Talk:MIM-23 Hawk

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States C‑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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. 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 met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force North American military history task force United States military history task force

Hi, I don't know much at all about this topic. But I wanted to draw attention to this sentence "It saw combat in a variety of wars, although it was never fired in anger by US forces which have rarely been attacked from the air since WWII." which doesn't make much sense to me. Should that be never fired in a defensive capacity or something? Or a link to source of the psychology of US troops firing particular weaponry? Jjhunt 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC) "fired in anger" is the standard term used when talking about weapons usage. It's not actually referring to the psychological state of the troops..[reply]

It would be nice if somebody would come up with a way to clean this article up a little. The formatting is icky because of the large table, but the text is useful in describing the many uses and incarnations of the HAWK. I'm not sure how to approach it, myself. Avriette 13:08, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look in the next few days. The existing text is basically a copy and paste of a US army site. I'll do what I normally do and split it into the following sections:

• Introduction (data table on right)
• Development (some of the Chronology)
• History (some more of the Chronology here) - I'll also add some links to wars it's been involved in.
• Description - how the system works
• Variants - the different versions that exist
• Users - who uses it.
• See also
• External links
• References

Any comments ? Megapixie 01:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much for throwing yourself on that sword, mp. it is a copy and paste, as such, with some wikiformatting. at the time, i was editing a slew of wiki weapons sites, and i just didn't have time to go through this more carefully. if you would do so, you would make me ever-so-happy. xoxo, Avriette 05:20, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

This is taking me forever! I've posted a very incomplete WIP at User:Megapixie/HawkWIP. I will be making regular updates to it. I'm going on a business trip for a couple of weeks so I anticipate it will be at least a couple of weeks before it's finished. Megapixie 14:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

very happy with what you've got. the only two comments i have so far are that there are a lot of [edit]'s on the page. you may consider replacing some of the smaller sections with bullets and/or bolding. additionally, since the hawk has been more or less superceded by the patriot for antimissile and close-in antiaircraft roles, you might consider mentioning the patriot or linking to it. thanks again for your great work here. Avriette 19:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I know this is taking forever - but I'm in the process of getting 2 books that should be immensely useful in sorting out some of the details in the article: Arsenel of Democracy, and Janes Air Defense 2004-2005. Arsenel is a good snapshot of the system circa 1980, and Janes should cover some of the later upgrades in more detail than I have right now. Megapixie 07:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per Megapixie's request, User:Megapixie/HawkWIP has been deleted. Please contact Megapixie if you'd like it undeleted (who can then contact me or another admin to do so). Thanks, Tomer^talk 03:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That "interdiction role" stuff is absurd. Missiles are designed to kill. HAWK missiles don't arrive at their target and politely ask it to change course. Let's not clutter the articles with newspeak.--Kafziel 11:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

missiles are not all designed to kill. missiles are used for deployment of "effects" such as smoke and chaff, missiles are used to delineate distance with contrails, etc. there are huge variances in missile payloads and applications. Avriette 19:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=missile

An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile.

you will note also that even the mighty Saturn V was referred to as a "missile" in its time. a missile is simply a projectile. the hawk is, well, a homing rocket. to say that all missiles are designed to kill is naive. Avriette 19:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

