Talk:BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile

Articlename

In the article is written "officially designated BGM-109G Gryphon".
Does that mean, that the "Ground Launched Cruise Missile" is in reallity the BGM-109G Gryphon cruise missile? An image description says "Two Soviet inspectors look over the nose cone of a BGM-109G Tomahawk ground launched cruise missile (GLCM) slated for destruction."
So is a Thomahawk also ground launched cruise missile?
thanks for helping --D-Kuru (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Because of the close relationship among three different missiles (the Tomahawk ship/sub missile, the Gryphon ground missile, and the abortive MRASM air-launched cruise missile), these are often collectively called Tomahawk, thanks to the particularly famous member of the family. Tomahawk is only the official name for the sea-launched variant, but sometimes references to the Tomahawk GLCM will appear. If the image is on Wikipedia, the caption should be changed, though, to the official Gryphon name. Sacxpert (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition of content regarding Able Archer, etc.

I want to discuss the addition of three paragraphs to the Gryphon article, added by Katana0182. The additions, reprinted below, discuss other geopolitical issues involved with GLCM deployment to Europe. I have excised these paragraphs from the page, and moved them here, per WP:BOLD, because I do not believe they belong in the article, for reasons stated below.

This greatly increased stability due to GLCM deployment was demonstrated by the Able Archer 1983 war scare that took place between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Shortly following the deployment of the GLCM, NATO conducted an exercise called Able Archer--simulating a nuclear response against the USSR--which led the Soviets to believe that the exercise was preparation for an imminent nuclear first strike against the Socialist Motherland. This consequently led to the highest tension levels between the nuclear powers since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Reportedly, the Soviets were in such great fear that they came close to arming their "Dead Hand" (or "perimetr") fail-deadly computerized nuclear launch system, based at Mt. Yamantaw, in the Ural Mountains. If Dead Hand had been armed, it would have only to have detected a loss of communications with Moscow as well as the detection of nuclear detonations for it to initiate the full launch of the Soviet strategic arsenal, and nuclear armageddon.

Following the revelation of the depth of the post-GLCM Soviet war scare to Reagan by the CIA[1], Reagan was shocked and amazed that the Soviets believed that America did not have their best intentions at heart, and was taken aback by the Soviet belief that the U.S. was going to launch a first strike against them. This was combined with a classified briefing by the military of what would happen to the U.S. as a result of any nuclear conflict. His viewing only months later of "The Day After", a movie depicting the United States in the immediate aftermath of a nuclear war, completed his education in nuclear weapons policy, and led Reagan to become very opposed to ICBMs (in particular) as well as nuclear weapons in general. Times were changing in the Soviet Union, as well. Yuri Andropov, General Secretary of the Soviet Union, noted for his deep suspicion towards the West, passed on and was replaced by Mikhail Gorbachev after a short period of interim rule by Chernyenko.

Both leaders sought a reduction in tensions in the world situation, and at a meeting at Rejkyavik in 1986, agreed on the principles of the INF treaty, making a joint statement that "a nuclear war cannot be won, and must not be fought," and nearly coming to agreement to ban ICBMs, and potentially even nuclear weapons themselves. Thus, in a roundabout sort of way, the GLCM did indeed increase stability--because it destabilized the situation so much that both sides were forced to confront the dangerous dynamics that had arisen following the deployment of intermediate range weapons in Europe, leading to the INF treaty.

It's an interesting addition, and covers many interesting points. However, I do not feel that this article is a good place for this material. Reasons follow:

1. There are no citations included. The additional text touches on Able Archer, the Perimetr doomsday system, and President Reagan's grasp of the threat of nuclear war, but provides no sources to back up the assertions made. This is reparable, but some of it sounds almost like a retroactive, hindsight version of crystal ball-gazing.

2. More importantly, the material does not directly involve the GLCM. The Able Archer exercise (discussed in the first added paragraph) included operational simulations of weapons release, but that isn't especially relevant here, either. Even the Able Archer article does not mention the GLCM even once. Did GLCMs participate? If so, and if CITED, then perhaps that would make an interesting footnote to the weapon's operation history, but a full discussion of Able Archer is quite off-topic. The second of the three 'graphs discusses Reagan's reaction to Able Archer, the movie "The Day After", and the deaths of Andropov and Chernenko, which is even less connected specifically to the GLCM. The third paragraph discusses why Reagan and Gorbachev embraced the INF Treaty and the general inadvisability of thermonuclear war, and finally reiterates pre-existing text that states that the GLCM improved stability by forcing its own withdrawal.

