Talk:Man-portable air-defense system

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 met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Misleading statement on proscription

It's actually misleading to only state that these are proscribed weapons because of any threat to civil aviation posed if they come into the wrong hands -- because the REAL reason they are proscribed is that they pose a threat to the military dominance of the imperialist states: a dominance which relies almost completely on advanced and overwhelming airpower. And this airpower dominance will be severely checked with this stuff out there, generally available to anyone who opposes imperialism.

So someone start thinking about posing that angle in this article. Unless, of course, they really don't want to -- in which case we have another problem here.

Pazouzou 21:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Wikipedia isn't the place for your conspiracy theories about the military-industrial complex or whatever. LordAmeth 22:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a conspiracy - they are very, very effective weapons. Look at the Soviets in Afghanistan - they got their asses handed to them by shoulder-launched missiles. It's the effectiveness of the weapons against ANY target that makes them proscribed, not their effectiveness against one specific type of air traffic. 82.35.107.44 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countries

Could we organize the missiles by country? 71.161.48.4 16:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

I understand that the article was moved from MANPADS to Shoulder-fired missile, but is the current name really appropriate? The article is specifically about anti aircraft missiles, and not any shoulder-fired missiles. As far as I know, "man-portable air defense systems" is a common name for man portable SAMs, whether or not they're employed in a defensive role or not. I noticed that the media tend to use the term "shoulder-fired missiles" when referring to missiles that can be used to attack civilian aircraft in terrorist attacks, however that term seems to broad to describe the systems listed in the article. --daranz^{[ t ]} 00:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name should be "MANPADS" not "shoulder fired missile"

I agree with Daranz. "shoulder fired missile" is not a technical name used by the military. By breaking down the lay-man phrase, a "shoulder fired missile" would mean a shoulder fired guided missile. Air defence missiles are not the only shoulder fired guided missile. A Javelin ATGM (not to be confused with the british Javelin) can be fired from the shoulder and it is primarily an anti tank weapon.

The current article regarding portable air defence systems should be renamed "MANPADS". This is how the military categorises them. What's more, the term MANPADS will encompase other man portable airdefence systems in the same class such as the RBS-70, which has been excluded by the layman term "shoulder fired missile".

Chuckye 10:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Literally" riding a laser beam?

Laser guided missiles do not "ride" the beam. The "see" the reflection of the beam on the target and direct themselves towards it. That bit of hyperbole seems out of place in this article. 24.252.199.248 11:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beam riding seems an actual, but obsolete system, where the missile senses the beam directly instead of aiming at the point at which the beam points [1]. I changed it to laser guidance.--Patrick 14:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The language was taken directly from the Congressional report on the subject. It's what the source says, so it's what I included. Would be happy to hear from experts, however. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A beam-riding missile system uses a conical laser emitted from the tracker that is created by scanning vertically and horizontally many times per second. A sensor in the missile's tail uses this to determine where it is in the cone and steer it towards the centre. What OP is describing is a different type of laser guidance called semi-active laser homing (SALH), where the missile has a sensor in its nose that detects laser light reflected off the target from a designator. Starstreak and RBS 70 both use beam-riding, though Starstreak's setup is a little unusual. Bones Jones (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism?

It seems like the overview section should not be almost entirely about "potential terrorist weapons". Hand-Held SAMs have many other uses. SirBob42 (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing

It says in the "countermeasures" section that MANPADS are sold illegally for a little as a few hundred dollars, but there's no source cited that supports this. I want to know where this information was acquired. Deathbyfreezeray (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbnail Image

It seems like the first thumbnail image has nothing to do with Man-portable air-defense systems if I'm not terribly mistaken (it's a sanitary pad). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.199.175 (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missile Models - What's with Pakistan?

Anza (عنزہ Anza) is a series of shoulder-fired, man-portable surface-to-air missiles produced by Pakistan. Guided by an infra-red homing seeker, Anza is used for low level air defence.[6][7]

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Anza_(missile)

94.219.192.53 (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Man-portable air-defense system. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

37 to 40 pounds?

Most of the linked missiles dall outside this range. 100.19.146.213 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MANPADS V. MANPAD

What should a single MANPAD system be referred to as? I.e, should a single FIM-92 Stinger be referred to as a MANPAD, or MANPADS? Dabiggestchungus (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]