Talk:Cruise missile

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Definition[edit]

What is the definition of a cruise missile? All missiles have a guidance system, motor, and payload, so such a definition is too broad. Missiles without a guidance system are typically rockets. What's being described as supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles seem more like regular missiles to me, even if they are air-breathing.

Cruise missiles need to have a high degree of autonomy, so all such missiles should be, by definition, stand-off, over-the-horizon type weapons. This implies a minimum range of some 400km at the least. This eliminates all but a handful of weapons from the list of so-called cruise missiles. Moreover, some of the remaining cruise missiles are rocket powered, so should these still be classified as "cruise" type missiles? Again, how does the ability to fly level distinguish a cruise "rocket" from any other type of guided missile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.158.233 (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if radio-controlled planes (like the Torpedogleiter) are considered cruise missiles or drones? My impression is that a cruise missile has an auto pilot, not a remote human pilot. DonPMitchell (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Here on the German WP someone asked the same question, but the answer doesn't seem to hold water. Yours seems to be more applicable even now, 8½ years later. ◅ Sebastian 16:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jet??[edit]

Do cruise missiles use jets or do they use rockets? You'd be hard pressed to get a functioning jet engine on a cruise missile, much less want to spare the expen se of developing and equipping them with one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.180.87 (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


However, jets are almost always the choice. This is because cruise missiles are fairly big, modern turbojets are very small, and jets give increased range per weight compared to rockets. Rockets are usually reserved for short or very high performance missiles, like SAMs and AAMs, or missiles that exit the atmosphere or fly where there is to little oxygen to support a jet, like an ICBM. --71.242.29.26 (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DIY[edit]

This section is pretty useless. The only way this guy can prove he's credible is by having a flight test, so I say delete this section until then. Wsacul 17:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CMs vs unmanned aircraft[edit]

Good article, but there is an apparent problem with definition:

Cruise missiles are, in essence, unmanned aircraft.

Japanese kamikaze aircraft could be viewed as manned cruise missiles.

Logically, doesn’t this just mean that kamikaze aircraft are manned aircraft?
--Smallbone10

Heh, good point. I guess the contributor based his/her definition on an implicit assumption of a cruise missile being a targeted airborne explosive device. --Wernher 22:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edit that I think should help clean this up. Japan, in an effort to gain a tactical advantage against the allied forces resorted to kamikaze aircraft, another early predecessor to the super-accurate cruise missiles of today. Hope it helps. - Chairboy 22:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be additional clairfication. The IJN used many types of aircraft for kamikaze missions that were for other purposes, such as the Zero fighter and various torpedo bombers. However, there was one aircraft that they designed specifically designed for kamikaze attacks, the Ohka, which was a rocket-propelled and, later, jet-propelled manned flying bomb. The tactics used and developed for the Ohka even mirror modern cruise missiles, such as the Betty bomber-carried type and plans for submarine and carrier-based launchers. --YoungFreud 20:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I would like to see a list of nations that currently possess cruise missile technology. Also it would be historically interesting to know when and how each nation developed the technology. I would think a concise table would serve.

Stealth CMs[edit]

Does anyone know anything about the the newer "stealth" cruise missiles? Something about those would be great. --Commking 5 Aug 2005

See AGM 129 for a stealth cruise missile, though most recently developed cruise missiles are stealthy. --71.242.29.26 (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"CRUSE" an acronym?[edit]

I remember that back in the late 60s "cruise" was spelled "cruse" and it was an acronym. Now has my ageing brain fabricated a recollection of something that never was? Or is "cruse" indeed an acronym for something, and if so what? A quick Google on the internet shows that "cruse" is an alternate spelling, but no more. Jm546 02:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I could find was this: "ALCM - Air Launch Cruse Missile". I found it at [1] Fresheneesz 23:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babur[edit]

Should not the large part on this page about Pakistan's Babur cruise missile better be moved to Babur missile? - Andre Engels 13:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Deepak|वार्ता 21:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Babur Missile is the Chinese developed export version of the YJ-62 (C-602) anti-ship cruise missile and is supposed to have a range of 280km to adhere to the MTCR guidelines. http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/navalmissile/yj623.asp

Chanakyathegreat 05:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babur missile has nothing to do with Chinese YJ62 as it is exclusively prepared by Pakistani scientist in NESCOM and has a range of 700 Km capable of being armed with nuclear warheads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirfaheem22 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Models and specifications[edit]

What models of cruise missiles are there? What fuel do they use? What different explosives are usually used? These would be useful things to have on this page. Fresheneesz 00:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, jeez, there are tons of them. See the link for a list of missiles at the bottom of the page, though it doesn't specify type of missile in that list. That information is really article specific, and you will need to find most of that yourself. Sorry. --71.242.29.26 (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much about Soviet Cruise Missile Program??[edit]

There is too less info about Soviet Cruise Missiles. I saw a Tomahawk pictures, ok its justified as it is best cruise missile. I think we should add atleast one Point abt Soviet Cruise Missile program. Cruise Missiles should characterized by 1. warheads-Nuclear/Conventional, Already done 2. Targets-Land Attack/Anti-Ship 3. Launch Platforms- Ship, Submarine, Aircraft and Land.

we can also write about Supersonic missiles.

