cruise missile aircraft

North Korea says it tested ‘super-large’ cruise missile warhead and new anti-aircraft missile

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea said Saturday it tested a “super-large” cruise missile warhead and a new anti-aircraft missile in a western coastal area as it expands military capabilities in the face of deepening tensions with the United States and South Korea.

North Korean state media said the country’s missile administration on Friday conducted a “power test” for the warhead designed for the Hwasal-1 Ra-3 strategic cruise missile and a test-launch of the Pyoljji-1-2 anti-aircraft missile. It said the tests attained an unspecified “certain goal.”

Photos released by the North’s official Korean Central News Agency showed at least two missiles being fired off launcher trucks at a runway.

North Korea conducted a similar set of tests Feb. 2, but at the time did not specify the names of the cruise missile or the anti-aircraft missile, indicating it was possibly seeing technological progress after testing the same system over weeks.

KCNA insisted Friday’s tests were part of the North’s regular military development activities and had nothing to do with the “surrounding situation.”

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula are at their highest in years, with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un dialing up his weapons demonstrations, which have included more powerful missiles aimed at the U.S. mainland and U.S. targets in the Pacific. The United States, South Korea and Japan have responded by expanding their combined military training and sharpening their deterrence strategies built around strategic U.S. assets.

Cruise missiles are among a  growing collection of North Korean weapons  designed to overwhelm regional missile defenses. They supplement the North’s vast lineup of ballistic missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at the continental United States.

Analysts say anti-aircraft missile technology is an area where North Korea could benefit from its  deepening military cooperation with Russia , as the two countries align in the face of their separate, intensifying confrontations with the U.S. The United States and South Korea have accused North Korea of providing artillery shells and other equipment to Russia to help extend its warfighting in Ukraine.

The Associated Press

• The Inventory

Why Boeing's Design For A 747 Full Of Cruise Missiles Makes Total Sense

After the Carter Administration's cancellation of the B-1A program due to fiscal concerns, the rise of air-launched cruise missiles and the possibility of developing a stealth bomber, Boeing put forward a low-risk, relatively cheap, cruise missile delivery vehicle alternative based on the mighty 747 . It was called the Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft, or CMCA for short.

Related Content

The idea was relatively simple, turn the premier long-range commercial hauler into an arsenal ship capable of carrying between 50 and 100 air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs). At the time the AGM-86 air-launched cruise missile was all the rage (it is still in service today) so the 747 CMCA concept was built with the 21ft winged missile in mind.

The configuration was fairly straight forward, the design was based on the 747-200C, a nose-loading cargo derivative of the ubiquitous airliner, with nine rotary launchers mounted on tracks inside of the stripped-out cabin. Each rotary launcher would hold eight missiles, and they could be slid back into a launching position at the rear right side of the aircraft via the help of an overhead handling system.

A bay door on the right side of the 747's tail cone would open and an ejector system would punch the missiles out into the air stream and send them on their way either one at a time, or in rapid succession.

In this configuration, a single 747 CMCA could launch 72 AGM-86 ALCMs on a single sortie, which is absolutely impressive considering a B-52 can carry up to 20. Satellite data links and other forms of communication could have allowed for the CMCA's missiles to be re-programmed from external sources while the aircraft was already in flight. The "hump" area behind the cockpit that is usually reserved for first class passengers on airline versions of the 747 had enough square footage that limited command and control and network relay functions could be added to the basic CMCA concept.

Seeing as the range of the AGM-86 is between 500 and 1500 miles, depending on version of missile and the weight and type of the warhead it carries, which can be up to 3,000lbs, the 747 CMCA could launch massive salvos of independently targeted cruise missiles at enemy targets while staying safely outside of the enemy's airspace and zone of control. Most importantly, it could do this in an economic fashion after traveling thousands of miles from its home base, and even the 747's already massive range could be extended with aerial refueling.

Boeing saw the 747 design as has having a decent chance of success with the USAF for the CMCA mission seeing as the service was already purchasing the E-4 "Nightwatch" airborne command posts , which were based on the same airframe.

In the end, the 747 CMCA was passed over, with the B-1 being revived by the Reagan Administration as well as the B-2 being procured semi-clandestinely under what would become the Advanced Tactical Bomber program . The B-52 fleet also received some capability upgrades as well. The iconic bomber was already considered geriatric some 35 years ago, yet it would remain as America's primary air-launched cruise missile delivery platform for another three decades, with no end in sight.

In retrospect it would seem that choosing not to develop the CMCA was a poor move. Such an aircraft, especially if it were eventually upgraded to carry smaller GPS guided munitions, would have been an extremely effective weapon system to have orbiting high over Afghanistan and Iraq.

When it comes to the loitering weapons platform mission, the CMCAs could have operated at much lower cost than the B-1 or B-52 force during both those wars. Additionally, the arsenal ship concept was really ahead of its time when the CMCA was put forward, as smart munitions, especially those guided by GPS, were some twenty years from being fielded operationally.

Additional proof as to the 747 CMCA's great potential can be seen in a similar and highly successful cruise missile carrying arsenal ship concept of recent times, albeit one that is at home far beneath the ocean's surface instead of high up above it. This being the conversion of America's oldest Ohio Class nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) into nuclear guided missile submarines (SSGNs).

Turning the world's most deadly weapon of all time into BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile slinging arsenal ship was a fairly unconventional move for the US Navy, but one that has proved to be a huge success. Instead of simply retiring the first four Ohio Class ballistic missile subs, which were capable of firing 24 Trident SLBMs, the Navy reworked them to carry 154 Tomahawks and as a many as 66 US Navy SEALs and their equipment.

What was once the ultimate in Cold War era mutually assured destruction (MAD) capability became a conventional weapon of modern times. The SSGNs offering a "war in a box" to be deployed undetected off of any coastline for over a month at a time, all the while being able to strike strategic targets close to 1,000 miles inland, not to mention making an enemy's shores and ports vulnerable to Frogmen raids and surveillance missions.

The SSGN concept was proven highly effective in Libya during Operation Odyssey Dawn, which would eventually lead to Qaddafi's fall from power. During the multi-national effort the USS Florida launched a whopping 93 Tomahawks , 45% of the total for the campaign , and had a success rate of 90 out of 93 targets totally destroyed.

Like the Ohio Class SSGN that has just found its stride in the modern era of smaller wars, countries with questionable intentions, and the 'pivot' towards the Pacific Theater, the 747 CMCA could offer an incredibly relevant long-range strike capability today. Being able to load a 747 with close to 100 air launched cruise missiles, that can be fired off 1,000 miles off the coast of an enemy country, namely China, would offer a very survivable and credible threat without the extremely high costs of developing or even operating a purpose-built military bomber. Nor could any military bomber from the past or on the design table for the future hold nearly as many ALCMs as Boeing 747 CMCA concept.

For every CMCA based on the 747-200C, you would need 4 B-52s to hit the same amount of targets. Seeing as the 747 is widely used for commercial operations, is equipped with fuel-efficient high-bypass turbofan engines, has ongoing product support and a solid global logistics train, the cost and reliability difference of operating it compared to four B-52s would be monumental. If a new CMCA were developed based on the larger and more efficient 747-800F, the B-52 would look even less attractive as the CMCA could carry even more missiles, farther and for less money per mile.

In the maritime strike role an aircraft like the 747 CMCA could wreak havoc on enemy flotillas operating thousands of miles out to sea. Using an external targeting source, namely the MQ-4C TritonBroad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) version of the Northrop Grumman Global Hawk, and satellites, the CMCA could ripple close to a hundred network-enabled, long-range anti-ship cruise missiles at the enemy force. In doing so it would provide so many targets that the enemy's naval air defenses would be overwhelmed.

With Lockheed's new stealthy LRASM, which will be smaller than the AGM-86, a single CMCA could potentially launch well over 100, and more like 150, of these smart anti-ship missiles on a single mission. With LRASM's low radar and infrared signature, and its ability to actively avoid detection, or even kill an offending radar emitter when working in conjunction with other LRASMs, as well as the shear quantity that the CMCA could theoretically unleash, it would be doubtful that a enemy carrier group could survive such an onslaught.

Once the enemy's metaphorical door is kicked down, and air superiority is largely gained, the CMCA can go to work providing close air support for multiple operations separated by as many as 100 miles. Acting once again as an arsenal ship, just not a cruise missile carrying one, the CMCA can have various munitions loaded into its belly, including ones that can glide over 50 miles from their launch point.

In such a configuration, the CMCA's rotary racks could contain 500lb, 1,000lb, and 2,000lb JDAMs , while another rack holds dozens of Small Diameter Bombs , and yet another could hold low yield AGM-176 Griffin missiles. Even larger glide weapons, such as the Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW) , could also be carried and rapidly targeted to hit large targets dozens of miles away and a small lot of JASSM or SLAM-ER cruise missiles could be carried for contingency time-sensitive strike on regional targets.

