Difference b/w Air/Land launched missiles

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[boneh3ad]

Right, but the real role of ANY weapon is to attack. I don't think that fact is lost on anyone.

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[boneh3ad]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[boneh3ad]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[boneh3ad]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

Why would you assume it wasnt the designers who named the original missile.

 

[boneh3ad]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[boneh3ad]

Wait, so how exactly do they no longer fly sustained and continuous flight conditions anymore? When last I checked, that hasn't changed.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[mugaliens]

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.