.19 (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some digging and it seems that this might be a terminology issue. The S-24 definitely has more explosive power. However, the rocket power does not appear to be anywhere near the same. Note that the S-24 has a very short maximum range, about 1/3rd or less than the CRV. But of course it's also a larger rocket, which means the engine has to work harder. However, generally, it appears the S-24 is a device that is designed to attack through its warhead's energy, whereas (to some degree at least) the CRV7 is designed to attack through impact energy. I suspect the CRV is much more "powerful" in this respect. I'll keep looking for examples. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Powerful 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on CRV7. 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/20132200552700/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/blabrant.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/blabrant.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090427165003/http://www.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/news-nouvelles/archives/spotlight-pleinfeux/0307-eng.asp to http://www.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/news-nouvelles/archives/spotlight-pleinfeux/0307-eng.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006123800/http://www.magellanaerospace.com/content/objects/WDU_5001B_Anti_Bunkerette.pdf to http://www.magellanaerospace.com/content/objects/WDU_5001B_Anti_Bunkerette.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141104132112/http://www.magellanaerospace.com/content/objects/FAT_Warhead.pdf to http://www.magellanaerospace.com/content/objects/FAT_Warhead.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141104132112/http://www.magellanaerospace.com/content/objects/FAT_Warhead.pdf to http://www.magellanaerospace.com/content/objects/FAT_Warhead.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141104132004/http://www.magellanaerospace.com/content/objects/Ra_79.pdf to http://www.magellanaerospace.com/content/objects/Ra_79.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706170207/http://www.bristol.ca/Downloads/fixed%20wing%20PDF.pdf to http://www.bristol.ca/Downloads/fixed%20wing%20PDF.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110124234520/http://www.bristol.ca/Downloads/rotary%20wing%20PDF.pdf to http://www.bristol.ca/Downloads/rotary%20wing%20PDF.pdf
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) 21:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I see that Canadian's remain CRV7s are being decommissioned, but I don't know how to work that into the article effectively.
* Tender: Demilitarization and disposal of Canadian Rocket Vehicle (CRV7) Rocket Motors (W8486-206212/E)
* News article: In Saskatchewan, the story of a Cold War-era Canadian-designed rocket comes to an end — CBC News
--scruss (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Added, I just put it in the lede. I think they are still being used in the UK, at least the RAF page still refers to them. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decommissioning and disposal