Re Approval of this article
Regarding one of your Open Questions in your posting on the "2 Editor Approval" thread in one of the Forums, I am ready to nominate this article for approval. But there are two minor questions I would like to raise first:
- The designation APG-63 (V)3 for the airborne radar in the F-15 Eagle fighter doesn't seem to jibe with the table that says G designates a Ground mobile system/device. It seems to me that item needs to be explained in the article.
- Regarding the function in the table stated as Fire or searchlight control, I know that you meant fire control as in shooting a weapon. However, on first reading it came across as fire control as in controlling a conflagration. Is there any way to make clear that you mean fire control as in shooting a weapon? Offhand, I can't think of how to do that , but perhaps you can.
Regards, Milton Beychok 19:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- The meaning of a letter depends on its position. "G" does mean "ground" in the first position, but "fire control" in the third position. Third-position "Y" systems combine long-range tracking and final control, although the differences get a little soft. An AN/APG-63 radar can detect targets tens of miles away, and an F-15 certainly can find and attack targets with this alone. As far as I can tell, though, it's a "G" and not a "Y" because the Air Force expects that the far longer AN/APY-2 on the E-3 Sentry aircraft (i.e., what looks like a Boeing 707 with a flying saucer performing an unnatural act on top).
- Made some clarifications. Eric Gearhart, among others, has been a user of the systems (at least Army ones) and can give a doublecheck. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Howard, just a reminder
Howard, just reminding you to get Eric's contribution into this Talk page and decide what part or parts should be edited into the article ... before January 27th. Milton Beychok 10:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
AN/TTC-56(V)1 Single Shelter Switch
The AN/TTC-56(V)1 Single Shelter Switch (or simply called the triple-S by Army personnel) is a mobile HMMWV mounted telephone and data carrying modular switch, capable of providing both nonsecure and secure communications in a field environment. The switch contains various Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) equipment in order to provide this functionality, including a Cisco 7206 router. The SSS has been largely superseded by the Joint Network Node project, largely due to the Army's move to Voice Over IP technologies as opposed to older two-wire Plain Old Telephone System (POTS) phones Eric M Gearhart
- This is probably more appropriate for the TTC-56 article, but if I read fmi6-02-60 correctly, the JNN-N has no matrix switch at all, and multiple 3725s replacing the 7206? *sigh* JNN-N article goes onto list.
- Directly associated with this article, the JNN-N has no AN/ designation, correct? Some of its RF components do, but not the node? Howard C. Berkowitz 23:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Page name and scope
Had a brief skim but could not find any hint on what the A and N stand for (is it "Army" and "Navy"?). Besides, the abbreviation AN is common in many contexts, and even if the present article were moved to AN- (Military), as I would recommend, I would suggest that other contexts (e.g. some "Antonov" aircraft, even though they probably use lower-case "N" more often) should at least be mentioned. --Daniel Mietchen 14:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- It no longer stands for anything, although it is historically derived from terms using "Army-Navy". Note that it is written AN/, not AN-, in practice, although CZ conventions force the article to be named AN-. Given that Antonov is properly An, with a hyphen and not a slash, I believe they are adequately disambiguated. I wouldn't object to articles on Russian design bureau designations, and I indeed plan, someday, to write an article on the far more confusing U.S. military aircraft designation systems.
- I'll make it explicit that it is simply a prefix identifier and not an abbreviation.
- Remember that this page is a combination of an indexing node and what might be considered a very extended definition. When users go to it, they would do so not because they are searching for AN-, but because they click on the blue AN- in an article such as TTC-56. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK for the abbreviations aspect but what about the scope? I still think it would be appropriate to call it "AN- (Military prefix)" or some such, rather than simply "AN-". There are multiple ways to land on a page... --Daniel Mietchen 15:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- "AN- (military prefix)" as a redirect to "AN" is something I could accept. If the system could handle AN/ in a title, I'd be more willing to have a disambiguation page, but any plausible one would have to be totally hand coded to disambiguate between things that cannot be linked, such as AN/ vs (case-sensitive) An-. The article title itself, for CZ technical reasons, has to remain AN-. Most often, it appears in entered text as [[AN-|AN/]][ABC-123]] Howard C. Berkowitz 15:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I still disagree (with proper disambiguation in mind) but since we currently do not have a serious contender for another "AN-" topic that would require a disambiguation, this disagreement does not really matter for the time being. --Daniel Mietchen 16:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Final approval date for this article
To all concerned: I am planning to change the nominated version to be approved tomorrow to the one existing at about 9:OO am tomorrow (Pacific Standard Time) ... just after my breakfast. If there are any further edits being considered, please let me know before then.
Howard, are you complete sure that you have included all of the TTC-56 info provided by Eric Gearhart that you think is pertinent to this article? A brief "yes" or "no" will be sufficient, please. If you want to include more of his info, please do it before tomorrow morning.
Daniel, I assume (from reading your last commment on this page) that you have no objection with the article being approved at this time. Milton Beychok 05:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm comfortable with TTC-56 in this article, especiall since there is an article about the TTC-56 proper, and will be about other related articles. The key things for which it's appropriate in this article is that what can tell from TTC-39 and TTC-56 are that they have the same general mission but different ways of doing it, and also introduced the idea of that military systems-of-systems, or architectures, may not have AN/ numbers of their own. Howard C. Berkowitz 08:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- @Milt: I do not have objections at the moment. --Daniel Mietchen 08:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Approved Version 1.0
Approved Version 1.0 looks to me like we do have the endorsement from User:Howard C. Berkowitz and User:Daniel Mietchen from the talk page above this post. To complete the process, if you two would place your names in the metadata template it would be even more official. D. Matt Innis 02:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done. And thanks all! Howard C. Berkowitz 02:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Typo in the main table
The heading of the main table, which I have fixed in the draft, should read "Alphabetic character codes", not "RR types". Is it within the rules to fix such a typo in the Approved version? Full re-approval required? Howard C. Berkowitz 14:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)