Talk:Weapon System

Ordering

It seems the order of this list (see WPMILHIST talk page for a discussion as to whether this article should be split into an article and a list) is based on numbers without regard to letter prefixes, suffixes, or where the designators come from (the two NA models are, I believe, North American Aviation model numbers, not USAF Weapons System designators. I would think grouping all the MX designators together and the 3 digit WS/SS (usually the letters were omitted in practice) would be more useful. (I believe some systems had both designators at different times).If anyone has access to an old Almanac issue of Air Force magazine (the periodical of the Air Force Association), they could probably fill out the list quite a bit. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

WSWA of 1984

Weapon system, as recently used by (U.S.) Department of Defense acquisitions, was defined by Public Law 98-525 known as the Weapon System Warranty Act (WSWA) of 1984. It included the definition - Weapon system means items that can be used directly by the armed forces to carry out combat missions.... [This definition has been adopted by other organizations such as ICEAA and FAS]. The WSWA was repealed in 1997 by Public Law 105-85 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998.144.183.224.2 (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Name error

Right now the phrase weapons system links to the general article on Weapons rather than to this one. I think that's an error and it should point here. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. See below. --A12n (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Generic meaning?

My (non-specialist) understanding of the term "weapon system" (or "weapons system") is that it also has a generic meaning, not specific to one nation's armed forces. See for example, the Collins dictionary (definition and example). --A12n (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Incoherent sentences in article

This article stated "Other weapons-programs designators included MX, for military experimental. The first Skunk Works program, dubbed MX-813, produced the Convair XF-92 in 1946." In the source cited in the second sentence, on page 78, the only aircraft mentioned is the Bell XP-59 (MX-397). On the other page cited, page 166, there is no mention of any aircraft whatsoever. It appears the author of the sentences did not read the source he cited "Architects of American Air Supremacy: General Hap Arnold and Dr Theodore von Kármán." It is available from the Air University https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a330223.pdf Clearly the author purports to cite a reliable source but with patently defective citations. Furthermore the statement on the second sentence that "The first Skunk Works program, dubbed MX-813, produced the Convair XF-92 in 1946" is utterly wrong. While it is true that the XP-92 was Vultee's response to the MX-813 program it was absolutely NOT a skunk works design. It was most certainly not the first "skunk works" project. The Skunk Works was a Lockheed secret design office. The Skunk Works was originally created under Kelly Johnson to develop the super secret XP-80 jet fighter. The XP-80 was developed under MX-409 (and MX-409A and MX-409B) not MX-813 as claimed. The first sentence also indicates MX designation is somehow equivalent to the WS designation. This is not true. Nor does MX stand for "military experimental" as claimed. It stands for "Materiel, Experimental." The designation system originated with the USAAF's Air Materiel Command. For a exposition of this see "Designations Of U.S. Air Force Projects" at http://designation-systems.net/usmilav/projects.html The unsupportable sentences have been removed because there is no way to correct the two sentences which are entirely void of any substance. While the Wikipedia depends upon non-professional editors as such we owe the readers of the Wikipedia competent work in both research and citation.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)