Difference b/w Air/Land launched missiles

  • Thread starter Thread starter sorter
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Difference
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether two missiles with the same guidance system and engine can be considered different versions of a single missile, specifically in the context of air-launched and land-launched variants. Participants note that while commonalities may exist, significant differences in mission profiles and design requirements typically classify them as distinct missiles. The conversation also highlights that missiles generally use either turbofans or solid rocket engines, and the thrust profiles can vary based on launch conditions. Examples like the Tomahawk and AGM-129 illustrate that while they may share components, they are designed for different operational roles. Ultimately, the consensus is that while similarities exist, the differences in design and purpose justify categorizing them as separate entities.
sorter
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Provided that we have got two different missiles by name(A & B) but yet they have in common the guidance system as well as the engine say a turbofan; can they be called a single missile having two versions i.e air launched & land launched??

If not does this mean that though both have turbofans but thrust profiles/specific impulses are different for air & land launched missiles??

I do know that there will be some aerodynamic diffences but what about internal makeup??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the two missiles, you are talking about, are made by the same company then they can be considered a single missile with two versions.
 
Missiles don't use turbofans, they use turbojets.
 
I've seen long-range missiles with small bypass ratio turbofans.

Aside from that, they could be, but obviously the start sequences will be different. More importantly though, air and surface-launched missiles typically have different missions, and thus aren't suited for the same missile.

It's difficult enough at times to design for one operating point and condition, let alone two different missions.
 
I'd say the biggest difference is a surface launched cruise missile often requires a rocket booster.
 
Um... Cyrus, what about Tomahawks? AGM-86? AGM-129? Basically any cruise missile will use a turbofan.
 
boneh3ad said:
Um... Cyrus, what about Tomahawks? AGM-86? AGM-129? Basically any cruise missile will use a turbofan.

I thought those were turbojets. Interesting...must be low bypass ratio.
 
Low-bypass turbofans. There aren't any turbojets used on any American aircraft these days that I am aware of. I am not even sure if other countries still use them. Even fighters use low-bypass turbofans now. Generally, missiles use either a turbofan or a solid rocket engine depending on their mission.

To answer the original question, you can have the same missile that is capable of both air and sea (and land) launches. For example, the Tomahawk could launched from land or sea (though we no longer use the land version) and was designed to be able to launch from the air if needed. It uses a solid rocket to launch and then the turbofan kicks in regardless of the launch method.
 
People I believe ht there must be some difference in thrust profiles of a cruise missile that is launched from a aircraft fling at
1) 1.6Mach
2)~16km altitude

compared to a missile launch from sealevel with 0 initial speed
 
  • #10
sorter said:
People I believe ht there must be some difference in thrust profiles of a cruise missile that is launched from a aircraft fling at
1) 1.6Mach
2)~16km altitude

compared to a missile launch from sealevel with 0 initial speed

Did you see russ' comment in Post #5?
 
  • #11
Some clarifications:
-It isn't typical for cruise missiles to be launched from supersonic aircraft.
-Some cruise missiles use turbojets, notably the Harpoon family: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AGM-84_Harpoon
-Supersonic cruise missiles aren't all that common, but tend to use rocket-boosted ramjets.
-Yes, the point of the rocket booster is essentially to boost the cruise missile from a standing start into the the launch envelope (a certain speed and altitude) of the air-launched version. This, of course, requires a high thrust for a short period of time.
 
  • #12
  • #13
The AGM-129 and BGM-109 are different cruise missiles.
 
  • #14
jhae2.718 said:
The AGM-129 and BGM-109 are different cruise missiles.
Manufacturer General Dynamics (initially)
Raytheon Missile Systems
 
  • #15
Just because they have the same manufacturer doesn't make them the same missile. The BGM-109 Tomahawk was originally designed as a submarine launched cruise missile. The AGM-129 was intended to be an LO air launched cruise missile with a nuclear warhead. They are different platforms with different missions.
 
  • #16
AGM-129 is also low-observable and has a significantly longer range but could only be launched from a B-52
 
  • #17
jhae2.718 said:
Just because they have the same manufacturer doesn't make them the same missile. The BGM-109 Tomahawk was originally designed as a submarine launched cruise missile. The AGM-129 was intended to be an LO air launched cruise missile with a nuclear warhead. They are different platforms with different missions.

Tht was my basic confusion of whether should i take thm two different missiles or a single missile wth two variants??
BY THE WAY Do you also believe in that perception that only similarly designed missiles can be called as versions of each others...
 
