Can cruise missile overtake a Jumbo jet?

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1516
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post02 Dec 2018, 17:57

Boeing 747 can reach top speed of Mach 0.92 at high altitude
A subsonic cruise missile like JSM can reach top speed of Mach 0.95 at sea level with 1:1 T/W.
A71CB74D-91C3-4E1A-BAFF-526224F5DD3E.jpeg

8BF58FD1-E52F-45F8-BB55-0BF2D605A039.jpeg

4EC90BA2-D2CB-4EAC-B00C-761FFF7FB44D.jpeg


so can a cruise missile like JSM catch up with a 747 running away at top speed if it is launched from tail aspect ? Assuming the starting distance is 15-20 km apart, and JSM can fly for maximum 550 km in hi-hi-lo profile
If the answear is “it can’t”, does anything change when the engagement started from the beam aspect

How big is the no escape zone if we used a subsonic cruise missile like JSM for anti air purpose against AEW&C such as E-3, DEW carrier such as YAL-1, strategic bombers such as B-52?

I asked these question because the way their IIR seeker with ATA work, you can input anything in their library and they will seek out that
7D993DC8-AB11-4EA5-A9E5-2EAAE670A6B2.jpeg
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3644
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post03 Dec 2018, 06:53

We don't have enough information about the missile at this point. We don't know how fast it can go at altitude or what it's maximum altitude is. The 474-8 can do 0.92M at 50,000ft.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 600
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post03 Dec 2018, 10:35

They can't
JSM and NSM both use TR40 engine with 16.400 feet maximum operating altitude

JSM engine.PNG


LRASM use F107-WR-105 turbofan engine with 30.000 feet absolute operating altitude
LRASM engine.PNG

LRASM engine 2.PNG


MALD and JSOW-ER use TJ-150 turbojet engine with 29.500 feet maximum operating altitude
MALD.PNG
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3644
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post03 Dec 2018, 14:22

Excellent work garrya.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1516
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post03 Dec 2018, 14:59

Why don’t these engine work at higher altitude ?
Offline

pron

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 87
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 19:28

Unread post03 Dec 2018, 16:42

garrya wrote:They can't
JSM and NSM both use TR40 engine with 16.400 feet maximum operating altitude



The NSM uses the TR40, but they switched to Williams WJ38-7K for the JSM.

Janes IDR Dec 14 report on JSM says that the NSM TR-40 was replaced by a Williams WJ38-7K on the JSM partly because the JSM fuselage had to be narrowed to fit the F35 bombay and partly to attract US interest in selecting it for the F35A and F35C.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4776
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Dec 2018, 19:41

If you want something like this see MALI:

"The MALI (Maniature Air-Launched Interceptor) was an armed derivative of MALD, for possible use against cruise missiles. MALI had a sharper nose profile, increased wing swep, and a more powerful (0.53 kN (120 lb) thrust) TJ-50M engine for short supersonic performance. An IIR (Imaging Infrared) seeker was used for terminal homing on the target, and mid-course guidance was via a command link to air surveillance platforms like the E-3 AWACS. The MALI has undergone a test and development program, which ended in December 2002, when the first supersonic flight was made. "

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-160.html

NewsMedia_229279.jpg
"There I was. . ."
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1516
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post04 Dec 2018, 02:15

sferrin wrote:If you want something like this see MALI:

"The MALI (Maniature Air-Launched Interceptor) was an armed derivative of MALD, for possible use against cruise missiles. MALI had a sharper nose profile, increased wing swep, and a more powerful (0.53 kN (120 lb) thrust) TJ-50M engine for short supersonic performance. An IIR (Imaging Infrared) seeker was used for terminal homing on the target, and mid-course guidance was via a command link to air surveillance platforms like the E-3 AWACS. The MALI has undergone a test and development program, which ended in December 2002, when the first supersonic flight was made. "

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-160.html

The attachment NewsMedia_229279.jpg is no longer available

That what i thought about, unfortunately, it was cancelled
Furthermore, i can't find even a single photo of MALI, even artist drawing is extremely rare, i have no idea what the system looks like.
Flying missile rail seem like a good alternative?
fmr.PNG

SBIR.PNG

4555.PNG
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1956
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post04 Dec 2018, 12:48

F-15 would be a better launch platform. You could double your weight and scale performance upwards.

If it's a cylinder with fold out wings you are more flexible in delivery options. Flying wings impair carriage of other ordnance.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4776
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post04 Dec 2018, 14:13

madrat wrote:If it's a cylinder with fold out wings you are more flexible in delivery options. Flying wings impair carriage of other ordnance.


The Russians are pretty much the expert there. Compare the compactness of P-700 (Shipwreck) and P-750 (Meteorite), with multiple hinge points (and both tube-launched), to something like Regulus 2 with none (and needed a friggin' hangar):

P-700.jpg


Kh-80.jpg


Graybackmissle.jpg
"There I was. . ."
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1516
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post05 Dec 2018, 10:02

madrat wrote:F-15 would be a better launch platform. You could double your weight and scale performance upwards.

What do you mean?
Offline

zhangmdev

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post05 Dec 2018, 17:37

Airliners use huge turbofan engines with very high bypass ratio to optimize high altitude cruise. Those very small turbofans on cruise missiles don't have enough size/frontal-area/mass-flow-rate to opearate in the thin air efficiently.
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1956
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post06 Dec 2018, 02:07

eloise wrote:
madrat wrote:F-15 would be a better launch platform. You could double your weight and scale performance upwards.

What do you mean?


The F-15 has more ground and wing clearance, and a strong pair of hardpoints.
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 815
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post06 Dec 2018, 08:10

I always thought using a cruise missile to intercept targets at long ranges would be effective, unless your defensive then you prob want more speed. I figured for effectiveness against both fighters and support aircraft you would need a sub munition system. Basically big missile carries a (few) little missile a long distance from the shooter and then unleashes his friends. Gives you a more nimble missiles to go after fighters, and gives you multiple missiles (potentially) to go after larger support aircraft increasing chances of hits against counter measures. Submuntion prob adds to much complexity, plus the need has kinda fallen in my eyes since the west is going heavy stealth. I could see it coming back but not till later in the F-35's life and who knows what it will be packing for sensors and stealth upgrades by then.

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], milosh and 14 guests