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.
User avatar
Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

by eloise » 02 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


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5988
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
Location: Nashua NH USA

by sprstdlyscottsmn » 03 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
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer


Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

by garrya » 03 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


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5988
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
Location: Nashua NH USA

by sprstdlyscottsmn » 03 Dec 2018, 14:22

Excellent work garrya.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer


User avatar
Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

by eloise » 03 Dec 2018, 14:59

Why don’t these engine work at higher altitude ?


Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 458
Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 19:28

by pron » 03 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.


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5907
Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

by sferrin » 03 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
NewsMedia_229279.jpg (13.54 KiB) Viewed 22423 times
"There I was. . ."


User avatar
Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

by eloise » 04 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


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3768
Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

by madrat » 04 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.


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5907
Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

by sferrin » 04 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. . ."


User avatar
Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

by eloise » 05 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?


Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1557
Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

by zhangmdev » 05 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.


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3768
Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

by madrat » 06 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.


User avatar
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 883
Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

by geforcerfx » 06 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.



Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests