Talk:Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 July 2006. The result of the discussion was Move to Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Untitled

This article may be deeply flawed and possibly should be deleted entirely. FIRST, The article is called Fin-Folding Aerial Rocket, but I've always seen it as Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket. Searching on "Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket" redirects to the Wikipedia entry on Rockets, which suggest this article is both unnecessary and even, literally, on its face, erroneous. SECOND, It's completely about sex American weaponry and development, even though many nations use FFARs. If this were specific to a weapons system (e.g., Hydra 70), it would be fine. But it's not, so a focus on an entire range of technology as American is wrong. It's as if we saw an article on "personal computers" and it only talked about American-made IBM machines from the 1980s. --Thatnewguy 13:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just listed this for deletion. --Thatnewguy 16:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about we have a discussion before we list anything for deletion? This article may need to be rewritten, but it has taken on a life of its own as one of about the history of the Mk 4 FFAR and the subsequent Mk 40 rocket motor. Renamed yes, deleted no. --Thatguy96 16:56, 5 July 2006

Destructive power

What kind of installation would these be able to destroy? Entire office buildings? EVCM (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

This page could really use a picture of the munition, rather than just it's launchers. Wokstation (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spin stabilized.

First, I hope someone has cleared up the issue with their being a specific "Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket" and also many aerial rockets which use folding fins. Second, I'm no expert, but I have to question the claim that the fins were to "spin stabilize" the rocket. I had always believed merely having fins was enough to stabilize the rocket, exactly as in the feathers on an old-fashioned arrow. It creates drag on the rear, keeping the front pointed ahead. I had thought the ALTERNATIVE was spin-stabilized rockets, which use vectored thrust to spin the rocket in a manner similar to a rifle bullet, which also creates stability. I may be completely wrong, but I thought that fin-stabilized rockets did NOT spin, because the fins did that work instead. I know that is why they use fin-stabilized projectiles nowadays for shaped-charge projectiles such as used by 120mm smoothbore tank0guns, because the spin degrades the projectiles terminal effectiveness. If fins are enough to stabilize a Armor-Piercing-Fin-Stabilzed-Dicarding-Sabot anti-tank round, why would aerial rockets need to spin also?.45Colt 23:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)

Mk 4 was intended to break airplanes, not thick armor. Far as I know, it did not use vectored thrust, but rather canted fins, for spin. Why straight fins were not thought to suffice, I don't know. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HVAR rocket

Many articles about particular fighters or formations mention HVAR rockets but make it a piped link to this article instead of that one. Is this correct? Jim.henderson (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]