The definition you're quoting there is archaic, and does not pertain to missiles as defined by the modern military (which is the only definition that matters, since this is a military-made weapon). Chaff is deployed by artillery or rockets like the Mark 36, not by guided missiles. Even in the instance of something like the Patriot, the missile is still designed to administer a lethal amount of force; they are able to shoot down fighter planes, and have done so. Are you really arguing that a rock fired from a slingshot qualifies as a missile? Or that the HAWK is not meant to kill people? Who's being naive here?Kafziel 19:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, to JEnnoE, I guess I wouldn't know as much about this subject as, say, an NRA member, but I served as a 2671 in the Marines, have dealt with a great deal of intel involving HAWKs, and have never - EVER - heard the term "All Weather" used in conjunction with this. I guess that's probably to differentiate this missile from the ones that melt in the rain, huh? Kafziel 19:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my my, we are testy. listen, i didn't make the definition up. archaic or not, that's the definition from webster.com. and yes, i am honestly arguing that a rock fired from a slingshot is a missile. that's what the word means. but that's not really the point. what i'm getting at here is that there are rockets/missiles which are not guided kill vehicles. there are meteorology rockets, as well, for example. i feel pretty strongly that the verbiage should be agnostic in that regard. as far as "all weather," I've never heard of that either. i'd like to see a source for that, as i never ran across that in any of the reading i did. kafziel, i generally don't consider the wikipedia to be a dick measuring contest, so let's keep the "well my qualifications are better than yours" arguments out-of-band, okay? Avriette 03:20, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

First off, I don't feel that it's "dick measuring" to say why I know what I know. I don't think there's anything inherently special about being a Marine - millions of people have done it, and I certainly knew my share of idiots during my time there - but my particular job happened to train me on this subject. Just as you might argue that your job at Microsoft would qualify you to add to certain discussions. It's not an end-all qualification, but it's just to say that I'm not talking out of my ass.

Now, I can see that this semantic argument is really going nowhere, and we'll have to agree to disagree. You're using Websters, I'm using military terminology (which would define your other examples as "projectiles"). You consider Webster's to be more of an authority on the English language (and I would agree in most cases), but as far as I'm concerned, the definition I'm using is more relevant, because Webster's does not make missiles. Furthermore, I don't really understand your objection in the first place, because:

• You're not saying that the "K" doesn't stand for "Killer".
• You're not saying that the HAWK wasn't made to kill people. The military called it a killer because that's what it's meant to do.
• You're not even saying that the HAWK is a rocket. It's not called a HAWK rocket, and we both know there's a reason for that. The reason is that the word "missile" means that it has a guidance system and a warhead. As an engineer, you know that a rocket is just a propulsion system and doesn't necessarily define the vehicle being propelled. Ten-year-old kids can set off Ertl rockets in their backyards. They're not missiles. A rocket-propelled grenade is not a missile. It's just a grenade with a rocket attached to it. A chaff rocket is not a missile. It just flies for a second and then explodes.

So what, exactly, are you arguing? You say that the word "Killer" is "dubious", but in fact you don't doubt it at all. You know that's the official designation. What you really think is dubious is my assertion that all missiles are designed to kill people. But then you argue apples and oranges by saying that "military rockets are generally designed for an interdiction role". (I don't agree that the majority of the military's rockets are non-lethal, but that's another argument.) But let's take a look at the "interdiction roles" of some missiles:

File:BaghdadSmoke.jpg

I'm sure no one was hurt...

File:InterdictedBuilding.gif

This whole city block was streaking toward an innocent aircraft carrier, but fortunately it was interdicted in time.

File:InterdictedBuilding2.jpg

This building will never hurt anyone again.

Missiles kill people. That's what they're for. All of 'em. At least, all the ones the military makes. The HAWK is included in that, and the "killer" designation is not dubious in the least. If you want to talk about how rockets serve an interdiction role, that's fine. Why not do it on the wiki page about rockets? We don't need to candy-coat this stuff with White House public relations terminology. Kafziel 14:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To address your curious edit, I would call attention to the disclaimer on my home node, stating that my employer has nothing to do with my content here. I am legally required to attach that disclaimer to my work here. Since you have wandered away from any logical argument on this whatever, I'm amenable to an arbitration process, although I don't really think one is necessary. We have, however, reached the "magic 3 reverts" level, meaning any further reverts do require arbitration. My suggestion would be to wait for the user who is rewriting the article to finish. Your sarcasm and morbid humor are not appreciated. Avriette 09:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, what a compelling argument. "Stop it or I'll tell." That's awesome. Who has wandered away from logical argument now? If you can't counter my points, don't blame it on some imaginary distress at the pictures I posted. What's the matter? You like to write about weapons but you don't like to see them in use? Yeah, right. I'm sure these photos really brought you to tears.

