Talk:Foster-Miller TALON
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All comments moved here from redirected pages -- Shimirel (Talk) 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Dimensions
What are the dimensions? Width, length, height
- Good question you can find the info on http://www.foster-miller.com/literature/documents/TALONBrochure.pdf
- Vehicle Dimensions
- Height (arm stowed): 11 in. (27.9 cm)
- Height (arm extended): 52 in. (1.3m)
- Width: 22.5 in. (57.2 cm)
- Length: 34 in. (86.4 cm)
- Horizontal reach: 52 in. (1.3m)
- Below grade reach: 24 in. (0.6m)
- Ground clearance: 2.75 in. (7 cm)
- Deployable mast height from ground 40 in. (1m)
- Hope that helps! -- Shimirel (Talk) 10:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Images
Isn't the image a SWORD, and isn't that different from a TALON (slightly modified)? If not, then shouldn't the SWORDS page have a different picture? Or are they similar enough? Blah. --Karch 03:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes your right of course its the weapon carrying version of the Talon in the pictures. The picture says that now. -- Shimirel (Talk) 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Prices
"The current price of one unit is $230,000, but when it enters mass production the price is expected to drop to between $150,000 and $180,000. Even in cold economic terms, the SWORD is still cheaper to destroy than a soldier, who takes years and approx. $50,000 USD to get to operational status."
What the darn? $150,000 is clearly not cheaper than $50,000. - 69.232.168.198 09:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes its obviously a serious mistake if you can train a soldier even to private level for $50,000 US then I would be very surprised. I must confess I don't know how much it would be here in the UK or in the states but I don't think for one second its that low. You have the lodgings, food, wages, and then the training itself. I think its correct the robot would be cheaper but can't really back that statement up with anything concrete. -- Shimirel (Talk) 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] last paragraph
Sorry, but the last paragraph is hilarious. "On the firing range, these two-foot little high robots are lethal" ?? Whow, they shoot living beings as targets on firing ranges ? But anyway, this is not the point, right, since the shooting range is clearly the most accurate and appropriate way to evaluate the quality of a weapon system, especially a robot ! Come on !
And "the SWORDS are the snipers motto, "one shot, one kill""... Can't it be made slightly less like a builder's advertising prospectus ?
I won't even mention the fact that we are talking about a waepon system, designed to kill living people, who would typically deserve more respect than the price for their burial or the comparison with paper targets on a shooting range... Rama 14:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- lmao you do have a point it does come off very odd, though I don't think for one second its builders would describe it that way. Must redo it but I'm a bit stumped at the second of a good way to reword it. -- Shimirel (Talk) 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image Description
"The SWORDS system allows soldiers to fire small arms weapons by remote control from as far as 1,000 meters away" This says small arms would you describe the M202-A1 or M2 machine gun has small arms? I would take it stright out but it seems to me it depends on a POV of what a small arms is. Just wondering if you think it should be changed to "to fire weapons by remote". -- Shimirel (Talk) 22:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] That .50...
Is it a Barret semiauto or is it an M2HB?
- Its a Barrett .50 cal M2 Browning machine gun (m2hb) at least thats what the article says I can't recall where that comes from but my guess is if you dig around the foster-miller site it will confirm that. -- Shimirel (Talk) 10:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Advertising-like Writing
This page is written in ad copy-like prose. I'm going to change it to be a little less over enthusiastic. I have a feeling some PR men for the company got to this article. -Danspalding 06:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