With the addition of an off the shelf targeting pod, such as the Sniper XR, the CMCA, like its B-52 and B-1 cousins, could also deliver laser guided munitions, generate targeting coordinates for its JDAMs, and provide electro-optical surveillance for ground forces far below.

Seeing as the 747 based CMCA would not be carrying anywhere near the weight that it would with a full load of large air launched cruise missiles, extra fuel can be carried so that the CMCA can provide armed assistance from on high for potentially dozens of hours at a time, all with commercial airliner economy and reliability.

The massive internal capacity of the CMCA would allow for other missions to be done concurrently with the arsenal ship role, including command and control, communications relay, line-of-sight UAV control, or even more elaborate intelligence gathering tasks. Because the 747 can be equipped with a front-loading tilt-up nose, entire containers that could contain full mission suites could be loaded onto the CMCA in addition to weaponry for true multi-role capability. In other words, the CMCA's potential is just not one of a standoff missile launcher, but also as a close air support arsenal ship and multi-role roll-on/roll-off mission module carrier.

Although the original 747 CMCA was never built, in many ways it was a highly logical and commercially available option that was far ahead of its time, as without other types of guided munitions it was really a niche capability. Today, with so many types of smart weapons available, both that are fired at standoff and at close ranges, the CMCA could prove its value in many different missions, and when it was not hauling bombs or cruise missiles it could haul pallets of freight or the aforementioned missionized containers.

Today, even the USAF's AC-130 gunships, which traditionally bristle with direct-fire cannons, are becoming indirect-fire bombers in their own right, and the Navy's new P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft has a latent but very potent bomber and standoff attack capability as well. Yet none of these aircraft possess the volume of fire or incredible heavy weapons hauling capability of a 747 based arsenal ship.

With the way budgets are collapsing in on weapons programs, and with the USAF's questionably optimistic cost and inventory goals for their next generation stealth bomber , now known as the Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B), maybe Boeing would be smart to have 747 CMCA reemerge to fill in the inventory gap that may be left by another stealth bomber that is too expensive to buy in the numbers requested by the USAF (just read anything about how B-2 become known as the "two billion dollar bomber!). Although, don't expect this to happen unless Boeing (partnered with Lockheed) loses the LRS-B competition to Northrop Grumman.

Come to think of it, I know of an incredibly low hour 747 freighter that the USAF already blew billions on for a way more risky and less technological relevant or logical program than the CMSA concept, that being the Airborne Laser Program, the result of which was the still-born YAL-1.

Currently that YAL-1 is being used as an umbrella for rattle snakes at the DoD's mega boneyard, known as AMARG , located next to Davis Monthan AFB in Tucson, AZ. Maybe putting it to use as an arsenal ship testbed would be better than letting it rot out there, but like all things military these days the question is "where will the money come from?" Well it will materialize rapidly if that next generation bomber currently in development ends up costing a billion dollars per copy even before its production numbers get slashed and it enters a DoD "death spiral."

Although it is by no means stealthy, who would doubt that in this modern era where stealth technology's tactical edge is eroding, and with the challenges of area denial and anti-access warfare looming in the Pacific, that a 747 CMCA would not be an incredibly powerful and relevant weapon system to possess. When a 747-800 based CMCA packing close to 100 long-range stealthy cruise missiles flies all the way across the Pacific Ocean without the need of tanker gas, and devastates 100 strategic enemy targets in a single volley with minimal risk to its operators lives, stealth really doesn't even matter at all does it?

Wait, why again isn't the USAF knocking on Boeing's door for this thing like yesterday?

Pictures via USAF, Boeing, public domain.

Tyler Rogoway is a defense journalist and photographer who maintains the website Foxtrot Alpha for Jalopnik.com You can reach Tyler with story ideas or direct comments regarding this or any other defense topic via the email address [email protected].

Advertisement

Air Warfare

• Cyber (Opens in new window)
• C4ISR (Opens in new window)
• Training & Sim
• Asia Pacific
• Mideast Africa
• The Americas
• Top 100 Companies
• Defense News Weekly
• Money Minute
• Whitepapers & eBooks (Opens in new window)
• DSDs & SMRs (Opens in new window)
• Webcasts (Opens in new window)
• Events (Opens in new window)
• Newsletters (Opens in new window)
• Events Calendar
• Early Bird Brief
• Digital Edition (Opens in new window)

US Air Force blows up a target with a cruise missile from a cargo plane

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force on Thursday destroyed a target in the Gulf of Mexico with a cruise missile launched from the back of a cargo aircraft, marking the first live-fire test of its Rapid Dragon program .

The final flight test of Rapid Dragon, which took place at the overwater test range at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, marks a step forward in the Air Force Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation office’s “bomb bay in a box” effort to develop a palletized munition system.

The Air Force Research Laboratory said in a Thursday release the program could lead to the U.S. and allies being able to turn cargo aircraft into heavily armed bomb trucks, as well as give combatant commanders more firepower to turn on enemy targets from a safe distance.

Last month, the Air Force carried out a similar test with an unarmed long-range cruise missile separation test vehicle, which had no warhead or engine.

This time, the cruise missile carried by an Air Force Special Operations Command MC-130J Commando II aircraft was armed, AFRL said in the release. The battle management system on the MC-130 received new targeting data in-flight, and then that data was routed to the cruise missile flight test vehicle. This was the first time new targeting data was received and uploaded to a live cruise missile during a flight.

When the MC-130 had reached the drop zone over the Gulf of Mexico, its crew airdropped the palletized munition system containing a single cruise missile, and three weights simulating the mass and shape of cruise missiles.

A parachute deployed to stabilize the falling Rapid Dragon system, and the missile and three dummy weights began to release sequentially to avoid collisions. The way in which the cruise missile separated from the deployment box this time was “unconventional,” AFRL said — it deployed vertically, with its nose down.

The cruise missile immediately sprung its wings and tail, got aerodynamic control of itself, fired up its engine and pulled up under the engine’s power. It then headed toward its target, which it destroyed upon impact, AFRL said.

Now that AFRL proved it can deploy a cruise missile in this way, it hopes to show the palletized weapon system can work with other aircraft. The next Rapid Dragon experiment is scheduled for spring 2022 in a live-fire test with a cruise missile from a C-17 Globemaster.

AFRL said the retargeting methods developed for Rapid Dragon are meant to be adaptable to other strike and mobility platforms. Airmen would be able to roll Rapid Dragon on or off a mobility aircraft without modifying the plane, AFRL said last month.

The Air Force hopes to further broaden Rapid Dragon’s capabilities so the carriage can house additional weapons systems and multiple types of weapons. Two years from now, the Air Force wants to bring this program from a developmental prototype to an operational prototype.

AFRL pointed to the quick development of Rapid Dragon as an example of how government and industry can quickly produce results when collaborating. This live-fire test came five months after the Rapid Dragon team conducted a system-level flight test, which itself came 10 months after the Air Force and its industry partners designed it.

Rapid Dragon has held five flight tests on three different aircraft — the MC-130J, the EC-130SJ and the C-17A — over the last five months.

“This type of experimentation campaign, that address[es] capability gaps and demonstrates transformative efforts, helps us shape future requirements and reduces timeline to fielding,” AFRL Commander Maj. Gen. Heather Pringle said in the release. “This approach ultimately enables a rapid fielding alternative to traditional lengthy acquisition timelines.”

Other contributors to the recent test include the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren, the Standoff Munitions Application Center, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Systima Technologies, R4 Integration, and the Safran Electronics and Defense subsidiary Parachutes USA.

Stephen Losey is the air warfare reporter for Defense News. He previously covered leadership and personnel issues at Air Force Times, and the Pentagon, special operations and air warfare at Military.com. He has traveled to the Middle East to cover U.S. Air Force operations.

More In Air Warfare

Saab unveils technology incubator using Enforcer 3 as test bed

“we are trying to get capability to the fleet in months,” said erik smith, the chief executive of saab's u.s. branch..

Lockheed to supply Australia with air battle management system

Overhauling australia’s overhead defenses is expected to generate hundreds of local jobs as well as open the door to a multibillion-dollar export market..

Defense Innovation Unit prepares to execute $800 million funding boost

Diu director doug beck said he doesn’t foresee any issues with quickly putting to work the $983 million in fy-24 funding congress provided in march..

Army may swap AI bill of materials for simpler ‘baseball cards’

"we know innovation's happening in the open-source environment," said the army's bharat patel. "we also know who's contributing to the open source.".

How L3Harris is shoring up its small satellite supply chain

The president of l3harris’ space systems sector, recently sat down with c4isrnet to discuss the challenges of developing a diverse yet mature supply base., featured video, military times’ 2024 service members of the year.

From combat medic to Paralympian: What drives Ellie Marks?

The Navy petty officer ensuring the Carney stays focused on the fight

Ukraine-born airman’s translations aided allied efforts as war erupted

Trending now, here are the two companies creating drone wingmen for the us air force, us army faces uphill battle to fix aviation mishap crisis, first upgraded f-35s won’t be ready for combat until next year, as the us air force fleet keeps shrinking, can it still win wars, congress sends ukraine, israel, taiwan aid package to president’s desk.

