Talk:Advanced Gun System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Advanced Gun System article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Ships (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale Low rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale WikiProject Firearms  (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Military history WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force WikiProject United States (Rated Start-Class) United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Vertical Gun?

What exactly is a vertical gun? 205.174.22.25 06:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, it can fire at a higher angle than a howitzer... 70.55.89.96 (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

The whole tone of this part or the article is decidedly one sided and non NPOV. No allowance is taken in this section of the article that the new munitions will be GPS based and fired from over the horizon from a stealthed vehicle, rather hard to hit by even the most modern surface to surface missiles. I would normally suggest re-writing this section but as it stands and amended it is so one sided and flawed I believe it should just be removed. Galloglass 15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The cricism section is hard to fault because it is based on previous proven failures of naval gunfire since the second world war. If the promised improvements do arise then the article could be changed. But given the constant failures of promised military programs to deliver (e.g. Comanche, Sgt York), huge time delays (e.g. Merlin helicopter, Osprey) and gigantic cost over runs (e.g. Eurofighter) a critical attitude to this program is most likely to reflect reality and inform the reader.

There can be no doubt that such criticisms will be annoying, even offensive to the many people employed to develop, build and operate such weapons. That does not invalidate them. This criticism rests on a consistent history of previous military technology failures. It should not be deleted based on conjecture of future possible success.

The self-prmoting manufacturers claims which make up the bulk of the article should remain, but only if balanced by the criticisms. If the criticisms are deleted then, for the sake of balance, so should the whole article, which would be unfortunate. (added unsigned by 86.142.78.119)

The above writer does nothing to dispel the fact that the criticism section is one sided and flawed. Simply stating that navel gunfire is an 'anachronism' does not make it actually so. The Royal Navy experience in supporting the Assault on Goose Green/Darwin and the interdiction of Stanley runway in the Falklands War lead to exactly the opposite conclusion. Taking into account GPS guided ammunition, which is now already in use and proving its effectiveness leads to the conclusion that the new gun system will be both effective and used.

Simply taking cheap shots as the above un-named individual does at previous programs shows that the person is either rather uninformed or has no interest in providing 'balance' to the article. Surely they must be aware that the cost over-runs on the Typhoon, to give the Eurofighter its proper name were due to the re-write in the specification after the end of the cold war.

The problem with the criticism is it is: 1. Unbalanced and biased, 2. Ill informed. 3. Takes no account that both the 155 Gun and its ammunition are 'navalised' adaptations of weapons that are successfully in use in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed the whole tenor of the article with its attack on military procurement is misplaced and uninformed. Galloglass 07:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking that the entire section should be moved, as it is the section that is causing the most amount of problems, and really has no place on this page. It should belong on the main naval artillery page instead, with some modifications, to make this page similar to the other pages such as Otobreda 76 mm or 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun. ThePointblank 18:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Galloglass, the criticisms do not take into account new GPS guided munitions, and it is definitly non NPOV. It should be removed. Vechs 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the section under dispute. Upon further reflection, I realized that it did not criticise the Advanced Gun System at all, but rather naval artillery as a whole, and should therefore be in an article about naval artillery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_artillery). It also contained factual inaccuracies. Also, the only one who seems to want the section in is the anonymous author. Vechs 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)