This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Aviation / 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 not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force North American military history task force United States military history task force United States: Military history This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force. Aviation 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. Rocketry This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

On 25 March 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Prompt Global Strike to Conventional Prompt Strike. The result of the discussion was moved.

The Force now calls it "Global Precision Attack". Hcobb ( talk) 22:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for adding the ref Hcobb. Do I take it that PGS is the general USAF initiative and the Falcon, Conventional Strike Missile, etc are sub-projects, or is the PGS merely the system that would be delivered by these other vehicles? Joshdboz ( talk) 01:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

If the USAF was anywhere near that organized there wouldn't be half as many movies making fun of them. Hcobb ( talk) 02:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hah, thanks. Tax dollars at work. Joshdboz ( talk) 14:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

FYI, Wired has run a couple of articles about this proposal. [1] [2]   Will Beback  talk  21:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

What exactly makes the flat trajectory establish that the missile is not nuclear? It establishes that it's not an ICBM; it doesn't prove anything to do with nuclear or not. The reference cited for this claim doesn't explain anything about how this works either; it makes the same claim but only shows evidence of how it won't be confused for an ICBM, not how it can be identified as non-nuclear. 101.98.155.58 ( talk) 05:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The whole business is rather ambiguous; in theory the weapon would not be targeted at Russia or China making the point moot. The real issue being the pushed by the deployment of IRBMs by many nations from Iran to North Korea, and China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.203.19.1 ( talk) 16:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The X-37B original research section, which had no sources whatsoever, has been deleted. I have never seen any professional source make the claims that were in that section and I doubt it had any basis in reality. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure where the test of the 1st-stage solid rocket motor should go. I put the ref under LRHW (long-range hypersonic weapon), an Army program. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 06:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC) reply

... Conventional Prompt Strike is being used in some pages here, (and in some sources). But several sources have combined the two as: Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS), and have so as far back as 2008. So, should the title of this page be changed at all?
Title aside, (and barring a change) should these two terms be added to article?
And lastly should these two terms be redirected? (Here? Somewhere else?)
Here are the sources;

1. FAS.org (2021)
2. CRS/Congress.gov (2021)
3. USNI.org (2021)
4. DTIC.mil (2015)
5. TheDiplomat.com (2014)
6. INSS/NDU.edu (2011)
7. NAS/nap.edu (2008)

I don't have a strong opinion either way, just thought I would being this to the attention of those who have worked on this page, and/or in the subject area. (fyi: as of this post, both terms linked above are red and none of the refs listed are in the article) - wolf 20:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The US Army and US Navy are currently conducting joint testing of a hypersonic weapon that the army calls the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) and the navy calls the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS). This terminology is from Lockheed Martin's (the manufacturer) website: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2021/another-successful-solid-rocket-motor-hypersonics-test.html. This is not the same weapon as the Prompt Global Strike because the LRHW/CPS weapon has a range of 1,725 miles (from: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a36421213/army-hypersonic-weapon-1700-mile-range/) which is insufficient for the global reach of the Prompt Global Strike. The LRHW/CPS weapon has its own article Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon. It's to be deployed by the Army in artillery battalions and in Navy VLS aboard Zumwalt-class destroyers and Virginia-class subs. - Personnongratia ( talk) 01:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the reply. Well, I've redirected the two terms in the OP to this page for now. If someone cares to add sections to this page distinguishing any differences among any two, or all three, (like with the info PNG noted above), it won't change anything as the redirects will stay in place anyway (but just be for specific). If at some point someone want to make an article about either terms (or both) then that's fine too. (Though it's been almost 15 years now, so I won't hold my breath on that ;-) Cheers - wolf 02:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I think it would be better to redirect Conventional Prompt Strike to Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon given that the Conventional Prompt Strike manufacturer (Lockheed Martin) labels the two weapons as part of the same program per the link to their website I provided above. - Personnongratia ( talk) 01:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Reference 1 (from FAS.org) distinguishes Prompt Global Strike (a nuclear weapon system) from Conventional Prompt Strike, which uses non-nuclear (kinetic-kill) munitions. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Per https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/2636993/navy-tests-new-hypersonic-rocket-motor/, the Conventional Prompt Strike program is part of the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon program, as both use the same weapon and booster. Thus I will change the Conventional Prompt Strike redirect from Prompt Global Strike to Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon. Also, I have not found any mention of "Prompt Global Strike" in DoD planning or funding documents since 2013, so I am starting to think it is formally a dead program that was replaced by the joint LRHW/CPS and AGM-183A programs. I think Prompt Global Strike resulted in the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) demonstrator, which has heavily influenced the joint LRHW/CPS development. I base these conclusions on the most recent CBO report on hypersonic weapons: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21012764/conventional-prompt-global-strike-and-long-range-ballistic-missiles-background-and-issues-july-16-2021.pdf (I found pages 14-18 most helpful). In the long term, we should consider renaming this article Advanced Hypersonic Weapon and describing its role in the Prompt Global Strike program and in the later LRHW/CPS development. There is just nothing that officially (from the DoD or manufacturers) suggests that the Prompt Global Strike program is active now or has been active recently, rather that new programs have supplanted it. - Personnongratia ( talk) 22:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply