Talk:Hypersonic flight

missile defense (S-500 and proposed THAAD variant)

Please discuss below: --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Biased for United States?

Countries such as China and Russia are mentioned. But on several other occasions phrases are used such as “the navy” or “the army”, presumably referring to the ones in the United States (but not clearly stated). The reader is therefore needed to take the perspective of the United States. This is not a neutral way of speaking about nations. Especially not when it comes to ware fare as in the part of missiles. Kyrkovaktmästarn' (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I suppose so. But it is likely that much is classified in the US, and even more restricted in other countries. Given the recent test by China, though, something about it should go here. Gah4 (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

weapons

Should there be a separate article on hypersonic weapons (or work toward them)? Gah4 (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

yes. there seem to be various articles on different hypersonic weapons. it would be good to have one place to talk about them and link to the examples. as well as putting together the info in this article that is in at least 2 different places in the article. Lena Key (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Missing a target by 24 miles is a huge miss, not a slight miss

In the text describing the Chinese missle test, it said, "...missing its target by only two dozen miles." The word "only" implies that it was a slight miss, which it was not. There are no reliable sources that say that a weapon system missing a target by two dozen miles is a slight miss. I'm removing the word "only" (again). Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, reviewing the two cited sources, neither of them claims that this was only a slight miss. The word "only" in the sentence is effectively WP:Original research. Martin IIIa (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

all existing nuclear missile defense systems

The article mentions all existing nuclear missile defense systems, but doesn't say what they are. Are there WP articles about any of them? Gah4 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus for specific action. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose that the portions of this page about hypersonic weapons be split out and merged into the page called Hypersonic weapon. The content of the section is large and well-sourced enough to make its own page. Hosortyr (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I oppose a split, but would not object to copying portions to the target; the reason is that the physics of a weapon are intrinsic to its design. This would make topics split off from this article to the target a mystery, rather than an engineering project. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis: I didn't mean removing all content about hypersonic weapons from this page. I was thinking of leaving a summary of the main points. hypersonic weapons is a growing topic, do you really think we should develop all the details in this article? Hosortyr (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

As an example, take the m1911 pistol; it was in use many decades. I would not object to moving the obscure systems to a hypersonic weapons page; however the physics is salient. When the US was awakened to the threat posed by development of this technology, it responded by pouring $billions into it, from 2018 to this day. The scale of development is the point. Thus the Iskander investment, for example was shown to be wasted for whatever reason. The article shows the promise of scramjets, but there are multiple points (technological, social, political ...) to monitor which are still to be determined for effective development. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

For example, development of ARRW was scrubbed, but this may have a physical reason. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I am waiting for the announcement of the reason for the loss of telemetry data in ARRW (13 Mar 2023). Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Waiting for announcement

I am waiting for the announcement of the reason for the loss of telemetry data in ARRW (13 Mar 2023). Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

References

review issue

Supposedly the check for B-status concluded citations were provided, yet in the first paragraph there is a claim about Mach25+ ("Speeds of Mach 25+ have been achieved below the thermosphere as of 2020.") and that has no citation at this point in the article nor can I find any Mach 25 flight through google or in the citations in the article. This kind of claim needs to have a source listed. (Sorry if my method of communication is not sufficient... I just wanted to alert you to a problem with this page and I don't know how that was not caught in the B-status review... that's also troubling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.207.207 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)