  • #18
In the case of the two missiles above, they are different. There may certainly be some commonalities; somewhat similar guidance and propulsion systems may be used (why reinvent the wheel, after all?). They may be in the same class of missile, but they are different platforms, IMO.

Now, if you were to compare the sea and air launched versions of the Tomahawk, those would be different variants of the same missile.

Of course, I'm not the person who gets to definitively state these things.
 
  • #19
^^Thnx now I understood.
 
  • #20
russ_watters said:
Supersonic cruise missiles aren't all that common, but tend to use rocket-boosted ramjets.

Supersonic cruise missiles do not exist. Supersonic missiles certainly exist, but they're all rockets, from the relatively small and short-range Mach 2.5 Aim-9 Sidewinder to the medium-range AIM-54 Phoenix and the old B-52 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-Range_Attack_Missile" to long-range ICBMs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
mugaliens said:
Supersonic cruise missiles do not exist. Supersonic missiles certainly exist, but they're all rockets, from the relatively small and short-range Mach 2.5 Aim-9 Sidewinder to the medium-range AIM-54 Phoenix and the old B-52 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-Range_Attack_Missile" to long-range ICBMs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile#Categories
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
mugaliens said:
Supersonic cruise missiles do not exist. Supersonic missiles certainly exist, but they're all rockets, from the relatively small and short-range Mach 2.5 Aim-9 Sidewinder to the medium-range AIM-54 Phoenix and the old B-52 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-Range_Attack_Missile" to long-range ICBMs.

That's not true.

OK, I had something typed up, but then realized the missile wasn't listed that wiki website. So, for any confidentiality sake, I'll keep my mouth shut.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
russ_watters said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile#Categories

Poorly written Wikipedia article and more poorly written section.

Let's take the Brahmos as an example. 290 km range at Mach 2.9. That's a 4.9 min time of flight. That's not a "cruise missile," regardless of who chooses to call it that. That's an attack missile, and the velocities, ranges, and time of flight are roughly in the ballpark of the U.S. old SRAMs, which stand for Short-Range Attack Missile. Meanwhile, traditional cruise missiles have ranges measured in the thousands of kilometers, not hundreds.

If they're calling it a "cruise missile" they're doing so for political purposes, as "attack" sounds so war-like...

Realisticially, though, is there any sharp demarcation between a cruise missile and an attack missile? Not really, and all cruise missiles are designed to attack their targets.
 
  • #24
mugaliens said:
If they're calling it a "cruise missile" they're doing so for political purposes, as "attack" sounds so war-like...

Often times "Standoff" is used now, as in JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile)
 
  • #25
minger said:
Often times "Standoff" is used now, as in JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile)

I find this to be a more accurate term for shorter range, and particularly much faster missiles with shorter time of flight than "cruise."
 
  • #26
mugaliens said:
I find this to be a more accurate term for shorter range, and particularly much faster missiles with shorter time of flight than "cruise."

That isn't really what standoff means. In terms of missiles, standoff is more of a range thing, meaning that the missile can be launched from a range that allows the attacker to evade return fire.
 
  • #27
mugaliens said:
Poorly written Wikipedia article and more poorly written section...

That's not a "cruise missile," regardless of who chooses to call it that. That's an attack missile...
Well it seemed like you were saying supersonic jet powered missiles don't exist - when clearly they do, whether we call them cruise missiles or something else.

And you are implying that the words "supersonic" and "cruise missile" don't even belong in the same sentence, but it's not just the wiki that uses the term. For example, the US DOD has an active program called the "Joint SuperSonic Cruise Missile": http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/jsscm.htm

And:
Realisticially, though, is there any sharp demarcation between a cruise missile and an attack missile? Not really, and all cruise missiles are designed to attack their targets.
Well right: the SLAM *is* a cruise missile. So basically, you're just arguing against a term that is real but you don't like it. Well, you don't need to like it for it to be real.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
If a supersonic missile isn't a cruise missile but an attack missile, then what do you call a hypersonic missile, mugaliens?
 
  • #29
I have to agree with mugs on this one, the term cruise doesn't lend itself to a missile with such a short flight time.

If it traveled at this speed for a sustained period then yes, but by their definition the F22 attacking a target 100km away could be claimed to be using cruise missiles.

This to me sounds like political correctness for misiles.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
It really has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with the mission of the missile. Originally, you had short-range, lightweight missiles fired from planes or the ground that were tasked mainly with shooting down fast-moving targets. However, once they developed technology to put much larger payloads on board and fly them over longer distances and take out slower and larger targets, then the mission of these missiles had changed and they changed to name accordingly. It really doesn't have much to do with the term "cruise" in a traditional aerospace sense. These supersonic cruise missiles fulfill the same mission as a traditional cruise missile, and therefore it isn't ludicrous to continue calling them cruise missiles.
 