I'm not sure what you mean about the whole "revert" thing - I haven't reverted the page since we started this discussion. But even if I had reverted a bunch of times, I could still do it again. And again and again. I won't, but I could. I've left your edit up there, despite my better judgement, because I feel it's preferable to discuss it here instead of getting into an edit war. When I first reverted it, I thought your change was so absurd that it must be vandalism. Now I can see you actually believe it (though you evidently can't say why, since you haven't answered any of my points) so I've left it intact for now while we talk it over.

As for the "curious edit", I had you mixed up with another guy I was talking with a while back (who happens to be an engineer). I saw the mistake, and corrected it. It has nothing to do with whatever disclaimers you have on your user page (didn't look, don't care). My example was just that you'd probably be more qualified to edit an article about why Windows ME sucks than I would. I think it goes without saying that your opinions are not necessarily those of Microsoft Corporation, but because of what you do you are qualified to enter certain discussions. I could have said that a circus freak is more qualified to talk about bearded ladies than I am, or that Ron Popeil knows more about setting it and forgetting it than I ever will. Don't get bogged down in the example, man.

I think part of the problem here is that you think I'm some kind of hippy tree-hugger. I'm not. Not at all. I just believe in calling a spade a spade, and not getting bogged down in neo-liberal, politically correct newspeak like saying missiles "interdict" people instead of just saying that they kill them. As I said before, I didn't name it "killer" - the military did. Their weapon, their choice of words.

Now, if your problem is my assertion that all missiles are killers, then I offer you a compromise: I'll agree to drop that statement, if you agree to drop your statement about interdiction roles. We'll just leave the "killer" part without further comment. (I would also remove that other guy's nonsense about "all weather" since we've seen no references and you and I both agree it's unsubstantiated.) My proposed version of the first paragraph:

The Raytheon MIM-23 HAWK is a surface-to-air missile. HAWK is an acronym for Homing All the Way Killer, though this is a transparent effort to give acronymic value to a name the military liked; see backronym. Missiles don't home "some of the way" or "most of the way" (an unguided missile, by definition, is a rocket).

End of paragraph. The main idea of the paragraph is that it's an acronym, and a backronym at that, and it still makes that point without talking about the "killer" part of the name. You don't have to read about how missiles kill people, and I don't have to read about how the idea that they kill people is "dubious". We both win. Kafziel 13:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, many missiles nowadays home only the last part of their flight. The rest (midcourse) is just flying to an acquisition point, before acquiring the target and homing using a seeker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.37.251 (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support tactical and DOD systems for a living. My area of focus is in warfare simulations, and in embedded tactical devices/munitions, such as Future Combat Systems. I know absolutely nothing about Windows ME. I could tell you a whole lot more about an XM-107 than I can tell you about Windows XP. Get over yourself, already. Don't make assumptions based upon appearances. I didn't bring qualifications into this argument, and I'm upset that you've been inferring that I am somehow less qualified to edit this article than you or anyone else.

I don't need to quantify my reaction to the images you placed on this page. I don't think they belong here, and you are pandering to the basest feelings you can.

Furthermore, I don't see why you need to change it from the way it is. Changes:

• one
• two
• three
• four

the way the text is presently conveys all the information it needs to, and doesn't leave anything out. The main difference is you seem hell bent on portraying all military rockets (or missiles as the case may be) as being "killers." This isn't the case. Furthermore, I have shown that the definition of missile is simply a projectile. The term is too broad for you to paint the tone on it that you keep pushing for. You might successfully argue that all HAWK missiles are designed to "kill," but what about anti-missile missiles? You're not strictly killing anyone. I think interdiction is most appropriate, given the missile's purpose is to hit other missiles and aircraft (manned and unmanned). The verbiage about "all missiles are designed to..." or "all military rockets are ..." is unnecessary and overdramatic. I would argue that 99.999% of all missiles are simply designed to be deterrants, and in the case of the HAWK, not even ever fired by the US military in anger.

