Talk:Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon

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 articles

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

Page development

Please see United_States_Army_Futures_Command#Joint_collaboration_on_modernization --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

range

The title is long range but it doesn't say what the range is. Gah4 (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The number is in the infobox. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 09:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did miss that, but I think I was expecting a little more than just one number. Well, first I am surprised that the name is being used for one specific system. Next will we have the Even longer range ... and Just a little bit longer than that range ... But mostly, in many cases that isn't all that long a range. Consider that ICBMs seem defined as 3400mi or more. And they don't even reach the range of Intermediate-range ballistic missiles starting at 3000km. Given that, it would be nice for the article to discuss range. Even more, recent events suggest a new Missile gap, but that depends on them having enough range for many uses. Gah4 (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United States Army Futures Command#Long Range Precision Fires is from the Army perspective. Strategic fires have not been an Army capability since the Pershing missile days. No doctrine exists yet. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 22:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that (at least the US government) should have a standard on meanings for range terms. That would make treaties easier. As well as I know it, it gets a lot harder, for only small increases in range. Gah4 (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]