The World’s First Hypersonic Cruise Missile Will Fly 20 Times Faster Than the Competition

Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) will be the first scramjet-powered weapon to enter production.

• Unlike most cruise missiles, however, this one travels way faster than the speed of sound , with the capability to fly at speeds in excess of Mach 5.
• Exactly how fast the new Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile will be remains a mystery.

The Pentagon has plenty of cruise missiles in its arsenal, from the long-serving Tomahawk to the new JASSM-ER . But a new missile set to enter service in 2027 is radically different: the new Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) will fly up to 20 times faster, giving adversaries little time to escape its wrath. HACM will be the first mass-produced weapon to use air-breathing scramjet engines.

Raytheon and Northrop Grumman won a contract worth $985 million to develop the world’s first hypersonic cruise missile. HACM, developed for the United States and Australia, is an air-launched hypersonic cruise missile designed to quickly strike targets on the ground. Under the terms of the contract, the Pentagon should see the first operational missiles in 2027.

In 2020, the U.S. and Australia jointly began the Southern Cross Integrated Flight Research Experiment partnership, or SCIFiRE. Named after the constellation that appears on Australia’s national flag, SCIFiRE was meant to develop an air-breathing hypersonic weapon system designed to be carried on both U.S. and Australian aircraft, including the F/A-18 Super Hornet , F-35A Joint Strike Fighter , P-8A Poseidon aircraft, and others. The contract will mature the Raytheon SCIFiRE prototype into an actual weapon system.

HACM is a tactical weapon designed to be used on day one of a large-scale conventional conflict . “HACM will provide our commanders with tactical flexibility to employ fighters to hold high-value, time-sensitive targets at risk while maintaining bombers for other strategic targets,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown said in an Air Force statement last week.

Traditional cruise missiles are basically pilotless aircraft. Like many aircraft, turbofan engines power cruise missiles, propelling them at subsonic speeds. Cruise missiles fly low to avoid radar detection, and a slower speed helps them fly lower and hug the ground. Tomahawk cruise missiles , for example, fly at an altitude of between 98 and 164 feet at a speed of 550 miles per hour.

HACM is a hypersonic weapon, which means it flies at Mach 5 or faster—but we don’t know exactly how much faster it will fly. Most missiles that remain in the atmosphere, like air-to-air missiles , top out at around Mach 3+. SCIFiRE was descended from the earlier HIFiRE program , which tested a scramjet engine at speeds up to Mach 8.

HACM will be the world’s first operational weapon system to use a scramjet engine . Like turbofan engines, scramjets scoop up oxygen from the surrounding atmosphere to use as fuel. One key difference between the two is that a turbofan engine scoops up oxygen at subsonic speeds, while a scramjet scoops it up at supersonic speeds. More oxygen means more fuel for the scramjet engine, which enables it to propel the missile even faster. According to NASA , scramjet engines should work to at least Mach 15. That translates to 11,509 miles per hour, or fast enough to circle Earth in about two hours.

Hypersonic weapons are the new hotness in warfare. Most of the avowed nuclear powers have technically had hypersonic weapons for a half-century or more, as the ballistic missiles that carry nuclear warheads travel at hypersonic speeds, impacting their targets at up to 15,000 miles per hour. This new generation of hypersonic weapons is different in that it is non-nuclear in nature—at least so far—and would be used immediately in a conventional war.

There’s a lot we don’t know about HACM. We don’t know how fast it really flies, or how far it flies. All we know is it is small enough to be carried by a fighter jet and will be ready by 2027. One thing is for sure: HACM is awkward and we need a better name for it.

Kyle Mizokami is a writer on defense and security issues and has been at Popular Mechanics since 2015. If it involves explosions or projectiles, he's generally in favor of it. Kyle’s articles have appeared at The Daily Beast, U.S. Naval Institute News, The Diplomat, Foreign Policy, Combat Aircraft Monthly, VICE News , and others. He lives in San Francisco.

.css-cuqpxl:before{padding-right:0.3125rem;content:'//';display:inline;} Pop Mech Pro: Military .css-xtujxj:before{padding-left:0.3125rem;content:'//';display:inline;}

China Could Rule the Seas With This New Tech

This Is the Most Lethal Submarine in the Sea

The Most Expensive Plane Crash in History

Can America’s Aging F-16 Overpower Russia’s Su-35?

Get to Know the Marines’ Favorite Ride

Meet the Navy’s New Radar-Killing Missile

Could the U.S. Army Fight and Win Without Tanks?

Why This Armored Vehicle Is the Army’s Unsung Hero

Why the U.S. Air Force Wants Flying Jeeps

Everything You Need to Know About Camouflage

Can We Turn Subs Into Undersea Aircraft Carriers?

• Mission Statement
• Advisors to the Board
• Military Fellows
• Jobs at MDAA
• Arizona AETOS ’25
• Hawai’i Space Science Initiative
• USC SHIELD ’24
• USC SHIELD ’23
• USC SHIELD ’22
• USC SHIELD Alerts
• USC SHIELD in the News
• 2024 European Missile Defender of the Year and Regional IAMD Coalitions Conference
• Ronald Reagan Missile Defense Site, Vandenberg SFB
• Kauai Veteran’s Eternal Memorial and Missile Defense Viewing Site
• Lessons Learned Series
• Write Your Representative
• April 12th, 2022 U.S. Missile Defense – An Overview of Past, Current, and Future Roles and Responsibilities
• Virtual CRT: U.S. Missile Defense – An Overview of Past, Current, and Future Roles and Responsibilities
• MDAA Alert: The Roles and Responsibilities of Missile Defense
• Threat News
• Missile Defense News
• Air Defense News
• MDAA in the News
• Threat Basics
• Ukrainian War Updates
• Taiwan Incursion Updates
• Global Missile Tracker
• Space Threats Updates
• Notable Missile Tests
• Combat Launches
• Future Missile Threats
• U.S. Missile Defense
• Missile Defense of U.S. Partners
• Missile Defense Intercept Test Record
• Operational Intercepts by System
• Future BMD Systems
• Discontinued Programs
• U.S. Air Defense
• Air Defense of U.S. Partners
• Future Air Defense Systems
• Alerts Archive
• MDAA U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense Overview
• MDAA System/Issue Briefs
• MDAA Country Briefs
• Foreign Military Sales by Country
• 3D Panoramas
• Additional Resources

• Cruise Missile Basics

What is a cruise missile?

Cruise missiles, although similar to ballistic missiles in some regards, provide an alternate means to deliver a lethal payload rapidly and accurately to a target. Cruise missiles differ from ballistic missiles in that they fly towards their target at lower altitudes, remaining within the Earth’s atmosphere throughout their trajectory. Cruise missiles are defined as “an unmanned self-propelled guided vehicle that sustains flight through aerodynamic lift for most of its flight path and whose primary mission is to place an ordnance or special payload on a target.” [1] Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned control-guided helicopters or aircraft can be included in this definition [2] , but will not be discussed on this page.

The cruise missile has its beginnings in World War I, when the U.S. Army developed the Kettering Bug, an unmanned aerial bomb designed to strike targets beyond the range of artillery and too dangerous for piloted aircraft. However, the Kettering Bug was never used in combat. [3] Instead, the modern cruise missile originates more from the V-1 Flying Bomb used by the Germany in the last months of World War II. [4]

Launch Platforms

Cruise missiles are capable of being launched from multiple ground, air, sea and submarine platforms. Both fighter and long-range bomber aircraft are capable of carrying and launching cruise missiles. [5] On the ground, cruise missiles are most commonly launched by road-mobile systems due to the inherent advantages of mobility, but they can also be launched from fixed platforms. [6]

Russian warships in the Caspian Sea launch Kalibr cruise missiles towards targets inside Syria.

At sea, various surface ships and submarines can launch cruise missiles. Submarines are capable of launching while surfaced or submerged using torpedo fixtures or vertical launch tubes. [7] In April 2010 Kontsern-Morinformsistema-Agat, a Russian company, began marketing a version of the Russian Kalibr cruise missile housed in and capable of being launched from a standard shipping container. [8] This would allow any vehicle capable of carrying a standard shipping container to become a discreet platform from which to launch cruise missiles. [9]

Propulsion and Flight

Cruise missiles utilize jet engines as their primary method of propulsion. Most cruise missiles are subsonic and use Turbofan and Turbojet engines. While less common, supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles utilize Ramjet and Scramjet engines. [10] Some also use rocket motor propulsion as a booster in the first phase of flight [11]  or to accelerate to supersonic speeds in the terminal phase. [12]

Cruise missiles can fly to their targets at varying altitudes as long as they remain within the atmosphere. The trajectory of most remains close to the Earth’s surface, sometimes skimming just meters above the ground. Their low flight path makes it much harder for most radar and sensor systems to detect the missile, unless the radar or sensor system is airborne and directed towards the ground. [13] Some cruise missiles will fly only at high altitudes and dive sharply down once they reach their target. Flying at high altitude can extend the range of the missile because it’s more fuel-efficient than flying at lower altitudes. However, this also makes the missile more susceptible to missile defense systems since today’s radars and sensors are typically positioned to detect and track high altitude threats. [14] Cruise missiles can also mix their flight trajectory between high and low altitude in order to get the benefits of both. In this instance, cruise missiles will typically fly at a high altitude early in their flight to help extend their range, but as they approach their target, or missile defenses, they will fly down to a lower sea skimming/terrain hugging altitude to help it evade detection and defenses. [15]

Flight test of Pakistan’s Ra’ad cruise missile.

Cruise missiles can use multiple guidance methods in order to accurately place their ordinance on the desired target and avoid missile defense systems. One of the first methods used by cruise missiles was inertial guidance, which is still used today and allows the missile to fly along a flight path programmed prior to launch. [16] Another guidance method is terrain contour matching (TERCOM), which compares a terrain map to the current terrain the missile is flying over to ensure the missile is flying on the correct path. [17] Some use GPS systems, which require connection to either GPS or GLONASS satellite system, but can help ensure the missile follows the correct flight path and strikes the final target using specific coordinates with a high degree of accuracy. [18]

Other guidance methods are primarily used in the terminal phase of flight to increase accuracy. One is a laser guided system which uses a sensor to detect its target painted by a laser, however this can be unreliable because dust and smoke can interfere with the laser or the missile may not always be able to see the laser or painted target. [19] Another terminal guidance method is TV guidance, in which an operator uses a camera in the nose of the missile to visually identify and manually guide the missile to the target in its final phase. This method also gives the operator the option to abort the strike in the final phase if an anomaly is detected. [20]  A radar seeker is also used in the nose of some missiles to identify and/or keep the missile on target in the terminal phase. These radar seekers use either passive radar, which detect radar emissions of their target, or active radar, which emit their own radar to detect their target. [21] Infrared (IR) guidance – directing the missile towards heat emitting objects, such as engines [22] – may also be used by cruise missiles in the terminal phase. [23] However, because of its simplicity, IR guidance cannot differentiate between friendly, adversarial, or extraneous IR signals in a crowded battlefield, and is usually used in conjunction with other guidance systems. [24] The last guidance system used by cruise missiles is Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation (DSMAC), which uses a camera in the missile to find the desired target and match it to a stored image using an image correlator. [25]

Cruise missiles are typically armed with conventional or nuclear warheads, but can also be equipped with chemical or biological warheads. [26] The warhead weight and yield can vary widely, depending on the specific cruise missile and its mission.

[1] “Cruise Missiles.” Federation of American Scientists. http://fas.org/nuke/intro/cm/

[3] “Kettering Bug.” UAVGLOBAL. http://www.uavglobal.com/kettering-bug/ ; “War Machines: Cruise Missile.” National Geographic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD8Kr0f1tEY

[4] Hickman, Kennedy. “World War II: V-1 Flying Bomb.” About Education. http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/artillerysiegeweapons/p/v1.htm

[5] N.R.P. “Explained: How Cruise Missiles Work!” Defencyclopedia. https://defencyclopedia.com/2014/08/01/explained-how-cruise-missiles-work/

[8] Stott, Michael. “Deadly New Russian Weapon Hides in Shipping Container.” Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-weapon-idUSTRE63P2XB20100426

[9] Lewis, Jeffrey, Nikolai Sokov. “Sokov on Russian Cruise Missiles.” Arms Control Wonk. http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/207801/sokov-on-russian-cruise-missiles/

[11] Brain, Marshall. “How Cruise Missiles Work.” How Stuff Works. http://science.howstuffworks.com/cruise-missile.htm

[12] N.R.P. “Explained: How Cruise Missiles Work!” Defencyclopedia. https://defencyclopedia.com/2014/08/01/explained-how-cruise-missiles-work/

[22] Kopp, Carlo. “Heat-Seeking Missile Guidance.” Air Power Australia. http://ausairpower.net/TE-IR-Guidance.html

[23] N.R.P. “Explained: How Cruise Missiles Work!” Defencyclopedia. https://defencyclopedia.com/2014/08/01/explained-how-cruise-missiles-work/

[25] Brain, Marshall. “How Cruise Missiles Work.” How Stuff Works. http://science.howstuffworks.com/cruise-missile.htm

[26] “Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat.” Federation of American Scientists.   http://fas.org/irp/threat/missile/naic/part02.htm ; Norris, Robert S., Hans M. Kristensen. “Nuclear Cruise Missiles.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. http://bos.sagepub.com/content/63/6/60.full

Missile Threat and Proliferation

• Missile Payload Destruction Cost Comparisons
• Technological Threat Assessment
• War By 2025 Threat Analysis
• Ballistic Missile Basics
• Hypersonic Weapon Basics
• Rocket and Mortar Basics
• Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Basics
• Non-State Actors
• Israel-Hamas War Updates
• United States Incursion Tracker
• World Drone Comparison
• Dong Feng-16 (CSS-11)
• Dong Feng-15 (CSS-6)
• Dong Feng-11 (CSS-7)
• M-7 (8610)/CSS-8
• Dong Feng-12 (CSS-X-15)
• Dong Feng-3 (CSS-2)
• Dong Feng-21 (CSS-5)
• Dong Feng-21D (CSS-5)
• Dong Feng-26
• Dong Feng-4 (CSS-3)
• Dong Feng-5 (DF-5)
• Dong Feng-31 (CSS-10)
• Dong Feng-41(CSS-X-20)
• DH-10 / CJ-10
• Changjian-20 (CJ-20)
• DF-ZF Hypersonic Glide Vehicle
• Dong Feng-17
• Chinese Spy Balloons
• Hwasong-17/KN-27
• Pukguksong-3 (KN-26)
• KN-02 (Toksa)
• Hwasong-5 (Scud-B Variant)
• Hwasong-6 (Scud-C Variant)
• Hwasong-9 (Scud-ER/Scud-D Variant)
• Polaris-2 (Pukguksong-2/KN-15)
• Taepodong-1
• Hwasong-12/KN-17
• Taepodong-2
• KN-08 / Hwasong-13
• Hwasong-14/KN-20
• Hwasong-15/KN-22
• 3M22 Zircon
• Avangard (Hypersonic Glide Vehicle)
• RS-26 Rubezh
• OTR-21 Tochka (SS-21 Scarab)
• SS-1 Scud-A
• R-17 Elbrus (SS-1 Scud-B)
• S-300P Air and Missile Defense System
• S-300V Air and Missile Defense System
• S-400 Triumf Air Defense System
• SS-1d Scud-C
• R-17 VTO/SS-1e (Scud-D)
• Iskander-M (SS-26)
• Kh-47M2 Kinzhal (“Dagger”)
• SS-18 Satan/R-36M2 Voyevoda
• SS-19 Stiletto
• RS-12M Topol (SS-25 Sickle)
• SS-27 / Topol-M
• SS-27 Mod 2 / RS-24 Yars
• RS-28 Sarmat (Satan 2)
• AS-15 Kent (Kh-55 Granat)
• RK-55 Relief (SS-N-21 Sampson)
• 3M-54 Klub (SS-N-27 Sizzler)
• 3M-14 Kalibr (SS-N-30A)
• P-15 Termit (SS-N-2 Styx)
• P-6 Progress/SS-N-3C Shaddock
• P-120 Malakhit (SS-N-9 Siren)
• P-270 Moskit/SS-N-22 Sunburn
• P-500 Bazalt (SS-N-12 Sandbox)
• P-700 Granit/SS-N-19 “Shipwreck”
• KH-35 (SS-N-25 Switchblade)
• P-800 Oniks (SS-N-26 Strobile)
• P-1000 Vulkan
• R-29R / SS-N-18 Stingray
• R-29RM / SS-N-23 Skiff
• SS-N-30 Bulava
• Tondar-69 (M7, CSS-8)
• Natanz Enrichment Facility
• Fordow Uranium Enrichment Plant
• Arak Heavy Water Nuclear Reactor

International Cooperation

Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance

515 King Street Suite 330 Alexandria VA, 22314 Phone: 703.299.0060 [email protected]

Quick Links

• Privacy Policy

© Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance 2024

North Korea conducts cruise missile warhead test on Friday, KCNA says

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Reporting by Heekyong Yang and Josh Smith; Editing by Chris Reese and Bill Berkrot

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Kiribati's parliament has voted to remove Australian-born High Court Judge David Lambourne, who said on Friday the move was politically motivated and an attack on the independence of the Pacific Island nation's judiciary.

World Chevron

Mexican lawmakers approve new pension fund backed by president

Mexico's Senate approved the creation of a new pension fund on Thursday aimed at boosting payouts to the lowest-earning recipients.

• Missiles of the World
• The United States

AGM-86 Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM)

The AGM-86 Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) is a long-range, air-launched standoff missile designed to give U.S. bombers the ability to launch their payload from outside the range of anti-aircraft weapons. It is a central element of the United States strategic bomber force.

ALCM at a Glance

ALCM Development

The ALCM program began in the early 1970s, designed to give U.S. bombers the ability to launch their payload from outside the range of Soviet anti-aircraft weapons. The series includes several variants to allow for different payloads or ranges. There are currently around 500 ALCMs in the U.S. arsenal. 1

Over 3,000 AGM-86Bs were scheduled for procurement starting in 1982, but by 1986, production was terminated in favor of the AGM-129. Between 1982 and 1986, 1,715 AGM-86Bs were produced. 9 Currently, the stockpile has been reduced to around 528. In 1998, a life extension program was initiated to refurbish the nuclear warheads carried by the AGM-86B and is expected to keep them operational through 2030, until its expected replacement, the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO), enters service.

AGM-86C/D Conventional ALCM (CALCM) Variants

The AGM-86C CALCM is an AGM-86B without a nuclear payload. The existence of this model became known only after its use in the 1991 Gulf War. Starting in 1986, a total of 622 AGM-86s were converted to the conventional configuration. Several different variations have been manufactured including Block 1/-1A and the AGM-86D (Block 2). The conversion process entails replacing nearly every part including modifying the engine, updating the guidance systems, and removing the nuclear warhead.

Externally, all the AGM86-C variations are the same dimensions as the nuclear equipped AGM–86B. The base AGM-86C and AGM-86D have a launch weight of 1,750 kg, whereas the Block 1 weighs 200 kg more, at 1,950 kg. The warhead for the base AGM-86C is a high explosive (HE) unit weighing 910 kg; the Block 1 is a HE weighing 1,360 kg; and the Block 2 is a HE/penetration weighing 545 kg. All the models use inertial guidance with GPS updates. It has a reduced range (compared to the AGM-86B) of 1,200 km as a result of the heavier payload of conventional explosives.

• James O’Halloran, “AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) and CALCM,” in IHS Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons , December 20, 2012.
• Will Saetren, Ghosts of the Cold War: Rethinking the Need for a New Nuclear Cruise Missile , Ploughshares Fund, April 2016, 5.
• Saetren, Ghosts of the Cold War: Rethinking the Need for a New Nuclear Cruise Missile, 6.
• Military Today, “AGM-86 ALCM,” http://www.military–today.com/missiles/agm_86b_alcm.htm, Accessed 11/15/2016.
• James O’Halloran, “AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) and CALCM” in IHS Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons , December 20, 2012.
• “AGM-86B/C/D Missiles,” United States Air Force, May 24, 2010, http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=74.
• Airforce Technology. “B1 Lancer, Long-Range Strategic Bomber,” Accessed 28 November 2016, http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b-1b/.
• James O’Halloran “AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) and CALCM,” in IHS Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons , December 20, 2012.
• “AGM-86B/C/D Missiles.” United States Air Force. May 24, 2010.http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=74
• James O’Halloran, “AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) and CALCM,” in IHS Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons,  December 20, 2012.
• Masao Dahlgren, “US Retires CALCM Missile,” Missile Threat, Center for Strategic and International Studies, December 5, 2019, last modified December 5, 2019, https://missilethreat.csis.org/us-retires-calcm-missile/.

Homebase >

  Publications >

The Differences Between Unmanned Aircraft, Drones, Cruise Missiles and Hypersonic Vehicles

By lieutenant colonel, by lt col,  andreas,  schmidt.

Joint Air Power Competence Centre

 Andre

 haider.

• Additional Authors

Introduction

To define the impact of unmanned aerial systems on current and future NATO operations, it is very important to identify which kind or category of threats are included and which are not. This section will try to clarify this definition and will show that a clear classification is sometimes not easy to achieve.

A threat is typically defined as the combination of malevolent intent and the ability to put it into action. Further subcategories of this overarching term exist, such as ‘air threat’ to better describe the operational environment and to categorize or delineate measures, like ‘air defence’ to counter the respective threat. The set of all capabilities that qualify as air threats is so diverse and complex that no singular system can be used to execute air defence. Additionally, the question of what constitutes an air threat is not an easy one. Is an air threat any capability that uses the air as its main or final domain for effect delivery? If that were the case, a projectile from a rifle would be an air threat, which is not the case. However, the defence against larger projectiles like artillery shells or mortar rounds, which are a typical ground threat, finally became part of air defence considerations after Counter-Rocket-Artillery-Mortar (C-RAM) systems had been developed and fielded.

Defining Unmanned Aircraft

Since this document is about the threat of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), the term Unmanned Aircraft (UA) needs to be looked at. Currently, NATO defines UA as an aircraft that does not carry a human operator and which is operated remotely using various levels of automated functions. 1 UA can be expendable or recoverable and may carry lethal or non-lethal payloads. Of note, cruise missiles are categorically excluded from this NATO definition. As this definition is very broad, the term aircraft needs to be described for a better understanding. The ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) defines an aircraft as any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air other than the reactions of the air against the earth’s surface. 2

By this portrayal alone, all projectiles that only have initial propulsion and then just follow a ballistic trajectory (e.g. bullets, artillery shells, regular bombs or ballistic missiles) can be excluded from the aircraft category. For the purpose of this paper, also ordnance which uses aerodynamic lift or other interactions with the atmosphere just to extend the ballistic flight path will be excluded from the UA category as well. This removes threats like gliding bombs or hypersonic glide vehicles from the UA set, although they could be remotely operated and definitely possess automated functions. Emerging technologies (e.g. new propulsions, swarming or Artificial Intelligence) might create fringe threat sets, which generally show UA properties, but are currently not considered as such.

An extended definition proposal of Unmanned Aircraft (UA)

Vehicles that use aerostatic or aerodynamic lift, and overall don’t generally fly on a ballistic trajectory can be categorized as an aircraft. These vehicles can be propelled by a  motor (e.g. rotary or jet) to create lift and sustain flight. If these aircraft do not house a pilot within the airframe and are operated remotely using various levels of automated functions, they are considered an UA, excluding cruise missiles.

Cruise Missiles versus Unmanned Aircraft

In general, making the distinction between ordnance and UA is not useful, due to tremendous technical progress. These two categories are not exclusive anymore, while not every ordnance is a UA, a UA can be used as ordnance. In times of mass production, innovative propulsion systems and reliable effect delivery without a pilot on board, the idea of using the vehicle as ordnance itself became more prevalent. While the V1 in WWII initially had a CEP (Circular Error Probable) of more than 10 km and most use cases were aimed at producing terror, today´s cruise missiles have a CEP of 10 meters or less. The cost/benefit ratio between losing the UA while creating a certain effect or enabling it to deliver the same effect while remaining retrievable has shifted significantly in times of precise technological options and relatively cheap production cost, especially for small UA.

Drone versus Unmanned Aircraft

The terms ‘Unmanned Aircraft’ and ‘Drone’, as well as variations such as ‘Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)’ 3 or ‘Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA)’ 4 are often used interchangeably but are actually deliberately defined to reflect certain classes, attributions or certifications of the unmanned systems.

When having to counter these systems, the most relevant factors are overall system complexity and aircraft size. Therefore, this book summarizes the different categories and classes of unmanned systems under the following two terms:

Unmanned Aircraft

The term ‘Unmanned Aircraft’ describes the overall set of vehicles, as described above. However, this book uses the term ‘UA’ to address military systems falling into the NATO Class II and III categories. UA are typically part of a complex system that can include dedicated Ground Control Stations, Mission Control Elements, multiple aircrews, military-grade communication systems, as well as dedicated infrastructure for logistics and maintenance. UA are usually operated by well-trained personnel, often qualified pilots, to safely operate alongside other airspace users. When addressing not only the aircraft but also other system components or the system as a whole, this book uses the term ‘Unmanned Aircraft System’ or ‘UAS’.

The term ‘drone’ is commonly used and widely accepted in the civil domain for all kinds of unmanned systems. Hence, this book uses the term ‘drone’ to address all types of consumer and commercial systems, which are generally smaller and less complex than their military counterparts. ‘Drone’ implies that the system is typically operated by a single, not necessarily qualified individual, from a handheld remote control, in relatively close proximity to the aircraft, and under Line-of-Sight (LOS) conditions. Therefore, this book also uses ‘drone’ for most military systems falling into the NATO Class I category, as their size and complexity is quite comparable to commercially available consumer models and therefore require a similar approach when having to counter them.

‘Unmanned Aircraft’, Record #7915, NATO Terminology Database, [Online]. Available: https://nso.nato.int/natoterm/Web.mvc. [Accessed 15 Jul. 2019].