I haven't said I'm going to "tell" on anyone here. I have simply said that I think you are past the point where we can agree on anything. When you start posting pictures of baby mulching to a discussion about semantics, all possibility of agreement is gone. And the wikipedia has a process for arbitration. If this continues to bother you to such an extent, please seek arbitration, or calm down. Avriette 15:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC) (neo-liberal... you really don't know me very well...)

- I didn't say anyone wasn't qualified. I just said I know more about these than than that JennoE guy. You weren't even mentioned in that paragraph (and, in fact, you agreed with my point to him.)

- I don't care what you do at Microsoft. I don't even care that you do work at Microsoft. You could be designing the format for the latest pedophile chat rooms. I don't care. That wasn't the point.

- I posted those pictures to show you that 99% of missiles do NOT serve an interdiction role. Clearly, you missed the point. ("Baby mulching"? Oh, no. You're certainly not a liberal. Noooo. Republicans can be liberals, too. Most are these days.)

- Those reverts were yours, not mine, so I don't count them. I would never agree to arbitration with you, because it's obvious you don't even read my posts all the way through anyway. I offered you a suggestion where we could both be happy, and you were having none of it. So what would be the point of arbitration? Maybe I should just be an asshole and keep reverting the page back to how I like it, ten times a day.

- This whole argument is moot, because if you look at the new article WIP in Megapixie's sandbox, the paragraph is re-written pretty close to what I suggested. Doesn't say anything about how all missiles kill people, and it doesn't say that most missiles serve interdiction roles. It's neat, concise, and sensible. Imagine that. Kafziel 15:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I yield to the superior orator. Avriette 23:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Okay - guys. Calm down. I'm heading back home in a couple of days, and I'll have time over the next week to finish the WIP version of the article. I think both of you have a lot to contribute to this article. If you both still feel strongly about the issue in a weeks time, then we can continue the debate.

If you guys are looking for something to do - I can heartily recommend checking out Category:Weapon Stubs.

More power to the wiki guys. Megapixie 17:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For quite a while there were rumour that people had noticed a higher incidence of cancer with ex-hawk service personel. In Belgium a study was done on 30000 people that had worked with the hawk, together with a control-group of 150000 that had not worked with hawk and from the first results no higher cancer risks can be demonstrated.

Personally I've heard of accidents with radars, but mostly because people were too cold and decided to 'warm up' by standing in the main beam of a larger dome. The microwave radiation will cook you.

• 'Geen hoger risico op kanker door de Hawk-radar', 9 September 2005, 'VRT nieuws' [1] (in dutch)
• 'Former US troops may sue over radar-linked cancer claims', 28 January 2002, 'Oncolink' [2]