Air-to-air cruise missiles[edit]

The paragraph about China's and Taiwan's cruise missiles mentioned air-to-air cruise missiles. I am deleting it unless someone can give an example of an air-to-air cruise missile. Profhobby 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't an air to air cruise missile really just be an air to air missile?--71.242.29.26 (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed[edit]

The Tomahawk and ALCM were the product of a joint USN and USAF acquisition program. The Tomahawk was NOT originally a competing design for the USAF.

There was a competition between the Tomahawk air-launched version and the Boeing ALCM, won by Boeing. 84.9.44.47 13:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but, Tomahawk was originally designed for the U.S. Navy as the BGM-109. Later, a modified version of the Tomahawk, the AGM-109, was competed against the AGM-86 for the USAF contract. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oarsman (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

POV[edit]

The reference to USA "assasination" is clearly not NPOV.

V-1[edit]

"However, the V-1 did not have the level of accuracy of a modern tactical cruise missile." - Isn't this a bit stating the obvious?

Not if you are stupid - it could be helpful and informing.--71.242.29.26 (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nickname 'Doodlebug' is used for the V-1; the only nickname I've ever heard is 'Buzz Bomb'.LorenzoB (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may depend on where you live. In England, which was the main target of the V1, 'Doodlebug' was the usual slang term for the thing. I don't know how it originated, but the term 'doodlebug' for a type of insect larva seems to be American, so maybe its use for the V1 was coined by American GI's in England at the time. 2A00:23C8:7906:1301:A8FB:46D7:4268:4C70 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiating from UAVs[edit]

As the UAV project progresses in organizing the scope of articles on UAVs on Wikipedia, the project naturally bumps up against the fuzzy line seperating UAVs from cruise missles. For the purposes of keeping things organized, I've added a differentiating statment in the intro paragraph, and will be adding a similar one at UAV. Akradecki 00:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruisers?[edit]

I'm inclined to think that the similarity in names between cruise missiles and cruisers is simply a coincidence. Cruise missiles can be fired from land, from submarines, from aircraft, and from many different classes of ship. Cruisers have also been around longer than cruise missiles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SHCGRA Max (talk • contribs) 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Cruisers are ships that are larger than destroyers and smaller than carriers, and cruise missiles are missiles that fly for the duration of their flight at a cruising speed and altitude.--71.242.29.26 (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruisers?[edit]

I'm inclined to think that the similarity in names between cruise missiles and cruisers is simply a coincidence. Cruise missiles are fired from land, from submarines, from aircraft, and from many different classes of ship. Cruisers have also been around longer than cruise missiles, and so are hardly speciallised to carry them, beyond the fact that they are among the largest ships currently in service and cruise missiles tend to be quite large. I've removed the offending sentence.--SHCGRA Max 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babur .....small missile??[edit]

Babur is not a small cruise missile, it is roughly of the same size as the tomahawk........and what is the meaning of mentioning babur in large cruise missiles and again mentiong it in small missiles???--Mm11 09:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are two version First 500km extended to 700 & the under development extended range missile. There is a missile that is being inducted and developed, reports state its range to be extended as far as 1500km then why not it be placed long range mssile section. while people have only vague ideas as to what sagarika or nirbay looks like, no video or international defence mag coverage, only indian news papers requoted elsewhere if another source. [Dm] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danishmmh (talk • contribs) 14:57, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Brahmos-2 Hypersonic?![edit]

The article states that the Brahmos-2 is hypersonic, but the Brahmos-2 article states that it flys between mach 2.5 and 2.8, while hypersonic is mach 5 or above. I am moving it down to supersonic.--71.242.29.26 (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see my mistake. Brahmos-1 is mach 2.5-2.8, but Brahmos-2 directs you to the article for Brahmos-1. However, Brahmos-2 is not currently deployed, and wont be developed fully until 2013. I am changing that.--71.242.29.26 (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense if its in supersonic but why is it moved further down to subsonic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cparthas (talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Brahmos-2 will be developed after 2013 how can it be here in the hypersonic list. Add it to hypersonic list after 2013. Right now it should not be on the page because it is not developed yet.