International civil aviation organization (icao), ‘international standards and recommended practices, annex 6, operation of aircraft, part i’, 25 feb. 2013. [online]. available: https://www.icao.int/safety/fatiguemanagement/frms%20tools/amend- ment%2037%20for%20frms%20sarps%20%28en%29.pdf. [accessed 15 jul. 2019]., the term unmanned aerial vehicle (uav) is no longer in use by nato but is often still used in the civil and public domain., the term remotely piloted aircraft (rpa) is used to indicate that the ua is required to be controlled by a pilot who has been trained and certified to the same standards as a pilot of a manned aircraft..

• About the authors
• Other chapters in this book

Related Publications

joined the German Air Force in 1993. After attending Officers School, he studied Computer Science at the German Armed Forces University in Munich. Since 1998 he built up an extensive background in Ground Based Air Defence, particularly the PATRIOT weapon system. He started as a Tactical Control Officer and subsequently held positions as Reconnaissance Officer, Battery Executive Officer and Battery Commander in various PATRIOT units. Furthermore, he had two non-consecutive assignments in Fort Bliss, Texas. The main task of his first assignment was to conduct bilateral US-GE studies of weapon system behaviour on a tactical level for the German PATRIOT Office.

During his second assignment, he was the Subject Matter Expert (SME) on Integrated Air and Missile Defence at the German Luftwaffe Air Defence Centre. In between, he had an assignment as the A3C in the former Air Force Division. Currently, he is the Integrated Air and Missile Defence / Ballistic Missile Defence SME in the JAPCC.

Lieutenant Colonel Haider began his military career with the German Armed Forces in April 1992. He initially served as a Personnel NCO in the 150th Rocket Artillery Battalion HQ. Following his promotion to Lieutenant in 1998, he took on the role of an MLRS platoon leader within the same battalion. After three years, he transitioned to the position of CIS Branch Head at the 150th Rocket Artillery Battalion HQ. Subsequently, Lieutenant Colonel Haider was assigned to the 325th Tank Artillery Battalion, where he served as a battery commander before assuming command of the maintenance and supply battery. In 2008, he was appointed as the commander of the maintenance and supply company within the 284th Signal Battalion. His responsibilities expanded in 2010 when he became the Deputy Commander of the German support staff for the 1st NATO Signal Battalion. As a follow-on assignment, he served as the Deputy Battalion Commander of the 132nd Rocket Artillery Battalion.

Since 2012, Lieutenant Colonel Haider has been a Subject Matter Expert for Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Countering Unmanned Aircraft Systems within the JAPCC Combat Air Branch. Lieutenant Colonel Haider represents the JAPCC in and contributes to several key NATO groups, including the NATO Joint Capability Group Unmanned Aircraft Systems, the NATO Counter-UAS Working Group, and the NATO Joint Capability Group Maritime Unmanned Systems.

Other Chapters in this Book

Part i - overview, unmanned aircraft system threat vectors, the vulnerabilities of unmanned aircraft system components, a methodology for countering unmanned aircraft systems, part ii - military perspectives, space operations, joint intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, defensive counter-air operations, offensive counter-air operations, electromagnetic operations, cyberspace operations, strategic communications, force protection considerations, command and control, education and training, part iii - civil perspectives, protection of critical infrastructure, cloud-based command and control for security and drone defence applications, drone forensics, law enforcement, part iv - legal perspectives, arms control of unmanned weapons systems, regulatory frameworks in support of counter-uas, the juridical landscape of countering unmanned aircraft systems, part v - future perspectives, future threats: military uas, terrorist drones, and the dangers of the second drone age, research, development, and acquisition of counter-uas technologies, employing friendly uas for counter-uas operations.

Drone Drills

Electronic Warfare in Ukraine

The Heart of Decision Superiority

It’s a Question of Gender!

Defining the Swarm

Human-Machine Interface: An Evolutionary Necessity

High-Altitude Platform Systems

Potential Game Changer for Close Air Support

Contact Information

Joint Air Power Competence Centre Römerstrasse 140 47546 Kalkar Germany

• +49 (0) 2824 90 2201
• North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
• Allied Command Operations (ACO)
• Allied Command Transformation (ACT)
• NATO Centres of Excellence

Collaboration

• SharePoint Environment
• JAPCC Webmail
• NATO Air & Space Power Community
• Request for Support
• 2005-2024 Joint Air Power Competence Centre

Quick Search

More results...

Please leave us a message

• Competencies
• Publications
• Legal Notice & Disclaimer
• Privacy Policy

Advertisement

The Simple Difference Between Ballistic Missiles and Cruise Missiles

• Share Content on Facebook
• Share Content on LinkedIn
• Share Content on Flipboard
• Share Content on Reddit
• Share Content via Email

In 2017, North Korea unexpectedly staged a test launch of what was then a new ballistic missile , the Pukguksong-2. The launch took place when Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was on a state visit to the United States . There have been many more test launches of ballistic missiles by North Korea since. Between May and October 2019, North Korea launched as many as 12 ballistic missiles or other projectiles. But they have all been just test launches.

Things got real, though, on Jan. 7, 2020, when Iran launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two Iraqi military bases housing U.S. troops. This was not a test launch. It was Iran's retaliation for the U.S. drone strike that killed Iran Gen. Qassem Soleimani on Jan. 3, 2020. There were no casualties and Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif defended the missile strike on the U.S. bases in Iraq, saying it was an act of "self-defense."

But for the non-military minded among us, these ballistic missile launches — both the constant test launches in North Korea and the intentional strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq — may raise a good question: What exactly is a ballistic missile, anyway? Is there something about the ballistic part that makes a missile even more dangerous? After all, when someone freaks out we say they've "gone ballistic."

According to the Federation of American Scientists , a ballistic missile is one that has a ballistic trajectory over most of its flight path. What that means is that once the missile burns up the fuel that propels it, the missile keeps moving, the same way that a bullet does after it's been fired out of a gun. Once the fuel is gone, the missile's direction can't be altered. It follows a path determined by the speed of its launch and the force of gravity trying to pull it back toward the Earth's surface. Eventually, gravity guides the missile — and its payload, which might be an explosive, a chemical or biological weapon, or a nuclear device — down toward its target.

Ballistic missiles are different than cruise missiles. Cruise missiles are self-propelled for the majority of their time in the air, flying in a relatively straight line and at lower altitudes thanks to a rocket propellant. Think of a ballistic missile's flight path as a large arc up and back down again, while that of a cruise missile — fired from a warship, for instance — is closer to a straight line.

Ballistic missiles first came into use during World War II, when the Germans used a ballistic missile called the V-2 to attack London. British air defenses designed to stop aircraft couldn't stop the V-2s, because the rockets traveled too high into the upper atmosphere and moved too fast.

After the war, the U.S., with the help of captured German technology and scientists, built its own arsenal of even more powerful intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) capable of unleashing nuclear destruction upon targets on the other side of the world. The Soviet Union and China built ICBMs as well, setting up a world where a nuclear war was deterred by the prospect of mutual assured destruction.

The North Korean regime successfully tested intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) in July and November 2017. Its Hwasong-15 ICBM reached an altitude of 2,780 miles (4,475 kilometers) and flew about 590 miles (1,000 kilometers) before landing in the sea off the coast of Japan. Analysts estimate the Hwasong-15 has a potential range of 8,100 miles (13,000 kilometers). If it's fired on a flatter trajectory, it could reach potentially reach anywhere on the U.S. mainland.

Which countries have intercontinental ballistic missiles?

What is meant by ballistic trajectory, what is difference between a ballistic and a cruise missile, how high do ballistic missiles fly, are ballistic missiles nuclear.

Please copy/paste the following text to properly cite this HowStuffWorks.com article:

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

North Korea says it tested ‘super-large’ cruise missile warhead and new anti-aircraft missile

Korean Central News Agency released photos showing at least two missiles being fired off launcher trucks on a runway. The missiles in the image were not identified. State media said North Korea’s missile administration on Friday conducted a ‘power test’ for the warhead designed for the Hwasal-1 Ra-3 strategic cruise missile and a test-launch of the Pyoljji-1-2 anti-aircraft missile.

The South Korean and U.S. air forces held joint air drills in Gunsan, South Korea on Friday, where they practiced ways to detect and counter enemy threats.

A TV screen shows an image of North Korea’s missile launch during a news program at the Seoul Railway Station in Seoul, South Korea, Saturday, April 20, 2024. North Korea said Saturday it tested a “super-large” cruise missile warhead and a new anti-aircraft missile in a western coastal area as it expands military capabilities in the face of deepening tensions with the United States and South Korea. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

• Copy Link copied

South Korean army soldiers pass by the barbed-wire fence in Paju, South Korea, near the border with North Korea, Friday, April 19, 2024. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

A U.S. Army soldier from the Eighth Army and South Korean army soldiers throw simulated grenades during the Expert Soldier, Infantry, and Medic Badge (E3B) competition at the Rodriguez Live Fire Complex in Pocheon, South Korea, Friday, April 19, 2024. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

U.S. Army soldiers from the Eighth Army compete during the Expert Soldier, Infantry, and Medic Badge (E3B) competition at the Rodriguez Live Fire Complex in Pocheon, South Korea, Friday, April 19, 2024. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea said Saturday it tested a “super-large” cruise missile warhead and a new anti-aircraft missile in a western coastal area as it expands military capabilities in the face of deepening tensions with the United States and South Korea.