unsigned comment by User:Pvaneynd

Interesting, but I don't think it belongs in the HAWK article - the claimed cause of the cancer is associated with radar in general rather than specifically the HAWK missile system. Megapixie 04:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer I served with the Marines and got cancer while working with the HAWK missiles and almost died. Read many articles claiming it does and can cause cancer. How can I make an argument when they cant even find my records. Its like I never existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.66.15 (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small change and do to the tension readily apparent in the discussion article I think that we should record all the changes made here, no matter how small. In the chronlogy section, specifically the portion on the War of Attrition, I changed the number killed. The author of that part says that Jane's recorded 8 kills but when they identify the types of aircraft, it adds up to 12. I would say that one of those was incorrect. Just thought you should know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SAWGunner89 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It says the launch capasity is 42 but all I see is three huge ass bombs. Peacekeeper II 22:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could say when HEOS began operational, and what was the range of this and the similar TAS? Also, they were used to track targets but also to discover them? How many TAS were in strenght for every battery? Finally, how the LASHE can allow to engage up to 12 targets at once, when the CW radar are still two?--Stefanomencarelli 13:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LASHE engagement functioned through target visibility created with the integration of the high power illumination radar (HIPIR) and the Automatic Tactical Data Link or ATDL thru the AN/TSQ73 Command and Control system which combined radar data from more than one source and transmitted the tracks to each battery. Using a network of units along with an AWACS link meant that more than one Continuous Wave Acquisition Radar(CWAR), Phased Array Radar or Airborne radar was providing target data to the FDC. Each battery had a TAS which could manually control the HIPIR radar to visually lock onto a target in the line of sight. I was a US Army HAWK Tactical Director in the late ‘90s. 94.137.72.250 (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey never before had systems of Hawk category for air defence. ordered 8 second hand systems for the air defence of turkish airspace only. can not afford to pass some of these ordered systems to other country as military assistance. About Albania because has not any fighter planes into service any more and can not have the capability to buy any , there was a NATO plan for the cover of countrys air defence. the plan was to get Albania 4 second hand Hawk systems from German stocks. it was a better and cheeper in fact solution for the air defence instead to buy fighter planes and to operate them. i dont know if german systems are finally delivered. as it is known until this moment in world defence press the systems dont exist in Albanian armed forces. Also it is sure that dont exist in Albania any SA-5 systems. America and NATO would not give the green light for such russian systems. also dont exist 500 SA-18 systems , made in Albania. Albanian only known system for air defence are few chinese HN-5 ( copy of SA-7) . The article you shown as is in Albanian and many dont unsterstead what really say. really says that Albania use today the Hawk ?? or that intend to get it for air defence ?? can you say as what the article says ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.11.2 (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Forget to tell my name. John, Athens, Greece , 8/1/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.49.65 (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is stated that the NOAH system became operational in 1988. This at best only half-true. I served in the RNoAF that year, working with HIPIR radars. Though we did fire one missile to prove something, I forget what, it could not have been used operationally at that time, due to lack of experienced operators and numerous technical problems. When it did become truly operational I have no idea. 91.186.73.7 (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seved in the marine corp but I've noticed that on the globalsecurity.org website that according to them it appears that the the HAWK is still in the inventory, and it seems to me that the marine corp relying on just the stinger would leave it open to attack by a high flying fast moving threat, the stinger being a short ranbe missile. So my question is do the Marines use the patriot or does this article need some cleaning up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.36.194 (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I just joined Wikipeadia, I do not want to start editing the article. I do want to correct some information.

I joined the US Army in 1959 and ended up in the Ordnance Corps as a Field Maintenance Pulse Radar and Battery Control Center Repairman so I know a lot about the early HAWK system.

The HAWK Missle System was first deployed in early 1961. My unit, the 173rd Ordnance Detachment, arrived in Ansbach Germay in January, 1961 and I was discharged in April 1962. The artillery units did not arrive unit around early March and it took some time to check out their equipment and repair shipping damage.

The MTBF numbers given for vacuum tubes are much too low and were probably inveted to justify new designs using solid state devices. The failure rate for the solid state devices in the original Block IV system was very high (100% per year in some cases). The most common devices failing were resistors (of all things). For example, the CRTs in the BCC had a regulated high voltage power supply and the failure rate for the voltage divider resistors in the power supply was 100% with a very short life. This resulted in the output voltage rising to maximum and the image on the CRT shrinking. The operators would then compensate by adjusting the CRT image defection to sompensate, which would then cause the defelction driver cathode resistors in the cathode follower circuit to burn out. We were having a hard time with keeping up with replacing the HV power supplies and the cathode follower resistors. This problem was still not solved when I left the Army.

