Talk:Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon

Page development
Please see United_States_Army_Futures_Command --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 19:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

range
The title is long range but it doesn't say what the range is. Gah4 (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The number is in the infobox. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 09:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * United States Army Futures Command 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  &#124; contribs) 22:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * United States Army Futures Command 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  &#124; contribs) 22:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)