North Korean state media said the country’s missile administration on Friday conducted a “power test” for the warhead designed for the Hwasal-1 Ra-3 strategic cruise missile and a test-launch of the Pyoljji-1-2 anti-aircraft missile. It said the tests attained an unspecified “certain goal.”

Photos released by the North’s official Korean Central News Agency showed at least two missiles being fired off launcher trucks at a runway.

North Korea conducted a similar set of tests Feb. 2, but at the time did not specify the names of the cruise missile or the anti-aircraft missile, indicating it was possibly seeing technological progress after testing the same system over weeks.

KCNA insisted Friday’s tests were part of the North’s regular military development activities and had nothing to do with the “surrounding situation.”

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula are at their highest in years, with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un dialing up his weapons demonstrations, which have included more powerful missiles aimed at the U.S. mainland and U.S. targets in the Pacific. The United States, South Korea and Japan have responded by expanding their combined military training and sharpening their deterrence strategies built around strategic U.S. assets.

Cruise missiles are among a growing collection of North Korean weapons designed to overwhelm regional missile defenses. They supplement the North’s vast lineup of ballistic missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at the continental United States.

Analysts say anti-aircraft missile technology is an area where North Korea could benefit from its deepening military cooperation with Russia , as the two countries align in the face of their separate, intensifying confrontations with the U.S. The United States and South Korea have accused North Korea of providing artillery shells and other equipment to Russia to help extend its warfighting in Ukraine.

Watch CBS News

What Iran launched at Israel in its unprecedented attack, and what made it through the air defenses

By Haley Ott

Updated on: April 16, 2024 / 6:40 AM EDT / CBS News

Iran launched an unprecedented retaliatory attack on Israel over the weekend that included hundreds of missiles and drones launched primarily from its own soil, but also by Iran-backed groups in several other countries. Virtually everything fired at Israel was intercepted before entering the country's territory, according to the Israel Defense Forces, which reported "very little damage" from the attack.

A 7-year-old girl who was severely injured by shrapnel was the only known casualty in the attack. The child, from a Bedouin village in Israel's southern Negev desert, was still fighting for her life on Monday.

Iran's assault was designed to saturate Israeli and U.S. air defenses with drones and cruise missiles and clear the way for Iran's ballistic missiles, two U.S. officials told CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. It took several hours for the drones and missiles to travel toward Israel, and alerts began to sound across the country at about 2 a.m. local time on Sunday (7p.m. Eastern on Saturday).

• U.S. won't participate in Israeli reprisal attack on Iran, officials say

The IDF said 170 drones were fired at Israel from Iran, and Israeli Air Force jets shot down dozens of them. U.S. aircraft operating from bases in Saudi Arabia and Jordan shot down between 70 and 80 of the drones, Martin reported.

Iran's state news agency, IRNA, said its domestically built Shahed 131 and 136 drones were used in the attack, the larger of which have a range of around 1,200 miles.

Kheibar Shekan ballistic missiles and Emad ballistic missiles were also used in the attack, according to IRNA. Kheibar Shekan missiles, unveiled in 2022, are one of Iran's most modern ballistic missiles, IRNA said, and the Emad missiles can carry a payload of 1,600 pounds. The state news agency said the cruise missiles used in the attack were Paveh missiles, which it said were capable of attacking targets from multiple directions by taking varied paths.

The IDF said none of the 170 drones launched by Iran crossed into Israeli territory, nor did any of the more than 30 cruise missiles fired by the Islamic republic.

Of 120 ballistic missiles fired at Israel from Iran, the U.S. officials told CBS News only five got through Israeli and U.S. air defenses and hit Israeli territory. One U.S. official told CBS News that roughly half of the ballistic missiles failed on launch or crashed in flight.

Four missiles did hit Israel's Nevatim Air Base, where Israeli F-35s are based, the U.S. officials said, adding that the base was likely Iran's primary target, as it is believed to have been an Israeli F-35 that carried out a deadly strike on an Iranian consulate in Syria's capital on April 1. Iran's weekend attack was its promised retaliation for that Israeli strike in Damascus, which killed seven officers from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including two generals.

One of the missiles hit near the base's runway, while two landed in open areas and "one more hit near a building, causing minor damage," IDF spokesperson Daniel Hagari said on Monday, adding that the building was still under construction. 

"All this damage will be repaired in the coming days," Hagari said. "This base is operating around the clock, it functioned during Operation 'Iron Shield' and today as well, from this base, aircraft took off to protect the skies of the State of Israel."

Another ballistic missile appeared to have been aimed at a radar site in northern Israel, but it missed its target, the U.S. officials told Martin.

The IDF said several other launches were made from Yemen and Iraq, but none of those weapons  crossed into Israeli territory. Dozens of rockets were also fired from Lebanon toward northern Israel early Sunday morning, and Israel carried out airstrikes against Hezbollah targets across Lebanon.

• Missile Launch
• Middle East

Haley Ott is the CBS News Digital international reporter, based in the CBS News London bureau.

More from CBS News

Hamas releases video of Israeli-American hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin

Why the U.S. is investigating an ultra-Orthodox Israeli army battalion

Protests over Israel-Hamas war lead to hundreds of arrests on campus

Pro-Palestinian protests leave American college campuses on edge

North Korea says it tested 'super-large' cruise missile warhead and new anti-aircraft missile

North Korea says it tested a “super-large” cruise missile warhead and a new anti-aircraft missile in a western coastal area as it expands its military capabilities in the face of deepening tensions with the United States and South Korea

SEOUL, South Korea -- North Korea said Saturday it tested a “super-large” cruise missile warhead and a new anti-aircraft missile in a western coastal area as it expands military capabilities in the face of deepening tensions with the United States and South Korea.

North Korean state media said the country’s missile administration on Friday conducted a “power test” for the warhead designed for the Hwasal-1 Ra-3 strategic cruise missile and a test-launch of the Pyoljji-1-2 anti-aircraft missile. It said the tests attained an unspecified “certain goal.”

Photos released by the North’s official Korean Central News Agency showed at least two missiles being fired off launcher trucks at a runway.

North Korea conducted a similar set of tests Feb. 2, but at the time did not specify the names of the cruise missile or the anti-aircraft missile, indicating it was possibly seeing technological progress after testing the same system over weeks.

KCNA insisted Friday’s tests were part of the North’s regular military development activities and had nothing to do with the “surrounding situation.”

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula are at their highest in years, with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un dialing up his weapons demonstrations, which have included more powerful missiles aimed at the U.S. mainland and U.S. targets in the Pacific. The United States, South Korea and Japan have responded by expanding their combined military training and sharpening their deterrence strategies built around strategic U.S. assets.

Cruise missiles are among a growing collection of North Korean weapons designed to overwhelm regional missile defenses. They supplement the North’s vast lineup of ballistic missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at the continental United States.

Analysts say anti-aircraft missile technology is an area where North Korea could benefit from its deepening military cooperation with Russia, as the two countries align in the face of their separate, intensifying confrontations with the U.S. The United States and South Korea have accused North Korea of providing artillery shells and other equipment to Russia to help extend its warfighting in Ukraine .

Top Stories

Could a president stage a coup? And 9 more key moments from Trump's immunity hearing

• Apr 25, 3:18 PM

Harvey Weinstein's rape conviction overturned in New York; DA will attempt to retry

• Apr 25, 4:54 PM

What witnesses said about Trump's handling of classified info while president

• Apr 24, 4:58 PM

Walmart US CEO talks inflation, self-checkout, and non-college degree workers

• 4 hours ago

Plastic bags from Walmart US recycling tracked to facilities in Southeast Asia

• Apr 23, 9:48 PM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

• National Security
• Environment
• Special Investigations
• More Ways to Donate
• Impact & Reports
• Join Newsletter
• Become a Source

© THE INTERCEPT

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

U.S., Not Israel, Shot Down Most Iran Drones and Missiles

American forces did most of the heavy lifting responding to Iran’s retaliation for the attack on its embassy in Damascus.

• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on WhatsApp

The United States shot down more drones and missiles than Israel did on Saturday night during Iran’s attack, The Intercept can report. 

More than half of Iran’s weapons were destroyed by U.S. aircraft and missiles before they ever reached Israel. In fact, by commanding a multinational air defense operation and scrambling American fighter jets, this was a U.S. military triumph. 

The extent of the U.S. military operation is unbeknownst to the American public, but the Pentagon coordinated a multination, regionwide defense extending from northern Iraq to the southern Persian Gulf on Saturday. During the operation, the U.S., U.K., France, and Jordan all shot down the majority of Iranian drones and missiles. In fact, where U.S. aircraft originated from has not been officially announced, an omission that has been repeated by the mainstream media. Additionally, the role of Saudi Arabia is unclear, both as a base for the United States and in terms of any actions by the Saudi military.

