Talk:Harpoon (missile)

message: Tried adding an infobox, copied the format from the Exocet page. The box is less useful than it should be due to the varying ranges and weights of the air-, sea- and sub-launched versions...
--HowardSelsam 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I must have missed the discussion of a name change here. Is there a naming convention in the mil history weaponry task force that specifies this? I would think Harpoon (missile) would be preferable similar to Penguin (missile) or Sprint (missile). Do we plan to change Exocet to Aérospatiale Exocet or Penguin (missile) to Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace Penguin? --Dual Freq 23:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: I apologize for the confusion, but would people approve of this section being included in the article, after the characteristics? (I put it in earlier, but it was removed.)
"The Harpoon is not designed to attack land targets. However, this has not prevented it being used to strike land targets in popular culture, such as the Harpoon computer game, or on television in the JAG episode "Tiger, Tiger" and the Doctor Who episode "World War Three"." 
And, yes, in early versions of the Harpoon computer game, you could attack land targets with Harpoons. Orville Eastland 14:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please re-read the section about Harpoon SLAM (AGM-84E). --Dual Freq 00:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Harpoons and land targets

message: The doctor uses this missile to defeat the slitheen --86.22.138.255 11:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor who 

message: Saudi warship sinks an Iraqi minelayer with HARPOON - 24 January 1991 (Thursday): DAY 8.
Royzee (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opnl use in Gulf War 

message: Those dummies who write the script for the BBC drama 'Spooks' had some yankee chap boasting about the Israeli use of Harpoons against Iran. Durh what he meant was Popeye I presume as the IAF et al., do not use the Harpoon which is for the most part an anti-ship missile anyway.
Royzee (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention in 'Spooks' 

message: I've read that Harpoon was originally developed as an anti-submarine weapon (hence the name!) and that it was only converted for SSM work (as opposed to a secondary anti-ship capability when [i]air-[/i]launched) post-Eilat - which is when the article's discussion of its history picks up. Anybody have definitive sources they can use to add this? - The Bushranger (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure there was at one point a plant for an anti-submarine Harpoon (perhaps the reason it was designed to fit in existing ASROC launchers), but I've never heard of that being intended as the main role. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early development 

message: Why has this article been renamed to AGM-84? The AGM version is only one of the missiles covered by this article - surely the name should be Boeing Harpoon as before, or Harpoon (missile) as suggested above?Jellyfish dave (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why AGM-84? 

message: Just a note and comment. The F-111C has been retired from RAAF service (late 2010) and replaced with the F/A-18F. I have updated to reflect the changes.
I have left a reference to the retired F-111C. I hope that future edits retains this reference, as I think it was an interesting and unique platform for the Harpoon to be integrated with, almost as if a small part of the cancelled US Navy F-111B lived on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113727b (talk • contribs) 21:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian F-111C use 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Harpoon-block-II-launch.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: In the introduction to this article, the following statement is made: "The missile is comparable to the French-made Exocet missile, the Swedish RBS-15 missile, the Russian SS-N-25 Switchblade, the British Sea Eagle missile, and the Chinese Yingji missile series." Interestingly, almost all of the articles for the other missiles listed make no a similar statement, indeed most don't even mention any of their counterparts anywhere in the articles (one has a list of similar weapons at the bottom of the article and the Russian article talks about how it is sometimes referred to as "Harpoonski" or some such). Since the Harpoon is arguably the better known weapon, it would seem to be bassackwards to have this statement appear here but not comparable statements in the other articles - indeeed it makes far more sense to have the other articles refer to this one than vice versa. Of course, this is all part of the general anti-American trend one sees in Wiki-land - kind of like having the ISS article written in UK English for no good reason other than some time back someone rewrote it that way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Huh?

message: I have been warned several times about my "inappropriate" commenting at various places at the Wiki entity... even when my additions on the various "talk pages" were based on real-life experience and/or extensive knowledge about the subject. Thanks to these little "Napoleons" who apparently attain some sense of self-importance by strutting boldly through this little nook of the Web I will depart and keep to myself my personal experiences with the Harpoon system while aboard one of the test vessels that tested the weapon against actual targets at sea; old, worn-out warships designed to be used as targets. I will remain mum, thanks to those "moderators" and their "power trips."Obbop (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry

message: The history section of this article starts of thus:
"In 1965 the U.S. Navy began studies for a missile in the 45 km (25 nm) range class for use against surfaced submarines. The name Harpoon was assigned to the project (i.e. a harpoon to kill "whales", a naval slang term for submarines"
I can't find anything like this in any of the historical records. They all say the missile program started after Elat, in FY1969. They also say that it was originally named ALSAM indicating Air-Launch Ship Attack Missile, that the US Navy added surface-launch via a booster. You can see this for instance (although note the typo). I have never heard the term "whale" applied to a submarine, and do not see any trace of the term "Harpoon" prior to 1970.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is almost certainly incorrect 

message: http://news.usni.org/2016/02/18/west-u-s-navy-anti-ship-tomahawk-set-for-surface-ships-subs-starting-in-2021
Supposedly retired in 1997
:The production line was retired and it is unclear whether they were retired all together in the US fleet. Other fleets may still have existing stockpiles. Llammakey (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for that? The above was specifically for the USN.Phd8511 (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-Harpoons 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Harpoon (missile). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101225171833/http://www.defpro.com:80/news/details/20860/ to http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20860
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090908063258/http://www.dawn.com:80/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/09-pakistan-allows-us-to-inspect-harpoons--szh-11 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/09-pakistan-allows-us-to-inspect-harpoons--szh-11
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713025643/http://www.indiatvnews.com/main/newsdetails.php?id=3479&pg=index to http://www.indiatvnews.com/main/newsdetails.php?id=3479&pg=index
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091005201507/http://thenews.jang.com.pk:80/updates.asp?id=87764 to http://thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=87764
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: $1 200 000 for one missle that sizez is insane. Especially compared to the other ones in the category. ALmost 10 times more? Honestly such rip offs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.86.106 (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  $1 200 000 ?? 

message: So it says he unit cost for Harpoon Block II is  $1 200 000 per unit in 2011. Yet, in the article it says "The US Navy awarded a $120 million contract to Boeing in July 2011 for the production of about 60 Block II Harpoon missiles" This would equal $ 2 000 000 per unit not $ 1 200 000 per unit. Either way its a huge rip off and not worth the price for these especially since the bigger version are much cheaper.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.86.106 (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost is not right.... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harpoon (missile). 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://www.webcitation.org/689OXjVe2?url=http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q1/080131a_nr.html to http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q1/080131a_nr.html
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) 12:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Would the aircraft-launched version of Harpoon fit inside an F-35? Specifically an F-35B?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.59 (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would the aircraft-launched version fit inside an F-35?