SLAM grammar[edit]

"SLAM (not to be confused with the SLAM cruise missile)" this is in my opinion truly strange grammar. You wouldn't say the "AK-47" (not to be confused with the "AK-47" assault rifle.) in an article about assault rifles would you? I think this needs to be restructured, and personally, I think since the acronyms are the same, they should be done away with or at least include the full name of the weapon, i.e. "Supersonic Low Altitude Missile (SLAM)" instead of just "SLAM". I changed it slightly to avoid confusion, but I am no English major. 63.197.134.209 (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this section while making my edit but the wording as of 01:29, 22 October 2009 was already clear and understandable so it looks like it's already been edited for readability. --Antoin 01:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoin (talk • contribs)

Cruise for Italy[edit]

Even Italy has 200 Storm Shadow cruise missiles and it's very interested in Scalp Naval —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.32.197.162 (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engine for the Tomahawk from jet pack?[edit]

When the cruise missile firest made its appearance, I recall on black and white BBC tv documentary the guy saying that the engine was a turbo fan specicially from a jet pack engined developed for the human jet pack. Any confirmation for this?

Prithvi and Agni are ballistic missiles![edit]

Prithvi and Agni are not cruise missiles so they should be removed out of this page.

The X-51 is not a cruise missile.[edit]

It's even stated on it's Wikipage. "The Boeing X-51 is an unmanned scramjet demonstration aircraft for hypersonic flight testing". It's an aircraft, a flight demonstrator too. As far as I know, it's not designed to carry a payload, explosive or not. As of today, I have removed it from the list. Victory in Germany (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaurya is cruise missile?!![edit]

Every indication shows Shaurya is a ballistic missile, not a cruise missile. For it to be qualify to be a cruise missile, it has to have a air-breathing engine (turbojet/ ramjet/ scramjet). From the photo Shaurya, has no opening for an air-intake, therefore it is logical to assume it uses onboard oxidizer from the rocket fuel instead of having an air-breathing engine. Therefore Shaurya should be removed from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spunking (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise missiles vs. antiship missiles[edit]

Antiship missiles are not all cruise missiles, not all cruise missiles are antiship missiles.
Where did the fable get started that ships just need to defend themselves against cruise missiles: e.g. the Tomahawk antiship missile (TASM), which is a cruise missile?
Ships need to defend themselves against ballistic missiles, or course, even shorter-range ones like the Scud.
Also, the Maverick missile can be used as an antiship missile, and it is not a cruise missile. It is a high-speed air-to-surface missile In fact, the P-3 Orion carries Mavericks specifically as antiship missiles, and the F/A-18 Hornet, F-15E Strike Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, Panavia Tornado, and F-4 Phantom II can carry Mavericks as antiship missiles.
There are Russian, French, Norwegian, and other antiship missiles that are not cruise missiles, and warships need to be able to defend themselves against these, too, with short-range missile (e.g. Sea Sparrow) and rapid-fire cannon (e.g Phalanx) systems. It doesn't always take something like the Standard Missile SM-3.
98.67.108.12 (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This Article Reads Like War Porn[edit]

Why are there no pictures of the destruction these weapons cause? If you are just talking about the technological aspects of a weapon you are not providing the full life cycle of a weapon and it comes off as weapon fetishism. 76.114.18.123 (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • A cruise missile is merely a delivery vehicle. The destruction is caused by the warhead carried, which can one of any number of types, and is no different than warheads delivered by other types of delivery vehicles. The destruction also depends very much on the type of target: city, warship, hardened aircraft shelter, etc. Wikkileaker (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BrahMos is fastest cruise missile in world.[edit]

Is this good english? 194.174.73.33 (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cruise missile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article semi-protected for 1 day[edit]

Due to persistent edit warring adding in a missile which Andy has a good argument is not a cruise missile, I have protected the article for 24 hours.

Please DISCUSS here on the talk page before re-adding the information. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cruise missile. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cruise missile. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cruise missile. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guided missile[edit]

Cruise missile doesn't have to be a guided missile. Not at all. The basic principles of expendable cruise missile are use of aerodynamic force to overcome force of gravity and use of its own engine (any kind) to move on the entire path of flight. Older models of cruise missiles a Kettering Bug (1918) wasn't a guided missile, as well as V-1 flying bomb. Maneuverability and guidance is only a matter of technology development, not a matter of main principles of this kind of munition. Matrek (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was taught that the definition of "cruise missile" is one that is powered constantly throughout its flight, from launch to target impact. In contrast to "ballistic missile", which boosts at launch and then coasts all the way to its target, its trajectory determined only by gravity and aerodynamic forces. It's the fact of being powered constantly that is the defining trait of cruise missiles. This concept is lacking in the opening; I think this should be revised.Wikkileaker (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

China's "hypersonic missile"[edit]

The recently tested Chinese weapon was referred to as "hypersonic missile" in the media:

  • Demetri Sevastopulo, Kathrin Hille, "China tests new space capability with hypersonic missile Financial Times, 16 October 2021. Abridged version: "China's leap in hypersonic missile technology shakes US intelligence", Financial Times, 18 October 2021. ProQuest 2597945672
  • Demetri Sevastopulo, Chinese hypersonic weapon fired missile over South China Sea, Financial Times, 21 November 2021.

Hypersonic missile curretly redirects here. Is this the right place for this kind of a "glide vehicle"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cruise_missile&oldid=1194319080"