![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 May 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | A fact from AGM-183 ARRW appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 July 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk)
10:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Created by Chetsford ( talk). Self-nominated at 08:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC).
General eligibility:
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
Pooper scooper
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
22:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 May 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | A fact from AGM-183 ARRW appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 July 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk)
10:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Created by Chetsford ( talk). Self-nominated at 08:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC).
General eligibility:
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
Pooper scooper
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
22:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)