Talk:S-500 missile system

Mess

This article is a mess. Reads like a *parody* of a propaganda piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.147.195 (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems like bad English piece from a Russian-speaking fella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by no1 (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.175.65 (talk)

I think we have to take manufacturer's brochures for anything, not just weapons, with a pinch of salt. There's a few things other than that which need attention. The designation shifts between "C-500" and "S-500" which suggests imperfect transliteration of the cyrillic original, but that needs a better linguist than me to be sure of. 31.185.152.30 (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Butthurt much American trolls, or ego? :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.75.226 (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"I think we have to take manufacturer's brochures for anything, not just weapons, with a pinch of salt." OHO but only for Russian weapons, since i don't see you complain on US weapons pages for that. And no don't start with pointless "Russia is known for lying about weapons" and then you refer to something from 70s USSR, fkin get it USSR is not todays Russia (in any factualy observable manner). In the same time, US goverment lies about nearly anything in today (factualy checkable from WikiLeaks to simple Googling for some topics), more than USSR decades ago, but that does not matter, we take US weapons for granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.66.248 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Nice whataboutism. Russia is known for lying about its weapons. What the person you're replying to comments on, or what the American army does doesn't change that fact. But you know that, of course. 2001:464A:20B5:0:2198:30B9:EFCB:AE8C (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: you're replying to a 7 year old comment that's in response to a 9-year old comment. It's not helpful. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2024

I submitted an edit for the S500 article that said preliminary reports indicated the S500 in Crimea had been destroyed by the Ukrainian military. My source is the Newsweek article that can be found at: https://www.newsweek.com/atacms-russia-s-500-prometheus-attack-1918798#:~:text=Ukraine's%20forces%20may%20have%20struck,destroyed%20by%20ATACMS%20cluster%20missiles. Can anyone help me at this citation to my submission? Gmattdavis (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The article quoted a Ukrainian journalist making a wild claim without photographic evidence, even waiting for evidence. No wikipedia editor have ever included random Russian blogger claims of Russia downing RQ-4 (a news web have recently reported about Russian downing of RQ-4 but it wasn't that reliable) so why would this guy can be accepted when himself aren't sure if S-500 was destroyed Dauzlee (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The claim is premature: Newsweek says: Ukraine's forces may have struck Russia's newest S-500 air-defense system using U.S.-supplied ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) missiles, according to a journalist in the country. -- they also note that it was without elaborating on when or where the system was allegedly destroyed and that Newsweek couldn't independently verify Tsaplienko's claim and has contacted Russian and Ukrainian authorities for comment by email. It may become usable in the future, if the claims become substantiated but at the moment, the claim wouldn't meet our verifiability and no original research policy standards.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2024

add another source to the "components" part of the design section: https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/c7e5d4a32883395fdde8d775d6d936a4 Isopod gang 31 (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This link doesn't work for me Rainsage (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Not clear where specifically in that section you want this added, we need to know what specific claim this is supporting⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

it is just another (i believe good) source confirming the info in the whole section Isopod gang 31 (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2024

In the "design" section, it is stated that the system is designed for interception of ICBMs. In the first two sources in the section, it is said that it's supposed to intercept short to medium range BMs. My request is to correct this, according to the sources referenced. Isopod gang 31 (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done: I went ahead and removed the word "intercontinental" from the claim, so it should harmonize now with the sources. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you Isopod gang 31 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

i'm sorry, just that "ballistic missile" in the section still redirects to "ICBM" Isopod gang 31 (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I've fixed it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Remove or edit this sentence

Please remove this "In its operational debut in Ukraine, the S-500 proved unsuccessful in defending against Ukrainian launched MGM-140 ATACMS missiles" because not just there isn't any concrete evidence (e.g photography or satellite images) S-500 were deployed in Crimea other than Ukrainian claim but also have the audacity to claim that it failed despite such deployment are unconfirmed and unverified which possibly nonexistent, plus only one source have said this system "failed" which is a Ukrainian media not a military expert. Or at least change it to like "if S-500 deployment is confirmed, the system failed in it's first combat debut" something like that. Dauzlee (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)