We had all kinds of problems with getting replacement parts. For example some twit managed to ruin the IFF coax antenna rod in a PAR and we ended up with a large pile of them before we got one that was not bent in shipping. They were shipped Blue Streak (air freight) in small cross section card board boxes and that did not work for a long narrow item. I had a dielectric failure in a PAR stable local oscillator and kept ordering variations of parts and getting a little ripple reducer circuit. I only finally suceeded by ordering the entire oscillator with its outer can. A lot of the problems we had were due to use a several different numbering systems for parts such as Federal Stock Numbers, Ordnance Part Numbers, and Army/Navy (AN) part numbers. The latter numbers went back before WWII in some cases.

The BCC had a connection to the air defense system central conrol center via a unit supplied by hughes. That unit was as large as the BCC and I heard that it was all solid state.

The ROR was not delivered until after I left the Army in 1962.

The diesel-generator sets were properly rated as 45 kW, 0.8 Power Factor , 400 Hz. I am an Elctrical Engineer and rating gereators in kVA makes me want to throw up. The standard rating for roating electrical machines including generators is 1.0 service factor at 1,000 meters altitude in a 40 degree C ambient. I have no idea what the diesel drivers were rated at and have some iterest in the subject if anyone knows.

Klmcclen (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"so I know a lot about the early HAWK system." And that is called "original research". Some wikipedia police officer is gonna get twisted and start ranting about his authority and slinging some "3 revert" rules in your face and suggesting mediation. Unless you can cite "credible published sources" it doesn't matter what you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:F441:9300:3CF2:FB78:964C:F91 (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The missile was also produced outside the US in Western Europe, Japan and Iran.[4]"

[4] http://www.payvand.com/news/09/jun/1059.html

is an article about IRAN producing a SIMILAR surface to air missile, but not specifically a Raytheon H.A.W.K.

Thanks GilbertR (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on MIM-23 Hawk. 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/20110711020232/http://www.forecastinternational.com/Archive/mm/mm0490.htm to http://www.forecastinternational.com/Archive/mm/mm0490.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060318003531/http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_050670.pdf to http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_050670.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606134955/http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=123003&sectionid=351020101 to http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=123003&sectionid=351020101
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://s188567700.online.de/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=67&Itemid=47
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007115928/http://www.roaf.ro/en/dotare/hawk_en.php to http://www.roaf.ro/en/dotare/hawk_en.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413004708/http://milparade.udm.ru/security/28/060x.htm to http://milparade.udm.ru/security/28/060x.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091124195527/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/HAWK.html to http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/Hawk.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051125121834/http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/surface_missiles/hawk/Hawk.htm to http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/surface_missiles/hawk/Hawk.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051216021746/http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/PVO/hawk.htm to http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/PVO/hawk.htm

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) 22:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://t.me/BellumActaNews/18877

This is a video someone took of a passing battery. Could be anywhere.

Here are some photos of earlier deployments in 2018 and 2017.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/turkish_army_in_syria_with_hawk_mim-23_air_defense_systems.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff1948a (talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The video showing a Russian Mig-29 pilot and a orange parachute. Was debunked by the same person hat posted the video on Youtube.^[1] Literally from the Drive "The video was notably posted to YouTube on September 7, without explanation, by a user with the handle Fighterbomber. The same poster subsequently took to Instagram to claim that it actually showed a CSAR exercise, pointing to the lack of wreckage or smoke, and other supposed discrepancies, including the pilot’s lack of flying suit, and contending that the R-855 emergency radio beacon would not normally be carried on a combat mission". However two Mig-29 were reported crashed according to the source. No mention of Mim-23 shotdown was made by the Drive. Seems that avia.pro used a past version of the Drive article. This is for the record.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 March I made a minor change to the introduction of this article, changing the opening sentence from "MIM-23 Hawk" to "MIM-23 HAWK ("Homing All the Way Killer, commonly referred to as "Hawk")". This change was quickly rolled back by user:BilCat as lacking a reference. I restated the change, and cited an appropriate reference, the US Dept. of Defense Missile Defense Agency (https://www.mda.mil/news/gallery_hawk.html). The user responded by adding the 'disputed-inline' template, saying it is a "backronym".

