Talk:AGM-86 ALCM

Useage

Should it mention that conspiracy theorists belive that a AGM 86 cruise missile hit the pentagon rather than a plane? Or should that be left out compleatly 203.173.209.180 08:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

-- People will give your claim more consideration once you learn how to spell "completely." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.77.96 (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Those theorists needs to take a little time and study and understand the characteristics of how objects like aircraft, vehicles, trains etc. impact other objects, buildings, ground, or mountain-side and the results. Wings tend to either shear off or fold back, and disintegrate by burning faster than the fuselage. Wings are designed to hold FUEL!!... geee, wonder what happens to the fuel and the aluminium during an extreme impact!?! Enough said. LanceBarber 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be picky but wings are designed to provide the lift that keeps the aircraft off the ground. Fuel storage is at best a secondary consideration.Es330td (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh heh. Point goes to Es330td. Yoda of Borg (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

ALCM-B picture

I would like to post a picture of the ALCM-B which is far more recognizable than the A model (understandable as A was the proof-of-concept model and B the production model). However, I am unfamiliar with the copyright variants, and how copyright issues relate to Wikipedia. I know of several pictures that appear everywhere (it seems no one takes any new pictures of the ALCM, but the same 3 pics keep getting passed around) but I know copying something multiple times doesn't change the copyright (thank you MPAA). I've read Wikipedia:Copyrights but regurgitation does not equal comprehension. As with everything, design and implementation: ne'er the two shall meet. If I didn't make it, what's the nitty gritty on posting media to Wikipedia. (I understand that government work belongs to the public and is not copyrighted, but some stuff is copyright Boeing; and where's the line between government work, and government employee taking a picture for personal use?) Yoda of Borg (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This page doesn't get alot of traffic, I'd recomend you ask this question at WT:AIR. There are members of the WP:AIR Project that know a lot more about the copyrights than I do, and so someone there should be able to help you. - BillCJ (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of AGM-86B images on Wikimedia Commons now. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Article name

It doesn't seem to me that the abbreviation ALCM is either more commonly used or is more likely to be used as a search term to meet the MOS standard for using an abbreviation in this article title. Currently AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missile redirects here, which is the reverse of usual Wikipedia practice. I would prefer the title to be in the usual form for aircraft: Boeing AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missile. I don't understand why the manufacturer is mentioned for planes and omitted for missiles.

Google search on 21 May 2014: alcm 524,000 hits (but number one is Association of Lutheran Church Musicians and Associate in Loss Control Management also appear in the top 20 so a lot of these hits are off topic). air launched cruise missile 290,000 hits (but not a single off topic hit in the first 100). --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO) needs its own section (or page)

It's a $30 billion project. I assume that means development costs only. The article I read wasn't clear.

In an article today the New York Times mentioned the Long-Range Stand-Off (but it was written as "Long-Range Standoff Weapon"): Nuclear Weapon That America Doesn't Need. The name needs to be standardized as well.

AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on AGM-86 ALCM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801115644/http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=74 to http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104612/agm-86bcd-missiles.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=74
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141204155339/http://insidedefense.com/201403052463350/Inside-Defense-General/Public-Articles/long-range-standoff-missile-development-pushed-back-by-three-years/menu-id-926.html to http://insidedefense.com/201403052463350/Inside-Defense-General/Public-Articles/long-range-standoff-missile-development-pushed-back-by-three-years/menu-id-926.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Warhead Weights

As regards the AGM-86C, how can a 3,150lb missile possibly carry a 3,000lb warhead over 1,000km? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.182.53 (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Very questionable !!

Very questionable !! Extremely questionable !!
"Even with the SLEP, the remaining AGM-86s were to reach their end of service by 2020, leaving the B-52 without a nuclear mission."
B-52 Superfortresses will always be able to carry nuclear "gravity bombs". Each B-52 has two bomb bays, and otherwise, the Air Force can always attach bombs below the wings of B-52s, just like they did during the War in Vietnam!24.156.78.205 (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Other delivery systems

The AGM-86 ALCM was also (formerly) used to arm the B-1 Lancer bomber, but no mention of this was made at all. This was a serious omission. Furthermore, the B-1, with its three bomb bays, was designed to also carry SRAMs (just like the B-52), and gravity-dropped nuclear weapons, and it did.
Just because the B-1 has been modified to carry, primarily, an assortment of JDAMs is no reason to omit mentioning the B-1 here. By assortment, I mean 2000 lb., 1500 lb., 1000 lb., and 500 lb. versions of the JDAM.24.156.78.205 (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)