  • #31
For the last week I have used my mobile to post on this site (all I've done so far as computing goes), it has fulfilled the same 'mission' as my laptop. I can call it a laptop if I like, but it doesn't make it so. They are two distinct items completing the same tasks.

The PC statement wasn't meant to be taken too seriously, although I do think there is an aspect of it when it comes to naming things such as missiles. To downplay the role so to speak.
 
  • #32
Right, but the real role of ANY weapon is to attack. I don't think that fact is lost on anyone.

jarednjames said:
For the last week I have used my mobile to post on this site (all I've done so far as computing goes), it has fulfilled the same 'mission' as my laptop. I can call it a laptop if I like, but it doesn't make it so. They are two distinct items completing the same tasks.

However, if you wanted, you could call both of them forum posting devices and be completely correct. Still, that isn't the point. The fact that makes computers and cell phones different from missiles in this case is that computers and cell phones each have many different functions. Computers can post on forums but can do a plethora of other things, as I am sure you are aware. Cell phones can also post on forums, but can make calls and do their own collection of tasks. Each of these machines has a very different purpose for being.

With missiles, on the other hand, you have one purpose - to destroy. Whether it is going Mach 0.8 or Mach 2.8, a cruise missile is moving a relatively large payload from point A to point B through the atmosphere to hit a relatively slow or stationary target. The only difference is how fast it is moving. The payload size and delivery method relative to other missiles is what makes it a cruise missile.
 
  • #33
boneh3ad said:
However, if you wanted, you could call both of them forum posting devices and be completely correct.

I'm going to use this point to answer the whole post.

It would be more apt to call both missile types 'attack missiles'. That would be completely correct because, as you have pointed out, that is what all missiles do. However, given that this missile does not 'cruise', it's like me calling my phone a laptop. Although it completes the same job, it does so in a different manner.

There is a difference between supersonic, sustained flight (or supersonic cruise) and going supersonic for a short time. This is why they are now promoting the fact the newest fighter aircraft have supersonic cruise capability and not just 'can go supersonic'.

The fact they have used this terminology, I don't know. But it doesn't make it correct.
 
  • #34
They are using the terminology based on the actual definition of cruise, not the flight definition of cruise.

From Merriam-Webster:
: to move or proceed speedily, smoothly, or effortlessly

The idea behind calling it a cruise missile is because it is flying relatively straight, long distances moving a large payload. You don't see them doing a ton of crazy maneuvers or turns; they usually have fairly easy flight paths and simply "cruise" from point A to point B with their comparatively large payload and accomplish their mission.

It isn't really a misnomer, it is just confusing if you try to think of it in terms of flight regimes. If you think of it in terms of simply what the word cruise means, it makes perfect sense.
 
  • #35
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cruise
to fly, drive, or sail at a constant speed that permits maximum operating efficiency for sustained travel.

Now unless the missile is doing none of the above (fly/drive/sail) then the definition applies. (As far as I'm aware, the whole point of a cruise missile is that it's essentially a pilotless aircraft - well bomb)

I have also noted that mirriam webster is the only place I've seen that particular definition (not saying it's wrong). This is just arguing semantics now.

I would however, like to see a reference which shows which definition they are using.
 
  • #36
Well your link provides "to travel at a moderately fast, easily controllable speed" which would fall into the same category of making sense for a cruise missile but not in a flight regime sense.

Cruise missiles were probably named by a layperson who used the lay definition of cruise, not the technical definition as understood by a pilot.
 
  • #37
boneh3ad said:
Well your link provides "to travel at a moderately fast, easily controllable speed" which would fall into the same category of making sense for a cruise missile but not in a flight regime sense.

Again, this comes down to what you consider moderately. As things stand at the moment (realistic, achievable travel speeds of vehicles / weapons etc) this isn't moderate as far as I'm concerned.

Cruise missiles were probably named by a layperson who used the lay definition of cruise, not the technical definition as understood by a pilot.

Doesn't cut it as a citation, but I do understand what you mean. This again, doesn't quite cover it as an acceptable use of cruise in my book. There are too many definitions to be useful I suppose.
 
  • #38
jarednjames said:
Again, this comes down to what you consider moderately. As things stand at the moment (realistic, achievable travel speeds of vehicles / weapons etc) this isn't moderate as far as I'm concerned.

