Talk:AGM-183 ARRW

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

AGM-183A carried by a B-52 during a 2019 test

• ... that the United States' announced Super-Duper Missile has been theorized to be the AGM-183A air launched rapid response weapon (pictured)?

• ALT-1 ... that the announced "Super-Duper Missile" has been theorized to be the AGM-183A air launched rapid response weapon (pictured)?
• Reviewed: Forthcoming Template:Did you know nominations/Open Ice Summit

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 08:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC).

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Pooper scooper Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Coming here from the AfD, which I discovered through ITN. Whatever happens to it eventually, we should hold this until after the AfD discussion closes. StudiesWorld (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed! It would be best to put this on ice until the discussion closes. Chetsford (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 On hold until discussion closes. We do this all the time. See Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines, rule D5: Articles nominated for deletion must go on hold until they have survived the deletion process. Note that it was not nominated when it was reviewed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Chetsford, Hawkeye7, the AfD was closed as "keep but rename", so I have made the necessary adjustments to this template to reflect the article move (but the template itself should not be moved). However, the hook as written no longer works and has been struck; a new ALT will need to be provided. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for keeping on top of this, BlueMoonset. Alt proposed above. Chetsford (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Good to go with ALT1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this, but this appears to be one man's opinion. Shouldn't we attribute it to him? Yoninah (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  No, it was an announcement by a high-ranking government official. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Isn't this the sentence containing the hook fact? PBS news correspondent Nick Schifrin has theorized that the Super-Duper Missile is, in fact, the AGM-183A, as has the China Times. Yoninah (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• Nick Schifrin and the China Times are two separate people (the first is a natural person from the United States and the second is a juristic person from China). There are some other sources not included in the article that have made similar theorizations. I think this hook would become very long if we added exhaustive attribution to it. Chetsford (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• @Chetsford: OK, but on the surface, China Times is a newspaper. Perhaps you could mention the person being quoted there? Yoninah (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• I could. Let me know if you think that would be helpful. The reference is a straight news article, as opposed to an analytical piece, so I'm not entirely sure it would be correct to say the author (Feiau Jiang) theorized it as opposed to reporting the editorial belief of the newspaper or the consensus of their sources. But I'm fine either way, let me know what you think! Chetsford (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• But now I'm confused. Hawkeye7 said above that it was an announcement by a high-ranking government official. Is that referring to Feiau Jiang? Or is Jiang a reporter? Yoninah (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  I was referring to the name "Super duper missile". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oh. Well then, we have two reporters theorizing that this is the Super-Duper Missile. Is this the hook you want? Yoninah (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Hawkeye7 and Chetsford:, it's been almost three weeks since any comment. What's going on here folks? Flibirigit (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  Good to go with ALT1. AfD has been closed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah:, are you okay with this? Do you want a second opinion? Flibirigit (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Approving ALT1. It is properly mentioned inline, verified by the citation, and interesting to a broad audience. Article adheres to all other DYK criteria. Flibirigit (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Actual colloquial term or revisionist propaganda?

The article begins by stating this is a term "used". Is this just to make it sound like the one who actually used it (Trump) is not a buffoon? Who no citation included showing anyone ever used the term before the recent Trump press conference? I'm not sure the article was created in good faith. VIOLENTRULER (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

"The article begins by stating this is a term "used". Is this just to make it sound like the one who actually used it (Trump) is not a buffoon?" Whether one or one million people used the term, it is — by evidence of the sources — "a term used". To declare or imply, in WP's voice, the specific number of persons who had used the term would need WP:RS that explicitly state that. Per WP:OR, we can't engage in original lexiconical analysis to make that determination. That said, the lead has since been edited with a better reading introductory sentence that simply states it is an informal term and doesn't ruminate on its use by invoking the words "term used".

"Who no citation included showing anyone ever used the term before the recent Trump press conference?" Feel free to add a reference. Anyone is free to edit this article.