In calculating the size of Iran’s attack and the overwhelming role of the United States, U.S. military sources say that the preliminary estimate is that half of Iran’s weapons experienced technical failures of some sort.

“U.S. intelligence estimates that half of the weapons fired by Iran failed upon launch or in flight due to technical issues,” a U.S. Air Force senior officer told The Intercept. Of the remaining 160 or so, the U.S. shot down the majority, the officer said. The officer was granted anonymity to speak about sensitive operational matters.

Asked to comment on the United States shooting down half of Iran’s drones and missiles, the Israel Defense Forces and the White House National Security Council did not respond at the time of publication. The Pentagon referred The Intercept to U.S. Central Command, which pointed to a press release saying CENTCOM forces supported by U.S. European Command destroyers “successfully engaged and destroyed more than 80 one-way attack uncrewed aerial vehicles (OWA UAV) and at least six ballistic missiles intended to strike Israel from Iran and Yemen.”

Israel says that more than 330 drones, low-flying cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles were launched by Iran, including some 30 Paveh-type cruise missiles, 180 or so Shahed drones, and 120 Emad intermediate-range ballistic missiles, as well as other types of weapons. All of the drones and cruise missiles were launched from Iranian territory, Israel says. Some additional missiles were also launched from inside Yemen, according to IDF data.

Most media reports say that none of the cruise missiles or drones ever entered Israeli airspace. According to a statement by IDF spokesperson Adm. Daniel Hagari, some 25 cruise missiles “were intercepted by IAF [Israeli Air Force] fighter jets outside the country’s borders,” most likely over Jordanian territory.

Israel’s statement that it shot down the majority of Iranian “cruise missiles” is probably an exaggeration. According to U.S. military sources and preliminary reporting, U.S. and allied aircraft shot down the majority of drones and cruise missiles. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said that the Royal Air Force Typhoons intercepted “a number” of Iranian weapons over Iraqi and Syrian airspace.

The Jordanian government has also hinted that its aircraft downed some Iranian weapons. “We will intercept every drone or missile that violates Jordan’s airspace to avert any danger. Anything posing a threat to Jordan and the security of Jordanians, we will confront it with all our capabilities and resources,” Jordan’s Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said during an interview on the Al-Mamlaka news channel.

French fighters also shot down some drones and possibly cruise missiles.

U.S. aircraft, however, shot down “more than” 80 Iranian weapons, according to U.S. military sources. President Joe Biden spoke with members of two F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft squadrons to “commend them for their exceptional airmanship and skill in defending Israel from an unprecedented aerial attack by Iran.” Two F-15 squadrons — the 494th Fighter Squadron based at Royal Air Force Lakenheath in the United Kingdom, and the 335th Fighter Squadron from Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina — are forward deployed to the Middle East, at least half of the planes at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan.

Two U.S. warships stationed in the Mediterranean — the USS Carney (DDG 64) and the USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) — shot down at least six ballistic missiles, the Pentagon says. The War Zone is reporting that those ships may have fired Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) interceptors in combat for the first time. A U.S. Army Patriot surface-to-air missile battery in Erbil, Iraq, shot down at least one ballistic missile. Wreckage of an Iranian missile was also found outside Erbil, as well as in an open area outside the province of Najaf.

Iran’s attack marks the first time since 1991 that a nation state has attacked Israel directly. Contending with extremely long distances and utilizing scores of decoys and swarm tactics to attempt to overwhelm Middle East air defenses, Iran managed to hit two military targets on the ground in Israel, including Nevatim Air Base. According to the IDF, five missiles hit Nevatim Air Base and four hit another base. Despite the low number of munitions successfully landing, the dramatic spectacle of hundreds of rockets streaking across the night sky in Syria, Iraq, and Iran has left Tehran contented with its show of force. 

Iran “has achieved all its goals, and in our view the operation has ended, and we do not intend to continue,” Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, said over the weekend. Still, he cautioned, “If the Zionist regime or its supporters demonstrate reckless behavior, they will receive a decisive and much stronger response.”

Join Our Newsletter

Original reporting. fearless journalism. delivered to you..

The U.S. coordinated the overall operation from the Combined Air Operations Center at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, where the overall commander was Lt. Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich, the air commander of CENTCOM. “We take whatever assets we have that are in theater … under our tactical control or in a direct support role across the joint force and the coalition, and we stitch them together so that we can synchronize the fires and effects when we get into that air defense fight,” Grynkewich told Air & Space Forces Magazine after the Iran attack. “We’re trying to stitch together partners in the region who share a perspective of a threat, share concern of the threats to stability in the region — which primarily emanate from Iran with a large number of ballistic missiles — and be in a position where we’re able to share information, share threat warning. And the ultimate goal is to get to a much deeper and fuller integration. We’ve made tremendous progress.”

In a call immediately following Iran’s attack, Biden reportedly told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “Israel really came out far ahead in this exchange” and warned of the “risks of escalation” — as if that hadn’t already happened.

Correction: April 16, 2024 A previous version of this article incorrectly referred to Mohammad Bagheri as the president of Iran. He is the chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces.

Contact the author:

Israel and Israel Alone Kicked Off This Escalation — In a Bid to Drag U.S. Into War With Iran

Israel Conflict Spreads to 16 Nations as Biden Admin Says There’s No War

Iran and U.S. Wage a Shadow War Behind Gaza Conflict

U.S. Quietly Expands Secret Military Base in Israel

Latest stories.

“Little Home Market”: The Connecticut Company Accused of Fueling an Execution Spree

Lauren Gill, Daniel Moritz-Rabson

Evidence points to Absolute Standards as the source of a lethal drug the Trump administration used to restart federal executions after 17 years.

House Responds to Israeli-Iranian Missile Exchange by Taking Rights Away from Americans

Murtaza Hussain

A measure passed by the House seeks to block Americans from traveling to Iran on U.S. passports.

U.S.-Trained Burkina Faso Military Executed 220 Civilians

A new report reveals details of the massacres by a longtime U.S. ally and counterterrorism partner.

NK tests missiles in response to allied drill, Israel-Iran conflict: experts

Skepticism also raised over Pyongyang's missile capability for weapons export

North Korea's latest tests of a "super-large" cruise missile warhead and a new anti-aircraft missile came in response to the South Korea-U.S. joint annual air exercise, analysts said Sunday.

Some also noted the possibility that the Kim Jong-un regime may look to export missiles to Iran amid escalating Israel-Iran tensions.

The state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said on Saturday that the country's missile administration had carried out a power test for the warhead designed for the Hwasal-1 Ra-3 strategic cruise missile and test-launched its new anti-aircraft missile, the Pyoljji-1-2, in the West Sea on Friday.

The latest missile test marks North Korea's sixth cruise missile launch this year, following its launch on Feb. 14.

"Both tests were part of the regular activities of the administration and its affiliated defense science institutes for the rapid development of technologies in various aspects, such as tactical and technical performance and operation of new-type weapon systems," KCNA said.

Though the state media stressed that the tests were not related to the regional situation, experts analyzed that the North's latest anti-aircraft missile test is to show off that it has counterstrike capability against enemy aircraft and missiles.

South Korea and the United States have been carrying out a 15-day joint air exercise near the Korean Peninsula since April 12, involving some 100 warplanes to strengthen their readiness against North Korean military threats. The Korea Flying Training focuses on integrating fifth-generation fighters, enhancing precision strike capability and training troops on combat and search and rescue scenarios.

"I think North Korea conducted missile tests in reaction to South Korean-U.S. joint air drills. From a larger perspective, I believe resuming missile tests is part of the North's five-year defense plan announced at the 8th Party Congress in 2021 that it will develop cruise missiles," said Cho Han-bum, a senior research fellow at the state-run Korea Institute for National Unification.

While it marked the first time that Pyongyang has unveiled the name of its anti-aircraft missile, Cho noted that its move to specify the names of the missile does not have significant meaning because it keeps changing the names as they make technological progress.

Yang Uk, a military expert at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, said North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is trying to promote his achievement and regime stability ahead of the 80th anniversary of the Workers' Party of Korea in 2025.

"North Korea claims to be making technological progress in the performance of its conventional weapons, but there is no proof or evidence for the success of their advancement. I think the North's leader Kim is trying to create an impression that he is continuing development of advanced weapons systems," Yang said.

Some experts did not rule out the possibility that the North is trying to market its new missiles to Iran amid the ongoing military conflict with Israel, while others raised skepticism over the regime's missile capability for export.

"North Korea may be looking to export its missiles to Iran, but I don't think that is their key intention," Cho said.

Yang said Pyongyang's missile technology and systems need to become more sophisticated and reliable for export.

"Russia has imported artillery shells and other equipment, but not cruise missiles, from North Korea for its war in Ukraine. This suggests that transferring cruise missiles to Iran is unlikely," he said.

Meanwhile, South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said it would closely watch North Korea's provocations and military activities while maintaining a strong combined defense posture.