Talk:AGM-176 Griffin

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Title/Designation is incorrect.

Reference 1 has a typographical error. The correct designation is AGM-176.

http://www.marinecorpsgazette-digital.com/marinecorpsgazette/201205?pg=32#pg32 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the link, but that may be an error on their part. The designation appears to be AGM-175. See [1] and also that a Google search for "AGM-176 Griffin" gets 0 hits. The catch is that MQM-175 also appears to be a valid designation for an entirely different vehicle...! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well in fact agm-176 is correct. all those stuff about an "agm-175" came from that article on Seapower. however, this designation was obviously incorrect. there is already a MQM-175. one type number can never be assigned to two different thing... on Yahoo! group "Military Aviation Designations" the author of that article once said: "I was the author of the Seapower item that used the AGM-175 term. It was told to me by the Raytheon program official for a short article on the Griffin. I did not check with DOD, so that is probably the reason for the error. I would now go with AGM-176." (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Military_Aircraft_Designations/message/4706) in a word the term agm-175 must be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 尼古拉叶若夫 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGM-176 appears to be correct. See Andreas Parsch's site here. - BilCat (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]