This content might be a good addition to the Cold War article, or one of the article about specific periods of the Cold War, but it has only the most tangential connection to the BGM-109G Gryphon. As originally written, the section on the GLCM & the INF simply showed that the GLCM's deployment hastened the INF Treaty, and the INF Treaty, in turn, banned the GLCM. This is relevant to a history of the weapon -- which is the topic of this article. The only subjects that should be discussed in this article are those events that specifically involve the GLCM. The INF Treaty qualifies, for the reasons noted above. Likewise, the renewed anti-nuclear protests against the GLCM are noted because the GLCM was the cause (along with Pershing II) of the controversy, having profound implications for the anti-nuclear movement. However, this article is not about the broader subjects of Cold War relations, nuclear disarmament, or the risks of nuclear exchange. Those articles all have their own pages, where this content would be more relevant.

I'm not trying to slam Katana0182's work: it's pretty good writing, and an interesting perspective. It's simply too irrelevant for this page. Sacxpert (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation with Gray Level Cooccurrence Matrix

The acronym GLCM can also be used to refer to Gray-Level Co-occurrence Matrix. What's the proper procedure for creating a disambiguation to redirect users who come here looking for the other article? Mathfreq (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Tactical Missiles

Tactical missiles have been around since the mid 50's, beginning with the USAF Matador, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matador_missile.

Also in the discussion of the TERCOM guidance system, referenced herein, the statement is made: " Due to the limited amount of memory available in mass storage devices of the 1960s and 70s, and their slow access times, the amount of terrain data that could be stored in a missile-sized package was far too small to encompass the entire flight."

WRONG

ATRAN ( http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1230230 ) pre-dated it by 30-some years. I taught it in the missile guidance school from '59-'64.

The above document should be cited as a reference to TERCOM, and this document: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=tac+missiles&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Atac+missiles should be referenced in all discussions of tactical missiles.

Major Oz (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

303d is correct

I changed all 303d to 303rd... Before saving my work, however, I googled and determined that 303d (sic) seems to be the officially-used abbreviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiss Frank (talk • contribs) 04:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Atricle Topic Name should read: BGM-109G Gryphon

BGM-109G Gryphon is not the only Missile Weapon System that is a Ground Launched Cruise Missile.

Suggest the Page title be change to: BGM-109G Gryphon / Drop from page title: Ground Launched Cruise Missile.

This standardizes your page titles as in comparison with your Matador & Mace Missile pages which are also Ground Launched Cruise Missiles. / The Matador was the first GLCM & the Mace was the Second GLCM back from 1952 to 1969. / That is 30 years before the BGM-109G Gryphon GLCM. / Ground Launched Cruise Missile: is a Category of a Type Mission (The Second Position of a Missile Weapon System Designator)

---

MISSILE WEAPON SYSTEM DESIGNATORS:

Prefix Position = Status: X = Experimental / P = Prototype

First Position = Launch Environment: A = Air Launched / B = Multiple Launched / M = Mobile Launched / L = Silo Launched

The Second Position = Mission: G = Ground Launched Surface to Surface Attack

The Third Position = Type Vehicle: M = Guided Missile

A hyphen is placed between the Third & Fourth Positions

The fourth Position (Number) = Design Number

The Last Position = Version of System

---

OTHER GROUND LAUNCHED TACTICAL MISSILES: MGM-1C Matador C Missile - Deployed 1952-1962 in West Germany, Taiwan, Korea, and Libya) / MGM-13A Mace A Missile - Deployed 1959-1966 in West Germany / CGM-13B Mace B Missile - Deployed 1961-1969 in West Germany, & Okinawa.

---

I was a Maintenance Missile Mechanic on the CGM-13B Mace B Missile Weapon System in the mid 1960s. I was a Maintenance Missile Mechanic on the LGM-30F&G Minuteman Missile Weapon Systems from 1968 to 1984.

47.142.214.186 (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Lester T. Evans, MSgt, USAF, Retired / 47.142.214.186 (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Source: United States Department of Defense Aerospace Vehicle Designation

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise 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://web.archive.org/web/20060217213553/http://www.hill.af.mil/museum/photos/coldwar/bgm-109.htm to http://www.hill.af.mil/museum/photos/coldwar/bgm-109.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007231257/http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/russia/russia-ssbn.html to http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/russia/russia-ssbn.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930081718/http://www.afmissileers.org/newsletters/NL2004/dec04.pdf to http://www.afmissileers.org/newsletters/NL2004/dec04.pdf

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) 13:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

Wouldn't it be better to have the picture of the actual missile there rather than the TEL unit? Spartan198 (talk)