Talk:Anti-submarine missile

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry

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 articles

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 met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Sources

where are the sources for this article?--Jim88Argentina (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion & cleanup tag

I reverted the edit to the accompanying article that was summarized

(This looks more like a DAB page than an article, so it doesn't need a Source. Tagged with DAB cleanup.)

That assertion is nonsense. What it looks like is irrelevant. A decoy looks like a duck, but it doesn't walk, quack like a duck, or serve more than one of the purposes a duck can have. The article is not a Dab page, but at best a decoy for a Dab page. It is a list of ASMs, preceded by a dictdef. If it had the title List of anti-submarine missiles by manufacturing country, it would be appropriate to replace the stub tags with a {{SIA}} tag. And in theory we could split it into an SIA by that title and a wretched excuse for a stub on the topic of ASMs, but that would be pointless: a one- (or ten-) 'graph article, with a good dictdef (like what is already there) as lead sent, and a list of examples (like what is already there), would not be appropriate to split.
What would be in those 1 to 10 additional 'graphs? Discussion of what distinguishes ASMs from other missiles and from other methods of sinking submarines. And discussion of what significantly distinguishes one model of ASM from others, probably including criteria for grouping ASMs into groups of mutually similar models: things like propulsion systems, guidance systems, and warheads, and the trajectory ranges, accuracies, and kill ranges that are associated with them. And discussion of the history, geo-political effect, and counter-measures relevant to ASMs.
The barely-more-than-crap article has gone w/o any attempt in four years to give it the kind of content that would elevate it from a stub for an article into an adequate fulfillment of the meaning of "encylopedia article entitled Anti-submarine missile". I'm adding a cleanup tag, as the neglected page desperately needs development. If that doesn't work, perhaps it should be split into List of anti-submarine missiles by manufacturing country and a dictdef stub, and nominated for deletion with the argument

Jerzy is a pollyanna, by suggesting that 4 years is not enuf to prove that Wikipedia is incapable of expanding the prose on this topic beyond a dictdef. It's time to give up and delete.

--Jerzy•t 00:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided basic expansion and references, but further expansion might be helpful. This could be in the form of generalized characteristics, or short paragraphs contrasting the individual linked weapon listings.Thewellman (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missile or Rocket Thrown Torpedo ?

Direct copu from the CJ-1 article - which lacks a reference "Although dubbed as an ASW missile, CJ-1 ASW weapon is not an ASW missile as it is often erroneously referred, because one of the requirements for a missile is to have guidance in its flight, and this is not exactly what CJ-1 ASW weapon has. The missile is fired into the general direction of the target submarine with only rather limited inertial guidance, and the true guidance does not kick in until after the payload, namely, the torpedo has entered water. As a result, the official Chinese term of Rocket propelled (ASW) torpedo is a more accurate description for this weapon, and the developer classify the weapon somewhere between a fully guided missile and an unguided rocket (though closer to the missile than to the rocket)."
Well written statement. I Believe the statement can equally apply to nearly all weapons referred to as an ASW missile. A better term is a Rocket thrown torpedo. Wfoj3 (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]