Again, you are looking at the term through your "technical glasses" and not through the viewpoint of the type of person who likely named the missile class. When you say you are cruising along in your car, for instance, you don't assume you are moving at the most efficient speed, you just assume you are driving sort of laid back over a moderately long distance (not just down the street to Taco Bell). When anyone except a pilot or technical person in the aerospace engineering industry sees the word cruise, that is what they think of.

And I realize that "probably" doesn't cut it as a citation. I really don't have the kind of time to be searching around the internet for citations for something that, I think we can both admit, is as unimportant as this. The only reason I have any time at all right now is that I am playing hooky from the research lab right now to study for an exam I have coming up.
 
  • #39
Why would you assume it wasnt the designers who named the original missile.
 
  • #40
I suppose it may have been, but things like that are often coined by the nontechnical people. Why is a sports car called a sports car? You don't do any sports in them unless you decide to race somebody, but you could do that in any car.
 
  • #41
boneh3ad said:
I suppose it may have been, but things like that are often coined by the nontechnical people. Why is a sports car called a sports car? You don't do any sports in them unless you decide to race somebody, but you could do that in any car.

Now you're just talking nonsense.

A sports car is called that because that's what it is. Just because you don't use it the way it was designed to be used, doesn't make it something else.

Again, just because you use an estate car to race, doesn't make it a sports car. It isn't designed or named for that purpose (modifications aside).

The original cruise missiles where designed to fly under sustained and continuous flight conditions (from what I've seen with wings), aka cruise, to carry out their missions. Which is why I feel the name is most likely used. The fact they have evolved over time and become 'something else' is simply progress and the name has stuck because, as has been pointed out, they perform the same mission and so people see them in the same way. But that does not make the term cruise correct for their manner of operation.
 
  • #42
Wait, so how exactly do they no longer fly sustained and continuous flight conditions anymore? When last I checked, that hasn't changed.
 
  • #43
jarednjames said:
The original cruise missiles where designed to fly under sustained and continuous flight conditions (from what I've seen with wings), aka cruise, to carry out their missions. Which is why I feel the name is most likely used. The fact they have evolved over time and become 'something else' is simply progress and the name has stuck because, as has been pointed out, they perform the same mission and so people see them in the same way. But that does not make the term cruise correct for their manner of operation.
What makes the term "supersonic cruise missile" correct (and not an oxymoron) is that the people who get to decide what the word means say it is correct. All you're doing here is arguing against a reality. Whatever logic you want to throw at it is irrelevant - a supersonic cruise missile is a supersonic cruise missile. Period.

You aren't entitled to say 'I don't like the real definition so I'm going to make up my own and call everyone who disagrees with me incorrect.' Life doesn't work that way.
...it's like me calling my phone a laptop...
No, but it might be like calling your phone a Personal Computer - which it is, if it can post on PF!

Anyway, what makes a cruise missile a cruise missle isn't really all that complicated and the way it is used really does make sense:
-Almost always has a jet engine because that's better for "cruising".
-Often, but not always wings.
-Flies in a flat (non-ballistic) trajectory.

And the basic point is that people realized that ant-surface missiles needed a longer range and so they started using jet engines and sometimes wings. A great example is that the Exocet has essentially been converted into a cruise missile by replacing the rocket motor with a jet engine. It's an evolutionary development though and not a clear delineation, as the Exocet is similar to the Harpoon in a lot of ways.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
russ_watters said:
Well right: the SLAM *is* a cruise missile. So basically, you're just arguing against a term that is real but you don't like it. Well, you don't need to like it for it to be real.

It's not me. It's what we were taught back when we were launching them.

BTW, I mentioned the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-Range_Attack_Missile" , not the SLAM.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

SpaceX SpaceX: Another Falcon 9 ground pad landing
Replies
43
Views
7K
SpaceX Starlink launch - first 60 satellites
Replies
14
Views
5K
Two launches ferrying between two landing stations along a river
Replies
23
Views
1K
Kerbal Space Program - Duna Rocket Launch
Replies
3
Views
4K
Make 2 launchers that shoot a straw with clay at the end
Replies
3
Views
1K
SpaceX Starship (/Super Heavy) testing: Mk1 stacked, 20 km flight this year
Replies
30
Views
9K
Projectile motion of a Missile relative to ground
Replies
1
Views
6K
Designing Spacecraft for Hard SF Battles & Piracy
Replies
30
Views
4K
Ramjet artillery shell of a big size
Replies
35
Views
7K
Kerbal Space Program - Efficient Launch into Orbit
Replies
5
Views
11K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top