So, my question is if an authoritative source such as the MDA states that this IS correct, how can it be disputed? Besides, this is NOT the only place where similar information as to what I stated is found - I specifically chose this as it SHOULD be considered an appropriate source. Also, if you read any number of US Army technical manuals (e.g. TM-9-1450-500-34) for the Hawk, you will see it usually described as MIM-72 HAWK or HAWK even though surrounding text is not capitalised (and capitalisation of equipment names is NOT a US Army standard).

Sorry, but until someone can point to an undisputed, reliable source - especially one from the US Govt which has authority over the equipment (as in this case, the MDA has) - which say the information I stated is incorrect, then I cannot see how this information is disputed (and therefore the dispute tag should be removed).

Blammy1 (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per my edit summary: "Added Disputed tag - generally acknowledged as a backronym, not an original acronym". See Backronym if you still don't understand what I'm questioning. BilCat (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled up a copy of a TM in which I found "To be distributed in accordance with DA Form 12-32, Direct Support and General Support Maintenance Manual,

Loader Transporter, Guided Missile: XM5O1E3 (Hawk Guided Missile System)." and also "When the MASTER Switch and IGNITION Switch are turned on, the fuel pump is activated" which rather suggests that capitalisation in military documentation is to its own rules. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plaque on the display at the U.S. Army Air Defense Artillery Musem at Ford Still, Oklhoma clearly states "Homing All the Way Killer" .https://www.flickr.com/photos/34540417@N07/11347708204 . A similar sign is at the Cold War Museum at Stevnsfort in Denmark.

As for HAWK vs Hawk, the Direct Support and Generl Support Maintenance Manual for the XM501 Loader-transporter states in the section titled 'Description': "The loader (Figs. 1-1 and 1-2) is a self-propelled, full tracked vehicle used in and around the HAWK missile battery. It also says "Hawk Guided Missile System" in various places, although the word hawk is mostly in all captials. This is why I said it is "commonly called Hawk".

As for designations, the FIM-43 Redeye is NOT referred to as the FIM-23 REDEYE, nor is MIM-14 Nike Hercukes referred to as MIM-14 NIKE HERCULES in manuals where MIM-23 HAWK is specifically mentioned. The same applies to many other US missiles in many other manuals.

As for "backronym", of course I understand what that means - I'm not a cretin. However, the issue of backronyms is irrelevant; my whole point is that there is sufficient evidence from authoritatve sources (inluding that which I cited) that (a) the missile's official designation is MIM-23 HAWK and (b) in US military service it was referred to - if not necessarily stood for - as "Homing All the Way Killer". Which is why I cannot understand what I stated in the article is being disputed.

Blammy1 (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's being disputed because the way you wrote it implies that it's an original acronym, when it most likely is not. I'm not adding a claim to the article that it's a backronym yet because I don't have reliable sources for that. That's what we're trying to determine. BilCat (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: I do not understand your statement. What is your citation for "most likely"? What is "original" in this context, and why does that matter? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source says HAWK is an acronym for Homing all the way killer, with no other sources saying anything else. After over a year without the situation changing, there is no reason to continue this. Should new sources surface the matter can be reopened of course. BP OMowe (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the “Hawk mobility and TMD upgrade section” it says “ A north finding system speeds orientation and launcher alignment.” This is a bit cryptic, and sounds like something from a fortune cookie. A brief explanation of the nature and benefit of the north finding system would improve the article. Is there a magnetic compass, a gyrocompass, a telescope to detect the North Star on a clear night, or a GPS? The sentence implies that before this update, the crew, the launcher and the missile guidance had little idea of which way was north. Is the compass important to distinguish enemy from friendly aircraft, to coordinate coverage with other batteries, or what? Edison (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]