Bloomberg reports that the US Army has again missed its self-imposed deadline to field the first battery of its Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon, known as the "Dark Eagle." The setback underscores persistent schedule slippages on one of the Pentagon’s highest-priority modernization efforts and comes amid years of heavy investment in hypersonic technologies.
Since 2018 the Department of Defense has poured more than $12 billion into hypersonic research, development, testing and procurement across services, with the Army’s program accounting for a large share of that spend. The Government Accountability Office has estimated the cost to deploy the first Army missile battery at around $2.7 billion, a figure that includes missile procurement and associated deployment expenses.
Delays reflect the hard realities of building operational hypersonic weapons: extreme thermal and material stresses, complex guidance requirements at high speeds, and the integration of new weapon types into existing command-and-control and logistics chains. The Army’s LRHW program has repeatedly bumped up against testing and production challenges, a pattern mirrored in other hypersonic projects worldwide despite substantial funding.
The strategic stakes are high. Hypersonic weapons promise rapid, long-range strike options that can complicate an adversary’s defenses and shorten decision times, but persistent delays mean gaps between stated ambition and delivered capability. For allies and adversaries alike, slippage reduces the credibility of planned deterrent postures and may prompt partners to accelerate their own programs or seek alternate means of assurance.
Budgetary and political pressures are likely to intensify. Cost growth and missed milestones invite scrutiny from Congress and could force the Army and Pentagon to reshuffle priorities—potentially favoring systems with nearer-term returns or redirecting funds to other hypersonic approaches, such as air- or sea-launched variants. The latest delay therefore matters not only for program managers but for US defence strategy and procurement credibility more broadly.