"I'm not sure the article was created in good faith." Articles can be nominated for deletion. Chetsford (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

F-15?

I'm guessing it's not a typo, but do they mean the F15 or the F15E Strike Eagle for as far as launch platforms go? I'm fairly certain they meant the Strike Eagle, as that's the only one with any A2G capability. KinneticSlammer (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Top speed

Theres been some editing back and forth about the the top speed of the weapon, people are changing it to 6.5-8 based on the report to congress, but that report to congress cites 6.5-8 as an Average speed of 6.5-8, which is not the same as a top speed. Unless there is a reason to reject the very direct claim made by popular mechanics that " The AGM-183A “Arrow” is a so-called “boost glide” hypersonic weapon, using a rocket motor to launch the hypersonic vehicle to a high altitude, accelerating it to Mach 20" then Mach 20 should be the maximum speed. It is probably worth inlcuding the average speed somewhere in the artcle or info box aswell. Tamoraboys (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

There's simply no reason to suspect that the Popular Mechanics claim is correct or accurate, since it was made prior to the ARRW ever having been tested (even ignoring the fact that it could not physically possibly achieve those speeds in that form factor), while the other claims involve demonstrated results. Notably no other source supports the Popular Mechanics claim. It is a fringe opinion.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I've spotted one other (imo) gross error with the Popular Mechanics article - at this point I think they should not be relied on for anything technical or specific. Does Wikipedia have a list of sources that are not allowed due to chronic problems with factal details and so forth? I wonder if Popular Mechanics should be added to it... 142.112.143.183 (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

B1-B can carry 31 of these? IMO claim should be removed as its obviously nonsensical.

Although Popular Mechanics might have an article online that claims that a B-1B could carry 31 of these weapons - I don't think that should be blindly accepted. This weapon weighs roughly 3 tons, and the B1-B's maximum payload is 34 tons. Do the math and the most it can carry is around 10, and that's not even considering the weapon's physical size or the number of external hardpoints available on a B1-B (I'm guessing the sweep wings reduce the number of those as compared the B-52). I'd even suspect that the popular science writer mixed up the B1's payload in tons with weapon count. 142.112.143.183 (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

ARRW's weight is definitely less than 3 tons; otherwise it wouldn't have been able to fit on the B-52's pylons either since they're only rated to 5,000lb. Which is what I've seen most sources speculating as the ARRW's weight. Regardless, the same primary sources that generated the "31 weapons" claim also claimed it could go Mach 20 and called it a "cruise missile", so while it's clear that the claim was made by USAF officials, and we should report on it, we should also attribute that it's widely doubted (see, e.g. by TWZ which is generally reliable about ordnance.) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Range

Niether of the sources for the range actually support the 1000 mile figure

source 2 says: “This thing is going to be able to go, in 10-12 minutes, almost 1,000 miles,” Gebara said. “It’s amazing.”

source 3 is also refering to this quote

this is talking about speed not range YEEETER0 (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Maximum speed??

Not only are other sources contradicting themselves on this matter, this page itself gives 3 different numbers for maximum speed: Mach 5, Mach 7-8, and Mach 20. As this is a pretty important stat (and the numbers are quite varied), it would be nice to have some sort of clarification.

Thanks

Gøøse060 (talk) Gøøse060 (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The Mach 20 claim is an unfortunate relic of a typically reliable source uncritically publishing speculation as fact. They cite no evidence to support the claim, which is absurd on it's face as that would put it's speeds on par with the largest of ICBMs. Since the same source claims that the original plan was to mount 31 of them on the B-1's internal and external hardpoints, one can see how the claim is wildly unrealistic and inconsistent. The "Mach 5+" and "Mach 7 (planned)" numbers are accurate and not inconsistent with each other -- the Mach 5 speed was tested and demonstrated, the Mach 7 speed was planned and has not yet been publicly announced as having been achieved. I've tagged the Mach 20 claim as disputed; for further discussion about how it should be handled.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)